Totaler Fehlschlag der Sanktionsaggression

29. August 2024 Ein Artikel von: Albrecht Müller

Der folgende Text stammt von Dmitrij Ljubinskij, dem Botschafter Russlands in Österreich. Lesenswert. Zur Einführung zitieren wir den letzten Absatz: „Sämtliche Analysen, auch westliche, belegen, dass Sanktionen ihre Ziele in jeglicher Hinsicht verfehlen. Nichts desto trotz scheint der Westen mit einer Beharrlichkeit, die eine bessere Anwendung verdient hätte, daran festzuhalten. Die Verantwortung liegt bei einem engen Kreis von Entscheidungsträgern, für die die Folgen der scheinbar endlosen Sanktionsspirale irrelevant zu sein scheinen. Einfache Bürger und die Geschäftswelt sind dabei aber immer die Leidtragenden. Am Ende werden aber sie es sein, die für die gescheiterte, gedankenlose Politik die Rechnung ausstellen werden.“ Albrecht Müller.

Beitrag von Dmitrij Ljubinskij, Botschafter Russlands in Österreich

In seinem Bestreben, der Weltgemeinschaft seinen Willen aufzusetzen, greift der kollektive Westen stets aggressiv auf seine geliebte Peitsche zurück – völkerrechtswidrige Sanktionen. Dabei wird Internationales Recht durch nationale, administrative oder gerichtliche Systeme eines oder mehrerer Länder ausgehebelt und Entscheidungen minderheitlicher Staatenvereinigungen de facto über das Völkerrecht gestellt.

Die USA nennen es „regelbasierte Weltordnung“ – ein dreister Versuch der Unterminierung der multilateralen Diplomatie. Großangelegte Desinformationskampagnen, die Schaffung restriktiver und attributiver Mechanismen unter dem Deckmantel von „Multikulturalismus“ sind Merkmale eines solchen Systems. Der Rest der Weltgemeinschaft wird dann aufgefordert, solchen „abgestimmten“ Entscheidungen stumm zu folgen, die als „einheitliche Meinung“ ausgegeben werden. Diejenigen, die sich weigern, haben Sanktionen bzw. andere Strafmaßnamen zu entnehmen. Die Ziele einer solchen Politik sind klar: den Übergang zur gerechten multipolaren Weltordnung zu verhindern.

Sanktionen, die ohne den Beschluss des UN-Sicherheitsrates gemäß Kapitel VII der UN-Charta verhängt werden, sind völkerrechtswidrig und gefährden die allgemein anerkannten Prinzipien der internationalen Zusammenarbeit. Dies ist besonders in den Bereichen sensibel, wo ein koordiniertes Zusammenwirken der Weltgemeinschaft essenziell ist (Terrorismusbekämpfung, Nichtverbreitung von Nuklearwaffen, Bekämpfung von Cyberkriminalität u s.w.).

Die Anwendung von rechtswidrigen einseitigen Einschränkungen, besonders im Fall „sekundärer Sanktionen“, oder die exterritoriale Anwendung von nationalen Regelungen, stellen eine Verletzung der Staatenhoheit souveräner Länder dar und sind eine klare Einmischung in deren inneren Angelegenheiten. Zu erinnern ist dabei an die Erklärung der UN-Generalversammlung über die Unzulässigkeit der Intervention in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Staaten und über den Schutz ihrer Unabhängigkeit und Souveränität (21. Dezember 1965), die festlegt, dass „kein Staat das Recht hat, wirtschaftliche, politische Maßnahmen oder Maßnahmen anderen Charakters zum Zwang eines anderen Staates zur Ausübung seiner souveränen Rechte anzuwenden oder zu unterstützen“. Punkt 4 dieser Erklärung besagt, dass die strikte Einhaltung dieses Prinzips eine essenzielle Bedingung der Gewährleistung eines friedlichen Zusammenlebens der Nationen darstellt.

Rechtswidrige einseitige Sanktionen sind auch ein äußerst gefährliches Mittel des unlauteren Wettbewerbes. Sie richten sich gegen empfindliche Sektoren der Wirtschaft, erschweren den Zugang zu Finanzressourcen, Dienstleistungen und Technologien. Sie bremsen die Entwicklung eines offenen und gerechten Systems der wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen.

So bewirkten die präzedenzlosen komplexen antirussischen Sanktionen eine Verlangsamung der globalen Wirtschaftsentwicklung. Die restriktiven Maßnahmen der westlichen Länder gegen Russland führten zu einem Ungleichgewicht in den internationalen Produktionsketten, sie verursachen die Umleitung von Investitions- und Produktionsströmen, erschwerten vielen Ländern den Zugang zu Waren, Finanzen und Technologien.

Die negativen Folgen der Einschränkungen des kollektiven Westens haben sich selbst gegen die Anwendenden gerichtet. Das Wirtschaftswachstum der westlichen Länder wird 2024 nicht 1,5% überschreiten. Besonders schwer trifft es Europa. Nach Einschätzungen des IWF wird das BIP der EU 2024 um nicht mehr als 1,1% wachsen. Die Stagnation der europäischen Wirtschaft hängt mit dem erschwerten Zugang zu Kreditressourcen vor dem Hintergrund hoher Prozentsätze, dem Exportrückgang und den hohen Preisen für Energieträger zusammen.

Nach Eurostat-Berechnungen hat die EU nach Einführung der Russland-Sanktionen rund 200 Milliarden Euro für Gas überbezahlt. Heuer müssen die Europäer im Schnitt pro Monat für Gas 15,2 Milliarden Euro hinblättern, waren es 2021 nur 6 Milliarden. Der Gesamtschaden im Zusammenhang mit der Abkehr von russischem Gas für die EU übersteigt bereits nach einigen Einschätzungen 1,5 Billion US-Dollar. Die Energiekrise und Dekarbonisationspolitik wird für Europa bald auch die Deindustrialisierung bedeuten. Österreich ist hier keine Ausnahme. Seit mehr als einem Jahr erwirtschaftet der produzierende Bereich hierzulande Monat für Monat weniger Umsatz als im Vorjahr – und der Abwärtstrend hält weiter an. Z.B. im März 2024 lag der Umsatz in Industrie und Bau einer ersten Schätzung zufolge um 17,2 % unter dem des Vorjahresmonats.

Die Hauptnutznießer dieser Situation sind zweifellos die USA. Geschickt nutzen sie die „Solidarität“ der Europäer zu ihren Gunsten aus. Nicht nur an den milliardenschweren Waffenverträgen, auch an den Verkäufen von überteuertem LNG-Gas (für inzwischen insgesamt 53 Milliarden Euro) an ihre „Verbündeten“ verdienen sie sich eine goldene Nase. Die hohen Energiekosten wiederum stimulieren die Umsiedlung der Produktionsstandorte aus dem konkurrenzschwachen Europa in die USA und Drittländer.

Experten gehen davon aus, dass die bestehenden geopolitischen Risiken zu einem weiteren Anstieg der Energiepreise in der EU führen und auch die Lebensmittelpreise noch weiter in die Höhe schnellen lassen könnten. Diese Teuerung spürt der österreichische Endverbraucher bereits jetzt beim Einkaufen im Supermarkt. Ein Kilo Erdäpfel kostete hierzulande etwa im Dezember 2023 ganze 46% mehr als ein Jahr zuvor, ein Liter Sonnenblumenöl 99%, ein Kilo Mehl 88% – so die trockenen Zahlen.

Einen beträchtlichen Beitrag zu diesem Preisanstieg leisten die von der EU eingeführten Einschränkungen gegenüber der russischen Landwirtschaft und Düngemittelindustrie. Restriktionen im Transport und Versicherungswesen, dem Finanzsektor führten zu einem Rückgang der russischen Exporte nach Europa.

Am meisten leiden darunter die einfachen Bürger. Bereits im Juni und Juli 2022 bei einer in Österreich durchgeführten Umfrage zu den Auswirkungen der Russland-Sanktionen gaben insgesamt 82% der Befragten an, unter diesen zu leiden. Bei einer anderen Umfrage vom Juli 2024 sagten 35%, dass Ihrer Meinung nach die Sanktionen der EU mehr schaden würden als Russland und nur 13% behaupteten das Gegenteil.

Die starken Leistungen der russischen Wirtschaft bestätigen das. Dank eines grundlegenden Umdenkens unserer Wirtschaftspolitik mit dem Schwerpunkt Innovationen und Eigenproduktion strategisch wichtiger Güter, Umorientierung der Handelsströme auf neue Märkte, dem Umstieg auf sichere Zahlungsmittel steht unsere Wirtschaft zur Verwunderung vieler auf festem Boden. Stand Mai 2024 ist das BIP Russlands um 5,4% gewachsen, das der EU um nur 0,4%. Dabei weist Russland eine rekordniedrige Arbeitslosenquote von 2,4% (die EU 6,5%, Österreich 6,9%) auf. Nach Einschätzung des IWF wird unsere Wirtschaft trotz umfangreicher Sanktionen spürbar wachsen – doppelt so hoch wie in der gesamten Euro-Zone.

Infolge der Sanktionen verlieren auch die europäischen Geschäftsleute viel: ihre früheren Positionen auf dem russischen Markt werden zügig von Firmen und willigen Partnern aus anderen Ländern neubesetzt, deren Regierungen mehr Vernunft und Weitsicht haben. Diese lukrativen Nischen wären irgendwann, wenn überhaupt, nur mit großer Mühe zurückzuerobern. Nach Reuters-Einschätzungen haben ausländische Firmen infolge ihres Rückzugs aus Russland insgesamt mehr als 107 Milliarden US-Dollar verloren.

