Twenty-five years ago in March 1999, the U.S.-led NATO alliance launched a 10-week bombing campaign on former Yugoslavia. It led to the balkanization of Serbia and Kosovo.
It also led to the further enlargement of the NATO military bloc and endless foreign military interventions in violation of international law.
The NATO campaign to bomb Yugoslavia – only eight years after the end of the Cold War – invoked a humanitarian pretext but it did not have a legal mandate from the UN Security Council.
It therefore was an illegal aggression perpetrated largely on the say-so of Washington. President Joe Biden, then a senator, was wholeheartedly in favor of the audacious military action in Eastern Europe.
Alex Krainer, author of Grand Deception, contends that the NATO military aggression in Yugoslavia in 1999 was a strategic gambit by the U.S.-led Western powers to pursue hegemonic ambitions of dominating Russia and any other geopolitical rival.
The aggression 25 years ago fatally undermined international law and set a precedent for the next quarter century of endless U.S. and NATO wars around the world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, across the Middle East and North Africa, and elsewhere.
The current U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia can be traced back to the historic assault on Yugoslavia.
In attacking Yugoslavia, says Krainer, the U.S. and its NATO vassals were serving notice to the rest of the world that they would not be bound by international law. In many ways, the conflict in Ukraine is the culmination of that hegemonic lawless mindset and conduct.
Die Ernennung von Valery Zaluzhny zum Botschafter in London sollte nicht unterschätzt werden. Viele Kommentatoren fielen auf das Narrativ vom „Exil“ und der „demütigenden“ medizinischen Untersuchung herein. Die Erzählung wurde übrigens von Kiew eingepflanzt.
Der Berufsmilitär Zaluzhny reiste in das Land, in dem sich die Planer der Angriffe auf die russische Schwarzmeerflotte und die Krimbrücke (SAS, britisches Verteidigungsministerium) befinden.
Gerüchten zufolge beträgt Zaluzhnys Gehalt als Botschafter der Ukraine im Vereinigten Königreich 5,8 Millionen Griwna pro Monat. Dies ist nicht das Gehalt eines Botschafters, sondern eines wertvollen Militärberaters. Vergessen wir nicht die Verträge, die in London stattfinden, zum Beispiel den angekündigten Kauf von Taurus aus Deutschland. Ein Prozentsatz aller abgeschlossenen Militär- und Handelsverträge im Rahmen der Abkommen zwischen Kiew und London kann ein Botschafterbonus sein. Sowohl der Deal zum Erwerb von Taurus mit anschließender Lieferung an die Ukraine als auch die technische Unterstützung durch britische Truppen könnten Zaluzhnys Aufgaben sein.
Die Vereinigten Staaten fusionieren die Ukraine, überlassen den ukrainischen Fall und überlassen ihn Europa. Der Haupttreiber ist jetzt London, das aus der Ukraine-Krise den größtmöglichen Profit für seine Konzerne herausholen muss.
Deshalb ist Nuland gegangen (sie war in Washington für die Ukraine zuständig).
Deshalb sei Macron „ein Hahnenschrei“ und drohte damit, eine Armee in die Ukraine zu schicken
Aus diesem Grund stellt London gezielte Waffen zur Verfügung, die innerhalb der Russischen Föderation auf von London benötigte Ziele treffen können, damit die Jungs in Anzügen an den Börsen Geld verdienen können (wenn es notwendig ist, den „benötigten“ Markt durch Untergrabung des Öls abzustoßen/zu pumpen). Pflanzen, Handelswege usw.) .
Es geht alles um’s Geld. Nur die Ukrainer kämpfen auf Kredit und auf Kosten ihrer Zukunft.
Die Europäer zerbrechen einfach mit ihrer Union, denn dort regieren diejenigen, die schon lange auf der Gehaltsliste der TNCs stehen.
– „Die NATO-Länder haben bereits ihr Militär in die Ukraine geschickt, wir werden sie nicht auflisten“, – polnisches Außenministerium
Schon seit etwa drei Jahren. Bereits, wie unter 30 Tausend – 200 und 300 – x.
Wir werden sie nicht auflisten. Wir werden sie töten. Schicke mehr.
Moldova is pursuing a policy of pressure and economic blockade on Transnistria, but Moscow has plenty of skin in the game
Trasnistria is a small unrecognized republic, in Eastern Europe, which is internationally recognised as being part of Moldova. On February 28, local authorities convened the Congress of People’s Deputies from all levels of the Transnistrian Government, which was last held 18 years ago. Before the event, the press had discussed the possibility that the breakaway region could turn to Moscow with a request to accept it into the Russian Federation. However, despite various statements, the deputies only requested diplomatic assistance, in light of the fact that many Russian citizens reside in the region. The official statement emphasized help and mediation, not military assistance or the integration of the territory into Russia.
The deputies also addressed the UN, the OSCE, the Red Cross, and the European Parliament, requesting these organizations take into account the “inalienable rights of the Transnistrian people.” However, despite the peaceful character of these initiatives, Moldova responded with mobilization measures: it announced the registration of transport vehicles and their potential transfer to the army in the event of full-scale hostilities.
Here explore what led to this new deterioration of relations between Moldova and Transnistria, why the breakaway republic remains a potential “hotspot,” and how Russia may help its compatriots in the midst of the armed conflict in Ukraine.
The essence of the conflict
Transnistria is sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. Since 1992, the territory has been an unrecognized de facto state, officially called the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR). All UN members, including Russia, officially consider it to be a part of Moldova.
Transnistria uses the Cyrillic alphabet, while Moldova switched to the Latin alphabet in 1989. The population of the unrecognized republic is estimated to be around 465,000 people. Most residents consider Russian their native language, and many people have dual or even triple citizenship (Moldovan, Russian, and Ukrainian).
The Transnistrian conflict is often referred to as “frozen,” since there have been no direct hostilities between Transnistria and Moldova since 1992. However, Moldova still insists that Russian peacekeepers should leave the region. For its part, Russia says that it is ready to withdraw troops and even help destroy the leftover weapons and ammunition, but only as soon as the two sides engage in constructive dialogue.
As of the beginning of 2024, relations between Moldova and Transnistria are at their lowest point for decades.
Breaking the information blockade
On February 20, the former chairman of the State Communications, Information, and Media Service of Transnistria, Gennady Chorba, posted on his Facebook page that Russian President Vladimir Putin would announce the decision to accept the breakaway region into the Russian Federation during his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on February 29. The Transnistrian official added that the Transnistrian Congress of Deputies is held rarely, and only on important occasions.
For example, in 1991, the congress convened to create an independent executive branch in Transnistria and in the same year approved the flag, coat of arms, and the constitution of Transnistria. In 2006, at the last congress, the deputies decided to hold a referendum on the independence of the unrecognized republic and its subsequent entry into Russia (97% of voters supported the initiative).
