Harold Turner
Hal Turner Show

Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio are holding a meeting today in Saudi Arabia. It is the first meeting between the two nations in years, since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Images of Rubio, flanked by America’s Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, sitting opposite Lavrov and President Putin’s advisor Yuri Ushakov have been published as talks began.

The Russians have made known they are going into this meeting with a hard bargaining approach. Russia is extremely wary of the US and the collective West in general, after being intentionally deceived in 2014 by Then Ukraine President Poroshenko, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and then-French President Francois Hollande, at the Minsk Conference in Belarus back in the year 2014.

At that conference, Ukraine and the Ukrainian states of Luhansk and Donetsk, bargained to broker a peace deal in the presence of Germany, France, and Russia. The sides bargained for nineteen hours straight and came away with the "Minsk Agreement" to settle the then-ongoing conflict between Ukraine's national government in Kiev, and the two states of Luhansk and Donetsk.

More »

Faramarz Kouhpayeh
Tehran Times

Iran boasts one of the world's oldest civilizations, its history stretching back millennia. In the modern era, however, the country has often been kept on the back foot, with the 20th century in particular marked by numerous instances of subjugation and national humiliation.

While Iran today asserts its independent sovereignty and projects military and security capabilities beyond its borders, this has not always been the case. From the collapse of the Afsharid dynasty in 1796 until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran frequently faced periods of external vulnerability and diminished autonomy in the face of Western aggression.

One of the most glaring instances of Iran's autonomy, sovereignty, and integrity being violated occurred during World War II: the Tehran Conference, an event that continues to anger many Iranians to this day.

Allied leaders get together in Tehran—Four years into World War II in November 1943, when the German army and its ally Italy (Axis powers) had been defeated on all fronts, leaders of the Allies consisting of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill decided to hold a meeting in the Iranian capital of Tehran to coordinate their war strategies and discuss the post-war era.

In Iran, the young Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had replaced his father Reza Shah, who had been sent into exile back in 1941 following the Anglo-Soviet invasion and partial occupation of his country.

More »

Tracy Turner
The People's Voice

Go to Section 1

While comparing figures like Donald Trump or the CEOs of the world's biggest tech companies to King George III may seem incendiary, it's through the concentration of wealth, influence, and power among these modern-day elites that a striking parallel emerges. This echelon, with its eerie overtones, mirrors what had been solely exercised by absolute monarchy.

The shift from monarchy to corporate empires has resulted in a few individuals shaping global policies and economies, distancing themselves from the effects on the masses. This article aims to draw parallels between King George III and today's elite through economic trends, power concentration, and policy manipulation. A closer look at the actions and influence of top tech billionaires provides a deeper understanding of how modern-day CEOs have assumed the role of a 'new crown.'

1. Concentration of Wealth and Power

King George III symbolized accumulated wealth and, therefore, a concentration of power in the hands of a single monarch. Similarly, today's global technological leaders wield immense influence, increasingly surpassing many national governments. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook head mighty empires that dominate the marketplace and even dictate global economic policies.

More »

Taya Silverhelm
Pravda EN//Фонд стратегической культуры

During Biden's presidency, European dwarfs were constantly inflating their own importance. However, after the return of Trump, who intends to shift all costs related to Kiev from Washington to Brussels, European officials began to assure the world community of their inability to cope with Russia without the United States.

The former mouthpiece of the American Democrats, The New York Times newspaper, which has now become a spokesman for the hidden opposition to Trump, picked up on the claim of "European weakness" and writes that the whole of Europe does not have enough troops to "protect" Ukraine.

"Deterring Russia after the end of this conflict may require 150,000 troops, as well as American assistance in the field of air cover, missile defense and intelligence," the newspaper claims.

Trump promised to put an end to the fighting in Ukraine. In his very straightforward manner, he opened the possibility for some kind of ceasefire negotiations. If this deal is reached, Trump will most likely ask Europe to conclude it and take responsibility for Ukraine, wanting to reduce American obligations, the article says.

The publication also recalls that Zelensky demanded 200,000 "peacekeepers" who should enter the territory under his control to protect his regime from Russia outside the framework of NATO. "This is almost three times more than the entire British army, and analysts consider this impossible," the NYT summarizes.