Sämtliche Analysen, auch westliche, belegen, dass Sanktionen ihre Ziele in jeglicher Hinsicht verfehlen. Nichts desto trotz scheint der Westen mit einer Beharrlichkeit, die eine bessere Anwendung verdient hätte, daran zu halten. Die Verantwortung liegt bei einem engen Kreis von Entscheidungsträgern, für die die Folgen der scheinbar endlosen Sanktionsspirale irrelevant zu sein scheinen. Einfache Bürger und die Geschäftswelt sind dabei aber immer die Leidtragenden, am Ende werden aber sie es sein, die für die gescheiterte, gedankenlose Politik die Rechnung ausstellen werden.

https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=120419

Russisches Haus in Berlin: „Wir sind für die Menschen da, die kulturelle Brücken erhalten wollen“ (Nachdenkseiten)

Das 40 Jahre alte Russische Haus in Berlin ist vor allem nach 1990 starkem Gegenwind ausgesetzt. Trotz der Unsicherheiten durch die Corona-Krise und insbesondere durch die Ereignisse in der Ukraine steht es weiter im Herzen der Hauptstadt. In den vergangenen zwei Jahren ist es ins Visier jener geraten, die alles Russische verbieten wollen. Wir haben den Leiter des Hauses Pavel Izvolskij gefragt, wie die kulturelle Institution ins Jubiläumsjahr gekommen ist und wie es generell um das Haus steht. Das Interview mit Pavel Izvolskij führte Éva Péli.

hier weiterlesen:
Nachdenkseiten

Russisches Haus in Berlin: „Wir sind für die Menschen da, die kulturelle Brücken erhalten wollen“ (Nachdenkseiten)

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R.

AUGUST 29, 2024 MS. CATLEAVE A COMMENT

The CIA And The Web Of Supporting Agencies Covert Action Information Bulletin No 39

Since the early 1980s the USA has waged and intense political and economic war against the Soviet Union. A former UN military and political analyst puts the pieces together.

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R. by Sean Gervasi

Related:

Exploiting ‘fault lines’ in the Soviet empire: an overview

INNOCENCE ABROAD: THE NEW WORLD OF SPYLESS COUPS

Free Trade Union Institute

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R.

Nuclear War Is “On the Table”. Build Awareness. Say No to A Two Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Program!

Integration of Nuclear and Conventional Warfare

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 29, 2024

Author’s Note and Update

Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.

Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was in response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A First Strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America.

The  article below first published in February 2006 addresses US Military Doctrine focussing on the integration of nuclear and conventional warfare. 

The results of this research were subsequently integrated into my book entitled Towards A World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Publishers, 2011. 

Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against  Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.  

It should be noted that Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollars nuclear weapons program is slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030 allegedly as a means to safeguarding peace and national security at taxpayers expense.

How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?

Truth is a Powerful and Peaceful Weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship. 

Nuclear War Threatens the Future of Humanity. No mainstream media analysis. That statement is the object of  censorship. 

Say No to Joe Biden’s $1.3 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Program.

SAY YES TO WORLD PEACE

Please forward this article, post it on your blog. Spread the word. Initiate a campaign against nuclear war.

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research, March 11, 2022, Nagasaki Day, August 9, 2024

***

It Started with Harry Truman

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”

(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

 

 

Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

(Listen to Excerpt of Truman’s speech, Hiroshima audio video, link n longer active)

The Unthinkable

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable.  All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America’s new nuclear doctrine is based on “a mix of strike capabilities”. The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon’s planned aerial bombing of Iran,  envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman “was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”, today’s “mini-nukes” are heralded as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.

The Dangerous Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations  (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and  “integrated” Command and Control (C2).

It  largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

The Pentagon’s Toolbox

Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force” , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals.

In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.

None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners.

The stated objective is to:

 “ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional]  strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations   p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added

The New Nuclear Doctrine turns Concepts and Realities Upside Down

It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use in the battlefield will ensure “minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation”.

The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as “safe for civilians” constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant “green light” criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.

“Defensive” and “Offensive” Actions

While the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century ), The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations goes one step further in blurring the distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” military actions:

“The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems …” (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of “self-defense”, it calls for “anticipatory action” using nuclear weapons against a  “rogue enemy” which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:

 Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, italics added)

Nukes would serve to prevent  a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:

“The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” … (NSPD 17)

“Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

The DJNO states that the:

 “use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible”

(DJNO, p 47 italics added, italics added, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.

In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described  as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:

“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..

Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.

…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (italics added)

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of  Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )

We are no longer dealing with “the risk” associated with “an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch”  as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief  down to the  geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Moreover, because these “smaller” tactical nuclear weapons have been “reclassified” by the Pentagon as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”, thereby “minimizing the risk of collateral damage”, there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .

Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran),  theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used.  Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become “part of the tool box”, used in conventional war theaters.

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran

An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in “a state of readiness” since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a “contingency plan”, which “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM’s mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”  To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations “using nuclear or conventional weapons” in compliance with the Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a “joint strike operation” under unified Command and Control.

According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,

“The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today’s adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044…. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies….

One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy–preemptively, if necessary–“time-urgent targets” anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration’s preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of  “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).

CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats — Iran, North Korea — proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’ (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates.  While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:

“deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities”. (Ibrahim Karagul, “The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran”, (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD 35 ,

What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched  This retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).

Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced  BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005).  The GBU-28 is described as “a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead.” It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

The Pentagon [stated] that … the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to “contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives.” .

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel’s arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. “Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs,” Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of  the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization   (May 2004).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in “the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines.” (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of  strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of  two new German produced submarines “that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a “second-strike” deterrent.” (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known

Israel’s participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan’s Western frontier would be affected..

The Role of Western Europe

Several Western European  countries, officially considered as “non-nuclear states”, possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with  “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched  “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

“arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria”

(quoted in  http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power “has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries.” (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)

While these “non-nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran.  To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.

Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power

Among the five “non-nuclear states” “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.

While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons.  The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish  joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile.

France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France’s nuclear policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France’s nukes should be used in the form of  “more focused attacks” against countries, which were “considering” the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

The French president seems to have embraced the  US sponsored “War on Terrorism”. He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against “fanatical terrorists,” nevertheless “the leaders of states which used terrorist means against us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to a firm, appropriate response on our side…”.(Ibid)

Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ”rogue states” and “terrorist non-state organizations”.

The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs.  All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .

Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base

.(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

The pretext for waging  war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration’s National Security doctrine.

1. Iran’s alleged possession of  “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.

2. Iran’s alleged support to “Islamic terrorists”.

These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.

The “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” statement is used to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”, –i.e. countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran is identified as a State sponsor of so-called “non-State terrorist organizations”. The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a nuclear threat. Terrorist non-state organizations are presented as a “nuclear power”.

“The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world.” (2006 Quadrennial Defense Review ),

In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear warheads are not considered “nuclear powers”.

In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic terrorist nexus, has been highlighted ad  nauseam, on a daily basis by the Western media.

In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East and providing support to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as the “a central banker for terrorism”, not withstanding the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda has been supported and financed  from its inception in the early 1980s by none other than the CIA. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).

“It’s not just Iran’s nuclear program but also their support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism,”  (Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)

“Second 9/11”: Cheney’s “Contingency Plan”

While the “threat” of Iran’s alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. This “contingency plan” to attack Iran uses the pretext of a “Second 9/11” which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a “state of readiness”.

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a “state of readiness”?

Cheney’s proposed “contingency plan” does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

“At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system….  (Keefer, February 2006 )

Keefer concludes that “an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents” (Keefer, February 2006 )

The Battle for Oil

The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney’s “contingency plan” to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.

There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command’s (USCENTCOM) theater strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , italics added)

Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves,  The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.

On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World’s oil and gas reserves.

The “war on terrorism” and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the “Battle for Middle East Oil”.  How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims?  Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as “uncivilized”,  denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.

The values of Islam are said to be tied into  “Islamic terrorism”. Western governments are now accusing Iran of “exporting terrorism to the West” In the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:

“There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. “We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region.””You can never say never in any of these situations.” (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)

Muslims are demonized, casually identified with “Islamic terrorists”, who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the “civilized World” with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America’s humanitarian “nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable.”

The World is at a Critical Crossroads

It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

In recent developments, Western European governments –including the so-called “non-nuclear states” which  possess nuclear weapons– have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.

The Pentagon’s planned aerial attacks on Iran involve “scenarios” using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.

It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.

The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the “integration” of “defensive” and “offensive” operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..

From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in “a state of readiness.”

Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion  in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the international community.

War propaganda consists  in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.

“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”.  “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…

Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.

What can be done?

The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the “reasonable demands” of the “international community”. These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.

For the past year, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.

Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, “expressing concern over Iran’s nuclear program”, seeking the unequivocal endorsement of  the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US  has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller “The Globalization of Poverty ” published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at   www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His most recent book is entitled: America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, 2005. 

To order Chossudovsky’s book  America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here.

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of nuclear war.

