Jul 152023
 July 15, 2023  Posted by at 8:08 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »

Vincent van Gogh July 14th in Paris1886


‘NATO Is The Real Troublemaker’ – China (RT)
Why Doesn’t Moscow Try This Instead? (Zuesse)
US Could Stop Ukraine Conflict Instantly – Orban (RT)
Inviting Ukraine To Join NATO Would Have Triggered WWIII – Orban (TASS)
A Fun Day (James Howard Kunstler)
Biden Could Risk WW3 to Bail Out Ukraine – Larry Johnson (Sp.)
Poland Seeks The Nuclear Option (Scott Ritter)
Vilnius Summit Locks Ukraine in Servile Status, Brutal War With No Way Out (Sp.)
Enlisting to Fight for Ukraine Would Be ‘Suicide’, Brazilian Soldier Warns (Sp.)
What Lies Behind Zelensky’s ‘Nervous Response’ to NATO Summit? (Sp.)
Sweden’s NATO Membership Not A Done Deal – Erdogan Aide (RT)
Kiev Bans ‘Russian Culture’ (RT)
Mike Pence, Tucker Carlson Quarrel Over Ukraine Policy (Sp.)
Nobel Physics Laureate 2022 Slams ‘Climate Emergency’ Narrative (DS)























“..France opposed the plan for a liaison office, fearing that the move would further antagonize Beijing.”

‘NATO Is The Real Troublemaker’ – China (RT)

NATO is “the real troublemaker” that has fully embraced “Cold War thinking and ideological prejudice” as it continues to generate global tensions, China’s permanent representative to the UN has said. In a statement on Thursday, Zhang Jun hit back at the communique issued by NATO members at the Vilnius summit earlier this week, which accused China of pursuing “coercive policies” that challenge the bloc’s interests. It also claimed that Beijing uses a wide array of tools to increase its global footprint and undermine the alliance’s security. The envoy rejected this as “slander” and the “smearing” of China, claiming that the US-led military bloc is still trapped in a Cold War mentality.

He recalled that, while NATO claims to be a regional organization, it violates this principle by entering the Asia-Pacific region and “bringing more negative impacts and destructive factors on regional and global security.” Zhang said that, although NATO claims to be a defensive alliance, it encourages its members to increase military spending, continue to cross borders, and provoke confrontation. The bloc, he added, portrays itself as the champion of the ‘rules-based international order,’ but “has repeatedly violated international law…, interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, provoked many wars, bombed diplomatic facilities, [and] killed innocent civilians.” Individual NATO members pursue double standards, promote nuclear sharing, ‘nuclear alliance’, and further exacerbate regional tensions. Numerous facts have proved that NATO is the real troublemaker.

“China does not cause trouble, but it is not afraid of trouble,” Zhang warned, adding that Beijing will resolutely oppose any encroachment on China’s territorial integrity and national interests. Zhang’s remarks come after China’s foreign ministry warned NATO against opening a liaison office in Japan, the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region. However, while Tokyo signaled that it was considering the idea, it was not mentioned in the NATO communique. According to Nikkei Asia, the relevant statement was removed from the final version of the document, with a decision on the matter deferred to a later date. The apparent reversal came after France opposed the plan for a liaison office, fearing that the move would further antagonize Beijing.

Read more …

“The offer should be made only privately to each US-allied country. If any government concerned privately says no, Russia should then offer the deal publicly. Public opinion might then force that government – whose prior rejection of the deal would not yet be publicly known – to agree to it. ”

Why Doesn’t Moscow Try This Instead? (Zuesse)

Putin has thus far responded to the West’s aggressive expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders by targeting missiles against new member states, and not by offering each of them individually a bilateral treaty-proposal and guarantees for peace, including mutual weapons-inspections. Instead, it seems that a NATO nation cannot quit the anti-Russia bloc and manage its own peaceful relations with Moscow, plus increased trade, and other mutual bilateral benefits. However, by abandoning alliances with the world’s most aggressive nation, the US, and agreeing with Russia directly, a future of peace and mutual economic benefit could prevail across Europe. Putin ought to make this offer now. It might prevent World War Three. The historical background explains why:

I agree with Dr. Karaganov that a fundamental change is needed in Russia’s relations with the other countries of Europe, but I propose that the first step in this regard MUST be the following Russian offer to each one of them: The offer should be made only privately to each US-allied country. If any government concerned privately says no, Russia should then offer the deal publicly. Public opinion might then force that government – whose prior rejection of the deal would not yet be publicly known – to agree to it. Thus, there would be two chances to obtain an agreement, and this would greatly increase the odds of success in each case.