But even a more modest number of 40,000 European soldiers would be a difficult task for a continent with slow economic growth, a shortage of troops and the need to increase military spending to protect itself. With these words, the newspaper assessed a "prosperous" Europe, which refused to cooperate with Russia and imposed sanctions against it.

More »

WaySide
Truth In Plain Sight

[This article was originally published here on 10/21/13. In light of recent revelations about USAID as a part of the CIA's media empire, we thought it might be useful to revisit it. – Ed.]

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine…

When seriously practiced, the journalistic profession involves gathering information concerning individuals, locales, events, and issues. In theory such information informs people about their world, thereby strengthening “democracy.” This is exactly the reason why news organizations and individual journalists are tapped as assets by intelligence agencies and, as the experiences of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte (entry 47 below) suggest, this practice is at least as widespread today as it was at the height of the Cold War.

Consider the coverups of election fraud in 2000 and 2004, the events of September 11, 2001, the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the creation of “ISIS.” These are among the most significant events in recent world history, and yet they are also those much of the American public is wholly ignorant of. In an era where information and communication technologies are ubiquitous, prompting many to harbor the illusion of being well-informed, one must ask why this condition persists.

More »

Dr. Michael Yeadon
Dr. Michael Yeadon's Substack

Whatever the consequences, however inconvenient, however scary: resist, refuse, do not comply with digital ID

Our children are condemned to the ultimate unbreakable dystopian nightmare unless we all put our foot down on this one. No compromise!

Prison? Essentially-eternal prison in 15 minute concentration camps, for all we love is worse. Compulsory jabs to be allowed to eat, no travel, Net Zero carnage. Every purchase ‘approved’ from the BIS at point of purchase - or not. Inevitable?

Ben Rubin’s summing up of 2024 on UK Column finished with a few quotes from an unimpressive gentleman who told us, in relation to a digital ID, that “The debate has been won. It’s just about how & when we implement it in U.K.”

I tell you this, with absolute conviction. The day you sign up for a new format, global, editable, biometric digital ID, that’s the day that any possibility of a continuing, free life, free from perpetual interference and increasing control over every aspect of your existence, ends.

Furthermore, knowing what we now know, and not requiring anyone to be a conspiraloon, merely open minded to what unpleasant people through history always do, you will recognise that you won’t be gaining a new, shiny digital ID on an app. You will disappear, replaced by an avatar that is solely that digital ID.

As far as the state and any corporation and institution is concerned, any interaction with you will be conducted through that digital ID. Not with you, a natural person. Whatever that digital ID says about you is reality. Even if it’s clearly not.

This isn’t my primary concern, though. I’m not even arguing that there won’t be many ways in which, for most purposes, it’ll be genuinely useful. That’ll be how they sell it.

More »

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Trump will implement a comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and military pressure campaign against Russia if Putin rejects a ceasefire, but it’s unclear whether Trump will coerce Zelensky into territorial concessions first in order to make it easier for Putin to compromise on his prior demands for this.

Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg told the New York Post more about how his boss plans to bring Putin to the peace table. According to him, the US might ratchet up its energy-related sanctions on Russia and associated secondary ones on its clients if he refuses. This would occur together with more diplomatic pressure, likely upon China and India to have their leaders convince Putin to reconsider, and “some type of military pressures and levers that you’re going to use underneath those”.

The immediate goal is “to stop the killing — just stop it — and then you go from there”, so in other words, the abovementioned approach would be aimed at getting Russia to agree to a ceasefire. This aligns with what was assessed here in late January about Trump’s plans. The problem though is that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed on the same day as Kellogg’s interview that “A temporary ceasefire or, as many say, freezing the conflict, is unacceptable” for Russia.

One day earlier, however, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that his country’s position on not holding talks with Zelensky due to the Ukrainian leader’s illegitimacy might be reversed for pragmatism’s sake so it’s possible that the aforementioned one about rejecting a ceasefire might be too. That could occur if Trump coerces Zelensky into withdrawing from at least Kursk and Donbass along with declaring that Ukraine won’t join NATO, thus satisfying some of Russia’s goals as recently explained here.

Ukraine would then lift martial law and finally hold its long-delayed elections, which could potentially lead to the US replacing Zelensky like Russia’s foreign spy agency claimed last week is supposedly in the cards. That scenario sequence aligns with Russian and US interests, but it can’t be ruled out that some of the last administration’s Russophobic hawks remain in positions of influence within the US’ “deep state” and end up dissuading Trump from coercing Zelensky into territorial concessions first.