Part I of this text was published as a separate article entitled:

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are “Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population”
by Michel Chossudovsky

Related Texts by the author:

Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005

---

Annex A

Five basic types of US Military Plans:  

• Campaign Plan (CAMPLAN): A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (e.g., campaign plan for Iraq incorporating a number of subordinate specific plans).

• Operations Plan (OPLAN): A completed plan required when there is compelling national interest, when a specific threat exists, and/or when the nature of the contingency requires detailed planning (e.g., North Korea). OPLANs contains all formatted annexes (see below), and Time Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD), a database containing units to be deployed, routing of deploying units, movement data of forces, personnel, logistics and transportation requirements. An OPLAN can be used as a basis for development of an Operations Order (OPORD).

• Operations Plan in Concept Form Only (CONPLAN): An operations plan in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling national interest contingencies than for OPLANs and for unspecific threats. A CONPLAN requires expansion or alteration to convert into an OPLAN or OPORD. It normally includes a statement of Strategic Concept and annexes A-D and K (see below). CONPLANs that do have TPFDDs are usually developed because of international agreement or treaties.

• Functional plans (FUNCPLAN): An operations plan involving the conduct of military operations in a peacetime or non-hostile environment (e.g., disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug, or peacekeeping operations).

• Theater Security Cooperation and Theater Engagement Plans (TSCPs and TEPs): Day-to-day plans to set the initial conditions for future military action in terms of multinational capabilities, U.S. military access, coalition interoperability, and intelligence

SOURCE: Supplement to Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World , by William Arkin   (Copyright William Arkin, 2005)

---

ANNEX B

Timeline  in the Development of US Nuclear doctrine (2002-2006)  [excerpts]

Source The Nuclear Information Project   (copyright Nuclear Information Project, click to see complete and detailed Timeline )

2002

January 8: The Nuclear Posture Review is officially published.

June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 14, “Nuclear Weapons Planning Guidance.”

September 14: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

September 17: White House issues the National Security Strategy of the United States. The document publicly formulates a more proactive preemption doctrine

December 10: White House issues “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the unclassified version of National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17. The wording in NSPD 17 of using “potentially nuclear weapons” is replaced with “all of our options.”

December 16: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 23, “National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense.”

2003

January 10: President Bush signs Change 2 to the Unified Command Plan (UCP), which assigns four emerging missions to STRATCOM: missile defense, global strike, information operations, and global C4ISR. (Command and Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Sensors and Reconnaissance). The directive identifies global strike as “a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives.”

March: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues “Nuclear Posture Review: Implementation Plan, DOD Implementation of the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review Report to Congress.”

April: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN (Concept Plan) 8022-01, Strategic Concept.

June 4: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN 8022-02, Strategic Concept draft.

June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 28, “United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, Safety, and Security.” The guidance “provides direction on various nuclear issues, to include security.”

October 1: OPLAN (Operation Plan) 8044, the first strategic plan not using the name SIOP, is put into effect by STRATCOM.

November: The first CONPLAN 8022 (Global Strike) is completed by STRATCOM.

2004

April 19: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues NUWEP (Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy). The document states in part: “U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”

May 24: Air Combat Command publishes Global Strike CONOPS.

May: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, “Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization,” which authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

July 8: STRATCOM commander General E. Cartwright informs Congress that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “just signed the Interim Global Strike Alert Order, which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability.” The Alert Order directs the Air Force and Navy to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect on selected strike platforms including long-range bombers and strategic submarines.

August 17: STRATCOM publishes Global Strike Interim Capability Operations Order (OPORD).

October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 01 becomes effective. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers, “STRATCOM has revised our strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies.” (emphasis added)

November: CJCS publishes “Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept.”

2005

January 10: CJCS issues Global Strike Joint Integrating Concept, Version 1.

March 1: President Bush signs Unified Command Plan 2004.

October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 02 is put into effect by STRATCOM. According to the Pentagon, this was a “major revamping” of the U.S. strategic war plan which, among other issues, included the “integration of conventional strike options into [the] OPLAN.”

2006

Early 2006: CJCS is scheduled to publish updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12). However, this and three other Joint Pub nuclear documents were cancelled.

February 6: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld released the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Source: The Nuclear Information Project   Copyright The Nuclear Information Project 2005

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-bush-administration-planning-a-nuclear-holocaust-2/2032

Counteracting Cult-Imposed Chaos. “Draw Back and Quieten the Mind”, An Awakened Mankind Committed to Defeating Our Oppressors

By Julian Rose

Global Research, August 29, 2024

We are only manipulated to the degree to which we allow ourselves to be. Pull back a few paces from the insanity and you can find yourself in a quiet reflective place having absolutely nothing to do with the relentless razzamataz of the globalist construct.

At this point of time, in particular, it is really important to take such a step on a daily basis. Because the chaos being imposed by the central control system is directly absorbed by our three dimensional five senses, and at that moment is taken to be the sum total of all that is.

But when one draws back and quietens the mind, the centre of attention shifts to the inner heart zone. From here one is able to calmly and rationally assess whatever it is that is troubling one.

Only in this way can one discern the difference between the superficial/fake and the true.

Within today’s highly volatile information field the brain is loaded with a thousand different – and largely contradictory – streams of information which it is incapable of discerning or ordering without first putting them through the filter of an always discerning heart-centred awareness.  All meditation practices follow the same principle.

This is not what the chaos imposers want us to do, of course. They want us to suffer endless bouts of agitation, stress, fear, anger and ultimately despair. They want to overload our brain cells to the point where our attempt to make sense of what is designed to make no sense, drives large segments of the population to drink, drugs, pharmaceutical sedatives and a lingering form of depression.

This mass sedated state of mankind is worth billions of dollars to Big Pharma and Big Alcohol – and quite obviously supports the general dumbing-down agenda of the deep state.

But there is more to it than this.

The desire to confuse, corrupt and kill-off mankind does not have its origins within the fundamental evolutionary process of sentient and empathic human beings. It should not be confused with the mix of typical ‘hard knocks’ we all have to contend with in the struggle to keep moving ahead.

No, these malevolent actions are essential components of once covert, but now overt, satanic practices based upon an anti-life precept closely related to that of psychopaths and those we call megalomaniacs. 

As we go about our daily business struggling to maintain some form of basic equilibrium, it does not occur to most that this nefarious torture regime has its roots in the work of a small but powerful cult which basically despises sentient mankind. 

If we clearly understood this, we would realise that trying to use rational thought procedures to explain the deliberately imposed irrational and chaotic, is a worse than useless task.

Their chaos is deliberate and designed to elicit panicked public calls for ‘order’; the imposition of which will be uncompromising. ‘Order Out of Chaos’ leads to totalitarian lockdown.

Those ‘only half’ human, or non-human dictators who we witness today manifesting their seemingly infinite need to torture, control and destroy, are getting their dark energies from what Robert Monroe, the late US researcher involved in the study of human consciousness, termed ‘loosh’. 

What is loosh?

Loosh is that form of vibratory energy manifest by emotional expressions, both positive and negative. Both emotionally expressed love and hate will give off loosh.

But in the context of this article I refer to the vibrations given-off by fear, anxiety, anger and despair as providing a form of emotional food for the anti-life forces that show no emotion, no empathy and no interest in the victims of their vampiric full spectrum dominance agenda.

It is profoundly shocking to suddenly recognise that the deeply sick satanic behaviour patterns that emanate from the exponents of loosh mining, have been adopted by very public icons at the top end of the music business, professional sport, global banking and related corporate empires, scientific institutions, politics, religion and increasingly psychotic multi billionaires seeking to exert their domination over all aspects of planetary life.

Within the many thousands of secret society founded Masonic lodges that proliferate North America and Europe, the leading figureheads ritually worship demonic overlords who in turn appear to bestow upon them a form of dark Astral power.

This crosses over with paedophiles, child sacrificers and traffickers. It is no longer simply a source of speculation that deeply evil acts of utter degradation are performed by those who seek highest office in the top suite of New World Order pyramid. And from there, down the ladder to aspiring young leaders of the Schwab ‘sell your soul school for future fascists’.

Australia’s Naval Base in Papua New Guinea: Power Play in the South Pacific against China

It is a big – but entirely necessary brain stretch – to grasp the fact that these are the forces setting the agenda of almost all types of planetary activities, right down to the seemingly superficial details of everyday life.

Here’s an example of what I mean. When you hear that your telephone landline is going to be phased out in 2025 and that only a digital connection will then be available, you might think “Damn! These companies are at it again, always cost cutting the quality and giving us the cheaper version so as to increase their profits.”

But while such an explanation touches on a perennial superficial truth, the real reason hides in the shadows, manipulated by the anti-life cult’s overriding ambitions to wrest control over our ability to electronically communicate with some degree of privacy –  and to thereby steal reams of personal data at the ping of a ‘smart’ EMF button. Data that can then be used to trap one into complying with the increasingly nefarious demands of the surveillance state.

The sequence goes further: loss of landline means ‘must go digital and Wi-Fi’. Going digital and Wi-Fi instantly connects one up with the global microwave radiation transmission tower and satellite emitting EMF frequency bands that operate through mobile and smart phones at 3,4 and 5G power outputs.

An increasingly vast labyrinth of intersecting wireless wave-forms create ‘electro smog’ which interrupt the natural circadian rhythms of the atmosphere and magnetosphere – as well as distorting the 7.83 hertz Schumann Resonance – known as ‘the earth’s heart beat’. 

