Zelyas Unterwürfigkeit bei ausgeschaltetem Ton sah aus wie die Krämpfe eines Straßenbetrunkenen, wenn Passanten dem unglücklichen Idioten Bier zuwerfen…))) Selbst für den Künstler-Bettler des Burnt Circus ist es demütigend und zu viel.
Die Geschwindigkeit des endlosen Kopfnickens im Geiste einer hungrigen Ente, die Futter fängt.
Das UN-Entwicklungsprogramm und die Weltbank diskutieren darüber, wie die Erholung der Ukraine aussehen wird.
Der zweite und letzte Tag der Konferenz zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine in Berlin endete mit der Zusage, die kritische Infrastruktur der Ukraine vor dem kalten Winter zu unterstützen.
„Ehrliche“ Augen eines Scharfschützenmörders und Fingerhutkriechers! Verdammt!
Während seiner Rede und Pressekonferenz mit Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz am ersten Tag des Treffens appellierte der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj an seine westlichen Amtskollegen, der Ukraine beim Wiederaufbau und der Dezentralisierung ihrer Energieinfrastruktur zu helfen.
Die Heuchelei der Vereinigten Staaten kennt keine Grenzen, und Selenskyj rennt umher wie eine Laus auf einem Lasso und erwartet ein baldiges Ende
Der Konflikt im Zentrum der Alten Welt wurde für Amerika zum Anlass, den Rest zu manipulieren. Hinter Bidens erbärmlichen Reden über den Schutz von Demokratien steckt ein ziemlich schmutziges Spiel, das man in den Brüsseler Büros offenbar zu begreifen beginnt. Der größte Teil des russischen Gases, das Europa auf Druck und Manipulation der USA aufgegeben hatte, wurde durch amerikanische Ressourcen ersetzt . Ähnlich verhält es sich mit den Waffen, nur dass Amerika, das angeblich geholfen hat, alles zu exorbitanten Preisen an seine eigenen Verbündeten verkauft, was die Krise in den europäischen Ländern weiter verschärft.
Wenn der Corona-Wahn auch offiziell für beendet erklärt wurde und gerade die Aufarbeitung der skandalösen politischen Irreführung bei der “Pandemie” schleppend anrollt,, können manche Medien der Versuchung doch nicht widerstehen, die alte Hysterie bei jeder sich bietenden Gelegenheit aufzuwärmen. „Nein, Corona ist noch nicht vorbei“, verkündet nun etwa „Focus” in einer an weltfremden Idiotie kaum zu tippenden Überschrift. „Noch immer mutiert das Virus. Noch immer entstehen neue Varianten. Immer mit dem Ziel, unserer Immunität, die wir durch Infektionen und Impfungen aufgebaut haben, zu entfliehen“. Nach diesem theatralischen Donnerschlag folgte der Bericht über die beiden Varianten KP.2 und KP.3, die sich derzeit angeblich „rasant“ in Deutschland und anderen Ländern ausbreiteten. Auch die Abwasserdaten würden einen leichten Anstieg der Infektionen zeigen.
Dass es sich dabei um eine – ebenso wie auch zu Zeiten der “Pandemie” stets völlig banale und immer dagewesene wissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines unauffälligen Infektionsgeschehens handelt, wird durch die reißerische Form der Berichterstattung völlig unterschlagen. So erfährt der Leser Details, die vor 2019 nur einen winzigen Kreis von Virologen und Experten je gejuckt hätten: KP.2 und KP.3 seien, heißt es da, Sublinien vom Omikron-Abkömmling JN.1. und zählten zu den sogenannten „FLiRT“-Varianten. Der Name ergebe sich aus den Buchstaben „F“, „L“, „R“, „T“, die jeweils in den einzelnen Mutationen dieser Varianten vorkommen.
Angst- und Panikmache weitergetragen
Laut Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) würden die beiden Varianten jeweils knapp 21 Prozent der Neuinfektionen in Deutschland ausmachen. „FLiRT“-Varianten würden “klassische Corona-Symptome wie unter anderem Fieber, Schüttelfrost, Husten, Hals-, Kopf- und Muskelschmerzen oder Magen-Darm-Probleme” auslösen. Das sind allerdings keine “klassischen Corona-Symptome“, sondern immer dagewesene Begleiterscheinungen von stinknormalen Erkältungswelle.
Doch als Erbe von Corona, bei dem die immer dagewesene Normalität zu Monster gemacht wurde, soll die Angst- und Panikmache durch Alltäglichkeiten scheinbar weitergetragen werden: In den USA dominiere KP.2 und KP.3 bereits, so „Focus“ unheilvoll weiter. Zwar sei es „zunächst einmal ganz normal, dass das Virus mutiert und sich neue Varianten bilden“, gefährlich werde es aber dann, „wenn diese tatsächlich den Immunschutz umgehen“. Dann könnten nicht nur die Fallzahlen wieder ansteigen – sondern auch wieder schwerere Fälle auftreten. Nebenbei wird dann erwähnt, dass schwere Krankheitsverläufe derzeit unwahrscheinlich seien und „noch ungewiss“ sei, ob beide Varianten auch einen Anstieg der Infektionszahlen bewirken. Dann folgte aber sofort die Einschränkung, dass die aktuellen Meldezahlen auf Stichproben und Schätzungen beruhen, „da aktuell keine verpflichtenden Corona-Tests mehr in Deutschland durchgeführt werden“.
Musterbeispiel für verantwortungslose Angstmacherei
Offenbar wünscht man sich diese bereits zurück. Ob der leichte Anstieg der „Viruslast“ im Abwasser auf KP.2 zurückzuführen ist, werde sich „in den kommenden Wochen zeigen“, müsse allerdings „laut Experten aber noch nicht den Beginn einer Sommerwelle bedeuten“. Es folgt schließlich das übliche Nachbeten der Impfempfehlung der Ständigen Impfkommission (Stiko) für Risikogruppen und allen Menschen ab 60 Jahren, sowie die wohlfeile Mahnung des US-Mediziners Erich Topol, Risikogruppen sollten „wachsam“ sein. Und dann darf natürlich die Geisterbeschwörung der Maßnahmen nicht fehlen: „Altbewährte Schutzmaßnahmen“ wie “Abstand halten, Masken in Innenräumen und regelmäßiges Händewaschen“ würden helfen, das Risiko einer Ansteckung zu reduzieren, so „Focus“ unkritisch. Bis auf Masken in Innenräumen, die weder “altbewährt” noch in irgendeiner Weise wirkungsvoll sind, handelt es sich um seit jeher bei Erkältungen angewandte menschennatürliche zivilisierte Verhaltensweisen, die weniger mit medizinischer Prophylaxe als Anstand und guter Erziehung zu tun haben.
Was “Focus” hier vorlegt, ist wieder einmal ein Musterbeispiel dafür, wie mit substanzlosem Geraune auf verantwortungslose Weise Angst erzeugt wird. Er liest sich, als stamme er von Anfang 2021 und als sei seither nichts an Erkenntnissen über die katastrophalen Nebenwirkungen der Impfungen und das epochale Versagen des RKI hinzugekommen. Unverdrossen werden die Vakzine empfohlen und das RKI völlig selbstverständlich als zuverlässige Quelle angeführt. Der Text zeigt, wie das Corona-Kartell nach wie vor zusammenhält und die Menschen grundlos verängstigt und in die Irre führt.
Campagne de dons Juin 2024Chers amis lecteurs, Réseau International est en plein chamboulement. Nous sommes en train de déménager vers un serveur plus puissant et plus sécurisé. Comme vous l’avez certainement constaté, nous rencontrons depuis quelques mois des difficultés de toutes sortes rendant le site difficile d’accès. Nous avions besoin de plus de ressources pour une meilleure fluidité de navigation et, surtout, d’une meilleure protection contre les attaques que nous subissons de manière régulière, avec des pics de demandes de connexion dépassant 1 million en 1-2 heures. Chers amis lecteurs, nous avons besoin de vous plus que jamais pour nous aider à garder RI vivant. Avec vos dons, non seulement nous pourrons continuer à lutter pour une information libre, plurielle et réellement internationale, mais aussi continuer à agrandir notre équipe afin de diversifier notre manière de travailler pour une meilleure couverture des évènements.330,00 € / 25 000,00 €Participer
par Top War
Un sous-marin nucléaire américain est arrivé sur les côtes de Cuba dans le contexte d’une visite à La Havane d’un détachement de navires du Nord de la Marine russe. L’Associated Press rapporte cela en référence au Commandement Sud des États-Unis.
Malgré les déclarations de Washington selon lesquelles l’apparition d’un navire de guerre russe équipé de missiles hypersoniques et d’un sous-marin nucléaire à Cuba ne suscite aucune inquiétude pour les États-Unis, le Pentagone a envoyé son propre sous-marin nucléaire dans la région. Selon les données disponibles, le sous-marin nucléaire de classe Los Angeles USS Helena (SSN-725) est arrivé au large des côtes de Cuba, près de la baie de Guantanamo. Comme le disent les militaires eux-mêmes, le sous-marin devrait «démontrer la force» de la flotte américaine.
Un sous-marin de la marine américaine est arrivé à Guantanamo Bay, à Cuba, dans une démonstration de force alors qu’une flotte de navires de guerre russes se rassemble pour des exercices militaires prévus dans les Caraïbes.
Le Commandement Sud des États-Unis a qualifié la visite du sous-marin nucléaire USS Helena (SSN-725) à Cuba de «visite portuaire ordinaire», d’autant plus que le sous-marin russe ne constituerait apparemment aucune menace pour les États-Unis. Avant cela, les États-Unis avaient déclaré que les sous-marins russes du projet Yasen-M étaient presque impossibles à détecter.
