Health Officials Push Whooping Cough Vaccine Amid Uptick in Cases, But Scientists Say Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | August 14, 2024
Public health officials are urging families to get vaccinated against whooping cough, citing an uptick in cases, particularly among adolescents. However, critics say the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission and contains dangerous toxins that may harm human health.
Connecticut Department of Public Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani said that there were 111 confirmed cases of pertussis in the state so far in 2024 — nearly a 10-fold increase compared to 2023, NBC Connecticut reported this week.
Juthani told The Hour that public health officials are concerned the spread will increase when school begins in just a few weeks.
“We are raising attention to this, both to providers and to families,” she said, “so that theoretically, people can get back up to date on their vaccines before children potentially are going back to day care, are going back to school.”
Other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, have also seen an uptick in whooping cough cases this year, Newsweek reported in early June. Outside the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia have also reported increases.
Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a highly infectious respiratory tract infection, according to the Mayo Clinic. Deaths from it are rare and typically occur in infants.
It’s caused by a bacteria called Bordetella pertussis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC recommends that “everyone” — from babies as young as 2 months old to adults, particularly pregnant women — vaccinate against the illness by getting either a DTaP or Tdap vaccine, which also ostensibly protect against tetanus and diphtheria.
According to the CDC, the vaccine is “the best way to prevent whooping cough.”
Pertussis can be treated with antibiotics
However, Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense (CHD) told The Defender the pertussis vaccine may contribute to the spread of the infection — because it doesn’t prevent transmission.
“The pertussis vaccine is one of those that breaks the mold of what we think a vaccine is,” Jablonowski said. “Pertussis is probably the best case I can think of for a vaccine that does not prevent transmission.”
He added, “Every time there is a case of it, health officials will get on TV urging people to get vaccinated — wrongfully believing it will stop transmission.”
As The Defender recently reported, the CDC has been tracking changes in the prevalence of bacteria causing whooping cough for years.
Although the CDC’s whooping cough website still says the illness is caused by Bordetella pertussis, the most recent CDC data found that the Bordetella parapertussis type of whooping cough has significantly overtaken Bordetella pertussis in prevalence — and according to research published in Vaccines in March, the existing vaccines “scarcely provide protection” against this strain.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD chief scientific officer, told The Defender pertussis can be treated with antibiotics — “erythromycin and azithromycin are standard,” he said — and high doses of vitamin C.
The CDC’s website acknowledges whooping cough can be treated with antibiotics and fails to explain why the agency favors vaccination over antibiotics.
Pertussis vaccine may prevent herd immunity
Earlier this year, Jablonowski spoke on the poor efficacy and high-risk profile of the pertussis vaccine before Tennessee lawmakers as they weighed a bill to prohibit the state’s Department of Children Services from “requiring an immunization as a condition of adopting or overseeing a child in foster care if an individual or member of an individual’s household objects to immunization on the basis of religious or moral convictions.”
During March testimony before the Tennessee General Assembly Civil Justice Committee, Jablonowski cited scientific studies that debunk the notion that the vaccine is the best way to prevent whooping cough.
For instance, a 2016 review published in JAMA that reviewed more than 10,000 whooping cough cases found that more than half the cases in the five largest statewide outbreaks occurred in individuals who were partially or fully vaccinated against pertussis.
A 2019 review published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society concluded that “all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”
Another review, also published in 2019, concluded that pertussis vaccines “do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.”
Jablonowski told lawmakers that not only does the pertussis vaccine not “exert” a herd immunity effect, but the vaccine “has a negative effective on herd immunity.”
He explained:
“A vaccinated person can asymptomatically carry and transmit the disease, and cannot then learn how to fight it naturally.
“If you accept that in order to achieve herd immunity 90% of the population needs to not retransmit the bacteria once exposed to it, then once you have vaccinated more than 10% of the population herd immunity becomes impossible, as the vaccinated citizens will be contracting and transmitting the disease.”
Jablonowski told The Defender the only two scenarios in which getting the vaccine might protect someone else is when it’s given during pregnancy or to a nursing mother.
According to the CDC, pregnant women should get the Tdap vaccine to provide their babies with the “best protection” from whooping cough, ideally between 27 and 36 weeks gestation. Protective antibodies pass from the pregnant woman’s body to the fetus, the agency said.
Researchers funded by the pharmaceutical company Sanofi — which sells pertussis vaccines — in 2022 published a statement saying that vaccination against pertussis during the second or early third trimester of pregnancy is “highly protective” against pertussis in young infants.
Both the CDC and Jablonowski said that vaccinating nursing mothers doesn’t appear to be effective in protecting babies from whooping cough.
A 2012 study conducted in a Houston area hospital found that giving postpartum moms the Tdap vaccine didn’t reduce the number of infections in babies when compared to prior years in which the hospital didn’t readily give the vaccine postpartum.
The hospital implemented a standing order that all new mothers get Tdap, Jablonowski said.
The researchers looked at health data from moms and babies 7.5 years before and almost 1.5 years after this standing order, he said. “Cases of infant pertussis practically doubled and the mortality rate practically tripled” after the standing order.
Vaccine contains aluminum and formaldehyde
Both of the two current formulations of the pertussis vaccine contain toxins known to harm human health, including aluminum and formaldehyde, Jablonowski told the lawmakers.
Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that can affect more than “200 important biological reactions” and cause “negative effects on [the] central nervous system,” according to a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that is toxic to the respiratory system, central nervous system, optic nerve, kidney, liver, testicles and other body systems.
The pertussis vaccine, typically administered as part of combination vaccines like DTaP or Tdap, contains several other potentially harmful ingredients. These typically include inactivated B. pertussis toxin and several of its components, polysorbate 80, gluteraldehyde, 2-phenoxoyethanol and in some cases, trace amounts of mercury, according to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
Some researchers suggest the chemically inactivated pertussis toxin in DTaP may retain some bioactivity, potentially inducing brain inflammation in certain individuals.
CDC didn’t follow up on 2012 report on adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccines
For the past 70 years, researchers have used the pertussis toxin in animal studies to purposefully trigger various physiological responses. Responses include heightened sensitivity to histamine, serotonin and endotoxins. Researchers also used the pertussis toxin to induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis.
The toxin’s ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier under certain conditions has long been a concern. This property makes brain inflammation, or encephalitis, and its potential for lasting neurological damage a particularly severe complication associated with both whooping cough infection and pertussis vaccination.
According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), from 1990 to 2024, there were 190,994 injury reports following pertussis-containing vaccines, including 3,377 deaths, according to NVIC. Over 85% of these deaths occurred in children under age 3.