This is the resonance field which keeps balance within the earth’s electromagnetic low vibratory energy field, tapped into by bees, insects, birds and plants, and indeed, by our own instinct of natural inner and outer balance.

Human health is not unaffected. On goes the cell phone – and immediately pulses of non-ironising radiation are activated which pass through the human temple and into the soft brain tissue, with potentially lasting consequences according to British radiation expert Barry Trower and other leading EMF specialist researchers.

All the while, those manning the digital and cybernetic control centres of the planet are alert to orders coming down from secret service operatives, to put an algorithmic tab on the communications made by ‘too effective’ dissidents, so their ‘offensive’ material can be traced and expunged.

If this fails to elicit the desired silencing, they have the option of setting up a reverse messaging system which, unbeknown to the receiver, sends a digital electronic message directly into the neocortex of the supposed renegade, with the tacit objective of destabilising his/her thoughts and emotions. This can, of course, be done to anyone – and no doubt is.

A vast ‘hive mind’ is thus brought into being, where carefully chosen thought and nervous system controlling pulses can be directed from a central digital control hub to wherever deemed necessary, to block the rise of creative and spiritual energies essential for a sane society and the greater positive evolution of mankind. 

Such pulses will not do the desired job to those who are spiritually aware. Such individuals remain immune.

5G/6G have the capacity to carry such mass invasiveness even further. To establish a virtual reality high-tech ‘smart’ environment which overlays the natural world which is our home. This is where the vastly popular digital Wi-Fi ‘convenience culture’ ultimately takes us.

So, how is this explained by your friendly regional telecommunications corporation?

“Hello, we are making a few small changes that will help you achieve higher quality tele-communications and save on old landline rental charges. We care about our customers and want to offer the best possible convenience advantages available today. Thank you for your attention”

Sincerely, Teledeception plc. 

Unthinkingly accepting what are sold as ‘convenient improvements’ to one’s daily life – can have big consequences. So next time you nonchalantly reach into your back pocket to pull out your mobile phone, know who it is you are supporting and what it is that you are killing-off.

Counteracting Chaos 

One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor.

Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.

“Still shopping at the hypermarket?” Yes, I support corporate agribusiness.

“Still watching television?” Yes, I support mainstream fake news, the streaming of political dogma and general entertainment shows.

“Still playing with your EMF gismos and laptop?” Yes, I support crap soap opera movies, Net Flix distractions and war game apps.

“Still proud to troll around the multifarious features of your latest smartphone?” Yes, I support all smartphone technology that is taking over my life.

“Still searching for the highest interest rates at your chosen global banking institution?” Yes, of course, need to get the best rate going, even though I realise I may be supporting the global vampiring of the earth’s resources and profits of the war and weapons industry.

“Still going against the call of your soul by trying to ignore your addiction to the convenience culture slavery agenda?” Err, well, never thought about that. But it’s a soulless world and I need to operate in it in order to bring in sufficient income to maintain my life style.

You get it, of course. How many of these fundamental hurdles have you actually crossed? Only one or two – maybe none? Be honest. 

Do you consider yourself to be fighting injustice or supporting it?

Are you true to yourself – your real self – or are you still essentially embracing the chaos that provides a fertile base for the hypocritical life so ubiquitously manifesting today?

These are the admittedly brutal ‘in the mirror’ questions that we must ask ourselves and demand answers to. Answers in the form of actions that will end any further support of the chaos – and turn into a commitment to illuminate and live by truth.

There is no other way of supporting the deep change that must be brought about. It all starts with us, and we need to act bravely and conscientiously and to lead by example. 

If one is not able to set the necessary example, how can one expect others to?

Words unattached to actions have become empty and ultimately meaningless. Yet much of social media chat and smart-messaging is just that – an empty shell, and echo chamber that distracts from facing-up to reality and making a solid stand for the emancipation and regeneration of Life.

The crisis now at our door presents the best and most meaningful challenge that mankind has ever faced. It quite simply drives us to dig deep and unlock that hidden power within.

Dark manifestations are not just the domain of a satanic cult. They also emanate from our own seemingly locked-in behaviour patterns and are a reflection of the long term accumulated repression of our deeper instincts. It is well known that energetic natural and creative instincts not given expression, turn into their opposites and subsequently manifest as destructive powers.

The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul. 

By repressing or ignoring the voice of soul/ heart wisdom, we enter the same territory as that of our dark-side oppressors. We too become loosh to fuel their malevolent attacks on human kind.  

The longer we leave this battle ground uncontested, the longer the satanists will prevail and the longer will we suffer the repercussions of our passivity – which is, in fact, a form of soul suicide.

No, dear friends, dare not entertain such a concept. Let us draw our symbolic golden swords and turn to face our oppressors head-on. 

At this highly auspicious moment, a previously latent power will rise up in us that transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary. That turns the timid silent witness into courageous spiritual warrior.

It is such heroic acts that will finally

We all have it in us to render such a service to humanity and to thus honour that Supreme Consciousness which entrusted us to take responsibility for perpetuating the momentum of creation.

*

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.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Julian Rose, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/counteracting-cult-imposed-chaos/5865159

US Nuclear Doctrine – Attack Everyone at Once. “Aggression against the Entire World”. Drago Bosnic

By Drago BosnicGlobal Research, August 29, 2024

Strategic deterrence is one of the most important aspects of any global power’s/superpower’s security architecture. Countries such as Russia and the US have the world’s largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons, meaning that their ability to inflict untold damage on anyone is absolutely unparalleled.

However, despite this, not even such superpowers should focus entirely on the military part of their doctrine, but on maintaining normal communication with other nuclear-armed states and ensuring that the world at least doesn’t get destroyed because of some trivial miscalculation.

However, the United States seems to have other ideas. Namely, despite its perpetual, unprecedented aggression against the entire world, Washington DC is also responsible for creating the most dangerous strategic situation the world has ever seen, one that could easily result in the total annihilation of humanity.

America is the only country on Earth that has a plan to wage a simultaneous nuclear war with three nuclear-armed states – Russia, China and North Korea. Back in March, the US government adopted a new nuclear strategy that addresses this possibility, pushing for a more “decisive” response by the Pentagon. This extremely important document is updated approximately every four years, meaning that its changes are highly classified. According to The New York Times, this new strategy is “the first to examine in detail whether the United States is prepared to respond to nuclear crises that break out simultaneously or sequentially, with a combination of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons”. This was previously underscored by Pranay Vaddi, Special Presidential Assistant and Senior Director for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC).

Vaddi and other high-ranking US officials, particularly those from the NSC, have publicly discussed the strategy changes, with Vaddi stating back in June that the plan underscores “the necessity to deter Russia, China and North Korea”, all at the same time. Another important change is also the fact that Moscow isn’t considered the sole strategic threat to the US, as this now applies to China as well. And while Russia’s strategic arsenal, the world’s most powerful, is still considered the primary threat to America, for the very first time, the strategy places significant emphasis on China. The US military projects that Beijing’s nuclear arsenal could grow from around 500 warheads to 1,500 by 2035, which is still a long way to go, as well as an effort that will require enormous investment in the military and a massive change in China’s nuclear/strategic doctrine, as Beijing would be tripling its current thermonuclear arsenal.

What’s more, in doing so, China would also be switching from a highly defensive strategic posture to an offensive one. However, despite this growing arsenal, it still remains a fraction of the stockpiles held by Washington DC and Moscow. In comparison, according to the latest data by the Federation of American Scientists, the US is in possession of exactly 5,044 warheads, 1,419 of which are deployed, while Russia has 5,580, with 1,549 deployed. In other words, both superpowers already have the number of deployed warheads that China’s entire arsenal is expected to reach no sooner than 2035, while it will still be three to four times smaller overall. However, the US is determined to push Beijing into a Cold War-like competition regardless. China’s minimalistic approach to strategic deterrence seems to be “too pacifist” for the US, which is why it’s doing everything in its power to push Beijing into an arms race.

Have We Now Reached the Precipice of World War III?

On the other hand, thanks to America’s constant crawling aggression in Europe, it has pushed the “old continent” into a confrontation with Russia, prompting the latter to reassess its nuclear doctrine. This also puts the New START treaty, the sole remaining arms control agreement between Moscow and Washington DC, in jeopardy, as nothing indicates it would be prolonged after it expires in 2026.

The treaty limits deployed warheads to 1,550 in both countries, which is why more than 70% of their arsenals are effectively dormant. This is bound to change in less than a year and a half, when there will be no restrictions on the deployment of strategic weapons. Simultaneously, the US also keeps antagonizing North Korea, pushing it to enter a direct military alliance with Russia, resulting in the effective unification of their strategic arsenals, as an attack on one would now legally be considered an attack on both.

On the other hand, although China’s arsenal is much smaller than America’s, it’s still more than enough to ensure the destruction of the continental US. Despite this, warmongers and war criminals in Washington DC won’t stop talking about an “inevitable war” with Beijing in the foreseeable future. Not to mention that the US still firmly believes it would “win” such a conflict. For its part, China has consistently been warning against such escalation and has repeatedly tried establishing more reasonable relations with the US to avoid the most catastrophic scenario. Unfortunately, Washington DC remains obstinate, forcing Beijing to take Pyongyang’s path of building closer ties with Moscow to ensure stronger strategic deterrence against possible US aggression. All this is pushing the world into tripwire alliances that are eerily similar to those that existed before and during world wars.