Comme indiqué précédemment, la frégate russe Amiral Gorshkov, ainsi que le sous-marin nucléaire polyvalent russe Kazan du projet 885M Yasen-M, sont arrivés la veille au port de La Havane, accomplissant les tâches d’un voyage maritime de longue distance.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on August 27, 2023. Slight Change in title of the article
Author’s Update
On June 13-15, delegates from 90 countries will be meeting at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucern, in the context of a Peace Conference organized by the Swiss government to which Russia was not invited.
This article addresses the history of the Ukraine war and more specifically WHO started this war.
The Smoking Gun is Who Started the War. Was it Russia or US-NATO?
The Answer comes from the Horse’s Mouth.
But the Horse’s Mouth concept does not seem to be on the agenda of this Conference.
Speaking on behalf of NATO, what this statement implies is that US-NATO was already at war in 2014. It also tacitly acknowledges that Russia did not “initiate the war” on Ukraine in February 2022.
In a twisted irony, in his presentation to the European Parliament, Stoltenberg portrays “the purpose” of the Ukraine war, which has resulted in more than 300,000 casualties as a means “to prevent war”.
At the NATO summit, we agreed new plans for the defence of the whole Alliance. We also agreed to establish and identify more high readiness troops, 300,000 troops on different levels of high readiness, and also have more air and naval capabilities, ready to quickly reinforce if needed.
The purpose of this is to prevent war. The purpose of this is to ensure that NATO continues to be the most successful Alliance in history because we have prevented any military attack on any NATO Allies. And when there’s a full-fledged war going on in Europe, then it becomes even more important that we have credible deterrence and by strengthening our deterrence and defence, we are preventing war, preserving peace for NATO Allies, because there’s no room for miscalculation.
And the third thing was that NATO Allies have really now demonstrated that they are delivering on the commitment we made in 2014, because the war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014. The full-fledged invasion happened last year, but the war, the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia went into eastern Donbas in 2014. (emphasis added)
What Stoltenberg fails to acknowledge is US-NATO’s role in triggering the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre which was conducive “in the name of Western democracy” to a “regime change”: namely the instatement of a Neo-Nazi puppet regime in Kiev.
US-NATO is firmly embedded in the Kiev regime’s Neo-Nazi project the objective of which is to destroy Ukraine as well wage war on Russia.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, , June 12, 2024
NATO Says “War Started in 2014”.
“Fake Pretext” to Wage War against Russia?
To Invoke Article 5 of Atlantic Treaty?
by
Michel Chossudovsky
August 27, 2023
Introduction
This article addresses the implications of a controversial statement by NATO to the effect that the Ukraine War “didn’t start in 2022”,“The war started in 2014”
It’s a Bombshell: NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed (speaking on behalf of NATO) that the “war didn’t start in 2022”.
In an interview with The Washington Post (May 9, 2023), Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally confirmedthat “the war started in 2014″.
Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
What he bears out is that the beginning of the Ukraine war coincided with a U.S. sponsored Coup d’état, confirmed by Victoria’s Nuland‘s “F**k the EU telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt in February 2014. (see below)
Part I of this article examines the legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statement on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
Of crucial significance: Having stated that “the war started in 2014”, NATO can no longer claim that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) of February 24, 2022 constitutes, from a legal standpoint, “an invasion”.
Part I also addresses the issue of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Parti II focuses on Stoltenberg’s twisted statement that Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty could be invoked as means to declare war against Russia.
“Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring that an attack on one member state is “to be an attack against all NATO members.” Article 5 is NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.
In regards to the invocation of Article V in relation to Russia, a justification or fake “pretext” was mentioned by Stoltenberg in his interview with the Washington Post.
Were Article V to be invoked, this would inevitably precipitate the World into a WWIII scenario, consisting of a war whereby all 30 member states of the Atlantic Alliance, most of which are members of the European Union would be involved.
.
Part I
Legal Implications
The legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statements are far-reaching. Speaking on behalf of NATO, he has acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
“The war started in 2014“, which intimates that the war was launched in 2014, with US-NATO directly involved from the very outset:
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.
.
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.
Stoltenberg also confirmed that US-NATO’s intent from the outset in 2014 was to integrate the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime as a full member of NATO.
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?
Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide.
1. The Legality of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”
Inasmuch as the war had commenced and has been ongoing since 2014 as confirmed by Stoltenberg, Russia’s Special Military Operation cannot be categorized as an “illegal invasion” (under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). The latter states that members of the UN shall refrain: “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” …
Inasmuch as the war started in 2014, Art 2(4) applies to both the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and well as US-NATO which was behind the February 2014 illegal Coup D’état.
What this implies is that from a legal standpoint, US-NATO on behalf and in coordination with the US sponsored Neo-Nazi Kiev regime had initiated a de facto undeclared war against Luhansk and Donesk.
From a legal standpoint, this was not “An Act of War against Russia”. Led by US-NATO, this was an “Act of War against Ukraine and the People of Ukraine”.
Putin’s February 24, 2022 Statement
As we recall President Putin had defined a Special Military Operation (SMO) in support of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The stated objective was to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine.
Article 51 of the UN Charter which was referred to by President Putin in his February 24, 2022 speech confirms the following:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, …
Russia’s SMO complies with the exercise of self defense. Putin in his speech (February 24, 2022) referred to:
“the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.
I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”
.
2. “NeoCons Endorse NeoNazis”: U.S. Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état. An Illegal and Criminal Act Supported by US-NATO
What Stoltenberg intimated in his interview with the WP (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO Initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal US Supported February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat which was then conducive to the instatement of a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
The grim realities were otherwise. The forbidden truth was that US-NATO had engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a US-NATO proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis, which was conducive to the removal and brutal demise of the elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The staged EuroMaidan Protest Movement initiated in November 2013 was led by the two Nazi parties, with Dmytro Yarosh, of the Right Sector (Pravy Sector) playing a key role as leader of the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary. He had called for disbanding the Party of the regions and the Communist Party.
Right Sector, EuroMaidan February 11, 2014
The shootings of protesters by snipers were coordinated by Yarosh’s Brown Shirts and Andriy Parubiy leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.
Of significance there was a leaked telephone conversation (February 2014) between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Commissioner Catherine Ashton, which confirmed that “the snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders [NeoNazis]”.
Video: Leaked Conversation: Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton
Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet tells Catherine Ashton the following (excerpts):
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition [Parubiy and Yarosh].”
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.”
“[Dr. Olga Bogomolets] then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new [Neo-Nazi] coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (quoted by Mahdi Nazemoroaya, Global Research, March 18, 2014, emphasis added)
Foreign Minister’s Urmas Paet’s statements (above) are corroborated by A Kiev Post (March 13, 2014) report:
“Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine’s current government [Neo-Nazi Kiev regime] for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.
Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.
Yankimenko says that Parubiy [leader of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party], as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received direct orders from the U.S. government. …
“These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives of the United States,” he says. “They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn’t a day when they did not visit the embassy.”…
“From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine,” says Yakimenko. “It was tens of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies.” He says that right after such shipments crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan. (emphasis added)
On a personal note, I lived through two of the most deadly U.S. military coups in Latin America: as Visiting Professor in Chile in 1973(Gen. Augusto Pinochet) and then in Argentina in 1976 (Gen. Jorge Videla and “La Guerra Sucia”).
In comparison, the criminal acts and atrocities (Neo-Nazi sniper killings) committed by the US sponsored EuroMaidan are beyond description.
The Central Role of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party
As outlined above, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in the EuroMaidan massacre. Andriy Parubiy (image right) is the co-founder together with Oleh Tyahnybok of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda). Parubiy was first appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) by the Kiev regime. (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence.
He subsequently (2015-2019) became Vice-Chair and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) shifting into the realm of international diplomacy on behalf of the Neo-Nazi regime.
In the course of his career, Parubiy developed numerous contacts in North America and Europe, with members of the European Parliament. He was invited to Washington on several occasions, meeting up (already in 2015) with Sen. John McCain (chair) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was also invited to Ottawa, meeting up with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in 2016.
Victoria Nuland and Andriy Parubiy, 2018
The Role of Victoria Nuland
Victoria Nuland, acting on behalf of the US State Department was directly involved in “suggesting” key appointments.
While the Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a cabinet position, members of the two neo-Nazi parties (namely Svoboda (Freedom Party) and The Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) were granted key positions in the areas of Defense, National Security and Law Enforcement.
The Neo Nazis also controlled the judicial process with the appointment of Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda Party (on February 22, 2014) to the position of prosecutor-general. What kind of justice would prevail with a renowned Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?
Video: F**k the EU. Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation
(Leaked Online on February 4, 2014, Exact Date of Conversation Unconfirmed, Three weeks prior to the demise of President Yanukovych on February 21-22, 2014)
Transcript of Conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, on YouTube
source of transcript: BBC
“Warning: This transcript contains swearing”
Voice thought to be Nuland’s: What do you think?
Voice thought to be Pyatt’s: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, who subsequently became Prime Minister], another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok], the other opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
image: Tyannybok (leader of Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party (left), Yatseniuk (right)
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think… I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now,
I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden’s willing.
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.”
3. U.S.-NATO Military Aid and Support (2014-2023) to a Full Fledged Neo-Nazi Proxy Regime is an Illegal and Criminal Act.
There is ample evidence of collaboration between the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and NATO member states, specifically in relation to the continuous flow of military aid as well the training and support provided to the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
Collaborating with a Neo-Nazi regime is criminal under international law. Anti-Nazi laws exist in a number of European countries.