While this data includes pre-1996 reports, when the whole-cell pertussis portion of the DTP vaccine formulation was changed due to its serious side effects, it’s important to note that a significant portion would be related to the DTaP vaccine given its widespread use since 1996.
Over 6,000 claims for injuries from pertussis-containing vaccines were submitted to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as of Aug. 1, 2024. The cases include 872 deaths and over 5,000 serious injuries. Pertussis-containing vaccines comprise the highest number of VICP death claims and the second most compensated vaccine injury claims.
A 2012 study published in JAMA found an increased risk of febrile seizures in children 3-5 months old on the day of or day after receiving the first two doses of DTaP-containing vaccines.
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2012 report, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,” evaluated 26 reported adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccination. They included encephalopathy, encephalitis, chronic hives, autism, sudden infant death syndrome, arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, diabetes mellitus, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, transverse myelitis and others.
For 24 of the 26 adverse events, the committee said there was not enough data either to support or reject vaccine-related causality, primarily due to a lack of adequate studies.
To date, the CDC has not conducted any additional studies in response to IOM’s recommendations, according to the authors of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Hooker and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman on leave.
A 2017 study led by Dr. Anthony Mawson published in the Journal of Translational Science, compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children ages 6-12. The study found that while vaccinated children had fewer cases of chicken pox and pertussis, they had significantly higher rates of other health issues.
According to the study, vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, eczema and neurodevelopmental disorders. The vaccinated group also showed higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, learning disabilities and chronic health problems.
Additionally, the study reported that vaccinated children had a higher incidence of pneumonia and ear infections compared to unvaccinated children.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The American Board of Internal Medicine Revoked All 3 Of My Board Certifications
Although I can still practice medicine, the ABIM’s actions against me and Paul Marik threaten the sanctity and autonomy of the physician-patient relationship.
Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings | August 17, 2024
I will just start by saying that I believe that the ABIM’s decision was 100% predetermined even before we first received their accusation in June 2022. There was no way they were going to declare us innocent of misinformation, even though a good portion of this country knows how effective and accurate our deeply evidence-based Covid treatment guidance was (and still is).
One of the reasons why they were never gonna let us off is that, if they declared us “innocent,” (i.e. accurate) that action would have immediately imperiled the decisions by medical boards across the country who persecuted hundreds of doctors for using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or for recommending against Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy products. More importantly, it could potentially launch hundreds of thousands of lawsuits by the families of patients who died due to lack of early treatments offerred by clinics and hospitals or filled by pharmacies.
The above examples which led to the deaths of so many shows the sheer power of mega-corporations that put their financial interests ahead of our health and our lives. Through their overwhelming influence over nearly every institution of society and Science (media, journals, health agencies, politicians, medical schools, physicians etc), they literally succeeded in depriving a whole country (and world) of the most effective, inexpensive, safe, and widely available treatments for Covid. My biggest worry is that this crime against humanity may never enter the history books and thus will be eventually erased from memory. Which is looking probable.
The massive financial opportunities that Covid immediately presented to Big Pharma were threatened by the “inconvenient truths” Paul and I put out there. This ABIM action is one way in which Big Pharma punishes those who are foolish enough to do so. Foolish is not quite the right word in our case as I would argue we were simply naive to the consequences of advocating publicly for the use of off-patent medicines for an immensely profitable disease. It wasn’t heroism as some think, but rather extreme naivete.
I really never thought I would have to lose/leave three jobs and now three Board certifications for speaking truths. Recall that I was very well known in my specialty prior to Covid and was about to become Full Professor when I resigned as Chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin (where I was also the Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center). Reading the Washington Post article “Doctors Accused of Spreading Misinformation Lose Certification” was a pretty sobering reminder of how far I have supposedly “fallen” (Not so fun fact: they completely overstated my salary as the money I received in 2022 included retroactive pay for 2021).
But I am still standing folks. I am happily practicing medicine at my Leading Edge Clinic with my amazing partner Scott Marsland. As many know, we specialize in treating vaccine injury syndromes and Long Covid, and I believe we are soon closing in on having treated our 1,400th patient.
Thank God I managed to build a private, fee-based practice two and half years ago. At the time I suspected this was coming while also already aware that I was “unemployable” by the system. I got fired by my last hospital for a 100% made up complaint, despite the fact they desperately needed me. I was an independent contractor at the time and my ICU partners and all the nurses really liked me. But my partners were telling me that they were under increasing pressure by the Chief Medical Officer to “get rid of Kory.” Although they initially resisted, my stance on vaccines started to cause even more problems for them. When the ICU Director, who was both a friend and a colleague, called to fire me, his last words were, “Pierre, I know there is a war going on and unfortunately you are a casualty.” Truer words were never spoken.
Just know that Board certification is not a license to practice medicine (that comes from state medical licensing Boards of which I have more than a few still). But this ABIM action now puts a definitive end to any hope of me returning to an academic or “system” position (not that I have that hope anymore). Why is that? Well, because Board Certification was originally just a badge of distinction that doctors could use to impress each other and their patients. But they have since weaponized and monetized Board Certification in that currently you cannot obtain a faculty appointment at an academic medical center without one. Nor can you work for most hospitals without one. Even worse, insurance plans will not put you on their provider panels without it. So, although I have been fully excommunicated from “the system,” I cannot be happier about it.
Understand that what happened to me this week was a devastating censorship action, plain and simple. It was done for two reasons; the first was to destroy my reputation and credibility so that my voice will no longer carry (essentially silencing me) and the other was to send a message to doctors that if they stray from consensus, no matter how scientifically absurd (e.g. mRNA vaccines for a coronavirus), dangerous (e.g. remdesivir, mRNA jabs), or ineffective (Paxlovid), they will be punished.
The damage that will result to patients again, is incalculable. No longer will “system” doctors be able to practice medicine with the autonomy they require to arrive at the best decision for each individual patient. Nearly everything they do will be protocolized with society guideline recommended treatments (i.e. consensus manufactured by Pharma). No longer will they be able to “think out of the box” or use treatments which although known effective, do not have the blessing of those in control of that system. I am as terrified as ever of needing a hospital.
Not to overstate the importance of their actions, but Medicine as I knew it, or thought I knew it, is even more dead if that is possible. If you can’t have a differing scientific opinion without losing your career over it, then how is that Medicine or Science? In fact, in our repeated written defenses, we challenged the ABIM, asking them where “the line” is between legitimate scientific debate driven by a differing emphasis on or interpretation of data and outright misinformation.