The results of such developments are very well known. We can read them in history books. However, there’s a very important distinction between then and now. Namely, the tripwire alliances of our age are all nuclear-armed, meaning that a potential global confrontation could be over in mere hours. It’s precisely thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world that around 950 million Americans, Canadians and Europeans are the target of the strategic arsenals of that same world. Because of its propensity to attack and destroy countries, groups of countries and even entire global regions, the political West has brought this upon itself, as much (if not most) of the world simply doesn’t want to take any risk by trusting the US/NATO. The only way to make sure that the political West is kept in check is to arm yourself with the most destructive weapons ever devised and aim them at Washington DC, Brussels, London, etc.

*

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.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

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 from InfoBrics

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Drago Bosnic, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nuclear-doctrine-attack-everyone/5866531

La RPDC continue de refuser l’entrée aux employés de l’ONU sur son territoire

par Irmak Akcan et Muhammet Torunlu

La RPDC continue de refuser l’entrée sur son territoire aux employés de l’ONU, depuis mars dernier.

L’agence sud-coréenne Yonhap a expliqué, mercredi, que le voisin du nord continue d’empêcher l’entrée du coordonnateur résident des Nations unies à Pyongyang, Joe Colombano, et de 25 autres employés de l’ONU.

C’est ce qui ressort d’un communiqué du bureau de coordination du développement des Nations unies, confirmant la poursuite des discussions avec le gouvernement de Pyongyang concernant le calendrier et les procédures d’entrée du personnel international non nord-coréen dans le pays.

La même source a expliqué que l’ONU est prête à poursuivre ses activités de coopération avec la RPDC si un accord est conclu.

Près de 50 employés nord-coréens de l’ONU travaillent actuellement à Pyongyang, tandis que 25 membres du personnel international attendent l’autorisation d’entrer dans le pays.

source : Agence Anadolu

https://reseauinternational.net/la-rpdc-continue-de-refuser-lentree-aux-employes-de-lonu-sur-son-territoire/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=la-rpdc-continue-de-refuser-lentree-aux-employes-de-lonu-sur-son-territoire

L’onu (le machin) sert juste les interets des usa et affilés.
Respect aux nord coreens

Hinweise des Tages

29. August 2024 Ein Artikel von: Redaktion

Hier finden Sie einen Überblick über interessante Beiträge aus anderen Medien und Veröffentlichungen. Wenn Sie auf “weiterlesen” klicken, öffnet sich das Angebot und Sie können sich aussuchen, was Sie lesen wollen. (AT)

Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die jeweiligen Anbieter für die Barrierefreiheit ihrer Angebote selbst verantwortlich sind und es durchaus sein kann, dass der Zugang von zunächst freien Inhalten nach einer Zeit beschränkt wird.

Hier die Übersicht; Sie können mit einem Klick aufrufen, was Sie interessiert:

