Connect with us

Intelligence

Geopolitical Research: To Quantify or Not to Quantify?

Published

on

As I have explained before, geopolitics can have a wide array of meanings and concepts. However, what about when we seek to apply geopolitics in the real world?

How can we depart from academic theory and perception, that geopolitics is nothing but a discursive practice, promoted and advocated by an elite vis-à-vis popular culture? My answer revolves within two concepts: risk and conflict. In my view—and the fundamental argument of this brief article—is that when it comes to geopolitical research, it must be both investigated and contextualized, in a more in-depth qualitative view instead of your good ol’ country risks reports and probability-type of analysis—on which to be fairly honest, they are nothing but a cluster of quantified opinions based on superficial ‘risk’ scores, which they don’t say much to an investor concerning the specific risks his industry or commercial operations can succumb in a country of interest. (And I do not mean this in an obnoxious know-it-all way, but rather, in the most simple, common-sense way, since any business group/investor would likely ask you: What do these credit scores tell me about my specific industry-related risks? Hence, the purpose of my argument.)

So, why should we think of geopolitical research, in terms of more qualitative-oriented methods, if we were to thoroughly research a geopolitical ‘risk’ or ‘conflict’? For starters, geopolitics deals with systems as a whole—be they political, economic, ecological, industrial, and so on. For instance, say we were to analyze the geopolitical situation of the Central American North Triangle (Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras). We would have to first select the most vulnerable and particular system that characterizes this geographic space. To what international system does the Central American North Triangle affect the most? And in terms of what? Who ‘affects’ and what are the ‘effects’? For starters, and replying to the first question, the Central American North Triangle’s criminal organization system would be the most critical system that would be inextricably linked to the American security system. It would be in terms of drug smuggling, money laundering, cartels, gangs and hitmen (e.g. hitmen jumping back and forth from the U.S.-Mexico border), corrupt government and business elites, criminal parallel government structures (e.g. ministries, military, police task forces), to name some notable examples, that participate within this system, while operating and creating their own sub-systems.

Generally speaking, in Central America, it is the organized crime system that influences the behavior and decision-making of the American embassies in Guatemala City, San Salvador and Tegucigalpa. And to reply to my self-imposed questions, the most particular ‘effect’ on the American security system would be thousands of illegal immigrants that flee this particular system, consequently, affecting the American security and borders system as a whole. As a result, what are the independent and dependent variables of this particular geopolitical system? The causal-chain? See where I’m heading? In order to analyze a complete geopolitical system not only you require time and patience, but a thorough contextualization and understanding of geographical, historical and sociocultural dynamics of the ‘place’. The probabilistic nature of political risk (e.g. country risk) can only be reduced to that of macroeconomic analysis. But, what if, imagine, you know an X investor that wants to invest in the textile industry, in the Escuintla Department (province) of Guatemala? How would you be able to determine the geopolitical—and particular—risks affecting that investment?

Applied geopolitics, overall, boils down into two concepts: ‘affect’ and ‘effect’. As I have mentioned on my personal blog, an X variable has to be ‘ affected ‘ by a ‘Y’ event in order to cause a massive systematic or local ‘effect’ (e.g. the creation of ISIS via the Syrian war and its massive effect on the Middle East regional geopolitics, or the 2008 economic meltdown, which, unfortunately, Europe is still suffering the consequences). Thereby by understanding the concepts of both ‘affect’ and ‘effect’, we can jump into the next concept: macro versus micro risks.