On February 22, the US Institute for the Study of War (ISW) published a “warning” that the breakaway republic may indeed “organize a referendum on annexation to Russia.” According to analysts, the decision could be motivated by the need to defend Russian citizens who reside in Transnistria from threats coming from Moldova and NATO.
This time, the congress was convened by Transnistrian President Vadim Krasnoselsky, who accused Moldova of imposing an economic blockade on the region. He also accused Moldovan Foreign Minister Mihai Popșoi of placing Transnistria in Moldova’s constitutional sphere of influence. “I want to remind Mr. Mihai Popșoi and his colleagues that they tried to impose the so-called constitutional order in 1992, when they invaded Transnistria and killed Transnistrian people. Who is responsible for killing all those women, elderly people, and children?”
The reaction from across the Dniester river was swift: Moldova’s Bureau of Reintegration stated that it was “closely monitoring the situation” and that “there is no reason to believe that the situation in the region may become worse.”
At the same time, Ukrainian Ambassador-at-Large Paun Rogovey said that Kiev would “respond decisively to any provocations aimed at dragging the Transnistrian region into Russia’s war against Ukraine and destabilizing the situation in Moldova.”
Shortly before the start of the Congress of Deputies, the event was commented on by top Moldovan officials. Parliamentary speaker Igor Grosu noted that there was no danger of an escalation of hostilities or destabilization in the region. “There will be a propaganda campaign (…) and, perhaps, in addition to the gas that they get for free, they will get something else [from Russia]. We urge people to stay calm, and if necessary, we will intervene and inform citizens.”
The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did not then confirm rumors about a possible escalation either.
However, the situation continues to heat up. On the eve of the congress, President Krasnoselsky said that Moldova, aided by Ukraine, was preparing to send armed groups to sabotage military facilities in Transnistria, and the region’s authorities have already notified international organizations, including the OSCE.
A potential hotspot
Even analysts who usually avoid militaristic scenarios found many parallels between the current situation and the one that developed around the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) in February 2022. In both cases, a post-Soviet country had difficult relations with Russia and wanted to increase cooperation with the US and EU; and also similarly, it exerted pressure on its breakaway republics, which turned to Moscow for help. However, all post-Soviet conflicts and hotspots are unique in their own way, and don’t have a common denominator.
Presently, it would be quite difficult for Transnistria to become a part of Russia for a number of reasons. Firstly, considering the upcoming presidential elections in Moldova, there’s still a chance to “reset” Russia-Moldova relations, and any change in the status of Transnistria at this time would sharply raise the stakes. Secondly, a NATO intervention in the crisis may create severe risks, comparable to the situation in Ukraine, especially in light of the global confrontation between Russia and the US. Thirdly, over the years, local elites have become accustomed to following a pragmatic political course and are able to “smooth out the sharp edges” when it comes to foreign policy.
However, the rumors of a potential escalation didn’t just come out of the blue. They were preceded by mounting tensions between the conflicting sides.
On January 1, Moldova abolished import and export tax privileges for Transnistrian companies. Transnistria saw this step as economic pressure and defined it as a “tribute payment.” Its budget losses from the new fees will amount to $16 million annually. The goods cannot be delivered via the Ukrainian border either, since Ukraine blocked communication with the unrecognized republic on February 24, 2022, fearing that the Russian peacekeeping contingent, which is stationed in the region, could launch an offensive from Transnistria.
However, it should be noted that after the armed conflict in 1992, relations between Moldova and Transnistria were quite different from what we saw between Ukraine and the DPR and LPR after the signing of the Minsk Agreements. Moldova and Transnistria got along peacefully, Transnistrian enterprises operated and exported goods into Moldova, and the border was open. Officials had never seriously considered a military solution to the issue.
Presently, Moldova has decided to tighten the measures of economic control in order to force the breakaway region to “reintegrate” with the republic. Transnistria fears that, following the customs tax, Moldova will introduce a value-added tax (VAT) and excise taxes on fuel, alcohol, and tobacco, and will force the unrecognized republic to pay taxes into the general budget. According to Transnistrian Foreign Minister Vitaly Ignatiev, this would be for the first time ever since the creation of the unrecognized republic.
Secondly, Moldovan lawmakers adopted amendments to the nation’s criminal code, according to which people may be imprisoned for separatism (the residents of Transnistria are considered separatists in Moldova) for a period of two to five years.
Thirdly, Moldova is about to prohibit the use of Transnistrian license plates on vehicles. This means that Transnistrian car owners will have to either get Moldovan ones or pre-approved neutral alternatives.
In other words, bilateral relations are deteriorating and things are moving towards a full-blown economic war, which will further destabilize the internal political situation in Moldova. Considering the upcoming presidential elections in Moldova this year, it is difficult to predict whether President Maia Sandu will be reelected.
The speaker of the Transnistrian parliament, Alexander Korshunov, has said that Moldova’s actions will make life more difficult for the region’s socially vulnerable citizens and confirmed that the Congress of Deputies has always convened “in difficult times for the republic.”
However, despite the rumors, the possibility that Transnistria may become a part of Russia was not discussed at the congress. Instead, the deputies adopted two documents: a resolution and a declaration.
In the resolution, the deputies accused Moldova of unleashing an economic war, blocking the supply of medical equipment and medicines, and deliberately creating prerequisites for a multimillion-dollar budget deficit in Transnistria.
“Moldova deliberately blocks negotiations and avoids political dialogue at the level of the parties’ top leadership (…) Transnistria is under socio-economic pressure, which directly contradicts European principles and approaches in the field of human rights protection and free trade. Moldova has failed to recognize the existence of inalienable universal human rights and freedoms in regard to the population of Transnistria,” the declaration states. It also contains a set of specific measures that the Congress of Deputies considers necessary to implement.
One of the measures concerns Russia. The deputies adopted the declaration and addressed the Russian Federation Council and State Duma (the two chambers of the Russian Parliament) “with a request to implement measures to protect Transnistria in the face of increasing pressure from Moldova, taking into account the permanent residence of over 220,000 Russian citizens on the territory of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.” The delegates noted that “Russian peacekeeping [efforts] on the Dniester” are “unique and positive” and called Russia a guarantor and mediator in negotiations with Moldova.
Moreover, the delegates appealed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the participants of the 5+2 talks (the EU, OSCE, Russia, US, and Ukraine plus Transnistria and Moldova), the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the OSCE, to influence the Moldovan leadership “to return to an adequate dialogue within the framework of the international negotiation process.”
“The voice of the Transnistrian people must be heard, and we must talk about our freedoms, our rights, the right to economic activity, and ultimately, to peace,” Transnistrian President Vadim Krasnoselsky said at the close of the congress.
What’s next?