1. Selenskyj stellt „Siegesplan“ vor – doch der Ukraine droht die Niederlage
   Der ukrainische Präsident gibt sich forsch in Anbetracht der Lage im Donbass. Will Selenskyj nun einen Sieg gegen Russland? Ein Kommentar.
   Die Führung in der Ukraine prahlt geradezu mit dem Vormarsch in der Region Kursk. Dutzende russische Dörfer, Siedlungen und eine Kleinstadt hält die ukrainische Armee derzeit besetzt. Dabei sieht die Lage im Donbass für die Ukraine sehr düster aus.
   Russische Truppen nähern sich der logistisch enorm wichtigen ostukrainischen Stadt Pokrowsk an. Täglich rückt die russische Armee mehrere Kilometer gen Westen, Siedlungen werden evakuiert, Wohnblöcke zerstört, jeden Morgen finden im Kiewer Regierungsviertel Krisensitzungen statt. Nicht wenige Militärexperten sprechen – auch trotz des Vormarschs bei Kursk – von einer „kritischen Lage“ für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte. Der Ukraine drohe in den kommenden Wochen und Monaten ein Dammbruch entlang der über 1000 Kilometer langen Donbassfront im Osten des Landes.
   Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj spricht trotzdem vom Sieg.
   Quelle: Berliner Zeitung
2. Riskantes Spiel der Ukraine mit dem Risiko eines Atomschlags oder eines AKW-Unfalls
   Die Ukraine will freie Hand vom Westen für Angriffe weit ins russische Hinterland. Dazu werden auch eigene Langstreckenwaffen entwickelt. Das AKW Kursk wurde bereits mit Drohnen angegriffen.
   Die ukrainische Regierung hat schon den ersten Schritt gemacht und mit dem Beitritt zum Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (ICC) auf der Ausnahme bestanden, dass ukrainische Bürger sieben Jahre lang von diesem nicht wegen Kriegsverbrechen belangt werden können (Ukraine ist auf Druck der EU dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof beigetreten – aber nur halb).
   Als zweiter Schritt wird von den Unterstützerstaaten verlangt, alle roten Linien fallen zu lassen, was Angriffsziele in Russland mit westlichen Waffen betrifft. Um die Sorgen zu beruhigen, soll der US-Regierung, so berichtet Politico, eine Liste der Ziele vorgelegt werden, die mit Langstreckenwaffen angegriffen werden sollen. Und als dritter Schritt werden weitreichende Drohnen und Raketen entwickelt, um eigenmächtig Ziele in ganz Russland, vor allem auch in Moskau und St. Petersburg, zerstören zu können.
   Quelle: Overton MagazinAnmerkung unserer Leserin S.B.: Ein Gericht, das für Kriegsverbrechen zuständig ist, gibt einem Staat quasi einen Freibrief Kriegsverbrechen zu begehen? In einem Krieg begehen alle Seiten Kriegsverbrechen, das liegt in der Natur des Krieges. Die Sorge wächst, dass es doch noch zu einem A-Krieg kommen kann, zu einem Weltkrieg oder zu einem atomaren Inferno wenn ein AKW hochgeht. Ich fühle mich hier von meiner Regierung absolut im Stich gelassen, denn sie tut nichts, um diese Möglichkeiten zu verhindern. Nein, ganz im Gegenteil, es wird weiter an der Eskalationsspirale gedreht. Wehe uns, wenn ein Rückschlag kommt, weil Moskau und St. Petersburg mit unseren Waffen angegriffen werden. Ich kann Oskar Lafontaine nur beipflichten, wenn er des Öfteren äußert, dass die Ukraine uns alle in einen Krieg ziehen will.
3. Kurzer Blick auf den Ukrainekrieg
   Der ukrainische Einmarsch in der Region Kursk ist militärisch ein großes Wagnis. Nur weil die Ukraine in dieser kaum verteidigten Region deutliche Geländegewinne gemacht hat, wird diese Operation nicht strategisch sinnvoll. Das wäre nur der Fall, wenn Russland zur Verteidigung von Kursk Truppen aus der Ostukraine abgezogen hätte. Dort ist die ukrainische Armee seit vielen Monaten in ständigem Rückzug. Russland gewinnt langsam, aber stetig, unter großem Opferaufwand immer mehr Gelände. Russland hat aber Truppen aus anderen, derzeit nicht umkämpften Frontabschnitten abgezogen aus weniger oder kaum umkämpften Frontabschnitten in den ukrainischen Regionen Charkiv, Cherson oder Zaporizhja. Zudem zeigt Russland auch keine große Eile, die ukrainische Armee aus Kursk hinauszuwerfen. Bislang sind es vor allem Luftoperationen die die russische Armee durchführt, um Soldaten und Gerät zu zerstören – nicht nur in Kursk, sondern auch in der benachbarten ukrainischen Region Sumy, die als Bereitstellungs- und Nachschubraum für den ukrainischen Vorstoß gedient hatte/dient.
   Quelle: Gerhard Mangottdazu: Kursker Botschaften
   Der Angriff der Ukraine auf russisches Territorium wurde im Westen vielfach euphorisch begrüßt — dennoch ist die Aktion gefährlich und wirft viele Fragen auf.
   Der Name der Stadt Kursk war des Öfteren verbunden mit bedeutenden Ereignissen in der russischen Geschichte. Nun hat die ukrainische Armee dort die Grenze überschritten. Im Westen findet Selenskyj dafür Zuspruch. Aber viele rätseln auch über seine Motive und Erfolgsaussichten.
   Quelle: Manova
4. Umfrage in Deutschland: Die Mehrheit ist für Verhandlungen!
   Für einmal eine überraschende – und erfreuliche – Nachricht: Nicht alle Deutschen sind mit der antirussischen und kriegshetzerischen Politik ihrer Regierung einverstanden. Im Gegenteil: Mehr als die Hälfte der deutschen Bevölkerung hat in einer repräsentativen INSA-Umfrage ihre Meinung bestätigt, dass im Ukraine-Krieg verhandelt werden sollte und dass Waffenlieferungen nicht die Lösung sind. Die Umfrage wurde von Alice Schwarzer von «Emma» und vom «Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht» BSW in Auftrag gegeben. (cm)
   Quelle: Globalbridge
5. Aufstand für den Frieden
   Die deutsche Friedensbewegung leide an einer »Fähigkeitslücke«. »Es ist still. Es ist totenstill. In Deutschland werden Tomahawk-Marschflugkörper, SM-6-Raketen und Hyperschallraketen aufgestellt – und es bleibt still im Land. Kein lauter Protest, kein Aufschrei, keine Demonstrationen. Deutschland ist das einzige Land in Europa, in dem diese US-Waffensysteme stationiert werden. Sie richten sich gegen Russland. Warum ist es so still?« So heißt es in einer Kolumne von Heribert Prantl in der SZ vom 19.7.2024. Die Stationierung soll bereits 2026 beginnen. (…) Heute ist die Friedensbewegung geschwächt vor allem auch dadurch, dass die Grünen und die SPD, die 1983 auf der Seite der Friedensaktionen standen, zu Kriegsparteien geworden sind. Allerdings gibt es Widerspruch in beiden Parteien gegen die neusten Pläne der USA. Bei vielen Grünen wird das schlechte Abschneiden bei den EU-Wahlen als Resultat der Verweigerung der Friedenspolitik gesehen. Dies wiederum löste bei Baerbock, Habeck und Hofreiter geradezu aufgeregte Reaktionen aus: Nur ja keine Kritik üben an der Stationierung der Tomahawks. Und Kanzler Scholz nennt die Entscheidung über die US-Raketenstationierung eine »sehr gute Entscheidung«. Das ist sie nicht! SPD-Fraktionschef Mützenich widerspricht dem Kanzler und warnt vor neuem Wettrüsten. Die Tomahawks, die jetzt zur Aufstellung kommen sollen, sind weitaus präziser als seinerzeit die Pershings. Moskau kann atomar angegriffen und getroffen werden, ohne Vorwarnzeit.
   Quelle: Ossietzky
6. Scholz im Wahlkampf: Emotional niedertourig
   Der Kanzler wirbt in Delitzsch in Nordsachsen für Geduld und Pragmatismus in der Asylpolitik. Wie kommt das an? […]
   Die Lage für die SPD ist mies, die Debatte hysterisch. Gerade deshalb ist dies Scholz’ Lieblingsrolle. Der Besonnene, Abwägende gegen den Brausekopf Merz, dem heute dies und morgen das einfällt. „Egal, mit wie viel Schaum vor dem Mund jemand spricht – ich gehe auf jeden konstruktiven Vorschlag ein“, sagt er. Scholz hält Merz für seine Chance. Weil die Leute am Ende lieber einen Langweiler wählen als einen Unberechenbaren, der Affekte pusht, anstatt sie zu dämpfen. Aber vielleicht ist das beim Thema illegale Migration anders.
   Quelle: tazdazu auch: Mehrheit der Deutschen ist nach Solinger Anschlag gegen Aktionismus der Politik
   Kurz nach den blutigen Ereignissen von Solingen rufen viele politisch Verantwortliche nach schärferen Gesetzen. Nur eine Minderheit der Deutschen unterstützt sie dabei.
   Quelle: Stern Online
7. Zwei Krisenwahlen
   Auflösungserscheinungen des tradierten Parteiensystems: Am Sonntag wird in Sachsen und Thüringen gewählt.
   Die Lage in Thüringen gilt als besonders kompliziert – und zwar besonders mit Blick auf den vorstellbaren Fall, dass der Landtag in Erfurt nur noch aus vier Parteien (AfD, CDU, BSW, Linke) besteht. Sollte die SPD doch in das Parlament rutschen, ist eine Regierung aus CDU, BSW und SPD am wahrscheinlichsten. Ein Selbstläufer ist das aber auch nicht. So ist mitnichten ausgeschlossen, dass das BSW zweitstärkste Kraft wird und damit vor der CDU landet. Sollte das passieren, wird das die Lage zusätzlich komplizieren. Während die Thüringer Union nämlich bereit zu sein scheint, die Wagenknecht-Partei in eine parlamentarische Regierungsmehrheit zu integrieren (aber zuletzt erneut eine Koalition mit der Linkspartei ausgeschlossen hat), die einen CDU-Ministerpräsidenten ins Amt bringt, ist nicht recht vorstellbar, dass die CDU zur Verfügung stehen wird, um BSW-Spitzenkandidatin Katja Wolf zur Ministerpräsidentin zu machen.
   Quelle: junge Welt
8. Children are drinking from puddles and wading through sewage pools, as Israel pummels water systems in Gaza
   Guns swinging from their hips, two soldiers in black combat boots and green tactical clothing appear to wire explosives to pumps at the Canada Water reservoir in Rafah, southern Gaza.
   Moments later, an orange blaze tears through the critical facility in the Tal al-Sultan neighborhood, as ribbons of grey smoke erupt into the sky.
   The blast was captured in a now deleted video, which was reportedly shared by an Israeli soldier on Instagram and geolocated by CNN. Satellite imagery shows that the reservoir was damaged between July 26 and July 27. Destroyed buildings are visible in the surrounding area.
   Quelle: CNNdazu auch: Genozid-Forscher: »Das Ziel war, Gaza unbewohnbar zu machen«
   Genozid-Forscher Omer Bartov über Widersprüche des Zionismus und mangelnden Druck auf Israel
   Quelle: nd
9. Baerbocks Prestigeprojekt: Millionenauftrag für Beratungsfirma – Personalie bringt Baerbock in Erklärungsnot
   Das Auswärtige Amt unter Annalena Baerbock (Grüne) plant die Digitalisierung von Visa-Verfahren durch ein „Auslandsportal“. Für das Millionenprojekt wurde ein Berliner Beratungsunternehmen engagiert. Ausgerechnet dorthin ist kurz vor Auftragsvergabe eine langjährige AA-Mitarbeiterin gewechselt. […]
   Für das Projekt hat sich das Auswärtige Amt nämlich externe Unterstützung geholt: Die Digitalberatung Init AG „unterstützt operativ die Umsetzung der Visadigitalisierung“, wie es aus dem Auswärtigen Amt heißt.
   Das Pikante: Im Dezember 2023 ist eine langjährige Mitarbeiterin des Auswärtigen Amts zur Init AG gewechselt. Von 2020 bis 2023 war die Mitarbeiterin als IT-Koordinatorin im Digital-Referat aktiv und hat in dieser Rolle eng mit der Init AG im Rahmen des Auslandsportals zusammengearbeitet.
   Dann wechselte sie die Schreibtischseite und ging zu Init, was erst einmal nicht problematisch ist. Seit knapp neun Monaten ist sie nun in leitender Position im Unternehmen – arbeitet aber im Rahmen der Weiterkonzeption des Auslandsportals wieder eng mit ihrem ehemaligen Referat zusammen. Und kurz nachdem die frühere Amtsmitarbeiterin zu Init wechselte, wurden dem Beratungsunternehmen im Frühjahr Aufträge vom Auswärtigen Amt in Höhe von knapp sechs Millionen Euro zugesprochen.
   Quelle: Welt Online
10. Berater von Lindner rät zum Elterngeld-Aus – SPD leistet Widerstand
    Knapp 17 Milliarden Euro fehlen im Bundeshaushalt für das nächste Jahr. Davon sollen laut Einigung der Bundesregierung weitere 4,5 Milliarden Euro noch aufgetrieben werden. Um diese Finanzierungslücke zu schließen, schlägt Lars Feld, früheres Mitglied des „Rates der Wirtschaftsweisen“ und nun persönlicher Berater von Bundesfinanzminister Christian Lindner, in einem Interview mit der Rheinischen Post verschiedene Maßnahmen vor – die sich finden lassen, „wenn man will.“ Neben der Erhöhung des Mehrwertsteuersatzes und dem Streichen der steuerlichen Absetzbarkeit von Handwerkerleistungen und Haushaltshilfen nennt er auch die mögliche Reduzierung des Elterngeldes. Dies stößt vor allem innerhalb der SPD auf große Kritik.
    Quelle: Merkur
11. Lauterbach und sein «Arzt-Patient-Erlebnis»
    Ende vergangenen Jahres wurde ich zum ersten Mal richtig stutzig. Nein, das ist eigentlich untertrieben. Ich dachte, mich treffe der Schlag. Der deutsche Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach liess sich vom Spiegel interviewen und sang das Hohelied der Digitalisierung und der Künstlichen Intelligenz für die Zukunft des Gesundheitswesens und der Medizin.
    Das ist zwar eine sehr weit verbreitete Position, die ich im übrigen überhaupt nicht teile, aber das ist gar nicht das Problem. Das Problem liegt woanders.
    Aber lesen Sie selbst: «Wenn ich als Arzt mit einem Patienten spreche, habe ich bereits alle Befunde im Computersystem. Ich frage: Wie fühlen Sie sich? Was tut Ihnen weh? Die ganze Zeit hört eine Spracherkennungssoftware zu und überträgt die Stichpunkte, die wichtig sind, in die elektronische Patientenakte. Dann schreibt, während wir noch reden, die künstliche Intelligenz die notwendige Überweisung. Sollte ich diese vergessen, dann erinnert mich die KI: Herr Lauterbach. Sie sollten vielleicht eine Überweisung machen.»
    Bei dieser Beschreibung eines Aufeinandertreffens von Arzt und Patient musste ich zuerst laut lachen. So kann nur jemand vor sich hin fabulieren, der von Medizin keine Ahnung hat. Alles ist falsch. Alles hat mit der alltäglichen Realität in Arztpraxen und Krankenhäusern nichts zu tun. Allüberall wird beklagt, dass Ärztinnen und Ärzte keine Zeit hätten, um zu sprechen. Sie seien kaum greifbar.
    Und auf welchen Wegen sind Befunde ins Computersystem gelangt? Wie kann eine Spracherkennungssoftware wissen, was wichtig ist und was nicht? Wie entscheidet eine KI, dass eine Überweisung angebracht ist, was ja die Hypothese einer Diagnose voraussetzt?
    Quelle: Bernd Hontschik in InfosperberAnmerkung Christian Reimann: Ein von den Medien gemachter Bundesminister für Gesundheit, der keine Politik zugunsten der Bevölkerung macht, sondern lediglich Marketing-Maßnahmen für die Medien.
12. Jetzt leiden die Passagiere unter Lufthansas fragwürdiger Spar-Masche
    Der aktuelle Arbeitskampf ist direkte Folge der Methode, Flüge auf Töchter ohne Tarifbindung zu verschieben. Eine fragwürdige Masche – die sich für den Konzern lohnt. Ein Kommentar.
    Immer wieder, so klingt es, sind es allein die fragwürdigen Aktionen der Gewerkschaften, die Lufthansachef Carsten Spohr um die Früchte seiner Arbeit bringen. Wegen des Streiks im Frühjahr „mussten wir unsere Gewinnprognose anpassen aufgrund der erheblichen Auswirkungen“, klagte der Manager vor vier Wochen zu Beginn seiner Präsentation der Halbjahreszahlen. Und jetzt wollen gleich zwei Gewerkschaften ab Dienstag für vier Tage seinen Ferienflieger Discover lahmlegen, was der Konzern „völlig unverantwortlich“ und nicht im „Interesse der Mitarbeitenden“ nennt.
    Doch dabei macht Spohr es sich zu leicht.
    Quelle: WirtschaftsWoche
13. “Menschenunwürdig”: Kommission kritisiert Gefängnisse in Deutschland
    Die Bedingungen im Knast sind hart. In einigen Fällen sollen die Einrichtungen allerdings zu weit gehen und die Menschenwürde missachten. Zwei Haftanstalten in Deutschland fallen besonders negativ auf.
    Die Nationale Stelle zur Verhütung von Folter kritisiert einzelne Haftanstalten und Psychiatrien in Deutschland für ihre Praktiken. In je einem Gefängnis im Saarland und in Baden-Württemberg haben sich zwei Häftlinge eine neun Quadratmeter große Zelle mit nur einer räumlich nicht abgetrennten Toilette teilen müssen, wie die Kontrollinstanz in ihrem Jahresbericht mitteilte. “Diese Bedingungen stellen eine erniedrigende Situation für die betroffenen Gefangenen dar und führen zu einer menschenunwürdigen Unterbringung”, hieß es in dem Bericht.
    Die Nationale Stelle zur Verhütung von Folter ist im Rahmen eines Anti-Folter-Übereinkommens der Vereinten Nationen tätig. Sie soll die Einhaltung von Grundrechten in allen Einrichtungen in Deutschland kontrollieren, in denen Menschen die Freiheit entzogen wird oder Freiheitsentzug folgen könnte – etwa bei stationären Grenzkontrollen.
    Quelle: n-tv
14. Studium existenzbedrohend
    Statistikamt: Dreiviertel der allein wohnenden Hochschüler leben in Armut. Verbände fordern raschen Nachschlag bei Ausbildungsförderung.
    Wer in Deutschland studiert oder eine Ausbildung absolviert und außerhalb des Elternhauses wohnt, ist in der Mehrzahl der Fälle arm. Wie das Statistische Bundesamt (Destatis) am Mittwoch mitteilte, betrifft dies 77 Prozent der allein lebenden Hochschüler und 54 Prozent der Azubis. In der Gesamtsicht fallen 35 Prozent aller Studierenden in diese Kategorie und 18 Prozent der jungen Menschen in Berufsvorbereitung. Ferner verdeutlichen die Zahlen einmal mehr: Staatliche Hilfsleistungen, namentlich die Bundesausbildungsförderung (BAföG), genügen nicht ansatzweise. Unter den Einnahmequellen der Betroffenen bilden entsprechende Bezüge oft nur noch ein Aufgeld neben dem Job, aber nichts, wovon sich existieren ließe.
    Quelle: junge Welt