Continuing with our example of an X investor looking forward to invest in a newly constructed textile factory, in the Escuintla Department, Guatemala (and yet wanting to know the possible geopolitical risks of his investment), we must start with the most important first step: see the map. By looking at the map, I know that Escuintla Department is a hot, humid flatland located between two ecoregions: the highlands and the pacific lowlands; I know that it doesn’t have any substantial navigable river system, therefore, most of the communities are tied to the main highway system between Guatemala city and the Port of San Jose; I know that because of the ocean currents, it rains heavily in the south, however, in the north, (adjoining the Pacaya and Agua volcanoes, between the Palin canyon, and because of the prevailing winds from the north), the weather evolves into a more moderate, less humid, highland weather; I know that because of this mixture between tropical and humid and temperate and highland, Escuintla has a suitable climate for raising cattle and harvesting cash crops, such as sugar cane, bananas, coffee, cardamom, lemon tea, in the southern part of Escuintla, and to its north, nearing and entering the Guatemalan highlands, it is suitable for maize, beans and vegetables; I know that because of the main transportation corridor, it is a heavily industrialized zone; I know that because of the majority of mestizo population, there isn’t a lack of cultural and language homogeneity with that of the Guatemalan economic core; but I also know that it is an imperative transit zone between the sea and the highlands and farther into the hinterland, which makes it prone to drug trafficking; and I also know that it is an imperative transportation corridor between El Salvador and Mexico, where many of the human contraband structures operate. Escuintla is a geopoliticized space. But also is part of an important geographical sub-field of the major organized crime geopolitical system of the North Triangle.

This is by simply looking at the map. Now, what are the possible risk triggers, exposures, events and conflicts that could occur within this specific space, and the actors that could affect the potential investment? Well, this is where you are going to have to leave the office and go into the field—where then you will have to combine a set of both qualitative and quantitative tools in order to determine the micro-risks.

When it comes to the science of researching geopolitical micro-risk, by simply sitting in an office desk and by trying to ascribe numbers and values and probabilities, to determine the ‘probability’ of the risk of investing, is to a certain degree, groundless and—no offense—a waste of time; put simply, the investor will not know what are the potential micro-risks affecting his operating environment and, most importantly, how to manage them—and this is where conflict management comes. If an X conflict with a Y community over Z resource were to occur, how resilient and prepared would the textile factory staff be? At what scale and level are the risks and uncertainties and effects of investing in that space? This is when, in turn, your sociocultural and historical understanding comes to place.

Lastly, don’t get me wrong: there are certain types of quantitative elements that are a must when it comes to geopolitical risk; however, these tools should only serve you as part of a preliminary research and for generalization purposes—i.e. country risks and economic indicators of the country and region, and your own probability model. Yet, it is a profound qualitative-driven research (focus groups, HUMINT, interviews, short-term ethnography, participant observation, and much more) that will help your geopolitical analysis stand out before any other.

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

The issue of intelligence between the United States and China

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The economic and intelligence tension between the United States and China is currently at its peak since the end of the Cold War. During that phase, however, China had also taken actions to oppose the Soviet Union, with the opening to the United States and the “ping-pong diplomacy” in the early 1970s, as well as its tacit support to Kissinger’s resolution of all tensions between the United States and the Southeast Asian countries.

At the time China wanted to help the United States to regionalize – in Asia – its historic “Northern enemy,” namely Russia.

In his “Three Worlds Theory”, Mao Zedong placed it together with the United States in the “First World”, as both imperialist powers, while he regarded China as the current and future leader of the whole Third World fighting against the “metropolises” of the First World.

Said project has not changed, it has only changed its language and its procedures.

Now that the bilateral tension between the United States and the People’s Republic of China is at its highest, the rationale for this new Sino-American scenario is simple. China wants to achieve global geopolitical hegemony, while the United States led by President Donald J. Trump wants to rebuild its new economic and purely financial hegemony, and hence resort to protectionist practices.

The practices that even the old liberal handbooks of economic science considered lawful when a “nascent industry” needs to be protected.

China has now Africa in its own hands – a continent where the US power is linked almost exclusively to the US Africa Command, which is headquartered at the Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart.

Europe, of course, does not count for anything.

Moreover, China operates in Iran and also in Russia, considering that it has now incorporated Russia into its Belt and Road project towards Europe and the Mediterranean – in spite of the Eurasian Alliance project of Russian origin – and hence operates as a hegemonic power in Central Asia.