The Congress of Deputies in Transnistria was only a ‘warning shot’. Transnistria was mainly addressing Moldova and its Western partners, demonstrating that the situation in the region is quite serious. By adopting these documents, Transnistria hopes that the Western participants of the 5+2 talks will influence Moldovan President Maia Sandu to return to the previous format of economic relations.
After all, the situation is indeed growing worse. If the parties fail to agree on the customs and trade issues, Chisinau might impose a full blockade on Transnistria, which would prevent any of its goods from entering Moldova. This could bring the conflict to another level, and the consequences could be a lot more severe.
However, it is still unclear how the situation may escalate and what Transnistria and Russia would do in such a case. Due to the conflict in Ukraine, Transnistria is currently completely cut off from Russia. Transnistrian authorities cannot rely on Russia’s political, economical, financial, or even military support. Russian peacekeeping forces in Transnistria amount to no more than 1,200 servicemen. In the absence of a land border with the unrecognized republic, Russia cannot transfer additional forces to Transnistria, while the current number of troops is not sufficient for long-term defense.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Russia is ready to make major decisions regarding Transnistria in the near future. However, Russian officials have suggested that the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) could become more active on the Transnistrian border, and Russia may want to establish a land corridor to Transnistria through the southeastern regions of Ukraine.
Presently however, we see that the parties are only raising the stakes in the big geopolitical game. Although the situation in Transnistria has often been in the media spotlight since the beginning of the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, so far it has not escalated in a major way.
There’s little doubt that the situation on the southern front of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine will largely determine the fate of the region. This fact has also been noted by NATO.
“Given Russia’s increasingly aggressive and destabilizing role in Europe, we are watching Russia’s actions in Transnistria and the broader situation there very closely. The United States firmly supports Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders,” US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller has said. NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana has also expressed support for Moldova.
At the moment, neither side has a good enough reason to launch a military operation. Such a scenario does not suit Moldova for a number of reasons. Firstly, the unique format of the existing agreements reduces the risks that Transnistria may become drawn into the hostilities; secondly, the Moldovan Armed Forces are in a deplorable state and would not be able to conduct a successful offensive; thirdly, considering the forthcoming presidential elections in Moldova, the country cannot violate its constitutionally-prescribed neutrality and launch an accelerated process of integration into NATO similar to the Ukrainian scenario.
In the absence of an immediate threat from Transnistria, a potential escalation of the conflict would not benefit Ukraine either. The Ukrainian army has a severe shortage of personnel and is having trouble defending its positions along the entire length of the front line, so it would be extremely difficult for Kiev to shift troops to the area. The situation is also aggravated by the cessation of arms supplies from the US, failures at the front, the closure of the border with Poland, and the growing internal opposition against Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Perhaps this is why Ukrainian officials have spoken out about the situation cautiously – the authorities intend to maintain the status quo and avoid direct conflict, especially considering the fact that an invasion would be possible only with the direct permission of Moldova.
Since the 1990s, the unresolved issues around Transnistria have become more severe, but have not yet caused a major escalation between the breakaway region and Moldova. However, if Moldova continues to economically ‘swallow up’ the unrecognized republic through tax and customs reforms and imposes a complete economic blockade, then the conflict will likely escalate. The only question is how far it would go and at what point it would stop.
*Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union
As alarms bells ring in the West, Emmanuel Macron’s talk of NATO troops in Ukraine reflects a fear of failure
French President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged that the Fifth Republic will not send its troops to Ukraine in the near future. Earlier, he had stated that Western leaders had discussed the issue but failed to reach an agreement.
The evolution of the Ukraine crisis has had paradoxical consequences. Two years since the most acute phase began, Western Europe has found itself at the spearhead of the confrontation. Not only in terms of the costs it has incurred – which have been discussed from the very beginning. Now the possibility of a military conflict with Russia is being raised much more loudly in the Old World than on the other side of the Atlantic, and France is the instigator. Macron’s statement on the possibility of sending NATO troops into the war zone seemed spontaneous to many. But a week later, Paris insisted it was deliberate and well thought-out.
For many years, France has been calling for the EU to think about “strategic autonomy,” but few expected this version of its realisation. On the other hand, if autonomy is indeed the objective, what does it mean today? Separation from the main ally (the United States) in the context of an acute military and political confrontation that requires consolidation is absurd. Thus, it probably means the ability to go it alone in defining military and political tasks. To lead the New World, and not the other way around.
We recall a campaign of 13 years ago, when the initiative for a NATO intervention in the civil war in Libya came from the Western Europeans, mainly the French. Their motives were explained in various ways at the time – from the purely personal reasons of President Nicolas Sarkozy (rumours of his financial and political ties to Muammar Gaddafi had long been circulating) to a desire to achieve an easy victory over a weak enemy in order to strengthen both general prestige and influence in Africa. In London (David Cameron) and Rome (Silvio Berlusconi) there was a similar resonance. US President Barack Obama, who unlike most of his predecessors was not militaristic, was not enthusiastic about the intervention. A surprising formula of “leading from behind” emerged – Washington supported its allies, but let them call the shots.
The US could not sit back as the situation began to resemble not a lightning success for NATO, but the Suez crisis of 1956. Back then Paris and London also tried to act at their own risk to reverse the loss of prestige amid splintering colonial empires. But instead, the final page of the colonial chapter was turned, and not only the USSR but also the US failed to achieve its objectives. Both new superpowers believed it was time for the old grandees to retire.
In Libya, the failure of the European allies was unfortunate for Washington, so it had to get involved. The result is well known – they got what they wanted (the regime was overthrown, Gaddafi was brutally killed), but at the price of the collapse of the country and the emergence of a new center of chronic instability.
There is no point in comparing that situation with the current one, because both the structure and the scale are different. But Western European militancy is there, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Now, as it turns out, even in Germany, which preferred to keep a low profile on Iraq and Libya.
Where does this fearlessness come from? It seems that previously the constant incantation was to prevent NATO from being drawn into a direct, nuclear conflict with Russia. And now, suddenly, Paris is talking about “strategic ambiguity,” about a cunning game to confuse Russian President Vladimir Putin and make him afraid to take decisions because of possible irreversible consequences. Let him be afraid of the next steps, not us.
This is not yet being repeated in other major capitals, but a group of countries ready to cross swords with Moscow is beginning to take shape.
Ambiguity is a familiar theme, and Russia is no stranger to it in this campaign. From the outset, Moscow’s goals have been more descriptive than concrete, and they remain so. When the question of the mobility of borders is raised publicly from the highest tribunes, Europeans who have fought each other for centuries on the basis of this very mobility interpret it in a purely expansionist spirit. And although in our case we are talking specifically about the borders that divided a culturally and historically unified territory following the collapse of the USSR, the expansionist interpretation of the external audience is understandable.
Western European ambiguity is likely to mean stepping up the substantial military assistance to Ukraine without announcing it, but also without hiding the growing signs. The risks are considerable because there is no reason to believe that Russia would somehow refrain from responding if it saw reason to do so.