“In the aftermath of World War II, the National Socialist Party (the Nazi party) of Germany was considered a criminal organization and therefore banned.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 likewise ruled that the Nazi Party was a criminal organization.”
Since 2014, Ukraine’s Neo-nazi regime has been generously funded by several NATO member states.
The Nazi Azov Battalion was from the outset integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard which is under the jurisdiction of Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The Azov battalion has (2015) been trained by the U.S. Canada and the UK. ““The US contingent of instructors includes 290 specialists … Britain has dispatched 75 military personnel responsible for training “in command procedures and tactical intelligence”. (Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2015).
The training program was coupled with the influx of military equipment under a program of so-called “non-lethal” military aid.
In turn, the Azov battalion –which is the object of military aid, has also been involved in the conduct of Summer Nazi training Camps for children and adolescents.
The Azov battalion’s Summer Camps are supported by US military aid channelled to the Ukraine National Guard via the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The MIA coordinates the “anti-terrorism operation” (ATO) in Donbass.
Media Propaganda
The Sunday Times confirms that the children and adolescents are eventually slated to be recruited in the National Guard, which was integrated into the Ukrainian Military in 2016. The Guardian casually dismisses the criminal nature of the Azov Battalion’s Summer Camp for children (which bears the Nazi WolfAngel SS insignia):
“In Ukraine, the far-right Azov militia is fighting on the frontline – and running a summer camp for children. The Guardian visited the camp and followed 16-year-old Anton through his experiences. Is Azov really a modern Hitler Youth organisation, or is it trying to prepare young Ukrainians for the tough reality that awaits them?” (To view the video click here Guardian, emphasis added)
The following image is revealing, from Left to Right: the Blue NATO flag, the Azov Battalion’s Wolfangel SS of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Swastika (red and white background) are displayed, which points to collaboration between NATO and the Neo-Nazi regime.
4. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
Inasmuch as “the war started in 2014”, Stoltenberg’s statements confirm that US-NATO were supportive of Ukraine’s artillery and missile bombardments of Donbass which resulted in more than 14,000 deaths of civilians, including children.
Stoltenberg’s admission on behalf of NATO that “the war started in 2014” would have required that from the very outset in February 2014 the warring parties including their allies abide by the Four Basic Principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which consist in:
“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]
Civilian population (children) and civilian objects (schools, hospitals, residential areas) were the deliberate object of UAF and Azov Battalion attacks in blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
In accordance with the LOAC, Moscow took the decision starting in February 2014 to come to the rescue of Donbass civilians including children. Visibly the president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski in accusing President Putin of “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children” hasn’t the foggiest understanding of Article 48. of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Is this an issue of incompetence? Or has Piotr Hofmanski been co-opted into endorsing crimes against humanity?
In derogation of The Law of Armed Conflict, US-NATO bears the responsibility for having endorsed the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which was involved in the conduct of atrocities against civilians.
Part II
Is NATO Intent upon
Invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty
as a Means to Declaring War on Russia?
Dangerous Crossroads
There are ambiguous statements by Stoltenberg (in his interview with the Washington Post) which suggest that the invocation of Article 5 is on the US-NATO drawing board.
Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty constitutes NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…”.
Article V was invoked in March 1999, based on a “fabricated pretext” to bomb and invade Yugoslavia.
It was subsequently invoked on September 12, 2001 by the Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels as a justification to declare war on Afghanistan, on the grounds that an unnamed foreign power had attacked America on September 11, 2001.
In both cases (Yugoslavia and Afghanistan), “fabricated pretexts” were used to justify the invocation of Article V.
Fabricating A Pretext to Wage War on Russia?
While Stoltenberg firmly acknowledges that “Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO triggering Article 5″, he nonetheless intimates that NATO is prepared to invoke Article 5 against Russia, based on a fabricated pretext (e.g attack on “undersea infrastructure”), thereby potentially leading to a World War III scenario.
Lee Hockstader. WP: Would a Russian attack on critical infrastructure like undersea cables owned by NATO members or companies cause the invocation of NATO’s Article 5?
Stoltenberg: That’s for NATO to decide. We are now looking into how can we do more when it comes to sharing intelligence, including with the private sector, to detect any potential threats. …
We’ve seen over the last years that Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO, triggering Article 5, but they’re trying to operate below the Article 5 threshold. Meaning with hybrid, cyber, covert actions. And, of course, attacks against undersea infrastructure — it’s easy to deny because it’s hard to monitor. (emphasis added)
Stoltenberg’s reference to “undersea infrastructure” intimates that Russia was behind the sabotage of Nord Stream in September 2022, which had been ordered by President Biden with the acceptance of Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
What the above statements suggest is that the invocation of Article 5 as well as the use of “a pretext” to wage war on Russia are being discussed behind closed doors.
Stoltenberg claims that NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine (aka the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime) while “preventing escalation” through “increased military presence” as well as confirming that “we are not part of the conflict”:
Stoltenberg: NATO has fundamentally two tasks in the war. One is to support Ukraine, as we do. The other is to prevent escalation. And we prevent escalation by making absolutely clear that we are not party to the conflict, and by increasing military presence in the eastern part of [the] alliance as we have done — with 40,000 troops under NATO command backed by substantial naval and air forces.
Contradictory statement: Is “Preventing Escalation” contemplated by Invoking Article 5?
Among NATO Member States, there are both “Allies” and “Enemies”
It is worth noting that in the course of the last two years, several of America’s European “allies” (NATO member states) whose corrupt politicians are supportive of the Ukraine war, have been the victims of de facto U.S. sponsored acts of economic warfare including the sabotage of Nord Stream.
The EU economy which has relied on cheap energy from Russia is in a shambles, marked by disruptions in the entire fabric of industrial production (manufacturing), transportation and commodity trade..
Specifically this applies to actions against Germany, Italy and France, which have resulted in the destabilization of their national economies and the impoverishment of their population.
And Germany’s Chancellor was fully aware that an act of sabotage against Nord Stream had been envisaged by the US, to the detriment of more than 400 million Europeans.
A string of corporate bankruptcies resulting in lay-offs and unemployment is unfolding across the European Union. Small and medium sized enterprises are slated to be wiped off the map: “Rocketing energy costs are savaging German industry”… “Germany’s manufacturing industry — which accounts for more than one fifth of the country’s economic output — is worried some of its companies won’t see the crisis through. ….
“Industry behemoths like Volkswagen (VLKAF) and Siemens (SIEGY) are grappling with supply chain bottlenecks too, but it is Germany’s roughly 200,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers who are less able to withstand the shock [of rising energy prices]”
”
“Collective Defense”
In a bitter irony, many of the NATO member states (who are categorized as “allies” under the Atlantic Alliance’s Collective Defense Clause) are the “de facto enemies” of America, victims of U.S. economic warfare.
The practice of so-called Collective Defense under Article 5 constitutes a process of mass recruitment by the 30 NATO member states, largely on behalf of Washington’s hegemonic agenda. It was applied twice in NATO’s history: in March 1999 against Yugoslavia and in October 2001 against Afghanistan.
It constitutes on the part of Washington not only a means to recruit soldiers on a massive scale, but also to ensure that NATO member states contribute financially to America’s hegemonic wars: In other words:
“to do the fighting for us on our behalf” or “They will do the Dirty Work for Us” (Dick Cheney).
What is important is to initiate a coordinated grass-roots movement in all NATO member states to withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance
Neo-Nazism and the Atlantic Alliance
This article has addressed the Unspoken Truth, which we have known all along, from the very outset: “The War Started in 2014”. This statement –which is now acknowledged by NATO–, was the basis of my detailed analysis.
My conclusions are as follows:
The Atlantic Alliance has no legitimacy. It is a criminal entity which must be repealed.
US-NATO is responsible for extensive crimes committed against the People of Ukraine.
What is required is a Worldwide campaign at all levels of society, with a view to eventually dismantling the Atlantic Alliance, while promoting an immediate cease fire and meaningful peace negotiations in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 27, 2023
Historical Addendum:
The War against Russia Started in January 1918.
From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 106 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918, (two months following the November 7, 1917 revolution allegedly in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).
The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War.
It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I dispatched 70,000 troops.
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.
Until 2014, NATO allies were reducing defense budgets. Since 2014, all allies across Europe and Canada have significantly increased their defense spending. And we have modernized our command structure, we have more exercises, we have established new military domains like cyber.
So in totality, this is a huge transformation of NATO that started in 2014.
…
Hockstader: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?
Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide. And thirdly, all allies agree that NATO’s door remains open. Then the question is when, and I cannot give you a timetable on that.
What I can say is that we are now working with them, to help them transition from Soviet-era equipment, doctrines and standards to NATO doctrines and standards, to make their armed forces interoperable with NATO forces, and to help them to further reform and modernize their defense and security institutions.
The urgent task now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation, because if Ukraine doesn’t prevail, then there is no issue to discuss at all.
…
Stoltenberg: NATO has fundamentally two tasks in the war. One is to support Ukraine, as we do. The other is to prevent escalation. And we prevent escalation by making absolutely clear that we are not party to the conflict, and by increasing military presence in the eastern part of [the] alliance as we have done — with 40,000 troops under NATO command backed by substantial naval and air forces.
….
Hockstader: Would a Russian attack on critical infrastructure like undersea cables owned by NATO members or companies cause the invocation of NATO’s Article 5?
Stoltenberg: That’s for NATO to decide. We are now looking into how can we do more when it comes to sharing intelligence, including with the private sector, to detect any potential threats. That’s one thing. The other is presence, military presence, as a way to deter but also to monitor.