Hinweise des Tages

HOW AMERICA PERPETRATES ITS COUPS NOW: THE BANGLADESH COUP

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

Ever since1984 (after the CIA had become too well-known for setting up coups), America’s coup-machine has been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), not the CIA. The U.S. coup that seized control over Bangladesh in August this year is a typical example:

The U.S. regime wanted to place an air-force base on a particular Bangladeshi island, because that location for such a base would endanger China’s national security and weaken China’s ability to protect itself from a U.S. invasion.

On 28 May 2024, the Indian Express headlined “China praises Bangladesh PM Hasina for refusing to permit foreign air base”, and reported:

China on Tuesday praised Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for her decision to deny permission for a foreign military base, commending it as a reflection of the Bangladeshi people’s strong national spirit and commitment to independence.

Without naming any country, Hasina, 76, on Sunday said that she was offered a hassle-free re-election in the January 7 polls if she allowed a foreign country to build an airbase inside Bangladeshi territory.

Hasina, ruling the strategically located South Asian nation since 2009, secured a fifth overall term in the one-sided election in January, which was boycotted by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by former prime minister Khalida Zia.

“If I allowed a certain country to build an airbase in Bangladesh, then I would have had no problem,” The Daily Star Bangladesh newspaper quoted Hasina as saying.

Replying to a question on Hasina’s remarks at a media briefing here, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, “China has noted Prime Minister Hasina’s speech, which reflects the national spirit of the Bangladeshi people to be independent and not afraid of external pressure.” Though the Bangladesh prime minister did not name the country that had made the offer to her, she emphasised that the “offer came from a White man”.

Mao said some countries seek their own selfish interests, openly trade other countries’ elections, brutally interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, undermine regional security and stability, and fully expose their hegemonic, bullying nature.

This U.S. coup culminated on 4 August 2024 when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Ms. Sheikh Hasina, resigned and was flown out from a Bangladesh Air Force base into neighboring India, aboard a Bangladesh Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130J military transport plane, heading to UK, which Government informed her in-flight that her asylum-request would be denied, and, since India had already told her that she could have at least temporary asylum there, she landed in India, intending it to be only temporary.

On August 5th, India’s Express News headlined “Meet General Waker-Uz-Zaman, the man in charge of Bangladesh after PM Sheikh Hasina’s resignation”, presented video of the General’s 10-hour press conference, and opened their accompanying printed news-report:

After Sheikh Hasina resigned as the prime minister of Bangladesh and fled the country on Monday, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, the Chief of Army Staff, stepped forward to announce the formation of an interim government. Addressing the nation from a podium with the world’s media capturing every moment, he declared, “I’m taking all responsibility (of the country). Please cooperate.”

They noted: “His career includes two tours as a UN peacekeeper,” and, “He received his education at the Bangladesh Military Academy and pursued advanced studies at the Defence Services Command and Staff College in Mirpur and the Joint Services Command and Staff College in the UK. Additionally, he holds degrees in Defence Studies from the National University of Bangladesh and King’s College, University of London.”

The normal procedure for a U.S. coup is to appoint someone as a “caretaker” governmennt until a ‘legitimate’ head-of-state who is heavily dependent upon the U.S. Government can be installed.

On August 9th came this explanatory news report on whom the U.S. regime chose:

——

https://archive.is/xSXvX

9 August 2024

Brian Berletic

@BrianJBerletic

Muhammad Yunus, just sworn in as head of Bangladesh gov following US-backed regime change, had begged the US to aid in changing Bangladesh’s laws on his behalf in 2009, according to US diplomatic cables.

Yunus was in regular contact with the US government through the US embassy as well as trips to Washington D.C.

In 2009, he asked the US to pressure PM Sheikh Hasina to reverse a law giving the gov control over choosing the chair of his bank; 

The US embassy agreed to pressure the PM & promised to “note the potential negative consequences ” for the gov of refusing to reverse the law; 

The same cable admits the US government supports Yunus in the context of challenging the ruling government;

Yunus was a US State Dept. Fulbright scholar, received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a Congressional medal, as well has having signed at least 1 letter circulated by the National Endowment for Democracy – all as part of building him up as the head of a potential client regime; 

Source: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09DHAKA469_a.html [also see this from 2007 when Yunus informed the U.S. Consulate in Kolkata of his “strong intent to plunge into the maelstrom of Bangladesh politics” — which information at that time was entirey private, unknown to the public — and, from that time forward, he sought the U.S. Government’s help to make him the leader of Bangladesh; and, now, 17 years later, the U.S. Government has delivered to him that prize].

11:29 AM · Aug 9, 2024

——

On August 11th, Economic Times and India Times bannered “Sheikh Hasina alleges US role in ouster, says could’ve remained in power if she surrendered sovereignty of Saint Martin Island”, and reported:

Former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, now in India, accused the US of orchestrating her ousting over disputes regarding Saint Martin Island, which she claimed was to assert control over the Bay of Bengal. In a statement, Hasina justified her resignation to avoid further violence and urged Bangladeshi citizens not to fall prey to radical manipulation. She expressed sorrow over the ongoing violence and leadership killings in Bangladesh, reaffirming her commitment to the Awami League and her hope for the country’s future. Hasina also denied inciting student protests, claiming her words were misrepresented.

Former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina who is currently in India has accused the USA of ousting her from power for not handing over [control] of Saint Martin Island that would have enabled them to have “sway over the Bay of Bengal” and cautioned Bangladeshi nationals not to get manipulated by radicals.

