Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NATO invades Russia?

Colonel Douglas Macgregor & Prof Glenn Diesen | August 22, 2024

Has the thin line between proxy war and direct war now been eliminated? I spoke with Colonel Douglas Macgregor as NATO’s direct involvement in the war is evident with its involvement in the invasion of Russia.

Russia has restrained itself to a large extent as retaliating against NATO could trigger another world war and possible nuclear exchange, although the failure to retaliate emboldens NATO and results in subsequent escalations. Even Zelensky referred to the failure of Russia to respond to the invasion of Kursk as a reason for why NATO should not fear stepping over more Russian red lines. Colonel Macgregor suggests that the assumption of the US and NATO being all-powerful will continue to contribute to reckless escalations in the war against Russia – but also in the Middle East, and against China.

Most Ukrainian, Western and Russian observers seemed to recognise during the first days of the invasion of Kursk that it was a mistake. Ukrainian troops emerged out of well-defended frontlines and could be easily targeted in the open and with poor supply lines. As this is a war of attrition, it is likely a huge mistake to throw away Ukraine’s best soldiers and NATO’s military equipment on territory that is not strategic and cannot be held. However, the propaganda machine has since been turned on and the war is now sold to the Western public as a great opportunity to improve negotiation power, to develop a buffer zone, and to humiliate Putin – although none of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny.

The Ukrainian and NATO invasion of Kursk has changed the war completely as the Ukrainian causalities have increased dramatically, the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbas are now collapsing even faster, and NATO’s role in the war is no longer ambiguous. This is all happening as internal divisions in NATO are surfacing, and the US/Israel will likely trigger a regional war in the Middle East.

Odysee

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

CDC Stands by Water Fluoridation After Report Linking Fluoride to Lower IQs in Kids Finally Published

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 22, 2024

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) on Wednesday published a controversial report linking fluoride exposure to neurotoxic effects in children, after public health officials tried for years to block its publication and water down its conclusions.

The report, which analyzed published studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, concluded with “moderate confidence” that higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQs in kids.

It’s the first government publication to concede what fluoride researchers have long reported: that the chemical added to the drinking water of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and celebrated as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century carries a serious risk of neurological damage, particularly for pregnant women and young children.

“The NTP monograph provides more than sufficient evidence against the deliberate exposure of humans to fluoride through intentional fluoridation of drinking water,” said risk analysis scientist Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., who was not involved with the study but co-authored the 2006 National Resource Council study on fluoride toxicity.

Thiessen told The Defender, “A conclusion of ‘moderate confidence’ of neurotoxic effects, especially on unborn and newborn children, ought to mean an immediate elimination of water fluoridation and minimization of fluoride exposure to the population.”

The report reviewed existing studies that assessed the relationship between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental effects in children and adults from across the world, including places where fluoride occurs naturally in groundwater and places like the U.S., Canada and Mexico, where it is intentionally added to drinking water or food.

The authors concluded that exposure to drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) is consistently associated with lower IQ in children. That’s only twice the amount the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends be added to drinking water in the U.S. to prevent tooth decay.

Most environmental toxins regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are more strictly controlled. Typically, human exposure is banned at 30 times the level of their known toxic effects. None of the chemicals regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act are permitted at a margin of less than 10.

The researchers found that almost all of the high-quality studies identified — 18 out of 19 — found a link between fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. And 8 of 9 high-quality studies that looked at neurodevelopmental links other than IQ also found a link.

They said they were less confident that there was a consistent link between low levels of fluoride exposure in water and neurodevelopmental issues, and that more research is needed in that area. However, they also noted that water is not the only source of fluoride exposure.

“Additional exposures to fluoride from other sources would increase total fluoride exposure,” the report stated. “The moderate confidence conclusions may also be relevant to people living in optimally fluoridated areas of the United States depending on the extent of their additional exposures to fluoride from sources other than drinking water.”

Thiessen said pregnant women are often exposed to higher levels of fluoride because they drink much more water than others. And formula-fed infants are also at particularly high risk.

“While fluoridation of drinking water is the main source of fluoride intake for millions of people in the U.S., and probably the easiest to eliminate, it is not the only source of fluoride exposure, with toothpaste and tea probably being next in importance,” she said.

Fluoride advocates like the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the CDC argue that adding fluoride to water is an important public health practice because it prevents tooth decay by exposing teeth to low levels of fluoride throughout the day and strengthening teeth.

Federal health officials have been recommending water fluoridation for more than five decades. However, in the last several years as the NTP report has moved closer to publication, support for the practice has appeared to wane among some public health officials.

The U.S. surgeon general in 2015 officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L after considering adverse health effects. And in 2020, out of concern for the forthcoming findings in the NTP report, the U.S. surgeon general’s office declined to make a public statement endorsing the practice.

A spokesperson for the CDC told The Defender in a statement that the agency continues to support water fluoridation at current recommended levels.

“These recommendations are based on current scientific evidence and prioritize the safety, security, and health of all individuals,” the agency said. “Continued research is needed to better understand the health risks and benefits associated with low fluoride exposures.”

The spokesperson also said, “While concerns have been raised about potential risks associated with high fluoride exposure, it is important to note that these concerns are primarily based on studies conducted in countries with higher fluoride exposure than in the United States.”

However, some of the highest quality studies to date have been done in Canada and Mexico, where exposure levels were the same as exposure levels in parts of the U.S. And a paper published in JAMA Network Open in May found that children born to women exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water in Los Angeles were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.

The ADA, AAP and EPA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

The long road to publication

For more than two decades, researchers have drawn a link between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental issues. In 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a report on fluoride toxicity that identified serious health issues associated with fluoride exposure and called for further research.

The NTP, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for producing scientific research meant to inform policymaking, in 2016 began working on its review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity in humans.

After six years and multiple rounds of peer review, the NTP finalized its report in May 2022 — but public health officials within multiple agencies across HHS blocked its publication, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The NTP was compelled to send the report out for another round of peer review. Each round of peer review compelled the NTP to walk back some of its conclusions in what critics called an attempt to “delay it, to water it down.”

Former NTP director Dr. Brian Berridge told The Defender the report received unprecedented scrutiny because of challenges to the report by biased stakeholders. He said he believed it was an outcome of public health agencies’ desires to protect the practices they already have in place.

A draft version of the report was made public in March of 2023 under court order.

The order came as part of a lawsuit filed in 2017 by Food & Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and other advocacy groups and individuals suing the EPA in a bid to force the agency to prohibit water fluoridation in the U.S. due to fluoride’s toxic effects on children’s developing brains.