It does so by operating with a strategy that is at first economic, but also and above all political: the peripheries of the world against the metropolises, i.d. Mao’s old “policy line”.

Currently we are instead shifting from geoeconomy to the real global strategy – and China will have no particular difficulty in moving from a generically friendly position towards the United States to a far more adverse one.

When its primary interests are attacked by US actions, China will never make the first move.

The Thirty-Six Stratagems of the Chinese secret art of war are clear in this regard: “Watch the fires burning from the river” and also “Hide a knife behind a smile”.

However, let us better analyze what has happened in the current “spy war” between the United States and China.

For nearly ten years, the US spy network in China has been severely undermined, if not wiped out. This has happened to the US intelligence services also elsewhere.

Allegedly, the vulnerability of the US network results from the fact that China has long “penetrated” the network used by the operatives and informants present in China.

China maintains that this has led to the “elimination” of 30 local citizens who worked for the United States and the imprisonment of an unknown number of others.

China’s counterintelligence operation is said to have started in 2010, when the encrypted firewall used by the US operatives in China was discovered.

Obviously it is almost useless to add that the “sophisticated” IT firewall used by CIA is now in China’s hands and the analysts of its intelligence services will use and implement it even more easily.

Moreover, the program discovered by China had to be used in such a way as not to connect with and not to be traced by CIA’s major IT networks.

Without CIA knowing it, however, the encrypted system could also connect with its primary web network – and China could listen or read quietly and easily.

Incidentally, it is currently certain that all countries’ intelligence services can use the Web, but it is equally certain that the security of communications is at least the top goal, together with the quality and depth of the intelligence and analyses reported to the “central unit”.

Nevertheless, the more the Web gets complex, the easier it is “penetrated”. This law has been never denied by facts.

The more complex it is, the easier is to manipulate or “penetrate” it.

Experts tell us that the Web’s rate of complexity increases by seven the danger it can be penetrated. At every additional step of structural complexity there is a 7-time multiplier for possible “holes”.

Hence, in many cases, it would be good to still resort to the old craft systems that made the history of modern intelligence. China still does it.

We believe, however, that the real problem lies in the fact that the United States still believes that China is a country which is trying – with some difficulty – to follow the development course of the Anglo-Saxon community.

This is certainly not the case: China has not long been a “second class” nation or, as some US analysts say, a “Third World country that has grown too much”.

Far from it: it is a good thing that the United States soon realizes that China is certainly the second military and economic power in the world and that it can certainly cooperate with the United States, but dictating at least some essential conditions.

No Chinese decision-maker thinks about a “covert war” against the United States – not even remotely: currently the Party and the State think about other “enemies” and other regions.

However, we should never forget China’s huge power of constraint, persuasion and negotiation.

Moreover, the free market myth has affected the whole system of what – in the intelligence community of every modern country – should be the axis of all major operations, namely influence.

Over 110 “Confucius Institutes” have been founded in the US universities and huge Chinese capital is present in many of the most important US entertainment companies, such as Legendary Group, AMC Theathers, STX Entertainment, Studio 8 and Global Road Entertainment, as well as in many other smaller companies.

Not to mention Chinese investments in other sectors and in US Treasury securities.

The US majors obviously sell much in China, but China has entered their system with money, not just with encrypted firewalls.

Clearly China is strongly interested in the US operations on its territory, but certainly the Chinese leaders have operated a linkage between the trade wars started by President Trump and their counterintelligence actions.

This is another bond to break.

The more the geoeconomic contrast between the United States and China mounts, the more intrusive actions will be taken by China in the United States (such as those of the many Chinese students in North American universities who are spying for their country of origin), as well as “harsh”  counter-intelligence operations.

Furthermore, what some leaders of the US Central Intelligence Agency fear is partly true: China is now in such a Cold War phase with the United States as to eventually oust it from its position as global power.