Misnformation, as I understand it, is defined as “incorrect or misleading” information. For us to be misinformationists, in my mind, would mean that all the data from trials and studies that exist for therapeutics in Covid;
- the overwhelming preponderance of data for the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in Covid shows it to be ineffective and dangerous
- the overwhelming preponderance of data for the vaccines show they are safe and effective
Basically, it comes down to how you interpret the body of evidence which currently exists. Paul and I adhered rigidly to a “totality of the evidence” approach, drawing from in-vitro, in-vivo, clinical and epidemiologic data. All of it lined up in a truly magnificent, inspiring, and unprecedented way. Well, except for the “Big 7 RCT’s” which manipulated the design, conduct and analyses to conclude ivermectin was ineffective. I spent literally hundreds of hours (along with others like Alexandros Marinos), publishing critiques which exposed the most absurd scientific misconduct I had ever witnessed. If interested, here are just some of those critiques, e.g. Oxfords’ PRINCIPLE trial, the TOGETHER trial (three parts, here, here, and here, and the NIH ACTIV-6 trial )
We also evolved with the data, unlike the agencies who had quickly determined in December of 2020 that the vaccines were safe and effective and never, ever veered from that stance up until this day. In contrast, the founding members of the FLCCC, for quite a long time, differed in respect to the efficacy, safety, and need for the mRNA vaccines. I was the first and most vocal against the mRNA vaccines (starting in April 2021) which actually almost led to the breakup of the FLCCC or at least the membership of the original 5.
Prior to April 2021 I was simply neutral/skeptical. That skepticisim was due to what I thought might be folly in trying to vaccinate against a coronavirus (I knew that historically coronavirus vaccines had failed because the vaccinated animals developed antibody dependent enhancement and also that coronaviruses mutate rapidly). Then I did my first deep dive on VAERS and the epidemiologic data showing massive spikes in mortality and hospitalizations timed with the rollout of the jabs across dozens of countries. Voila, I was now “anti-vaxx.”
I continued to track and analyze the ever-emerging data and the horrors they revealed. This work ultimately led the FLCCC to reach an internal “consensus” that the vaccines should be avoided at all costs (literally at all costs as none of the costs incurred by taking the jab were worth someones life). Anyway, I just wanted to show that we evolved with the data, always questioning and reviewing as new data emerged.
I will end by reminding all of how dangerous the ABIM’s actions will be to all of our lives because it will further erode and/or literally destroy the patient-physician relationship. As I wrote in a previous Op-ED in the Daily Caller on January 31, 2023, “A War Is Still Being Waged Against Doctors Who Question Covid Orthodoxy:”
By virtue of their professional training, doctors must advise patients on available treatments and known risks of any treatment or procedure. By threatening doctors who might provide information different than their preferred worldview, ABIM is disrupting the doctor-patient relationship.
When allowed to practice their craft freely, physicians can prevent societal disaster by focusing on individual patients, informed by clinical experience.
Groups like the ABIM, and public medical officials like Fauci, should support and encourage evidence-based debate and patient-centered care.
Instead, they have suppressed both that debate and treatment approach by persecuting its proponents. This campaign must be stopped, its origins and evolution must be thoroughly documented, and it must never be allowed to recur. Physician autonomy must be restored lest all patients suffer.
Want More Freedom of Speech? Try Less Government.
By Jonathan Turley | August 15, 2024
Below is my column in The Hill on my call for a bill that would bar federal funding of any program and grant to censor, blacklist, or target individuals or sites based on their content. It is time to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business. The column discusses the proposal in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” to block any further funding for the current system of corporate, academic, and government programs targeting opposing or dissenting views.
Here is the column:
It is time to get the United States out of the censorship business for good.
In the last three years, the House of Representatives has disclosed a massive censorship system run in part with federal funding and with coordination with federal officials. A federal court described this system as truly “Orwellian.”
The Biden Administration has made speech regulation a priority in targeting disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. President Joe Biden even said that companies refusing to censor citizens were “killing people.”
His administration has now created an anti-free speech record that is only rivaled by the Adams Administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest political opponents.
Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of how speech controls and censorship have become mainstream. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
I have testified for years about the censorship system. For much of that time, Democrats insisted that there was no proof of any coordination or funding from the government. Such evidence did indeed exist, but Democrats worked to block any investigation to confirm what we already knew about government officials targeting individuals and groups for throttling, bans, and blacklisting.
Then Elon Musk bought Twitter. The release of the Twitter Files destroyed any plausible deniability of the government’s role in this censorship system. Various agencies had employees working with social media companies to target those with opposing or disfavored views. At the same time, we learned of grants from the federal government supporting blacklisting and targeting operations.
That includes efforts to quietly choke off the revenue of disfavored sites by pressuring advertisers and donors.
While companies like Facebook have continued to fight to conceal their coordination with the government, the Twitter Files pulled back the curtain to expose the system. Indeed, Democrats largely abandoned their denials and turned to full-throated defenses of censorship, even calling free speech advocates “Putin-lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was a primary issue for voters. It should be again. Vice President Kamala Harris is known as a supporter for these censorship and blacklisting operations. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that they need to have less free speech.
This debate should ideally focus on one simple legislative proposal. In my new book, I suggest various measures that can regain the ground that we have lost on free speech. One such measure is a federal law that would ban any federal funding of any offices or programs (government, academic, or corporate) that rate, target, censor, throttle, or seek to take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their viewpoints in public forums or social media.
There can be easy exceptions to this ban for individuals or groups engaging in criminal conduct or unlawful foreign interference with elections. Threatening individuals or trafficking in child pornography constitute conduct, not speech. They are criminal acts under the federal code.
Nothing in this law would prevent the government from speaking in its own voice. If Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas wants to challenge claims made about him or his agency, he can do so on the agency website or make his case to the media. That is the essence of free speech. What he cannot do is create a Disinformation Governance Board to regulate the speech of citizens or groups.
In my prior testimony to Congress, I warned about the use of what I called “censorship by surrogate” through which agencies did indirectly what they are barred from doing directly under the First Amendment.
This new law will not put an end to the burgeoning anti-free speech movement. It will not end the new market for groups making millions in seeking to silence or strangle sites with opposing views. However, it will create a wall of separation of the government from censorship systems.
It would also offer a simple and clear line for the 2024 election. Candidates will have to take sides on free speech. If candidates like Harris want to continue to support the government in blacklisting or censoring citizens, they should own it. We spent years of politicians engaging in cynical denials of the government’s role in censorship. If these politicians are “all in” with censorship, then they should be honest about it and let voters make the same choice that was made in 1800.
With billions to play with and enabling allies in Congress to conceal federal operations, speech regulation is an irresistible temptation for the government. We have seen how this temptation quickly becomes an insatiable appetite for government officials seeking to silence rather than answer critics.
