Aletho News

1. Poland ready to help Ukraine hunt down military-aged men

RT | April 25, 2024

Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz has said that Warsaw would be willing to "help" Kiev repatriate men of fighting age, an unspecified portion of some 950,000 Ukrainians granted temporary sanctuary in Poland.

Earlier this week, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry banned all men between the age of 18 and 60 from getting or renewing their documents, including passports, at consular offices outside of the country. The Polish defense chief told the Polsat broadcaster on Wednesday that he was "not surprised" and supports Kiev's move.

"The Ukrainian authorities are doing everything to provide new soldiers to the front, because the needs are huge," Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said.

The Polish official said that Warsaw had previously offered to help Kiev track down those who dodge their "civic duty," but noted that "the form of assistance depends on the Ukrainian side."

"I think that many of our compatriots were and are outraged when they see young Ukrainian men in cafes and hear about how much effort it takes us to help Ukraine," he added. Kosiniak-Kamysz also echoed Kiev's official narrative that Ukrainians who could not avoid the draft have "justified grievances against their peers who have scattered around the world."

Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba claimed on Tuesday that the decision to strip Ukrainian men of their rights was "fair" and in line with the controversial military mobilization reforms, which President Vladimir Zelensky signed into law this month.

Zelensky's reforms, set to come into force next month, will lower the draft age from 27 to 25, tighten exemptions and oblige all men, regardless of eligibility, to report to a conscription office to "update" their personal data.

According to EU officials, an estimated 650,000 Ukrainian men of fighting age are living in the bloc. Kiev has identified that pool as a significant untapped source of manpower for the armed forces. However, asked in early April how many troops Kiev intended to mobilize, Zelensky dodged the question.

2. Andrew Bridgen – UK Parliament Speech On Excess Deaths – April 18, 2024

You can watch the entire debate here.

Mr Bridgen's speech in full

Thank you, Mr Speaker,

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory and possibly ever.

The excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 is that scandal.

Its causes are complex but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a "covid vaccine" is a large part of the problem.

I have been called an anti-vaxxer as if I have rejected these vaccines based on an ideology.

I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not. I am, in fact, double vaccinated.

Intelligent people must be able to distinguish between being anti-vax and pro-vax but against a product that a) doesn't work and b) causes enormous harm to a small percentage of people.

I am proud to be one of the few members of parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame there is not more intellectual diversity here. Maybe if there was, there would be less reliance on the Whips Office's briefings, more independent research and less groupthink.

I am used to raising issues in this House that no one cares about and no one wants to know about.

Nothing has been learned from the Post Office scandal.

Only two of the five MPs in the room when the Second Sight team were appointed, on my recommendation, to investigate the post office are still in the House of Commons. I am one of them. Michael Rudkin, the national sub-postmaster Federation Chairman who famously saw the live Horizon terminals in the basement of Fujitsu HQ was my constituent.

I have been fighting his corner in this House for many many years. Long before that scandal became national news. Long long before. I was mostly ignored.

I am being ignored again, this time on the issue of excess deaths.

Yet again, the official narrative is to deny, obfuscate, ridicule and silence dissenting voices.

I say to the House, and I say it with seriousness, this debate – and others like it proposed by me and others – are going to be pored over by future generations.

They will be genuinely agog that the evidence was ignored, that genuine concerns were disregarded and that those raising it were gaslit, smeared and vilified.

The excess deaths scandal bears an uncanny resemblance to the Post Office catastrophe

Both involve:

• Complacent public bodies
• Ministers unable to understand the technicalities and mouthing platitudes
• Malevolent corporations with a vested interest in silencing questions
• Lives ruined by greed, lies and corruption
• Most damaging of all is a culture of denial, obfuscation, secrecy and denigration
• Much of the harm was avoidable

You don't need to have any scientific training to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal.

The Covid-19 experimental 'vaccine' is a scandal that is happening right now, today, and it must end.

The Office of National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Now it doesn't. No one will explain why.

The public has a right to that data.

There have been calls – from serious experts whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House – for what is called "record-level data" to be anonymised and disclosed.

This data will allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination and settle the issue of whether these experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.

Far more extensive and detailed data has been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UKHSA, said this anonymised aggregate death by vaccination status is "commercially sensitive" and shouldn't be published.

The public is being denied this same data.

Yet again data is hidden with impunity. Just like the Post Office.

You may remember Professor Dame Jenny Harries, who in July 2022, said that masking was a good idea – and I quote, "If I've got any respiratory infection it's a good thing to do, and I think it's a new lesson for the country."

She earlier gave the following totally contradictory advice: "The virus will not survive very long outside. Many outdoor events, particularly, are relatively safe."

On 11th March 2020 on the issue of masks, she said, "It's really not a good idea and doesn't help," and "in some ways, you may actually risk catching the disease rather than preventing it."

She was right then. What made her do a U-turn on all these critical points?

Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change in the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate 'excess deaths'. It is incredibly complex and opaque and by sheer coincidence, it now appears to show a massive excess in deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023.

Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%, long after the pandemic was over and when you would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people died early in previous years.

20,000 premature deaths are now being airbrushed away in 2023 alone with the "new normal" baseline.

Fear

What is even more shocking is the sheer number of mistakes and scandals in this ongoing horror story.

For example, in March 2020, the government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with disabilities should have Do Not Resuscitate orders imposed on them, known as DNRs.

A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals. This was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country who enacted it.

At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with Do Not Resuscitate orders because they thought they would be overwhelmed.

Many people died as a result who did not need to, as nurses did TikTok videos while their hospitals lay empty.

Another example:

Fear kills. It kills because people don't seek needed medical care for fear of the virus, a virus which has a 99.8% survival rate.

It kills because it has been proven that increased stress can suppress the immune system or even be fatal in vulnerable people.

It kills because people who were trying to get care were told to isolate.

It kills because frightened staff were too eager to ventilate to reduce aerosols in the ward.

It kills because isolated, vulnerable and elderly people are abandoned by family and friends.

It's not just patients who are frightened. Doctors are frightened too. Frightened for their careers. Frightened for their reputation. Frightened of the GMC. Frightened to do anything not prescribed by the authorities who set the protocols.

There have been many doctors and scientists who have bravely spoken out on this, risking their careers and livelihoods, people like Dr Aseem Malhotra, Professor Norman Fenton, Dr David Cartland and Professor Angus Dalgleish to name but a few. Not to forget all of the team at the Hart Group including Dr Clare Craig, who has been so instrumental in helping me put together this speech today.

Another example is that during Covid, doctors failed to call out a dangerous change in protocol. The average time to death from covid symptoms starting was 18 days.

It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the virus within around 7 days.

What kills people is that some people, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response.

Doctors have been treating this for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols.

But, not this time.

Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a new virus.

They sent people home and told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue.

Then they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.

It gets worse, the protocol was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either to be ventilated in intensive care or, if they were not fit for that level of care, they were to be given end-of-life medication including Midazolam and Morphine.

