Authored by Colin Crossman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

In a landmark decision on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a 6-3 vote, overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of administrative law and judicial review. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, signals a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and administrative agencies. This decision not only reinforces judicial independence but also presents substantial benefits for the Bitcoin industry, echoing the implications of last year’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.

THE CASE

The Chevron doctrine, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as the interpretation was deemed reasonable. This two-step framework had become a cornerstone of administrative law, often tipping the scales in favor of agency authority over judicial oversight.

In Loper Bright, the petitioners challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule that required Atlantic herring fishermen to bear the cost of onboard observers, arguing that the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) did not authorize such a mandate. The lower courts had upheld the NMFS rule, applying Chevron deference to conclude that the agency’s interpretation was permissible.

THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, delivered a decisive opinion that dismantles Chevron deference. The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes, rejecting the notion that ambiguities in law should default to agency interpretations.

“Chevron defies the command of the APA that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret . . . statutory provisions,’” Roberts wrote. “It requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached’ had it exercised its independent judgment. … Chevron cannot be reconciled with the APA… .” Slip Op., at 21 (emphasis added).

The ruling emphasizes that statutory ambiguities do not automatically delegate interpretive authority to agencies. Instead, courts must use traditional tools of statutory construction to determine the best reading of a statute, ensuring that agencies do not exceed their conferred powers.

IMPACT ON BITCOIN AND BITCOIN MINING

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond administrative law, reaching into the heart of the Bitcoin mining industry. Much like the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s overreach, this ruling reinforces the need for clear congressional authorization before agencies can impose significant regulatory burdens.

For the Bitcoin mining industry, this decision is a clear win. Regulatory uncertainty has long been a thorn in the side of Bitcoin miners, who rely on predictable and stable access to power and other resources. By curbing the ability of agencies to unilaterally expand their regulatory reach, the Court has created a more favorable environment for Bitcoin mining operations.

Bitcoin miners have often been at the mercy of shifting regulatory landscapes, which can dramatically impact their operations. For instance, stringent environmental regulations targeting power consumption could have severely constrained the industry. With the Chevron doctrine overturned, any future regulatory attempts to impose such burdens will require explicit and unambiguous congressional authorization, followed by detailed judicial scrutiny.

This decision also invigorates the major question doctrine, which posits that significant regulatory actions with vast economic and political implications require clear congressional authorization. This doctrine can be a powerful tool for Bitcoin miners and other industries to challenge regulatory overreach, ensuring that agencies cannot impose wide-ranging policies without clear legislative backing.

Furthermore, recent developments have seen the Biden Administration intensify oversight on the U.S. Bitcoin mining sector through an Energy Information Agency (EIA) emergency survey, portraying electricity usage by miners as a significant threat to national grid stability. This move demanded detailed disclosures from miners, and mirrored actions in countries like Venezuela, signaling a concerning trend towards building a full registry of mining activities. The industry’s response united against such overreach, and resulted in a decisive victory against the Federal Government.

INSIGHTS FROM THE NRA AND CANTERO CASES

The recent NRA and Cantero cases further illuminate the judicial shift towards protecting industry autonomy from regulatory overreach. In both cases, the courts have shown a willingness to scrutinize agency actions that appear to exceed their statutory authority. The NRA case, dealing with banking regulations, and the Cantero case, focusing on state versus federal regulatory powers, underscore the importance of clear legislative directives. These cases have set a precedent that benefits the Bitcoin mining industry by highlighting the judiciary’s role in curbing unwarranted regulatory expansion, akin to the protections now reinforced by the Supreme Court’s rejection of Chevron deference.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron represents a monumental shift towards judicial independence and a recalibration of the administrative state. For the Bitcoin industry, this ruling is particularly significant, promising a more predictable and less burdensome regulatory environment.

As industries and legal practitioners grapple with the implications of this ruling, one thing is clear: the era of agency deference has been significantly curtailed, marking a new chapter in the interpretation and application of federal laws. This ruling underscores the importance of clear legislative mandates and may prompt Congress to take a more active role in defining the scope of agency powers moving forward.

For Bitcoin miners, this decision is a beacon of hope, heralding a future where regulatory overreach can be more effectively challenged, fostering a more stable and supportive environment for the growth and sustainability of the industry. As the judiciary reclaims its role as the ultimate arbiter of the law, the Bitcoin mining community, and Americans as a whole, can now look forward to a more balanced and just regulatory landscape.

