Wednesday 27th of October 2021

the beginning of a new reality: teaching others the lessons we never learnt...

churchill  The US has made Russia an offer it hopes she won’t refuse: accept a new arms control deal including no limits on NATO weapons in Europe, or deal with a modernized American nuclear arsenal on its doorstep.



Following the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty last year, the 2011 New START treaty remains the only arms control deal in force between Moscow and Washington. However, it’s due to expire in February, and negotiations to replace it remain deadlocked.

Now the US says it wants to extend new START by less than five years, and only by a memorandum of intent, rather than a binding treaty, according to Marshall Billingslea, US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control, who spoke with the Russian daily Kommersant on Sunday.

However, when it comes to hammering out a new deal, Washington has some demands. The first of these demands is that China be made a party to the deal. Russia has no opposition to this in theory, but insists that if China be rolled in, so too should Britain and France. 

“We think it is necessary to specifically mention China,” Billingsea told Kommersant. “Our position is that when speaking about a future treaty, we should keep in mind a tripartite treaty.” Billingsea added that Washington will keep the UK and France out of the deal, as neither are “actively developing and deploying” nukes on the same scale as China. Beijing, for its part, has refused to join such a treaty.

Russia has also pushed the US to scale back its nuclear arsenal in Europe, but Billingsea said that this is a no-go. “We are certainly ready to talk with Russia about NATO and about our nuclear deterrence guarantees,”he said. “But we will not remove nuclear weapons from any of the storage sites.”

Further sticking points include the issue of tactical missiles, which Russian officials have refused to discuss in the past, and Russian inspection of American tactical weapons. On this second point, Billingsea said that the US is “certainly ready to discuss” this with Moscow.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/501234-start-treaty-modernize-nuclear-weapons/

 

Back then:

 

 

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during the Second World War and leader of the Conservative opposition after the conflict, believed that the atomic bomb should be used against several cities in the USSR to intimidate the Kremlin and keep "communism" in check.

British historian Richard Toye has discovered in the New York Times archives several pieces concerning a memorandum that Julius Ochs Adler - a former US Army officer who became the newspaper’s editor-in-chief after the war - had written about his interview with Churchill in January 1951, that is 6 years after the end of the war and only 6 months before Churchill’s second term as prime minister.

According to Julius Ochs Adler, Churchill thought the atomic bomb should be dropped on at least one out of 30 Soviet cities.

The nuclear strikes advocated by Churchill did not concern the Soviet Union alone. He believed that the atomic bomb should also be used against China, which was then ruled by Mao Zedong.

- "La Seconde Guerre mondiale aurait pu prendre fin en 1943" (The Second World War could have ended in 1943), by Viktor Litovkine, Réseau Voltaire, 30 March 2005.

- "Si l’Armée rouge n’avait pas pris Berlin..." (If the Red Army had not captured Berlin), by Viktor Litovkine, Réseau Voltaire, 1 April 2005.

 

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210830.html

 

 

All the Russians have to do is place nukes on Cuba or submerged stations around the USA.... Back to the days of NK and JFK...

it's only money... and bombs... and pestilence...

 

The wealthiest 1% of the world’s population were responsible for the emission of more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the poorer half of the world from 1990 to 2015, according to new research.

Carbon dioxide emissions rose by 60% over the 25-year period, but the increase in emissions from the richest 1% was three times greater than the increase in emissions from the poorest half.

The report, compiled by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, warned that rampant overconsumption and the rich world’s addiction to high-carbon transport are exhausting the world’s “carbon budget”.

Such a concentration of carbon emissions in the hands of the rich means that despite taking the world to the brink of climate catastrophe, through burning fossil fuels, we have still failed to improve the lives of billions, said Tim Gore, head of policy, advocacy and research at Oxfam International.

“The global carbon budget has been squandered to expand the consumption of the already rich, rather than to improve humanity,” he told the Guardian. “A finite amount of carbon can be added to the atmosphere if we want to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. We need to ensure that carbon is used for the best.”

The richest 10% of the global population, comprising about 630 million people, were responsible for about 52% of global emissions over the 25-year period, the study showed.

Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam

 

Meanwhile at the world bank...

 

Ian Taylor sells high-end jet skis from his four-bedroom waterfront townhouse in a quiet suburban cul-de-sac on the Gold Coast.

Key points:

  • A leak of highly secretive US Treasury documents reveals the world's banks alerted watchdogs to about $US2 trillion ($2.7 trillion) worth of suspicious transactions in seven years
  • The documents were obtained by Buzzfeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
  • Ian Taylor is just one of the Australians mentioned by name in the leaked suspicious activity reports

What the 43-year-old does not advertise is that his other source of income has come from setting up shell companies, which have been used by money launderers, arms dealers and Mexican drug cartels.

His business allowed customers to hide their true identity by providing nominee directors and shareholders to obscure who was really behind the shell company.

These directors and shareholders included his current and former wives, friends, associates and residents of tax-haven countries.

"Often the shell companies are used simply to open up bank accounts in other parts of the world," says Gerard Ryle, the director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

What Mr Taylor did is not illegal, but some of the companies he helped set up, under the control of third parties, have been tied to crimes around the world.