The body responsible for this protocol – NG163 which was published on 3rd April 2020 – is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – NICE.

Giving Midazolam and Morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable but they have a side effect. The side effect is that these drugs have a respiratory depressant effect.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid idea than to give people struggling to breathe, drugs that do that. Yet that's what they did.

Why was the warning letter regarding the use of Midazolam in NICE guideline NG163 to the British Medical Journal on 19th May 2020 signed by two Professors and nine Doctors ignored? Especially as it would seem it's a replica of Abolished Liverpool Care Pathway in dosages and combined use of Midazolam plus an opioid.

NG163 stated that a blanket start dose of 2.5 mg of Midazolam should be injected regardless of age, body weight and comorbidities, how can this be medically acceptable as results show titration was not possible at such a dose for many elderly and who authorised it?

Why was Midazolam then removed from the same updated guideline NG191 on 30th November 2023? (As it was removed is it now considered and admitted it was a mistake to ignore the warning of the inclusion of that specific drug in NG163)?

It's now been confirmed by subsequent letters from Ministers to families that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge rather than strictly follow NICE guideline NG163 (as suggested by Quince and Stephenson) so if the warning letter from 11 experts to the BMJ was correct is the blame with NICE, NHS England or individual doctors and nurses, should legal action find verdicts of unlawful killing?

I would like to pay tribute to the Scottish Covid Inquiry which is hearing extensive, heartbreaking evidence of the effect of this alternative protocol on real people, real lives and sadly real and unnecessary deaths. People scared. People angry. People dying. People gasping for their lives away who might have been saved.

I very much hope that the eventual Scottish Inquiry Report addresses in detail the NICE  decision making on the alternative protocols for those with Covid.

All these deaths were ascribed by the government to covid as if no other factors needed to be investigated.

But this is one example of a scandal that if it wasn't for the Scottish Inquiry would never be investigated and never learned from.

Anyone who raised this problem during the pandemic was smeared as a covid denier.

Even worse

NICE has now removed these alternative protocols from its website. All other old protocols are still there for historical reference.

Why have NICE removed this protocol from their website? Are they ashamed of the harm they caused?

They certainly should be.

What can we learn from this? Doctors don't challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed and doctors fall in line.

We need doctors who are prepared to put their necks on the line for the sake of their patients, but we don't have them and the whole system is broken as a result.

Here is another example.

Not a single death certificate was written saying that death was due to the rare brain clots caused by AstraZeneca until the MHRA said there was a link. Then the death certificates started to trickle in.

That's not the scandal.

The scandal is that doctors wait for authorities to tell them they could label a death as vaccine-linked before they will do it. They are afraid of being smeared or reported to the GMC.

In the meantime, the MHRA relies on the evidence from death certificates in order to identify a problem.

That's the scandal.

It wasn't until other countries and public and political pressure FORCED the MHRA to admit the link between vaccines and blood clots causing death that they finally admitted it. And THEN doctors started putting it on death certificates.

There is a stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared to Covid. After a positive test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental and emergency-use vaccine, no illness and no death occurred. Both are totally unscientific approaches. That is why we have to look to other data sources – excess deaths to determine if there is an issue.

Safe and Effective

The fear deliberately stoked by the government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the safe and effective narrative began. The phrase seems to have hypnotised the nation.

"Safe and Effective" was the slogan used to market Thalidomide.

After that scandal rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future. Pharma companies are prohibited from saying "safe and effective" without significant caveats.

That didn't matter this time because the media, the government and authorities turned into the pharma marketing department.

It is hard to now hear the word safe without the echo of "and effective".

But they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil  and South Africa in which they said, "the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and … adverse effects of the Vaccine… are not currently known."

These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under the illusion that they prevented any infections?

Yet, even the Prime Minister now has one eye on history.

When he was at the dispatch box on 31st January at PMQs, following my question, he could not bring himself to add "and effective" to his "safe" mantra that the vaccines were safe.

Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme totalling an incredible £19.5m in compensation for harm caused by the Covid vaccines? Haven't they suffered enough already? Those 163 are the tip of the iceberg by the way.

It should be noted that the maximum payment is £120,000. So each of those 163 got the maximum possible award, which tells you something perhaps.

That same compensation scheme paid out a total of £3.5m between 1997-2005 with an average of 8 claims per year. That's for ALL other claims in the entire country for all vaccines.

So much for 'safe'.

How about effective?

Even by 25th October 2021, the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip even admitted that, and again, I quote, "It doesn't protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn't protect you against passing it on."

Looking at the levels of the virus in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was in the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves.

Vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe. And they were not effective.

Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well they could never prevent infections in this kind of disease.

An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airway and lungs can prevent viral infection. Antibodies in the blood cannot.

In Dr Anthony Fauci's own words, "It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses has ever been effectively controlled by vaccines"

He continued, "This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines to do so"

The mantra of "safe and effective" has so brainwashed some people that we now have the outrageous situation where the loving mother of a 24 year old man, who had the mental age of an 18 month old has been threatened in court with jail time, by a lawyer charged with representing her son's best interests, because she does not want him vaccinated.

He has had covid meaning he has the optimum possible protection against a subsequent infection already.

The judge has used the argument that Tom would choose to be vaccinated for altruistic reasons but the court has a duty to act in his best interests not the interests of society.

Altruism means taking vaccinations to help others. But, these vaccines do not protect others! They do not prevent infection. Why is our system persecuting this mother? What are they hoping to achieve?

Only a few days ago, the ABPI, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time and said their marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. They were asked to pay £30,000 in administrative expenses with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The MHRA have a statutory duty to carry out this work and has handed the responsibility over to the industry itself. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.

Another drug produced by Pfizer was Paxlovid designed to supposedly treat Covid. It was approved in December 2021.

Pfizer this week revealed the trial results for Paxlovid that had been hidden for two years.

The study showed that Paxlovid did not work to reduce illness.

Worse still, it caused rebound infections in 25% of those treated.

Worse still it causes serious drug interactions and other side effects.

Will Pfizer be held accountable for this? I am not holding my breath.

Australia

But let's return to excess deaths. The Australian government has launched an Inquiry into their excess death problem.

Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths. They had the vaccine before they had Covid.

Their excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term effects of a virus. Like us, they saw a rise in deaths that began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first.

South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15-44 year olds which peaked in November 2021 before covid hit.

We saw a similar deeply worrying effect here too:

Calls for life-threatening emergencies in the UK rose from 2000 per day to 2500 per day in May 2021 and it has not returned to normal.

Queensland doctors called the problem a "ticking time bomb" in April 2021 and described a "flood of patients." ⁶⁹

By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia headlines reported on ambulances unable to drop off patients in hospitals that were at full capacity.⁶⁷

Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals, "Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know."⁶⁸

By April 2022, Yvette D'ath Queensland health minister said about the most urgent ambulance calls ("code ones"), QUOTE: "I don't think anyone can explain why we saw a  40% jump in code ones… We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can't explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do."⁷⁰

Omicron caused excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards, however, there is a huge chunk of excess deaths which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus.