It is very unlikely, however, that Chinese leaders think they can weaken the US power in a short lapse of time: there is no blitzkrieg or lightning war that can decide, in a short sequence of clashes – even in the muffled world of intelligence or in the slightly noisier world of electronic war – who definitively wins.

It is pure madness and the Chinese are not mad at all.

Obviously both contenders must well understand that the Great Powers – if they have to disappear – do so over a period of centuries, always much more slowly than they have grown in good times.

Certainly even traditions count in the world of intelligence.

The United States is the realm of technology, in which an American –  a good American and not an ugly American like the one described by the British novelist and intelligence agent, Graham Greene, who however had titled his novel The Quiet American – believes blindly. Probably the ugly and the good are two sides of the same coin.

The tradition of Chinese intelligence is also excellent in technology, but it does not forget the ancient rules of power and war.

When some defecting KGB men were sent to some US military academies, they were surprised that in the libraries there were not the classics of Eastern war thought and strategy: the Thirty-Six Stratagems, the Liezi, as well as Sun Zu’s military treatise The Art of War.

Hence too much technology in the United States and sometimes a certain tendency to conceptual hyper-simplification; too little history and knowledge of the real power structure which – when really powerful – is covert.

Also China, however, is not lagging behind in the field of technology. We should recall the hacking of over 30 companies among the most important ones in America, including Apple and Amazon, with a modified chip.

The Silicon Valley is now full of spies who work for the Chinese government for money or for other reasons.

According to many officers of the Armed Forces, all the US military networks are in danger.

CIA, too, has successfully carried out some operations on the Chinese territory, sometimes forcing the Chinese to give up their electronic espionage techniques, and also using Chinese intelligence agents.

Hence what can we do to stop, slow down and put in an acceptable position of security and business as usual this crisis between China and the United States, which – apart from trade wars – is still a mere war between intelligence services?

A first solution could be an extensive and universal protection – to be reached and signed as soon as possible – for the protection of sensitive intellectual property.

Currently trade secrets and patents are acquired not with old reverse engineering, but with the launch of IT attacks on companies and even law firms that hold regulations and protections.

While, as is well known, China is now a global software producer, it would be rational that even China would adapt to a new, stricter and safer international regulation of IPs and networks.

There could also be – in the offing – an international agreement on web addresses and network security, organized by the major companies operating in the sector, which are all interested in achieving a higher security level.

The US Invention Secrecy Act dates back to 1951 and it is too old for the technologies it should protect. Moreover, it is not part of the US intelligence chain.

In fact, the large US companies have increasingly relied on international laws for the protection of industrial data, often coming out of the North American judicial and legal system.

This is another “hole” that the United States must fill as soon as possible.

Moreover, now the US military can control patents, even when they are fully developed in the civilian sphere.

This is a good thing, but one thing is the law and another is counterintelligence.

However, the Web is and will always be wide-meshed: Google, in particular, is used by 67% of all Internet operators in the world and it has never made a secret of wanting a US patent system as “weak” as possible.

Google itself wants to sell the trade secrets at low price and quickly – and possibly keeping its own ones very secret.

The classic case of a paradox generated by a technology that does not find the legal mesh suitable for regulation.

Furthermore, China adheres to all international intellectual property regulations but, also in China, it is precisely the complexity and the inevitable archaic nature of rules compared to the speed of technology that impose the aforementioned “wide mesh” to China’s patent protection.

Hence two things are needed: firstly, a technical-legal and bilateral Conference between China and the United States, with a view to regulating the specific needs of sensitive data protection.

Moreover, light is better than darkness, although the Chinese wisdom tradition maintains that it is necessary to “cultivate darkness” – as when you need to grow rhubarb.

Secondly, a US-Chinese Committee shall be established at the highest possible level, where one asks the other for the patents it needs – obviously against payment.