Let’s get our government out of the business of rating, throttling blacklisting, and censoring citizens. It is time to pass a free speech protection act.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
This op-ed is part of The Hill’s “How to Fix America” series exploring solutions to some of the country’s most pressing problems.
Internal crisis shakes Balkan media network run by UK intel, leaked emails show
By Kit Klarenberg and Jovan Milovanović · The Grayzone · August 13, 2024
A prominent propaganda outlet in the Balkans, which is directly overseen by a British government agency that Reuters once labeled “an influential soft-power extension of UK foreign policy,” appears to be on the brink of collapse after a major schism between staff members and leadership.
Leaked emails reviewed by The Grayzone reveal a “deep crisis” has engulfed the Western-created and funded Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), which threatens to tear the organization apart. A flagship propaganda platform in the arsenal of multiple Western governments and foundations, it has sought to reshape the restive region in favor of European and US interests, publishing many “products” in service of this goal. Now, the entire information warfare empire seems to be on shaky ground.
The emails, which were leaked in April, reveal that an internal “crisis” has erupted at BIRN. This disaster has largely been pinned on its Regional Director, Milka Domanovic, who oversees the organization’s “portfolio of regional projects.” In the emails, multiple nameless employees accuse her of a wide variety of grave failings, including “neglect of duties” and “inappropriate conduct.” Her alleged incompetence and “mismanagement” purportedly led the EU to demand a grant of 300,000 euros be returned. The authenticity of the emails has been confirmed by BIRN staffers.
A joint email sent by the complainants to the highest echelons of BIRN on April 17 accused Domanovic of encouraging “covert discussions” about staff performances, “pitting them against each other, often using such techniques as shaming them for problems in their absence.” What’s more, they claimed that “sensitive information” which was confidentially shared with higher-ups was “carelessly handled, leading to breaches.” In the document, the organization’s Regional Director stands accused of a “combative and threatening communication style,” and encouraging a workplace environment “rife with gossip”:
“A culture of silence pervades… leaving many of us cowering from the repercussions of voicing genuine concerns or dissent,” the staffers wrote.
Domanovic’s tenure, they say, “has been marred by an authoritarian stance towards colleagues [and] indecision, ineffectiveness, and delays, resulting in a cascade of missed opportunities, funds, and targets.” When issues come to a head, “the blame is often cast upon others,” they continued, adding that Domanovic has “cultivated an environment fraught with paranoia” and engages in “relentless and often pointless scrutiny of the work of many of us.”
The damning charges were leveled by a number of experienced internal sources, who have worked under different BIRN leaders, and claim to have never encountered such issues before. Per the emails, they chose to remain anonymous “due to a legitimate fear of retaliation” by Domanovic, who they claim favored “secrecy, backroom dealings, and a lack of accountability” over “speaking truth to power” internally while in the post.
The group wrote that if they were to reveal their identities, “our careers in BIRN would be over,” a claim which they said was “clearly” validated by the “recent, sudden departures of our colleagues.”
An email sent on April 24 by Domanovic to the group, with the organization’s entire governing “Assembly” cc’ed, suggests their anxieties were well-founded. Boldly declaring that she would not be “responding to an anonymous email,” she nevertheless went on to accuse its authors of working “to cause chaos inside of BIRN.” The Regional Director added that the organization’s board shared her “concerns about anonymous communication.”
“If these emails have indeed come from inside of BIRN, Assembly is deeply disappointed with the judgment of those who chose to air grievances in a way that is potentially damaging to the reputation, the workplace environment and the mission of BIRN.”
Attacking elites when their “incentives are not aligned with [Britain’s] objectives/values”
BIRN’s donor roll is a veritable rogue’s gallery of intelligence cutouts and regional Western embassies. Leaked documents show that British involvement extends well beyond merely funding the outlets, with its foreign intelligence services going as far as training the organization’s operatives, and even directing their activities through the so-called British Council (BC).
Veteran diplomat Harold Beeley described the British Council as one of London’s “principal international propaganda agencies,” alongside the BBC. More recently, Reuters dubbed BC “an influential soft-power extension of UK foreign policy.”
A leaked internal document reveals the British Council took control of BIRN under a Foreign Office project, supposedly aimed at “supporting greater media independence in the Western Balkans.” The state-sponsored operation also claims without any sense of irony that it aims to counter “media capture” in a region where the most well-resourced outlets are sponsored by Western governments.
Under the program’s auspices, journalists throughout the Balkans receive “training and mentoring,” and help “improving their engagement with citizens on issues of public interest; targeting online audiences through social media networks and tools, public outreach campaigns; development of social networks, maintenance of their online profiles, and on-the-job training [to] lead social media campaigns.”
More recently, the British Council mulled the creation of a “cutting edge tool for engaged citizens reporting” which would enable BIRN and other covertly British-backed outlets in the Balkans “to receive and respond on regular basis to leaks” and tips from locals, “pointing to the most pressing issues in local communities.” Notably, Milka Domanovic’s LinkedIn profile reveals that from 2019 – 2022, she was in charge of “research and design” of “the custom ‘engaged citizens reporting tool.’”
In other words, British intelligence effectively attempted to construct a pro-NATO Wikileaks knockoff with Domanovic’s assistance. Elsewhere, the leaked files state the BC project is “about disrupting the status quo, and enabling the media to hold government to account.” Past files from Britain’s Stabilisation Unit made clear that London’s support for news outlets in the Balkans is explicitly aimed at spreading London’s influence, often by advancing regime change.
“In contexts where elite incentives are not aligned with [Britain’s] objectives/values… an approach that seeks to hold elite politicians to account might be needed,” a leaked file notes.
“We can build relationships and alliances with those who share our objectives and values for reform…” it continues. “It is critical that the media have the capacity and freedom to hold political actors to account.”
The newly-leaked BC documents acknowledge the project’s mission was also designed to “challenge political interests” regionally, a prospect which they admit would be “highly contentious” and risk “generating backlash” against its advocates and journalists alike.
As such, the British Council took measures to “ensure that media outlets we work with have proportionate media defence strategies in place as part of our conflict sensitive approach… we will develop security and crisis management responses to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of all our staff.” BC’s assets were therefore assured of their own protection in the event of blowback brought about by the meddling of their sponsors in London.
The leaked BIRN emails show a ferocious backlash has indeed erupted — but internally, directed towards the organization’s British-groomed chief, Milka Domanovic.
