The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) denounces the attack Israel launched June 13 on Iran's nuclear facilities and its assassination of multiple senior officials and scientists. It is an egregious violation of the UN Charter and international law. The excuse of self-defence is only accepted by fellow assassins like the U.S. and Genocide 7 who are meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta, June 15-17.

CPC(M-L) condemns Canada's refusal to denounce this attack and its warning instead that Iran not take further action which "risks triggering a broader regional conflict with devastating consequences." It condemns the fact that Canada does not say a word about Israel's criminal attack on nuclear facilities which are under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This attack was a desperate attempt on the part of Israel to divert attention from its starvation of the Palestinian people in Gaza, as well as derail the talks for a ceasefire in the occupied Palestinian territories and the talks between Iran and the United States to reach a new nuclear deal and lift the sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Iran.

Canada is 100 per cent involved. It must be held to account for its support of the Zionist apartheid state of Israel and its argument that Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people is justified in the name of self-defence. The Zionist claim that the legitimate resistance of an occupied people constitutes terrorism is repeated by Canada and the G7, as is the accusation that criticism of Israel -- which is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity -- is anti-semitism.

Without a word about Israel's very dangerous violation of international law and the UN Charter after it attacked Iran, Canada declared that "the protection of civilians must be paramount" and that "(d)e-escalation must be the priority. We urge all parties to refrain from actions that further destabilize the region."

Given the crimes Israel is committing -- with the blood of tens of thousands of Palestinians on its hands and its aggression for the second time against Iran, carrying out assassinations -- it is beyond trite to tell Iran that the protection of civilians is the priority.

Canada and the G7 are so criminal in their support for the illicit acts against the peoples fighting for peace, freedom and democracy that they are reduced to repeating lies like those of Colin Powell and the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They blame Iran for allegedly producing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them against Israel. It is very necessary to oppose the government of Canada and those of the other G7 countries, beginning with the United States, which use positions of power to repeat lies and declare that those who expose these lies are anti-Semites and terrorists.

Whatever hope Canada has that Israel will get away with its genocide of the Palestinian people will fail. Israel is creating a holocaust in Palestine through, amongst other crimes, the deliberate starvation of the population they have forced to live under siege, including women, children and the elderly, and the killing of journalists and humanitarian workers.

As for the despicable U.S. President Donald Trump, he said about the attack on Iran, "I think it's been excellent. We gave them a chance and they didn't take it..."

"They got hit about as hard as you're going to get hit. And there's more to come. A lot more," he was quoted as saying in a June 13 interview with ABC News. He added in a post on his "Truth Social" that "Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to 'make a deal.' They should have done it! Today is day 61... Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!"

Iran, pointing out that Israel would rue the day it attacked Iran, exercised its right to self-defence, putting to rest all ideas entertained by the Israeli Zionists and Genocide 7 that the Israeli aggression had crippled Iran.

Condemn Israel's Assault on Iran, Its Nuclear Facilities and Assassinations!
Condemn the Use of Force to Sort Out Problems!
Demand Canada Condemn This Aggression!

Actions Stand with Palestine and Demand End to Israeli Attacks on Iran

Montreal

June 14

Toronto

June 13

June 15

Chicago, USA

June 14

New York City, USA

June 14

London, England

June 14

The Hague, Netherlands

150,000 people reject Israeli aggression on June 15.

Tehran, Iran

June 14

Sana'a, Yemen

One million people condemn Israel's aggression, June 13.

Seoul, Korea

June 14

Statement by Islamic Republic of Iran
to UN Security Council

June 13, 2025 Security Council meeting

The following statement was delivered by H.E. Mr. Amir Saeid Iravani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations on June 13 at the emergency meeting of the Security Council to demand Israel be held to account for its illegal aggression against Iran during the early hours of the morning.

Madam President,

We extend our sincere congratulations to Guyana on assuming the Presidency of the Security Council this month, and we thank you for your coordination and for convening this urgent and important meeting.

We appreciate USG [Under-Secretary-General], Ms. DiCarlo, and DG [IAEA Director General], Mr. Grossi, for their contribution to this meeting.

We also wish to express our appreciation to Algeria, Pakistan, China, and the Russian Federation for their support in convening this emergency session to address Israel's unlawful act of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a grave violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

I address the Council today on behalf of the people and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the utmost urgency and grave alarm.

Madam President,

Last night, the Israeli regime, the most dangerous and terrorist regime in the world, with full intelligence and political support from the United States regime, conducted a series of coordinated and premeditated military attacks across multiple cities in Iran. These acts of aggression and unlawful strikes target peaceful nuclear facilities, military sites, vital civilian infrastructure, and residential areas.

Among the key targets was the Natanz nuclear facility, a safeguarded site under the full monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Madam President,

We strongly and unequivocally condemn these barbaric and criminal attacks. A series of targeted assassinations were against senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and innocent civilians. So far, 78 people, including senior military officials, have been martyred and over 320 others injured, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, including women and children.

Earlier today, Israel continued its acts of aggression against Iran, once again targeting multiple civilian and military sites across several Iranian cities.

These deliberate and systematic killings were not only illegal but inhumane, a chilling display of calculated aggression.

These atrocities constitute clear acts of state terrorism and flagrant violations of international law.

Madam President,

The inaction of the United Nations, the Security Council, and the IAEA, despite repeated and documented warnings by the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding Israeli threats against its nuclear sites, has seriously undermined their credibility and authority. Their silence in the face of repeated Israeli provocations has emboldened this rogue regime to escalate its violations and cross every red line.

Let us be clear: this reckless attack on safeguarded nuclear facilities defies not only the fundamental principles of international law but also basic human conscience. Any damage to these facilities risks catastrophic radiological consequences that would not be confined to Iran, but could spread across the region and beyond. Only a regime devoid of humanity and responsibility would endanger millions of lives in pursuit of its destructive ambitions.

These actions stand in direct violation of numerous legal instruments, including the IAEA Statute, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Geneva Conventions, and multiple Security Council and IAEA General Conference resolutions, all of which prohibit attacks or threats against nuclear facilities under safeguards.

Above all, this aggression is a grave breach of the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any Member State.

Israel also violated Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Permanent Mission of Iraq today formally protested and condemned this violation of its territorial integrity in a letter to the Security Council and the Secretary-General.

Madam President,

Those who support this regime, with the United States at the forefront, must understand that they are complicit. By aiding and enabling these crimes, they share full responsibility for the consequences. Supporting Israel today is supporting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the deliberate undermining of global peace and security.

The Israeli regime's long-standing crimes against the oppressed Palestinian people, its repeated violations of the sovereignty of regional countries, and its possession of undeclared weapons of mass destruction have made the Middle East a cauldron of chronic instability since its creation. It is long overdue for the international community to act: this regime must be disarmed of all WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction], placed under international supervision, and held fully accountable.

Madam President,

This is not a regional issue. This is not merely an attack on one country. This is a direct assault on the international order, an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, the UN system, the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, as well as the authority of the IAEA.

Israel's leadership, including its criminal Prime Minister, has shamelessly and publicly claimed responsibility for these heinous acts. Israel's officials said that this aggression aims to "wreck nuclear talks." This confession alone is enough to reveal the real motives behind the attack: to kill diplomacy, to sabotage negotiations, and to drag the region into wider conflict. This leaves no room for denial.