Could these deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few dare ask, Mr Speaker.

Remember the warning from Kate Bingham, head of the covid vaccine task force, who said in October 2020 that vaccinating healthy people who have little risk from covid "could cause them some freak harm."

Has there been some freak harm? The data on disability claimants would suggest the answer is yes! Both here and in the USA there was a rocket in the number of working-aged people unable to work because of long-term sickness. The increase began in May 2021. Thankfully these figures have stopped climbing here and in the USA in 2023.

The timing, or temporal link, suggests vaccines as the cause rather than the virus.

A rise in sickness and a rise in deaths that both occurred from May 2021 in Australia and in the UK despite their seasonal differences and despite their different covid trajectories is highly suggestive that vaccines are the underlying problem here.

It is important to remember how these vaccines were made. Traditionally the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated so the recipient can develop an immune response without the dangers of the disease.

In stark contrast, these so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological part of the virus in its entirety.

The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles spread throughout the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down within the arm at the injection site, regulators knew or ought to have known of these problems.

Furthermore, there is now plentiful evidence that the drug results in continued protein production for many months, even years, in some people. The deaths, thus far have been predominantly cardiac. but there may be more deaths to come.

Cancer

Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane and Emeritus Professor in Immunology.

This month Dr Tindle published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines including harm to the immune system which – as with anything which disrupts the immune system – can potentially increase the risk of cancer.

There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines.

Cancer is a genetic disease that arises from errors in DNA allowing cells to grow uncontrollably.

Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from their mRNA products.

This risk comes from material interrupting the patient's DNA.

It turns out that what we were told was an mRNA injection actually had very high quantities of DNA in it. This massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient's own DNA.

Worse still the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. This was no accident. Yet again crucial information was hidden with impunity.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear that these vaccines have caused deaths.

Despite this, they have been described as safe and effective.

But, for a small proportion of people, the vaccines have caused serious harm including death.

Neither are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission and when the data is looked at objectively, it does not prevent serious illness and death.

These are hard truths to face.

We must face them if we want to learn the lessons from the last few years.

I've been right before.

At some point that will be evident. Let's not wait as long as the post office scandal before we admit it.

It is time to take the politics out of science and put some actual science back into politics.

So, Mr Speaker, I offer Members of this House the same opportunity which I offered the Prime Minister: 'To be on the right side of history, the right side of science and on the side of the people.'

Sadly, given the PM's compromised position regarding his investments in big pharma, he only dug himself an even bigger hole!

I wish I was wrong about the experimental vaccines but the evidence was overwhelming 18 months ago it is absolutely unequivocal now.

I call on this House to do the right thing and protect our constituents, even if it means standing up to the most powerful vested interest in the world.

3. From Bird Flu to Climate Snakes

By Breeauna Sagdal | Brownstone Institute | April 24, 2024

Seasoned veterinarians and livestock producers alike have been scratching their heads trying to understand the media's response to the avian flu. Headlines across every major news outlet warn of humans becoming infected with the "deadly" bird flu after one reported case of pink-eye in a human.

The entire narrative is predicated upon a long-disputed claim that Covid-19 was the result of a zoonotic jump—the famed Wuhan bat wet-market theory.

While the source of Covid is hotly contested within the scientific community, the policy vehicle at the center of this dialectic began years prior to Sars-CoV-2 and is quite resolute in force and effect.

In 2016, the Gates Foundation donated to the World Health Organization to create the OneHealth Initiative. Since 2020, the CDC has adopted and implemented the OneHealth Initiative to build a "collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment."

In the aftermath of Covid-19, the OneHealth Initiative began taking shape, due largely in part to millions of tax dollars appropriated through ARP (American Rescue Plan) funding.

Through its APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Investigation System) the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was given $300 million in 2021 to begin implementing "a risk-based, comprehensive, integrated disease monitoring and surveillance system domestically…to build additional capacity for zoonotic disease surveillance and prevention," globally.

"The One Health concept recognizes that the health of people, animals, and the environment are all linked," said USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Jenny Lester Moffitt.

According to the USDA's press release, the Biden-Harris administration's OneHealth approach will also help to ensure "new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices," by "making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America."

In other words, the federal government is using regulatory enforcement to intervene in the marketplace, in addition to subsidizing corporations with tax dollars to direct a planned economic outcome—ending meat consumption.

Climate-Smart Commodities – Planning the Economy through Subsidized Intervention

Under the recently announced Climate-Smart Commodities program, the USDA has appropriated $3.1 billion in tax subsidies to one hundred and forty-one new private Climate-Smart projects, ranging from carbon sequestration to Climate-Smart meat and forestry practices.

Private investors such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – who just committed $1 billion to the development of lab cultured meat-like molds, and meat grown in petri dishes, to

Ballpark, formerly known for its hot dogs but is now harvesting python meat, is rushing to cash in on this new industry, and the OneHealth/USDA certification program.

Culling The Herd – Regulatory Intervention in the Marketplace 

Meanwhile, the last vestiges of America's food freedom and decentralized food sources are quietly being targeted by the full force of the federal government.

The once voluntary APHIS System is poised to become the mandatory APHIS-15, which among many other changes, "the system will be renamed Animal Health, Disease, and Pest Surveillance and Management System, USDA/APHIS-15. This system is used by APHIS to collect, manage, and evaluate animal health data for disease and pest control and surveillance programs."

Among those "many changes" that APHIS-15 is undergoing, one should be of particular interest to the public—the removal of all references to the voluntary* Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program.

"Updating the authority for maintenance of the system to remove reference to the Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program."

In addition to removing references to the once-voluntary herd culling program, the USDA is also implementing mandatory RFID ear tags in cattle and bison.

According to the USDA/APHIS-15, expanded authority places disease tracing in their jurisdiction and the radio frequency ear tags are necessary for the "rapid and accurate recordkeeping for this volume of animals and movement," which they say "is not achievable without electronic systems."

The notice clearly spells out that RFID tags "may be read without restraint as the animal goes past an electronic reader."

"Once the reader scans the tag, the electronically collected tag number can be rapidly and accurately transmitted from the reader to a connected electronic database."

However, industry leaders and lawmakers alike have said the database will be used to track vaccination history and movement, and that this data may be used to impact the market rate of cattle and bison at the time of processing.

Centralized Control of Processing/Production via Public-Private Partnership Agreements

In addition to the vast new authority of the USDA funded through the OneHealth Initiative, and the ARP, the EPA has also created its own unique set of regulatory burdens upon the entire meat industry.