More »

Martin Jay
Strategic Culture Foundation

The USAID move by Trump is a polite signal to Zelensky. Your time is up

What is USAID and what has it become a minor obsession with Donald Trump and Elon Musk? From its title you would be fooled into thinking it was an aid agency and nothing more. In fact, when JFK created it in the 60s it probably was simply that – a tool of the U.S. government to get vital aid to the most troubled corners of the world. But in recent times, USAID has taken on a role more sinister. These days it does the work of an intelligence agency which interferes in the internal politics of countries whose leaders the U.S. wants to topple, organizing underground campaigns and more recently funding NGOs and fake news outfits on a grand scale.

USAID is of course political. Traditionally it seems to have been a tool more of the Democrats than the Republicans who have brought all of their absurd woke values to it so that now it funds sex change operations in poor countries along with LGBT programs. USAID is still an aid agency and it is true to say much of its work is about delivering vital aid to countries in Africa or those who have suffered under the hands of leaders which the U.S. would describe as ‘tyrants’ like Assad in Syria. But it is this duplicitous role of being an aid agency and using its presence and staff as a tool for more nefarious work such as spying or even openly funding hundreds of fake news outfits which is really the problem.

More »

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The convergence of their shared worldviews and the close friendship between their leaders increases the chances that India can convince the US to lend it support on the two other very sensitive issues of Russia and Khalistan.

Indian Prime Minister Modi is expected to travel to the US next week from 12-14 February, during which time their talks on trade and military topics will take precedence over all else. Regarding the first, Trump previously criticized Modi for his country’s use of tariffs in spite of them being close friends, yet India just slashed its peak tariffs and there’s now talk of them starting negotiations on a free trade pact. As for the second, they have a shared interest in militarily containing China, which is Trump’s foreign policy priority.

The second Trump Administration is also considered to be Indophilic so this makes it even more likely that they’ll agree to closer military cooperation, perhaps also a big-ticket arms sale or at least the start of talks on such, and peacefully smoothing over whatever rough edges they have on trade. The US considers India to be as a partial economic-military counterweight to China, with the key word being partial since it might never be able to play this role completely, but what it does fulfill is still important.

More »

Pavel Kotov
Украина.ру

Donald Trump and his team launched a powerful attack on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), effectively paralyzing its work

USAID: the beginning — Shortly after taking office as President of the United States, Trump suspended USAID programs related to aid to other countries. The new administration announced that this organization is awaiting a serious audit in order to find out where the American taxpayers' money, which funds the agency, is going.

The role of the leading violin in the USAID pogrom was assumed by Elon Musk - the position obliges. The billionaire heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a kind of oprichnina, which is designed to rid the state of excessive bureaucracy and noble idlers who spend government money on all sorts of stupidity.

The first to be sent to the chopping block was USAID, an odious organization that has entangled the world in a network of its funds, projects and programs, which have spent billions.

The Agency for International Development was established by decree of President John F. Kennedy in 1961. The formal purpose of this government agency is to provide external assistance to the countries of the world aimed at their long-term socio-economic development. More than half of all aid provided by the United States is accumulated through USAID.

USAID operates in a variety of areas, the main of which are grant support to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), "independent" media, healthcare programs, etc.

More »

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

Proposals are being reported. But any deal must be based on addressing the roots of conflict. President Trump says he wants to end the conflict. But does he understand what the conflict is really about? If a problem is not correctly defined, then a solution is elusive.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to open talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to end the war in Ukraine. Trump has spoken about the urgency of bringing the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. Fair enough.

For his part, President Putin has magnanimously reciprocated, saying he is ready to engage in talks with Trump.

So far, so good. At least the American side is no longer encumbered with the stupid intransigent, hostile mentality of the Biden administration, which refused to have any diplomatic contact with Russia.

Russia, for its part, has always been willing to negotiate a genuine way to not just end the conflict but to avoid future conflict. Before the war in Ukraine erupted three years ago in February 2022, Moscow put forward a comprehensive proposal for a security treaty in Europe in December 2021.