The substance of the agreement would be as follows: Russia will announce that its nuclear missiles will be targeted ONLY against the US and its allies, including all NATO member-nations, but not neutral or unaligned nations. In other words, any new NATO member-nation will thereby become a target added to Russia’s list for destruction in any World War III scenario that might transpire between the United States and Russia. Any existing NATO nation that accepts the offered treaty would no longer threaten Russia and would consequently no longer be targeted by Russia. Furthermore, Moscow should simultaneously announce that if any nation wishes to have an assurance that Russia will never, under any circumstance, invade it, then it will welcome from that nation a request for such an assurance from Russia.

Moscow will include in that announcement explicit invitations to all nations which have, at some time, expressed an intention or a possible future intention to join NATO. In this regard, it will also state, in advance, that if ever Russia were to provide to a nation such an assurance and subsequently to violate it, then it would be violating its own tradition of rigidly adhering to international treaties that it has signed. Additionally, it would also thereby be forfeiting to the country it had thereby broken its commitment to and violated, any and all of its rights under international law. Consequently, under the arrangement that is being proposed here, there would be no nation in the entire world that has, or ever did have, so strict an international treaty legal obligation as Russia would be beholden to under this proposed arrangement. It would be much clearer than what the international law-breaking US government ever did or can offer in the NATO treaty or any other. Russia’s record of strictly abiding by its agreements speaks for itself. So does America’s record of violating agreements.

Finally, this proposed arrangement would offer, to all existing members of NATO, a promise that if and when any such existing member-nation will quit that anti-Russia military alliance, Moscow will be happy to – at the moment that this is done – automatically provide to that nation the same legal commitment never to invade that nation, as has just been described here. In other words, the proposed arrangement will offer, to the entire world, a stark and clear choice between peace with Russia or being allied with the most aggressive nation in the world’s history. One that places illegal sanctions, organizes coups, and even invades states that fail to cooperate with its goal to replace the United Nations as being the ultimate arbiter of international laws. A country seeking to be the ultimate arbiter of what it calls “the rules-based international order” in which all of those ‘rules’ come ultimately from whomever rules the US government.

Read more …

“If the Americans wanted it, peace would come the next morning. Why Americans don’t want that is a question that puzzles the entire world..”

US Could Stop Ukraine Conflict Instantly – Orban (RT)

The US wants the conflict in Ukraine to continue and has failed to explain its reasons to NATO allies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. He told a radio station that if Washington wished, it could stop the fighting at a moment’s notice, as Kiev is fully dependent on the West in the fight against Russia. The Hungarian leader was interviewed by Kossuth Radio on Friday morning, after returning from the NATO summit in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius. During the event, the US-led military bloc declined to extend to Kiev a roadmap for membership. Hungary has stood out among members of the alliance by consistently criticizing Western policies on the Ukraine crisis.

“If the Americans wanted it, peace would come the next morning. Why Americans don’t want that is a question that puzzles the entire world,” Orban said. “We didn’t get an answer at the NATO summit.” At this point, “Ukraine has lost any real sovereignty,” Orban claimed, citing Kiev’s devastated economy, and heavy dependence on Western allies for funding and weaponry. Justifying its support for Ukraine, Washington has accused Russia of launching an “unprovoked war of aggression” against Kiev. US officials have said that inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Moscow is a primary goal. bMoscow, in turn, has accused the US of triggering the crisis by ignoring Russia’s long-running concerns over NATO expansion in Europe, while fostering a regime in Kiev that is hostile to Moscow.

The Kremlin perceives the conflict as part of a US-led proxy war against Russia. Orban went on to warn that if NATO were to admit Ukraine now, it would trigger a world war. He also highlighted the risks incurred by Western states sending increasingly sophisticated military hardware to Kiev. The Hungarian leader also accused Kiev of using moral blackmail to receive Western support, but added that he does not blame Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky for acting the way he does, as he is “fighting for the survival of his people.” The prime minister predicted that the conflict will drag on, and EU nations – including Hungary – will bear the economic cost, including high inflation.

Read more …

“Had we accepted Ukraine into NATO, this would have meant immediate world war..”

Inviting Ukraine To Join NATO Would Have Triggered WWIII – Orban (TASS)

Extending an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO would have triggered the outbreak of a new world war, and thus the North Atlantic Alliance’s leaders did the right thing by refraining from taking this step at the Vilnius summit, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday. “Had we accepted Ukraine into NATO, this would have meant immediate world war,” he told the Kossuth radio station. That said, he lamented that belligerent attitudes in favor of prolonging the Ukrainian conflict still predominate in public opinion across Western countries.