On March 25, 2024, the EPA finalized a new set of Clean Water Act rule changes to limit nitrogen and phosphorus "pollutants" in downstream water treatment facilities from processing facilities. While the EPA's interpretation of authority and jurisdiction over wastewater is concerning long-term, the broader context of consolidated processing under four multinational meat-packing companies is of much greater concern for the immediate future.

With few exceptions, in the United States it is illegal to sell meat without a USDA certification. Currently, the only way to access USDA certification is through a USDA-certified processing facility.

According to the EPA, the new rules will impact up to 845 processing facilities nationwide, unless facilities drastically limit the amount of meat they process each year.

With processing capabilities being the number one barrier to market for livestock producers, and billions of dollars in grants being awarded to Climate-Smart food substitutes, the amount of government intervention into the marketplace becomes very clear.

The Rise of Authoritarianism and Economic Fascism – Control the Supply

The United States, once a consumer-demand free market society, is currently witnessing the use of government force, and intervention tactics to steer and manipulate the marketplace. Similar to 1930's Italy, this is being achieved by the state within the state, through the use of selectionism, protectionism, and economic planning between public-private partnership agreements.

The long-term and unavoidable problem with economic fascism is that it leads to authoritarian and centralized control, from which escape is impossible.

As each industry becomes centralized and consolidated under the few, consumer choice simultaneously disappears. As choice disappears, so does the ability of the individual to meet their specific and unique needs.

Eventually, the individual no longer serves a role outside of its usefulness to the state—the final exhale before the last python squeeze.

4. Stop Hassling the Hoffe

An Urgent Plea to All Readers for Help

Dr. Charles Hoffe – a Noble Small-Town Canadian Physician

BY JUSTUS R. HOPE | APRIL 23, 2024

Few stories are more compelling than the tale of Dr. Charles Hoffe. He is a Canadian small-town physician who clings to old-fashioned values. Dr. Hoffe enjoys treating patients even if he loses money doing so because Medicine is a calling for him, not a way to get rich.

His father came to visit and told him that he would never make a name for himself in this backwoods – yet charming – town of Lytton located in the heart of British Columbia. Charles explained that his goal was not to glorify himself, but instead to care for others. He enjoyed stitching the fingers of locals whose skill saws had slipped. He found satisfaction in bringing new life into this world, and he stood strong with the elderly until they departed. Dr. Hoffe was equally comfortable treating the town via its tiny emergency room.

Dr. Hoffe remained fiercely loyal to all under his care, and this was never truer than during the recent COVID-19 episode. While MSM stories abounded on the pandemic causing overflowing big-city hospitals, Hoffe recognized the disconnect between the reality in his small town. He did not see the pandemic materializing with his own eyes. The town of Lytton seemed relatively untouched by anything more serious than a mild flu.

Following the roll-out of the vaccine, Dr. Hoffe noticed a more extreme disconnect. Patients were showing up sick after vaccination. On one occasion he informed a vaccine-injured patient she would not require additional injections due to having sufficient immunity from previous virus recovery. A nurse reported him and despite 30 years of exemplary service without a single patient complaint, he was summarily fired from his position at the emergency department.

However, despite his income dropping by half without the emergency room, Dr. Hoffe persisted in keeping his patients' safety first, even to his detriment. His first patient death from the pandemic came after vaccination, not from the virus.

Hoffe noticed mounting deaths, micro-clotting, and serious neurological events after the 2021 rollout, and this prompted him to write an email of concern asking his colleagues what they had seen.

Following this private email, he received a notice from the licensing authorities threatening him with disciplinary action should he cause any vaccine hesitancy through his communications.

Hoffe immediately recognized something seriously was amiss. Never in his experience had doctors been so threatened for simply asking questions. Scientific inquiry should not be punishable – and he would not be silenced – especially not when patients' lives were on the line. The personal cost to him did not matter.

Although Dr. Hoffe found himself isolated in Lytton, a village of a mere 250 residents, he decided to conduct his own pilot study.

Tiny Lytton BC by Andrew Bowden – CC-BY-SA-2.0

He theorized that levels of D-Dimer would reflect micro-clot formation, and thus he measured these levels in his patients both before and after vaccination. To his horror, 5 of 8 patients turned positive for dangerous micro-clotting following the shots. Based on this safety signal, he informed his colleagues and warned that the vaccines seemed to be causing more harm than good.

Dr. Charles Hoffe, despite his tiny practice in this tiny British Columbia town, ironically had made a national name for himself. And bigger things were about to happen. His D-Dimer study began in early 2021, around April, and by June of 2021, his town of Lytton was extinguished in a massive wildfire that seemed to selectively torch the enclave while mysteriously sparing the surrounding wilderness.

Hoffe recalls the day of the inferno. He grabbed his laptop, and D-Dimer records, and fled his burning office. He drove the four hours to his family home, only to be greeted with the news that his wife was strategically planning a divorce. He was served with papers ousting him from his residence. Faced with banishment from his marriage, his profession, and his home, he sought refuge in a small vacation cottage located some six hours' drive away. He made himself available to his patients via cell phone. But the licensing authorities quickly accused him of abandonment. Yet nothing could have been further from the truth. Like a good steward, Hoff watched over his flock with the utmost care.

Dr. Hoffe courageously stayed the course, keeping his patients first while brushing off the slings and arrows of the attack. The little income he earned following the loss of the emergency room position was about to be whittled down further as the Canadian government removed him from a previously favored physician payment list.

Meanwhile, the charred remains of the town of Lytton had been cordoned off by the authorities who blocked access – Maui style – to its displaced residents for some two years. Hoffe's local Lytton home, in a positive twist of fate, was located upwind from the disaster, and he was able to move back in and treat the locals once again.

As if the situation could not grow worse, the Canadian Medical Authorities brought charges of misinformation spreading against Dr. Hoffe and sought to revoke his license to practice medicine.

Hoff hired a caring Christian attorney who vowed to fight this. For his defense, he recruited eight world-class expert witnesses, including Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Jessica Rose, and Dr. James Thorpe. They provided some 970 pages of compelling testimony, all pro-bono in light of Hoffe's extreme financial circumstances.

Despite all this, the court used the tool of Judicial Notice to derail his defense. This meant that none of this expert witness evidence was admissible because as a matter of law the vaccines were by definition considered safe and effective – and this issue could not be legally contested.

To add further insult, the medical authorities sought to charge Dr. Hoffe with the costs of their investigation on top of revoking his license. These costs could easily exceed one or two hundred thousand dollars. In other words, the Canadian Medical Authorities are planning a one-two punch designed to bankrupt and silence Dr. Hoffe once and for all.

Which brings me to my request. If you value noble physicians like Dr. Hoffe who possess the moral fiber and strength of character to stand strong for their Hippocratic Oaths no matter the personal cost, then please reach out and help.

If everyone in our group contributed 10 dollars to Dr. Hoffe's legal defense fund, we could send a message that patients care, and value physicians who stand for truth. We could spare Dr. Hoffe so he could help us fight another day. These payments are exclusively for defraying the costs of Dr. Hoffe's legal fees, and not for his personal financial benefit.