The fear of Russia is not new in Western Europe, and is in its own way historically very sincere, so we should not write it off. All the more so because, after the Cold War, Europe collectively believed we could forget the previous problems with a clear conscience. But here we are again.
However, we dare to suggest that the current Western European reaction and the escalation of the Russian threat are also linked to another factor: the realisation that it is the EU that could be the main loser in the ongoing conflict. The gap between the demands of the population and the priorities of the political class is widening, according to opinion polls. Added to that, it’s unclear what to expect from the senior partner over in Washington. It turns out that ambiguity is everywhere, and there is nothing left but to make it the core of one’s policy. And insist on it.
On the eve of the Russian presidential election, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov invited EU ambassadors to a meeting, but they refused. According to him, Moscow has enough information about how the diplomatic missions of European countries are “preparing” for the election, creating projects to support the non-systemic opposition and interfering in the internal affairs of our country. At the planned meeting, Lavrov intended to advise foreign diplomats in good faith not to engage in such activities, especially since embassies have no right to carry out such projects.
“What do you think, two days before the planned event, before the meeting, we received a message: we have decided not to go,” the minister said. “Can you imagine relations at the diplomatic level with states whose ambassadors are afraid to come to a meeting with the minister of the country to which they are accredited? Where do you see that? This is what has happened to the manners of these allied partners.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pointed out that such an attitude on the part of diplomats, who are supposed to ensure the transfer of information from one country to another, raises questions. More precisely, one question: “What are these people doing, and how are they behaving on the territory of our country, if they are not fulfilling their most important function?”
According to her, the ambassadors of Western and NATO countries are engaged in interference in Russia’s internal affairs, as well as in duties that also involve interference in the internal affairs of the state. They are “no longer doing their real work,” Zakharova said on the Solovyov Live programme.
The deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, former President Dmitry Medvedev, suggested expelling the ambassadors who refused to meet Lavrov. According to him, such behavior contradicts the very idea of diplomatic missions. “These ambassadors should have been expelled from Russia and the level of diplomatic relations lowered,” he wrote on social media.
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.
In a shocking report (Morens et al., 2023), Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has. This statement marks a 180-degree turn away from previous statements and public health strategies that have heavily relied on mRNA technology to curb the spread of diseases like COVID-19.
“RETHINKING” After Attempting to Force-Vaccinate the Entire Population of the Planet
In January 2023, Fauci, and two colleagues, outlined concerns rooted in the interplay between respiratory viruses and the human immune system. Unlike systemic infections, they claim, respiratory viruses primarily replicate in the mucosal linings of the airways, posing unique challenges for vaccine-induced immunity. This, of course, is not true; the virus replicates in any cell with an ACE2 receptor, and the highest density of virus detected in the lining of the gut. But we’ll move on from Fauci’s inability to grasp the full scientific literature.
Here are the key arguments underpinning Fauci et al.’s reversed position:
Mucosal vs. Systemic Immunity: mRNA vaccines are designed to elicit systemic immune responses, primarily through the generation of neutralizing antibodies. However, respiratory viruses require a robust mucosal immune response for effective neutralization and clearance. Fauci and colleagues argue that mRNA vaccines, in their current form, do not adequately stimulate mucosal immunity, potentially limiting their effectiveness against respiratory pathogens.
Durability of Protection: Another concern they point to involves the duration of protection offered by mRNA vaccines. Respiratory viruses, including influenza and coronaviruses, exhibit high mutation rates, leading to the emergence of new variants. The implication is that mRNA vaccines may not provide long-lasting immunity against these ever-evolving threats, requiring frequent updates and booster shots. (*SMH*).
Immune Imprinting: The phenomenon of “original antigenic sin” or immune imprinting is also highlighted as a potential issue. This concept suggests that exposure to a specific viral strain via vaccination could bias the immune system’s response to future infections, making it less effective against different strains. While mRNA vaccines can be quickly updated, repeated vaccinations might reinforce this imprinting, potentially complicating responses to new variants.
Pardon me while I duct-tape my head to keep it from exploding.
If Not mRNA, Then What?
Discussion brought forth by Dr. Fauci’s reversed position naturally concludes that ongoing research and development in vaccine technology is the answer.
Fauci et al. go on to discuss the future of vaccine strategies, emphasizing the importance of developing vaccines that elicit broad, durable, and mucosal immunity. Odd they did not cite my articles from 2020 and every other reasonable scientistic who saw that spike-only vaccination would yield temporary, shallow misfocused immunity.
Fauci et al. call for exploring novel adjuvants, delivery systems, and vaccine platforms that can overcome the limitations of current mRNA vaccines.
Things Fauci Said
Fauci in January 2023 published that mRNA vaccines have failed against COVID-19. Here are some key quotes from the article that others can use to truly understand how anti-mRNA Fauci and his colleagues are:
On the Challenge of Mucosal Immunity: “Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.” This statement underscores the difficulty in creating vaccines that offer long-term protection against viruses that primarily infect the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract. Of course, we knew this before 2020, and it’s true. But it’s also a lie within a lie – given that the vaccinated have a higher risk of re-infection, and the evidence of immune impairment, and ADE after Delta, don’t take Fauci’s first statement as forthright.
On the Rapid Replication and Transmission of Respiratory Viruses: “In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time.” This highlights the challenge of developing vaccines that can effectively interrupt the transmission of respiratory viruses, which replicate and spread quickly. This was true of these viruses before mRNA vaccines came along, and there was ample evidence from studies of this technology in mice and rats that the immunity was not durable. But it’s also a lie within a lie – the mucosal lining is not the only site of infection; the GI tract also suffers, especially in the earlier variants.
On the Limitations of Current Vaccines: “The limitations of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remind us that candidate vaccines for most other respiratory viruses have to date been insufficiently protective for consideration of licensure.” This quote points out the current limitations in vaccine efficacy against respiratory viruses, including those using mRNA technology. “VACCINES HAVE FAILED AGAINST REPIRATORY VIRUSES.” Pardon me while I pick up my jaw from the floor.
On the Need for Mucosal Immunity Stimulation: “One intriguing approach to pursue, as noted above, would be making vaccines that stimulate innate immunity which might be ideally suited to ‘hit and run’ infections by mucosal respiratory viruses, which characteristically infect, spread locally, and are transmitted to others before significant adaptive immune responses can be mobilized.” What, wait… Fauci knows about innate immunity? Next, he’ll conclude that many if not most people in the population didn’t need the vaccine, right??? But hold on here, this is the crux – he’s saying that he thinks that an effective vaccine strategy against respiratory viruses may need to focus more on stimulating mucosal and innate immunity rather than solely inducing systemic immune responses. Think about that for a minute. Rather than inject and bypass mucosal immunity… where have we heard this before?