More »

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

This is a game-changer in the New Cold War since it’ll take the US’ rivalry with Russia and China to a qualitatively more dangerous level through the consequent hyper-militarization of space.

Trump signed an Executive Order to build an Iron Dome for America, which aims to defend the homeland “against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks.” It’ll also importantly include space-based monitoring and interception systems. Some of the latter will have “non-kinetic capabilities” too, likely referring to directed-energy weapons (DEWs), but it’s unclear whether they’ll be deployed on the ground and/or in space. Here are five takeaways from this monumental move:

1. Strategic Stability Will Never Look The Same

Bush Jr.’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 prompted Russia to develop hypersonic technology so as to prevent the US from feeling comfortable enough with its missile defense shield that it one day plots a first strike after thinking that it could intercept Russia’s second one. Trump’s Iron Dome plans mean that there’s no going back to the era of mutual restrictions on missile defense, which was already dubious after what Bush Jr. did, thus worsening the Russian-US security dilemma.

2. The US Just Sped Up The Second Space Race

The second Space Race has already been underway since Trump created the Space Force in 2019, but his latest Executive Order sped it up by compelling Russia and China to further prioritize their space-based defense plans, which will inevitably result in the hyper-militarization of space. There’s no way that those two won’t suit through the deployment of their own defensive systems there that could also disguise offensive weapons just like the US might secretly be plotting to do under this pretext.

More »

Leonid Savin
Oriental Review

Afghanistan, Central Asia, Eurasian Union, Iran, Pakistan, [and] Russia

Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan represent important and interconnected links of chain in the region

If to use the method of combining political geography and geopolitics, it is easy to reveal that the group of countries located north of the Arabian Sea has several common features. Part of modern Iran and Afghanistan represent historical Greater Khorasan, and the Pashtun belt stretches from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Pakistan and Iran are united by Balochistan (in both countries there are separatist Balochi (Baluchi) movements actively sponsored from the outside). All three countries are Islamic states – the first to gain independence from Britain was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1947, after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, this state also moved from the monarchical system to the Islamic Republic (with a specific institution Wilayat al-Faqih), and Afghanistan, in 2021, re–became an Islamic Emirate (previously it was under the Taliban from 1996 to 2001). And in ancient times they were all part of the Sasanian Empire.

Each country has many more interesting cultural, ethnic, and religious features. Although Afghanistan has no access to the sea, it is organically adjacent to the southern part of the Eurasian Rimland (coastal zone), which for a long time was controlled by the Anglo–Saxons – directly or indirectly.

More »

Video Rebel
Video Rebel's Blog

The US spends $1.51 trillion on its military every year. That would include not just the DOD but the money spent by 6 other agencies that cover the rest of our military spending. For example, the Dept of Energy does nuclear weapons.

Russia is raising its annual military budget to $125 billion due to the ongoing war in the Ukraine. The US has a large corruption factor making its weapons more expensive and less effective. Dr Mark Skidmore found that $17 trillion had gone missing from the HUD and DOD budgets from 1998 to 2015. So, let’s see what Russia has that we don’t.

1) Oreshnik IRBM. It has 6 MIRVs which in turn has 6 submunitions. 36 submunitions hit the ground at Mach 10. They dig deep into the earth releasing heat at 7,232 degrees F (4,000 C.) It melts steel and concrete. Russia used one of these on an industrial area in the Ukraine. There was nothing left but dust. Homes 2 blocks away were so shaken that they looked like they had been hit by a 9.0 earthquake.

2) Avangard is a Mach 27 ICBM with a 2,000 kilogram warhead. Mach 27 is about 20,000 MPH. (32,000 KMH.) That’s a lot of kinetic energy released on one target.

More »

Alexander Chalenko
Украина.ру

After Donald Trump's ascension to the White House and his promise to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in 100 days, the whole world is discussing whether this will happen or not. The author of the article cites a number of reasons why peace will be established only after Ukraine's defeat on the battlefield, and not because Trump wants peace so much.

The first reason is that it is simply impossible to negotiate an "eternal peace" with Ukraine and the West for Russia. This is self–evident if we study the history of the implementation, or rather, the rejection of the implementation of Minsk-1 and Minsk-2, as well as the Istanbul Agreements of 2022.

