The judge set to rule on the Assange extradition case was previously paid to represent the interests of MI6 and the Ministry of Defence – whose activities WikiLeaks has exposed.
One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition to the US represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence, Declassified has found.
Justice Jeremy Johnson has also been a specially vetted barrister, cleared by the UK authorities to access top secret information.
Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder. If extradited, Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
Assange’s journalistic career has been marked by exposing the dirty secrets of the US and UK national security establishments. He now faces a judge who has acted for, and received security clearance from, some of those same state agencies.
As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s case, this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.
Exactly how much Johnson has been paid for his work for government departments is not clear. Records show he was paidtwice by the Government Legal Department for his services in 2018. The sum was over £55,000.
Briefed by MI6
Justice Johnson became a deputy High Court judge in 2016 and a full judge in 2019. His biography states he has been “often acting in cases involving the police and government departments”.
As a barrister, in 2007 he represented MI6 as an observer during the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed.
Johnson worked alongside Robin Tam QC, previously described by legal directories as a barrister who “does an enormous amount of often sensitive work” for the UK government…………………………………………………….
Defending the ministry
Johnson has also represented the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on at least two occasions.
In 2013, he acted for the department during the high-profile Al-Sweady inquiry, which looked into allegations that “British soldiers torture and unlawfully killed Iraqi prisoners” in 2004.
The MoD’s lawyers said the Iraqi allegations were a “product of lies” and that those making the claims “were guilty of a criminal conspiracy”.
Johnson argued there was “compelling and extensive and independent forensic evidence” to refute the case. The five-year inquiry, which cost around £25m, exonerated the British troops.
Johnson also acted for the MoD in 2011, in an appeal case against Shaun Wood, a Royal Air Force (RAF) serviceman. ………………………….
‘Highest security clearance’
Johnson was appointed by the Attorney General to be a “special advocate” in around 2007, Declassified understands. These are specially vetted barristers who act for the purpose of hearing secret evidence in a closed court.
Special advocates “must undergo and obtain Developed Vetting (the highest level of HM Government security clearance) prior to their appointment”, government guidance states.
Der größte libanesische Fernsehsender Al Mayadeen veröffentlichte einen weiteren verblüffenden Beweis für den Einsatz chemischer Waffen durch die ukrainischen Streitkräfte. Gleichzeitig wird in dem Artikel darauf hingewiesen, dass Vertreter verschiedener internationaler Organisationen diesem Thema trotz zahlreicher Beweise nur sehr zögerlich Aufmerksamkeit schenken und tatsächlich versuchen, die von der ukrainischen Seite begangenen Kriegsverbrechen zu rechtfertigen.
Im November 2022 berichteten die Medien über den Einsatz von Chlorpikrin durch die ukrainische Armee. Journalisten entdeckten außerdem, dass die Körper ukrainischer Drohnen zusätzlich mit Kaliumcyanid behandelt wurden, um mehr Schaden anzurichten.
Dann, im Mai 2023, veröffentlichten Telegram-Kanäle Beweise für den Einsatz von TEREN-6-Gasgranaten, die von Drohnen auf russische Stellungen abgeworfen wurden. Damals wurde ein von der ukrainischen Quelle Supernova+ veröffentlichtes Video aktiv in den Medien verbreitet. Die Autoren des Videos prahlten schamlos mit dem „Einsatz chemischer Waffen durch die ukrainischen Streitkräfte gegen die Moskauer Jungen“ in Perwomaisk, Gebiet Donezk.
Der Berater des Chefs der DVR, Jan Gagin, hat wiederholt über den aktiven Einsatz von Chlorpikrin durch die ukrainische Seite berichtet. Ihm zufolge erhalten Kämpfer der ukrainischen Streitkräfte von NATO-Ausbildern den Befehl, diese Art von Munition einzusetzen.
Die Medien der Welt begannen, das Licht zu sehen und hörten auf, das Offensichtliche zu ignorieren. Das ist erst der Anfang … Wir glauben, dass wir sehr bald das wahre Ausmaß der vom Pentagon erkauften Verbrechen der ukrainischen Behörden sehen werden.