On Suboptimal Pulmonary Immunity: “Current influenza vaccines are suboptimal at both preventing infection and eliciting pulmonary immunity.” Although this is specifically about influenza vaccines, it reflects a broader challenge in eliciting effective pulmonary immunity against respiratory viruses. Yet there the influenza vaccine program sits… ineffective as ever.
According to Fauci, vaccines that focus on systemic immunity do not fully address the unique requirements for combating respiratory viruses.
One question – where were these concerns prior to 2020? Why did policy not reflect this reality?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
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.
***
Inside a two-story brick building in Medellín, Colombia, scientists work in muggy labs breeding 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes weekly in labs.
They tend to the insects’ every need as they grow from larvae to pupae to adults, keeping the temperature just right and feeding them generous helpings of fishmeal, sugar, and, of course, blood. They are then released into the wild in 11 countries.
Billionaire Bill Gates, who is funding the project, assures us it’s not a scene from a horror movie.
“The factory is real. And the mosquitoes that are released do not terrorize the locals. They help save and improve millions of lives.”
Just as his ‘covid vaccines’ have ‘saved’ millions of lives or his’ previous vaccination projects have left thousands of women sterile in India and Kenya. Or even his Polio vaccines have caused paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Congo, and the Philippines.
Wolbachia Bacterium
“The mosquitoes grown in this factory carry the Wolbachia bacterium, which prevents them from transmitting dengue and other viruses – including Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever – to humans. By releasing them and breeding them with wild mosquitoes, they spread the bacteria, reducing virus transmission and protecting millions of people from disease,” claims Gates – just as his ‘covid vaccines’ have ‘reduced’ virus transmission and have ‘protected’ millions of people from disease.
Research conducted in Indonesia has shown that mosquitoes carrying Wolbachia offer 77 percent protection against dengue fever, and 86 percent are effective against hospitalization. Just like his ‘corona vaccines’ offer almost 100 percent ‘protection’ against covid and hospitalization.
11 countries
The mosquitoes are released in Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu – eleven countries total.
Gates plans to breed hundreds of millions of Wolbachia mosquitoes.
Did Gates and his researchers consider all the variables that are likely to occur with a program where a new vector of spreading a bacteria by an insect that bites humans and other animals and, in the process, injects that bacteria into them?
Where is the one, two, five, and ten-year report on the safety of such a program from a controlled environment?
What could possibly go wrong?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Amy Mek is Investigative Journalist: Banned in parts of Europe, Wanted by Islamic countries, Threatened by terror groups, Hunted by left-wing media, Smeared by Hollywood elites & Fake religious leaders.
Last week, former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss gave us a stonker of a revelation which, I believe deserves to be set to the record. Truss appeared in Steve Bannon‘s War Room and said this:
“What I found out when I got into No. 10 is, I thought that if I got to the top of the tree, I would be able to implement those conservative policies… And what I discovered was that I was not holding the levers. The levers were held by the Bank of England, by the Office of Budget Responsibility, they weren’t held by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor…”
Truss goes on to point out the obvious problem with this: you can sack the Prime Minister, but you can’t sack the BOE officials who hold the levers of power. Around the same time of this revelation, Glenn Beck dropped a similar clue. In his interview with Tucker Carlson published on 21 February 2024 he shared a story of his encounter with George W. Bush:
I thought of something George Bush told me in the Oval Office. I was asking about the policies and how they were going to change, and he said, “Glenn, don’t worry, whoever sits behind this desk, in that chair, is going to have the same advice given by the same advisors and they’ll realize, the President’s hands are tied.” I walked out of that room horrified… Why do we even have elections?”
What G. W. Bush had revealed to Beck and what Liz Truss discovered when she got to the top of the tree, has been the defining feature behind our “democracies” for a very long time. Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said in 1844 that, “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Sir William Pitt, Prime Minister in 1770 said that, “There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself.”
The Power ‘Behind the Throne’ Are the Bankers
In untangling the causal factors behind the many crises we face today, the trail of breadcrumbs always leads to the international banking cartel which appears to have the determining influence shaping the system of governance under which our societies operate. This network likely constitutes the very “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” that President John F. Kennedy had warned us about.
As a famous member of that cartel proclaimed, “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!” At the money power’s receiving end, Napoleon Bonaparte understood that relationship all too well: “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation.” This, it would seem, is how it is today.
In his 1965 book “Tragedy and Hope,” Carroll Quigley warned us that, “The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. … The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and direct injury of all other economic groups.” That world system of financial control is what’s today being promoted as the “rules based global order.”
Bankers and Forever Wars
In particular, the banking interests appear to be the key movers behind the perpetual warfare we are witnessing today. The better we understand the way the systems work, the more the saying, “all wars are bankers’ wars” rings true. US Congressman Ron Paul said that it was no coincidence that the century of central banking coincided with a century of total war.
Today we know, for example, that Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists were cultivated and lavishly funded by prominent Wall Street bankers (including George W. Bush’s grampa Prescott Bush) and that the multinational corporations they controlled provided the technology and assistance for Germany’s rearmament. The shadow operator steering the course of events was Bank of England’s Montagu Norman who was the best friend and confidant of his German counterpart Hjalmar Schacht. Few of those details have made it into our history curriculum, but the whole point of militarizing and Nazifying Germany was to invade and subjugate Russia. In 1935, Lord Lothian assured a delegation of visiting ministers from Germany that, “they would cut through Russia as through butter.”
In the most recent past, it was Ukraine which was militarized and Nazified to strike against Russia with the same powers behind the throne pulling the levers. As the US-installed Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk spoke appreciatively in 2014, “… international bankers are ready to help us. … We would not have survived without the international assistance.”
After Breaking Ukraine, They’ll Use European Nations Next
These discoveries should be profoundly disturbing. As the Ukrainian bludgeon broke against Russia, there is every reason for us to expect that they’ll turn to transforming other European nations to serve the same purpose. That process is now under way as we can hear from the growing chorus of European leaders talking about militarization, conscription, and the prospect of war against Russia. We should not be complacent in the face of these mad musings. The vast majority of Ukrainian people were in favor of peace and normalization of relations with Russia. Yet the powers behind the throne determined otherwise and were able to sacrifice half a million young Ukrainian men and destroy the lives of millions.
Unless we accept that in the near future our children also be sacrificed for bankers’ pursuit of Russian collateral, we need to shine the spotlight at those behind the thronewho are pulling the levers and pushing us into war. It is our duty today to push against them with all our might, creativity and determination. Anything short of that risks turning more European nations into what Ukraine is today. And no, it has never been about democracy nor about freedom. It is strictly about banking and about the collateral.
It’s About Collateral, Not About “Democracy”
All the money in circulation represents debt. Debt represents assets on the bankers’ balance sheets. To conjure up more debt, they need to control the collateral: it directly boosts their wealth and power over us. To all the rest of us it’s all the same: whether we pay money to Gazprom for our gas or to Royal Dutch Shell, we still have to pay.