“Residents of Western countries want the war” in Ukraine, Orban noted, adding that “the Ukrainians are being aggressive” by constantly demanding certain benefits for themselves. Given this, the prime minister stated that the conflict in Hungary’s eastern neighbor would last for a while longer and, thus, the Hungarian government should be ready for this.

Read more …

“After “Joe Biden” got “elected” in 2020, and news of his family’s sketchy business activities in Ukraine and elsewhere finally dribbled out, Ukraine was turned into a giant grenade and “JB” (or persons acting on his behalf) pulled the pin.”

A Fun Day (James Howard Kunstler)

Somebody in the “Joe Biden” White House apparently thinks that the operations already underway are not enough to destroy our country fast enough, so a little extra push, such as nuclear annihilation, might get’er done. By operations underway I mean things like mRNA vaccines stealthily deleting kin, friends, and public figures from the scene… decriminalizing crime… undermining the oil industry by a thousand cuts… liquidating small business… making little children insane over sex… flooding the land with illegal immigrants… devaluing the currency… queering elections — all of these things done on purpose, by the way. And if you complain about any of it, here comes the FBI or the IRS knocking on your door.

So, to make sure that a collapse of the USA comes on-schedule, there is the useful fracas created by our government geniuses over in Ukraine that creeps day-by-day toward a quick American assisted suicide. Just to remind you, here’s how that started: In 2014, the US fomented a coup against Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. In short order, the Russian language was banned (despite the fact that Most Ukrainians speak Russian). A piqued Russia re-po’d the Crimean Peninsula. When ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine (the Donbas provinces) tried to go their own way, Ukraine shelled and rocketed them for eight years. That was the setup. All of the above was absolutely unnecessary, you understand.

Ukraine had been going about its business the best it could since 1991 as a shlub nation with an aged-out Soviet infrastructure, some US-sponsored bioweapons labs, and no energy resources. It had been collecting royalties for allowing Russia to run oil pipelines across its fruited plain — of which, a lot of gas was siphoned off in transit by bandits. Ukraine attempted to compensate for its disadvantages by being an international money laundromat, though that only benefited its oligarch class (and the extended “Joe Biden” family). After “Joe Biden” got “elected” in 2020, and news of his family’s sketchy business activities in Ukraine and elsewhere finally dribbled out, Ukraine was turned into a giant grenade and “JB” (or persons acting on his behalf) pulled the pin. NATO was dragooned into the quarrel as backup against its better judgment.

If the objective was to weaken Russia, as stated by one of our strategic geniuses, SecDef Loyd Austin, it didn’t work out. Rather, it exposed the USA as a reckless global psychopath bent on wrecking every country it pretends to help — including the major countries in NATO. Two-thirds of the world’s other nations then started backpedaling away from the US and its protective services to form an economic and security coalition around the BRICs group, as led by Russia and China. The Ukraine campaign itself was a loser from the get-go, relying utterly, as it did, on US and NATO support. This week’s NATO meet-up in Vilnius, Lithuania, showed how that’s going now: Not too well. The Ukraine army is shredded. It’s out of munitions. The US is also out of those very artillery shells most in demand. What to do?

Read more …

“The US is amassing troops in Europe at the time Ukraine’s military capability of taking on the Russian troops is waning.”

Biden Could Risk WW3 to Bail Out Ukraine – Larry Johnson (Sp.)

US President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order increasing Operation Atlantic Resolve in Europe with 3,000 reserve personnel on July 13. Since February 2022, the Pentagon has deployed over 20,000 additional forces to Europe, bringing its current total to over 100,000 across the Old Continent in the wake of the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.”The United States is giving every indication that it is prepared to have a confrontation with Russia,” Larry Johnson, a veteran of the CIA and the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, told Sputnik “And Russia is taking that seriously. I mean, just given their history, they have no alternative but to take it seriously.” The US is amassing troops in Europe at the time Ukraine’s military capability of taking on the Russian troops is waning.

The Ukrainian military is suffering from a manpower deficit, according to the expert. He cited the fact that the Ukrainian Army trained by NATO over the past several years for a proxy war against Russia was destroyed during the first phases of the special military operation. The “second version” of the Ukrainian Army was involved in taking Kherson and Kharkov in September 2022; but again, that army was obliterated. Now Ukraine is on the “third version,” which has been part of the ongoing counteroffensive, as per Johnson. The provision of sophisticated weaponry and training to the Ukrainian military cannot save the day for Kiev. The crux of the matter is that the training provided by NATO member states is insufficient, the CIA veteran explained.