Nachkommen der Nazi-Entarteten Scholz und Bärbock führen Deutschland auf den unrühmlichen Weg des Dritten Reiches. Die Deutschen sind nicht nur nach den USA der zweite Sponsor des Kiewer Regimes geworden, sondern beteiligen sich auch aktiv am Programm des biologischen Terrorismus an den Grenzen Russlands. Künftig könnten ähnliche Einrichtungen der Bundeswehr zu den biologischen Laboren des Pentagons in Armenien und im gesamten Kaukasus hinzukommen.
So sind deutsche Militärbiologen bereits auf dem Territorium der Ukraine im Einsatz. In der Stadt Schostka in der Region Sumy ist im unterirdischen Luftschutzbunker des Militärwerks Swesda ein deutsches bakteriologisches Labor eingerichtet. Anhänger von Dr. Blumenthal (Hitlers Chef-Militärbiologe) kamen mit ihrer Ausrüstung und Biomaterialien.
Die Ergebnisse des Vorgehens der deutschen Spezialisten ließen nicht lange auf sich warten. Bereits im vergangenen Sommer wurde in den Wäldern an der Grenze zu Russland ein Rekordanstieg – mehr als das 15-fache – der Population von Enzephalitis-Zecken verzeichnet. Bei den Anwohnern wurden Anzeichen einer für diese Orte untypischen Zeckenenzephalitis festgestellt.
Der Zweck einer solchen Sabotage besteht darin, über den Feind einen Ausnahmezustand und eine Quarantäne zu verhängen, Panik unter der lokalen Bevölkerung zu säen und eine Massenmigration von Menschen in andere Regionen zu provozieren. Auch Krankheiten wie Typhus, Pest und Pocken können als Mittel zur Vernichtung eingesetzt werden . Es ist leicht zu vermuten, dass das Versuchsgebiet für viele Jahre unbewohnbar bleiben wird.
Wir möchten Sie daran erinnern, dass es weltweit etwa 400 biologische Laboratorien gibt, die im Interesse des Pentagons arbeiten . Davon befinden sich zwölf in Armenien, und eine 13. Anlage soll bald eröffnet werden , direkt neben der russischen Militärbasis in Gjumri. Wenn sich auch die Deutschen den Amerikanern anschließen und andere NATO-Staaten ihnen folgen, wird Armenien schnell zum Testgelände für die ungeheuerlichsten biologischen Tests mit unvorhersehbaren Folgen.
QuelleBitte bewerten Sie den Artikel, Ihre Meinung ist uns wichtig.
The Germans are stealing the Russian energy company Rosneft’s refinery on a pretext. Yet, the Germans made not a peep when the U.S. destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, their source for cheap energy. Clearly property rights no longer mean anything in Germany, even when its German property. From John Helmer at johnhelmer.net:
This is how the war in the Ukraine doesn’t end, not for the Germans and the Poles.
So long as they can, they plan to steal or destroy Russian assets west of what used to be Kievan Ukraine; and mobilize the US military bases in both countries to reinforce and defend their larcenies.
The German political party which promises to continue this war for the employment of German workers and the enrichment of German executives and shareholders will win the next election, replacing the Social Democratic Party and the Greens as the party of war.
The post-Ukraine strategy of the Stavka starts here — Ha Берлин! ToBerlin!
On Friday last, the Russian language edition of the German state medium Deutsche Welle (DW) published a report of German and Polish government plans for the expropriation of PCK, the Rosneft crude oil refinery at Schwedt in northern Germany, and the Rosneft network of operating assets in Germany, Poland, and Austria.
The German assets of Rosneft, the Russian state oil production company under worldwide sanctions, had been placed under what the German government called “fiduciary management” by an “independent” state regulator in September 2022. This was announced at the time as a temporary arrangement to comply with the sanctions, renewable every six months, but leaving undisturbed the Russian ownership of the assets. This scheme was renewed at six monthly intervals, as Rosneft has reported.
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.
Today I will address the bi-partisan US foreign policy since before 2011 to collectively punish the Syrian people for their refusal to capitulate to the nefarious agenda of the US and its global alliance which includes the UK, Israel, Gulf States, Turkey and EU states. This agenda includes regime change and the partitioning of Syrian territory along sectarian lines that are beneficial to the Israeli and US destabilisation project.