After initial hearings in June 2020, presiding Judge Edward Chen placed the trial on hold pending the release of the report. After plaintiffs introduced evidence of agency attempts to suppress the report, Judge Chen ordered its release in draft form and the trial continued in January and February of this year.

The report, along with four major fluoride studies using birth cohorts — where researchers collect epidemiological data during pregnancy and then from children over their lifetimes to study a variety of health outcomes tied to environmental exposures — was key evidence in the trial.

The trial concluded on Feb. 13, and Judge Chen has not yet issued a decision.

The report finalized yesterday consists of one part of the NTP’s research. The other part, a meta-analysis, is forthcoming in a peer-reviewed journal.

NTP Director Rick Woychik said in a statement to The Defender that the delay in the report’s publication was due to an attempt to “get the science right” because “fluoride is such an important topic to the public and to public health officials.”

Woychik emphasized that water fluoridation “has been a successful public health initiative.”

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the case against the EPA, said the final version of the report, “confirms and actually further strengthens the NTP’s prior conclusions,” because the finalized version includes a supplemental review of more recent literature published between 2020 and 2023, which also finds a consistent link between fluoride exposure and adverse neurodevelopmental effects.

Connett added:

“Here you have an expert body of the US government confirming that fluoride is a neurotoxicant. That by itself is a very significant conclusion and should really prompt the question among policymakers and the public as to whether we really want to be adding a neurotoxicant to our water supply while questions remain about the precise doses that caused this effect.”

‘We didn’t sign up to add a neurotoxicant to our water’

The number of scientists and health professionals opposed to fluoridation has increased over the last several decades. Thiessen said the final publication of the monograph — and the forthcoming meta-analysis — provides important evidence for their position and might signal a change in the status quo public health position on fluoride.

“One hopes that it will help convince many more professionals that one of the 20th century’s top 10 public health achievements has in fact been terribly misguided from the beginning.”

The lawsuit brought public attention to the debate over water fluoridation ongoing among scientists working in public health for years, with many mainstream outlets addressing an issue that had often been disregarded as a conspiracy theory.

Connett said the government report ought to raise public concern and get more people asking questions about fluoridation. He said:

“This isn’t what people signed up for when we started adding fluoride to the water. We didn’t sign up to add a neurotoxicant to our water. We signed up for something that could help our teeth. Now that we know that it can affect their brain, we really need to go back to square one.”

Fluoride Action Network board member Rick North told The Defender that awareness about issues with water fluoridation has been growing for years.

“Fluoridation is a house of cards and it’s going to fall. It’s only a matter of when. The NTP report just made it sooner.” He said he hopes the final release of the report means a decision in the case against the EPA will come soon.

“For more than four years, Judge Edward Chen has waited for the final NTP report. Now he’s got it — even more scientific backing that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk to human health,” he said.

Stuart Cooper, Fluoride Action Network executive director, said the publication of the report was historic. “This report, along with the large body of published science, makes it abundantly clear that the question isn’t whether fluoridation is safe, but instead how many children have been needlessly harmed,” he said.

The report sometimes makes contradictory statements, Kim Blokker, a board member of Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender, showing the influence of the public health agencies on the reporting. “Do not be fooled by this attempt to muddy the waters of this otherwise definitive report, which contains more than enough evidence to prove the shockingly detrimental effects of fluoride exposure in young children.”

Kristie Lavelle, another board member of Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender they were happy to see the report finally published. “The time has come for fluoride to lose its status as a protected pollutant and to be treated the same as other recognized toxins such as lead and arsenic.”

With the publication of the report, she said, “We are one step closer to creating a world where clean water, air and food, and consequently vibrant health are the norm for our children and grandchildren.”

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.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Toxic water claims at US base top 500,000

RT | August 21, 2024

More than half a million people have sought compensation from the US military for damages caused by contaminated water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Reuters has revealed.

Dangerous chemicals were first discovered in the water supply of the North Carolina facility in 1982. According to the US government, the contaminated water may have affected an estimated million people with conditions such as kidney cancer, bladder cancer and leukemia between 1953 and 1987.

The US Navy has received more than 546,500 claims for compensation, Reuters reported on Wednesday citing a court filing. The number could go up or down by “a few thousand” after the Navy goes over the claims to remove duplicates.

Administrative claims had to be filed by the August 10 deadline to make the plaintiffs eligible to receive compensation. The deadline was set by the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, signed into law exactly two years prior.

The Navy said it was reviewing each claim and “is committed to resolving every valid CLJA claim as fairly and expeditiously as possible.”

So far, more than 2,000 lawsuits have been filed in a federal court in North Carolina by plaintiffs whose claims were not resolved administratively. The first trials may begin next year. Only about 150 cases have been resolved through administrative procedure as of early August, the Navy said in the filing.

Should all the administrative claims go to trial, that would make the Camp Lejeune water case the largest claim to damages since the 3M earplugs scandal, Reuters noted.

The Minnesota-based company had made the protective equipment for the US military that was widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2015, but left many troops complaining about hearing loss. Eventually, more than 390,000 filed claims against 3M, in what was described as the “largest multidistrict litigation” in history. Last year, 3M paid $6.01 billion to settle the 260,000 or so remaining claims.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Israel systematically detaining and torturing Palestinian children in the Gaza, rights group finds

Brothers Abdulmumin, 16, and Ali D. were detained and tortured by Israeli forces in Gaza City in December 2023. [Photo: Courtesy of the family/DCI Palestine]
MEMO | August 22, 2024

Israeli forces are systematically detaining and torturing Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip, including using some as human shields, Defence for Children International – Palestine said in a report released yesterday.

DCIP investigated events during an Israeli military incursion into the Al-Tuffah area of Gaza City on 27 December 2023, when occupation forces detained at least eight Palestinian children and used several as human shields, according to documentation collected by the rights group. Israeli forces detained around 50 Palestinians, including brothers 13-year-old Abdullah H. and 11-year-old Abdulrahman H. as well as 12-year-old Karim S. Israeli soldiers forced them to take off their clothes and bound their hands before forcing them to walk in front of Israeli tanks.

“They insulted us, slapped me on my face, and kicked me in my stomach and waist. I almost died from the beating.”

Karim told DCIP. “Then they made us walk in front of bulldozers and tanks in the streets so that the resistance wouldn’t target them.”

“They released dogs on us to scare me, beat me on the head, and stripped me of my clothes,” Abdulrahman told DCIP. “Anyone who asked for water or needed to use the bathroom was beaten with rifles.”

Since 2000, DCIP has recorded at least 31 cases in which Palestinian children were used by Israeli occupation forces as human shields.