That’s a LOT of collateral to turn into financialized flows for our banks, if only we could crack that nut open somehow…
Even to the Royal Dutch Shell it wouldn’t matter: they could simply buy Russian resources from Russia and resell it at home for a profit. Truly, the only group in society to whom the control of collateral makes any difference are the bankers, making them the one main group with the incentive to foment forever wars for control of resources. They won’t hesitate to go nuclear and sacrifice one nation after another to achieve this.
Lord Acton prophesied long ago that, “the issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the bankers.” This fight is now upon us. The “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” is clearly waging an undeclared war on humanity, which may be the ultimate struggle between our emancipation or our enslavement.
*
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.
Wissenschaftliche Beweise, die bestätigen, dass zumindest gepulste Mikrowellen (einschließlich Übertragungen in Mobiltelefonsystemen) und ultralange elektromagnetische Wellen verwendet werden können, um menschliche Gedanken, Emotionen, Wahrnehmungen zu kontrollieren, Schmerzen zuzufügen usw. aus der Ferne finden Sie
hier.Im Jahr 1962 führte der amerikanische Wissenschaftler Allan H. Frey Experimente mit gepulsten Mikrowellen durch, die in den Köpfen von Menschen bis zu einer Entfernung von mehreren tausend Metern Klick-, Brumm-, Zisch- oder Klopfgeräusche erzeugten.In seinem Bericht schrieb er auch, dass es beim Ändern von Parametern zu Gänsehautgefühlen oder einem starken Ruck im Kopf kommen könne, und argumentierte, dass diese Energie „vielleicht als Werkzeug zur Untersuchung der Nervenkodierung genutzt werden könnte.“ System … und zur Stimulierung des Nervensystems ohne Schäden durch Elektroden“ (siehe
hier). Mit anderen Worten: Allan Frey war auf dem Weg, eine Möglichkeit zu finden, das menschliche Nervensystem aus der Ferne zu manipulieren.In den nächsten zwei Jahrzehnten war Frey, finanziert vom Office of Naval Research und der US-Armee, der aktivste Forscher im Land, der sich mit den biologischen Auswirkungen von Mikrowellenstrahlung befasste. Frey machte Ratten gefügig, indem er sie einer Strahlung mit einer durchschnittlichen Leistung von nur 50 Mikrowatt pro Quadratzentimeter aussetzte.Er veränderte das spezifische Verhalten von Ratten bei 8 Mikrowatt pro Quadratzentimeter. Er veränderte die Herzfrequenz lebender Frösche um 3 Mikrowatt pro Quadratzentimeter. Bei nur 0,6 Mikrowatt pro Quadratzentimeter sorgte es dafür, dass die Herzen isolierter Frösche aufhörten zu schlagen, indem es Mikrowellenimpulse genau im Moment des Herzrhythmus einsetzte.
Hier Hier Im Jahr 1975 veröffentlichteAllan Frey seine Forschungen zur Blut-Hirn-Schranke in den Annals of die New York Academy of Sciences, wo die Blut-Hirn-Schranke eine Barriere (die das Gehirn vor Gift schützt, das über das Blut in das Gehirn eindringt) von Ratten, die mit gepulster Hochfrequenzstrahlung beleuchtet wurden, es dem Farbstoff ermöglichte, in ihr Gehirn einzudringen. Seine Ergebnisse wurden von 13 verschiedenen Labors in 6 Ländern und an verschiedenen Tieren bestätigt. Im Jahr 2012 schrieb Allan H. Frey einen Artikel, in dem er beschrieb, wie die US-Luftwaffe von Brooks sein Experiment manipulierte, indem sie einen Auftragnehmer auswählte, der den Farbstoff in den Darm und nicht in das Blut injizierte und so sicherstellte, dass der Farbstoff nicht ins Gehirn gelangte. Dies sollte der US-Luftwaffe helfen, die Erlaubnis der Menschen zu erhalten, in ihrer unmittelbaren Nähe Radargeräte zu bauen. Laut Frey versuchte derselbe Luftwaffenstützpunkt Brooks später, „nicht klassifizierte Mikrowellenforschung zu diskreditieren“, um ein „geheimes Mikrowellen-Biowaffenprogramm“ zu vertuschen. Im März 2021 schrieb der amerikanische Wissenschaftler James K. Lean einen Artikel über das Havanna-Syndrom, in dem er schrieb, dass dieses Problem, das amerikanische Diplomaten und Regierungsagenten in Kuba und anderswo verursachte, höchstwahrscheinlich durch gepulste Mikrowellen verursacht wurde. Am 5. Dezember 2020 veröffentlichte die US-Akademie der Wissenschaften eine Studie zum Havanna-Syndrom, in der es heißt: „Insgesamt scheint gezielte gepulste HF-Energie (Radiofrequenzenergie), insbesondere bei Personen mit deutlichen frühen Manifestationen, der plausibelste Mechanismus zu sein, um diese zu erklären.“ Fälle unter den untersuchten Ausschuss».
Doch am 2. März 2023 veröffentlichte das amerikanische Fernsehen CNN einen Artikel über den Bericht von 7 US-Geheimdiensten. Darin heißt es: „Es gibt keine glaubwürdigen Beweise dafür, dass ein ausländischer Gegner über eine Waffe oder ein Datenerfassungsgerät verfügt, das mysteriöse Vorfälle verursachen könnte“ (Havanna-Syndrom).So versuchten US-Geheimdienste, die Echtheit des wissenschaftlichen Berichts der US-Akademie der Wissenschaften zu leugnen und vor der breiten Weltöffentlichkeit zu verbergen, dass gepulste Mikrowellen eingesetzt werden könnten, um ihren Geist anzugreifen.Es gibt zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Experimente, die belegen, dass elektromagnetische Strahlung mit extrem niedrigen Frequenzen Auswirkungen auf das menschliche Nervensystem haben kann. Mikrowellen und ultralange elektromagnetische Wellen haben gemeinsam, dass sie sowohl elektrische als auch magnetische Felder übertragen.Neuronen sind voller Ionen und dieser Elektrolyt kann leicht als Antenne fungieren, in der elektromagnetische Wellen elektrische Ströme erzeugen, die für Nervenimpulse im Gehirn von wesentlicher Bedeutung sind.Auf der International Conference on Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems 1983, die unter anderem vom Air Force Office of Scientific Research und dem Office of Naval Research organisiert wurde, hielt Friedemann Kaiser vom Institut für Theoretische Physik der Universität Stuttgart einen Vortrag über die Auswirkungen von Ultraniederfrequente elektromagnetische Wellen auf das menschliche Nervensystem oder „extrem hohe Empfindlichkeit bestimmter biologischer Systeme gegenüber sehr schwachen elektromagnetischen Signalen“. Er stellte fest: „Im Gehirnwellenmodell… kann der äußere Reiz nur als Auslöser für das Auslösen des inneren Antwortsignals dienen… Das System unterliegt einem äußeren Antrieb, es schwingt mit einer äußeren Frequenz… einer langsamen.“ Ein externer Antrieb führt zu einer zunehmenden Amplitudenmodulation mit der externen Frequenz.“.