Furthermore, the aggression was intentional, coordinated, and fully backed by a permanent member of this Council, the United States.

The United States complicity in this terrorist attacks is beyond doubt, the officials of the United States have expressly and brazenly confessed their willful aid and assistance in the crimes and gross violations that the Israeli regime committed as of last night including their deliberate transfer of arms; we will not forget that our people lost their lives as result of the Israeli attacks with American weapons.

These actions amount to a declaration of war. They are the latest in a long and well-documented pattern of lawless, destabilizing, and aggressive behaviour by the Israeli regime, a regime that acts with impunity because it is shielded by powerful allies. This must end.

Madam President,

The Security Council must act now, firmly and decisively. In 1981, this very Council responded unanimously to Israel's military attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor by adopting Resolution 487 (1981), which unequivocally condemned the aggression as a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Council also called on this criminal regime to refrain from any such acts or threats in the future. Had the Council enforced that resolution and held Israel accountable at the time, this regime would not have been emboldened to continue its unlawful behaviour with impunity. The current aggression is a direct consequence of decades of inaction and double standards.

Madam President,

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms its inherent right to self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iran will respond decisively and proportionately to these acts of aggression, at a time, in a place, and by means of its choosing. This is not a threat. It is the natural, legal, and necessary consequence of an unprovoked military attack.

Iran's response will be firm, lawful, and essential to restore deterrence, defend our sovereignty, and uphold the principles of international law. No aggressor can be allowed to act with impunity.

Madam President,

We have requested this emergency meeting because we expect this Council to fulfill its Charter mandate. The Security Council must condemn, in the strongest possible terms, Israel's unlawful aggression. It must take immediate, concrete measures to hold the Israeli regime accountable and to prevent the further erosion of international peace and security.

Anything less would signal the collapse of the international system and invite chaos.

Let me conclude with a simple and undeniable truth:

Israel attacked Iran.

Israel violated international law and the UN Charter.

And Israel must be held accountable.

The Security Council must act now and stop these acts of aggression immediately.

Silence is complicity in this crime.

Thank you.

G7 Leaders' Summit, Kananaskis, Alberta, June 15-17, 2025

Unity Escapes the Genocide 7 Meeting
in Kananaskis

– Pauline Easton –

This year Canada hosts the meetings of the G7 that have culminated with the Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, June 15-17.

The topics on the agenda in Kananaskis and meetings taking place on the sidelines, with the many guests Canada's prime minister invited to participate, seem intended to cover up the divisions within the ranks of the G7 as each country promotes the supranational narrow private interests which have usurped the state power of these countries whose governments are at their disposal. Despite Mark Carney's cringing obsequiousness toward Donald Trump in welcoming him to the meeting of the G7, the fact remains that unity escapes the Genocide 7 meeting in Kananaskis. Its aim is to use the positions of power and privilege of the mighty host gathered there, to impose their dictate for restructuring their states and economic transformation which will bring great harm to the natural and social environments of their own countries and the world. Their meeting also serves to prepare for the NATO Summit to be held in The Hague on June 24-25 and there will be no unity there either. The Genocide 7 is militantly opposed by the peoples of the world fighting for peace, freedom and democracy. It is the peoples of the world who make history, not the oligarchs whose agenda is posing grave dangers of more impoverishment and famines, genocide and war.

Canada's prime minister is leading the proceedings with great hubris. He has set the stage for Canada's increased participation in war preparations and even declares that the U.S. is stepping away from its role as international leader therefore Canada will lead. He repeatedly says that the world is becoming more dangerous and divided while wholeheartedly supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza, NATO's attempt to defeat Russia in Ukraine and now its attacks on Iran as "self-defence."

In preparation for the G7 Summit, Prime Minister Carney set a frenzied pace hoping to handle everything to justify the restructuring of the Canadian state and economy to create a war government and war economy. He is gearing Canada's human, natural and social resources to war production in the name of security, prosperity and peace.

Repeatedly Carney tells Canadians they have to make sacrifices to make Canada the "True North, free and strong." He endlessly repeats that defending "Canadian values" is the cornerstone of everything his government does which underscores that in furthering the agenda of the narrow private interests, whosoever defends their right to conscience, speech and assembly and to organize free of state intervention and violence will be declared persona non grata and criminalized.

The danger to the peace and security of the peoples of the world comes from the Genocide 7 and NATO, not the peoples' resistance movements and their striving to realize their right to be. The G7 efforts to strengthen their economies through more nation-wrecking, anti-social measures internally and use of force abroad is to enforce the control by narrow private interests of the productive forces which have become so powerful the rulers and their state, as established during the 17th to 20th centuries, can no longer control them. While political renewal and the empowerment of the peoples is the order of the day, the G7 countries are frenziedly trying to control every country that refuses to submit to their domination and dictate.

The mass actions across the U.S. and the worldwide resistance will hold the United States and other Genocide 7 countries and their collaborators to account. The mass support for Palestine, as well as opposition to Israel's aggression against Iran, demands for a permanent ceasefire in Ukraine and the peoples fighting in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Oceania are mass movements fighting for their peoples' right to be. All acts of opposition to the vicious anti-people, anti-social and war agenda of the Genocide 7 are the peoples' response.

Militant Rally and March in Calgary Express People's Defiant Opposition to G7's
Anti-People Agenda

– Peggy Askin –

Two thousand people of all ages and walks of life took part in a militant rally and march in Calgary on June 15 to affirm their opposition to the G7 Summit taking place in Kananaskis from June 15 to 17. People took a stand on many fronts, among others climate justice, saving the eastern slopes of the Rockies from foreign coal interests, defending migrant rights, and demanding an end to the debt crisis.

The rally and march was a huge success because the people defied the atmosphere of fear and terror that the state, its police forces and media tried to create to keep them from expressing their opposition to the anti-human, anti-national and warmongering agenda of the G7.

There were two rallies at Calgary City Hall, starting with a "Hands Off Our Water" rally, that preceded the one aimed at the G7 in particular. Indigenous speakers and other water protectors spoke out against the narrow private aims of the G7 and the fossil fuel, mining, and other extraction industries which feed the G7 warmongers and are destroying the planet and the very future of humanity. Indigenous speakers, most from Alberta, took a firm stand in joining with other struggles around the world to affirm the right to be of all peoples to peace, justice and a bright future for all. They noted that many Indigenous nations in Canada and around the world do not have access to safe drinking water, which is essential for life. A Palestinian youth noted that the Zionist occupiers of Palestine have contaminated water or restricted access to water for the Palestinians as a tool of an ongoing 77-year genocide. The rallies underscored the unity of the peoples of the world standing as one to protect the human and social environment against the G7 leaders and their narrow private, self-serving agendas.

Water Rally at Calgary city hall

Following the rallies at Calgary City Hall, the International League of Peoples' Struggle led a march that highlighted the crimes committed by the G7 countries, led by the U.S., around the world, including their active role in supporting the U.S./Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people. It was also pointed out that environmental damage caused through imperialist wars has displaced tens of millions of people around the world. Protesters chanted various slogans such as U.S. Imperialists, Number One Terrorist! Genocide 7 Not Welcome in Canada! War Criminals Out of Canada! and many slogans that supported the Palestinian people.