During the same incursion into Al-Tuffah neighbourhood, Israeli forces detained at least five other Palestinian children, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

“They treated us like animals, not humans. When they entered our house, the soldiers were shouting and firing bullets everywhere. They took me from the house and ordered me to undress, then they tied me up and blindfolded me,” 16-year-old Mohammad S. told DCIP.

“I was kicked in the face, and the marks are still visible.”

During the incursion, after Israeli forces bulldozed the door of his home, a small Israeli drone entered Mohammad’s house and began firing live ammunition. Mohammad was detained by Israeli soldiers. His family was ordered to go to southern Gaza via Al-Rashid Street, and lost contact with the child after the forced separation until a neighbour told them that Mohammad was released and displaced at the Cairo School in Gaza City.

In addition to attacking the children, occupation soldiers hit the children’s mothers with rifles in front of them, unleashed dogs to bite detainees, and insulted them with vile words and threatened them with rape. “I heard them tell one of the detainees that they would do things to his wife, mentioning her by name,” 13-year-old Ibrahim S. said.

Israeli forces have detained an unknown number of Palestinians, including children, to Israeli military bases and detention centres in Israel since October 2023. The children’s names, exact locations, whereabouts and conditions are also unknown, indicating these are enforced disappearances, which is a “serious breach of international law”.

DCIP explained that Palestinians being detained are held under Israel’s 2002 Unlawful Combatants Law. “This Israeli civil law permits the state to detain as claimed ‘enemy fighters’ for extended periods of time without following the standard legal procedures, and to hold them without granting them the status of prisoners of war,” it explained.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel faces collapse ‘in less than a year’ if war of attrition continues: Retired general

The Cradle | August 22, 2024

The former ombudsman of the Israeli army, reserve General Yitzhak Brik, says his country “faces collapse in less than a year” if the war against the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and the Lebanese resistance in the north continues at its current pace.

In an opinion column published by Haaretz on 21 August, Brik claims Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has begun to “sober up,” pointing to Gallant’s recent comments in which he called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promises of “total victory” in Gaza “gibberish.”

“[Gallant] has started to understand that if a regional war breaks out due to failure to reach a [ceasefire deal], Israel will be in danger,” Brik says, adding that “Gallant already understands that the war has lost its purpose. We are sinking into the mud, losing fighters who are killed and wounded, with no chance of achieving the main goal.”
“Indeed, the country is galloping to depreciation. If the war of attrition against Hamas and Hezbollah continues, Israel will collapse in no more than a year,” the former army commander highlights.

Brik goes on to list the many threats facing Israel 10 months into its campaign of genocide in Gaza, including intensifying attacks inside its territory, a manpower crisis in the army due to heavy losses, a crumbling economy made worse by global calls to boycott the country, possible embargoes on arms shipments, and the “loss of social resilience and hatred between the parts of the population, which can ignite and cause it to crash from within.”

“All roads of political and military rank lead Israel to the slope … Israel has entered an existential spin, and it may soon reach a point of return,” Brik concludes.

His stark warning comes as political sources revealed to Israeli media on Thursday that Netanyahu “did not change his positions” on the terms for a Gaza ceasefire deal after speaking with US President Joe Biden the night before.

Ceasefire negotiations are set to resume in the Egyptian capital in the coming days without the presence of Hamas, as the Palestinian group has rejected a new US-backed proposal and has remained steadfast in demanding Israel adhere to the terms of an earlier proposal it agreed to on 2 July, saying the one-sided talks give Israel “more time to perpetuate the war of genocide against our people.”

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | 1 Comment

Iran will hit Israel, ball is in US-Israeli court

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 22, 2024 

There is a Zen proverb — ‘If you want to climb a mountain, begin at the top.’ All the show of contrived enthusiasm by US President Joe Biden and CIA Director William Burns over an Israel-Hamas deal on the Gaza war cannot obfuscate the grim reality that unless and until Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu greenlights it, this is a road to nowhere. 

But what did Netanyahu do? On the eve of the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s arrival in Tel Aviv on Sunday to press the flesh and cajole Netanyahu to cooperate, the latter disdainfully ordered yet another air strike in the central town of Deir Al-Balah in Gaza, killing “at least” 21 people,  including six children. Biden had emphasised only the previous day that all parties involved in the Gaza ceasefire negotiations should desist from jeopardising the US-led diplomatic efforts to halt the war and secure a deal to return hostages and achieve a ceasefire to end the bloodshed. 

And this was even after a ‘senior administration official’ who has been actively involved as negotiator — presumably, Burns himself —  laboured to convey in a special briefing from Doha that the negotiations had reached an inflection point. The crux of the matter is that the western leaders have a maximum pressure strategy toward Iran to exercise restraint while they don’t have the moral or political courage to tackle Netanyahu, who is invidiously undermining the Doha process because he is simply not interested in a ceasefire deal that may lead to his removal from power, investigation to pin responsibility for October 7 attacks, revival of court cases against him and possible jail sentence if convicted. 

Indeed, Tehran is sceptical that peace cannot come to Gaza under American mediation but taking care not to create any new facts on the ground while the Doha negotiations are under way. Tehran has adopted a mature, responsible attitude not to derail the Doha process. The point is, Iran is keen that the horrific war that the Israeli state unleashed in Gaza must be somehow brought to an end. Over 40,000  people have died so far. 

That said, Hamas’ response to the US’ “bridging proposal” at Doha meeting will be a major determinant for Tehran. From available indications, there are serious disagreements over Israel’s continued military presence inside Gaza, particularly along the border with Egypt, over the free movement of Palestinians inside the territory, and over the identity and number of prisoners to be released in a swap. Both Israel and Hamas have signalled that a deal will be difficult.  

On the other hand, the new Iranian government under Masoud Pezeshkian has highlighted his desire for a constructive engagement with the West and prioritises the removal of western sanctions. Pezeshkian’s nominee for the foreign ministry Abbass Araghchi reiterated these policy parameters in his testimony at the Majlis on Sunday while seeking parliament’s approval for his appointment. 

Dispelling speculations that Araghchi, a career diplomat who is reputed to be a moderate, may face difficulty to garner support in the conservative-majority parliament, the Majlis recognised his high professionalism by unanimously approving his name as Iran’s next foreign minister in a vote instantaneously. 

There is much food for thought here for the strategists in the White House. Suffice to say that what Pezeshkian’s predecessor late Ebrahim Raisi left behind as his foreign policy legacy will continue to guide the new government. That signals a high level of national consensus. Succinctly put, in all these years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, there has not been a more conducive setting in the power calculus in Tehran for a pragmatic engagement with the West. It will be extremely unwise for Washington to overlook the window of opportunity to engage with Iran. 