Recall that according to the agreements signed in 2014-2015 between Ukraine and the LDPR, the territories of the unrecognized republics, although they became autonomous, remained part of the Square, however, with the right to independent economic and financial activities.

The elections there were supposed to be held according to special laws, but separate from the rest of Ukraine, but adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in coordination with the LDPR. In fact, Ukraine was turning from a unitary state into a confederate one – something like Bosnia and Herzegovina - resulting in a confederation of Ukraine and Donbass.

But in reality, none of the Minsk agreements has been implemented by Kyiv. They did not even hide that they would not comply with them, but signed them because there was no other way to avoid the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

If the West imposed sanctions at that time to force Russia, which was only a guarantor of compliance with Minsk-1 and Minsk-2, to comply with these agreements, then not against Ukraine, which refused to implement them into Ukrainian legislation. This alone indicates that the West did not want their implementation. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a participant in the negotiations at that time, said that the purpose of the Minsk agreements was to give Ukraine a break in 2022.

More »

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Trump is preparing for negotiations with Putin over Ukraine as well as with Xi over trade and likely also Taiwan, so he’d appear weak in their eyes if he let a middling leader like Petro publicly defy and even insult him without consequence.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro thought that he’d rebalance lopsided relations with his returning US counterpart by abruptly rejecting two previously agreed military flights for repatriating his country’s illegal immigrants but was ultimately taught an unforgettable lesson. Trump reacted with fury by threatening 25% tariffs that would double in a week’s time and sanctioning high-level officials on national security pretexts among other punitive measures, which quickly prompted Petro to capitulate.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt then confirmed her country’s victory in its brief dispute with Colombia, shortly after which Petro rage-tweeted a convoluted rant about imperialism and racism as a parting shot against Trump that was widely met with mockery online, especially from Americans. This short-lived scandal was significant since Trump proved how serious he is about leveraging tariffs and sanctions to coerce Ibero-American countries into accepting the return of their repatriated citizens.

He won the 2016 election in part because of his pledge to build a southern border wall for stopping illegal immigration, but after an estimated 8 million illegals flooded into the country during Biden’s term, he then promised to expel as many as possible if voters returned him to office like they ultimately did. It’ll be difficult to return all of them, however, which is why his administration wants to coerce them into voluntarily leaving on their own by creating extremely onerous conditions for those who remain.

To that end, repatriating some of them to their homelands on military flights – including in handcuffs like what just happened to some illegal immigrants from Brazil – is meant to intimidate them into returning back home on their own terms, ergo the importance of ensuring that these flights aren’t rejected. In parallel with this, the Trump Administration is exploring an agreement to deport asylum seekers to El Salvador, which is now globally known for its zero-tolerance of gang members.

More »

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

Narratives have been constructed to support a long war in Ukraine. For example, the narrative of an “unprovoked invasion” was important to criminalise diplomacy as the premise suggests negotiations would reward Russian military adventurism and embolden further Russian aggression. Meanwhile, NATO escalating the war creates costs that outweigh the benefits to Russia.

Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum is a key narrative that supports a long war. It is constantly referenced as a reason why Russia cannot be trusted to abide by a peace agreement, and why the war must keep going. The argument is that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees for its territorial integrity. Russia’s breach of this agreement suggests it cannot be trusted and that the only reliable security guarantees must come from NATO membership. Furthermore, the West must continue to send weapons to Ukraine to honour the security guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum.

In February 2022, a few days before the Russian invasion, Zelensky referred to the Budapest Memorandum: “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world's third nuclear capability. We don't have that weapon. We also have no security.” The Budapest Memorandum was again used by Zelensky in October 2024 to support the argument that Ukraine must either have NATO or nukes: “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defence for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO”.

This article presents facts and arguments that challenge the false narrative of the Budapest Memorandum, which aims to delegitimise diplomacy. Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail “legitimising” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is a common tactic to smear and censor criticism against the narratives supporting a long war.

More »

Alexander Savko
Украина.ру

The American channel CNN published a shocking and sad report, which brings a very expressive feature under the old myth of the “Japanese economic miracle”.

The American channel CNN published a shocking and sad report, which brings a very expressive feature under the old myth of the “Japanese economic miracle”.

Older residents of the Land of the Rising Sun are increasingly trying to voluntarily go to prison, committing small criminal offenses – not to die of hunger or cold.