Apparent British government asset heads BIRN
In an email dated from this April 26, anonymous staffers lamented the “dismissive and authoritarian tone” of Domanovic as both “disrespectful and wholly inappropriate for someone occupying this position.” They reminded the Regional Director, and BIRN’s Assembly, that under the organization’s own rules and regulations, “the right to file complaints anonymously is explicitly protected.” In any event, they said they had raised their grievances directly with her “on numerous occasions and in various forums,” to no avail:
“Her continuous misguided conduct and contentious communications continue to try to dismiss and silence legitimate employee concerns… These developments, coupled with the growing anxiety and fear among staff concerning potential retaliation, informal interrogations by the Regional Director about who is ‘behind’ these letters, threats made by [Domanovic] among colleagues she deems ‘trusted’… underscore the urgent need for the Assembly’s immediate intervention, to mitigate the broadening crisis and determine damage control measures.”
It appears no action was taken to address Domanovic’s alleged misconduct. Given her background as a Chevening Scholar, the lack of accountability was unsurprising. Provided by the Foreign Office, these scholarships provide a vital mechanism for projecting British soft power abroad. Many Chevening scholars go on to occupy positions of power in their home countries.
An official BIRN profile of Domanovic states that Chevening placed her at Goldsmiths, University of London. There, she obtained a master’s degree not in journalism, but in “marketing and technology”. This experience reportedly “helped her improve her research and analytical skills, as well as discover new potential for successful media outreach.” While the leaked emails may suggest otherwise, such schooling was no doubt extremely helpful in constructing an “engaged citizens reporting tool” for the British, which she began work on immediately after graduation.
Indeed, another leaked document related to British infiltration of the former Yugoslavia explicitly state that the creation of a “pipeline” of female “defence and diplomacy” journalists in the region, via Chevening, is a core objective for London. It was forecast they would serve as pro-British “influencers in the Western Balkans” for the remainder of their careers. Documents described these media operatives as part of a wider effort to “[bring] female journalists to the forefront of the industry’s consciousness” in the region.
“The programme will include an outreach element with activities undertaken in universities to encourage women to consider journalism as a career. The UK could also lobby [local] media to reserve a percentage of entry-level roles for women. It will challenge gender stereotypes and open a gateway to areas previously occupied mostly by men in a high-visibility industry. It will also improve the perception of the UK with these participants.”
It should therefore come as little surprise that Domanovic, as an alumnus of Britain’s premiere overseas asset grooming operation, was quickly tapped to run BIRN once her Chevening scholarship ended. The privileges extended to her personally — and the significance of her British-directed mission — appear to have translated into near-total immunity from any repercussions for serial incompetence, or any of her other grave transgressions that employees say jeopardized the entire organization.
Rather than addressing staff concerns about her leadership, the BIRN Assembly explicitly sought to expose the whistleblowers, according to Montenegrin outlet Antena M. US-based Assembly member Robert Bierman dismissed their anxieties outright, offering them a personal review of their complaints – but only if they revealed their identities. That message came just three days after Domanovic reportedly warned her accusers of serious repercussions if they continued their remonstrations. Her main concern, she indicated, was stopping “further information leaks.”
BIRN and Domanovic were contacted for comment on the accusations, but have not responded.
Milka Domanovic remained BIRN’s Regional Director as of June 2024. The fate of her accusers is unknown.
Israel’s creation and exploitation of Palestinian human shields
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | August 17, 2024
How many times have Israeli officials justified massacring Palestinian civilians because Hamas uses them as human shields? Israeli media has now reported the opposite – the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) using Palestinian civilians as human shields in areas slated for incursion. “It is better that they explode and not the soldiers,” an Israeli soldier was told by an IDF commander. According to testimonies given to Haaretz by soldiers, senior IDF staff are aware of the practice.
In Israeli narratives of Palestinian human shields, the context is completely stripped away. There is no mention of the fact that Gaza is blockaded, that people have no way out and that a densely populated strip of land is home to both civilians and the resistance movement, including their weapons. Israel using the term “human shields” to describe Hamas’s limitations in terms of resistance in Gaza is not only misleading, but also completely wrong. It is Israeli colonial violence that has created Palestinian human shields.
After creating Palestinian human shields, Israel found a way to use them. First, to build its narrative justifying each aggression against Gaza. In the genocide, Israel used Palestinian human shields to save the lives of soldiers tasked with killing Palestinians in Gaza.
While Israel’s colonial narrative deems Hamas a terror group, it is interesting to note how the Israeli media specified that the human shields used by the IDF “are not terror suspects”. The phrase itself speaks volumes about Israel’s genocidal intent and action in Gaza – every Palestinian is a target, not just Hamas. Palestinian civilians, Israeli media reported: “Are detained specifically to be sent into buildings and tunnels that troops believe may be booby-trapped.” Briefly, the IDF will explore any avenue to kill Palestinians in one way or another, and human shields make for convenient collateral damage for Israel, which doesn’t even need to justify its atrocities, not even in genocide, thanks to the impunity the international community bestowed upon the settler-colonial entity.
“These are just reports at this point,” US State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel stated in reply to reporters’ questions about Israel using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Yet the Haaretz report quotes Israeli soldiers confirming the IDF’s knowledge, which points to a practice legitimised by Israeli military officials.
Patel, however, found it pertinent to mention the Israeli propaganda, which states Hamas uses civilian infrastructure to operate from, as well as using civilians as human shields. “That is not hyperbole,” he added. There has never been greater hyperbole than Israel’s colonial narratives unless we are speaking about the US that disseminates hyperbole as truth.
Just a day prior to Haaretz’s report, Ynet News ran an article justifying Israel’s killing of civilians taking shelter in schools by blaming Hamas for using the premises and, therefore, civilians as human shields, quoting IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari. “Israel views civilian casualties as a tragedy, while Hamas sees them as a strategy,” Hagari stated.
Israel’s use of Palestinian human shields as part of its military strategy clearly contradicts Hagari’s words and Netanyahu’s narrative. The only tragedy for Israel is the exposure of its crimes. Although with allies such as the US, which constructs its own definitions of what constitutes truth and hyperbole, tragedy is quickly exploited for PR opportunities, while Palestinian civilians – human shields created by Israel – decay in the genocide the world has learnt to accept.
Gaza Ceasefire Talks in Doha Concluded: New Proposal Said to Be on Table
Al-Manar | August 16, 2024
Two days of negotiations in Doha failed to end Gaza woe caused by a Zionist genocidal war ongoing for the 315th consecutive day despite the various political statements and media reports which claim a remarkable progress in this regard.
Political and security officials representing Qatar, Egypt, US and ‘Israel’ met amid the absence of Hamas representatives in order to mull a US truce proposal.
The U.S. presented a new bridging proposal to Israel and Hamas on Friday in an effort to close the remaining gaps in the Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal, the U.S., Qatar and Egypt claimed in a joint statement.
US President Joe Biden told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that “we are closer to a deal than we have ever been,” adding he doesn’t want “to jinx” it but “we might have something there.” Biden said, “we are not there yet but we are closer than we were three days ago.”