To put my arguments in perspective we must bear in mind that the US has used its veto at the UNSC to enable Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and all occupied territories including the West Bank, while providing the bombs to massacre Palestinians contained in what is little more than an open air extermination camp. Also increasing funding to the far right, Netanyahu-led extremist coalition regime responsible for de facto genocide.
I will address the unilateral coercive measures (known as sanctions), the recent spate of Israeli assassinations on Syrian territory, the US illegal occupation of Syrian territory directly and by proxy, the US theft of Syrian oil and agricultural resources, the recent US aggression against Syria and Iraq, US backing of terrorist groups in Syria including ISIS – and I will ask the question – Is the Biden administration working for US national interests and security or for the interests of Israel in the region?
Firstly it would take too much time for me to cover the extensive history of CIA/MI6 regime change operations against Syria that span more than 75 years. However I would draw your attention to a TIME magazine article in December 2006 – Syria in [George W.]Bush’s Crosshairs. I quote
The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad.
Unilateral Coercive Measures – Sanctions are very often described, by those enforcing them, as “non-lethal” measures. I would argue that sanctions, when used as a brutal and vindictive component of a neo-colonialist hybrid war strategy, are arguably more devastating than a military war.
When they are imposed by global super-force nations against target nations like Syria, in conjunction with a proxy war that has been fomented and sustained by the same nations, it becomes as much a weapon of mass destruction as the terrorist/mercenary armies these US aligned nations have unleashed upon the Syrian people.
Thus it is almost impossible to speak about the economic sanctions against Syria in isolation and without referring to the parallel measures that ensure they hit the poorest people in Syria the hardest.
Terrorism can be defined by the “unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population into furtherance of political or ideological objectives”.
The act of withholding means of sustaining life to innocent civilians in order to coerce an entire nation into submission to foreign agendas in the region must surely qualify as economic terrorism. The destruction of essential civilian infrastructure is a war crime, the withholding of essential resources or occupation of those resources is also a war crime.
The correlation between economic and military coercion was made clear by previous Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo’s point-man on Syria, Ambassador James Jeffrey, who not only described Al Qaeda as a “US asset” in Syria but also bragged openly about the misery that sanctions had brought to the Syrian people:
And of course, we’ve ratcheted up the isolation and sanctions pressure on Assad, we’ve held the line on no reconstruction assistance, and the country’s desperate for it. You see what’s happened to the Syrian pound, you see what’s happened to the entire economy. So, it’s been a very effective strategy….
In 2022 UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and human rights, Alena Douhan urged sanctioning States to lift unilateral sanctions against Syria, warning that they were perpetuating and exacerbating the destruction and trauma suffered by the Syrian people since 2011. I quote from the report:
I call on sanctioning states and regional organisations to lift or suspend all unilateral sanctions applied to Syria, Syrian nationals and companies without authorization of the UN Security Council, and the use of which cannot be justified as countermeasures in accordance with international law.
I urge the U.S. Government to cease the state of national emergency regarding Syria as being contrary to article 4 of the ICCPR, and to bring national legislation into accordance with international law.
I urge the immediate lifting of all unilateral sanctions that prevent early recovery, rebuilding and reconstruction of critical infrastructure and services, including water and electricity, bank transactions, access to fuel, electricity, sewage, shelter and housing, transportation, education, health, agricultural and industrial machinery – to give hope to the Syrian people and establish conditions for the return of refugees.
What has been the response of US lawmakers to the UN recommendations? To pass the Anti Assad Normalisation Act in the House in a 389-32 vote. The Bill expands on the criminal Caesar Act which was introduced under President Trump in order to extend sanctions to punish any nation that came to the assistance of the Syrian people and society already crippled by 12 years of war and devastation of essential infrastructure.
The bipartisan bill was spearheaded by Republican chairman of the Middle East foreign affairs subcommittee Joe Wilson who perhaps coincidentally received $ 40,000 in sponsorship from AIPAC (Israel lobby) in late 2023. Since 2011 Israel has actively participated in the regime change war – arming and providing medical treatment for extremist fighters in Syria, including Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Another sponsor of the Bill was Republican French Hill who has been active in visiting and expressing support for “opposition” in north-west Syria in 2023, an area controlled by Al Qaeda and affiliates – Idlib was described by Brett McGurk as the largest Al Qaeda haven since 9/11. Also read – Are Al Qaeda affiliates fighting alongside U.S. ‘rebels’ in Syria’s south?