All Donations are welcome to the Dr. Charles Hoffe Legal Defence Fund.

Full Interview here.

5. A Warped View of Patriotism on Pat Tillman

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | April 24, 2024

A recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times demonstrates what is a warped interpretation of the term "patriotism." The op-ed is about former football player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan twenty years ago. It's written by Bill Dwyre, a former sports editor for the Times.

Dwyre reminds us that Tillman was motivated to join the military after the 9/11 attacks. He gave up a $3.6 million football contract to join the U.S. military and was hoping to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists.

Dwyre writes, "It was a can't-miss story of patriotism. Americans applauded from the safety and comfort of our homes and communities." (Since he uses the pronoun "our," presumably Dwyre fell into the "safety and comfort" group rather than the "patriot" group.)

Unfortunately, however, Dwyre doesn't explain why Tillman's act was one of "can't miss" patriotism. Apparently for him it's a self-evident truth.

No declaration of war

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the higher law that we the people impose on government officials. We are expected to obey their laws, and they punish us when we fail to do so. By the same token, they are supposed to obey our law, the Constitution.

The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war as a prerequisite to a president's waging war against any other nation-state. If a president and his army wage war without a congressional declaration of war, they are acting in violation of the law.

It is undisputed that President Bush did not secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before he ordered his military to invade Afghanistan. That made their war illegal under our form of government.

How can participating in an illegal war be considered "patriotic"? Dwyre doesn't explain that.

The U.S. was the aggressor under Nuremberg

Moreover, the common perception is that Bush invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban regime, which was governing the country, had been complicit in the 9/11 attacks by having knowingly harbored Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials suspected had orchestrated the attacks.

Not so. Bush initiated his war because the Taliban regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver bin Laden into the hands of the Pentagon and the CIA. Yet, there was no extradition treaty between Afghanistan and the United States and, therefore, Afghanistan was operating within its rights under international law to refuse Bush's unconditional extradition demand.

Nonetheless, knowing that the Pentagon and the CIA would torture bin Laden into confessing to the crime, Afghanistan offered to deliver him to an independent nation for a fair trial. In making the offer, Afghanistan sought the same amount of proof that would be required in a normal extradition hearing. The U.S. government refused the offer, perhaps because it was unable to provide such proof.

Therefore, given that Afghanistan had the authority under international law to refuse Bush's extradition demand, that makes Bush's invasion illegal under the war-of-aggression provision of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

How can participation in an unconstitutional and illegal war be considered "patriotic"? Unfortunately, Dwyre fails to explain.

If one assumes that the 9/11 attackers were the ones who did the attacking (as compared to the attacks being an "inside job," as some believe), it's worth pointing out that they were motivated by the death and destruction that the U.S. government's foreign policy had wreaked in the Middle East. But of course, a real "patriot" does not bring up that discomforting fact and instead blindly supports the government's claim that the terrorists attacked us out of hatred for our "freedom and values."

Tillman's opposition to the Iraq War

One of the fascinating aspects of Dwyre's op-ed glorifying Tillman's patriotism is what he leaves out of the op-ed. Tillman was an outspoken opponent of Bush's invasion and war of aggression against Iraq. Dwyre doesn't even mention that, which is revealing.

Keep in mind, after all, that Bush's war on Iraq was also waged without a congressional declaration of war, making it illegal under our form of government. Bush's claim that he was waging to war to enforce UN resolutions falls flat because only the UN can enforce its resolutions. The fact is that the U.S. war on Iraq was an even clearer case of a war of aggression under the Nuremberg principles than the U.S. war on Afghanistan.

Despite Tillman's fierce objections to the U.S. war on Iraq, the U.S. military nonetheless ordered him to "serve" in Iraq, which he did. Keep in mind though that every U.S. soldier takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and is under a legal and moral obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Tillman chose to obey the unlawful order to deploy to Iraq.

U.S. government lies

After his "service" in Iraq, Tillman was deployed to Afghanistan, where he continued to speak out against the U.S. war on Iraq. It was there that he was killed. As Dwyre points out, the U.S. military initially lied about his death, claiming falsely that he was killed by enemy fire. In fact, what actually happened is that he was killed by his own men in what was described as "friendly fire."

In 2006, Tillman's brother, Kevin Tillman, wrote a scathing op-ed on truthdig.com, in which he echoed his brother Pat's view of the Iraq war: "Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground."

Why would't Dwyre mention Pat Tillman's (and his brother's) fierce opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq in his op-ed? My hunch is that it's because he considers opposition to U.S. wars to be unpatriotic and, therefore, Tillman's apparent lack of "patriotism" with respect to Iraq doesn't fit conveniently within his patriotism narrative. Under Dwyre's warped interpretation of patriotism, apparently it's only those who blindly support the U.S. national-security state's foreign wars and its interventionist foreign policy who should be considered "patriots." Apparently, those who reject such wars and choose instead to remain in the "safety and comfort" of their homes instead of fighting them should be considered non-patriots.

6. Hamas holds dozens of high-ranking Israeli officers in Gaza: Report

The Cradle | April 24, 2024

A source within Palestinian resistance movement Hamas told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on 24 April that the group holds around 30 Israeli army generals and officers from the Shin Bet security service as prisoners in the Gaza Strip.

"The movement alone has about 30 generals and Shin Bet officers, who were captured on October 7, from military units and some highly sensitive military sites," the source said.

The source added that "these people in particular are in highly secured places, far from the hands of the occupation, and it is impossible to reach them under any circumstances," and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have been hiding information from their people regarding "the identities of some of the prisoners."

This concealment comes as part of efforts "to avoid provoking anger among the ranks of the combat forces." He added that the military representative on Israel's prisoner negotiation team, Nitzan Alon, is frustrated with Netanyahu's "laxity" toward the issue.

The Israeli government has said that 129 Israeli prisoners remain captive in Gaza.

According to the source, Israel does not really know the exact number of prisoners left in Gaza after the prisoner exchanges in late November. He adds that Tel Aviv has not specified the number of imprisoned military officials, as part of a strategy "to classify some of the soldiers or officers … as civilians, in order to reduce the price of negotiating for them during the talks."

The source also denied Hebrew media reports that only 20 prisoners are alive and that Hamas only proposed releasing 20, as opposed to 40, during the latest rounds of truce talks in Cairo.

Truce negotiations remain stalemated by Israel's repeated rejection of Hamas' main terms, which the resistance group continues to hold fast. These terms include an end to the war and a permanent ceasefire, a withdrawal of all troops from Gaza, a return of the displaced to their homes, and reconstruction of the strip.

"The only way [for Israel] to liberate the occupation prisoners is through serious negotiations followed by a full commitment to a ceasefire and reconstruction," he said.

He also confirmed that the resistance remains in fighting form, and has not been defeated.