“A lot of these soldiers that the Ukrainians throw into the front lines have had two to three months of training, period,” Johnson said. “And they’re not even following a standard training regimen: some are being trained in England; some are being trained in Germany, some in Poland, some in Italy, some in France. It’s like a patchwork quilt then. There’s a reason in the military they use that term – uniform – to describe something that everybody’s doing the same way. When you have six, seven, 30 different countries doing training for, you know, thousands of different Ukrainians, you’re not getting any kind of standard uniform training. So, all of that put together means that anybody with just a minimal education in the military sciences would know this was a failed effort to them from the start.” In addition, three-to-five months of training does not allow the Ukrainian military to master operating NATO-grade weapons efficiently enough.

“The requirement to train a soldier to be able to operate effectively in a combat theater is not to get basic training. Well, that’s about 13 weeks (…) That just gives you the basics,” Johnson said. “Then you go into what they call advanced individual training. And that again, could be another two-to-three month process just to get basic skills. And If you’re going to be driving a tank, if you’re going to be shooting an M777 artillery piece, but that’s just you individually learning so that you are competent and that doesn’t begin to address how you will interact in carrying out operations. So when we talk about a company level, we’re talking about 150 people roughly, then that jumps up to a battalion level. And then when you get to a brigade, you could be dealing with 5,000 people. And so how are you people learning how to move with a large group of people to interact, to respond to commands, to know where you’re located. You know, it becomes very complex. That takes time.”

Read more …

“..an outcome no rational actor could ever view as contributing to the collective peace and security of Europe.”

Poland Seeks The Nuclear Option (Scott Ritter)

The issue of Poland joining NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement resurfaced in October 2022 when Polish President Andrzej Duda, alarmed by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, publicly appealed for the US to station B-61 nuclear bombs on Polish soil. This request, however, failed to gain any traction in either the US or NATO. Duda’s request, however, was not beyond the pale. In April 2022 the director of the NATO nuclear policy directorate, Jessica Cox, announced that NATO military planners were updating the mechanics of NATO’s nuclear sharing program to take into account the acquisition by many NATO members of the F-35A fighter. Four of the five nations involved in this nuclear sharing arrangement (Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany) had agreed to transition to the F-35A (Turkey was supposed to but ran afoul of US sanctions over its purchase of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles.)

Cox indicated that NATO planners were looking at the possibility of integrating F-35A aircraft scheduled to be purchased by Poland, Denmark, and Norway into the nuclear sharing mission (it is assumed that Finland, which recently joined NATO and is purchasing F-35A aircraft, would be part of this integration as well.) Cox’s plans did not call for the deployment of nuclear weapons onto the soil of these nations, but rather the use of their aircraft in a nuclear role. Morawiecki’s request was linked to Poland’s future acquisition of F-35A aircraft, leading to the possibility that a compromise could be agreed-to that would see US nuclear bombs remain on German soil but turned over to Polish aircrews in time of war. Poland recently inked a $6.5 billion deal with the US for the purchase of 32 of its F-35A fighters, the delivery of which is scheduled to begin in 2024.

While the Polish request to enter the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement was not publicly addressed during the Vilnius Summit, the NATO communique issued at its conclusion hinted at what the future may look like for both Poland and the NATO nuclear deterrent. NATO, the communique noted, “will take all necessary steps to ensure the credibility, effectiveness, safety and security of the nuclear deterrent mission. This includes continuing to modernize NATO’s nuclear capability and updating planning to increase flexibility and adaptability of the Alliance’s nuclear forces, while exercising strong political control at all times. The Alliance reaffirms the imperative to ensure the broadest possible participation by Allies concerned in NATO’s nuclear burden-sharing arrangements to demonstrate Alliance unity and resolve.”

While it is unlikely that either the US or NATO will, in the future, accede to the Polish Prime Minister’s request to station US B-61 bombs on Polish soil, the NATO communique appears to pave the way for Poland’s F-35A fleet to be integrated into the pool of aircraft available to NATO to deliver those bombs if a nuclear conflict were to ever break out between NATO and Russia. While the alliance may view such an outcome as contributing to the viability of the NATO nuclear deterrent, the reality is all it does is guarantee that Russia will be compelled to view every F-35A in the NATO arsenal as a potential nuclear threat going forward and to adjust its own response accordingly. This puts NATO and Russia closer to the possibility of nuclear conflict, an outcome no rational actor could ever view as contributing to the collective peace and security of Europe.


Read more …

“The US and other NATO leaders “never gave a damn about Ukraine itself. They’ve used it since 1991 to permanently and gravely weaken Russia. Zelensky, for his part, never has given a damn about Ukrainians..”

Vilnius Summit Locks Ukraine in Servile Status, Brutal War With No Way Out (Sp.)