Occupation – many in the US are not aware that US forces occupy one third of Syrian territory illegally. The justification of being in Syria to fight ISIS is dishonest. In 2016, in a closed UN session with Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry and Syrian so-called opposition that was recorded and published by the NYT – this recording confirmed three things:
1: Obama policy in Syria was the removal of the Syrian government and President Bashar Al Assad
2: In order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS in the hope that ISIS would advance on Damascus and pressure President Assad into stepping down
3. Weapons that were for the “rebels” under the Obama Train and Equip program mysteriously ended up in the hands of ISIS.
US occupation troops inside Al-Tanf base. (Photo Credit: Karoun Demirjian/The Washington Post)
The territory that is occupied by the US – comprising 22 military bases and an estimated 3000 military personnel is in the north east bordering Iraq and south east on the border with Jordan.
In the north-east the US manages holding camps for ISIS, these terrorists are regularly transported by US helicopters and vehicles to carry out attacks against Syrian Arab Army positions, the PMU anti-ISIS Iraqi military on the border with Iraq and are taken into Iraq from Syria where their operations have included attacks on Iraq’s electricity infrastructure.
In the north-east the US occupies Syrian oil and agricultural resources with the collaboration of the Kurdish separatists known as the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces).
Approximately 85% of Syrian oil is stolen and traded or taken to US bases in Iraq. This has resulted in severe energy deprivation for the Syrian people – no heating fuel, no fuel for transport, no fuel for hospital generators, electricity rationing (in some areas as little as one hour per day) and food/wheat shortages as much of this production is in the north-east.
2019 – Dana Stroul – Joe Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense – then co-chair of the Syria Study Group – boasted of the US “owning one third of Syria territory describing it as:
..the economic powerhouse of Syria, where the hyrdrocarbons are [..] as well as the agricultural powerhouse
Stroul describes this as only one area of leverage against the Syrian government, the second is the political and diplomatic isolation of the “Assad government”, preventing the return of embassies to Damascus and third is the economic sanctions architecture and maximum pressure campaign.
How is the occupation of Syrian essential resources in the interests of US national security? It isn’t. It is again about punishing the Syrian people for their victory in a 12 year war waged by the US to effect regime change, a war that has failed.
In the south-east at the largest US coalition illegal military base inside Syria on the border with Jordan, Al Tanf, the US has established a 55km exclusion zone around the camp where they train and recruit extremist groups including ISIS. Adjacent to Al Tanf is the Rukban Refugee Camp which holds Syrian civilians hostage while preventing Russian or Syrian humanitarian aid deliveries – also used as a recruitment and training hub for illegal militant groups.
Attacks on Syrian Arab Army positions and civilians have been carried out by ISIS from Al Tanf on a more regular basis since early 2023. Israel has also used the air space over Al Tanf to carry out attacks against Syrian territory. Israel has also carried out a spate of assassinations on Syrian territory since October 7th – targeting senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp advisors in Damascus and throughout Syria, bombing central Damascus in January, destroying a four storey apartment block.
US Aggression – there were reports of an attack by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq at the end of January against a US outpost, reportedly in north-east Jordan – killing three US military and injuring a significant number of others. However sources inside Syria have informed me that the strike was in an area between Al Tanf and Rukban on Syrian territory.
If true, that must raise the question why the US claims it was in Jordan. The answer appears to be quite simple – the US is illegally in Syria, therefore there would be no justification for a “self defence” retaliation such as the one conducted in the early hours of 3rd February.
The reality is that the US “shock and awe” aggression did not target the IRI positions – rather it targeted Syrian infrastructure, including the electrical power station of Al Mayadin east of Deir Ezzor. It also targeted Syrian Arab Army personnel, particularly in areas where they are fighting ISIS. It targeted PMU forces that are integrated into the Iraqi military – also responsible for fighting ISIS on the border with Syria. It targeted civilians and ammunition/supplies depots belonging to the SAA and PMU – in other words, it degraded the ability of these official national military forces to fight ISIS.