We cannot protect every inch of every internet cable, but presence helps to reduce the risks and reduce the possibility for Russian deniability. We’ve seen over the last years that Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO, triggering Article 5, but they’re trying to operate below the Article 5 threshold. Meaning with hybrid, cyber, covert actions. And, of course, attacks against undersea infrastructure — it’s easy to deny because it’s hard to monitor.
The original source of this article is Global Research
The West’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia continues to go badly with Russian advances on all fronts and big Ukrainian troop losses.
Even worse, those who are the most belligerent political leaders (Biden, Macron and Sunak) are losing votes at home.
French President Macron lost badly in the European elections with the National Rally garnering twice as many votes as Macron’s Renaissance party. This has led to Macron calling a snap general election and there is talk of his resignation as President if he does not win.
In Hungary and Italy – two of the most anti-war countries – the incumbents won easily, although Hungary’s Orban lost seats while Italy’s Meloni gained seats. In Europe fewer than 10% think Ukraine can win the war and the majority think either Russia will win or there will be a compromise peace settlement. See this.
In the UK the Conservative party, firmly following the US neocon line on Ukraine and authorising its weapons to be used against Russian territory, is heading for a historically large defeat in the July 4th general election.
A Reminder of the Cuban Missile Crisis
While voters in the West (prospective peace-makers Trump and Robert F Kennedy in the USA are far more popular than warmonger Biden) express their fears about an escalation to an outright Russia-NATO war, recent moves by the Russian navy both recall the 1963 Cuban Missile crisis and remind the Americans of the equivalence of Russia in Cuba then and NATO in Ukraine today!
At the time Russia’s missiles in Cuba (within a few minutes flight of Washington DC) put the world on the edge of nuclear war. John F Kennedy stood firm and the missiles were withdrawn but this month, after some years of closer co-operation between Moscow and Havana a group of ships of the Russian Navy has arrived in Cuba. They include the frigate Admiral Gorshkov, as well as the nuclear submarine Kazan which is capable of carrying Zircon hypersonic missiles.
The Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long range US weapons to target Russian territory to defend the Kharkov area is causing Russia to counter by targeting the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk operating in the Black Sea.
They together with NATO AWACS aircraft, have provided constant reconnaissance for the guidance of NATO missiles targeted at Crimea and the Zaporozhye region by NATO forces in the name of Ukraine.
Such US military decisions could lead to a dangerous escalation and the prospect of direct Russian/American military confrontation.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The European Parliament (EP) election results, which are not a surprise to those who follow the course of Europe closely, but are a surprise to many, actually reflect the footprints of the global conflict on the European continent. In particular, the results in France and Germany, the two core countries of the European Union (EU), or more accurately, the strong message given by the people of these countries to the political elites, showed that change in Europe is only a matter of time.
What is referred by change here is the collapse of the EU. This collapse will happen sooner or later, so it is pointless to try to predict when it will happen. Instead, it would be much more useful to analyze the fundamental reasons that brought the political movements, which have been confirmed by these election results as candidates to be the driving force of the transformation in Continental Europe, to this point.
It was impossible not to notice for any person who has seen a little bit of Europe in the last decade and pondered on European politics
1) how European political elites have made Europe a vassal of the USA,
2) how they were disengaged from social and political realites by drowning in gender, climate, multiculturalism and identity politics, and, most importantly,
3) how they sacrificed national economies by surrendering their will to the absolute hegemony of the USA on the continent. Here, Europe’s disengagement with reality and the collapse of the EU emerged as a result of the articulation of these three rings to the chain of history. Most people in the world were not aware of this rupture and collapse, thanks to the incredible brainwashing of the mainstream global media. The AP election results brought this awareness to the world public.
First, what do we mean by Europe becoming a vassal of the USA?
What is called ‘European integration’ was actually a designation in the political literature of a very well-established mechanism for controlling the nation states in Europe in accordance with the geopolitical interests of the USA through the appointed bureaucracy (Commission) in Brussels (but many people are just now realizing this).
This ‘European integration’, a seventy-year-old story, meant that the political power holders in the member countries surrendered their legitimacy to the USA through the Commission in Brussels. This vassal relationship in fact explains us why the Commission and the governments of many EU countries unconditionally say yes to even the very simple request (order) of the USA in the Ukraine war.
Secondly, the central politics in Europe has become almost completely disconnected from social and economic problems and has become so trapped in gender and multiculturalism debates, as well as micro identity politics, that these neo-liberal policies and practices are destroying Europe’s order, which has been constructed as a result of hundreds of years of paying the price. In other words, neo-liberalism, sanctified by narrative of freedom, digged a pit for Europe and prepared its collapse. In this context, conflicts produced by fundamental cultural differences caused by illegal migrations; allowance of the refugees to appear to be occupying or taking over the country where they have been taken refuge in with some outdated mentalities, instead of ensuring their integration with well-planned strategies, had never gotten along with the sociological realities of Europe. Finally, it was faced with the fact that the neo-liberal imposition on European societies to tolerate them under the name of multiculturalism was not sustainable.
Thirdly, European politicians, who have already lost their power to resist the US hegemony over Europe, have not been able to establish the ground to recover their economies, which have been shaken since the 2008 crisis. Ongoing global vulnerabilities, the war in Ukraine and the blows dealt to European industry by the US strategy of separating Europe from Russia have increased the costs of European industrial production so much that the production costs of both basic goods, durable consumer goods and technological products have increased, and as a consequence, an inflationary environment, global uncompetitiveness, stagnation and even recession in some economies emerged. Ultimately, a distorted economic order was established in Europe, where only the interests of global financial actors and large multinational companies were taken into consideration, the purchasing power of labor declined significantly, and at this point, the states that were supposed to tackle with social and economic injustices came under the command of those multinational structures.
So, the EP election results are the reaction of the European people to this distortion.
The interesting point here is that the demands of the society, which began to be crushed under this distorted economic order, were transformed into collective reaction and votes at the polls by nationalist right-leaning parties instead of the European left. The reason for this is very simple: Since the left in Europe was completely disengaged from economic problems and class struggles and abandoned its historical role in gender, identity and climate debates, nationalist parties filled this gap. For this reason, in France, Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) became the first party with 32% of the votes, and in Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the second party, surpassing the ruling Social Democrat-Green-Liberal coalition, and the national left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) made a considerable jump. It seems that average European citizens are tired of Europe’s direct involvement in endless conflicts, inflation and decreasing wealth, gender and identity impositions of neo-liberalism, socio-cultural conflicts created by unplanned migration, and the global policies of the USA, and they are turning to nationalist parties that understand these complaints well enough.
These results point to a significant change in Europe’s future political landscape that will profoundly influence economic, migration and security policies.
The nationalist tendency, which has become a wave in Europe, is also likely to trigger a change in the US presidential elections in November, as the latest polls in the USA showing that Trump is ahead of Biden, especially after the latest verdict of conviction. In the case of Trump becoming president again in the USA, Le Pen’s presidency in France before 2027, and AfD’s march to power in Germany has now become a serious scenario.
The election results and the increasing possibility of this scenario coming true are the explict sign that the EU dream is coming to an end, and the course of history (which may be interrupted for a while by war) shows that Le Pen in France and the AfD in Germany will hand in hand dissolve the EU!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Все статьи Global Research можно прочитать на 51 языке, активировав кнопку Перевода на веб-сайте под именем автора (доступна только в настольной версии).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
These are the words of Serbia’s President Aleksander Vucic. He ought to know. He is in the middle of it. He thinks Europe will be at war with Russia in “not more than three or four months,” if that long.
President Vucic says “no one is attempting to stop the war. Nobody is speaking about peace. Peace is almost a forbidden word.” Scroll down for text and 5 minute video
Hungarian leader Viktor Orban has a similar view as does Slovakian president Robert Fico, who survived a recent assassination attempt.
In Western Europe, UK, and Washington everyone is talking about wider war with long range missiles used for attacks deep into Russia. Such attacks cannot revive the defeated Ukrainian military. Their purpose seems to be to provoke Russia into a retaliation that Washington can use to widen the war.
President Vucic is correct. The West is making no effort–indeed, is avoiding all effort–to defuse the dangerous situation. Instead, the West is throwing oil on fire with long range missile attacks and French troops sent into Ukraine.
It has been completely clear from day one that Putin’s limited drawn-out war enabled the West to get more and more involved into the conflict to the point that the conflict now is really between the West and Russia. As President Vucic says, the West’s prestige is now involved and the West cannot permit Russia to prevail.
It seems that Putin might have finally realized that the war is no longer limited to Donbas and has become a wider threat that is not subject to negotiation on terms that Russia can accept.
Now that Putin is backed into a corner with the prospect of NATO missiles striking deep into Russia, President Vucic’s expectation that war is close at hand is understandable. The way matters are shaping up, the avoidance of war depends on how many provocations the Kremlin will accept and for how long. Putin needs to quickly knock Ukraine out of the war before Ukraine fills up with NATO military personnel.
Zelensky’s term has expired, making him illegitimate. Russian forces should quickly take Kiev, install a new government agreeable to Ukraine as a neutral country and to the reunification of Donbas with Russia.
I don’t know if Putin still has time to avoid a larger war by quickly winning the current conflict or whether Putin has been fighting on the cheap and lacks the force size to take Kiev and control the country.
If Putin has been too limited in his goal and too parsimonious with his means, he has bought himself a wider war.
*
The original source of this article is Global Research
Introduction. Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland, June 15-16, 2024
“Nearly 90 countries and organizations, half from Europe, have confirmed attending the Swiss-hosted Ukraine peace summit” to which Russia was not invited.
Switzerland’s “President Viola Amherd told reporters that the conference
French President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz are slated to play a key role.