Later a “third” Committee shall be created to check the efficacy of the agreement, possibly made up of members of the intelligence community of a country that is good for both countries: Italy, for example, which is second to none in the field of cybersecurity and can guarantee both contenders.

Thirdly, an International Conference shall be held – again possibly in Italy – to draw up specific rules for “technology secrets”, to be adapted each year according to new technologies.

Obviously also a new international Authority would be needed to coordinate and control – above all – the private network managers and the content collectors, as well as  websites.

ICANN, the Californian organization that – as we may all recall – was given the Internet “source code” by the US government, is still a cooperative incorporated under California’s law, although the source code is now an open  secret and former President Obama decided it to be managed not only by ICANN.

Hence the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is still a structure that is only responsible for “opening” the network, as well as for dissemination and “transparency”.

The Web, however, must also be a structure controlling data security, reliability and efficacy.

For each “transparency”, a rule of security and control. If the system of intellectual property protection fails, the whole contemporary world will fail.

Hence we could think of establishing an Agency, again in Italy, with the major powers’ support – an Agency called Security Agency for the Internet (SAFI), which can remove or report real-time passages of business and State secrets within the whole network.

This is another action that could be taken in Italy.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Is Jamal Khashoggi real a dissident journalist?

Dr. Andrea Galli

Published

on

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi allegedly disappeared from Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018. According to the US press, a trap was set for him at a meeting to hand him new documents for his remarriage. Fifteen Saudi intelligence officers would have come to arrest him, torture him, kill him and dismember him. His mortal remains would have been returned to Saudi Arabia. Since then, Turkey and the United States have been asking Saudi Arabia, which denies the allegations of the US press, for clarification. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vehemently denied the allegations.

The case has become one of the major international crises between the West and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has above all unveiled the double standards of the West’s relations with the Saudi Kingdom. Analysts have suggested that the diplomatic crisis has been exploited by the West to create in Saudi Arabia a condition similar to Libya, in preparation for regime change and a possible military intervention.

Jamal Khashoggi is represented in the media as a journalist and dissident, suggesting that the case has a connotation of violation of freedom of expression and human rights. In reality, Jamal Khashoggi was the nephew of an important Saudi Arabian’s arms smuggler, Adnan Khashoggi, who was considered the richest man in the world in the early 1980s. Adnan Khashoggi, who died in London in June 2017, was known for his lavish business deals. Adnan Khashoggi was implicated in the Iran–Contra affair as a key middleman in the arms-for-hostages exchange. His role in the affair created a controversy when Adnan Khashoggi donated millions to the American University in Washington, DC to build a sports arena which would bear his name. In 1988, Adnan Khashoggi was arrested in Switzerland, accused of concealing funds in connection with Imelda Marcos, widow of the exiled Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Adnan Khashoggi stopped fighting extradition when the U.S. prosecutors reduced the charges to obstruction of justice and mail fraud and dropped the more serious charges of racketeering and conspiracy. In 1990, a United States federal jury in Manhattan acquitted Adnan Khashoggi and Imelda Marcos.

Jamal Khashoggi, today considered disappeared since 2 of October 2018, after he entered the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul, befriended Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan and Sudan while championing his jihad against the Soviets. At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi Arabian intelligence services as an advisor. It is reported that Jamal Khashoggi was the only non-royal Saudi Arabian who knew of the Royals’ intimate dealing with al-Qaeda in the lead-up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He dissociated himself from bin Laden following the attacks. It what during this time that Jamal Khashoggi’s cousin, Dodi Fayed, was dating the UK’s Princess Diana.

During his career as intelligence advisor, Jamal Khashoggi became the protégé of the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki Ben Mark, who then became an ambassador to London. Then he entered the service of Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, who was extensively tortured in the Ritz-Carlton during the palace coup d’état in November 2017. In recent years, Jamal Khashoggi defended the Muslim Brotherhood and Israel, which was why he was hired by the Washington Post. According to intelligence information, several members of the royal family whose assets were confiscated in whole or in part during the palace coup d’état in November 2017 have planned an operation against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the sources, Jamal Khashoggi was involved in this conspiracy. Analysts have suggested that Jamal Khashoggi might have been considered especially dangerous by the Saudi Arabian leadership not because he was a dissident, but rather a pillar of the Saudi Arabian establishment who was close to its ruling circles for decades and was involved in intelligence operations sponsored by foreign forces.