On the other hand, Tehran’s grit to push back western bullying is also at an all-time high level. The bottom line is that Iran will not submit to western diktat. In today’s circumstances, therefore, it is unrealistic to expect Tehran not to react to the Israeli aggression of July 31. Iran’s sovereignty was violated and its response will be strong and decisive, — and as a deterrent for the future as well. 

No amount of muscle-flexing by Washington will frighten Tehran. The national unity, unlike in the US, is a crucial factor. The stunning endorsement by the Majlis of the entire list of cabinet ministers proposed by President Masoud Pezeshkian shows that there is no daylight between the different branches of state power. All indications are that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Pezeshkian are on the same page — and this message has gone down the echelons of policymaking and state power in Tehran.

The contrast with the disarray in Israel’s confrontational domestic politics couldn’t be sharper. 

Therefore, Iran will do what it considers necessary and an obligation — and a matter of national honour. The Deputy Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, General Ali Fadavi said on Monday, “We will determine the time and manner of punishment (of Israel). The usurping Zionist regime committed a great crime by assassinating Martyr Haniyeh, and this time it will be punished more severely than before.” 

In a statement to The Wall Street Journal, Iran’s UN mission said any response must both punish the Israeli regime and deter future strikes in the country, but also “must be carefully calibrated to avoid any possible adverse impact that could potentially influence a prospective ceasefire.

“The timing, conditions, and manner of Iran’s response will be meticulously orchestrated to ensure that it occurs at a moment of maximum surprise; perhaps when their eyes are fixed on the skies and their radar screens, they will be taken by surprise from the ground — or, perhaps, even by a combination of both.”

The Iranian statement from the UN podium in New York is a message addressed to the White House that the ball is in the US-Israeli court. Interestingly, it coincided with the toned down White House readout on Biden’s call with Netanyahu on Wednesday, where Biden flagged the “defensive U.S. military deployments” and stressed the urgency of bringing the ceasefire and hostage release deal to closure and discussed upcoming talks in Cairo to remove any remaining obstacles.” It stands to reason that Tehran and Washington are communicating with each other.

Clearly, against such a heavily nuanced backdrop, the paranoia about a regional war is unwarranted, since neither Iran nor the US wants war. As for Israel, a small country, it simply lacks the capability to go to war with Iran armed with three submarines stacked with nuclear missiles as its strategic assets.

The stunning disclosure of Hezbollah’s vast network of underground missile network in southern and central Lebanon is a reality check for the Israeli political elite and settler communities on what they are up against.

As the former Israeli war minister Avigdor Lieberman puts it, Israel is engaged in a war of attrition, exactly as the Iranians wanted, having succeeded in uniting the resistance fronts. Lieberman pointed out that the agony of the indeterminate waiting for Tehran’s retaliatory operation is in itself an achievement for Tehran and the Axis of Resistance. 

READ MORE: Iran finesses its deterrence strategy, Indian Punchline, August 12, 2024

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 2 Comments

Berlin’s Brave New World: Secret Police Powers Spark Fear of Orwellian Overreach

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 22, 2024

In Germany, the current authorities seem willing to dramatically depart from what have until now been Western democratic traditions, where law enforcement must have a crime to investigate, and a warrant to do so before it engages in searches and surveillance.

However, the government in Berlin plans to allow the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) the legal right to enter homes secretly (including for the purpose of installing spyware on people’s phones and computers.) In addition, BKA would be given the power to, also secretly, search homes.

The draft, seen by the German press, was cooked up at the Federal Ministry of the Interior and was explained by a spokesman as a needed reform of the BKA law in order to prevent “the dangers of international terrorism” and chose to single out “Islamist terrorism” as an example.

The promise here is that the BKA would use the new rights only to fight what they choose to consider terrorist activity, along with “a high bar” in place determining which case qualifies for this kind of treatment.

Judging by the statement of the same spokesman, German law enforcement now clearly doesn’t have “appropriate powers” to tackle the problem, hence the necessity to reform the law.

As for any details that would further clarify the situation, the Interior Ministry would not provide them as the planned reform is “still at a very early stage of internal government coordination.”

Among the early critics of this is the German Journalists’ Association, whose chairman Mika Beuster said that “secret break-ins are reminiscent of the methods of police states, not of liberal democracies.”

Meanwhile, such a shift in the way terrorist threat is investigated has the opposition – notably the rising Alternative for Germany (AfD), suspect that this will be used as yet another tool to go after political opponents.

AfD, and even media outlets supportive of its policies, have recently faced an unprecedented crackdown, led by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser.

And now, the draft amendment of the law, also coming from her office, is dismissed by AfD MP Beatrix Von Storch as appearing to use the fight against terrorism as the pretext – “and the reason is more likely to be that she intends to further intimidate and monitor citizens and, last but not least, to persecute any government critics.”

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Rising anger in Germany in response to Nord Stream “revelations”

What role did the German authorities have in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline?

By Maike Gosch | August 19, 2024

Last week, a number of reports and articles about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion shook the media landscape and citizens in Germany and around the world. After a long period of astonishing silence surrounding this monstrous event, things now seem to be moving. Are we slowly getting closer to the truth in this affair? In any case, the reactions from all sides were fierce and showed once again just how divided the political landscape is in Germany and Europe.

After the news first made the rounds in several German media outlets on August 14, 2024 that German investigators had identified a Ukrainian diving instructor (funnily enough named Volodymyr Z.) who allegedly blew up Nord Stream and then unfortunately escaped arrest due to a lack of cooperation from Polish authorities, further explosive revelations from the Wall Street Journal followed on the same day.

According to the WSJ article, the attack was led by the then-Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian armed forces and current Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, with president Zelenskyy having initially given the operation the green light. Then the Dutch military intelligence service MIVD found out about it, informed the CIA and the latter in turn urged president Zelensky to stop the operation. He then ordered Zaluzhnyi to abort the operation, but the general ignored the order and went ahead with the plan. According to the WSJ, just days after the attack, which occurred on September 26, 2022, the CIA gave the German Foreign Ministry a detailed account of how the covert operation went down. The Ukrainian government has rejected this account.

Much of this report seems implausible, so I consider the article to be more of a “limited hangout” than a clarification of this terrorist attack on our industrial infrastructure.

“Limited hangout” is a term from the intelligence world for a common ploy used by intelligence professionals: when the truth is beginning to emerge or the public is becoming too suspicious and impatient, and they can no longer remain silent or rely on a contrived cover story to deceive the public, part of the truth is admitted — sometimes even voluntarily — while still withholding the essential and truly risky facts in the case. The public is supposed to be distracted from and engaged with the disclosed information, so that the pressure it exerts eases (at least for a while).