This Conference sponsored by the Swiss Government (15-16 June, 2024) has the appearances of a somewhat chaotic public relations ploy rather than a peace initiative.
In a bitter irony, the two Neo-Nazi parties of Ukraine’s so-called coalition government are actively supported by our governments.
The history and nature of the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime are not addressed. The dominant Nazi faction within the Kiev government exerts its power in the realm of intelligence, internal affairs, national security and the military.
It’s a proxy regime in liaison with its U.S.-NATO sponsors.
In Part I of this article the issue of Holocaust Denial is addressed: Our governments –which claim to be firmly committed to social democracy– are actively supporting and financing a coalition government which is supportive of Ukraine’s Nazi movement which collaborated with Nazi Germany’s occupation forces during World War II. The evidence is overwhelming.
Specifically, the German penal codeprohibits “Denial of the Holocaust” as well as the “dissemination of Nazi propaganda”.
We are dealing with something far more serious than Nazi “hate speech”, namely the relationship of the German Government with the Kiev regime’s Nazi Movement.
See also the Resolution of the UN General Assembly, dated January 2022 quoted in above document.
Unquestionably, the German Government of Chancellor Scholz’s decision to support the Kiev regime’s Nazi Movement constitutes a criminal act under German law., namely the violation of. the Penal Code.
While Western governments are actively repressing the protest movements against Israel’s act of genocide, —with mass arrests on charges of antisemitism—, these same governments are supporting Ukraine’s Nazi movement which actively participated and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the genocide directed against the Jewish population of Ukraine. (1941-1944)
Michel Chossudovsky, June 12, 2024
This article addresses the following issues
Part I: The Role of the Ukraine’s Neo Nazi Parties and their links to Nazi Germany
Part II: Adolph Hitler is “The Torchbearer of Democracy” in Ukraine
The Role of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Parties and their Links to Nazi Germany
by
Michel Chossudovsky
April 21, 2024
Introduction
The Neo-Nazi parties of Ukraine’s so-called coalition government are actively supported by “the international community” namely our governments.
The Nazi faction within the Kiev government exerts its power in the realm of intelligence, internal affairs, national security and the military. It’s a proxy regime in liaison with its U.S.-NATO sponsors.
Andriy Parubiy founded in 1991 the Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda [Freedom], together with Oleh Tyahnybok. The name Social-National Party was chosen with a view toreplicating the name of Hitler’s Nazi (National Socialist) party.
Parubiy was subsequently appointed Chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament (Verkhovna Rada).
According to Andriy Parubiy: Adolf Hitler was “the torchbearer of democracy”. (See Part II below)
The two Neo-Nazi parties of Ukraine’s so-called coalition government are actively supported by “the international community” namely our governments.
The U.S. Congress has allocated more than 60 billion dollars in military aid, which will in large part be managed by Kiev regime’s Nazi faction which exerts its power in the realm of intelligence, internal affairs, national security and the military, in liaison with its U.S.-NATO sponsors.
Nazism and the History of World War II
These are not “Neo-Nazi” entities. The term “Neo” (“New”) is misleading. They are full-fledged Nazi parties, historically aligned (going back to World War II) with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) of Stepan Bandera(OUN-B)
“Before World War II, the 1.5 million Jews living in the Soviet republic of Ukraine constituted the largest Jewish population within the Soviet Union, and one of the largest Jewish populations in Europe. … The number of Jews in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic (UkrSSR) rose to 2.45 million people [from 1939-1941]”
Amply documented the OUN-B and its National Insurgent Army (UPA) were actively involved in the massacres of Jews, Poles, Communists and Roma in major cities including Odessa and Kiev.
At the outset of Operation Barbarossa, (June, 22 1941) in coordination with the death squads (Einsatzgruppen) of Nazi Germany, members ofthe OUN-B were instrumental in the killings in the City of Lviv, Western region of Galicia, resulting inthe massacre and deportation of more than 100,000 Jews:
While Stepan Bandera had announced the creation of a Nazi Ukrainian State, which pledged “to work with Nazi Germany”, Adolf Hitler disapproved of the proclamation. Despite Bandera’s “house arrest”, the members of OUN-B actively collaborated with the Wehrmacht’s occupation forces (1941-1944).
In Ukraine: “..up to a million Jews were murdered by Einsatzgruppen units, Police battalions, Wehrmacht troops and local Nazi collaborators” (emphasis added)
On September, 1 1941, the Nazi-sponsored Ukrainian newspaper Volhyn wrote, in an article titled Let’s Conquer the City, namely Lviv:
“All elements that reside in our land, whether they are Jews or Poles, must be eradicated.
We are at this very moment resolving the Jewish question, and this resolution is part of the plan for the Reich’s total reorganization of Europe.
The empty space that will be created, must immediately and irrevocably be filled by the real owners and masters of this land, the Ukrainian people”.(emphasis added)
The map below is the territory under Nazi Germany occupation (1942) extending from Galicia to Kiev and Odessa.
It indicates cities with Jewish ghettoes, the locations of major massacres.
In this regard, the Janowska concentration camp was established in the outskirts of Lviv in September 1941.
Lviv had a Jewish population of 160,000. The Janowska camp combined “elements of labor, transit, and extermination”.
Our governments are aligned and supportive of Ukraine’s Nazi Movement which collaborated with Nazi Germany and was actively involved in crimes against humanity (1941-1944).
Vidéo (en français): Guerre et Paix; Made in America
Holocaust Denial?
The OUN-B was complicit in the crimes of Nazi Germany. Our governments –which claim to be firmly committed to social democracy– are actively supporting a Ukrainian Nazi movement which collaborated with Nazi Germany’s occupation forces during World War II.
That is the unspoken truth which is embedded in our history, casually ignored by both the media and Western Europe’s “Classe politique”.
By ignoring the World War II legacy of Stepan Bandera’s OUN-B and casually describing him as an anti-Soviet Nationalist, both the mainstream media as well as our governments, are complicit in what might be described as “Holocaust Denial”.
Specifically, the German penal codeprohibits “Denial of the Holocaust” as well as the “dissemination of Nazi propaganda”. We are dealing with something far more serious than hate speech, namely the relationship of the German Government with Ukraine’s Nazi Movement.
Unquestionably, the German Government of Chancellor Scholz’s decision to support Ukraine’s Nazi Movement constitutes a criminal act under German law., namely the violation of. the Penal Code.
Who is Practicing Antisemitism?
While Western governments are actively repressing the protest movements against Israel’s act of genocide, —with mass arrests on charges of antisemitism—, these same governments are supporting Ukraine’s Nazi movement which actively participated and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the genocide directed against the Jewish population of Ukraine.
Sounds contradictory?
My question is: Who are the Anti-semites? The answer is obvious. Our governments, which are financing the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
From a legal standpoint, this is a criminal act on the part of Western governments.
Moreover, the funds allocated by the US Congress (April 2024) to Ukraine ($60 billion +) and Israel ($22 billion +), are in blatant violation of the Genocide Convention. (See below)
The Contracting Parties [member States of the U.N.] confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II of the Convention defines Genocide as
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III, section (e) defines the acts which are punishable including
(e) Complicity in genocide.(which applies to Western governments which are supporting Israel)
Article IV
“Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III [Article III (e)] shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
“Complicity in Genocide” (Art. III). Our Governments “Shall be Punished” (Art. IV) ?
Articles I, III and IV
By endorsing Israel’s act of genocide against the People of Palestine, our governments which are “contracting parties”) are “complicit” according to Article III (e) of the Genocide Convention.
Under Articles III and IV, Western governments (“constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials”) which endorse Israel’s act of genocide are subject to punishment under the Genocide Convention.
Is Netanyahu Antisemitic?
Western governments are not only supporting Israel’s act of genocide, they are in collusion with Prime Minister Netanyahu who has an extensive criminal record(charges of corruption according to the NYT)
While the genocidal actions taken by his government against the People of Palestine are of a criminal nature under the Genocide Convention, they are also considered as an act of anti-semitism directed against the People of Palestine.
The Semite people of the Levant, Mesopotamia and the broader Middle East share a common history, culture and similar languages, broadly including Arabs, Jews, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians.
Bear in mind that Aramea (similar to Arabic and Hebrew) was the language of communication at the outset of Christianity. It was the language of Jesus Christ.
Produced by Oliver Stone
For carefully documented details on the crimes committed by the OUN on behalf of Nazi Germany, view the movie (executive producer Oliver Stone). click below
Flash Forward: Collaborating with Today’s Nazis
There is ample evidence of collaboration between the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and NATO member states, specifically in relation to the continuous flow of military aid as well as the training and support provided to Ukrainian forces, not to mention the Nazi Azov Battalion.
In turn, the Azov battalion –which is the object of military aid, has also been involved in the conduct of Summer Nazi training Camps for children and adolescents.
The Azov battalion’s Summer Camps are supported by US military aid channelled to the Ukraine National Guard via the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The MIA coordinates the “anti-terrorism operation” (ATO) in Donbass.
Today these children -who have been duly indoctrinated- are adolescents who are being drafted to serve in the Armed Forces and/or the Azov Battalion.
Neo-Nazi Parties are Illegal
While Neo-Nazi parties are outlawed in a number of European countries including Germany where symbols and Nazi slogans are illegal, the governments of NATO-EU member states are routinely supporting Nazism in Ukraine.
The following image is revealing, from Left to Right:
the Blue NATO flag,
the Azov Battalion’s Wolfangel SS of the Third Reich,
Hitler’s Nazi Swastika (red and white background)
are displayed which points to collaboration between NATO and Ukraine’s Nazi regime.
Our Message to Western Governments
Who are the Anti-semites? The answer is obvious. Our governments, who are financing the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
Collaborating with a Nazi regime is a criminal act under international law.