University of Pittsburgh Professor of International Affairs Michael Brenner believes that continuation of the conflict would result in the total destruction of Ukraine as an independent state, not Russia. “Ukraine as we know it will never enter NATO because it won’t exist. The Russians will never accept a partition – de facto or de jure – that leaves the rump Ukraine free to rearm as a NATO partner,” he said. It had always been logically absurd to imagine that the United States and NATO could grant Kiev a commitment of any sort while the Zelensky regime was engaged in a war since that risked a military confrontation with Russia, Brenner explained. At the Vilnius summit, “Zelensky was played in the sense that Biden [and the other NATO leaders] held out the prospect of some sort of NATO relationship if the so-called counter-offensive were so successful that the West could give Putin an ultimatum to cease and desist or face humiliating defeat – And if he did surrender,” he said.

However, US, NATO and Ukrainian leaders are still chasing dreams that are impossible to realize, Brenner warned. The US and other NATO leaders “never gave a damn about Ukraine itself. They’ve used it since 1991 to permanently and gravely weaken Russia. Zelensky, for his part, never has given a damn about Ukrainians,” he said. Zelensky could and should have insisted on proceeding with the tentative agreement reached with Moscow to end the conflict in April 2022, only two months after it began. But instead, he gave in to the Washington ultimatum to fight on, Brenner said. “Nor would he [Zelensky] have sacrificed 200,000 dead soldiers in a lost cause,” he said.

Meanwhile in Washington, the White House priority remains to keep the conflict going until the 2024 election is over and won, Brenner believes. However, “given the state of affairs on the battlefield that would require some sort of major escalation,” he warned. Biden on Thursday approved an executive order authorizing 3,000 US military reserve personnel to augment Operation Atlantic Resolve, which provides rotational deployment of combat-credible forces to Europe as part of the United States’ commitment to NATO. The move does not change current US force posture levels in Europe, the US European Command said in a statement.

Read more …

“The Global South is Kiev’s and NATO’s latest bet in a quest for manpower to feed the long-term war..”

Enlisting to Fight for Ukraine Would Be ‘Suicide’, Brazilian Soldier Warns (Sp.)

Having wasted the lives of thousands of Ukrainians by press ganging them and sending them to their deaths in suicide attacks against Russian troop positions, Kiev now seeks to replenish its stocks of cannon fodder with mercenaries from foreign countries such as Brazil. Earlier this week, Russia’s Ministry of Defense warned that Kiev has intensified its campaign to recruit Brazilians to fight for Zelensky in the Ukrainian conflict. This campaign is apparently meant to make up for large personnel losses sustained by Ukrainian forces during their so-called “counter-offensive” that was launched last week and has so far resulted in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and the destruction of large quantities of NATO military hardware provided to Kiev by its Western backers.

Several Western private military contractors with ties to the CIA, such as the infamous Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) are apparently involved in this recruitment drive, the defense ministry noted, adding that Kiev seeks to enlist mercenaries from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East amid the “failure of the latest mobilization effort in Ukraine.” According to Brazilian journalist Lucas Leiroz, Ukraine and its NATO sponsors no longer have enough manpower to conduct aggressive military operations against Russia, considering the fact that NATO is not officially at war with Russia and thus cannot officially commit its forces to the Ukrainian conflict. “Ukraine is weakened, its armed forces are weakened, the [Ukrainian] neo-Nazi units that played an important role in combat operations are practically neutralized,” Leiroz told Sputnik.

Thus, he argued, Kiev and its sponsors now seek a “source of manpower needed to wage an aggressive war against Russia in the long-term perspective,” as Ukraine’s efforts to press gang more citizens into military service have produced questionable results. “The Global South is Kiev’s and NATO’s latest bet in a quest for manpower to feed the long-term war,” the journalist said. “Extensive propaganda efforts are being aimed not just at the groups sympathetic to Kiev – such as extremists, neo-Nazi networks and neo-fascist movements – but also at ordinary people who are being seduced with propaganda and promises of Ukrainian citizenship.”

A Brazilian ex-officer named Fabio Júnior de Oliveira, 42, told Brazilian media earlier this year that the legion suffers from a constant lack of military equipment and rations, complaining that even the body armor issued there does not meet the requirements. Out of the 30 members of his unit, 27 asked for discharge due to poor conditions in the legion, Oliveira reportedly said. Leiroz also pointed out that Brazilian media often neglect to mention in their reports the data about casualties sustained by foreign mercenaries operating in the Ukrainian conflict zone, with Leiroz suggesting that these media outlets are partially responsible for the deaths of Brazilian fighters on the battlefield. “This is very dangerous, because the real situation on the front differs from the picture painted by media: Ukraine has no advantage, it is losing the war, a lot of Ukrainian soldiers are being killed and Brazilians risk sharing their fate,” he said, apparently referring to the Brazilians who would travel to Ukraine to fight.