Biden also spoke on the phone with the Emir of Qatar and the President of Egypt on Friday about the deal.
The U.S., Qatar and Egypt said in the statement that the talks over the last two days in Doha “were serious and constructive and were conducted in a positive atmosphere.”
“The U.S. with support from Egypt and Qatar, presented to both parties a bridging proposal that is consistent with the principles laid out by President Biden on May 31, 2024 and Security Council Resolution No. 2735,” they said.
“This proposal builds on areas of agreement over the past week, and bridges remaining gaps in the manner that allows for a swift implementation of the deal.”
A source with knowledge of the talks told Axios : “We got more progress over the last two days than the last six weeks combined.”
Working teams from the U.S., Qatar, Egypt and Israel will continue technical work over the coming days on the details of implementation of the deal, the statement said.
According to the statement, the issues that still need to be concluded are the arrangements for extensive humanitarian provisions to Gaza and the specifics relating to the hostages and Palestinian prisoners who will be released as part of the deal.
Another summit between the senior mediators and negotiators — CIA director Bill Burns, the Qatari prime minister, director of the Israeli Mossad and the Egyptian head of intelligence — will take place in Cairo before the end of next week “with the aim to conclude the deal under the terms put forward today,” the statement said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is expected to travel to the region on the weekend to continue pushing for a deal, sources briefed on the trip said.
On Sunday, Blinken is expected to land in Israel and meet Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday, the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said.
Israeli evacuation orders shut 10 wells, worsening water crisis in Gaza
MEMO | August 17, 2024
The new Israeli evacuation orders for areas in eastern Gaza have resulted in the shutdown of 10 water wells, Deir al-Balah Municipality in the central Gaza Strip announced on Saturday, Anadolu reports.
Ismail Sarsour, head of the municipality’s Emergency Committee, told Anadolu : “The new Israeli evacuation orders for eastern Deir al-Balah have effectively taken 10 out of 19 wells out of service.”
“Access to three other wells west of Salah al-Din Street has become hazardous,” Sarsour stated.
He emphasized that the water situation in Deir al-Balah will become extremely dire in the coming days, especially with the shutdown of the eastern wells, which serve as a critical water supply for areas west of Salah al-Din Street, including the city center.
Deir al-Balah is currently home to hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians, particularly in the city center and its western areas.
Residents in the Gaza Strip are already facing significant challenges in accessing potable water, often traveling long distances to secure just a few liters. In various parts of the strip, displaced people are rationing drinking water in fear of future shortages.
According to the Government Media Office in Gaza, the ongoing Israeli war has displaced nearly 2 million people out of a total population of 2.3 million.
The Israeli army issued immediate evacuation orders on Saturday for residents of Deir al-Balah.
On Tuesday, the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) reported that approximately 84% of Gaza’s territory has been under evacuation orders since Oct. 7.
Israel’s continued onslaught on Gaza has drawn international condemnation for violating a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire.
The ongoing war has resulted in over 40,000 Palestinian deaths and has left vast areas of Gaza in ruins, exacerbated by a severe blockade of food, clean water, and medicine.
Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ordered it to immediately halt its military operation in the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.
Senior UK diplomat resigns over London’s ‘complicity’ in Gaza war crimes
The Cradle | August 17, 2024
Mark Smith, the head of the Africa Programmes and Expertise Department and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO), formally resigned on 16 August, citing London’s continued arms sales to Israel.
In a letter titled “FCDO complicity in War Crimes,” Smith – an expert on the legality of UK arms sales – laments ending his long diplomatic career “in the knowledge that this Department may be complicit in War Crimes.”
“As [a] former penholder on the arms exports licensing assessment in [the Middle East and North Africa Department] MENAD, I am a subject matter expert in the domain of armed sales policy. Each day we witness clear and unquestionable examples of War Crimes and breaches of International Humanitarian Law in Gaza perpetrated by the State of Israel,” Smith writes.
“Senior members of the Israeli government and military have expressed open genocidal intent, Israeli soldiers take videos, deliberately burning destroying, and looting civilian property and openly admit to the rape and torture of prisoners,” the letter continues.
He also highlights that Israel’s wholesale destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, their continued restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid, plus attacks on ambulances, schools, and hospitals all constitute war crimes.
“There is no justification for the UK’s continued arms sales to Israel yet somehow it continues. I have raised this at every level in the organization including through an official whistle-blowing investigation and received nothing more than ‘thank you we have noted your concerns.’”
Smith also criticizes UK authorities for misrepresenting London’s arms export licensing regimes as “robust and transparent,” saying, “This is the opposite of the truth.”
Although falling well behind Israel’s top suppliers of deadly armament – the US and Germany – the UK granted more than 100 weapon export licenses to Tel Aviv between 7 October and the end of May.
Between 2008 and the end of 2023, London granted export licenses for arms deals to Israel worth 576 million pounds ($740m).
Earlier this month, British news outlets reported that the new Labour government “[appears] to have suspended the processing of arms export licenses for sales to Israel pending the completion of a wider government review into the issue.”
The suspension is reportedly part of a review “of the risk of weapons sales to Israel in light of allegations of breaches of humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict.”
Nord Stream 2 bombing and Zelensky’s “three men and a boat” story
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 17, 2024
Nord Stream 2 bombing is in the headlines again, with a recent report which appears to come from Kiev claiming that it was the Ukrainians all along who were behind it. The claims, which have been denied by Zelensky naturally, are preposterous as they are ill-timed. But what’s really behind this latest fake news story?
In a nutshell, Joe Biden needs to clean up his backyard to help Kamala Harris get elected and in Ukraine there is quite a bit of tidying up which needs doing – not only for Ukraine itself to sustain relations with a new administration in Washington but also for America’s relations with Germany and the EU.
And so a fable has been invented which both tidies up any loose ends between Washington and Germany – as the U.S. bombing the pipelines creates unease and tensions between the Biden administration and that of Scholz’s – as well as helping the Ukrainians and Harris.
The whole Nord Steam2 pipeline bombing which happened in September 2022, a few months after the Russian invasion, is a clever web of lies crafted by the Americans, when all along it was U.S. special forces with the help of the Norwegians who planted the devices in June of the same year, three months before they were finally detonated.
Initially, it was very suspicious at the speed of how Russia was blamed.
“Everything is pointing to Russia,” blared a POLITICO headline two days after the explosions. Quoted in the piece were a number of foreign commentators including a top German spymaster arguing that only Russia had the means and motives to do it. There is no elaboration however on motive given that it was Russia’s gas supply deal to Germany which was being abruptly halted.