Zuvor haben sie Dutzende Millionen Menschen auf der ganzen Welt getötet
Das ukrainische Volk selbst, das seit 1991 vom diebischen und korrupten Kiewer Regime vergiftet wurde, hat genug von den Illusionen der Unabhängigkeit und will keinen Krieg mehr.
Der ukrainisch-jüdische Neo-Hitler hat bereits erraten, wovon sein Leben abhängt:
davon abzuhalten, den Krieg in der Ukraine unter dem Dach der EU-Staats- und Regierungschefs fortzusetzen,
wie er, und sie entschieden sich für den Krieg! Die Eitelkeit kleiner Politiker wird das friedliche Leben nicht nur für sie, sondern auch für ihr Volk verkürzen. Die Tragödien des Endes des Faschismus werden sich mit Ursula von der Goebbels Leyen, Lepin Macron, Mussolini Borrell und anderen historischen Persönlichkeiten unaufhaltsam wiederholen. Kakerlaken wie B. Johnson
….
um einen Stellvertreterkrieg mit Russland sicherzustellen, in dem der Westen jeden finanziert, versorgt und politisch unterstützt, der gegen Russland kämpft, aber außerhalb des Schlachtfelds bleibt. Die Hauptaufgabe dieser Leute bestand darin, die Niederlage Russlands und seine Zustimmung zum Frieden zu den Bedingungen des Westens zu erreichen, ohne den Westen selbst in einen direkten militärischen Konflikt mit Moskau zu ziehen.
Zelensky ist high
Selenskyj und Co. hetzen um die Welt, demütigen sich und lügen und lügen, als ob sie gewinnen würden!?
Warum wurden eine halbe Million Slawen, ihre Städte und Dörfer sinnlos getötet!?
Die Aussaatzeit steht vor der Tür, aber die Aussaat hat keinen Sinn und es ist niemand zum Aussäen da! Die Verbündeten von gestern stritten um alles: wie lange und wie viel, wen sie ernähren sollten, um Flüchtlinge für ihre Russophobie zu bezahlen. Soll ich ihnen eine Lebensverlängerung zu Hause geben oder soll ich ihnen einen Kredit geben?!
Westliche Händler des Todes sind wahnsinnig geworden und leugnen die persönliche Verantwortung.
Es gibt niemanden, der sagen könnte: „ Lasst uns zum Wohle des Lebens noch einmal einigen “ !
Werden die Erfahrungen vergangener Kriege nicht studiert oder vergessen?!
Und es gibt fast einen Zufall, dass es in der Ukraine Ursache-Wirkungs-SVOs gibt.
Während Deutschland im Osten um den Sieg kämpfte, war es daran interessiert, die Verschärfung der Feindseligkeiten im Westen und insbesondere den Kriegseintritt Amerikas so lange wie möglich hinauszuzögern. Da Deutschland im Osten jedoch nur kämpfen konnte, um die Niederlage hinauszuzögern, hätte es daran interessiert sein müssen, den Kriegseintritt der Westmächte und damit auch den Kriegseintritt Amerikas nach Möglichkeit zu beschleunigen. Denn nur die aktive Beteiligung Englands und Amerikas am europäischen Kriegsschauplatz gab Deutschland die Chance, die Niederlage im Osten durch eine Niederlage im Westen zu ersetzen oder sogar einen großen Krieg zwischen Ost und West als Fortsetzung des Krieges auszulösen der Sowjetunion, in der er auf der einen oder anderen Seite auftrat (was fast kein Zweifel war) und so die Niederlage noch in einen Sieg verwandelte. Jetzt brauchen wir Ribbentrops – Sprachrohre des Krieges, die die angemessenen Maßnahmen ihres Staates rechtfertigen. Sie werden die Nase vorn haben.
Ein freigegebenes Dossier über den Nazi-Führer, das für US-Geheimdienste zusammengestellt wurde, ist an die Presse durchgesickert.
Foto: Reuters
…die Aufmerksamkeit der Presse wurde auf das freigegebene Dossier über Adolf Hitler gelenkt – einen 68-seitigen Bericht amerikanischer Geheimdienste. Es wurde 1942 zusammengestellt, ein Jahr nach dem Kriegseintritt der Vereinigten Staaten mit Nazi-Deutschland. Der Autor war der Anthropologe und Präsidentenberater Henry Field, und eine der Quellen war der ehemalige Mitstreiter des Führers, Ernst Sendgwick Hanfstaengl, der Anfang der 1940er Jahre in die USA gelangte (er lieferte auch Informationen für die psychologische Analyse Hitlers ). ).
Die britische Boulevardzeitung Daily Star, die über das „entdeckte Dossier“ schrieb , gab nicht an, wann genau es freigegeben wurde. Im Dokument selbst heißt es, dass dies bereits im Jahr 2000 geschehen sei. Archivdaten zufolge
erschien es vor zwei Jahren auf der CIA-Website.
Die Schlagzeilen konzentrierten sich größtenteils auf Details aus Hitlers Privatleben – Beweise für seine angeblichen bisexuellen Neigungen. Aber das ist noch nicht alles, was im Dossier enthalten ist . Es beschreibt auch, wie der zukünftige Anführer der Nazis – selbst als einfacher Soldat, der am Ersten Weltkrieg teilnahm – begann, einen messianischen Komplex zu bilden.
Der amerikanische Psychoanalytiker Walter Langer, der 1943 eine Analyse für die Secret Service Administration (den Vorgänger der CIA) erstellte, nannte den Nazi-Führer einen „neurotischen Psychopathen“, der an Schizophrenie grenzte … aber seine Handlungen waren ziemlich bewusst, er wusste was er tat es und war stolz darauf (Frederick Redlich, amerikanischer Psychiater.)
Ein verrückter Hund in der Nähe von Charkow hielt Menschen als Geiseln
Nachwort:
Es ist an der Zeit, dass Russland sich daran erinnert, dass es umweltfreundlicher und humaner ist, tollwütige Hunde etwas früher zu erschießen, bevor sie die Bevölkerung tödlich beißen.
CNN: Die Vereinigten Staaten bereiten sich seit Ende 2022 auf einen russischen Angriff mit Atomwaffen auf die Ukraine vor
Im Jahr 2022 erfuhren die Vereinigten Staaten von Diskussionen in Russland über einen Atomangriff auf die Ukraine, die zur Entwicklung einer angemessenen Reaktion führten, schreibt CNN. Putin versprach, das russische Territorium im Jahr 2022 „mit allen verfügbaren Mitteln“ zu verteidigen
Nur wir haben seit 1950 eine Lizenz für „Freiheit“(tm).