Read more …

“..everyone involved essentially “plays their role.”

What Lies Behind Zelensky’s ‘Nervous Response’ to NATO Summit? (Sp.) s

The results of the NATO summit in Vilnius this week were apparently not to the Ukrainian leadership’s satisfaction, as Kiev essentially received only vague promises to maybe join the alliance sometime in the future. Volodymyr Zelensky has complained about the NATO summit on Twitter, lamenting that the lack of a timeframe for Ukraine’s admission to NATO was “unprecedented and absurd.” Commenting on this situation, Tiberio Graziani, chairman at Vision & Global Trends International Institute for Global Analyses, told Sputnik that one should look “beyond the skirmishes between the statements of the representatives of the various countries, the NATO secretariat and Zelensky,” as everyone involved essentially “plays their role.”

“The representatives of the member countries, as well as those in charge of NATO, aware that giving timescales for Kiev’s entry into the Alliance – in wartime – would constitute a mortgage on the future of the course of the ongoing conflict, try to postpone time for a certain decision,” Graziani explained At the same time, he added, “Zelensky’s nervous response is a due act: he must in fact give a signal of coherence to his own leadership group and to his Armed Forces.” Graziani also argued that any concerns about how much unity there may be within NATO – seeing how no joint agreement on security guarantees has emerged by the summit’s end – are irrelevant since that military bloc is “hegemonic” in nature, with all of its members – except for the UK, Australia and Canada – having an “ancillary role” with respect to the “hegemonic role of Washington.”

“Internal NATO problems disappear instantly if and when the US wants it,” Graziani surmised. He also addressed the remarks made recently by UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace who complained about Ukraine’s apparent lack of gratitude for the weaponry it receives from abroad, reminding Kiev that London is “not Amazon.” “It seems to me that Wallace posed the problem at NATO level to push other countries to increase the amount of military aid with the consequence of further depleting the military arsenals of the Old Continent,” Graziani mused. “In the long run, the only countries that will strengthen in terms of their armaments capacity will be the USA and Great Britain.”

Read more …

Holding out for more IMF loans?

Sweden’s NATO Membership Not A Done Deal – Erdogan Aide (RT)

Türkiye has opened the door to the process of Sweden joining NATO but has not yet given its approval, Omer Celik, spokesman for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling AK Party, said on Friday. In a live broadcast on Haberturk TV, Celik said there was a tripartite memorandum between Türkiye, Sweden and NATO about the preconditions for membership, in which Stockholm pledged to undertake certain steps. If the Turkish parliament is told that Sweden has produced “a strong satisfactory result” by complying with its obligations, AKP deputies will vote to ratify its membership of the US-led military bloc, Celik told Haberturk. Asked when this might happen, Celik said “at the next session” of the parliament, meaning not before October or November. Earlier this week, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Türkiye had agreed to support Sweden’s application after a months-long delay.

Erdogan had reportedly attempted to tie his approval of Sweden’s membership bid to Türkiye being admitted to the European Union. In return, the US has signaled willingness to unblock a sale of F-16 fighters to Ankara. Commenting on Türkiye’s relations with the US, Celik said the meeting between Erdogan and US President Joe Biden promised “a new page,” but that remained to be seen. Relations could improve much faster if the US would change its mind about supporting Kurdish-led militants in Syria, Celik noted. NATO had hoped to admit Sweden and Finland together before the bloc’s summit in Vilnius, Lithuania this week. Finland eventually joined on its own, after Türkiye held up Sweden’s application over concerns that Stockholm was protecting Kurdish organizations that Ankara has labeled as terrorists. The US-dominated bloc technically requires the consensus of all 31 members before admitting new ones.

Read more …

That’s half the country, including its president.

Kiev Bans ‘Russian Culture’ (RT)

The Kiev city council has voted to impose a broad moratorium on public displays of “cultural products” made using the Russian language, citing the armed conflict with Moscow. “We must once and for all restrict the Russian-language cultural products on the territory of Ukraine’s capital,” Vadim Vasilchuk, chair of the council’s education and culture commission, said on Thursday. He labeled Russian “the language of the aggressor state that has no place in the heart of our capital.” Vasilchuk explained that the decision means an effective ban on “books, artwork, audiovisual products, musical recordings, arts and crafts, stage and circus performances, concerts and services.”