Remarkably, a lie moves so quickly while the truth is still putting its shoes on. Within days, respectable leading analysts were also pointing the finger at Russia without a trace of evidence to support their ludicrous claims.
“We still don’t know 100 percent that Russia was responsible,” said Olga Khakova, deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council. “But everything is pointing to Russia being behind this.” U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told BBC on Sept. 30 that it “seems” Russia was behind the sabotage.
Most western journalists followed the narrative put out by the Americans and chose just simply to not look at it too closely or too sceptically. If any had, they might have simply asked who are the winners and losers?
They would have only needed to look at the gas market in the following weeks and to see that the U.S. firms had new clients in Europe who were paying three times the normal price. That should have been a clue.
Secondly, the geopolitics and Germany. Biden hade it very clear just two weeks before the Ukraine war started when the German chancellor visited the Oval Office in February 2022, what Biden was planning on doing both about the pipelines and Germany itself whose leader Scholz was very reluctant to go to war with Ukraine.
“If Russia invades – that means tanks and troops crossing . . . the border of Ukraine again,” Biden said, “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
When asked how he could do so as the pipeline was under Germany’s control, the U.S. president spelled it out: “We will, I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”
Six months later, when the pipelines blew up, Germany quickly came on board with the war plan. Game changer.
Remarkably, Biden is not the first U.S. president to have plans to disrupt the pipeline which could lead some journalists to look at the Ukraine more deeply and wonder whether it was a U.S. plan all along to goad Putin into invading simply for the excuse to blow them up.
As former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted back in 2014 when U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine had peaked.
“You want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North American energy platform… You want to have pipelines that don’t go through Ukraine and Russia. For years, we’ve tried to get the Europeans interested in different pipeline routes. It’s time to do that.”
Could there be a better example of a smoking gun that these comments? They’re certainly worth reflecting upon when weighing up who has the fake story, the Ukrainians or Seymore Hersh. The Americans are the only ones who had the longer-term motive, the military capability, the financial incentive and the geopolitical advantage to pull off the Nord Stream sabotage. If you are a journalist and you are ready to indulge yourself with the latest tour de force of fake news about Ukraine pulling it off, then you probably also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden or toothpaste which claims to whiten your teeth.
German ministers told there’s no more money for Ukraine — FAZ
RT | August 17, 2024
Germany’s defense ministry has been urged to limit military assistance to Ukraine, as the country’s current budget plan is not capable of allocating funds for the purpose, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Saturday, citing a written request from Finance Minister Christian Lindner.
The letter, which was addressed to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, specified that only military aid that has already been approved can be delivered to Kiev, while additional applications from the defense ministry should no longer be accepted, even if issued at the behest of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
FAZ emphasized that the blocking of newly approved assistance is already in effect, adding that Berlin would halve its military aid to Ukraine next year. In 2027, the assistance is expected to decline to less than one tenth of its current volume.
In particular, €8 billion in aid to Ukraine has been scheduled for 2024, and the planned maximum of €4 billion for 2025 already exceeds available funds, the media outlet noted, adding that only €3 billion is planned for 2026, and €500 million each for 2027 and 2028.
“End of the event. The pot is empty,” an unnamed source in the federal government told FAZ, stressing that Berlin has “reached a point where Germany can no longer make any promises to Ukraine.”
The newspaper noted that the urge comes amid Lindner’s push for harsh austerity measures; these have already been imposed on all German ministries except defense. The finance minister has been resisting intense pressure from Scholz and Economy Minister Robert Habeck to suspend the country’s constitutional limit on debt to allow for the cost of providing military aid to Kiev amid the Ukrainian conflict.
Germany is the second biggest backer of Ukraine after the US. Berlin has provided and committed military aid of at least €28 billion ($30.3 billion) to Kiev in current and future pledges. This includes advanced military equipment such as Leopard 2 tanks, Marder infantry fighting vehicles, and US-made Patriot air-defense systems.
Lindner reportedly doesn’t expect the country’s assistance to Ukraine to drop, as the minister hopes to cover the expenses not with federal budget funds, but through the use of Russian central bank assets that were frozen by Kiev’s Western allies shortly after the conflict escalated.
Nearly $300 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank has been immobilized by the EU and G7 nations as part of Ukraine-related sanctions. In May, Brussels approved a plan to use the interest earned on the frozen assets to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense. Under the agreement, 90% of the proceeds are expected to go into an EU-run fund for Ukrainian military aid, with the other 10% allocated to supporting Kiev in other ways.
Biden’s incriminating admission of U.S. involvement in offensive on Russia
Strategic Culture Foundation | August 16, 2024
It is breathtaking what is going on with the offensive into the Kursk and Belgorod regions of the Russian Federation. This is as close to World War Three taking place as it can get, if not already happening.
This week American President Joe Biden admitted deep U.S. involvement in the invasion of Russia by Ukrainian forces. The complacent, casual admission is shocking. Biden told media that his officials were in “constant contact” with the Kiev regime on the offensive that began on August 6. Biden added with undisguised pleasure that the incursion had created a “real dilemma” for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
It seems likely that the summer offensive will go the same ill-fated way as last year’s offensive by Ukraine that took place in the main war zone area of Donbass, the region which was formerly eastern Ukraine but is now legally part of the Russian Federation. The offensive last summer turned out to be a disaster for Ukrainian forces as superior Russian defenses decimated them. As with this summer’s offensive, there has been much Western media hyping of the initial gains. But the optimism is giving way to the reality that Russian forces are containing the cross-border foray and will eventually expel Ukrainian troops. There are indications that the Ukrainian side has lost over 2,000 casualties over the past 10 days and incurred heavy losses of destroyed NATO military equipment.
Nevertheless, it is alarming what has been embarked on by the NATO-backed regime. This is the first time that Russia has been invaded by a foreign enemy since the Great Patriotic War when Nazi Germany waged its genocidal war. Ironically, a turning point in that war was in the Kursk region when the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht.
The symbolism of today’s events in Kursk and Belgorod is horrifying. Here we have Ukrainian militants who glorify the Third Reich wearing Nazi helmets while they terrorize Russian civilians. Video footage shows deliberate shelling of civilian homes and apartment blocks in what can only be described as a scorched earth campaign. Up to 200,000 civilians have been evacuated from the Kursk and Belgorod regions.
The invasion force is equipped with NATO tanks and armored vehicles. This is an incredible echo of history whereby German, British, and American tanks are marauding on Russian soil and terrorizing towns and villages. Furthermore, there is reliable reporting that the enemy infantry is made up of NATO special forces from the United States, Britain, France, and Poland alongside the NeoNazis of Ukraine.
In short and shocking terms: NATO has invaded Russia with a terror campaign replicating Nazi Germany.