One day later, on August 15, 2024, the German newspaper Die Welt published an interview with the former head of the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst or Federal Intelligence Service of Germany), August Hanning, which also caused quite a stir. Mr. Hanning says that the attack, if it was carried out by the Ukrainian side, could only have been possible with strong logistical support from Poland and that for him there must obviously have been an agreement between the highest leaders in Ukraine and Poland, naming president Zelenskyy and president Duda.

These statements sound more plausible, but it is surprising that Mr. Hanning begins by saying that only Ukraine and Poland had an interest in and the means of blowing up the pipelines, and that he doesn’t mention other possible perpetrators, such as the US, but also Great Britain or the Scandinavian neighbouring states. Interestingly, however, he takes a very clear stance on the classification of the attacks and comes to a very different conclusion from most voices in the German political landscape, which we will get to below:

There has been considerable damage to the pipelines. […] I once spoke to external experts from the operators and they put it at up to 20 to 30 billion euros. The huge damage caused by state terrorism must be clearly stated and I also expect the German government to make it clear that compensation must be demanded. Also from the operators. I believe that huge damage has been caused by the activities of Ukrainian and Polish government agencies.

This astonishing accumulation of news within a few days around the investigation, which has been ongoing for two years without any results so far, has led some to suspect that this is a controlled action directed against Zelenskyy and part of the public’s preparation for him losing the support of the West and being replaced.

“Thank you, Ukraine!”

The reactions to this explosive news were not long in coming and proved once again what a divided information landscape we find ourselves in.

The German conservative newspaper FAZ led the way. In an article that directly followed the WSJ’s “revelations”, Reinhard Müller explained that the pipeline had been a legitimate military target (according to the headline); the text formulates it somewhat more cautiously: “could be considered a legitimate target”. His arguments: it is owned by a Russian state-owned company and also contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression against Ukraine. He also makes an argument oft-heard from German commentators whose loyalties clearly lie with Ukraine: at the time the pipeline was blown up, it was no longer serving Germany’s energy supply. Of course, this raises the question: if it no longer served Germany’s (and Europe’s, for that matter) energy supply, how could it have contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression? But let’s leave that aside for the moment. And we will come to the ownership structure later in the text.

He is also of the opinion that if the Ukrainian president or another commander commissioned it, it could also be seen as an act of defense permissible under international law. Müller takes the opportunity, while he’s on the subject of steep theses on international law, to take a similarly idiosyncratic swipe at the German government’s critics of its stance in the Gaza war:

Here, Ukraine, with its back to the wall, gives little cause for concern in terms of the selection of targets, the treatment of prisoners of war and also the prosecution of war crimes and international observation. In such extreme situations, the value of the Western community’s value-based approach is proven. The end does not justify every means — this also applies to Israel, which is also in a struggle for survival. The commitment to human rights, even in the fight against those who do not care about them, makes the decisive difference. Any far-sighted government should also recognise that this is in its own best interests. Only those who fight under the flag of humanity will be able to live in peace with their neighbors at all times in the long term.

So again, because this may be misleading, his statement is: Ukraine and Israel respect human rights, unlike their opponents, and thus fight under the flag of humanity and now the Western community’s value-based approach shows its worth in that we support them in this noble fight (also against our own industrial infrastructure), because (only) in this way can we live in peace with our neighbors in the long term. I would like to award the prize for the most absurd take to Mr. Müller.

But please read the article in its entirety yourself, which also claims that all allies have a duty (!) to rush to the aid of the invaded Ukraine at any time, including with their own soldiers. In legal terms, one would speak of a “minority opinion”; I would like to use stronger words, but I’m trying to control myself so as not to further the division here.

A few days later, the FAZ reported that Germany would be cutting back on military aid for Ukraine and that, according to the German government’s current budgetary planning, no new money would be made available for this with immediate effect.

What initially appeared to be a possible reaction to the revelations and a concession to the large part of the population that is critical of the German government’s NATO course (because of the upcoming elections in some German states?), turns out on closer inspection to be a less major change in policy. This year everything will continue unchanged, next year military support is to be halved and then in 2027 it will shrink to less than a tenth of the current amount. However, most geopolitical analysts expect the war to end by 2025 at the latest. And after that, according to Christian Lindner’s plans, the support will no longer come from the federal budget, but will be financed from the proceeds (interest) of the Russian central bank assets frozen by the G7 states.

There were also comments from abroad that caused an uproar. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, for example, commented the revelations in a tweet as follows:

To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet.

The tweet went viral and has been viewed 2.6 million times so far, which is no wonder as it was provocative to the max and triggered correspondingly emotional reactions. So not only should we silently accept the blowing up of the pipelines; we should also be ashamed to have built and supported them in the first place.

But what seems like pure election advertising for the AfD and Sahra Wagenknecht’s new party, BSW, may also have other economic and geopolitical backgrounds:

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, we have been wondering about the increasingly aggressive and militant rhetoric against Germany from our neighboring country and cannot shake off the feeling that the new favourite child of the US and Great Britain is finally trying to get back at its neighbour, which is often perceived as overpowering, with borrowed courage.

In general, Poland plays an interesting role in the whole Nord Stream pipeline affair, a role that has received very little attention to date. This is because Poland (not just Ukraine) also lost both leverage/pressure and considerable transit income through the construction and commissioning of the pipelines, which allowed Russian natural gas to be supplied directly to Germany and the rest of Europe. And they worked together with the US, Denmark and Norway on an alternative to gas supplies from Russia and also wanted to get back into the game as a transit country for gas supplies from other countries of origin to Germany and Europe. However, as long as Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 were available, the economic prospects for these plans were poor. It is a strange coincidence that the Baltic Pipe, a natural gas pipeline from Denmark to Poland, was opened on September 27, 2022 (only one day after the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up).

But back to Germany, where other politicians and journalists made it clear that even a possible terrorist attack by Ukraine would not change their “Nibelungentreue” — a German expression meaning absolute loyalty. CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter initially explained in a video interview with Die Welt that the operation of Nord Stream 1 and 2 did not generate any income for Russia, as no gas was flowing through them at the time of the attack (I assume in order to substantiate his otherwise unfounded suspicions of Russia as the perpetrator, more on that later).