The march stopped first at the U.S. Consulate where a speaker from Anakbayan, a patriotic Filipino youth organization, denounced the crimes that the U.S. has perpetrated including the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians, increasing war exercises in the Asia Pacific against China and the attacks against Indigenous Peoples to steal their resources, from the Philippines to Canada.

The march then continued to the federal building where people chanted Carney, Carney You Can't Hide, We Charge You with Genocide! The marchers demanded that Canada immediately impose an arms embargo against Israel and once again chanted slogans in support of the Palestinian people.

The participants defiantly marched past line after line of riot police flanking the roads of downtown Calgary, stopping to watch a popular theatre performance which highlighted how institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been used for decades as instruments of the U.S. and other rich nations of the G7. They impoverish the countries and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America through onerous "development loans" which have resulted in many countries spending more than half of their GDP in interest payments. The demand was made to cancel endless debt servicing that enslaves and prevents so many countries from meeting the needs of their people.

With red flags held high and a banner declaring G7 Assassins Not Welcome in Canada! a contingent from CPC(M-L) participated in the rally and march and distributed the Party's statement: "Condemn Israel's Attack on Iran! G7 Assassins Not Welcome in Canada. Condemn Israel's Assault On Iran, Its Nuclear Facilities and Assassinations. Demand Canada Condemn This Aggression," and also distributed recent issues of TML In The News about the G7. Participants were eager to take both and many people took photos of the Party's banner and thanked the Party contingent for its bold stand.

The people's march ended back at City Hall where the organizers thanked all the participants and affirmed their pledge to continue political organizing to end the rule of the G7 and their agenda.

Lively Counter-Summit in Calgary Stands Firm Against Genocide 7

– Philip Fernandez –

As part of the events organized to protest the warmongering anti-social program of the Genocide 7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis, close to 150 people from across Canada, as well as international guests, participated in a People's Counter-Summit in Calgary on June 14. The event was organized by the International League of Peoples' Struggle (ILPS) in Canada.

The event was chaired by Yasmeen Khan, North American Vice-Chair of the ILPS, who noted that the counter-summit was organized to give expression to the resistance of the Canadian people toward the Genocide 7 whose economic, social and foreign policies are creating crisis after crisis for the world's peoples. She said a broad anti-imperialist front is needed to challenge the G7.

Victor Garces, member of the ILPS International based in Utrecht, Netherlands, gave an overview of the current global situation, pointing out that the G7 countries are in the midst of an economic and political crisis made worse by U.S. President Trump's tariff threats. He noted that the agenda of the G7 is driven by the global imperialists whose main aim is to enrich themselves at the expense of the well-being of the peoples, targeting the most vulnerable workers such as migrant workers and refugees, highlighting the necessity to fight back as an organized anti-imperialist force.

The late Luis Jalandoni, an outstanding revolutionary communist leader of the Filipino people, who passed away on June 7, was also honoured at the event for his lifelong commitment and contributions to the liberation of the Philippines and all oppressed peoples.

Two panel discussions addressing "Anti-Militarization, Indigenous Sovereignty and National Liberation Struggles" and "Organizing Workers, Migrants and Neighbourhoods" generated lively exchanges among participants and practical ideas for further organizing.

Several resolutions were adopted aimed at raising the level of political organizing among migrant workers, unions, housing rights and anti-war groups to challenge the rule of the Genocide 7 cartel of countries.

The day's events included informal discussions, Indigenous cultural performances, songs of working class resistance and a poetry recital. Plans for events the next day which included a Hands Off Our Water Rally and March to Resist the G7, were also finalized.

Plans of G7 Countries to "Restructure the State" and for "National Renewal"

In the name of strengthening democracy, the changes the G7 countries are implementing are part of the continuing restructuring of the state in favour of private oligarchic interests. This is precisely what the Carney government is doing with its grand plans to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, what Donald Trump is doing in the United States, and the government of Keir Starmer in Britain. How this is being done the Carney government will show, among other things, at the G7 leaders' Summit in Kananaskis.

It is instructive to review and discuss Starmer's plan for Britain given that it is indicative of what G7 countries are up to when they speak of restructuring the state. Their arguments about renewal seek to cover up that their aim is to surmount the bounds their constitutions impose on the use of the prerogative powers of the executive. This is what Canadians can expect from their government as well. Despite the fact that Britain's constitution is unwritten, its fundamentals are the same as those of Canada and the other G7 countries, including the United States. And they are all in crisis because these fundamentals are no longer suitable to the needs of the productive forces today.

British Government's Plan for "Active Government" and "National Renewal"

On March 13, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a keynote speech in which he outlined his government's program for "fundamental reform of the British state." The central theme of the Labour government's "Plan for Change" is that it will enable "active government" so as to achieve its goals of "national security" and "national renewal." Under the signboard of "enhancing effectiveness and efficiency," the reforms are directed to enabling both the state and private interests to operate unfettered by regulatory constraint.[1]

Besides measures to keep the working class and people in line and use public funds to finance investments in what is called critical infrastructure, under the banner of "responding to security challenges," Britain seeks to continue playing a belligerent and interventionist role. Its striving for domination on the coattails of the U.S. striving to be recognized as the world's "indispensable nation" is to continue unchallenged.

Current and previous experience reveals that there is nothing fundamentally new with this British plan but there will be more of it. The plan begins with eliminating the rule of law as enacted by the Parliament in favour of executive rule. This means rule on the basis of the police powers of the executive or even its military powers, the one referring to police rule and the other to military rule, as when the armed forces are convoked to suppress citizens' right to speak and assembly and defend themselves when attacked by the state, as is happening, for instance, in Los Angeles at this time.

In the face of plans to restructure the state, the only response is to be vigilant and step up the fight in defence of the rights of all and for people's empowerment.

British Labour Party's "Plan for Change"

According to Starmer, a plan is needed for "active government" and "national renewal" because the state is "weaker than it's ever been."

Given the massive power the British state wields in the world, it can be safely said that this statement advances "a deceptive or misleading argument that uses clever but ultimately false reasoning to persuade someone of a conclusion. It's a form of argumentation that relies on fallacies and misrepresentations to achieve a desired effect."[2]

For example, Starmer corroborates his statement that "the (British) state is 'weaker than it's ever been'" by using misleading arguments which he seems to think are convincing and valid. In reality Starmer's elaboration of this claim is incredulous. His "reasoning" merely raises the question: What is Starmer up to now?

"Politicians chose to hide behind a vast array of quangos, arm's length bodies and regulators, you name it," Starmer says. "A sort of cottage industry of checkers and blockers," he adds.

At this point, we are supposed to say, "Checkers and blockers? Wow, surely that's no good! We gotta get rid of them!"

And who are these "checkers and blockers" if not the "vast array of quangos" put in place by no other than the likes of Starmer's government.

In Britain, the word "quango" is short for "Quasi Autonomous Non-Government Organizations." They are pay-the-rich creations put in place by neo-liberal governments. In the name of efficiency and expertise and eliminating red tape, these governments have been hiring unaccountable crony private consultants and agencies, provided by dominant oligopolies, to do the work which rightfully belongs to the civil service. Millions of dollars are handed them despite the experience that they mostly engage in corrupt practices. The evidence is then pushed under the carpet which covers the floor of Privy Council offices.