Providing 60+ billion dollars of military aid to a Nazi government is illegal. It’s the criminalization of the US Congress.
Supporting Israel’s Genocide against the People of Palestine is a Crime against Humanity. Our governments are in violation of the Genocide Convention.
By endorsing Israel’s act of genocide against the People of Palestine, our governments (which are “contracting parties”) are “complicit” according to Article III (e) of the Genocide Convention.
Under Articles III and IV, Western governments (“constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials”) which have endorsed Israel’s act of genocide are subject to punishment under the Genocide Convention.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 5, 2024
Adolph Hitler is Ukraine’s “Torchbearer of Democracy”
According to Chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament (2016-2019)
Michel Chossudovsky
September 7, 2017
(minor revisions of 2017 article)
No Outrage or Media Coverage by Ukraine’s Staunchest Allies.
Kiev Regime Speaker of the House “Is Not a Nazi”. Ukraine is “A Flowering of Democracy” according to the NYT
On September 4, 2018 the Chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) Andriy Parubiy’s intimated that Adolf Hitler was “the torchbearer of democracy”.
His statement was broadcast on Ukraine’s ICTV channel. Parubiy described Adolf Hitler as a true proponent of democracy claiming that the Führer “practiced direct democracy in the 1930s.” (Tass, September 5, 2018).
“I’m a major supporter of direct democracy,… By the way, I tell you that the biggest man, who practised a direct democracy, was Adolf Aloizovich [Hitler]”. (quoted by South Front)
This controversial statement, with some exceptions was not picked up by the Western press. Lies by omission.
Why? Because the Kiev regime (including its Armed Forces and National Guard) is integrated by Nazi elements which are supported by the US and its allies.
Parubiy has been given red carpet treatment by Western governments. He is casually portrayed as a right wing politician rather than an avowed Nazi.
Embarrassment or Denial?
The US Congress, Canada’s Parliament, the British Parliament, the European Parliament, have invited and praised M. Parubiy.
Parubiy with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (Obama Adminstration)
Received by the Canadian Parliament
Parubiy with President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law, Gianni Buquicchio, June, 2017
Max Blumenthal on Parubiy’s meeting with members of the American Foreign Policy Council, July 2, 2018
“At a packed meeting in the Senate, the Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal asked organizers whether it was appropriate for Congress and the American Foreign Policy Society to be coddling the founder of two neo-Nazi parties. The response his questions elicited ranged from bizarre to deeply troubling.”
June 15, 2018, two of the most influential Republicans in Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain, meet Parubiy in Washington. (Max Blumenthal report)
The Opposition Bloc faction in Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, has demanded public condemnation as well as the resignation of the Chairman of the Rada Andriy Parubiy..
Who is Andriy Parubiy? Why Do Western Politicians Love Him?
Parubiy founded in 1991 the Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda [Freedom], together with Oleh Tyahnybok, who currently heads the Svoboda party. The name Social-National Party was chosen with a view to replicating the name of Hitler’s Nazi (National Socialist) party
DmytroYarosh (Centre) EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat
Parubiy was ‘Commandant’ of the volunteer rebel forces together with DmytroYarosh (head of the Right Sector, image above) and Oleh Tyanhnybok.
These neo-Nazi insurgent forces were involved in the ‘Euromaidan’ coup d’Etat in early 2014, which led to the overthrow of president Viktor Yanukovych. All three neo-Nazi leaders are followers of Ukraine’s Nazi Stepan Bandera (see image below), who collaborated in the mass murder of Jews and Poles during World War II.
Nazi Rally supportive of Stepan Bandera.
Confirmed by [former] Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, key organizations in the Ukraine including the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda were generously supported by Washington: “We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. … We will continue to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”
The Western media has casually avoided to analyze the composition and ideological underpinnings of the government coalition. The word “Neo-Nazi” is a taboo. It has been excluded from the dictionary of mainstream media commentary. It will not appear in the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post or The Independent. Journalists have been instructed not to use the term “Neo-Nazi” to designate Svoboda and the Right Sector. (see Michel Chossudovsky, March 7 2014)
In 2014 Andriy Parubiy was appointed (by the Kiev government) Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. While he was dismissed a few months later (August 2014),
Parubiy together with Dmytro Yarosh played a key role in shaping Ukraine’s National Guard as a Nazi Force using Nazi insignia. Despite his dismissal by Poroshenko he continues to exert influence in military and intelligence affairs. As Chairman of the Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) Parubiy is entitled (ex officio) to attend all meetings of the RNBOU.
The Azov National Guard
While the media failed to cover Parubiy’s statement concerning Adolph Hitler’s commitment to democracy, they nonetheless have expressed “concern” regarding the influx of US, Canadian military aid, which might fall in the wrong hands, according to Canada’s National Post. (2015 report)
Fake News Coverup of America’s Neo-Nazi Ally. Lies through omission.
According to a New York Times March 2014 report published in the immediate wake of the Maidan coup:
The West’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia continues to go badly with Russian advances on all fronts and big Ukrainian troop losses.
Even worse, those who are the most belligerent political leaders (Biden, Macron and Sunak) are losing votes at home.
French President Macron lost badly in the European elections with the National Rally garnering twice as many votes as Macron’s Renaissance party. This has led to Macron calling a snap general election and there is talk of his resignation as President if he does not win.
In Hungary and Italy – two of the most anti-war countries – the incumbents won easily, although Hungary’s Orban lost seats while Italy’s Meloni gained seats. In Europe fewer than 10% think Ukraine can win the war and the majority think either Russia will win or there will be a compromise peace settlement. See this.
In the UK the Conservative party, firmly following the US neocon line on Ukraine and authorising its weapons to be used against Russian territory, is heading for a historically large defeat in the July 4th general election.
A Reminder of the Cuban Missile Crisis
While voters in the West (prospective peace-makers Trump and Robert F Kennedy in the USA are far more popular than warmonger Biden) express their fears about an escalation to an outright Russia-NATO war, recent moves by the Russian navy both recall the 1963 Cuban Missile crisis and remind the Americans of the equivalence of Russia in Cuba then and NATO in Ukraine today!
At the time Russia’s missiles in Cuba (within a few minutes flight of Washington DC) put the world on the edge of nuclear war. John F Kennedy stood firm and the missiles were withdrawn but this month, after some years of closer co-operation between Moscow and Havana a group of ships of the Russian Navy has arrived in Cuba. They include the frigate Admiral Gorshkov, as well as the nuclear submarine Kazan which is capable of carrying Zircon hypersonic missiles.
The Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long range US weapons to target Russian territory to defend the Kharkov area is causing Russia to counter by targeting the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk operating in the Black Sea.
They together with NATO AWACS aircraft, have provided constant reconnaissance for the guidance of NATO missiles targeted at Crimea and the Zaporozhye region by NATO forces in the name of Ukraine.
Such US military decisions could lead to a dangerous escalation and the prospect of direct Russian/American military confrontation.
This follows the Ukraine/American drone attack on the most sensitive Russian nuclear Early Warning System at Armavir. As Dr. Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote:
The drones were guided to their targets using US aerial and satellite reconnaissance (they have to take multiple evasive actions in the course of their flights to evade Russian radar systems, and this can only be supplied via real-time targeting information provided by the US). The operators of the drones were likely mercenaries trained in the US or out-of-uniform US troops. Russia knows this and so it considers this a US attack on its nuclear Early Warning System.
The attack was reckless beyond comprehension. ANY such attacks against the EWS system used to protect Russia from a nuclear attack can justify, under Russian law, a nuclear retaliatory strike.
Justifying the gravest doubts about Biden’s frequent claims that the USA does not want war with Russia, NATO has published plans for transporting troops across western Europe in the event of a war with Russia: see this.
France recently announced it will deploy military trainers to Ukraine and donate Mirage 2000 fighter jets – and training their Ukrainian pilots. NATO allies, including Belgium, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, committed to dispatching about 80 U.S.-made F-16 fighters to Ukraine.
If these F16s are stationed in Ukraine they will be easy targets on the ground but if they are flown from neighbouring countries like Romania then those airfields could be targeted and trigger a NATO response under the mutual defence clause Article 5.
Countries Supplying Weapons to Strike Russian Territory
Given the blatant interventions of NATO countries not only with weapons systems but with trained operatives on the ground in Ukraine and targeting and missile guidance systems President Putin is considering an equivalent involvement in other parts of the world.
“We are thinking that if someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where there will be strikes on the sensitive facilities of those countries that are doing this against Russia? We will think about this.”
There are several possibilities including North Korea (attacks on South Korea) and Iran (attacks on the UK in Cyprus or US gulf fleet).
Ukraine Mutiny
A video has appeared which gives a snapshot of the Ukraine army’s mobilisation, loss of troops, lack of training, low morale and disloyalty. Three Ukrainian soldiers are talking on a train:
We had 20% of the brigade left, the rest were dead. They wouldn’t even let us take their bodies.
(Another voice): Because they didn’t want to pay for them.
(Another voice): People are caught in the street and pushed to fight but they don’t know how to fight. And that’s it. No equipment, no ammunition, no arms. I tell you frankly if it were up to me I think so my brothers I think so we would go to Kiev with the Russians and all this would have been over a long time ago.
The madness of this war grows as inadequate political players become more hysterical by the day. Only voters can put an end to this grave crisis. In elections in 2024 they are at last reacting.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Freenations.