He may be hoping for a poor memory on the part of the audience here, but I think most Germans who have studied the topic still have a good memory of the situation in the autumn of 2022 and know very well that Russia had only halted gas supplies through Nord Stream 1 for a short time due to problems with the sanctions and turbine maintenance. This may also have been an attempt by Russia to mitigate or avert the sanctions in exchange for the resumption of gas supplies, or it may have been an attempt by Russia to force the certification and opening of Nord Stream 2, which was ready for use at that time.

In any case, it is clear that Russia was expressly willing and also able to start supplying gas via Nord Stream 2 at any time and that this was blocked by the German government for political reasons (keyword: certification procedure) and that the pressure from the population in this direction grew considerably, especially in the period shortly before the blast (keyword: hot autumn, we remember).

Mr. Kiesewetter omits these connections here in order to give the impression that the pipelines were actually already irrelevant at the time of the blast, which unfortunately — in the interest of truth — many other commentators also claim. As with so many issues these days, one would like to see neutral fact checks, which unfortunately we rarely get.

When Mr. Kiesewetter goes on to say that many elements of the article do not seem very credible, I even agree with him, but then he tries several times in the course of the interview to cast suspicion on Russia and talk about a “false flag” operation, albeit without any indications, arguments or evidence, so who is the conspiracy theorist now?

In addition, he then says that no German property was damaged because the attack took place in international waters. The location of the attack is obviously irrelevant to the ownership status, but Mr. Kiesewetter certainly knows that. And Nord Stream 2 is indeed owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, which is wholly owned by Gazprom, which in turn is a state-owned company. However, Germany has invested around 3.9 billion euros in goods and services in Nord Stream 2. And the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was also damaged, is held by Nord Stream AG, of which only 51 percent is owned by Gazprom through its subsidiary Gazprom International Projects North 1 LLC, while the other 49 percent is held by German, Dutch and French companies from the energy infrastructure sector.

In this respect, both German and European property was destroyed. Furthermore, the ownership structure under civil law is not the decisive factor in classifying the destruction of important energy infrastructure as a threat to national security, as the issue is how important it is for Germany’s economy and population, and not who owns the pipelines under civil law. Of course, Mr. Kiesewetter knows all about that too, he is an experienced politician who has been in the political business for a long time. Finally, the sentence that caused the most uproar:

Besides, Ukraine is the attacked (sic!), the security of Ukraine, whether they destroyed it or not, is in our interest.

So, in plain language: Ukraine’s security is in our (i.e., Germany’s) interest, even if it jeopardises our security with such a massive attack.

Finally, Julian Röpcke, full-time editor at the Bild newspaper, in his spare time apparently something of a war correspondent for the Ukrainian army and, according to his own description, an “arms delivery ultra”: he reposted his own tweet from November 2023 (i.e., shortly after the attack) with the note “Due to current events”, in which he praised the destruction of the pipelines:

Just to make this clear again: If Ukraine attacked Nord Stream: thank you very much. It was a Russian infrastructure project that made us dependent on their gas. Thanks a lot for ending that dependency, no matter who did it.

In other words: “Thank you, Ukraine!” (paraphrasing the famous tweet by Polish politician Radek Sikorski, shortly after the attack itself).

Moving the goalpost

What the reactions also reveal is an exciting shift in terms and evaluations among representatives and supporters of the German government’s and the EU’s current Ukraine policy. When the rather unlikely thesis of Russia being the perpetrator was initially put forward, Ursula von der Leyen, for example, was still saying:

Any deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure is unacceptable & will lead to the strongest possible response.

In short, right after the attack, it was clear to everyone and was not disputed by anyone (except perhaps by the German Greens, but that is such an extreme position that I am leaving it out here) that this was a massive terrorist attack against the energy infrastructure of Russia, Germany and also Europe, which was supplied with energy via these pipelines. It was also largely undisputed that this constituted a “casus belli” under international law, i.e., it was tantamount to a declaration of war and should actually trigger a NATO defense case under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

But that’s yesterday news. Now that there is evidence that Ukraine was at least complicit in this act, the supporters sound very different: the pipelines were irrelevant (so why were they blown up at all?), the demolition was justified and Germany should be ashamed of having built them in the first place.

Storm of outrage

From other quarters, there was a lot of outrage about the news. Alice Weidel from the German right-wing AfD-Party commented the news as follows:

The economic damage to our country caused by the blasting of #Nordstream allegedly ordered by #Zelenskyy — and not #Putin, as we were led to believe — should be “billed” to #Ukraine. Any “aid payments” that burden the German taxpayer should be stopped.

Sahra Wagenknecht of the left-wing BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht or Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) wrote):

Should German authorities have known in advance about the attack plan on Nord Stream 1 and 2, then we would have a scandal of the century in German politics.

Many private commentators were equally stunned:

Nobody deserves a government that allows critical infrastructure to be blown away with complete equanimity.

For some, angry comments were not enough and they wanted to see action. Opposition Cologne-based lawyer Markus Haintz, for example, filed charges against Kiesewetter with the Ellwangen public prosecutor’s office due to his comments regarding the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Die Welt interview.

Laughter through the tears

Fortunately for the soul, there were also many funny and satirical reactions. Berlin-based AI artist and satirist Snicklink posted this video. But other X users also had fun with pictures and photos making fun of the — from their point of view — implausible descriptions in the WSJ article.

What’s next?

So far (at the time of writing this article) no German government representative has commented on the WSJ investigation or the Die Welt interview, which is incredible in itself. I assume there were some emergency meetings on the weekend where the line of communication is being discussed and we can expect a statement soon. We can look forward to seeing how they position themselves here.

Sahra Wagenknecht is now calling for a committee of inquiry in the German Parliament to investigate the role of the German government in connection with the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines.

This seems urgently needed — because that would be the appropriate forum to shed light on all these issues. For as interesting and sometimes entertaining as the reactions and discussions in the regular and social media are, such a state affair cannot be solved by swarm intelligence.

This article first appeared in German on Nachdenkseiten.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Ukrainian troops face defeat in Kursk – retired major

By Ahmed Adel | August 22, 2024

Retired Ukrainian Army Major Igor Lapin said in an interview with former Ukrainian parliament deputy Boryslav Bereza that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be defeated in the Kursk region if they decide to hold their positions. Ukraine’s expected defeat comes despite the involvement of the intelligence services of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland in the invasion of the Kursk region.

“Some people thought that now we would get somewhere and start entrenching ourselves. Well, I have already said, from the point of view of a special forces officer, that as soon as the front becomes static, that will be the end of us,” Lapin said.

He noted that the Russian military has an advantage in terms of air force, artillery, and troop numbers. In his opinion, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Oleksandr Syrsky, is responsible for the attack on the Kursk region.