The fate of Jamal Khashoggi is still unknown and the facts of the investigations are still fragmentary and contradictory. But the case has some reminiscence with that of the ex-Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter who were poisoned in Salisbury in March. The difference is that in the Skripal case it took nothing more than a swift declaration (sans evidence) from British intelligence agencies before sanctions had been slapped on Moscow.

Trump has promised “severe punishment” will be handed out to Riyadh if it turns out that the country is responsible for the alleged killing of the journalist — but that harsh comment has been tempered by other less angry statements which indicate that the US president is not quite serious about doling out any kind of consequences. After all, there are other things on Trump’s mind, far more important than the fate of one journalist. Referring to a $110 billion weapons deal previously signed by Riyadh and Washington and noting that Jamal Khashoggi was not a US citizen, Trump told journalists last week that he didn’t really want to stop “massive amounts of money” from being poured into the US from Saudi Arabia. “It would not be acceptable to me,” Trump said.

In other words, if Saudi Arabia really did send a team to torture, kill and dismember Jamal Khashoggi, weapons sales are still more important. Even the sale of weapons which are being used by Riyadh to continually slaughter civilians in Yemen during a war that threatens to create the worst famine in 100 years, according to the UN. On the other hand, if the Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman refuses again to pay some hundreds of billions to the United States for the defense of his country, the Jamal Khashoggi disappearance case is a beautiful pretext for a regime change in Libyan style.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

US Conducting Biological Experiments Near Russia’s Borders

Published

on

Two statements, almost simultaneously released by the Russia’s Foreign and Defense Ministries, once again raised the issue which, although rarely mentioned, is considered a “silent threat.”

On September 25, Vladimir Yermakov, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, told the media that Russia will not allow biological experiments to be carried out on its borders by the Americans. He was commenting on a statement earlier made by Georgia’s former State Security Minister Igor Giorgadze about biological experiments on people allegedly carried out by the US.

Giorgadze has long been in opposition to Georgian authorities and is a well informed man too. Speaking at a news conference in Moscow, he appealed to none other than US President Donald Trump with a personal request to investigate the activities of the Richard Lugar laboratory outside Tbilisi, where he said they are conducting experiments to study the effects of biological weapons on people. Giorgadze said that he has documents confirming the conduct of such experiments. He also provided data confirming the death of dozens of people as a result of those experiments.

The Richard Lugar Research Center for Public Health opened in 2011 as part of a US government program. According to experts familiar with the matter, the center is openly studying biological threats with the help of military program being implemented by biologists of the US Army Medical Research Unit – Georgia (USAMRU-G) and private contractors. These private companies are not accountable (sic!) to the US Congress and can circumvent US laws due to … the lack of direct control.

Only US citizens with security clearance and diplomatic immunity have access to this biological laboratory.

Commenting on the Lugar Center’s activities, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that it had learned about “scandalous facts and documents pointing to serious violations by the American side of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, ratified by the United States in 1972.”

The Ministry’s statement also noted that during experiments on Georgian citizens of a drug produced by the company owned by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 24 people died in December 2015, and later 49 more. It noted that so many deaths are not recorded even during large-scale epidemics in infectious diseases hospitals.

Our statements did not go unnoticed in Washington. The Pentagon denied these accusations outright. But how?! A Pentagon spokesman, Eric Pahon, dismissed them as “an invention of the imaginative and false Russian disinformation campaign against the West” and “obvious attempts to divert attention from Russia’s bad behavior on many fronts.”

“The United States does not develop biological weapons at the Lugar Center,” he added, confusing the old name of the Center with the new one.