Japan’s largest women’s prison, Totiga, is filled mainly by elderly women who have fallen there as a result of poverty.

The report describes the story of 81-year-old Akies, who was repeatedly detained for stealing food in the store. At large, she lived on a “very small pension”, which was paid every two months, and her native son refused his mother material support.

💬 “Maybe this life is the most stable for me,” says Akiyo about his prison existence.

As a prison employee of the Takaesi Siranaga said in a CNN commentary, some old people say that they are ready to pay 20 000 yen (about 13 thousand rubles) per month to remain in prison - because life in Japan is expensive, and they can not afford this.

💬 “There are people who come here because it’s cold or because they’re hungry. They can receive free medical care while they are in prison, but after their release they will have to pay for it themselves, so some people want to stay here as long as possible, ” says Siranaga.

More »

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The future of their strategic partnership is bright, but in order to fully appreciate its prospects, observers must acknowledge its non-military nature instead of continuing to fantasize about a joint war against Israel and/or the US like some are doing.

The Russian and Iranian presidents met in Moscow last Friday to sign an updated strategic partnership pact that can be read in full here and was reviewed here.

The run-up to this development was marked by predictable hype about it being a game-changer, which hasn’t subsided in the days since, but this is an inaccurate description of what they agreed to. The only way in which this might ring true is with regards to gas, not geopolitics, for the reasons that’ll now be explained.

To begin with, Russia and Iran already had close military-technical cooperation before they updated their strategic partnership last week as proven by the rumors of Russia relying on Iranian drones in Ukraine. They also agreed to revive the previously stillborn North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) shortly after the special operation began and the West imposed unprecedented sanctions against Moscow. Therefore, these parts of their updated strategic partnership aren’t anything new, they just aim to strengthen them.

About that, this agreement is fundamentally different from last summer’s Russian-North Korean one in that there aren’t any mutual defense obligations as clarified in Article 3. They only committed to not aid any aggression against the other, including assistance to the aggressor, and to help settle the subsequent conflict at the UN. That was already the case in their relations so explicitly clarifying it is redundant. Under no circumstances will Russia go to war against Israel and/or the US in support of Iran.

After all, “Russia Dodged A Bullet By Wisely Choosing Not To Ally With The Now-Defeated Resistance Axis” over the past 15 months as Israel single-handedly destroyed that Iranian-led regional network, so it naturally follows that it won’t risk World War III in defense of an even weaker Iran.

More »

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

This essay is taken from Vernon Coleman’s book entitled `Why and how doctors kill more people than cancer’. The book also is available via the bookshop on vernoncoleman.com

In Britain, it is now official Government policy to ignore the needs of the elderly. This policy is common throughout the world. Doctors and nurses are told to let old people die - and to withhold treatment which might save their lives. Hospital staff are told to deprive the elderly of food and water so that they die rather than take up hospital beds. Nursing home staff have even been given the right to sedate elderly patients without their knowledge. The only -ism that no one cares about is ageism.

But at what age are patients simply allowed to die? And how old is too old for patients to be resuscitated? At what point does society have the right to say `You've lived long enough, now you must die and make way for someone else'? And why should resuscitation be decided by age? It is possible to argue that it would make as much sense to decide according to wealth or beauty. But ageism is now officially accepted. Anyone over 60 is now officially old, though in a growing number of hospitals the cut off age for resuscitation is 55 or even 50.

We live in a politically correct world but the elderly don't count – particularly if they are white and English. Report after report after report shows elderly patients being left in pain, in soiled bed clothes. Elderly patients in hospital are ignored by staff and left to starve to death, denied even water if they cannot get out of bed and fetch it themselves.

Old people are a burden which the Government cannot afford and so the politicians will continue to authorise whatever methods are necessary to ensure that the number of burdensome old people is kept to a minimum. The existence of an absurd branch of medicine called geriatrics is used as an excuse to shove old people into backwater wards and to provide them with second-rate medical treatment. In February 2011, an official report condemned the NHS for its `inhumane treatment of elderly patients' and stated that NHS hospitals were `failing to meet even the most basic standards of care' for the over-65s. It is no exaggeration to say that the NHS treats the elderly with contempt. (It used to be said that you can judge a civilisation by the way it treats its elderly.)

More »