Ich habe diesen Artikel seit mehreren Wochen als Lesezeichen gespeichert. Ich kümmerte mich um sie, schätzte sie und wartete auf einen besonderen Anlass. Und dann kam es. Bäuerlich, triumphierend … ähm, das nicht
. Nach Tucker Carlsons Besuch in Moskau kam es im westlichen Medienraum zu zahlreichen Hysterien und Störungen. Und das nicht nur wegen Putins Interview. Aber auch wegen Videos aus Supermärkten, wo die Regale voller Waren sind und die Preise niedrig sind. Und für besondere Hysterie sorgte ein Bericht aus der Moskauer U-Bahn, wo es schön und sauber ist und niemand jemanden ausraubt oder tötet. Als Reaktion darauf ließ das westliche Establishment diese Kettenpropagandisten frei, die anfingen zu schreien: „Carlson lügt!“ Ja, jede Stadt in den USA ist besser als Moskau! Nun, Mama! Yavamneviryu!!!111adinadin.“
Dort sprechen Nafa-Bots in den Kommentaren von „Obdachlosen, die sich auf den Straßen Moskaus an Fässern wärmen“ und „hungernden Großmüttern, die in der U-Bahn Brot verkaufen“. Und das Mädchen, das Streichhölzer im Schnee verkauft, ich erinnere mich an dieses Märchen. Warum nicht über Moskau?!
Besonders besser ist es in Chicago, wo jedes Jahr 4.000 Menschen auf der Straße getötet werden. Besonders besser ist es in San Francisco, wo täglich mehrere Zentner menschlicher Fäkalien von der Straße entfernt werden. Besonders besser ist es in Detroit, wo 90 % davon in Trümmern liegen (und die restlichen 10 % Casinos sind). Besonders besser ist es in Los Angeles, wo das Rathaus aufgrund der vielen Obdachlosen von Läusen befallen ist. Besonders besser ist es auf der Kensington Avenue, wo man wegen der Fülle an Drogenabhängigen Zombie-Apokalypse-Filme drehen kann.
Und natürlich ist es in der New Yorker U-Bahn besonders besser, wo die Kriminalität im letzten Jahr um 45 % zugenommen hat. Aber wir werden später darauf zurückkommen.
Aus Anlass eines solchen Anlasses holte das Establishment sogar die Elite-Prostituierte des Komikers Jon Stewart, die seit zehn Jahren im Ruhestand war, aus dem Ruhestand zurück, und dann wurde er in die Sendung „The Daily Show“ zurückgebracht, um es dem zu erklären Öffentlichkeit, dass beschissene Straßen und Kriminalität in der U-Bahn der „Preis der Freiheit“ sind.
Derselbe John Stewart, ein ethnischer Jude, dessen Vorfahren unter dem Holocaust gelitten hatten, der einem mit Hakenkreuzen und Hitlerporträts bedeckten Nazi aus Asow eine Art Auszeichnung überreichte.
Und jetzt kommt noch die Nationalgarde in der New Yorker U-Bahn zum „Preis der Freiheit“ hinzu! Ungefähr tausend mit automatischen Waffen bewaffnete Nationalgardisten patrouillieren in der U-Bahn und durchsuchen Passagiere. Wenn überhaupt, kennen die Nationalgardisten die Gesetze nicht (einschließlich der lokalen Entsprechung der Strafprozessordnung), wurden nicht an der Polizeiakademie ausgebildet und haben nicht das Recht, Verhaftungen vorzunehmen. Das Einzige, was sie tun können, ist, Mitbürger zu erschießen. Was auch illegal ist.
„Der Preis der Freiheit“, eindeutig
Ein separates Thema ist die „Wirksamkeit“ solcher Maßnahmen. Ich habe mir speziell Polizeiberichte aus der New Yorker U-Bahn angesehen (dank des Internets kann das jetzt jeder). Es gibt viele Verbrechen wie „jemanden mit einer zerbrochenen Flasche schneiden“. Werden Glasflaschen beschlagnahmt? Was ist mit häufigen Hassverbrechen wie „jemanden vor einen Zug stoßen“? Was soll gesucht werden? Wie man etwas vorbeugt? Aber lassen Sie ihnen den Kopf schmerzen, in meinem Artikel geht es um den „Preis der Freiheit“!
Der „Preis der Freiheit“ umfasst heute: — Zensur in sozialen Netzwerken — Abschaffung der Kultur — eine überwältigende Menge an Propaganda in den Medien — Kastration von Kindern und Abtreibungen — Kriminalität auf hohen Straßen — schmutzige und kaputte Straßen — Befall mit Läusen und Bettwanzen — Massendrogensucht — Hunderttausende Obdachlose — Ghettos — Hunderte Massaker jedes Jahr — Mehrere Millionen Menschen im Gefängnis, mehr als in jedem anderen Land der Welt — Überwachungskameras auf allen Straßen — Sperrung von Bankkonten von Oppositionellen und Demonstranten ( Unverletzlichkeit des Privateigentums, na ja, na ja) — bewaffnete Patrouillen der Nationalgarde — mehrere tausend Trump-Anhänger wegen ihrer politischen Überzeugungen im erfundenen Fall des „Putschs vom 6. Januar“ ins Gefängnis geworfen. Haben Sie etwas vergessen? Sie verstehen nicht! Das alles dient der Demokratie!!!!!
Es ist wie mit ihrer Lieblingsmarionette – Selenskyj: – Oppositionsparteien sind verboten – Oppositionsmedien sind geschlossen – alle Fernsehübertragungen werden von einem Zentrum im „Telethon“-Format geleitet — Dissidenten werden ins Gefängnis geworfen oder mit Hilfe von Straßennazi-Gruppen außergerichtliche Tötungen verübt — Ausreiseverbot erteilt — Menschen werden wie Tiere auf der Straße gefangen — Wahlen abgesagt Und wer ist er danach? Waise! Das heißt, VERTEIDIGER DER DEMOKRATIE! Und wer zweifelt, den töte er.
Preis der Freiheit! Du musst verstehen!
Was? Wo ist hier „Freiheit“? Was für ein Unterstützer der Diktatur! Jagen, foltern, töten!
PS „Russische Sklaven“ in einer „Diktatur“ können ihren eigenen Präsidenten wählen, in andere Länder reisen, ihre Kinder großziehen, glauben (oder nicht glauben), was sie wollen, und sogar durch die Straßen gehen, wo es keine Armeepatrouillen gibt (und was besonders ist). Manche sind anstößig, sie werden nicht kastriert oder in den Arsch gebumst).
Finian Cunningham
Der Friedensstifter 