"He's never been able to be stopped because he's never actually done anything illegal," Ryle says.

"There is a flaw in the system … he's driving a bulldozer through that flaw."

Mr Taylor is just one of the Australians mentioned in a leak of highly secret United States Treasury documents.

These documents reveal the world's biggest banks have defied money-laundering crackdowns by moving staggering sums of illicit cash for criminal networks and shadowy characters.

The leaked files show more than $US2 trillion ($2.7 trillion) in suspected dirty money moving through the global financial system.

That includes more than $200 million in transactions flowing through Australian banks.

The records show five global banks — JPMorgan, HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon — kept profiting from powerful and dangerous players, even after US authorities fined these financial institutions for earlier failures to stem flows of dirty money.

US Treasury leak of 'suspicious activity reports'

The leaked documents include more than 2,100 highly secret suspicious activity reports (SARS) which are created by financial institutions and sent to the US Department of Treasury bureau, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FinCEN.

 

 

Read more:

 

 

Read also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/37366

 

of statues and subjects...

Downing Street has said it is up to Joe Biden how he decorates the Oval Office, after it was reported that a bust of Winston Churchill, lent by the UK government, has been removed.

“The Oval Office is the president’s private office, and it’s up to the president to decorate it as he wishes,” Boris Johnson’s official spokesman said, adding: “We’re in no doubt about the importance President Biden places on the UK-US relationship, and the prime minister looks forward to having that close relationship with him.”

Johnson’s relaxed attitude is in marked contrast to his criticism of Barack Obama, when the former president moved the Churchill bust aside.

Writing in the Sun in 2016, Johnson, then London mayor, and the author of a Churchill biography, called Obama’s decision a “snub,” suggesting it may have been because of “the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”.

A bust of Mexican American labour rights leader Cesar Chavez was visible in pictures of Biden signing executive orders on Wednesday.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/21/no-10-takes-relaxed-view-as-biden-removes-churchill-bust-from-oval-office

 

 

Despite having been a formidable politician, Churchill was also a colonialist, a racist and misogynist... 

nuking china...

A previously censored account of the 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis that was sponsored by the Pentagon has been published in full by the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. The report provides a hair-raising portrait of a reckless U.S. military leadership relentlessly pressing President Dwight Eisenhower for the authority to carry out nuclear attacks on communist China.

After holding the still-classified version of the account in his possession for 50 years, Ellsberg said he decided to release it because of the growing threat of U.S. war with China over Taiwan, and the danger that such a conflict could escalate into a nuclear exchange.

May 22 New York Times report on the account offered only general details of the role the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff played in the run-up to the 1958 Taiwan crisis. However, it is clear from the original highly classified documents as well as other evidence now available that from the beginning, the Joint Chiefs aimed first and foremost to exploit the tensions to carry out nuclear strikes against Chinese nuclear military targets deep in highly-populated areas.

Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist Kuomintang regime and the Joint Chiefs were allies in wanting to embroil the United States in a war with China.

Deputy Secretary of State Christian Herter feared that the Nationalist regime was determined to drag the U.S. into conflict, according to the Pentagon-sponsored account. The reason, according to the author of the account, Morton Halperin, was that involving the United States in a war with the Chinese communists “was clearly their only hope for a return to the mainland.”

Quemoy and Matsu, the two main offshore islands occupied by Nationalist troops, were less than five miles from the mainland and had been used by Chiang’s forces as bases to mount unsuccessful commando raids inside the mainland. And Chiang, who was still committed to reconquering the mainland China with the ostensible support of the United States, had stationed a third of his 350,000-man army on those two islands.

In May 1958, the Joint Chiefs adopted a new plan (OPS PLAN 25-58), ostensibly for the defense of the offshore islands. In fact, the plan provided a basis for attacking China with atomic weapons.

It was to begin with a brief preliminary “Phase I,” which it called “patrol and reconnaissance” and was said to be already underway. “Phase II,” which would have been triggered by a Chinese attack on the offshore islands, would involve U.S. air forces wiping out the attacking forces.

But the new plan envisioned a possible third phase, in which the Strategic Air Command and forces under the command of the U.S. Pacific Command would carry out strategic attacks with 10 to 15 kiloton tactical nuclear weapons “to destroy the war-making capability” of China.

According to the account authored by Halperin, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, told State Department officials in an August meeting that the third phase would require nuclear strikes on Chinese bases as far north as Shanghai.

The Joint Chiefs played down the threat to civilian casualties from such tactical atomic weapons, emphasizing that an airburst of tactical atomic explosions would generate little radioactive fallout. But the account indicates that they provided no concrete information on expected civilian casualties.

Given that both the Chinese gun emplacements across the Taiwan Strait and a key airbase serving the Chinese military forces in any conflict over the offshore islands would have been located close to significant population centers, such atomic explosions would have certainly caused civilian casualties on a massive scale.

 

Read more:

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/06/07/eisenhower-rejected-military-demands-for-nuclear-war-on-china/

 

See also: did we create the monster?...

 

Read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!