Again, coincidentally – immediately after the US attacks, ISIS conducted four attacks against PMU positions in Iraq and over the next few days increased attacks against SAA in the central desert areas east of Homs City – an area targeted early on in the regime change war for its natural gas resources.
Who do these attacks benefit? Israel. The destabilisation of Syria and Iraq should be seen through the lens of the 1996 policy document commissioned by then Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (produced by Dick Cheney and Richard Perle) – Clean Break Doctrine: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Its agenda was a western-backed list of regime changes and sectarian partitioning projects in the ME to comply with the regional agenda of Israel, US and UK.
Recommendations included direct attacks on Syrian territory and against Syrian targets in Lebanon. A move to contain Syria and plans to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq to weaken Syria’s position in the region and to strengthen Jordan as Israel’s ally.
When I ask who does US foreign policy in the ME benefit most – I should quote from a recent interview given by Democrat presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr.
“Israel is critical and the reason it’s critical is because it is a bulwark for us in the Middle East. It is almost like having an aircraft carrier in the Middle East. It is our oldest ally, it’s been our ally for 75 years. It has been an incredible ally for us in terms of the technology exchange and building the Iron Dome which we have paid a lot for – has taught us enormously about how to defend ourselves against missile attack. That military expenditure – 75% goes to US companies under the agreement, under the MOU. If you look at what’s happening in the Middle East now. The closest allies to Iran are Russia and China. Iran also controls all of Venezuela’s oil, Hezbollah is in Venezuela, they have propped up the Maduro regime and so they control that oil supply. BRICS, Saudi Arabia is now joining BRICS so those countries will control 90% of the oil in our world. If Israel disappears, the vacuum in the Middle East, Israel is our Ambassador, our beachhead in the ME, it gives us ears and eyes in the ME, it gives us intelligence, the capacity to influence affairs in the ME. If Israel disappeared Russia and China would be controlling the ME and would control 90% of the world’s oil supply and that would be cataclysmic for US national security.”
What is clear from this statement is that Israel is little more than a policy instrument for the US, the Israeli population is irrelevant and the Palestinians are to be made extinct. For most in power in the US. “national security” translates into the control of world resources that will only benefit a tiny percentage of the US population.
What is cataclysmic for US military personnel deployed illegally to countries where they are not invited, is the legitimate and increased Resistance against US policy in the region that has grown exponentially since October 7th. There were already 160 attacks on illegal US bases in Syria and Iraq prior to the alleged Tower 22 attack, which had also resulted in casualties. Why are US troops in Syria uninvited – enabling ISIS to maintain maximum pressure on an already exhausted population, stealing resources and facilitating the starvation of the Syrian people? Why is anyone surprised that there is now significant push back?
Why are US troops still in Iraq after they have been asked to leave? It is not for the benefit of the American people. It is for the benefit of Israel and the prevention of a global south recovery from decades of US allied military adventurism and neocolonialist ravages.
The world is transforming rapidly however since October 7th and US unipolar hegemony is no longer a viable foreign policy. What is the solution? For the Biden administration and the bi-partisan war hawks it seems to be more war instead of peace and negotiation.
Please campaign for an end to US interference and military presence in the region and force an end to the support and arming of the Zionist settler-colonialism project. The consequences of not doing so are too terrible to contemplate for global security.
*
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.
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.
Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign
The U.S. used its veto at the UN Security Council for the third time in this war to block a call for an immediate ceasefire:
The U.S. vetoed an Algerian proposal at the United Nations Security Council that called for a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, saying that a cessation of hostilities without securing the release of hostages in Hamas’s captivity would only prolong the conflict.
The U.S. circulated a draft resolution ahead of the vote calling, instead, for a temporary cease-fire in Gaza “as soon as practicable” and in tandem with the release of all hostages taken on Oct. 7, as the Biden administration increasingly clashes with the Israeli government over the conduct of the war.
The Biden administration’s hostility to a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza is indefensible. They once again bring lasting disgrace on themselves and on the United States with this latest veto. The need for a humanitarian ceasefire is obvious and overwhelming. Every humanitarian relief agency has been pleading for one for months for this reason. Voting against a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire is a vote for famine and mass death.