According to the retired major, Ukrainian troops cannot “add 300 km to the defence line and try to hold back the pressure of Russian troops,” thus, he believes that a static front line creates problems for Ukraine.

“There is the commander-in-chief’s intention. That is his responsibility. By the way, what is the strategic intention? Nobody knows,” the major added.

On August 6, Ukrainian troops launched an attack on the Kursk region of Russia. The invasion marked Ukraine’s most significant aggression against Russia since February 2022. Commenting on the attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ukraine had carried out another large-scale provocation by indiscriminately firing at civilian targets, adding that the enemy would receive an adequate response.

Despite the rapid advancement of Ukrainian forces in the first days of the invasion, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov said the advance had been halted. He stressed that the operation in the Kursk region would be completed with the defeat of the enemy and access to the state border.

However, the initial success of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region is due to the involvement of the intelligence services of the US, the UK, and Poland.

“According to available data, the operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the intelligence services of the United States, the United Kingdom and Poland. The units involved underwent combat coordination at training centres in the United Kingdom and Germany. Military advisers from NATO states are providing assistance in managing the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that invaded Russian territory,” the Russian Intelligence Service said on August 20 to the Izvestia newspaper.

NATO countries also provided the Ukrainian military with satellite intelligence data on the deployment of Russian troops in the area of ​​operation. The intelligence service further stated that due to the deterioration of Ukrainian troops’ situation in several sections of the combat contact line in the Northern Military District zone, the West has been pressuring Kiev to transfer military operations to Russian territory in the false belief that it will provoke the rise of anti-government sentiments and shaking up the internal political situation in Russia.

Washington’s involvement in Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk is not limited to the support from intelligence services. US private military group Forward Observations Group boasted about its involvement by posting a photo titled “The boys in Kursk” and geotagging Kursk. In response to the American mercenaries fighting in Kursk, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned US Chargé d’Affaires Stephanie Holmes on August 20 to lodge a protest.

It is recalled that in March, the Russian Ministry of Defense said that 13,387 mercenaries had arrived in Ukraine since the start of the Russian special military operation. At that time, up to 5,962 mercenaries were reported to have been eliminated. It is only normal that this number will skyrocket since Ukrainian forces are not only relying on the Forward Observations Group but a host of other mercenary groups, including the Georgian Legion, to invade Russian territory.

Nonetheless, as supply lines become stretched and Ukraine struggles to rotate soldiers, it is expected that their advances will quickly stall, which will inevitably lead to a rapid collapse and Ukrainian soldiers being driven out of Russia, especially as Russian forces continue to close in on the key supply hub town of Pokrovsk in Donbass.

As expected, Western media is glorifying Ukraine’s assault in Kursk while ignoring that Ukrainian front lines in Donbass are collapsing, which will see even more territory fall into the hands of Russia. In effect, for Ukraine’s daring attack on Kursk to occur, troops had to be withdrawn from Donbass, which has only benefited Russia on the eastern front, and once the Ukrainian assault stalls, it can be expected that it will be Russian forces pouring into Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast in response.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Beijing has ‘no intention’ of nuclear arms race with US – foreign ministry

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning speaks to reporters in Beijing on February 22, 2024. © Johannes Neudecker / picture alliance / Getty Images
RT | August 22, 2024

Washington’s fear-mongering over China’s nuclear arsenal is completely unfounded, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning has said. Her comment came after the New York Times reported on Tuesday that US President Joe Biden had quietly updated the Nuclear Employment Guidance, refocusing its aim against China.

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Mao said that Beijing was “gravely concerned” with the report. “The US has called China a ‘nuclear threat’ and used it as a convenient pretext for the US to shirk its obligation of nuclear disarmament,” she said.

Mao added that the size of China’s nuclear arsenal was “by no means on the same level with the US,” stressing that Beijing “follows a policy of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons and always keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required by national security.” China has “no intention to engage in any form of arms race” with other states, she stated.

“It is the US who is the primary source of nuclear threats and strategic risks in the world,” the spokeswoman argued.

In 2023, the Pentagon estimated that China will double its stockpile of operational nuclear warheads to over 1,000 by 2030. The US currently has 5,550 warheads, while Russia has 6,255, according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The White House has downplayed China’s concerns, with spokesman Sean Savett describing the change in nuclear strategy as a routine update that was “not a response to any single entity, country, nor threat.” US officials, however, have repeatedly described Beijing as “a challenge” to world peace and accused it of economic and military coercion in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing, in turn, blamed the US for the ongoing tensions, urging Washington to abandon the “Cold-War mentality.”

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

U.S. military base in Bangladesh at the heart of a revolution

By Steven Sahiounie | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 21, 2024

Former Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has a shocking accusation against the U.S. On August 12, while in exile in India, she told the Economic Times, “I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin Island and allowed America to hold sway over the Bay of Bengal. I beseech to the people of my land, ‘Please do not be manipulated by radicals’.”

Hasina resigned on August 5 after weeks of violent street protests by students angry at a law which awards government civil service jobs. The protests began in June 2024 after the Supreme Court reinstated a 30% quota for descendants of the freedom fighters who won the independence for the country in 1971 after fighting against Pakistan with the help of an Indian military intervention. The students felt they were facing an unfair system and would have limited opportunity for a job based on their educational qualifications, instead of ancestry.

On July 15, Dhaka University students were protesting and calling for quota reforms, when suddenly they were attacked by individuals with sticks and clubs. Similar attacks began elsewhere and rumors circulated that it was a group affiliated with the ruling Awami League.

Some believe the group who began the violence was paid mercenaries employed by a foreign country. Street protesters who were met by a brutal crackdown were the western media description of the March 2011 uprising in Syria. However, the media failed to report that the protesters were armed and even on the first day of violence 60 Syrian police were killed. The question is in cases like Bangladesh: was this a grass-roots uprising, or a carefully staged event by outside interests?

By July 18, 32 deaths were reported, and on July 19, there were 75 deaths. The internet was shut down, and more than 300 were killed in less than 10 days, with thousands injured.

Some call the Bangladeshi uprising the ‘Gen Z revolution’, while others dub it the ‘Monsoon revolution’. But, experts are not yet united in a source of the initial violent attack on student protesters.

Hasina had won her fourth consecutive term in the January 7 elections, which the U.S. State Department called ‘not free or fair’. Regional powerhouses, India and China, rushed to congratulate the 76-year-old incumbent.

Hasina had held the peace in a country since 2009 while facing Radical Islamic threats. Targeting Bangladeshi Hindus was never the message or the intent of the student movement, according to some student activists.