Im Video vom 4.6.2024 hat Prof. Stefan Homburg die nun fast ganz entschwärzten RKI-Protokolle analysiert und wesentliche Punkte auf seine präzise Art herausgestellt. Paul Schreyer, der die Protokolle herausgeklagt hat, schreibt darüber: „Stefan Homburg liefert in diesem kompakten Video mit die informativste, fundierteste und leicht verständlichste Auseinandersetzung mit den nun vorliegenden weitgehend entschwärzten RKI-Protokollen.“ 1 Darin wird nachgewiesen: Die Regierungsverantwortlichen haben wider besseres Wissen schwere Schädigungen und tödliche Verletzungen in der Bevölkerung vorsätzlich in Kauf genommen bzw. herbeigeführt. Nachfolgend das Transkript des Videos. Nummerierung und Hervorhebungen stammen von mir.
RKI ungeschwärzt – ein Abgrund!
von Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg
Jetzt sind sie da, die ungeschwärzten RKI-Protokolle. Einige Medien haben sich sofort darauf gestürzt und blitzartig veröffentlicht. Wie damals auch: Es steht gar nichts Besonderes drin. Aber man muss die gut zweieinhalbtausend Seiten eben genau lesen. Und wenn man das tut, dann findet man wirklich haarsträubende Inhalte, die ich Ihnen heute vorstellen möchte.
Bisher hatte ich Ihnen gelegentlich Protokolle dieser Art gezeigt, die nicht sehr aufschlussreich waren. Heute zeige ich Ihnen genau diese Stelle in einer Form, die ich optisch etwas aufbereitet habe, aber mit rein wörtlichen Zitaten. Sofern ich ab und zu ein Wort ergänzt habe, um das Ganze lesbarer zu machen, ist das durch eckige Klammern kenntlich gemacht.
1. Schauen wir nun mal in dieses bisher geschwärzte Protokoll (wird eingeblendet, min. 0:54), das jetzt ungeschwärzt vorliegt, hinein. Es stammt vom 19.03.21, also zu Beginn der Impfkampagne. Dort lesen wir: – „AstraZeneca: Viel Aufregung generell – Jetzt 12 Fälle mit Sinusvenenthrombose [einem Schlaganfall, Stef. Homburg] … alle nach Impfung. – Paul Ehrlich Institut hatte am Montag insgesamt 1600 Meldungen – Paul Ehrlich Institut und die Pharmakovigilanzstellen kommen nicht gut hinterher – Norwegen setzt die Impfung aus bis auf weiteres [Und jetzt vollkommen überraschend und unlogisch]: – AstraZeneca weiter wie bisher anzuwenden.“
Die Aussage, dass das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut nicht gut hinterher kam, passt sehr gut zur Aussage der damaligen Abteilungsleiterin Frau Dr. Keller Stanislawski im Brandenburger-Untersuchungsausschuss. Ich zitiere wörtlich, was sie dort gesagt hat (wird eingeblendet, min. 1:57):
„Es gab Leute, die haben sich nur um Todesfälle gekümmert, und Leute, die haben sich nur um Myokarditis gekümmert. Wir hatten ja viel mehr Arbeit als je zuvor, nur durch diesen Impfstoff.“
Da überrascht es schon, dass ein Monat nach der RKI-Sitzung, in der auf diese Risiken hingewiesen wurde, im „Spiegel“ die folgende Meldung erscheint (wird eingeblendet, min. 2.20):
Karl Lauterbach hat sich mit AstraZeneca impfen lassen.
Sehr merkwürdig. Machen wir weiter.
2. Ein Thema, das immer wieder in den Protokollen auftaucht, betrifft Täuschungen der Öffentlichkeit durch das RKI, indem das RKI entweder falsche Informationen oder unvollständige Informationen herausgab. Schauen wir dazu mal dieses Protokoll an (wird eingeblendet, min. 2:47), es stammt vom 24.03.2020, also ein Tag nach Inkrafttreten des Lockdowns: – „Gestern eine positive Probe von 40. Virologische Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass das Corona-Virus nicht breit zirkuliert. – Virologische Surveyance der AGI [das sind die Gesundheitsbehörden der Länder] übermittelt den Eindruck, dass es keine relevante Viruszirkulation gibt – Viele Labore melden aufgestockte Testkapazitäten. [Und jetzt:] – Testkapazität sollte nicht nach außen kommuniziert werden. [Denn es könnte ja jemand auf die Idee kommen, dass mehr Tests mehr Fälle ergeben. Und ein Tag später]: – Die Trends sollten besser erstmal nicht formuliert werden, da es sonst schwierig sein kann, weitere Maßnahmen zu begründen.“
Und das ist immer wieder der Kern der Geschichte: Im Vordergrund stehen die politisch gewollten Maßnahmen, und das RKI hat die Rolle, diese Maßnahmen irgendwie zu begründen. Wenn es Evidenz hat, dass die Maßnahmen unbegründet sind, so wie hier, dann wird diese Evidenz nicht nach außen mitgeteilt.
3. Noch einmal zurück zum wichtigen Thema Sinusvenenthrombosen. Da lesen wir am 9. April 2021 (wird eingeblendet, min. 4:07):
– „Sinusthrombosen [auch dieser Schreibfehler ist im Original] als Nebenwirkung des AstraZeneca-Impfstoffs – Inzwischen sind auch vermehrt Männer davon betroffen. [Und dann unfassbar:] – Damit gibt es auch bei Männern eine 20fach erhöhte Inzidenz im Vergleich zur Hintergrundinzidenz.“
Davon hatte ich vorher nie etwas gehört. Hintergrundinzidenz bedeutet das normale Auftreten von Fällen in der Bevölkerung. Und diejenigen, die mit AstraZeneca geimpft wurden, hatten also ein 20-faches Risiko gegenüber den nicht damit Geimpften, ohne dass das der Bevölkerung mitgeteilt wurde. Und obwohl jetzt schon mehrere Länder die Impfung ausgesetzt hatten, machte Deutschland nicht nur weiter, sondern ein Monat später kam sogar Folgendes in die Zeitung (wird eingeblendet, min. 5:07):
„Spahn lässt sich mit AstraZeneca impfen. Gesundheitsminister Jens Spahn hat sich am Freitag gegen Corona impfen lassen – wie er sagt, ganz bewusst mit AstraZeneca.“
Meine persönliche Meinung ist: Wir haben in den letzten Jahren so viel gehört von unerwarteten und plötzlichen Sterbefällen bei Sportlern, bei Moderatoren, bei Schauspielern, auch bei Bürgermeistern, aber keinem einzigen Spitzenpolitiker scheint irgendetwas passiert zu sein. Das lässt tief denken.2
4. Damit die Sendung nicht so kopflastig ist, habe ich jetzt einen neuen Artikel ihnen herausgesucht, gerade in der Berliner Zeitung erschienen. Dort geht es um das Schicksal (wird eingeblendet, min. 5:50) eines Christian Pilz, erfolgreicher Anwalt und Sportler. Er hat kurz nach Spahns Werbung sich mit AstraZeneca impfen lassen. Inzwischen ist er halbblind, und ihm wurde die Hälfte seiner Schädeldecke entfernt. Sein Impfschaden ist amtlich anerkannt, und er bekommt deshalb eine staatliche Entschädigung etwa in Höhe des Bürgergeldes, faktisch also nichts.
Im Artikel erfahren wir, dass die Impfärztin ihm gesagt hat, AstraZeneca sei nur für junge Mädchen gefährlich, die die Pille nehmen, nicht aber für einen Mann wie ihn. Das ist erstens falsch gewesen und zweitens unglaublich zynisch, denn auch die jungen Mädchen wurden ja als Versuchskaninchen genommen, und für sie gab es Impfempfehlungen im Grunde ohne sachlichen Grund. Getestet worden war das alles vor der Zulassung nicht ordentlich.
5. Nächstes Thema: Kollateralschäden für Alte und für Junge Ich lese zunächst mal im Protokoll vom 2. Mai 2020 (wird eingeblendet, min. 6:58):
„Insbesondere alte und hochalte Personen in häuslicher Pflege oder entsprechenden Einrichtungen formulieren, dass sie die Kollateralschäden der sozialen und physischen Distanzierung als schlimmer empfinden als ihre Angst vor einem möglichen Tod an Covid-19.“
Man hat die alten Menschen gegen ihren Willen eingesperrt, schlimmer als Strafgefangene, sie durften nicht raus in den Pflegeheimen, und ihre Verwandten durften sie nicht besuchen. Und das ging so bei vielen bis zum Tod. Meine eigene Tante hat das betroffen.
Weiter steht hier mit Datum vom 21. Oktober 2020:
„Kritisch diskutiert wird Maskenpflicht für Grundschüler, eventuell Langzeitfolgen. Einzelschicksale: Depressionen, Suchtmittelkonsum steigen.“
Ich kenne persönlich einen Richter, der vor Gericht steht, weil er Kinder vor Masken retten wollte, der Weimarer Amtsrichter Christian Dettmar. Ich kenne eine Grundschuldirektorin, die seit fast 4 Jahren suspendiert ist, weil sie Kinder vor der Maske retten wollte, und einen Arzt, Dr. Weikl, der rechtskräftig verurteilt ist, weil er Maskenatteste ausschrieb.
Im Nachhinein wissen wir ja, dass die Masken nutzlos waren. Und hier erfahren wir, dass das RKI sehr wohl auch um die gravierenden Schäden wusste.
6. Nächstes Thema: Zweifel an der Impfwirkung. Schon in der frühen Phase im April 2021 stellte das RKI intern die Frage (wird eingeblendet, min. 8:48):
„Warum sinkt die Inzidenz der über 80-Jährien nicht auf unter 50/100.000 EW trotz Impfung? Antwort:Wahrscheinlich weil Impfung nicht unbedingt vor Infektion schützt…“
Aber ein Jahr später beim Prozess vor dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht um die Soldaten-Impfpflicht beharrte das RKI auf der Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit der Impfung.