By describing the current arrangements as "overstretched, unfocused, and ineffective" in delivering services and security, Starmer hopes to cover up the fact that governments such as his have brought in the "quangos" as part of their program to privatize all decision-making at the behest of the oligopolies. These oligopolies have usurped government responsibilities and the results have been such that the anti-democratic corrupt practices of the "quangos" have been denounced by the people on a very broad basis. Now, either these governments go the route of Donald Trump and put an Elon Musk directly in charge of everything, or they invent new ways of achieving the same thing.

What can be deduced from Starmer's presentation thus far is that we are to believe that the changes he is proposing are a means to deliver results by eliminating bureaucratic obstacles and opposition, thereby enhancing the government's capacity to act decisively.

In the case of Britain, the ruling class went so far as to peddle a fraudulent method of accountability called deliverology. Deliverology was designed to cover up that whatever was promised was precisely not delivered which is why it failed completely when Trudeau also tried to introduce it in Canada after he was elected in 2015. For example, wait lists for surgeries were to be reduced and reduced they were -- by placing people on the wait lists on new wait lists to get on the wait lists.

Now Starmer is "retailing" new ideas for justifying putting the power of the state in private hands. This is anathema to the liberal democratic institutions founded on the conception that the legislatures are to hold the ministers to account for how they use the prerogative powers of the executive. In other words, they should not be used with impunity. But, according to Starmer, the government must fundamentally reform the British state to better secure national and economic security by having business interests take direct charge of services to the public. He calls this "renewing public trust" by "cutting bureaucratic red tape and directing resources to the priorities of working people."

He must think the British working class was born yesterday and that it does not understand what "cutting bureaucratic red tape and directing resources to the priorities of working people" means!

According to Starmer, in a globally unstable and rapidly changing world, "a leaner, more dynamic, and digitally-enabled state is essential for delivering results, particularly in public services and infrastructure projects."

Underlying Starmer's proposal is a reactionary vision of national renewal based on a government that can act at will to dismantle what it deems to be bureaucratic obstacles. The entire thing is framed as "restoring democratic control" over public services.

It is all about "retailing politics." This is the cynical expression which has come into use in Britain. Used by governments and media, it underscores that what they call politics has nothing to do with a vision which looks after the well-being of the body politic. It is all about putting lipstick on a pig.

It is akin to the crocogator they speak about in Texas. It has two heads and no hole (to evacuate the waste).

For Your Information: Starmer's Keynote Speech

The newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), Workers' Weekly (WW), provides information on the speech delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing his government's program for "fundamental reform of the British state."

WW informs that Starmer announced the government's decision to abolish NHS England (the National Health Service) and bring it back into direct control by the government and the Department of Health.

The government's claim of bringing the NHS back into "democratic control" is a deception, WW points out, adding "As well as justifying large cuts, this re-organization is intended to bring the NHS under the control of the Executive, replacing one top-down system of control with another."

"Economically, it is the straightforward cutting of investments in social programs and boosting military spending," WW writes.

The government also recently announced a series of changes to the civil service.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, speaking on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on March 6, said that the changes are "part of what we believe in, that the state can provide both security and opportunity for people."[3]

"That will guide us in our actions, it's upfront in our policies, so we will be radical about this, but it's about getting bang for our buck in terms of the outcomes for the public, it isn't an ideological approach to stripping back the state," McFadden said (wink wink!).

WW writes: "The shake-up focuses on digitization and stricter performance targets. Underperforming officials could be incentivized to leave their jobs, and senior officials' pay will be linked to performance. A new target aims to have one in 10 civil servants working in a digital or data role within five years, aligning Whitehall with private sector benchmarks.

"The Cabinet Office will guide the move by avoiding tasks where digital alternatives or AI could do it better, quicker, and to the same quality. The government plans to cut about 10,000 civil service roles, but has yet to commit to a specific figure. Senior civil servants not meeting standards will be put on development plans, with the aim of firing them if no improvement is made within six months.

"Pre-empting the coming announcements, the civil servants' union, the FDA, had issued a New Year message back in January, giving their independent view on the need to reform the civil service. Assistant General Secretary Lauren Crowley emphasized the importance of meaningful pay reform for improving efficiency, attracting skills, and retaining talent. She criticized the slow pace of change and called for a long-term strategy based on a pay reform plan. Crowley called for clear objectives, agreed finances, and a new cabinet secretary to lead the charge.

"In February, the FDA criticized the proposed new performance management framework. The framework will exacerbate low morale, and the resulting recruitment and retention issues, warned the union. And in March, FDA General Secretary Dave Penman expressed concern over the government's most recent announcements. He criticized the government's treatment of civil servants, as well as the imposing way in which the announcements were made, urging the government to consult unions and staff before making major announcements in the press.

"Penman indeed emphasized the need for reform in the civil service, but stated that it must have substance, raising in this sense the question of the aim and content of the changes. He also emphasized the importance of engagement, where civil service employees are involved in what should be a reciprocal relation."

WW concludes: "Despite the government's framing of its planned changes as democratic reforms intended to return power to the people, they actually serve to increase executive power and reduce regulatory oversight. [...] Public authority at every level is increasingly the exercise of arbitrary power. The ruling elite are constantly seeking new arrangements, while the state devours itself as political factions and various parts of the existing arrangements contend for control.

There Is an Alternative

"The alternative is one in which the working people themselves constitute the authority and decide matters directly. This means that those who currently deprive the people of power will themselves be deprived of power. The desperation to prevent this alternative from taking root is creating political chaos, for which the answer is being sought in the police powers and the rearrangement of the state around the wielding of those powers.

"The government is taking further the rearranging of the state around the concentration of political power in the inner circle of the Prime Minister and eliminating any rival centres of power. In opposition, the will to be of the modern democratic personality demands the alternative in which all speak in their own name, expressing itself in the resistance through which people are speaking in their own name and rejecting the existing conception of authority."

Notes

1. "PM remarks on the fundamental reform of the British state," Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, March 13, 2025.

2. The term "sophistry" refers to the practice of using clever but unsound arguments to deceive or mislead others. Sophistic arguments often rely on logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that make an argument invalid. The goal of a sophistic statement is to make a false or misleading argument appear valid and convincing. Sophistic statements are designed to lead someone to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence or logical reasoning. (Study.com)

3. The Duchy of Lancaster is a "royal estate," i.e. "private property" which belongs to the Duke of Lancaster who is always the reigning monarch, i.e. Charles III. It is a "Royal Estate" as distinct from "The Crown Estate" which is said to generate money for the Treasury. The Crown Estate owns a portfolio of properties worth £15.6 billion, including 241 in central London.

The monarch owns the seabed and half of the foreshore around large parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, generating revenues from oil and gas drilling rights and royalties, as well as wind and wave farm developments.

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch "in right of the Crown" but it is not their private property. The monarch surrenders the revenue from the estate to the Treasury each year for the benefit of the nation's finances, in exchange for the sovereign grant.

Under the taxpayer-funded sovereign grant, which is currently £86.3 million a year, the King receives 25 per cent of the Crown Estate's annual surplus, including an extra 10 per cent for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

The funding arrangement dates back to 1760, when George III reached an agreement to surrender his income from the estate in return for an annual fixed payment.

However, the right to collect royalties from wind and wave power around the British coastline was handed to the monarchy in 2004, when Tony Blair's Labour government granted it through an act of parliament. Amid the transition to low-carbon energy, seabed plots have become more sought after and lucrative for the Crown over the last two decades.

The current value of the seabed rights is estimated at £5 billion, and six newly awarded licences could generate up to £9 billion over the next 10 years.

For Your Information

Origins of "True North, Strong and Free"

– Pierre Soublière –

An oft-repeated phrase when referring to Canada has become "True North, strong and free." A line from Canada's national anthem, it was repeated by Charles III when he concluded the Throne Speech, as part of reaffirming the authority of the Westminster democratic institutions imbued with the colonialist values of the British Empire in the 19th century when Canada was constituted by the British North America Act (BNA Act) adopted by the British Imperial Parliament.

The expression replaced "Elle sait porter la croix" in Adolphe-Basile Routhier's poem Ô Canada. Its use in the Throne Speech is ambiguous at a time references to "the North" bring to mind things like Fortress North America, the defence of the Arctic and NORAD, and Canada's obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The phrase "True North" was used in a poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson titled "To the Queen" (1851) which invoked loyalty to the Crown and its munificence.

The phrase was popularized in the 1868-76 period, in the wake of the BNA Act in the context of a movement called "Canada First." This movement is described as follows by Jean Morisset in his book Sur la piste du Canada errant:

"In order to make up for the lack of inspiration of the Constitutional Act and to boost a so-called 'Confederation which inspired as much interest as the creation of a joint-stock company,' according to Robert Grant Haliburton, Ottawa supported the creation in 1868 of a patriotic movement called 'Canada First.' Its mandate was to inspire the political development and national pride of the newly-founded country."

Morisset points out that the aims of the ideological movement Canada First were made clear in 1871 in Toronto at a public conference organized by William Alexander Foster titled 'Canada First, our new nationality.' Having subjugated the Quebec people and the Indigenous Peoples and consolidated the Dominion with regards to the United States, the elites at the time sought to create a Canadian identity based on 'Nordicity,' with the presumption that "Northmen" -- of the same mettle as the Normans and Vikings -- belonged to a superior race chosen by fate.

Wikipedia points out that the Canada First movement "saw the French Canadian and Métis cultures as dead weight that was holding the advancement of English Canada back."

This notion of the racial superiority of the defenders of the British Empire had been expressed several years earlier in the Durham Report in which Lord Durham says of the Quebeckers of that era, among other things, "Given the fact that they have preserved their language and their specific customs, they are deprived of the joys and influences of Arts and Letters granted to the superior race."

This notion of "superior race" goes hand in hand with that of terra nullius, the colonial concept made legal allowing European colonial powers to take control of lands considered to be "empty," "without a master" or "uninhabited."

According to the president of Inuit Tapirik Kunatami, Natan Obed, when O Canada was informally adopted as the national anthem in 1939, the term "True North, strong and free"had little practical meaning to Inuit, who did not have the self-determination to stop unilaterial government actions, relocations, residential schools, the killing of their sled dogs and the militarization of their lands. Obed says that the view that prevails that Inuit Nunangat is the empty and barren "north" neglects Inuit history, rights and political realities.

The fact that Carney, his King and their retinues have taken up this old colonial slogan, much in the same way they keep repeating the slogan of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, "Slava Ukraini," shows that their democratic institutions are instilled with colonial "values" of racial supremacy and of terra nullius. This is reflected in the fact that they consider Quebec and Canadian workers and Indigenous Peoples to be disposable and that they insist that they must not have a say in matters of concern such as those raised in the Throne Speech which, at both the provincial and federal levels, are tantamount to a declaration of war on the people and on the human and natural environment.

The response to Carney's fraudulent defence of Canada's sovereignty, in fact a defence of the narrow interests of the financial oligarchs, was immediate. The same day as that Charles III read the Throne Speech, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to break all ties with the monarchy. A few weeks later, the First Nations of Ontario and Alberta stood their ground and reiterated that they will defend, more than ever, their hereditary and treaty rights.

The fact that the Quebec people and the Indigenous Peoples have and still affirm, by their very existence and resistance, their right to be and the demand for modern constitutional arrangements based on a free union are concrete refutations of the chauvinist and racist origins of the phrase which refers to Canada as "True North, strong and free."

G7 Finance Ministers' Meeting in Banff, May 20-22

Shameless Promotion of Carney's Illusions
of Grandeur

– Nick Lin –

A Department of Finance Canada press release about the G7 finance ministers' meeting reveals the arrogant purpose of the Mark Carney government to save the world by auctioning off Canada's resources.

"Canada is a stable, reliable, and innovative partner with a wealth of natural resources and expertise. Through our G7 Presidency, we will shape the global agenda -- working with allies and partners to grow our economies, defend Canadians' interests, and address the most pressing global challenges," the statement reads.

Neither the press release nor the final communiqué issued by the finance ministers and bank governors in Banff on May 22 concerning the preoccupations of the meeting resemble the reality of working people in Canada or any of the G7 countries. Nor do they correspond to the Carney government's own purported aim to assert Canada's sovereignty in the face of the U.S. tariff war and threats of annexation.

Not a word is said about the ongoing chaos resulting from U.S. tariffs against much of the world, as if the U.S. has not been the cause of major disruptions in the global economy and interference in the economies of other countries and international trade. This is of course what "pragmatic diplomacy" is all about -- to only speak about points on which the participants converge, not on the things they disagree about, such as Trump's tariffs. In this way, the fraudulent claim is made that they are a united front.

As far as Canadians are concerned, G7 assassins are not welcome in Canada. Any talk of a united front between them is not true even when their class interests have led them to building coalitions and cartels against the peoples of the world who are striving for liberation, freedom, peace and democracy. For the most part, they are all out for themselves and only converge when it serves their immediate interests which change every time the wind changes direction.

In the face of the deepening global financial crisis that is impoverishing peoples around the world, the G7 finance ministers and bank governors say nothing about this. Their stated priorities are "international financial crime" which they blame on their rivals, not themselves, and "resilient supply chains," which are unattainable so long as most of their activity is to undermine international trading relations of their main competitors, along with how to push forward economic and military confrontation with China, Russia and any other country which joins their attempts to build a trading system which abides by international rule of law.

The communiqué issued by the meeting nonetheless presents their "united front" to advance the interests of the wealthiest countries, and further their subservience to U.S./NATO aims and war preparations. They just as readily work to undermine one another, which makes their "united front" a fiction of their own making as each tries to control outcomes out of their control. This leads to the use of force to solve problems, including sanctions, freezing of assets entrusted to their banking institutions and the extreme forms this use of force takes today, including not only attacks against sovereign countries in the name of high ideals, but the unfettered use of police power as well as military power as in the case of Donald Trump's use of the National Guard and the Marines to attack the working people of Los Angeles. The militarization of all of life and the very dangerous war preparations which threaten the peoples of the world are also the resort of the G7 countries when they cannot control their own people and to force other countries to submit to their dictate.

China is not directly referred to in the communiqué from the G7 finance ministers' meeting, but is talked about in a defamatory way under the heading "Economic Resilience and Security." The communiqué blames what it calls "non-market policies and practices (NMPPs)," claiming they "aggravate imbalances, contribute to overcapacity, and impact the economic security of other countries."

The G7 finance ministers declare they will build on "previous commitments and as guided by Leaders, we will contribute, as appropriate, to the monitoring of NMPPs, continuing to assess the distortions they cause in markets and their global spillovers."

Despite the fact that the entire thrust of the activity of the G7 countries is to dominate other countries and engage in backroom deals, they declare, "We agree on the importance of a level playing field and taking a broadly coordinated approach to address the harm caused by those who do not abide by the same rules and lack transparency."

Ukraine was another focus of the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors. They reiterate the full backing of the Genocide Seven for the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine. If the NATO-inspired efforts for a ceasefire do not succeed, they pledge to continue applying pressure on Russia by doubling down on sanctions and seizing its assets in the banking institutions under the control of the G7 countries which dominate the international financial institutions, and give themselves the right to violate the laws initially designed to uphold private property rights. By stealing Russian assets and those of other countries they have declared enemies of peace, freedom and democracy, the G7 countries are themselves responsible for smashing the credibility of the international institutions which they claim to support.

The final communiqué of the finance ministers and bank governors does not address the contradiction within the G7 countries about whether seized Russian assets can then be used to directly fund the war in Ukraine or reconstruction. It does however talk about the importance of mobilizing private capital for the "recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, with costs estimated by the WBG [World Bank Group] at U.S.$524 billion over the next decade."

The finance ministers and bank governors chose to deny what is taking place in Ukraine which has already declined to pay holders of $2.6 billion in warrants linked to the country's GDP, defaulting on its sovereign debt payment which is growing by leaps and bounds every month. Ukraine's National Government Debt reached U.S.$162.1 billion in January 2025, compared with U.S.$159.2 billion in the previous month.

In January 2025, Ukraine's debt to the World Bank had more than tripled, rising from U.S.$6.2 billion to U.S.$20 billion. Ukraine's debt to the IMF between early 2022 and the end of November 2024 went from U.S.$14 to U.S.$17.6 billion. Both institutions continue to demand repayments despite the war. This explains in part their frenzy when seeking a source of funds.

Nonetheless, the G7 finance ministers' communiqué says, "We will continue to coordinate support to promote the early recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, including at the Ukraine Recovery Conference, which will take place in Rome on July 10-11, 2025. Further, we agree to work together with Ukraine to ensure that no countries or entities from those countries that financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be eligible to profit from Ukraine's reconstruction."

A section in the communiqué called "Bolstering Long-term Growth and Productivity" speaks in generalities about "public policies that spur innovation, raise productivity and promote greater labour force participation." Participants in the meeting are said to have "discussed and shared experiences" on how best to pursue "growth-enhancing policies in a fiscally prudent manner."

"We agree that structural reforms can help set the foundations for strong and sustainable economic growth," the communiqué says.

As much as can be deciphered from this is that attacks on rights and working conditions and stepping up the anti-social offensive are all on the table in the name of "enhancing growth." Every effort is made to make sure "structural reforms" and what is or is not "fiscally prudent" are "socially acceptable."

The section of the communiqué titled "Financial Sector Issues" talks about "financial stability and regulatory issues," particularly in what are called "on-bank financial intermediaries," which include: investment funds; insurance companies; pension funds; hedge funds; microloan organizations; family offices; and supply chain finance companies. The communiqué says such institutions "play an increasingly important role in financing the real economy."

Other issues mentioned in this section include "enhancing cross-border payments" which, it says, "can have widespread benefits for citizens and economies worldwide." It also refers to "cyber risks" which it says "threaten to disrupt global financial systems and the institutions that support them."

Notably, massive military expenditures are not up for discussion.

Clearly, the G7 finance ministers and bank governors are haunted by all kinds of problems which their own economic and financial system spawns. In this regard, the G7 finance ministers' communiqué includes a "Financial Crime Call to Action" which claims to address "financial crime, including money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

These crimes are defined in a self-serving manner which is in no way designed to sort them out but to criminalize those countries that refuse to submit to their dictate. In response, these countries are seeking ways to bypass the unjust sanctions, blockades and their exclusion from the system of international financial transactions and this deepens the frenzy of the G7.

In the name of lifting up those countries still recovering from the crimes of colonialism to better exploit them today, the G7's finance ministers and bank governors talk about "reaffirm[ing] our commitment to the ongoing implementation of the World Bank-led Resilient and Inclusive Supply-Chain Enhancement (RISE) Partnership and recognize its progress toward better integrating low- and middle-income countries in the global supply chain of clean energy products, especially in Africa."

Today, what are called clean energy products are more often than not a euphemism for critical minerals needed for the war machines of the U.S., UK, Japan, France, Germany and Italy. Their promotion is also a way to put pressure on countries like Russia by cutting off the income from the sale of their oil and gas. The self-serving nature of these "clean energy" measures is made clear by the fact that nothing is said about the pressing need to address the climate crisis that disproportionately affects the poorest countries and has been caused in the main by the G7 countries and the activities of the U.S. and NATO. Their refusal to accede to the demands of the majority in fora called to deal with the climate crisis speaks volumes about their intentions.

Notably absent from the communiqué of the G7 finance ministers and bank governors is any mention of the utter destruction of Gaza by the U.S. and Israel and the responsibility of the G7 to stop the genocide and make reparations for their support for Israel and its genocide. This support has earned the G7 the moniker Genocide Seven.

All of it underscores the utter illegitimacy of the G7 as a body to decide international financial matters or matters of any kind on behalf of the peoples of the world who they claim to support. Working people in Canada and all the G7 countries reject the agenda of the G7 and are fighting for their right to be as peoples, not crisis-ridden European nation-states whose raison d'etat is to serve narrow private interests and deprive the peoples of recognition and empowerment.

Finance Ministers and Bank Governors Are Haunted by Problems Their Own Economic and Financial Systems Have Spawned

In the lead-up to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, finance ministers and central bank governors of the G7 countries held a meeting in Banff, Alberta from May 20 to 22.

The meeting was co-chaired by Canada's Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem.

The agenda for the meeting of G7 finance ministers and bank governors and their statements, communiqué and promotional materials are all characterized by their refusal to analyze economic problems and the cause of financial woes and instead perpetrate attempts to revive the capitalist economies and the international financial architecture already in crisis and rejected by many countries around the world.

This G7 finance ministers' meeting focused on demands of the international cabal of supranational narrow private interests for government funds to benefit their private interests, in addition to the supply of human and material infrastructure at little cost to big business. While this has become commonplace, it is now being implemented with impunity by governments which cater to the imperialist demand that governments and collective public funds from taxation and ever more borrowing serve their private interests. This is in contradiction with the need for governments which serve the needs of all in an atmosphere of cooperation, friendship and equality.

At their peril, they ignore that:

- The public funding for private big business arises from the basic contradiction in the imperialist economy between the advanced socialized modern productive forces and the outdated system of their private ownership and control.

- The socialized productive forces require cooperation among their parts and sector, not competition and individual gain at the expense of others and the whole.

- Private control of the productive forces compels the various parts and sectors of the socialized economy to compete for the betterment of the few individuals in control seeking maximum profit. This contradicts the modern socialized economy that needs cooperation of all its parts and sectors to function properly for the betterment of all, the economy, society and Mother Earth.

- The benefits of modern production are drained away in private greed and conflict leaving social and natural problems to fester and become worse.

- The competition among ever more powerful global cartels leads to irrational actions including the destruction of the productive forces, wars and the channeling of the productive forces into yet more preparation for war.

- The unresolved basic contradiction infects the relations of production, pitting those in ownership and control against those who do the work.

- The antagonistic relations of production controlled by imperialist private interests in contradiction with the modern working class add a further element of class struggle, disrupting the economy as the two main social classes engage in constant struggle over the new value the working class produces.

- Instead of allowing the new value from modern production to be used for the benefit of all and society, the economy falls prey to the demands of the imperialists to serve their competing private interests.

- Nation-building collapses in the face of imperialist intrigue to manipulate the economy and its political forms in favour of the most powerful private interests.

The interests of the working class and peoples are such that they oppose the G7 and the imperialists' use of their economic and political power to deprive the people of their right to advance the relations of production to new human-centred ones.

The resistance of the working class to stepped up exploitation and oppression activates the human factor/social consciousness to play its decisive role among the masses in building the new. In the coming period, the secret deals and machinations the new Carney government is up to, in cahoots with some of the provincial premiers such as Ontario's Doug Ford and the premier of Quebec, will arouse ever greater resistance on the part of Canadians, as is also the case in the other G7 countries.

In the United States, people are demonstrating around the country. The heroic resistance in Los Angeles against the use of the military against the people is the answer the U.S. working class and people are giving to the extreme violence the agenda of the G7 is giving rise to and condoning.

Calls to Transfer Russian Assets to Compensation Fund for Ukraine

With regard to seized Russian assets, the finance ministers of the G7 in their final communique said: "We reaffirm that, consistent with our respective legal systems, Russia's sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine."

However, an opinion piece appeared in the Toronto Star on May 19, co-authored by Irwin Cotler and Sir Bill Browder which urges the G7 to seize Russian sovereign assets.

Cotler is the Canadian state's foremost promoter of attempts to conflate opposition to the crimes committed by the apartheid state of Israel with anti-Semitism. He is the International Chair of the "Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights," whose purpose is to promote anti-communism and Zionist characterization of the European Holocaust, as well as Justin Trudeau's former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism and former Justice Minister and Attorney General in the Paul Martin Liberal government from 2003 to 2006.

Browder is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Hermitage Capital Management and Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign.[1][2]

In the opinion piece, the co-authors state that Prime Minister Mark Carney's Cabinet "needs to make a history-making decision."

"As G7 host this week, will Canada push to save Ukraine, defend Canada's national security, and strengthen both international law and Canada's international credibility? ... Or will it be complicit in an unprecedented bailout of Russia?"

They then note that July 31 is a "key date staring back at us."

"That's when Europe must vote unanimously to extend Russian sanctions, including a freeze on $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank reserves, $22 billion of which are in Canadian dollars." They then raise the issue that if Hungary or Slovakia "veto an extension, hundreds of billions will go straight back to Russia -- including Canada's share.

"Such an event would see more money sent back to Russia in Canadian funds than Canada has given to Ukraine since 2022."

They then refer to an open letter they both signed, along with some 70 or so others, and say that "The choice is no longer whether to keep the assets frozen or seize them. The choice is for Ukraine's Western allies to immediately confiscate the funds and transfer them to a compensation fund for Ukraine, or send them back to Russia."

"As dire as the alternative is," they say, "transferring Russia's state assets to support Ukraine offers Prime Minister Carney the opportunity to be an immediate international statesman."

Without providing any facts to back them up, they claim that "Over 80 per cent of Canadians support seizing Russia's assets," adding that during the federal election campaign, "both the Conservatives and Liberals announced their support for transferring the frozen assets."

"Seizing Russia's frozen assets is not only legal," they say, "but is financially feasible, strategically sound, morally right" and would set "two important precedents."

They then concoct international law and morality saying:

"The first is that the right to human life and the obligation of states to uphold international peace and security ranks higher than the right for states to enjoy absolute protection of their property without accountability -- no matter how else they might violate international law.

"The second important precedent is that international law can be enforced. Legally, sovereign immunity would normally apply to Russia's state assets -- if it was upholding international law. But under the legal doctrine of countermeasures, Russia forfeits this immunity so long as it's grossly violating international law."

The very same forces that support the genocide of the Palestinian people and the expansion of NATO to threaten Russia's right to security under international law and support the rehabilitation of the current admirers of Nazi sympathizers and collaborators in Ukraine are preaching about morality and international law. They say:

"Enforcing countermeasures allows us to send a message that we will take international law seriously. Failing to do so sends the message that we will uphold it only when it's easy."

The authors conclude that "Canada's tradition is to do what is right internationally, even when it isn't easy. Compared to the challenges this country has faced, the question of whether to support seizing Russia's assets is simple."

Notes

1. Hermitage Capital Management is described by the World Economic Forum as "an asset management firm specializing in global emerging markets. It has over $1.5 billion under management, including Hermitage Global, a global activist fund, launched in 2007, and the Hermitage Fund, one of the largest Russia-dedicated investment funds in the world. Its clients include high net worth individuals, financial institutions and fund of funds from over 30 countries. It aims to increase the value of its investments through shareholder activism targeted to improve corporate governance."

2. The Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, on its website explains that "William Browder, Founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005, when he was denied entry to the country and declared 'a threat to national security.' [...]

"Since then, Mr. Browder has been leading the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign which seeks to impose targeted visa bans and asset freezes on human rights abusers and highly corrupt officials.

"The United States was the first to impose these targeted sanctions with the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act in 2012 which solely targets Russian nationals. This was then followed by the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act in 2016 which allows the U.S. government to sanction foreigners implicated in human rights abuses anywhere in the world.

"Since then, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Baltic states, the European Union and Australia have passed their own versions of the Magnitsky Act. Mr. Browder is currently working to have similar legislation passed in other countries worldwide including in New Zealand and Japan."

NATO Summit, The Hague, Netherlands, June 24-25

Preparations Seek to Ensure a
"More Lethal Alliance"

– Steve Rutchinski –

NATO Defence Ministers met on June 5 in Brussels, in preparation for the upcoming 2025 NATO Summit of "Heads of State and Government and Key partners" to be held in The Hague from June 24 to 26. They agreed to double current levels of military spending to ensure a "more lethal Alliance, and ensure warfighting readiness," NATO itself reports. The new defence spending plan dictated by NATO calls for its members to spend five per cent of GDP on defence, including 3.5 per cent on core defence spending, as well as 1.5 per cent of GDP per year on defence and security-related investment, including on infrastructure and resilience.

The United States Pentagon has also revealed it is preparing to separate Greenland from Denmark in terms of military planning by reassigning Greenland from the European Command (EUCOM) to the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (which includes Canada), while Denmark would remain in EUCOM, NATO announced. The change would elevate Greenland as a priority in U.S. defence planning. The threat of annexation, although not specified, is indeed real, the news television network Russia Today points out.

The Defence Ministers also renewed their pledge to continue arming Ukraine and stepping up dangerous attacks against Russia. News reports indicate that escalating nuclear war preparations were also discussed but details were not disclosed.

This agenda for the upcoming NATO leaders' summit is a good indication of the agenda the G7 Summit will adopt in Kananaskis as well.

In preparing for the upcoming NATO Summit, the Dutch government notes that this will be the largest summit ever held in the Netherlands. It expects up to 6,000 visitors to attend, including heads of state, foreign ministers, defence ministers and media representatives. Nothing is said about the contradictions within NATO itself or the massive opposition of the peoples in the NATO countries to funding NATO and pay for U.S. military expenses within their countries and worldwide.