The Jamaat-e-Islami has never won a parliamentary majority in Bangladesh’s 53-year history, but it has periodically allied with the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Jamaat, as the party is widely known, was banned on August 1, when Hasina blamed the two opposition parties for the deaths during the anti-quota protests.

Muhammad Yunus, a respected economist and Nobel Laureate, accepted the post of chief adviser in a transitional government until elections are held. He said he will seek to restore order as his first concern.

The Saint Martin Island is a stretch of land spreading across merely three square kilometers in the northeastern part of the Bay of Bengal, and is the focus of the U.S. military who seek to increase their presence in Southeast Asia as a balance against China.

On May 28, China praised Hasina for her decision to deny permission for a foreign military base, commending it as a reflection of the Bangladeshi people’s strong national spirit and commitment to independence.

Without naming any country, Hasina had said that she was offered a hassle-free re-election in the January 7 polls if she allowed a foreign country to build an airbase inside Bangladeshi territory.

“If I allowed a certain country to build an airbase in Bangladesh, then I would have had no problem,” Hasina told The Daily Star newspaper.

Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan, becoming a part of Pakistan in 1947, when British India was divided into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Bangladesh was founded in 1971 after winning a war of independence. On August 15, 1975, a military coup took over, and Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, was assassinated along with most of his family members.

The U.S. State Department, aided by the CIA, have a long history of political meddling in foreign countries. Examples are the 2003 ‘regime change’ invasion of Iraq, and in the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ we saw the U.S. attack Libya to overthrow the government, the U.S. support of the ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria who were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the U.S. manipulated election in Egypt which installed a Muslim Brotherhood member as President. The American Lila Jaafar received a 5 year prison sentence for her manipulation of the Egyptian election, but Hillary Clinton evacuated her from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo before she could serve her prison sentence, and she is now the Director of the Peace Corps with a White House office.

The U.S. often uses sectarian issues and strife to accomplish their goals abroad. After the Islamists in Bangladesh drove out Hasina, reports of attacks on Hindu temples and businesses circulated on mainstream Indian TV channels.

Hindus, Muslim-majority Bangladesh’s largest religious minority, comprise around 8% of the country’s nearly 170 million population. They have traditionally supported Hasina’s party, the Awami League, which put them at odds with the student rioters.

In the week after Hasina’s ouster, there were at least 200 attacks against Hindus and other religious minorities across the country, according to the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council, a minority rights group.

The police have also sustained casualties in their ranks, proving the protesters were armed as well, and went on a weeklong strike after Hasina fled to India.

Dhaka-based Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies said they believe inclusivity and plurality are important principles as Bangladesh navigates a post-Hasina era. Those exact words: inclusivity and plurality are current ‘buzz-words’ used in Washington, DC. based political and security groups.

Hasina is credited with doing a good job balancing Bangladesh’s relations with regional powers. She had a special relationship with India, but she also increased economic and defense ties with China.

In March 2023, Hasina inaugurated a $1.21 billion China-built submarine based at Bangladesh’s Cox Bazaar off the Bay of Bengal coast.

On May 28, China praised Hasina for refusing to permit a foreign air base. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, “China has noted Prime Minister Hasina’s speech, which reflects the national spirit of the Bangladeshi people to be independent and not afraid of external pressure.”

Mao said some countries seek their own selfish interests, openly trade other countries’ elections, brutally interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, undermine regional security and stability, and fully expose their hegemonic, bullying nature.

China has invested over U.S.D 25 billion in various projects in Bangladesh, next highest after Pakistan in the South Asian region, who also steadily enhanced defense ties with Bangladesh supplying a host of military equipment, including battle tanks, naval frigates, missile boats besides fighter jets.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Hasina had long ignored the democratic backsliding in each other’s countries to forge close ties, and bilateral trade increased with Indian corporations striking major deals

“I also congratulate the people of Bangladesh for the successful conduct of elections. We are committed to further strengthen our enduring and people-centric partnership with Bangladesh,” Modi said in a post on X in January.

Mainstream Indian news outlets, which often serve as mouthpieces for Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, have been focused on a Bangladeshi Islamist party. “What is Jamaat-e-Islami? The Pakistan-backed political party that brought down Sheikh Hasina’s govt,” read one headline. “Jamaat may take control in Bangladesh,” read another, quoting a senior member of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Some critics claimed India “covertly” helped Hasina win the election, while others said New Delhi used its influence to tone down U.S. and European criticisms of the Bangladeshi vote.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP party came to power in 2014, and Modi’s commitment to a Hindu rashtra, or Hindu nation, while turning its back on secularism has undermined a core Indian foreign policy principle.

In 2019, the Modi government passed controversial citizenship laws that were criticized as anti-Muslim. The BJP’s strident anti-migrant rhetoric sees hardline party members often railing against Muslim “infiltrators” with Indian Home Minister Amit Shah infamously calling Bangladeshi migrants “termites” during an election rally in West Bengal.

The revolution to oust a long-serving leader, who kept the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority in a peaceful coexistence, has opened a new chapter for Bangladesh society. Will this prove to be a destabilizing period in which the Islamic party, Jamaat, holds sway over the society? Will the secular history of Bangladesh be forgotten? The final question will be, when will the new U.S. military base be opened on Saint Martin Island?

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Switzerland’s UDC Party Accuses Government of Undermining Country’s Neutrality

Sputnik – 22.08.2024

The largest party in the Swiss parliament, the Democratic Union of the Centre (UDC), accused President Viola Amherd and the government of undermining Switzerland’s neutrality by seeking to join the EU’s Military Mobility project.

On Wednesday, the Swiss government said that it intends to join the EU’s Military Mobility project, which aims to facilitate the movement of troops and military equipment across European territory.

“The UDC resolutely opposes Switzerland’s participation in the EU military pact PESCO [Permanent Structured Cooperation]. The Federal Council is thus frivolously abandoning the neutrality and sovereignty of our country. By participating in the EU military pact, the Federal Council, through gross negligence, is also endangering the security of the Swiss population. The UDC demands that the Federal Council bring this issue before parliament without fail,” the party said in a statement on Wednesday.

The UDC also accused the European Union of pursuing an expansionist policy in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

“The goals of Switzerland as a neutral and sovereign state do not coincide at all with the goals of the EU. Especially since the EU considers itself a geopolitical player and pursues an obvious expansionist policy towards Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova,” the party added.

Switzerland is not a member of the European Union or NATO. However, the Swiss Foreign Ministry’s 2022 foreign policy report announced the country’s intention to strengthen security cooperation with the alliance. In 2024 the Swiss military are expected to take part in 20 military drills beyond the country’s territory and in four drills within its soil, all of which involve NATO states.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment