The head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff claims that NATO will deploy troops to Ukraine, which would lead to massive war. Meanwhile, US intelligence agencies are sounding the alarm about the imminent health crisis and the dangers of simultaneous attacks by several diseases on the same public.
In a major escalation of the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine, General Charles Q. Brown told the New York Times last Thursday that the NATO military alliance could send a significant number of active-duty troops from NATO to Ukraine, which, according to the newspaper, means that the deployment is ‘inevitable’. Reports the WSWS portal.
By stating that the sending of troops by NATO is inevitable, the Times indicates that the decision has already been made, and that the only thing waiting is for the best way to announce the escalation to public opinion to be determined.
Brown’s statement that NATO will send troops to Ukraine, after US President Joe Biden categorically ruled out such a move because it would lead to ‘World War III’, continues the pattern: Every time the White House has said it would not something in Ukraine, always has.
It is time for President Joe Biden to go on national television and inform the American people that the decision has been made to send American and NATO troops to fight Russia in Ukraine, that this is a massive escalation of war, that there is a high probability that this will lead to a nuclear war, and that hundreds of millions of people will die if that happens.
Biden should also explain how the US government, or what’s left of it, would deal with the destruction of a large part of the country. He should also clearly explain why Ukraine’s admission to NATO justifies risking such an outcome.
The claim that the troops sent would simply ‘train’ Ukrainian forces, rather than serve as frontline troops, is meaningless. Once inside Ukraine, they would come under fire from Russian forces, prompting direct retaliation by NATO forces against Russian aircraft and air-to-ground sites.
The Times makes it clear: “As part of NATO, the United States would be obligated by the alliance treaty to help defend against any attack on the trainers, dragging the United States into the war.”
Brown’s assertion that the decision will be made eventually and over time is purely to obfuscate the fact that the top US military official has publicly announced an action that Russian officials have said would lead to direct attacks on US troops.
In fact, if there is one thing NATO’s war effort is missing, it is time. The Times article admits as much, stating: ‘Ukraine’s labor shortage has reached a critical point, and its position on the battlefield in recent weeks has seriously worsened as Russia has accelerated its advances.’
In other words, the US strategy of ‘fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian’ has been exhausted, and there are no longer enough Ukrainian troops left to hold the front. Any effort to rescue the Ukrainian position will require the rapid deployment of not only NATO ‘trainers’, but active duty combat forces to fight on the front lines.
The Times itself admits that the plan for NATO deployments in Ukraine is already well advanced. It reports that ‘NATO last month asked General Christopher G. Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, to come up with a way for the alliance to do more to help Ukraine.’
The statement by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff marks a new stage in a concerted and orchestrated campaign to legitimize the concept of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, which all US and other NATO politicians had vocally declared. It was out of place.
In February, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that NATO should consider sending ground troops to Ukraine, something both he and Biden have categorically vowed not to do. Within weeks, Macron was joined by officials from France, Canada, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland. Last week, Estonian officials echoed these statements.
Now, a US official has gone even further than Macron, not only declaring that sending NATO troops should be considered, but that it is ‘inevitable.’
The carefully staged presentation of the US decision to send troops to Ukraine follows the same script used to present the sending of armored vehicles, tanks, fighter jets and long-range missiles.
In each case, the first stage is a categorical denial. In March 2022, Biden stated: “The idea that we are going to send offensive teams and have planes and tanks and trains coming in with American pilots and American crews, just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what they say, that’s called Third World War”.
In June 2022, Macron echoed these sentiments, declaring: ‘We are not going to enter war. …Thus, it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons, including attack aircraft or tanks.’
By January 2023, Macron had declared that “France will provide light battle tanks and continue its air defense support,” followed by Biden’s announcement that “the United States will send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.”
The script was later repeated with the decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine and allow their use against Crimea and other parts of Russia.
In May 2022, Biden stated: ‘We are not encouraging or allowing Ukraine to attack beyond its borders.’ In September 2022, Biden stated: ‘We are not going to send rocket systems to Ukraine that attack Russia’.
But last month, the Biden administration announced that it had secretly sent long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, which had already been used to attack Crimea, which Russia claims as its own territory. Earlier this month, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron declared that Ukraine has the ‘right’ to use NATO-provided weapons to hit any part of Russian territory.
When in 2022, the US announced that it was going to send M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, the media warned: “The importance of Biden’s announcement lies less in the impact of the battle tanks on the battlefield than in the consequences of their deployment”. We warned that these weapons “will require a massive logistics network inside Ukraine, involving a large number of specialized American contractors.”
In conditions where the Ukrainian battlefront is about to collapse, these plans have been considerably accelerated, raising the threat of a rapid escalation of a direct war between NATO and Russia.
The next risks to global health security according to US Intelligence
A recent report from the United States Director of National Intelligence (DNI) indicates the dynamics that are converging on global health security in the next decade. The text was captured by the greatest Italian intelligence expert Giuseppe Gagliano.
05/18/24
While the international community also proceeds on the Covid-19 pandemic, national and international health systems are put under the pressure of unfortunate developments. Pandemic stagnation, controversial narratives and medical misinformation, in response to competing global priorities, increase the risk of regressions in the progress in health security obtained since 2021.
These data emerge from a recent report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) of the United States under the title “Dynamics Shaping Global Health Security In the Next Decade”.
Although not fully realized, recent initiatives focused on preparedness, emergency response and financing, and the development and production of vaccines and therapeutics have advanced hitherto stymied efforts to improve global health security. These points include “historic” negotiations on a pandemic agreement and modifications to the United Nations International Health Rules (IHR).
Pandemic stagnation and medical misinformation could further weaken health research behaviors, such as vaccines, and cause significant health emergencies.
Although some childhood immunization rates were being resumed, they remain below the pre-pandemic protective capacity, particularly in countries with regrettable delays.
Donor governments have directed their attention and funding to Covid-19 and other global health issues toward the sites of recent conflicts, such as Israel and Hamas and Russia’s war against Ukraine, and domestic economic problems. This addition will influence the ability of national health systems to build their pandemic barrier and address pandemic disruptions related to other health emergencies, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, maternal and child health, polio and tuberculosis.
Furthermore, the ability of the international community to address health emergencies towards the end of the pandemic has been further put under pressure in the recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, cholera, dengue, Ebola, mpox and polio, which have put tough tests global and national disease response and recovery systems. These crises serve as a memory resource for the increasingly frequent and simultaneous global health emergencies.
Climate and dynamic changes at the societal level threaten global health security. Countries will be left vulnerable to the direct health effects of climate change, such as dynamic disease patterns, exposure to extreme weather, food insecurity and destruction of infrastructure.
Climate change is undermining global health security, increasing the fragility of the socioeconomic systems on which global health depends, expanding the vulnerability of populations to coexisting geopolitical, energy and cost of living increases, challenging and potentially reversing progress. health outcomes of the last 50 years and widening health inequality between populations and within each individual.
By
* Image: Vladimir Putin. Font La Tinta