The ruling is part of a wider state-sponsored campaign to eradicate historical and cultural ties with Russia that began in Ukraine after in 2014, when Crimea voted to join Russia following the Western-backed coup in Kiev. The movement escalated in 2022, when Moscow launched its military operation in Ukraine. In 2015, Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed a law on “decommunization” aimed at removing the legacy of the Soviet Union from public spaces such as monuments as well as street and city names. In practice, the campaign has targeted everything remotely Russian, from films and TV shows to individual artists.

In April 2023, President Vladimir Zelensky signed a law that banned names and symbols associated with “Russian imperial policies.” Moscow has repeatedly condemned Kiev’s attempts to target the centuries of shared history. President Vladimir Putin cited “the de-Russification and forced assimilation” of ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine and Donbass as one of the causes of the current conflict. Putin has also blasted attacks on Russian culture in Ukraine and the West, stressing that it has been an inalienable part of European culture. “When someone is trying to destroy Russian culture, it is a suicide attempt, because they are destroying themselves,” he said earlier this month.

Read more …

Tucker did 6 hours, umasked all RINOs, ended a few careers.

Mike Pence, Tucker Carlson Quarrel Over Ukraine Policy (Sp.)

Former US Vice President and 2024 presidential hopeful Mike Pence and journalist Tucker Carlson quarreled on Friday over Pence’s stances with regard to Ukraine, including on the issues of religious persecution of Christians and prioritizing Ukraine aid over domestic spending. “I did raise the issue when we were there,” Pence said during an interview with Carlson, when asked whether he raised the religious persecution of Christians while on a recent trip to Ukraine. “I raised it with the leader of the Orthodox church [of Ukraine] when I was visiting Kiev.” The church leader assured Pence that the Ukrainian government respects religious liberty, while admitting that certain elements of the Russian Orthodox Church were being targeted, Pence said.

However, Carlson pressed Pence on the issue, asking how the self-avowed Christian leader could support the arrest of Christian for having different viewpoints. “You spoke to one person who’s clearly on one side of it,” Carlson said, pointing to reports of clergy facing persecution by the Kiev regime. Pence affirmed that he would not support religious persecution, but highlighted what he was told by the Ukrainian church official. Both figures also argued over the issue of US aid to Ukraine and whether to prioritize the foreign conflict over pressing domestic issues. Pence said it is in the interest of the United States to continue to give Ukraine equipment to fight Russia, which was met with mixed of booing and clapping from the audience.

Pence reiterated that the US needed to continue its military aid packages, all while doubling down on rhetoric that Ukraine should be granted NATO membership once the current conflict is settled. “I’m sorry Mr. Vice President… you are distressed that the Ukrainians don’t have enough American tanks? Every city in the United States has become much worse over the past three years,” Carlson said. “Your concern is that the Ukrainians, a country most people can’t find on a map, who have received tens of billions of US tax dollars, don’t have enough tanks? I think it’s a fair question to ask: where’s the concern for the United States in that?” In response, Pence called Tucker’s remarks a “routine” and said “it’s not my concern.” The two men ended the interview shortly after the exchange.

The interview took place as part of a forum for Republican 2024 presidential candidates, hosted by Blaze Media and the Family Leadership Summit. Carlson also interviewed other candidates including South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson. Former US President Donald Trump leads the pack of Republican candidates at 49.7% support, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at 21% and Pence at 7.4%, according to FiveThirtyEight poll averages published Friday.

Read more …

“..dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people..”

Nobel Physics Laureate 2022 Slams ‘Climate Emergency’ Narrative (DS)

The co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize has launched an excoriating attack on the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, calling it a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”. Dr. John Clauser notes that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”. Dr. Clauser is one of the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, the study of matter and light at a sub-atomic and atomic level. In 2010 he was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics, considered the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel. His comments will help cast further doubt on the obvious falsehood that 99% of scientists believe humans cause all or most climate change. Physicists along with chemists play a dominant role in investigating the science surrounding climate, which at its core focuses on heat exchange and the behaviour of atmospheric gases.

In turn, continued Clauser, the climate pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s largest population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science,” he added. Dr. Clauser is not the first Nobel physics prize-winner to challenge the ‘settled’ scientific and political narrative of climate change. The World Climate Declaration has been signed by around 300 climate professors, and declares: “There is no climate emergency.”

The lead signatory is the Nobel laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate models are said to be “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effect, the Declaration states. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science, it says. Professor Antonino Zichichi is the holder of Italy’s highest merit order, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, awarded for a lifetime of distinguished scientific work including several discoveries in the field of sub-nuclear physics. In 2019 he led a group of 48 Italian science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”.