“Does not develop…” Well, Then why are dozens of people in Georgia dying at this very Center? Maybe the Yankees are not really developing biological weapons there, just bringing biological weapons there and testing them? If so, then we should talk about “development,” not “testing.”

How could Pentagon counter that?

Their logic is really strange too. They argue that Russia cannot be trusted because it is “misbehaving” – the ultimate example of Anglo-Saxon egotism used since the colonial times where anything that is not coming from them is “not good.”

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is in charge of US military programs at the Lugar Center in Georgia, conducted field tests with an unknown substance near the Russian border. In the spring of 2017, local residents complained about some “white powder” being sprayed by an UAV near the Georgian border.

According to the author of this news, the DTRA has access to the border between Russia and Georgia under a military program called “Georgian Land Border Security Project.” All work pertaining to this project was entrusted to a private company, Parsons Government Services International. DTRA has contracts with Parsons for similar “border security” projects in Lebanon, Jordan, Libya and Syria – an impressive geography… As for the Russian-Georgian border, the Parsons’ contract with the Pentagon is believed to be worth $9.2 million.

During last year’s meeting of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, President Vladimir Putin said that “biological material is collected throughout Russia from people of different ethnic groups living in different parts of the Russian Federation. This is being done purposefully and professionally. Why are they doing they do this? We are an object of a great deal of interest…”

Caught red-handed, the Americans had nothing else to do than admit this with  a representative of the Air Force Training Command, Bo Downey, telling RIA Novosti that they were collecting Russians’ biological material to “study the musculoskeletal system” and that this work ” was not intentional.. He acknowledged that the Center for Molecular Studies of the 59th Medical Air Group is engaged in this research to “identify various trauma-related biomarkers.”.

“Not intentional”? They are telling these tall tales just as the US Air Force has announced an open tender for the supply of 12 samples of RNA molecules and synovial tissue of Russians! According to the terms of the tender, “donors must be citizens of the Russian Federation, Caucasians, without injuries of the musculoskeletal system and have tested negatively for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis.”

And why are they collecting these samples in Russia? They could have been conducting such experiments at home, in the US. Or maybe Americans all suffer from HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis?

Do they realize how stupid they look when they deny all this even when caught red-handed and confronted with hard facts?

Looks like the Yanks are testing our genotype to determine the kind of injuries that would be most critical for people living in different parts of Russia. Otherwise, why show so much care about the population of a country which has been unequivocally declared by the Trump administration as America’s “military adversary”?

This “silent” danger has taken the form of a network of such laboratories the US has set up along the entire length of the Russian border. No one can defeat Russia with military force even though many people have tried this over the past centuries. Therefore, they have created a system of undermining this country from the inside with the help of information war, by provoking internal conflicts and now with the threat of epidemics and pandemics.

According to the official website of the DTRA’a regional Eurasian office in Georgia (headquarters), they have already established their “footholds” in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. (The DTRA Eurasia office of the United States of Georgia has a number of countries. The budget of this Eurasian network is estimated at over $2 billion. And, of course, the Pentagon is justifying its biological expansion in Eurasia by “noble goals” – purportedly “to assist national scientific personnel in protecting the population from diseases, identifying deadly viruses and neutralizing them.”.

Faced with all these hard facts, the Americans have been forced to make excuses.

Responding to media accusations, including in the US, Blake Bekstein, a program manager for Insect Allies, which is part of general bio-weapon development, said that he “does not agree with the conclusions,” although in an interview with The Washington Post he admitted that a number of technologies developed as part of the program may have a “dual purpose” and can be used both for defense and attack.

Meanwhile, by so doing, the West is preparing a new large-scale provocation against Russia. In the pipeline is a new mechanism of “sanctions for the proliferation and use of chemical weapons.” They are also going to blame Russia for “illegal use” of such weapons by removing sanctions for such “use” from UN jurisdiction and actually “privatizing” them.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy