On day one of his new administration, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order notifying an intent to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO). This has drawn celebration from some, dismay from others, and probably disinterest from the vast majority of the population more concerned with feeding families and paying off debt. The executive order also leaves much unaddressed, namely the substantive issues that have changed WHO and international public health over the past decade.
Change is certainly needed, and it is good that the WHO’s largest direct funder is expressing real concern. The reactions to the notice of withdrawal also demonstrate the vast gulf between reality and the positions of those on both sides of the WHO debate. The new administration is raising an opportunity for rational debate. If this can be grasped, there is still a chance that the WHO, or an organisation more fit for purpose, could provide broad benefit to the world’s peoples. But the problems underlying the international public health agenda must first be acknowledged for this to become possible.
What actually is the WHO and what did it do?
Despite being the health arm of the United Nations (UN), the WHO is a self-governing body under the 194 countries of the World Health Assembly (WHA). Its 34-member executive board is elected from the WHA. The WHA also elects the Director General (DG), based on ‘one country, one vote’. Its 1946 constitution restricts its governance to states (rather than private individuals and corporations) so in this way it is unique among the major international health agencies. While private individuals and corporations can buy influence, they can be completely excluded should the WHA so wish.
With 8,000 staff, the WHO is split into six regions and a head office in Geneva, Switzerland. The regional office of the Americas, also called the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO), is based in Washington DC and preceded the WHO, having been established in 1902 as the International Sanitary Bureau. Like other regional offices, PAHO has its own regional assembly, obviously dominated by the US, and is largely self-governing under the wider WHO and UN system.
The WHO is funded by countries and non-state entities. While countries are required to provide ‘assessed’ or core funding, most of the budget is derived from voluntary funding provided by countries and private or corporate donors. Nearly all voluntary funding is ‘specified’, comprising 75% of the total budget. Under specified funding, WHO must do the funders’ bidding. Most of WHO’s activities are therefore specified by its funders, not WHO itself, with a quarter of this being private people and corporations with strong Pharma interests.
Therefore WHO, while governed by countries, has effectively become a tool of others – both state and non-state interests. The US is the largest direct funder (around 15%), but the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is a close second (14%), and the partly Gates-funded Gavi public-private partnership (PPP) is third. Thus, Mr Gates arguably has the largest influence in terms of specifying the WHO’s actual activities. The European Union and World Bank are also major funders, as is Germany and the United Kingdom (i.e., the remaining large Western Pharma countries).
In response to its funders, the WHO has shifted focus to areas where large Pharma profits can be accrued. Pharma must insist on this as it has a fiduciary responsibility to maximise return on investment for its shareholders by using its WHO connections to sell more product. The obvious way to make lots of money in Pharma is by spreading fear of vaccine-preventable diseases, and then making vaccines and selling them free from liability to as large a market as possible. This was highly effective during the COVID-19 response, and the WHO is now sponsored by these interests to implement the surveil-lockdown-mass vaccinate paradigm behind the recent amendments to the International Health Regulations and the draft pandemic agreement.
While a shamefully willing tool, the WHO is not driving this. The US started the IHR amendment process and heavily backed it until the recent change of administration. The new administration, while signalling an intent to withdraw from WHO, has not signalled a withdrawal from the pandemic industrial complex the US helped develop.
Critical to understanding the US withdrawal is the fact that the COVID-19 outbreak and response would have looked almost identical if WHO did not exist. WHO was not involved in the gain-of-function research, in vaccine development or in vaccine mandates. It abrogated its own ethical principles and prior recommendations in pushing lockdowns and mass vaccination, and did huge harm in the process. However, it was countries that funded and conducted the virus modification that likely spawned COVID-19. It was countries, in concert with Pharma, that mandated lockdowns on their people and pushed vaccination most heavily (the WHO never recommended the COVID-19 vaccines for children).
This is not a defence of WHO – the organisation was incompetent, dishonest and negligent during COVID-19. It was a public health disgrace. It has continued to deliberately mislead countries regarding future pandemic risk and inflated return-on-investment claims in order to sell the policies that benefit its sponsors. But remove the WHO, the World Bank (the main funder of the pandemic agenda), the PPPs looking to sell pandemic vaccines (Gavi and CEPI), the Gates Foundation, Germany, the UK, the EU and the US health ‘swamp’ itself, and Pharma with its compliant media will still exist. Pharmaceutical companies have other options to bring a veneer of legitimacy to their pillaging through public health.
The US notice of withdrawal
As President Trump’s 20th January order of withdrawal notes, it repeats an executive order from mid-2020 that was subsequently revoked by President Biden. In theory it takes at least 12 months for a withdrawal to take effect, based on the Joint Resolution of Congress in 1948 through which the US joined, subsequently agreed by the WHA. However, as the new executive order is intended to revoke the Biden revocation, the remaining time to run is unclear. The waiting period could also be shortened by a further Act of Congress.
The 2025 notice of withdrawal is interesting, as the reasons given for withdrawal are relatively benign. There are four:
- Mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak and other (unspecified) global health crises. The “mishandling” is undefined, but may include WHO support for China in obscuring COVID-19 origins as highlighted in the recent COVID-19 House of Representatives sub-committee report. There are few obvious candidates for other truly global health crises that WHO mishandled, except perhaps the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak and monkeypox, unless the executive order refers to any international (global) public health issue (in which case there are many).
- Failure to adopt urgently needed reforms. These are undefined. Of concern, the only reforms the US has been pushing on the WHO in the past few years (pre-Trump administration) were intended to increase the authority of the WHO over sovereign states and the authority of its work. The recent Republican-dominated House sub-committee report recommended the same.
- Inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. This is presumably aimed at China, but is also concerning, as WHO is subject to its member states through the WHA. It would be strange if the US was hoping to free WHO from such constraints. There is no mention of private sector involvement, now about 25% of WHO funding, that many would claim is the core reason for the corruption and deterioration of the WHO’s work.
- Unfairly onerous payments by the US. The US provides 22% of WHO’s assessed (core funding) but this is only a fraction of US payments. The vast majority of US payments have been entirely voluntary, and the US could presumably choose to stop these at any time, removing most of its funding but not its voting rights. With China listed by WHO as paying less than Somalia and Nigeria in the current 2024-25 biennium (per mid-January 2025), the US has a reasonable gripe here, but a simple one to fix.
Missing from the executive order is any reference to the other promoters of the pandemic or emergency agenda. The World Bank’s Pandemic Fund is untouched by this executive order, as are the PPPs. CEPI (vaccines for pandemics) and Gavi (vaccines in general) provide private industry and investors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with direct decision-making roles they cannot ensure through WHO.
The executive order requires the Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy to “review, rescind and replace the 2024 US Global Health Security Strategy”. It is hoped that this signals a recognition of the lack of an evidence base and financial rigour around the current policy. Indeed, the policy promoted by the US, WHO, the World Bank and PPPs is irrelevant, by design, to a laboratory-released pathogen such as that which probably caused COVID-19. The actual mortality from natural outbreaks that it is designed for has been declining for over a century.
Implications of withdrawal
A full withdrawal of the US from WHO will presumably reduce US influence within the organisation, enhancing that of the EU, China and the private sector. As it ignores the World Bank and the PPPs, it will not greatly affect the pandemic agenda’s momentum. COVID-19 would still have happened had the US been out of the WHO before 2020, mRNA mass vaccination would still have been driven by countries and Pharma with the help of a compliant media. The WHO acted as a propagandist and helped waste billions, but never advocated vaccine mandates or mass vaccination of children. Though the WHO was appalling, the driving forces behind the wealth concentration and human rights abuses of the COVID-19 era clearly originated elsewhere
If the US withdraws its 15% of the WHO budget – about $600 million per year – others (e.g. EU, Gavi, Gates Foundation) could fill the gap. The executive order mentions withdrawing US contractors, but these are few. Nearly all WHO staff are directly employed, not seconded from governments. The main effect will be to reduce coordination with agencies such as the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The US will have a continuing need to use WHO services, such as for prequalification (regulation) of hundreds of millions of dollars of commodities bought and distributed by USAID and related programmes but not regulated through the FDA. This is not a problem – the WHO lists are public – but the US would simply continue to use WHO services without paying for or influencing them.
The withdrawal notice also mentions cessation of US involvement in negotiating the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Agreement. The IHR negotiations concluded eight months ago, and the US has until July 19th (10 months after receipt of the WHO’s notification letter of September 2024) to signal rejection. The IHR are separate from WHO membership. The Pandemic Agreement is subject to wide disagreement between countries, and it is unclear whether it will go forward. However, provisions in the FY23 US National Defence Authorisation Act (page 950 to 961) are already stronger than the US would be signing up to with these WHO agreements.
The history of US withdrawals from UN institutions is also one of subsequent re-entry after a change in administration. Leaving the WHO without US influence will presumably make it even less like what the Trump administration would like, should history should repeat itself and the next administration re-join.
The hope is that the US withdrawal will force major reform within the WHO – one of the key reasons provided in the withdrawal notice. However, there is no hint in the executive order of the desired direction of change, or whether the US will adopt a more rational pandemic policy. If such an intent were made clear, other countries would follow and the WHO itself may actually reboot. However, withdrawing without addressing these fallacies underlying the pandemic agenda entrenches the vested interests who profited through COVID-19 and clearly aim to continue doing so.
Being real about reality
The enthusiasm for the WHO withdrawal seems widely to have forgotten two things:
- The pandemic agenda and the COVID-19 response that exemplified it are not primarily WHO programmes. (The WHO said do essentially the opposite in 2019.)
- The actual pandemic industrial complex of surveil-lockdown-mass vaccinate is already essentially in place and does not need the WHO for it to continue.
The WHO Bio-Hub in Germany is largely a German Government and Pharma agency with a WHO stamp; the World Bank pandemic fund is the main current funding source for pandemic surveillance; the 100 day vaccine programme (CEPI) is directly funded by hapless taxpayers; and the Medical Countermeasures Platform is a partnership between countries, Pharma, the G20 and others. These would probably continue irrespective of WHO’s existence. The pandemic industrial complex made hundreds of billions of dollars through COVID-19 and has capacity and incentive to continue.
The complexity of all this is being addressed on social media by statements such as “The WHO is rotten to the core”, “The WHO is unreformable”, or even “Pure evil” – all unhelpful labels for a complex organisation of 8,000 staff, six fairly independent regional offices and dozens of country offices. The WHO’s work on reducing the distribution of counterfeit drugs saves perhaps hundreds of thousands of people each year, and these people matter. Its standards for tuberculosis and malaria management are followed globally, including by the US. In several countries its technical expertise saves many lives.
The organisation desperately needs reform, as President Trump notes. Its current leadership, having spent the last few years blatantly misleading and lying to countries about COVID-19 and pandemic risk, seem unlikely candidates to help. They have played the tune of private interests over the needs of the world’s people. But the WHO’s structure makes it the only major international health institution that countries alone can actually force to reform. It simply needs sufficient member states of the WHA to force exclusion of private interests and to force WHO back to diseases and programmes that actually have a significant bearing on human wellbeing.
Should such reform prove impossible, then the coalition of countries built around the reform agenda can replace it with a new organisation. The massive bureaucracy that global health has become needs to be seen through the same lens as that in the US. The fantasy built around pandemic risk is not substantively different from many similar fantasies on the domestic agenda that the Trump administration is now targeting. It is similarly erosive of human rights, freedom and human flourishing. Addressing this is an opportunity we would be foolish to miss.
Dr David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Did Boris do it? Quite possibly, indeed quite probably – remember those rumours about Boris becoming head of Nato? The real question is, on whose orders? Whether or not he was the messenger, it has been clear for months now that not only do none of the Western countries want to see a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, they have been actively inflaming the situation and apparently deliberately escalating the conflict, with the extraordinary amount of weapons being poured into the country.