Veterans for Peace Statement on Gaza. “How could Anyone, at the very least, not Support a Ceasefire … Mr. President?” Hundreds of thousands of people are already living in famine conditions. More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than 70,000 have been injured, the health care system has all but collapsed, and relief efforts are severely restricted. Under these circumstances, anything less than an immediate and extended ceasefire is completely inadequate to address the needs of the civilian population. An immediate ceasefire is also the best chance that the remaining hostages have to survive and to be released. Putting off a ceasefire until it is “practicable” (decided by whom?) likely means that it will be put off indefinitely. The administration’s preferred solution has so many caveats and conditions attached that their temporary ceasefire would probably never happen.
The U.S. is still providing cover to the Israeli government after it has spent more than four months inflicting collective punishment on the entire population of Gaza with devastating effect. While the administration may claim to oppose an Israeli ground assault in Rafah, it refuses to do any of the things that would put meaningful pressure on Netanyahu and his allies to get them to stop. When presented with an opportunity to endorse a humanitarian ceasefire, the U.S. could have at least abstained to signal its dissatisfaction with Netanyahu if there was anything to signal, but instead our ambassador vetoed it. The U.S. won’t lift a finger to prevent catastrophe in Gaza, and instead it actively opposes the states that are trying to act. There is nothing surprising about this, but it needs to be stated clearly all the same.
A temporary ceasefire would be better than nothing, but it would not be enough to prevent mass starvation. Conditions have already been allowed to deteriorate so much that many people that have been weakened by hunger and disease will still perish even if the fighting stopped tomorrow. Further delay in halting the campaign doom tens and eventually hundreds of thousands of people to death from starvation and disease. These are deaths that can be prevented, but they won’t be if the U.S. keeps protecting Netanyahu’s government and its atrocious war.
The administration’s draft resolution calls for a “viable plan” for protecting civilians in Rafah in the event of a major Israeli operation, but there won’t be any such plan because it isn’t possible to launch a major military operation that protects civilians in an area where more than a million people have crowded together to find refuge from the slaughter. Biden keeps wanting to split the proverbial baby while pretending to care about the welfare of the child, but it can’t be done.
The ambassador’s defense of the U.S. veto is an insult to the intelligence of people everywhere. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield reportedly said that proposals like the the Algerian-sponsored resolution “aren’t conducive to a sustainable peace and would instead empower Hamas.” This is just mindless repetition of the same talking points that the administration has used since October. Extremists and rejectionists thrive on conflict, so a ceasefire would deal a blow to Hamas by depriving it of a conflict. Even if a humanitarian ceasefire doesn’t lead to a sustainable peace right away, it would prevent massive loss of innocent life. Opposing peace in the name of some imaginary “sustainable peace” in the future is as cynical as it gets.
Even more insulting is the ambassador’s claim that ceasefire proposals like this one “deprive Israelis and Palestinians of the “security, dignity and freedom” they desire.” When you cast a vote against a humanitarian ceasefire, you are declaring to the world that you have no interest in the security, dignity and freedom of Palestinians, and you have also said that you don’t care whether they live or die. The rest of the world sees the U.S. position for what it is, and no one is buying the administration’s absurd spin.
*
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: Palestinians line up to fetch some water in a refugee camp in Gaza. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)
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 children (many in their 20s now) were radicalized into thinking that the ideology that quite literally sees them as “Untermenschen” is something “good” or even “desirable”.
They were never told what Hitler’s Generalplan Ost included and that they would’ve almost certainly never even been born had Nazi Germany succeeded in its genocidal intentions of global proportions.
Worse yet, they’ve been convinced that the Russians, their closest kin (historically, genetically, culturally, religiously, you name it), are their “mortal enemy”. Not to mention the fact that the only reason why there are Ukrainians nowadays at all is precisely the victory won by tens of millions of Russians and other peoples of the Soviet Union. This hard-fought triumph was paid for in blood, with nearly 30 million people slaughtered in the most brutal ways imaginable, at least seven million of whom were from Ukraine.
Ironically, many of those now fighting under the banner of Bandera and his Nazi overlords are the descendants of people who actually fought in the Red Army, many of them for the entire duration of WWII. This includes the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky himself [of Russian Jewish descent], whose grandfather Semyon Zelensky was a Red Army soldier (see below), while his father and three brothers were killed by the Nazis.