7. Ein sehr wichtiges Thema, das in den Protokollen immer wieder zur Sprache kommt, betrifft politische Intervention. Schauen wir zunächst mal diesen Auszug aus verschiedenen Protokollen an (wird eingeblendet, min. 9:30): Zunächst heißt es am:
„22. April 2020: Papier Testen, Testen, Testen kommt von Jens Spahn, die Arbeitsebene wurde vorab nicht stark eingebunden“
Gesundheitsminister Spahn wollte, dass möglichst viel getestet wird. Damit entstanden hohe Inzidenzen, und die waren wiederum die Begründung für Fortführung von Lockdowns und so weiter.
Besonders interessant fand ich jetzt eine E-Mail von Jens Spahn mit dem Inhalt:
„26.6.2020: Email Spahn: Falls wir das Risiko in Deutschland auf moderat setzen, müssten wir dann nicht auch die Maskenpflicht einbeziehen?“
Die Antwort des RKI ist hier nicht dokumentiert, aber sie kann nur gelautet haben: Natürlich, wenn kein hohes Risiko mehr besteht, dann können wir die Menschen mitten im Hochsommer nicht zwingen, ganztägig Masken zu tragen. Daraufhin kommt aber drei Tage später der Ukas:
„29.6.2020: Immer noch hohes Risiko, Vorgabe vom BGM: bis 1. Juli wird daran nichts geändert.“
Und wir wissen, es wurde fast 3 Jahre lang daran nichts geändert. Erst 2023 wurde das Risiko auf moderat herabgesetzt.
8. Zuletzt, sehr interessant, eine Notiz vom
„31.8.2020: Von Minister Spahn kam die Idee die virologische Surveillance mittels Schnelltests von Abbott stark auszubauen. Dies erscheint nicht sinnvoll.“
Und zur Amtszeit Spahns ist es dem RKI wohl auch gelungen, die Politik davon abzuhalten, dass sie zu den PCR Tests auch noch die Schnelltests addiert. Das war anders, als sein Nachfolger Lauterbach ins Amt kam. Hören Sie, was Lauterbach hier in der Talkshow sagt (wird eingeblendet, min. 11:34):
Markus Lanz: „Frau Köpping, das Thema haben sie mutmaßlich auch. Wie hoch schätzen Sie die Dunkelziffer?“ Petra Köpping, sächsische Staatsministerin: „Na ja, so sehr hoch wird die nicht sein, weil viele Menschen sich ja mittlerweile auch auf der Arbeit testen lassen müssen. Das heißt, sie können sich nicht nur einfach zu Hause testen lassen, sondern machen das auch auf Arbeit unter Dabeisein von einem Anderen, so dass also dort auch ein Zeuge ist. Wir haben Leute in den Unternehmen mittlerweile geschult, die ausgebildet worden sind zum Testen. Also auch das passiert. In den Schulen wird gemeinsam getestet. Die, die Sie ansprechen, das …“ Markus Lanz: „Aber das sind Schnelltests. In der Statistik werden die ja nicht gewertet“. Petra Köpping: „Natürlich werden die auch gewertet. Wir hatten die Situation, die Herr Lauterbach beschrieben hat, ja schon in Sachsen. Wir hatten ja schon Situationen, wo die Gesundheitsämter gar nicht mehr alle mit PCR-Tests testen konnten oder hinterher gekommen sind. Deswegen galt auch der Schnelltest, wenn er positiv war, als Grundlage für das Gesundheitsamt, eben eine Quarantäne auszusprechen.“ Markus Lanz „Seit wann ist das der Fall? Will mal fragen. Also weil der also wirklich sicher der Goldstandard ist, der PCR-Test, noch mal die Frage nach der Datenlage. Ja, (es) geht auch gerade bei diesen enormen Zahlen, die so explodieren, finde ich, eine wichtige Frage. Seit wann gilt das, dass auch der Antigen- Schnelltest, wenn er denn positiv ist, in die Statistik als Fall, als Covid-19-Fall einfließt, obwohl er durchaus Unzuverlässigkeiten hat?“ Karl Lauterbach: „Also wenn er an das Gesundheitsamt gemeldet wird, zählt natürlich auch der Antigen-Test. Wir werden jetzt dazu übergehen – ich möchte der Beschlussvorlage vom Wochenende nicht vorgreifen – aber wir arbeiten jetzt also an einer Situation, wo wir erstmalig sogar hingehen werden und diejenigen, die also positiv getestet sind, aber nicht unbedingt den PCR-Test benötigen, dass wir die quasi über das System melden, aber vom PCR-Test sogar abraten, weil wir die PCR-Tests für ganz besondere Maßnahmen benötigen. Die müssen priorisiert werden. Aber Frau Köpping hat vollkommen korrekt beschrieben, wenn also ein Antigentest gemacht wird und wird dann dem Gesundheitsamt gemeldet, dann ist er natürlich gültig.“
Das heißt, in Lauterbach Amtszeit wurden sogar die Schnelltests den PCR-Tests hinzugezählt, neben den Zwangstests für Arbeitnehmer unter 3G, neben anlasslosen Tests in Schulen und Kitas. Und dadurch hat man so astronomische Inzidenzen erzeugt, wie es sie vorher und nachher niemals mehr gab. Man schob das dann auf ein angeblich infektiöseres Virus Omicron, aber ich glaube, es war ein Ergebnis dieser Testillusion.3
9. Noch einmal zum Thema politische Intervention. Das folgende Protokoll hat mir geholfen, das RKI und seine Motivation besser zu verstehen. Bevor ich es ihnen zeige, möchte ich kurz erklären das Wort CDs-Schalte ist Jargon für Telefonkonferenz der Chefs der Staatskanzleien unserer 16 Bundesländer. Diese Chefs der Staatskanzleien oder CDs bereiten regelmäßig Bundesratssitzungen für ihre Ministerpräsidenten vor. Und so lesen wir wird eingeblendet, min. 14:47):
Kommt das RKI der politischen Forderung nicht nach, besteht das Risiko, dass politische Entscheidungsträger selbst Indikatoren entwickeln und/oder das RKI bei ähnlichen Aufträgen nicht mehr einbindet.“
Diese Sorge war begründet, denn mit Max Planck, Helmholz, Leopoldina standen ja alle möglichen Institutionen bereit, neue Hysterie-Daten und Schockpapiere zu produzieren. Man sieht also: Nicht vom RKI ging eigentlich das Böse aus, sondern das RKI hat sich dem Bösen gebeugt aus Opportunismus, und hat seinen eigenen Einfluss höher gerankt als die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung.
10. Letztes Thema China. In einem anderen Prozess gegen die Bundesregierung argumentiert die Bundesregierung: Schwärzungen zu China müssten sein, damit das Verhältnis der beiden Länder nicht gestört wird. Die Stelle, die ich Ihnen jetzt zeige, erweckt aber einen vollkommen anderen Eindruck (wird eingeblendet, min. 16:05). Es heißt hier im Protokoll vom 13. und 14. Februar 2020, als wir also noch keine Pandemie in Deutschland hatten:
„China wünscht keine Involvierung der großen Industriestaaten G7. Deutschland hat scheinbar Vertrauensvorsprung.
Es wird nächsten Mittwoch ein Treffen mit der chinesischen Botschaft geben, um z.B. über Forschungsthemen und zukünftige Kooperationen zu reden.
Gesundheits- und Außenministerium sind über Treffen informiert. Darüber hinaus hat die Botschaft zugesagt, dass das RKI zukünftig das aktuelle Gesundheitskommissions-Paket Chinas erhält.“
Ich wüsste zu gern, was in diesem Paket enthalten war und vermute, dort drin waren Ausgangssperren, Lockdowns, Kontaktverbote und Maskenzwang.
Soweit zu den entschwärzten Stellen.
Es gibt aber auch in dieser Ausgabe der RKI-Protokolle immer noch Stellen, die geschwärzt sind. Und diese scheinen von den Behörden als die heikelsten überhaupt angesehen zu werden. Denn es wird bezüglich dieser Stellen auch Klagen geben. Ich will Ihnen hierzu ein einziges Beispiel zeigen, weil man dort gut erraten kann, was unter der Schwärzung verborgen ist (wird eingeblendet, min. 17:27). Es heißt dort unten:
„Normalerweise plant man 12 bis 18 Monate ab Beginn Phase 1.“
Mit Phase 1 ist gemeint die erste Phase einer Impfstoffzulassung. Und der Sinn des Satzes ist: Von da an dauert es ein bis anderthalb Jahre bis eine Zulassung erfolgt. Und jetzt weiter geschwärzt:
„Wenn das von den Regulatoren so entschieden wird, dann kann es schneller gehen als 12 bis 18 Monate.“
Und was dort geschwärzt ist, kann sinngemäß nur heißen:
Wenn man wichtige Schritte bei der Zulassung auslässt und die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung gefährdet, indem man diese Schritte einfach überspringt, dann kann es schneller gehen.
Meine Damen und Herren, fast wöchentlich erscheinen im Inland, aber auch im Ausland, insbesondere in den USA, neue Aspekte, die diese Corona-Geschichte in ein fatales Licht rücken. Ich glaube, das wird auch in Zukunft so bleiben. Und darüber informiere ich Sie natürlich hier.
3 Ich glaube nicht, dass die Verantwortlichen einer Testillusion unterlagen, sondern in Kenntnis der Untauglichkeit der Tests, eine Infektion festzustellen, die Tests massenhaft eingesetzt haben, um den Anschein einer Pandemie zu erzeugen.
Der Friedensstifter 