Recently, four Italian scientists, including three physics professors, undertook a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ is not supported by the data. Over many meteorological categories there was “no clear positive trend of extreme events”. Of course, cherry-picking single bad, or ‘extreme’, weather events provides the main fire power for convincing populations that a global and collectivist de-industrialisation must take place within less than 30 years. Last September, the leading nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer warned that Net Zero would end modern civilisation. He observed that the new wind and solar infrastructure would fail, cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment “and be entirely unnecessary”.

Read more …





Cerberus heat








Russia continent








Vivian Maier





Support the Automatic Earth in virustime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.






Dec 072019

Saul Leiter Taxi c1957


When I read that Angela Merkel visited Auschwitz this week (for the first time ever, curiously, after 14 years as Chancellor, and now it’s important?), my first thought was: she should have visited Julian Assange instead. I don’t even know why, it just popped into my head. And then reflecting on it afterwards, of course first I wondered if it’s acceptable to compare nazi victims to Assange in any way, shape or form.

There are many paths to argue it is not. He is not persecuted solely for being part of a group of people (we can’t really use “race” here). There are not millions like him who are being tortured and persecuted for the same reasons he is. There is no grand scheme to take out all like him. There is no major police or army force to execute any such scheme. These things are all obvious.

But I grew up in Holland, where unlike in Merkel’s Germany, the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust was very much present. I looked it up, and it’s already almost 10 years ago that I wrote Miep Gies Died Today, in which I explained this. Miep Gies was a woman who worked for Anne Frank’s father Otto, helped hide the family in the annex, and after the war secured Anne’s diary (or we would never have known about it) and handed it to Otto Frank.

So accusing me of anti-semitism for comparing the Holocaust to what is being done to Assange is not going to work. Why then did Merkel never visit Auschwitz before this week, and when she did, said how important it is to German history? And why did she not visit Assange instead?

Unlike the people who died in Auschwitz and other concentration camps (Anne Frank died in Bergen Belsen from typhoid), Julian Assange today, as we speak, IS being persecuted, he IS being tortured, and he IS likely to die in a prison. What does Angela Merkel think that Anne Frank would have thought about that? Would she have written in her diary that it was okay?

Would all those millions of Jewish and Roma and gay victims have thought that? There are 75+ years that have gone by. We can not get these victims back, we can not magically revive them. But we CAN make sure that what happened to them, torture and murder, doesn’t happen to people today. “Never Again”, right? Well, it IS happening again.

Are we all supposed to go say “I didn’t know” -“Ich hab es nicht gewüsst”- like the Germans did, and all those who collaborated with them across Europe?

There are victims who are dead, and there are victims who are -barely- alive. And if you claim you wish to honor the dead victims, you must ask what they would have felt about the ones like them who are still alive. Otherwise, you’re not honoring them, you’re just posing and acting and, in the end, grossly insulting them.

Julian Assange is not in a German prison, true, but Angela Merkel is still the uncrowned queen of Europe, and if she would visit Julian in his Belmarsh torture chamber it would make a huge difference. That she elects to visit Auschwitz instead, does not only make her appear hollow and empty, it is a grave insult to the likes of Anne Frank and all the other nazi victims.



Which brings me to another Assange-related issue. The Guardian’s editor, Katharine Viner, launched an appeal yesterday for people to donate money to her paper’s “climate emergency” fund. That in itself is fine. If people think they need to help save the planet with their savings, sure.

Though I will always have suspicions about all these things. From where I stand, I see too many people claiming to save the planet, oil CEOs and billionaires first, and too much money being invited to join their funds. If you want to donate something for the cause, why do it via a newspaper? But even with that in mind, yeah, whatever, it’s Christmas time. Who cares how effective the money will be?

My problem with Katharine Viner and the Guardian is that they have played a very active role in the smearing and persecution of Julian Assange. They’ve published articles that were proven to be 100% false, and never retracted them, or apologized, or attempted to make things right. The Guardian is a major reason why Julian is where he is. It has accommodated, make that encouraged, the British people’s “Ich hab es nicht gewüsst”.

You can donate to the Guardian’s climate emergency fund, if you believe they don’t run it to make you think they really care about the planet more than about their bottom line, but be careful: you will also be supporting the further smearing and persecution of Julian Assange. Are you sure you want to do that?

See, the headline for Katharine Viner’s article is: The Climate Crisis Is The Most Urgent Threat Of Our Time. And it’s not. The most urgent threat is that to Julian Assange’s health. That is today, not in 5 or 10 or 100 years. After all, what is the use of saving the planet if we allow the smartest and bravest among us to be tortured to death? What do we think Anne Frank would have said about that?



Include the Automatic Earth in your Christmas charity list. Support us on Paypal and Patreon. We need you.

Top of the page, left and right sidebars. Thank you.