Amazon’s rival to Elon Musk’s Starlink, Project Kuiper, is running into delays. The company now anticipates Kuiper’s first batch of low-Earth satellites will be launched late in 2024, versus the early projection of the first half of this year. Customer testing is not expected until 2025. 

“We expect to ship our first completed production satellites this summer, and we’re targeting our first full-scale Kuiper mission for Q4 aboard an Atlas V rocket from ULA [United Launch Alliance]. We will continue to increase our rates of satellite production and deployment heading into 2025, and we remain on track to begin offering service to customers next year,” Amazon wrote in a blog post on Thursday.

PCMag said beta trials of the internet-from-space service for commercial customers were initially slated for later this year and will now begin sometime in 2025. 

Amazon told the tech blog, “We expect to begin offering demonstrations to enterprise customers in early 2025.” 

Amazon has not revealed the reason behind Project Kuiper’s delays, but it’s possible that the dismal testing of Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rockets is to blame. 

Meanwhile, SpaceX’s Starlink is soon becoming the global leader in high-speed internet from space, with a constellation of nearly 6,000 satellites and more than three million terminals operating across 75 countries. 

We recently pointed out that, using data from BryceTech, SpaceX is leading the world’s rocket race—great news for America’s rocket program. Most of the rocket launches have been boosting Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit. 

Musk is quite literally America’s rocket program: SpaceX launched about 429,125 kg of spacecraft upmass in the first quarter, significantly outpacing China’s rocket program (China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation), which launched a measly 29,426 kg. 

And just wait until SpaceX’s Starship is cleared for commercial launches. 

Let Starship be a reminder to not bet against the greatest entrepreneur of our time, Elon fuckin Musk pic.twitter.com/iIrFO9nEjX

— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) March 14, 2024

Bezos’ Blue Origin appears to be a sore loser as it falls behind SpaceX. Last week, Musk said Bezos’ rocket company was attempting “to impede SpaceX’s progress by lawfare.”

It’s interesting to note that Blue Origin was founded by Bezos in 2000. Two years later, Musk founded SpaceX, which achieved orbit in 2008. Since then, SpaceX has had hundreds of rocket launches and multiple crewed missions to the International Space Station. Meanwhile, Blue Origin has yet to achieve orbit in 2024. 

Year founded:
• Blue Origin: 2000
• SpaceX: 2002

Year when the company’s reached orbit:
• SpaceX: 2008
• Blue Origin: Never

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 25, 2024

It’s evident that Bezos’ rocket company and Amazon’s space internet startup are lagging behind Musk’s SpaceX.

Via The Cradle

The UK has sent over 80 military transport planes to the Lebanese capital of Beirut since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza nine months ago, Declassified UK reported on Friday.

All the flights have gone from the UK’s massive Akrotiri airbase on the nearby island of Cyprus, long a staging post for UK bombing missions in West Asia. Declassified UK notes that the number of UK military flights to Beirut has risen dramatically in recent months. The group tracked 25 flights in April and May and 14 so far in June.

Flights from the UK base take around 45 minutes to reach Beirut, which Israel has increasingly threatened to bomb in a possible full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah.

The Ministry of Defense declined to disclose the number of UK military flights to Lebanon since the start of the war on October 7 or their purpose. A defense source told Declassified UK that the flights “have been primarily for the purpose of facilitating senior military engagement” with the Lebanese army.

But it is widely assumed the planes are carrying weapons to Beirut to arm anti-Hezbollah militias. The US, UK, and Israel would presumably use these militias to attack Hezbollah from within the country in the case of an Israeli invasion from the south.

Declassified UK notes that nearly every Royal Air Force flight to Lebanon has been the Voyager KC mark 2, which can carry a payload of 45 tons and 291 personnel or provide air-to-air refueling. Another flight involved a vast C-17 cargo plane.

Israeli threats to invade Lebanon have accelerated in tandem with the increase in flights. Israeli military leaders have increasingly warned of a Lebanon campaign to push Hezbollah away from the border and past the Litani River.

Last week, the Israeli army approved “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon,” and the US pledged to support Israel with weapons if a full-scale war breaks out.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned of using its massive rocket and missile arsenal to hit targets across Israel in a “total war” if Tel Aviv decides to launch an invasion.

Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus, noting its role as a US, UK, and Israeli staging ground. “The Cypriot government must be warned that opening Cypriot airports and bases for the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance [Hezbollah] will deal with it as part of the war,” he said.

Nasrallah’s threat appeared to include the Akrotiri base, which lies in territory retained by the UK when Cyprus gained independence in 1960. The territory now hosts vast military and intelligence hubs for Britain and the US, Declassified UK notes.

In the wake of the 1999 Asian financial crisis, government representatives from the 20 largest economies in the world decided to informally gather to coordinate policy on trade. Thus began the G20.

Together the bloc accounts for more than 85% of the world economy and has been credited with unified policy action in response to world events.

However, despite this shared affiliation, this group is still made of fundamentally different economies with varied policies towards their business entities.

For a quick overview, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao visualizes and ranks the G20 countries by their headline corporate tax rates.

Data is sourced from Trading Economics, accessed June 2024. Data for the EU and the African Union (both G20 members) has not been included.

Ranked: G20 Members by Their Corporate Tax Rates

Argentina and India have the highest corporate income tax rates, at 35% in the G20.

However, both countries have a progressive ladder for taxation, so this headline number may only apply to a smaller subset of firms. For foreign companies with a “permanent entity” in India, the rate climbs past 40%.

Note: EU and African Union not included. Figures rounded. Data accessed June 2024.

Interestingly, BRICS countries cover the spectrum of corporate tax rates. Starting from the highest (India, Brazil) to middle of the pack (South Africa, China) to lowest (Russia).

On the other hand, most of the G7 cluster in the mid-ranges (24–30%), with Japan the highest outlier (31%) and the U.S. the lowest exception (21%).

In fact, after Saudi Arabia and Russia (20%), the U.S. has the third-lowest corporate tax rate of all G20 economies.

This wasn’t always the case.

The 2018 “Trump Tax” law was the largest overhaul of the tax code in three decades, part of which reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A team of Japanese scientists has uncovered an unexpected link between the gut and the brain. The discovery may offer fresh insights into managing a condition that affects 9 million people worldwide.

Deficiency of 2 B Vitamins Linked to Parkinson’s

The study, published in npj Parkinson’s Disease, suggests that vitamin B deficiency may contribute to Parkinson’s development by compromising the intestinal barrier, which typically prevents toxins from entering the bloodstream. Toxins in the bloodstream may lead to neuroinflammation, which is inflammation in the nervous system often associated with neurodegenerative diseases and other neurological conditions.

Researchers used shotgun sequencing to analyze stool samples, allowing them to identify changes in the microbial community and genetic makeup. The study found fewer genes in Parkinson’s patients’ gut bacteria responsible for making vitamins B2 (riboflavin) and B7 (biotin). Both have anti-inflammatory properties and may help counteract the neuroinflammation associated with Parkinson’s disease.

This suggests that B vitamin supplementation could potentially relieve Parkinson’s symptoms and even slow disease progression, Hiroshi Nishiwaki, the lead study author, said in a press release.

Previous research has already shown that high doses of riboflavin contribute to the recovery of some motor functions in Parkinson’s patients. While there’s no specific research on biotin supplementation for Parkinson’s, one study found that high doses of biotin improved symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis, another neurological disorder.

Customized for Individual Microbiomes

The findings also suggest that vitamin therapy could potentially be customized based on each patient’s unique microbiome profile to delay the onset of Parkinson’s-associated symptoms.

“We could perform gut microbiota analysis on patients or conduct fecal metabolite analysis,” Mr. Nishiwaki said in the press release.“ We could identify individuals with specific deficiencies and administer oral riboflavin and biotin supplements to those with decreased levels, potentially creating an effective treatment,” he added.

The study demonstrates the importance of the gut microbiome in the progression and initiation of Parkinson’s disease, a theory first hypothesized more than 20 years ago, Dr. Raminder Parihar, the director of neuromodulation at the Montefiore Neurological Surgery Movement Disorders Center who was not affiliated with the study, told The Epoch Times.

“This provides another avenue that should be further explored on using supplementation of riboflavin and biotin to slow the progression of Parkinson’s disease and potentially prevent the development of motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Parihar added.

Other Vitamins That Could Help

While no vitamins or nutrients can cure Parkinson’s disease, several may help alleviate symptoms or reduce risk. They include:

• Vitamin D: may reduce the risk of developing the condition
• Omega-3 fatty acids: anti-inflammatory; found in fatty fish, flaxseeds, and walnuts
• Vitamin E: antioxidant that may protect against neurodegeneration and reduce oxidative stress
• Magnesium: may alleviate symptoms like muscle cramps and rigidity
• B vitamins: B12 supplementation may help with fatigue and cognitive decline
• N-acetylcysteine (NAC): linked to dopaminergic improvement and reduced oxidative stress and inflammation
• Curcumin: found in turmeric; may protect dopamine-producing neurons
• Resveratrol: found in grapes, berries, and peanuts; may reduce oxidative stress
• Selenium: higher blood levels associated with reduced Parkinson’s risk

Dr. Parihar noted that some vitamins may interfere with levodopa, a drug commonly prescribed to Parkinson’s patients. Iron, for example, can affect the absorption of levodopa if taken simultaneously. He recommends taking iron supplements an hour after levodopa to allow for proper absorption.

Consult a health care professional before starting any supplements, as they may interact with medications or have side effects. While these vitamins and nutrients show potential benefits, they should not replace standard medical treatment for Parkinson’s disease.

Authored by George Georgiou via Naked Capitalism,

To be accused of impropriety on one occasion may be regarded as a misfortune but to be accused on four occasions looks like carelessness. (With apologies to Oscar Wilde)

If there is one individual who, more than anyone else, symbolises the ineptitude of the European Commission then it is surely the Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen (hereafter, VDL).

Questions about VDL’s lack of probity first surfaced in 2015 when she was accused of plagiarising her doctoral dissertation. She was eventually cleared of the accusations but as the BBC reported on 9 March 2016, the president of the Hannover Medical School, Christopher Baum, conceded that “Ms von der Leyen’s thesis did contain plagiarised material”, but he added “there had been no intent to deceive”. Her first lucky escape.

VDL’s lack of probity continued while she served as Germany’s Minister of Defence between 2013 and 2019. During her tenure at the ministry, she became embroiled in a scandal regarding payments of €250 million to consultants related to arms contracts. Germany’s Federal Audit Office found that, of the €250 million declared for consultancy fees, only €5.1 million had been spent. Furthermore, one of the consultants was McKinsey & Company, where VDL’s son was an associate, thus raising a possible conflict of interest. It also emerged that messages related to the contracts had been deleted from two of VDL’s mobile phones. Although she was eventually cleared of corruption allegations, questions over her probity during that period remain to this day.

Having survived two scandals, VDL couldn’t believe her luck when in July 2019 Macron, together with Merkel, bypassed the Spitzenkadidaten process and nominated her as Jean-Claude Junker’s successor as head of the European Commission. The Spitzenkadidaten process, through which the lead candidate emerges and is then ratified by the European Parliament, is itself somewhat arcane. In VDL’s case, she was fortunate that the EU couldn’t agree on either of the two lead candidates at the time, Martin Weber and Frans Timmermans. It was thus left to the consummate fixer, Macron, and VDL’s mentor, Merkel, to come to an agreement using that great democratic and transparent tool called the ‘backroom deal’. VDL’s nomination was accepted by the European Council and on 16 July the European Parliament voted to accept her appointment. But it was a close vote. Out of a total of 747 MEPs, only 383 voted for her, 327 voted against, 22 abstained, and one vote was invalid. Under the EU rules, the president of the Commission must be elected with more than 50% of the MEP votes. Thus, she received only 9 votes more than the threshold. Compare this to her predecessor, Juncker, who in 2014 received 422 votes.

After she was appointed president of the European Commission, VDL again became embroiled in controversy, this time involving the procurement of the Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer. The scandal, which the media dubbed Pfizergate, related to the purchase of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer vaccine for use across the EU. It transpired that: a) the number of doses was far greater than was required, resulting in a significant number having to be either destroyed or donated; b) the excess doses cost the EU €4 billion; c) the total value of the contract, which Politico reported as being approximately €20 billion, was inflated; and d) the most damaging charge, the contract for the vaccines was negotiated directly between VDL and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. The negotiations were conducted using sms messages, which VDL later claimed to have deleted.

The New York Times, which initially carried out the investigation into Pfizergate, brought a lawsuit against the European Commission for failing to provide access to the sms conversations between VDL and Bourla. In Belgium, a lobbyist, Frederic Baldan, filed a criminal complaint citing corruption and the destruction of documents. The Belgian lawsuit was eventually taken over by the European Public Prosecutors Office, which opened a criminal investigation. The outcome of these legal proceedings/investigations is still pending.

One would have thought that the imprudent VDL would have learned a lesson from all these transgressions but it seems that nothing will stand in the way of Ursula and a good scandal.

Which brings us to her latest impropriety, cronyism. In January of this year, VDL had appointed fellow CDU politician, Martin Pieper, to a newly created and lucrative post of special envoy for SMEs. The appointment was reported by La Matinale Europeenne in February but it wasn’t until April that the controversy surrounding the appointment received wide coverage in the English language media.

The appointment was controversial for two reasons: 1) the recruitment process was flawed and 2) the choice of Pieper was seen as politically motivated.

On the first issue, it was revealed by an anonymous EU official that there had been two other candidates, one from Sweden and one from the Czech Republic, who had scored better than Pieper in the recruitment process.

On the second issue, there was strong suspicion that Pieper had been chosen by VDL in order to curry favour with the CDU and thus win their backing for her reappointment as head of the European Commission. The appointment sparked a strong response both from other members of the Commission and from MEPs. Four senior Commissioners, including Joseph Borrell and the Internal Market Commissioner, Thiery Breton, wrote to VDL on 27 March expressing their concern about the appointment’s lack of transparency and impartiality. On 11 April, MEPs voted by 382 to 144 to rescind Pieper’s appointment. Although the vote was not binding on the Commission, Pieper’s position became untenable and on 16 April he resigned. In the words of Daniel Freund, a German/Greens MEP, reported on Euronews, it was “sad and shameful”. He added: “I don’t know how we can explain it to the voters”.

At the time of writing, Euronews has reported that a deal has been sealed for her reappointment. It’s not clear when the European Parliament will formerly vote for her but it’s likely to be later this week. The exact date is a trivial matter.

What is not trivial is that VDL’s reappointment for another 5 years, despite all the improprieties mentioned above, would confirm what many have been advocating for some time, that the EU needs radical reform.

EU citizens need to see that EU institutions are far more transparent, accountable and democratic.

Authored by Jeffrey Sachs via AntiWar.com,

For the fifth time since 2008, Russia has proposed to negotiate with the U.S. over security arrangements, this time in proposals made by President Vladimir Putin on June 14, 2024. Four previous times, the U.S. rejected the offer of negotiations in favor of a neocon strategy to weaken or dismember Russia through war and covert operations.

The U.S. neocon tactics have failed disastrously, devastating Ukraine in the process, and endangering the whole world.

After all the warmongering, it’s time for Biden to open negotiations for peace with Russia.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. grand strategy has been to weaken Russia. As early as 1992, then Defense Secretary Richard Cheney opined that following the 1991 demise of the Soviet Union, Russia too should be dismembered. Zbigniew Brzezinski opined in 1997 that Russia should be divided into three loosely confederated entities in Russian Europe, Siberia, and the far east. In 1999, the U.S.-led NATO alliance bombed Russia’s ally, Serbia, for 78 days in order to break Serbia apart and install a massive NATO military base in breakaway Kosovo. Leaders of the U.S. military-industrial complex vociferously supported the Chechen war against Russia in the early 2000s.

To secure these U.S. advances against Russia, Washington aggressively pushed NATO enlargement, despite promises to Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin that NATO would not move one inch eastward from Germany. Most tendentiously, the U.S. pushed NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia, with the idea of surrounding Russia’s naval fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea with NATO states: Ukraine, Romania (NATO member 2004), Bulgaria (NATO member 2004), Turkey (NATO member 1952), and Georgia, an idea straight from the playbook of the British Empire in the Crimean War (1853-6).

Brzezinski spelled out a chronology of NATO enlargement in 1997, including NATO membership of Ukraine during 2005-2010. The U.S. in fact proposed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit. By 2020, NATO had in fact enlarged by 14 countries in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia, 2009; Montenegro, 2017; and Northern Macedonia, 2020), while promising future membership to Ukraine and Georgia.

In short, the 30-year U.S. project, hatched originally by Cheney and the neocons, and carried forward consistently since then, has been to weaken or even dismember Russia, surround Russia with NATO forces, and depict Russia as the belligerent power.

It is against this grim backdrop that Russian leaders have repeatedly proposed to negotiate security arrangements with Europe and the U.S. that would provide security for all countries concerned, not just the NATO bloc. Guided by the neocon game plan, the U.S. has refused to negotiate on every occasion, while trying to pin the blame on Russia for the lack of negotiations.

In June 2008, as the U.S. prepared to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed a European Security Treaty, calling for collective security and an end to NATO’s unilateralism. Suffice it to say, the U.S. showed no interest whatsoever in Russia’s proposals, and instead proceeded with its long-held plans for NATO enlargement.

The second Russian proposal for negotiations came from Putin following the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, with the active complicity if not outright leadership of the U.S. government. I happened to see the U.S. complicity up close, as the post-coup government invited me for urgent economic discussions. When I arrived in Kiev, I was taken to the Maidan, where I was told directly about U.S. funding of the Maidan protest.

The evidence of U.S. complicity in the coup is overwhelming. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on a phone line in January 2014 plotting the change of government in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. Senators went personally to Kiev to stir up the protests (akin to Chinese or Russian political leaders coming to DC on January 6, 2021 to rile up the crowds). On February 21, 2014, the Europeans, U.S., and Russia brokered a deal with Yanukovych in which Yanukovich agreed to early elections. Yet the coup leaders reneged on the deal the same day, took over government buildings, threatened more violence, and deposed Yanukovych the next day. The U.S. supported the coup and immediately extended recognition to the new government.

In my view, this was a standard CIA-led covert regime change operation, of which there have been several dozen around the world, including sixty-four episodes between 1947 and 1989 meticulously documented by Professor Lindsey O’Rourke. Covert regime-change operations are of course not really hidden from view, but the U.S. government vociferously denies its role, keeps all documents highly confidential, and systematically gaslights the world: “Do not believe what you see plainly with your own eyes! The U.S. had nothing to do with this.” Details of the operations eventually emerge, however, through eyewitnesses, whistleblowers, the forced release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, declassification of papers after years or decades, and memoirs, but all far too late for real accountability.

In any event, the violent coup induced the ethnic-Russia Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine to break from the coup leaders, many of whom were extreme Russophobic nationalists, and some in violent groups with a history of Nazi SS links in the past. Almost immediately, the coup leaders took steps to repress the use of the Russian language even in the Russian-speaking Donbas. In the following months and years, the government in Kiev launched a military campaign to retake the breakaway regions, deploying neo-Nazi paramilitary units and U.S. arms.

In the course of 2014, Putin called repeatedly for a negotiated peace, and this led to the Minsk II Agreement in February 2015 based on autonomy of the Donbas and an end to violence by both sides. Russia did not claim the Donbas as Russian territory, but instead called for autonomy and the protection of ethnic Russians within Ukraine. The UN Security Council endorsed the Minsk II agreement, but the U.S. neocons privately subverted it. Years later, Chancellor Angela Merkel blurted out the truth. The Western side treated the agreement not as a solemn treaty but as a delaying tactic to “give Ukraine time” to build its military strength. In the meantime, around 14,000 people died in the fighting in Donbas between 2014 and 2021.

Following the definitive collapse of the Minsk II agreement, Putin again proposed negotiations with the U.S. in December 2021. By that point, the issues went even beyond NATO enlargement to include fundamental issues of nuclear armaments. Step by step, the U.S. neocons had abandoned nuclear arms control with Russia, with the U.S. unilaterally abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, placing Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania in 2010 onwards, and walking out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty in 2019.

In view of these dire concerns, Putin put on the table on December 15, 2021 a draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees.” The most immediate issue on the table (Article 4 of the draft treaty) was the end of the U.S. attempt to expand NATO to Ukraine. I called U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the end of 2021 to try to convince the Biden White House to enter the negotiations. My main advice was to avoid a war in Ukraine by accepting Ukraine’s neutrality, rather than NATO membership, which was a bright red line for Russia.

The White House flatly rejected the advice, claiming remarkably (and obtusely) that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine was none of Russia’s business! Yet what would the U.S. say if some country in the Western hemisphere decided to host Chinese or Russian bases? Would the White House, State Department, or Congress say, “That’s just fine, that’s a matter of concern only to Russia or China and the host country?” No. The world nearly came to nuclear Armageddon in 1962 when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba and the U.S. imposed a naval quarantine and threatened war unless the Russians removed the missiles. The U.S. military alliance does not belong in Ukraine any more than the Russian or Chinese military belongs close to the U.S. border.

The fourth offer of Putin to negotiate came in March 2022, when Russia and Ukraine nearly closed a peace deal just weeks after the start of Russia’s special military operation that began on February 24, 2022. Russia, once again, was after one big thing: Ukraine’s neutrality, i.e., no NATO membership and no hosting of U.S. missiles on Russia’s border.

Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky quickly accepted Ukraine’s neutrality, and Ukraine and Russia exchanged papers, with the skillful mediation of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey. Then suddenly, at the end of March, Ukraine abandoned the negotiations.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, following in the tradition of British anti-Russian war-mongering dating back to the Crimean War (1853-6), actually flew to Kiev to warn Zelensky against neutrality and the importance of Ukraine defeating Russia on the battlefield. Since that date, Ukraine has lost around 500,000 dead and is on the ropes on the battlefield.

Now we have Russia’s fifth offer of negotiations, explained clearly and cogently by Putin himself in his speech to diplomats at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14. Putin laid out Russia’s proposed terms to end the war in Ukraine.

“Ukraine should adopt a neutral, non-aligned status, be nuclear- free, and undergo demilitarization and de-nazification,” Putin said. “These parameters were broadly agreed upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, including specific details on demilitarization such as the agreed numbers of tanks and other military equipment. We reached consensus on all points.

“Certainly, the rights, freedoms, and interests of Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine must be fully protected,” he continued. “The new territorial realities, including the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions as parts of the Russian Federation, should be acknowledged. These foundational principles need to be formalized through fundamental international agreements in the future. Naturally, this entails the removal of all Western sanctions against Russia as well.”

Let me say a few words about negotiating.

Russia’s proposals should now be met at the negotiating table by proposals from the U.S. and Ukraine. The White House is dead wrong to evade negotiations just because of disagreements with Russia’s proposals. It should put up its own proposals and get down to the business of negotiating an end to the war.

There are three core issues for Russia:

1. Ukraine’s neutrality (non-NATO enlargement),

2. Crimea remaining in Russian hands, and

3. boundary changes in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

The first two are almost surely non-negotiable.

The end of NATO enlargement is the fundamental casus belli. Crimea is also core for Russia, as Crimea has been home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet since 1783 and is fundamental to Russia’s national security.

The third core issue, the borders of Eastern and Southern Ukraine, will be a key point of negotiations. The U.S. cannot pretend that borders are sacrosanct after NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to relinquish Kosovo, and after the U.S. pressured Sudan to relinquish South Sudan. Yes, Ukraine’s borders will be redrawn as the result of the 10 years of war, the situation on the battlefield, the choices of the local populations, and tradeoffs made at the negotiating table.

Biden needs to accept that negotiations are not a sign of weakness. As Kennedy put it, “Never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.” Ronald Reagan famously described his own negotiating strategy using a Russian proverb, “Trust but verify.”

The neocon approach to Russia, delusional and hubristic from the start, lies in ruins. NATO will never enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia. Russia will not be toppled by a CIA covert operation. Ukraine is being horribly bloodied on the battlefield, often losing 1,000 or more dead and wounded in a single day. The failed neocon game plan brings us closer to nuclear Armageddon.

Yet Biden still refuses to negotiate. Following Putin’s speech, the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine firmly rejected negotiations once again. Biden and his team have still not relinquished the neocon fantasy of defeating Russia and expanding NATO to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian people have been lied to time and again by Zelensky and Biden and other leaders of NATO countries, who told them falsely and repeatedly that Ukraine would prevail on the battlefield and that there were no options to negotiate. Ukraine is now under martial law. The public is given no say about its own slaughter.

For the sake of Ukraine’s very survival, and to avoid nuclear war, the President of the United States has one overriding responsibility today: Negotiate.

Authored by Beth Brelje via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against pro-life advocates, alleging violations under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law that prevents interfering with women entering abortion clinics.

The civil suit seeks a monetary penalty and an injunction preventing repeat offenders from continuing their activity, marking a departure from the criminal cases that have been brought to prosecute violators of the FACE Act in recent years. In previous cases, the DOJ has asked the court to sentence the alleged offenders to 11 years in prison for each offense.

The DOJ filed the lawsuit on June 20 in the Middle District of Florida against five people for violating the FACE Act two years ago at the Fort Myers Health Center, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

The case alleges that five people brought operations at the Fort Myers Health Center to a halt for at least one hour on Jan. 27, 2022. As a result, several patients had their appointments rescheduled or canceled, and one employee quit working there after eight years.

Named in the lawsuit are Calvin Zastrow of Michigan, a longtime pro-life advocate; Kenneth Scott of Florida, who has been charged numerous times for pro-life advocacy at abortion clinics and often represents himself in court; Chester Gallagher of Tennessee, a former police officer who left his job to advocate for the unborn; Eva Zastrow of Michigan, a missionary and pro-life activist; and Katelyn Sims, also known as Katelyn Velasco, of Texas.

The defendants trespassed onto a reproductive health center’s property, blocked the entrances, and temporarily stopped operations at the center, the complaint alleges.

The defendants were charged locally in Lee County and found guilty. Several pro-life minors were also arrested for the incident and charged locally with trespassing.

The defendants have been charged in previous FACE cases and are unlikely to stop showing up at abortion clinics, according to the complaint.

Stephen Crampton, senior counsel for Thomas More Society, will represent some of the defendants, who have been advised not to make statements about the case.

“This prosecution is yet another example of our two-tiered justice system ... whereby defenders of life are aggressively prosecuted while most who violently attacked churches and pro-life pregnancy centers are not brought to justice,” Mr. Crampton told The Epoch Times.

“While we are pleased the DOJ has pulled back from its effort to inflict draconian criminal punishment on these gentle pro-life advocates, we are disappointed that they have decided to relentlessly pursue these peaceful, nonviolent demonstrators and seek civil penalties—including ruinous fines—for events that occurred years ago and which resulted in local law enforcement already taking action, as our federalist system of government rightly contemplated,” he said.

Blocked Door

On Jan. 27, 2022, a Planned Parenthood security coordinator noticed the defendants arriving across the street from the Fort Myers Health Center at about 7:45 a.m. in several cars with out-of-state license plates, according to court papers. By 8:25 a.m., the center’s management was instructing employees to park at a tile outlet store’s parking lot next door and to wait for the security coordinator to escort them into the building.

As employees arrived to work, the abortion protesters allegedly shouted “baby murderer” and “you’re going to hell” at them, the complaint said. A Planned Parenthood doctor was instructed to stay in her car due to the protests, and the DOJ says she was unable to enter the business until 10:30 a.m.

The Lee County Sheriff’s Office then received reports from the Fort Myers Health Center that protesters were preventing individuals from entering the building, according to the complaint.

Some defendants walked onto the property in front of the sheriff’s deputies and toward the door, while yelling, “They are killing babies inside and you are not doing anything about it.”

A woman arrived for services while some defendants were blocking the door. The Planned Parenthood security officer had to pry open the door and the woman had to squeeze past the protesters to enter, court papers say.

Sheriff’s deputies arrested one protester for trespassing. Another was still sitting in front of the door and refused to leave. He was also arrested for trespassing.

Two other protesters went to the back door where employees had entered and tried to get in, but the door was locked, court papers say.

The protesters tried to shove signs under the door, and according to the DOJ, employees inside were frightened by the protesters’ attempts to get in the back door and grabbed weapons, including a scalpel and an IV pole, to defend themselves if the protesters got inside.

Those protesters were also arrested for trespassing.

Repeat Offenders

The defendants violated the FACE Act by blocking doors and intimidating women and abortion workers, the DOJ alleges, adding they have done it before and are likely to continue to commit such violations.

Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Zastrow, and his daughter, Ms. Zastrow, have been criminally convicted in a previous FACE case and await sentencing. The Zastrows await court for other cases in Michigan.

Each criminal case carries up to 11 years in federal prison. Instead of prison, this civil case asks for a penalty of $20,516 for first violations and no more than $30,868 for subsequent violations, plus damages of $5,000 for each person allegedly aggrieved by the defendants.

It is unclear how many people the DOJ is counting as aggrieved in this incident.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.