"The resistance is still fine, and is still in control in a disciplined manner within integrated structures in the field of operations." Israel has repeatedly claimed that the southernmost city of Rafah is Hamas' final stronghold, and is planning an operation against the desperately overcrowded city, posing the threat of a severe humanitarian catastrophe.

The source also confirmed that top Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is "not isolated from reality" or hiding within the tunnels of Gaza, as some have claimed. According to the source, Sinwar has met with some of the fighters of Hamas' military wing, the Qassam Brigades, has "inspected" some of the areas where clashes took place, and "is carrying out his work as a leader of the movement in the field."

7. UK suspends legal assessments on Israel’s compliance with international law

MEMO | April 24, 2024

In a shocking revelation during a hearing at the High Court, it has come to light that the UK government has suspended legal assessments over whether Israel is breaching International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The hearing was part of legal proceedings initiated in December by Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) against the UK after repeated written requests to suspend arms sales to Israel due to grave breaches of international law and UK rules.

According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), Trade Government lawyer James Eadie admitted to a "hiatus" in legal assessments of Israel's compliance with IHL for reasons he "couldn't go into," stating that "decisions of some importance have been delayed for some time." Eadie also mentioned that these delayed decisions were due "imminently" – likely in mid to late May.

The hearing also disclosed that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade last reviewed and approved arms sales to Israel on 8 April, three months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened an instigation into possible genocide carried out by the apartheid state. However, according to information provided in court, this review only covered IHL violations committed up to 28 January, as the judge stated that the legal case into this review would only cover violations up to this date.

Notably, a determination that Israel is in violation of International Humanitarian Law would require the UK to suspend any arms sales to Israel. Details revealed during the hearing indicate that the UK government has sold weapons to Israel without a thorough review of the many breaches of international law documented by rights groups.

CAAT has strongly criticised the government's actions. "This government likes to claim we have a robust arms export licensing system. This claim is now in tatters," CAAT's Media Coordinator, Emily Apple, said. "Israel is committing horrific war crimes with the aid of UK weapons and yet our government has suspended legal assessments of its compliance with international law, and delayed vital decisions."

"It is outrageous that it has taken a court case for these revelations to come to light. David Cameron and other foreign office ministers have repeatedly avoided scrutiny on this issue. They are making a mockery of international law and a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny."

While the case brought by GLAN and Al-Haq has been given permission to proceed, with a full hearing scheduled for October, CAAT emphasises the urgency of the situation. "We cannot wait until October for an arms embargo. Our government and the UK arms trade is complicit in genocide and they know it. We all need to keep up the pressure and demand that they stop prioritising the profits of arms dealers over Palestinian lives," stated Apple.

The revelations from the High Court hearing have raised serious questions about the UK government's commitment to upholding international law and its role in enabling the ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine through the continued sale of arms to Israel.

British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, has repeatedly dodged questions about the legality of UK arms sales to Israel. Leaked reports show that the British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public.

The comments, made by the Conservative Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.

"I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make," Kearns said in March. "Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order."

8. Pakistan under risk of sanctions over trade deal with Iran: Washington

The Cradle | April 24, 2024

Washington threatened Pakistan with sanctions on 23 April over a trade agreement recently signed with Iran.

"We advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential risk of sanctions. Ultimately, the Government of Pakistan can speak to their own foreign policy pursuits," State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said on 23 April.

The warning came after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi arrived in Pakistan on 22 April and met with top officials, including Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

"Both sides agreed to increase the volume of bilateral trade to 10 billion US dollars in the next five years," Sharif's office said in a statement.

Raisi and Sharif also discussed during the visit the importance of energy cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad.

A gas pipeline project between the two, dating back over a decade and aimed at allowing the flow of Iranian gas into Pakistan, has been consistently held up by the US.

A US official revealed last month that Washington has set a "goal" to prevent the construction of the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline. The project has been delayed by nearly a decade in large part due to US economic pressure.

"I fully support the efforts by the US government to prevent this pipeline from happening," US Assistant Secretary Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu, said during a congressional hearing on 19 March. "We are working toward that goal," he stressed.

On Wednesday, Iran and Pakistan issued a joint statement calling on the UN Security Council "to prevent Israel's regime from its adventurism in the region and its illegal acts attacking its neighbors and targeting foreign diplomatic facilities."

The statement also called "for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access to the besieged people of Gaza, return of the displaced Palestinians, as well as ensuring accountability of the crimes being committed by the Israeli regime. They reiterated their support for a just, comprehensive, and durable solution based on the aspirations of the people of Palestine," according to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

9. The sanctions regime against the DPRK under threat

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 24.04.2024 

On March 28, 2024, Russia vetoed the extension of the mandate of the UN panel of experts to monitor the sanctions against the DPRK until April 30, 2025. This is important, because according to the established procedure, the decision to extend the term of office of the so-called 1718 Sanctions Committee must be made by April 30, otherwise it will be unable to continue with its activities.

What is the 1718 Sanctions Committee?

Resolution 1718 was adopted in October 2006 in response to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Resolution prohibited the supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of any military equipment and weapons, and also of materials, equipment, goods and technology that could be used in North Korea's weapons of mass destruction programs. Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted a number of other resolutions tightening the sanctions on North Korea.

The eight-member Panel of Experts supporting the UN Sanctions Committee on North Korea was established in 2009 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which was adopted in response to the DPRK's second nuclear test, to monitor compliance with the sanctions imposed on the DPRK by the UN member states. A panel of eight UN Secretary General-approved experts from the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan and Singapore (theoretically) – collects, studies, analyzes data on the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK, submits a twice-annual report on sanctions violations to the United Nations Security Council based on information from UN member states and other open source materials, and makes recommendations on the sanctions issue.

Since its founding the group has reportedly uncovered a number of sanctions violations, including those related to the DPRK's nuclear and missile programs and other prohibited activities such as the import of luxury goods and ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned items.

The UN Security Council votes annually to extend the Panel's mandate, and in 2023 Russia voted in favor of the extension.

Two days before the vote, NK News, citing "informed sources at the UN," reported that Russia and China had proposed adding "sunset" clauses to the sanctions regime against the DPRK as a precondition for extending the Panel's mandate. They proposed adding an expiration date to the de facto open-ended sanctions regime, and requiring a new consensus of the UN Security Council member states in order to renew the sanctions for a further term. Russia also proposed reducing the frequency of the group's reports submission from twice to once a year.

The NK News article noted that the US, UK and France refuse to accept these proposals, which means that Moscow will be likely to veto the extension of the Panel's mandate.

The Russian proposals were rejected and Russia blocked a draft resolution submitted by the United States, although 13 of the 15 UN Security Council members voted in favor of it. The representative of China, who abstained from voting, expressed support for Russia's position, saying that the proposal to set an expiration date for sanctions on North Korea was "highly practical and quite feasible."

Russia's arguments

Explaining the reason for Russia's exercise of its veto right Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the authors of the document did not take into account Moscow's proposal to set a time limit for the sanctions against North Korea, which remain indefinite.

As Vasily Nebenzya stated before the vote, it was "long overdue" for the Council to update the sanctions regime against the DPRK in light of the realities of the situation.

However, all attempts by Russia and China to link the level of sanctions pressure with the current behavior of the DPRK "have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to depart from their destructive and punitive logic towards the DPRK."

The 1718 Committee's Panel of Experts, tasked with monitoring the sanctions policy, "failed to perform its direct duties" and was unable to "develop sober assessments of the state of the sanctions regime," and as a result "its work was reduced to playing along with the West's policies, repeating biased information, and analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality pictures."

Unfortunately, the present author has to agree with this statement, because the Panel's reports included almost exclusively "investigations" made by sensationalist media outlets, with no critical analysis and an overreliance on the phrase "highly likely."

According to the Russian representative, the West, led by the United States, is trying to "strangle" the DPRK through unilateral restrictions, propaganda and threats against the country's leadership.

Given the above background, Russia proposed that the Council embark on an open and honest review of its sanctions measures against the DPRK, but "the US and its allies did not want to hear us and did not include our proposals in the draft resolution which was put to a vote today. Under these conditions, we do not see any 'added value' in the work of the Committee's Panel of Experts and cannot support the American draft."

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has twice commented on the problem, emphasizing that "the Council can no longer act according to its established patterns with regard to the Korean Peninsula issue." The security situation in the region has not improved over the long years of sanctions (the DPRK's missile and nuclear capabilities have only grown, the present author would add), and the devastating humanitarian consequences of the sanctions on the DPRK's civilian population are evident. Moreover, it is not the DPRK that is aggravating the current situation, but rather the increasingly aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies that is leading to a new round of escalation in the region.

Many experts agree with this assessment. For example, Andrei Lankov, a prominent Russian-speaking researcher on the DPRK, told NK News that the increasing politicization of the Panel of Experts' work has rendered it unable to reliably monitor the extent of the DPRK's sanctions evasion. In his view, the differences of opinion within the DPRK Panel of Experts "reflect the main problem with the UN in its current form: it can only work if there is a consensus of the major powers."

What was the reaction of the "international community"?

As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev notes, the suspension of the Panel of Experts' mandate significantly undermines the viability and certain legal aspects of the sanctions regime in its previous form.

But, of course, the reaction of US and South Korean officials and experts has been to condemn Russia. Western analysts say the absence of the 1718 Committee, whose main task is to monitor sanctions violations, would make it easier for Russia to engage in arms deals with the DPRK – long accepted in the West as an established fact.

US Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller expressed disappointment over Russia's veto of the resolution and China's abstention, calling the Committee the "gold standard" for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations.

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed "deep regret" over the veto: "The Panel of Experts has fulfilled its role in monitoring the DPRK, which… continues to violate sanctions through various illegal actions such as nuclear and missile provocations, arms exports, sending workers abroad, cyberattacks and military cooperation with the Russian Federation, and is building up its nuclear and missile potential."

Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, said that the key factor behind the lifting of the UN's sanctions monitoring of North Korea was not only by the rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow, but also by growing hostility between the United States and Russia, which "pushed the latter to establish closer ties with North Korea. Their strategic relationships are inherently interconnected. In addition, there is growing criticism in the UN Security Council that the sanctions are useless."

Maria Zakharova's second statement was a response to such rhetoric. In addition, Russia pointed out the inadmissibility of such criticisms on the part of the United States, which for the past five months has been blocking UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Gaza Strip, thereby covering up the mass deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli actions.

In turn, the DPRK expressed its gratitude to Russia. As the DPRK's permanent representative to the UN, Kim Song, said, "we highly appreciate the decision of the Russian Federation to veto the Security Council's draft resolution on the 1718 Committee." Kim recalled that Pyongyang has never recognized either the sanctions imposed by the Security Council or the work of the sanctions committee.

Does all this mean the end of the sanctions regime?

Unfortunately not. Of course, the West is stoking fears that "the end of the Expert Panel will encourage North Korea to continue to engage in prohibited acts with impunity and frustrate international efforts to deter growing nuclear and missile threats." However, Seoul, Washington and other like-minded countries will step up their coordination by imposing individual or multilateral sanctions in order to keep "turning the screws" on Pyongyang. As Kim Eun-hye stated in a briefing, "Despite the suspension of the Panel, we will continue to honor the sanctions against North Korea and make every effort to create an environment in which North Korea has no choice but to refuse to move in the wrong direction."

Most likely, the panel of experts will simply be replaced. Victor Cha already proposes to fill the vacuum with an "alternative mechanism" involving countries with similar positions on the issue, such as the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc., who will cooperate by sharing information.

Eric Penton-Voak also suggests that as an alternative to the Expert Panel the activities of think tanks and media specializing in the area be stepped up, which could make the enforcement of the sanctions more effective.

The first steps in this direction have already begun. On April 5, 2024, the US State Department stated that "amid the growing need for tighter international cooperation to address North Korean threats following Russia's recent veto of a resolution on the annual renewal of a UN panel monitoring the enforcement of sanctions against the North" US Senior Official for North Korea Jung Pak will visit Romania, Poland, and Sweden. She will negotiate on challenges from North Korea's "unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, malicious cyber activity, and deepening military and political partnership with Russia."

Some experts, however, are more pessimistic. Frank Aum, a senior expert at the US Institute of Peace, notes that "the termination of the panel further erodes the multilateral sanctions regime against North Korea and forces the United States and other countries to pursue more unilateral, bilateral or monolateral efforts to crack down on North Korea." In his view, "this scenario represents not just a crisis for advocates of pressure and sanctions against North Korea, but also the broader functioning of the UNSC and the post World War II international order."

The present author rather agrees with these views. Yes, the UN structure will be replaced by a private shop whose verdicts will be even more biased, but less binding. The US is unlikely to lift the sanctions, considering any movement in this direction ideologically unacceptable. But another deep crack has appeared in the façade of the UN as an independent arbitration institution.

Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

10. As Ukraine’s Defeat Looms, Imaginary War Unravels

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2024

On April 11th, US General Christopher Gerard Cavoli, chief of Washington's European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, addressed US lawmakers on Ukraine's dire battlefield situation, warning Kiev "could lose" without further Wunderwaffe. Along the way, he made a number of startling disclosures about the size of Russia's military, and losses, which detonated numerous narratives universally and unquestioningly perpetuated by the mainstream media from the very start of the proxy war to this day.

"We do not see significant losses in the air domain, especially their (Russian) long-range and strategic aviation fleets…Russia's strategic forces, long-range aviation, cyber capabilities, space capabilities, and capabilities in the electromagnetic spectrum have lost no capacity at all," Cavoli said. In all, while the Russian air force had lost "some aircraft", this represented "only about 10% of their fleet":

"The overall message I would give you is [Russia's military has] grown back to what they were before… their overall capacity is very significant still, and they intend to make it go higher… Russia is reconstituting [its forces] far faster than our initial estimates suggested. The army is actually now larger — by 15% — than it was when it invaded Ukraine… Russia launches very large-scale attacks every few days keeping with their production rate… They produce, they save up, they launch a big attack."

Such is the pace at which events move these days, many may have forgotten that in December 2023 a US intelligence report, conveniently declassified right when Volodymyr Zelensky was touring Washington desperately attempting to drum up support for yet more "aid", suggested Russia had lost 90% of its prewar army, with combat deaths in excess of 300,000. The report claimed Moscow's personnel and vehicle losses were so severe, it would take 18 years to replenish what was hemorrhaged over the invasion to date.

Independent analyst Will Schryver has coined the term "Imaginary War" in respect of the proxy conflict. It is a battle primarily concerned with convincing Western citizens that free, democratic Kiev is making a heroic stand against Russian barbarism, which it can and will win. Ukraine, with NATO's backing, was until recently excelling in this effort. Every step of the way though, they've been losing the real war – and badly.

'Intelligence Updates'

Social media is a core component of the Imaginary War. Academic research shows Twitter is home to a massive pro-Ukraine bot army, endlessly pumping out pro-Kiev, anti-Russian messaging. The same is no doubt true of every social media platform. This helps create the illusion of nigh-universal support for Ukraine globally, when outside the West, populations and governments are either neutral, or outright supportive of Russia, perceiving the conflict to be a strike against NATO, and Western imperialism.

Furthermore, over the first 18 months of the conflict, mainstream journalists, pundits, and politicians heavily depended on the unsubstantiated pronouncements of "Oryx", an anonymous Twitter account analysing on-the-ground imagery, for loss figures on both sides. Its posts suggested from day one, destruction of Russian tanks, jets, armoured vehicles and more was many orders of magnitude higher than that suffered by Ukraine, indicative generally of the war being an unmitigated disaster for the invaders.

A representative March 17th 2022 Washington Post investigation boldly declared Russia had to date "lost thousands of soldiers and thousands of vehicles while failing to make significant progress," based almost entirely on Oryx's findings. Similarly, a BBC article the next month prominently touted figures produced by Oryx suggesting Ukraine had "destroyed, damaged or captured at least 82 Russian aircraft, including jets, helicopters and drones," while only sacrificing 33 of its own.

A nameless Western intelligence official told the BBC Kiev desperately required "long and mid-range air defences", in "large quantities." UAF Captain Vasyl Kravchuk, reportedly possessed of a "surprisingly ready smile" when he spoke to Britain's state broadcaster, signed off by stating, "past wars have shown, whoever dominates the air wins the war." The underlying propaganda message, that Ukraine was so far comfortably prevailing in the skies, but needed Western help to keep it up – and therefore emerge victorious overall – couldn't have been clearer.

Oryx's findings were even routinely cited by Britain's Ministry of Defence in daily Twitter "intelligence updates", which were widely shared, and subsequently featured in and informed the content and headlines of many news reports. For example, in April 2023 an update asserted, "Russia has lost 10,000+ military vehicles since its illegal invasion of Ukraine began, according to tracker Oryx." The post was viewed over one million times. Parliament's 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee report boasted that "the impact" of these "unprecedented" updates was "substantial".

The report went on to note how the Ministry of Defence intelligence estimates "informed decisions made by [government] ministers and Armed Forces chiefs" on London's "posture towards Russia." One can only hope Oryx's output did not formally influence Britain's proxy war strategy in Ukraine. Audits by eagle-eyed internet sleuths have demonstrated the account consistently perpetuated wildly inaccurate, inflated figures, by counting photos and footage of the same damaged vehicles shot from different angles as individual, separate Russian losses, while misrepresenting Ukraine's destroyed Soviet-era vehicles as Russian.

Conspicuously, Oryx abruptly ceased its work when Ukraine's much-vaunted, long-delayed "Spring" counteroffensive began in June 2023. A cynic might suggest, given Kiev was equipped with heavily hyped Western Wunderwaffe for the effort, whoever was running the operation – and/or the individuals and entities ultimately managing them – concluded the same dishonest tactics couldn't work this time round. In October 2023, the account was deleted outright without warning or explanation, meaning its bogus archive can no longer be critically scrutinised at all.

'Classic Hero'

Coincidentally, that same month, a number of anonymous, high profile "OSINT" accounts similarly focused on Ukraine likewise abruptly shuttered, or announced their intention to do so. This included Calibre Obscura. Beloved by NAFO, the account similarly emphasised Russian embarrassment and failure. A video Calibre Obscura published in September 2022 of a fleeing Russian tank crashing into a tree set to farcical music went viral, generated much mainstream coverage, and was presented by Zelensky at a press conference celebrating that month's successful counteroffensive in Kharkiv.

With the Imaginary War nearing over, and the Zionist genocide in Gaza beginning, it was of course necessary to wind down "OSINT" operations entirely, or focus them elsewhere. The silence of Bellingcat, a British and US government-funded validator of NATO narratives, on Israel's crimes, despite a wealth of photo and video footage attesting to the monstrousness, is palpable, and illuminating.

In December 2023, novelist Lionel Shriver authored a lament for The Spectator, on how she "got caught up" in the proxy conflict's "story", which "had a spectacular opening chapter, a classic hero… and as wicked a villain as Shakespeare could have contrived." However, Kiev's catastrophic counteroffensive – which saw over 100,000 Ukrainians die to recover 0.25% of lost territory – meant she was now "quietly losing interest in this conflict," along with many others in Europe and the US:

"This is supposed to be a David and Goliath story. But David and Goliath is a crap story if the giant wins… Predictable, a bit disheartening and not really a story at all, just the way the world works. Besides, a Western audience wants to see the good guy win, both to mete out justice and to enjoy victory by proxy. Ukraine's anguishing self-defence is not a novel. But it's not satisfying our fictional appetites."

Shriver concluded that it was "time to urge the Zelensky government to enter talks to bring this depressing war to its depressing conclusion," as "dragging out an entrenched stalemate merely racks up a higher body count and destroys more Ukrainian homes and infrastructure to no purpose." She added, "sitting back and giving Ukrainians just enough weaponry to keep fighting to the last man and woman, only for the country to finally end up where we always knew it would, is not just immoral. It's murder."

It is indeed immoral, and murder, to keep the unwinnable, real war Ukraine has been fighting since February 2022 grinding on, as anti-imperialist, anti-war activists and journalists have been intoning every step of the way. That confirming this self-evident fact came at the expense of so many lives, marking it as a criminal tragedy. Unhappily for Shriver and many others, with the total collapse of the frontline impending any day now, and Russia seeking Kiev's "unconditional surrender", the "story" may not end with Ukraine electively entering talks.