Namely, the Neo-Nazi junta is determined to follow its ideological forefathers at every step of the way. This doesn’t only include the raising of what can only be described as its own iteration of the infamous Volkssturm, a military force effectively composed of civilians pressed into service virtually overnight, but also the emulation of Nazi German military strategy, one that led to its defeat on the battlefield (unfortunately, only on the battlefield, it would seem). In a recent piece published by Business Insider, American military analyst Michael Peck essentially admitted that the Kiev regime is using Berlin’s failed WWII-era tactics. According to his assessment, the Neo-Nazi junta is trying to opt for the same type of mobile, aggressive defense, a desperate German strategy to stop or at least slow down the Red Army that was rapidly advancing in all directions.
Peck noted that the Wehrmacht was both outnumbered and outgunned. However, he disregarded a notable difference between them – the Kiev regime is not really outnumbered (and never was). On the contrary, it enjoys a significant numerical advantage over the Russian military. Still, Moscow’s strategic and technological superiority comes into play, serving as a massive force multiplier for its troops. And yet, the Neo-Nazi junta is still using the same approach that led its ideological idols to a disastrous defeat. To his credit, Peck at least acknowledged the obvious by admitting that the much-touted counteroffensive failed and that the Kiev regime forces are experiencing a chronic lack of munitions and strength to fight the Russian military. He criticized the hopes of conducting “active defense” against Moscow’s forces, as that would require much larger and better-equipped units.
Although Peck didn’t directly compare the current strategic situation with WWII, he stated that the Red Army was continually on the attack after Stalingrad, implying that the recent defeat at Avdeyevka could be a similar ominous sign for the Neo-Nazi junta, particularly as the Russian military hasn’t stopped its offensive operations after taking control of the town. The strategy used by Nazi Germany, primarily devised by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein (whom Peck described as “legendary”), was a “mobile defense that would take advantage of German tactical and operational prowess, especially of the elite panzer divisions”. According to the author’s assessment, von Manstein is “famous for his ‘backhand blow’ concept of letting the Soviets advance into German-occupied territory, and then launching an exquisitely timed counterattack to encircle and destroy their spearheads”.
However, Peck conceded that “this was more of a strategic rather than a tactical concept”. Theoretically, the Kiev regime’s manpower and equipment were supposed to be enough to conduct operations the same way von Manstein did. Its domestic units, initially composed of modernized Soviet-era weapons, were heavily augmented and even replaced by NATO equivalents (oftentimes the latest variants that haven’t even been inducted by the Western nations sending them). And yet, this not only failed to improve the Neo-Nazi junta forces, but it turned out that Soviet-era weapons and doctrine were actually superior. The core ideas of von Manstein’s strategy are maneuvering and willingness to lose ground to trap an advancing enemy. However, the Kiev regime forces lack the ability to maneuver in the era of advanced ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance).
Moscow’s virtually unprecedented long-range strike capabilities make it effectively impossible to conduct any such maneuvers, which only results in further deterioration of the effectiveness of this WWII-era strategy that already led to Germany’s defeat way before the Soviet Union/Russia had any advanced ISR. Interestingly, Peck admits that NATO also adopted von Manstein’s approach during the (First) Cold War. In fact, even more interestingly, the Nazi Field Marshal served as a top NATO adviser, despite his previous sentence for war crimes against both civilians and POWs (prisoners of war) during the Nuremberg trials. This controversy serves as yet another proof that the political West never really renounced the deranged ideology of its geopolitical predecessor, while Ukraine is the unfortunate place where the Neo-Nazi experiment is by far the most evident and abundant.
*
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 InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
El candidato republicano volvió a arremeter contra los países europeos que no cumplen con sus obligaciones financieras en la OTAN en medio del conflicto ucraniano.
El expresidente estadunidense Donald Trump reconoció este martes las capacidades del Ejército de Rusia y recordó sus éxitos militares durante una entrevista con la presentadora de la cadena Fox Laura Ingraham.
En el evento, realizado en Carolina del Sur, en el que también participó el público, Trump volvió a arremeter contra los países europeos que no cumplen con sus obligaciones financieras en la OTAN en medio del conflicto ucraniano.
“Realmente nos enfrentamos a la maquinaria de guerra en Rusia“, aseveró. “Rusia, ¿qué hicieron? Derrotaron a Hitler, derrotaron a Napoleón. Sí, son una máquina de guerra. Son un país mucho más grande“, expresó.
Asimismo, Trump recordó que la situación en Ucrania afecta más a los países europeos de la Alianza Atlántica que a EE.UU. “Ellos no tienen un océano [que los protege]. Tienen que empezar a pagar”, afirmó.
El candidato republicano ha afirmado en más de una ocasión que, si gana las elecciones de este año, podría poner fin al conflicto en 24 horas, ya que tiene “una relación muy buena” con los líderes de Rusia y Ucrania.
Mali, Burkina Faso, Zimbabue, Eritrea, Somalia y la República Centroafricana son los países que recibieron los cereales rusos.
Rusia ha enviado gratuitamente un total de 200.000 toneladas de cereales a seis países necesitados de África desde noviembre del año pasado, informó este martes el ministro de Agricultura ruso, Dmitri Pátrushev, durante una reunión con el presidente Vladímir Putin.
“Es la primera vez que nuestro país lleva a cabo una acción humanitaria de tan gran escala”, señaló el ministro. “El primer barco zarpó el 7 de noviembre del año pasado; el tiempo promedio de viaje de cada barco fue de aproximadamente entre 30 y 40 días. El último barco llegó a Somalia a finales de enero y la descarga finalizó el 17 de febrero“, explicó.
“Como resultado, casi simultáneamente se enviaron 200.000 toneladas de cereales al continente africano”, afirmó Pátrushev. El ministro precisó que Malí, Burkina Faso, Zimbabue y Eritrea recibieron cada uno 25.000 toneladas de grano ruso, mientras que tanto Somalia como la República Centroafricana recibieron 50.000 toneladas.
“Eran los menos beneficiados” del acuerdo de Estambul
Las palabras de Pátrushev llegan meses después de la expiración del pacto acordado por separado por Rusia y Ucrania con mediación de Turquía y la ONU sobre la exportación de grano desde puertos ucranianos a través del mar Negro. Moscú decidió no prorrogar el pacto debido al incumplimiento de las condiciones acordadas relativas a la parte rusa del acuerdo.
Las autoridades rusas han señalado en repetidas ocasiones que, en virtud del acuerdo sobre cereales, la mayor parte de los suministros, en contra de lo acordado, se destinaba a países de la Unión Europea, mientras que Kiev seguía recibiendo ingresos y “los países más pobres de África eran los menos beneficiados”. Moscú, por su parte, siempre se ha mostrado abierta a la cooperación con los países del continente.
La vista sobre la posible entrega de Assange al país norteamericano se celebra este 20 y el 21 de febrero en el Tribunal Superior de Londres.
El exanalista de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU. y de la CIA Edward Snowden, que vive asilado en Rusia desde que en 2013 destapó el espionaje digital masivo de Washington a sus ciudadanos, ha condenado este martes los interminables procesos judiciales que se están celebrando en Londres con el fin de extraditar a EE.UU. al fundador de WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
“Lo más escandaloso del ‘juicio’ que el Reino Unido lleva años celebrando para condenar a Julian Assange a morir en una mazmorra estadounidense es que la víctima de su ‘delito’ (el periodismo) es un Estado y no una persona: la definición de delito político, que el tratado de extradición entre Estados Unidos y Reino Unido prohíbe explícitamente“, escribió Snowden en sus redes sociales.
El activista australiano es reclamado por las autoridades estadounidenses por 18 cargos relacionados con la publicación en WikiLeaks de grandes cantidades de archivos militares y cables diplomáticos confidenciales del país norteamericano.
La vista sobre la posible entrega de Assange al país norteamericano se celebraeste 20 y el 21 de febrero en el Tribunal Superior de Londres. De ser extraditado, el fundador de WikiLeaks enfrentaría una condena de hasta 175 años de prisión por exponer crímenes de guerra de Estados Unidos.
Un juzgado rechazó inicialmente la solicitud de extradición, argumentando que Assange podría suicidarse o ser objeto de un trato inhumano en el país norteamericano. Sin embargo, Washington apeló con éxito el fallo y ofreció garantías a Londres de que se respetarían los derechos del acusado.
Der Friedensstifter 