The United States and its NATO allies officially maintain that they are not involved and that the Kiev regime embarked on this assault independently.
That innocent pretense is contemptible. This duplicity has been going on for too long. The West has been arming a proxy force to the teeth to attack Russia since the CIA coup in Kiev in 2014 which culminated in open warfare in February 2022. The offensive capability of Western weaponry has increased relentlessly to the point where Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin are supplying long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia. Not only that but publicly permitting the use of these weapons.
The NATO side has delivered main battlefield tanks and in recent weeks F-16 fighter jets that potentially are nuclear-capable. Biden this week is reportedly considering approving the supply of JASSM air-launched missiles with a range of over 350 kilometers. The distance from Sudzha in Kursk, reportedly captured by the NATO side this week, to Moscow, is just over 600 km.
There can be little doubt that the invasion of Russia is an offensive signed off by NATO leadership. We have Joe Biden’s clumsy admission of that.
The Kiev regime also admitted that its Western patrons were involved in the planning of the invasion.
Moreover, Nikolai Patrushev, a top Russian intelligence figure, stated that NATO is participating in the invasion.
Former Pentagon analysts have also concurred that for such an audacious military endeavor to take place, the Kiev regime would have required U.S. and other NATO surveillance intelligence and logistics to implement it.
The strategic objective is dubious. The lightning assault may have gained sensational headlines in the Western media and notions of Ukrainian success. But such notions will be short-lived as Russian forces bear down on the enemy with withering firepower, despite a Ukrainian command center supposedly being set up in Sudzha.
Even Western media reports are conceding that the initial Ukrainian-NATO gains are slowing down. There are also Western reports expressing concern that the futile foray will only weaken the already overstretched Ukrainian lines in the main battle region of Donbass which will accelerate Russia’s advances in Ukraine. Moscow is indicating that it will push on without stopping to defeat the Kiev regime.
As with Nazi Germany’s Kursk offensive, the NATO-backed regime will be seen to have recklessly overplayed its hand. The last reserves of its best battalions are taking severe losses in Kursk.
From Russia’s perspective, the NATO invasion per se is not a serious threat. It is a barbaric violation of Russian territory and its citizens. But the assault in itself does not in any way constitute a national security threat. It will be dealt with harshly. The best way to characterize it is a desperate final roll of the dice by the NATO proxy, as our columnist Finian Cunningham wrote this week.
Legally, under international law and the United Nations charter, Russia has every right to retaliate militarily against all those complicit in the latest attack on its territory. Potentially, that could mean Russia’s military hitting the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and other NATO states.
This is as close to World War Three as it can get. One senses that only the calm discipline and strategic prudence of the Russian leadership are preventing the moment from escalating to a global catastrophe. By contrast, one can imagine how the American and NATO leaders would react if the shoe was on the other foot and Russia was somehow orchestrating offensive attacks on their soil.
It’s as well to keep calm. The Kiev regime is collapsing from internal corruption and despotism and Russian forces are steadily proceeding to take down this regime. Kursk and Belgorod – while abominable – are provocations to escalate the conflict. It is the collapsing Western powers that need all-out war to save their necks from systematic, historic failure.
However, there is a fiendish dilemma. There is a danger that the reckless, desperate, and disconnected Western elites will magnify their irrationality and provoke Russia even more. This is happening because Moscow is being too stoic and restrained.
Typical of the irrationality is this article for the Atlantic Council with the headline: “Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines”.
The article, which no doubt reflects factions of Western strategic thinking, mockingly states: “The Ukrainian army’s advance into Russia… exposes the emptiness of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and the folly of the West’s emphasis on escalation management.”
In a chilling conclusion, it adds: “Now that the Ukrainian military has crossed the last of Putin’s red lines and invaded Russia without sparking World War III, there are no more excuses for restricting [Kiev’s] ability to defend itself or denying Ukraine the weapons it needs to win the war.”
Thus, Russia’s containment of the NATO invasion is not seen as a reality check on crazed assault. Rather, it is emboldening Western imperialism to double down on its criminal gambling with world security.
In that case, the moment may have arrived when Russia needs to take retaliation in a way that the NATO enemy understands. Russia’s reasoned restraint is insanely misinterpreted as weakness, thereby inciting more NATO insanity.
Vladimir Putin once remarked how dealing with bullies in his younger days growing up in St Petersburg was best done by punching them in the nose before they got out of hand.
As the impudence of Biden and other Western leaders this week shows, the U.S. and NATO’s malicious arrogance towards Russia is that of an insufferable bully who is acting more and more brazenly because of impunity.
US moving towards total censorship – Moscow
RT | August 17, 2024
Freedom of speech in the US is only permitted for those who express pro-American views, while dissenters are subjected to a “political inquisition,” Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, has claimed.
The diplomat was commenting on an FBI search at the home of Russian-born US political analyst and author Dimitri Simes in Virginia, on Tuesday. Simes, a critic of President Joe Biden’s administration, has been co-hosting a geopolitical talk show on Russia’s Channel 1 since 2018.
The targeting of Simes is another example of the “witch hunt” taking place in the US in the run up to the presidential election on November 5, Antonov wrote in a post on Telegram on Saturday.
“Hundreds of people are declared undesirable just because they dare to contradict the policies of the administration. They are forbidden from having their own point of view” and government agents are “breaking into homes, performing searches and seizing documents,” he stated.
According to the ambassador, the situation in the country resembles the “dark times of McCarthyism,” a campaign against suspected communists led by Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
“The local ruling circles have decisively embarked on the path of total censorship. Freedom of speech in modern America is sacred only if this speech is pro-American. All dissidents are subject to political inquisition, especially when it comes to those who fight against one-sided and biased views on Russia,” he said.
Antonov accused Washington of double standards when it comes to democracy and freedom of speech. While “easily” neglecting the rights provided by the First Amendment at home, US officials, “at the same time continue to lecture the whole world on democratic values and human rights,” he wrote.
Simes is a naturalized US citizen, who immigrated from the Soviet Union in 1973. He served as an aide to President Richard Nixon and as the publisher and CEO of National Interest magazine, which advocates a realist approach to international relations and geopolitics.
At the height of Russiagate, Simes was among those investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a suspected contact between Donald Trump and the Russian government. The report by Muller in 2019, which failed to find any evidence of collusion between Moscow and Trump’s 2016 campaign, also vindicated Simes.
FBI agents arrived at his property in Virginia a week after a search took place at the home of former US Marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter in New York state. Ritter, who is now a journalist and commentator, said the US authorities appeared to be “primarily concerned” with his “relationship” with Russian media outlets – RT and Sputnik news agency.