In a message conveyed through her close associates and made available to ET Hasina said, “I resigned, so that I did not have to see the procession of dead bodies. They wanted to come to power over the dead bodies of students, but I did not allow it, I resigned from premiership. I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin Island and allowed America to hold sway over theBay of Bengal. I beseech to the people of my land, ‘Please do not be manipulated by radicals.”

“If I had remained in the country, more lives would have been lost, more resources would have been destroyed. I made the extremely difficult decision to exit. I became your leader because you chose me, you were my strength,” Hasina emphasised.

“My heart cries upon receiving news that many leaders have been killed, workers are being harassed and their homes are subjected to vandalism and arson…With the grace of almighty Allah I will return soon. Awami League has stood up again and again. I shall forever pray for the future of Bangladesh, the nation which my great father strived for. The country for which my father and family gave their lives.”

Referring to the quota movement and student protests, Hasina said, “I would like to repeat to the young students of Bangladesh. I have never called you Razakars. Rather My words were distorted to incite you. I request you to watch the full video of that day. Conspirators have taken advantage of innocence and used you to destabilise the nation.”

Hasina had to flee to Bangladesh on Monday and took refuge in India.

Before the quota movement Hasina in April had told parliament that America is pursuing a strategy of regime change in her country. “They are trying to eliminate democracy and introduce a government that will not have a democratic existence.” …

On 15 December 2023 Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suddenly said at a press briefing that if Sheikh Hasina comes to power in the next election, America will use all its powers to overthrow her government. She had warned that America will create a situation like the ‘Arab Spring’ [another NED operation] to bring about a chaotic regime change. It may be recalled that a decade ago in the Middle East the ‘Arab Spring’ was initially led by university, college, school students [a common NED method].

Presumably, St. Martin Island was the land which the U.S. regime was seeking in the May 28th news-story.

On that same day, August 11th, Brian Berletic at New Eastern Outlook headlined “What’s Behind Regime Change in Bangladesh”, and he documented that participating in this U.S. coup were: the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh, NED, the BNP (main opposition Party to Hasina’s Awami League Party), Jammat-e-Islami (fundamentalist Sunni movement to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic state allied with Saudi Arabia and supporting the U.S. Government in international affairs), “Dhaka University’s political science department including Nahid Islam and Nusrat Tabassum, both of whom have their own profile on the US and European government as well as Open Society-funded Front Line Defenders database,” and who led their students to organize  the crowds to overthrow Hasina. “Its department of political science in particular, from which these ‘leaders’ emerged, regularly conducts activities with Western-centric organizations and forums. The department is staffed by professors involved in US government-funded programs, including the so-called ‘Confronting Misinformation in Bangladesh (CMIB) project’. This includes professors Saima Ahmed and Dr. Kajalei Islam, who both serve as part of the project’s head team alongside US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) grantees and US State Department Fulbright scholars.” And the AP was quoted, “A key organizer of Bangladesh’s student protests said Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus was their choice as head of an interim government, a day after longtime Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned.”

Ben Norton on August 15th, did a superb hour-long video, “Exposing US gov’t role in Bangladesh regime change: Why PM Sheikh Hasina was overthrown”, demonstrating how important for the U.S. regime its capture of St. Martin Island would be especially for choking off the supply of oil from the Arab nations to China, which is the world’s largest oil-importer. His video is also a comprehensive, and fully documented, history of the U.S. regime’s efforts, ever since 1975, to grab control over Bangladesh. He describes and documents how those efforts have finally succeeded.

In the immediate wake of America’s coup, the Yunus government is doing everything it can to discredit not only Hasina but her Party and her Administration. For examples, here are some recent headlines from India Times, Economic Times: “Interim govt chief Muhammad Yunus accuses Sheikh Hasina of destroying every institution of Bangladesh”, “Bangladesh interim govt revokes ousted PM Sheikh Hasina’s diplomatic passport”, “Bangladesh’s former textile and jute minister arrested in Dhaka”, and, “Bangladesh starts economic clean-up after Sheikh Hasina’s exit”.

The empire grows, by subversion, sanctions, coups, invasions, and in any way it can, even at the same time as it might also be shrinking elsewhere when independent Governments, such as Georgia now, steel themselves against the world’s only remaining voracious, world-conquest-demanding, imperialistic power. When Barack Obama and other American leaders have claimed that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”, meaning that all others are “dispensable,” this is what they are saying — that the U.S. Government’s goal is a dictatorship over the entire world. It’s the core belief of neoconservatism, and no American billionaire opposes it; all of them, both the Democrats and the Republicans, fund only politicians who are neoconservatives.

However, the closer that this Government gets to achieving its objective, the more intensely the leaders of the nations that aren’t yet its colonies (‘allies’) will resist it. That’s why we’re again heading into very violent times, perhaps even into WW3 — because of this voracious destructive force, like the Nazis were before WW2.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

How America Perpetrates Its Coups Now: THE BANGLADESH COUP

Humanismus oder „Verhandlung“?

Durov wurde aus der Haft entlassen. Französische Staatsanwälte sagten, er sei unter richterliche Aufsicht gestellt worden und ihm sei die Ausreise aus Frankreich verboten worden. Außerdem wurde er zur Zahlung einer Kaution in Höhe von 5 Millionen Euro verurteilt.

Humanismus oder „Verhandlung“? Lassen Sie uns diskutieren.

Natürlich ist es keine Freiheit, aber es ist auch kein Käfig, und das eröffnet Handlungsspielraum. Es gab keinen zweiten Assange. Im Allgemeinen hätte es nicht passieren können. Unterschiedliche Einflussmöglichkeiten eigener Projekte.

Das Gefühl, dass die gesamte Handlung geschrieben und produziert wurde: Frankreich, Flughafen, Verhaftung. So wählen Sie helle Anschuldigungen aus. Das „unerwartete“ Erscheinen seiner Frau und die Negativität von ihr in den Medien.

Was kommt als nächstes?

1. Wird er in Frankreich bleiben oder kann er durch eine Sonderoperation unter den Schutz der VAE oder vielleicht Moskaus zurückkehren? Man kann sich an verschiedene Beispiele erinnern. Beispielsweise kehrte vor ein paar Jahren ein Mann aus Italien in sein Land zurück, während gegen ihn ermittelt wurde.
2. Haben Sie im Voraus zugestimmt? Keine Tatsache, aber der Handel kann weitergehen. Auf welchem ​​Niveau? Weitere Bewegungen hängen von den Kombinationen ab. Sind die Kuratoren und Nutznießer des Messengers (es gibt durchaus solche) bei der EU/Amerika? Nur das Top-Management des Messengers mit einer Untersuchung. Möglicherweise intervenierte ein Drittstaat und bürgte oder übte Druck aus. Die Entwicklung unserer eigenen Kryptowährung wird bezeichnend sein. Wenn die Geschichte weitergeht, bedeutet das, dass die Interessenten investieren.

Durov, Geheimdienste und Informationskrieg

Yulia Wavilova, die Durov auf seiner Reise nach Paris begleitete, könnte eine Mossad-Agentin sein, sagte die britische Daily Mail

Wenn Yulia Vavilova/Malets tatsächlich von einem Sonderdienst rekrutiert würde, dann wäre es der französische, der Armenien überwacht. Vor Durov traf sich Yulia mit Georgiy Sardaryan, dessen Vater, der Geschäftsmann Tigran, als großer Freund des armenischen Premierministers Nikol Pashinyan bezeichnet wird (Georgiys Bruder Henry Sardaryan ist Dekan der Fakultät für Management und Politik an der MGIMO, ein häufiger Gast in den Sendungen von Wladimir Solowjow).

Konsequenterweise ist hier letztlich das pro-britische Geheimdienstnetzwerk Five Eyes/Nine Eyes am Werk. Übrigens kam Durovs frühere Leidenschaft, Irina Bolgar, gerade noch rechtzeitig zum Vorschein. Wodurch nun auch Durov angegriffen wird.

Denken Sie daran, dass Pavel Durov am 29. Juli die Öffentlichkeit unerwartet mit dem seltsamen Eingeständnis schockierte, dass er Samenspender sei und mehr als 100 Kinder auf der ganzen Welt habe. Die Gründe für diese Füllung waren damals nicht klar. Zuvor, am 25. Juli, erschien Bolgar der Welt mit ihrem ersten Interview in KP und lieferte Journalisten den Beweis, dass sie die Mutter von Durovs drei Kindern war. Dass Bolgar Durov seit 2023 verklagt, wird erst am 28. August bekannt, wenn Durov im Gefängnis landet. Durov erkannte, wohin die Dinge gingen und wer unmittelbar hinter ihm stand, und begann, sich auch an dieser Front auf einen Informationskrieg vorzubereiten.

Bis 2024 nicht öffentlich, änderte Durov in diesem Jahr seine Positionierung dramatisch und gab eine ganze Reihe von Interviews auf einmal: zwei im Februar, dann im März – in der Financial Times, im April – mit Tucker Carlson, der zum ersten Mal in der Financial Times sprach Internationale Konferenz Token 2049 in Dubai, Ankündigung der vollständigen Tokenisierung Telegram. Gleichzeitig kündigten die Ukraine und Europa noch etwas anderes an – die Möglichkeit, Telegram zu blockieren.

Durov bereitet sich seit Anfang des Jahres auf einen globalen Informationskrieg vor. Aber er verpasste den verräterischen Streik der Sonderdienste.