The Dutch defence minister recently announced, quite generously, that there was no ceiling for the weapons that NL was willing to procure for Ukraine, even as she continued depleting the Dutch military’s own arsenal, to the detriment of our defence capabilities.
Why? Is it really to get rid of Putin? Is it because these f-wits really believe that cutting off Russian gas will persuade Europeans to happily embrace a more simple, colder, hungrier existence to achieve their unachievable fairy-tale of being able to control the climate? To make weapons manufacturers and their financiers even wealthier? To kick off WWIII to cover up the unmitigated disaster these morons have made of the West?
My thoughts too, the war is being used as a smokescreen for too many objectives.
Bunter and the Gumby brothers, Whitty and Vallance, have scuttled the entire British economy and, quite possibly, the Conservative party as well.
So, no question, Bunter is sufficiently incompetent to pretty much scuttle anything.
But the idea that Ukraine was prepared to make a settlement, have any confidence in any kind of treaty signed by Putin, flys in the face of reality.
Ukraine will never trust any peace treaty with Putin and Putin will never withdraw.
This war is set to run and run
Putting aside the various reasons why wars start…
Wars become self-sustaining.
They end only when everyone is either dead or too tired and immiserated to carry on.
Yawn.
There are some medical diseases that cause yawning including bleeding around the heart, brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, strokes, and even heart attacks.
In a spirit of concern for a fellow sceptic, you want to get that looked at.
Agreed…but really it’s more like fricken Groundhog Day…do you think it’s just on a continuous loop?
Groundhog day for many, but not in a good way:
Mobile phone intercept translation:
(R1)=Russian man (R2)=Other Russian man
(R1): Hello, comrade Major, greetings.
(R2): Hello.
(R1): Comrade Major, I have this question, if I write a refusal, does that mean I will be discharged?
(R2): Well, no one has been discharged yet.
(R1): It’s just that, we had an incident yesterday, we should have been going out, well, as support, but our command, they changed their mind on the go, and then the 17th regiment simply refused, and they told us that at 4:30 we will be leaving, they said this to us at 4 that we are going to advance. But we had nothing ready, nothing at all: no plan, “Who goes where and what, who will be at what position”, nothing at all, we would go with no one. And all of our command, the company commander, our battalion commander, they all wrote a refusal. And I wrote it with them yesterday. The f*ck do I need this for, comrade Major? Nothing’s ready, I don’t want to be meat. Will they just return me to the regiment?
(R2): Yeah. A letter will come, then discharged, but I don’t know, I don’t think anyone’s been discharged yet.
(R1): If they don’t discharge me, then on the 15th I’ll write another report, I mean on 15 October, I’ll stay here for another two months and then get the f*ck out of here. […] also, some guy who was with us at this position, they sat on a tank… they had an arrival into the turret, he was 200 [dead] instantly.
(R2): For real?
(R1): Yes, and he’s barely been here for two months, he has a wife and a child, I’ve f*cking lost it.
But yes, it is certainly not in the West’s interests for Putin to profit by his adventurism:
‘….a Russian defeat of Ukraine would turn the proactive Western strategy of economic and political engagement into one of retrenchment, where boundaries could be placed on Western ambition and internal divisions stoked to create paralysis. The question in Eastern European capitals would be that if guarantees to Ukraine were negotiable, where does this leave Article 5?
Divisions would emerge between the proponents of stability, such as France and Germany – eager for pragmatic diplomacy – and those in the Baltic, Balkans and the UK who fear Russian aggression. With NATO fixed by the imperative to assure its internal cohesion it would have little capacity to ‘compete’. This would therefore open the door to a more coercive approach in Georgia and Moldova, where the objective would be to ensure that these countries remain dependent on Russia and within a Russian sphere of influence.
Explicit or implicit assurances to consult Russia on European security frameworks, meanwhile, would demonstrate to Beijing that Moscow is an invaluable ally in preventing AUKUS and other alliances and/or regional security arrangements from being focused solely on the Indo-Pacific.’
RUSI Feb 22 (Pre-invasion)
This is unthinkable for Britain, the U.S,, NATO and, most particularly, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the Baltic States.
It’s really quite simple. Russia wants the West to keep ploughing money and weapons in, ruining its military and its finances. Kiev wants to skim off some of the money. America wants Europe unplugged from Russia. Davos wants a situation where the Great Reset looks like the best option. Europe has gone mad.
Did anybody read about how Europe is now buying Russian gas from China? You can’t make this stuff up.
Truly staggering nonsense. With GDP the size of Spain with triple the population, and unlike the West having to field hundreds of thousands of troops, that is the very last thing Russia want. They actually want(ed) an easy and cheap recolonisation of Ukraine.
Can someone explain to me what kind of foreign policy it is when you say…”the Ukraine has lost some fingers, we are going to cut off our whole hand to help them?”
I’ve been puzzling over it for ages……..
Boris also visited a few days before the much reported ‘offensive’…..coincidence?
You may recall a similar crisis from 1939.
This story is based largely on an incomplete quote. In the original Ukrainian article, Boris is reported to have said:
In other words, Boris wasn’t willing to make the UK party to another Budapest Memorandum. At some point, when states like Russia repeatedly flout all manner of international obligations, there’s no point signing any agreement with them. But that wouldn’t have stopped some bilateral Kyiv-Moscow agreement.
Thanks – I have updated the article.
LOL…..The USA is currently occupying a third of the Sovereign Country of Syria..illegally..meanwhile stealing their oils and food, while the Syrian people starve.
The USA is withholding millions of dollars, stolen, arguably illegally, from Afghanistan, while 90% of that country faces starvation….
The USA has the largest and most persistent debt with the UN….payment is an ‘International Obligation’ ( to everyone who isn’t America of course)….
The USA did not meet the ‘International Obligation’ of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention…..and still haven’t.
There are so many examples of the Americans routinely violating article 36 of the 1963 Vienna convention on Consular Relations..that it would be impossible to list them individually…..but 20 years after the immoral and illegal (they KNEW it was based on a fabricated lie) war in Iraq …..39 men remain indefinitely detained in Guantanamo Bay ….and 27 of them have never even been charged with any crime. Many of the remaining men are torture survivors; All of the prisoners have been exposed to the physical and psychological trauma associated with prolonged indefinite detention.
Why would anyone in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and many other countries around the world ‘sign’ anything with the lying, stealing perfidious USA?
While I make no presumption of holding Russia up as a paragon, this perverse way of looking at Russia as the only ‘wrong-un’ is ridiculous….It’s wilfully blind to the reckless
provocation of the USA and NATO, which it controls absolutely….and makes no mention of Russia’s genuine reservations and requests for assistance in relation to the upholding of the Minsk agreements….
After Pelosi’s provocative visit to Taiwan…and the furious back-pedalling regarding the One-China Policy…we are now hearing that a $1.1 billion arms deal is being put before the Senate for Taiwan? Oh yes that’s the actions of a benign moral country who wishes to live in harmony with its fellows….PULL THE OTHER ONE!
Top class ebygum.
That will upset the Russia bad fan boys.
Thanks hux…even the propagandised lobotomised nut jacks at the Telegraph are starting to question some of it now…even they are finding hard to believe that the Russians are shelling themselves at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant!!!
The Russians have been shelling themselves since 2014
Mobile phone intercept transcript translation 16 Aug 22:
‘(R)=Russian man (M)=Other man
(R): That last offensive before home, f*ck knows… not enough tanks, my tanks are dying. It’s such an a*s, it’s so f*cked up!
(M): I know, I know.
(R): You don’t, f*ck, on TV they don’t show this.
(M): I know it’s all bullsh*t.
(R): Out of 30 people we have 11 left now.
(M): F*ck.
(R): So I’m telling you, what’s on the TV is all complete bullsh*t. I’m not being paid money either, f*cks sake, Tan’ka said that the salary should have come with a “combat” payment for a month. Anyway, for two months I’ve got 80 thousand rubles. And it should have already been 400 thousand. I have so many “combat” payments [i.e. payments for attacks]. Do you know where I am, according to the lists? I’m in Moscow! I’m a rifleman-grenade launcher in Yampol regiment. But here I’m driving in a “box” [tank]. So it is. Complete bullsh*t. Guys are without money, I’m telling you, some refuse and don’t want to go, imagine? It’s the third month, but simply no money. And according to the lists they are in Russia. […] Those of ours who f*cked off, who left, they’ve been at home for a month now, and they get paid 80 thousand salary. This doesn’t go outside of the unit [as in the information]
(M): Right, I see.
(R): There’s no one left to fight. The command is completely finished, even our own [troops] are f*cking us, the artillery sometimes fires at us. I didn’t think that after Chechnya I will [get into this], this ain’t war, this is total bullsh*t. Like I said, it’s the last time when I signed up for this army.’
New revelations have emerged as to why any peace agreement ceding the Donbass region to Russia is a very bad idea indeed:
‘As I told you from the very beginning (and even before the operation) – Russian managers are simply not able to establish a normal life in the new territories. Not because they are fools (although most often they are), but because the entire management system is designed not for facing challenges and implementation of new projects, but for stability and control. That is, to support life in the Russian region – yes, bread is baked there, but to arrange the delivery of bread to Mariupol – no, because this is beyond the limits of competence and usual powers. Plus, the law enforcement system is set up so that anything going beyond the limits of authority is stopped and the initiator is punished.’
‘…the new territories will become a zone of humanitarian catastrophe in winter. Restoration of heating and water supply in many affected settlements does not occur. Restoration of housing stock for the most part takes place in the form of window dressing – beautiful houses will be erected on the main streets. There is a hidden struggle for budget contracts – patronage regions, LDNR, Chechens. In addition, people simply have nothing to get by for. Payments to state employees from Ukraine have ended, and those from Russia are difficult to kickstart, even Putin’s 10,000 [rubles], for the most part, have evaporated somewhere. Small business could rectify the situation, but in the Russian system of coordinates it is seen more as a problem. So, for example, in Melitopol, the first thing they banned was street trading, and in Kherson they took away goods for “illegal trading activities.”
Therefore, when you fantasise that Ukraine will die of cold and hunger in winter, you must understand that it will not be the first victim of winter. In the fall, a new wave of refugees may pour in (to Russia) from the occupied territories, and no one even understands where to take them.’
Ex-Ukrainian politician Dimitriyev Telegram channel 31 Aug 22
“New revelations have emerged as to why any peace agreement ceding the Donbass region to Russia is a very bad idea indeed..”
….As some of our Ukrainian Nazi brothers didn’t get to kill or torture enough of them, prior to Russia intervening…
Ex-believer in Ukrainian propaganda…WILKO!
Impassioned and yet entirely evidence free….as usual.
It was Washington which supported the war, aided & abetted by our treasonous PM, by encouraging France & Germany to renege on Minsk II
This is all planned & it’s working brilliantly.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/09/no_author/germany-to-hit-the-wall/
With you 100% BB.
Have we a troll amongst us?
Yes Russian trolls everywhere it seems.
How right you are:
‘Key findings include
‘FCDO Communication Team’
‘“There were people who really flew at [the work] with enthusiasm, and then some who came to work just realizing that all they were doing was nonsense,”
‘“Under any news, whether it’s about missiles, or the United States, or Putin, they’re everywhere, like cockroaches,”
‘Sometimes “trolls” would be expected to respond to another “troll’s” comments or post, to give the appearance of a discussion involving two unconnected users.’
Sergei K, former employee, Russian troll factory ‘Internet Research Agency’
Tell me exactly what the difference is between Russian Propaganda, and the US/UK Ukrainian propaganda being spouted by all of the MSM?
Isn’t it all just propaganda? Or do you genuinely see a difference?
And if you do, what proof do you have that what you think is true and you are not just as propagandised as the next person?
And wouldn’t you think in a supposedly democratic country that we would be able to see it all…and make up our own minds?
Because UK, democracy, free speech, goodies in white hats and all that? But we can’t, can we…because we can only be subject to our own county’s propaganda!! (Because that’s the real propaganda they want you to believe!) LOL!
It’s an absolute replay of the Convid Scam…and as the entire media is owned by around six global consortiums I assume it’s the way that the bought and paid for media will perform for the foreseeable future….
Much better, have a bit of a sit down and a nice cup of tea.
Also try a damp towel on the forehead.
Once you have identified troll factories in this country, let me know so that I can detail the differences between them and the Internet Research Agency while you enjoy your tea…..
The original problem was Russia’s earlier reneging of the Budapest Memorandum, ie the respecting or borders in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear arsenal. ie setting the scene for the Russian imperialist invasion.
Maybe, but did the PM really need to stick his nose in to a conflict which is between two non-NATO nations?
Is it really in the best interests of one’s citizens to refuse to negotiate peace?
What is the purpose behind Zelensky condemning any citizen who receives humanitarian aid from the Russians as a collaborator who will be punished as such? Humanitarian aid to the citizenry is part of the Geneva Convention. Zelensky’s action has demonstrated that he doesn’t care about the law or the welfare of his citizens.
The US have publicly stated that they will wage war until the very last Ukrainian. Doesn’t seem to be about the Ukrainians at all to me.
The first casualty of war is Truth.
If our MSM & political class cared about truth, then there would be no censorship of the news. Technically, we’re not at war. Yet NATO has been training & pouring in weaponry since 2014, since the Maidan Coup.
Don’t accept blindly what either side publishes. Read both if you can find it & follow some independent journalists. The ones who just film, observe, question & leave the analysis to their audience. The ones who are taking in food, medicine, water to the citizens who have been starved, bombed & injured. Note I’m saying that we need to look neutrally at the information before us; listen to what the citizens on the ground have to say about it to a neutral in response to open statements such as “Tell me what has been happening.” “What has life been like for you these last x amount of time?” “Where did you get food/water/medicine from?” The responses from the citizens are illuminating & bear no relation to what the MSM are reporting.
As always “Cui bono?”
War zones are perfect situations for child sex trafficking. See Gabbi Chong’s website for hard evidence of the sheer extent of this malevolent trade & the echelon’s of power who are involved. Our governments are not our friends.
My conclusion is that this is a conflict engineered by the CIA as a proxy war against Russia on European soil to bring about the economic collapse of Europe as a vehicle for bringing in food rationing linked to digital ID, biometrics & hasten the implementation of One World Government. They are already pushing for a One World Army via the UN & a One World Health Service via the WHO. Both of which are led by former terrorists.
Any differences between us is wanted to deflect our attention from the real agenda.
Your last para sums the situation up completely.
Correct, it’s also who will be in charge of all that…essentially about American hegemony..Therefore they have to ‘big up’ Russia and China as the enemy…if they didn’t what would we need a US led NATO for?
…they were never Ukraines, they never had the codes, they always belonged to Russia…
the international community would not have allowed them to keep them anyway……red herring…….how many more times?
Nope.
‘Undoubtedly, the expenditure of billions of dollars to obtain a nuclear deterrent would have been extremely straining for Ukraine given the dire state of its economy. In addition, Ukraine’s president, its scientists, and especially Ukrainian diplomats understood that Ukraine’s decision to develop a nuclear weapons program would incur international isolation, sanctions, and possibly collapse of its civilian nuclear energy industry, which was dependent on Russia for fuel and which provided some 30 percent of Ukraine’s energy. And yet it seems that Ukraine had a far greater indigenous technological capacity and a nuclear starter package than other nuclear aspirants like India, Pakistan, or North Korea that doggedly pursued a nuclear option and, despite economic hardship and international opprobrium, succeeded.’
WWICS Dec 2017