Ukraine

Operation Spiderweb -- Ukraine's June 1 Assault on Critical Russian Military Infrastructure

On June 1, Ukrainian Special Forces launched a large attack on Russian military infrastructure. The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed the attacks but said that three of them were successfully repelled without damage or casualties while two resulted in several aircraft catching fire. Russia retaliated two days later, targeting a total of 142 military targets including drone and radar manufacturing facilities, munitions depots and equipment storage sites, according to the Russian Defence Ministry.

An article by former U.S. Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter, titled "Playing With Fire," published the same day, explains the Ukrainian attack.

Ritter points out:

"Operation Spiderweb, the largescale assault on critical Russian military infrastructure directly related to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence by unmanned drones, has demonstrably crossed Russia's red lines when it comes to triggering a nuclear retaliation and/or pre-emptive nuclear strike to preclude follow-on attacks. The Ukrainian SBU [Security Service], under the personal direction of its chief, Vasyl Malyuk, has taken responsibility for the attack. [...]

"The drone attacks on Russian military bases came on the heels of at least two Ukrainian attacks on Russian rail lines that resulted in significant damage done to locomotives and passenger cars and killed and wounded scores of civilians."

He notes, "Operation Spiderweb is a covert direct-action assault on critical Russian military infrastructure and capabilities directly related to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities. At least three airfields were attacked using FPV [first-person view] drones operating out of the backs of civilian Kamaz trucks repurposed as drone launch pads. Dyagilevo airfield in Ryazan, Belaya airfield in Irkutsk, and Olenya airfield in Murmansk, home to Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers and A-50 early warning aircraft, were struck, resulting in numerous aircraft being destroyed and/or heavily damaged."

"This would be the equivalent of a hostile actor launching drone strikes against U.S. Air Force B-52H bombers stationed at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri," Ritter observes.

Russia has responded with ever-larger air raids on Ukrainian cities and by scaling up missile and drone production, news agencies report. But Ukraine's attacks have continued. On June 6, it struck at least three fuel tanks at Engels airbase 500 kilometres (310 miles) southeast of Moscow. Fires were also reported at Dyagilevo airbase, 170 kilometres (105 miles) from the capital. Both had been targeted in Operation Spiderweb.

Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine's Center for Countering Disinformation, also said that two days later, Ukrainian forces struck the JSC Progress plant in Michurinsk, said to be a key link in Russia's defence industrial chain, manufacturing electronic stabilization and control systems for artillery and rocket systems.

Ukraine is said to have then hit Russia's munitions industry again targeting the Azot chemical plant in Novomoskovsk, which produces military explosives.

"This much is clear," Ritter says. "Ukraine could not have carried out Operation Spiderweb without the political approval and operational assistance of its western allies. The American and British intelligence services have both trained Ukrainian special operation forces in guerilla and unconventional warfare actions, and it is believed that previous Ukrainian attacks against critical Russian infrastructure (the Crimea bridge and Engels Air Base) were done with the assistance of U.S. and British intelligence in the planning and execution phases. Indeed, both the Crimea bridge and Engels airbase attacks were seen as triggers for the issuing of Russia's 2024 nuclear doctrine modifications.

"Russia has in the past responded to provocations by Ukraine and its western allies with a mixture of patience and resolve.

"Many have interpreted this stance as a sign of weakness, something which may have factored in the decision by Ukraine and its western facilitators to carry out such a provocative operation on the eve of critical peace discussions.

"The extent to which Russia can continue to show the same level of restraint as in the past is tested by the very nature of the attack -- a massive use of conventional weapons which struck Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence force, causing damage.

"It is not a stretch of the imagination to see this tactic being used in the future as a means of decapitating Russian strategic nuclear assets (aircraft and missiles) and leadership (the attack against Putin in Kursk underscores this threat.)

"If Ukraine can position Kamaz trucks near Russian strategic air bases, it could do so against Russian bases housing Russia's mobile missile forces.

"That Ukraine would carry out such attack likewise shows the extent to which western intelligence services are testing the waters for any future conflict with Russia -- one that NATO and EU members say they are actively preparing for."

Ritter says that for Russia, "the very red lines it deemed necessary to define regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons have been blatantly violated by not only Ukraine, but its western allies."

He argues that Ukraine and its western backers are playing with fire. He says this attack was launched on the eve of the Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul, held on June 2. He notes such an attack and others which Ukraine has been launching against Russia could not take place without the direction and participation of Ukraine's "European partners" and forces in the United States itself. He writes:

"First and foremost, one must understand that it is impossible for Ukraine to seriously prepare for substantive peace talks while planning and executing an operation such as Operation Spiderweb; while the SBU may have executed this attack, it could not have happened without the knowledge and consent of the Ukrainian President or the Minister of Defense.

"Moreover, this attack could not have occurred without the consent of Ukraine's European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, all of whom were engaged in direct consultations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the days and weeks leading up to the execution of Operation Spiderweb.

"The Ukrainians have been encouraged by Europe to be seen as actively supporting the Istanbul peace process, with an eye to the notion that if the talks failed, the blame would be placed on Russia, not Ukraine, thereby making it easier for Europe to continue providing military and financial support to Ukraine.

"There appears to be a major role being played by U.S. actors as well -- Senator's Lyndsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Sydney Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, made a joint visit to Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated closely with the Ukrainian government about a new package of economic sanctions linked to Russia's willingness to accept peace terms predicated on a 30-day ceasefire -- one of Ukraine's core demands.

"Operation Spiderweb appears to be a concerted effort to drive Russia away from the Istanbul talks, either by provoking a Russian retaliation which would provide cover for Ukraine to stay home (and an excuse for Graham and Blumenthal to go forward with their sanctions legislation), or provoking Russia to pull out of the talks as it considers its options going forward, an act that would likewise trigger the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions action.

"Unknown is the extent to which President Trump, who has been pushing for successful peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, was knowledgeable of the Ukrainian actions, including whether he approved of the action in advance (Trump appeared to be ignorant of the fact that Ukraine had targeted Russian President Putin using drones during a recent trip to Kursk.)"

Ritter argues that the world is on the precipice of "a nuclear Armageddon of our own making."

"Either we separate ourselves from the policies that have brought us to this point, or we accept the consequences of our actions, and pay the price," he says.

Russia's Nuclear Doctrine

As explained by Ritter,

"In 2020 Russia published, for the first time, an unclassified version of its nuclear doctrine. The document, called 'Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,' noted that Russia 'reserves the right to use nuclear weapons' when Moscow is acting 'in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.' The document also stated that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in case of an 'attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions.'

"In 2024 Vladimir Putin ordered Russia's nuclear doctrine to be updated to consider the complicated geopolitical realities that had emerged from the ongoing Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, where the conflict had morphed into a proxy war between the collective west (NATO and the U.S.) and Russia.

"The new doctrine declared that nuclear weapons would be authorized for use in case of an 'aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.'

"Russia's nuclear arsenal would also come into play in the event of 'actions by an adversary affecting elements of critically important state or military infrastructure of the Russian Federation, the disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces.'

"The threats did not have to come in the form of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the new 2024 doctrine specifically stated that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons to any aggression against Russia involving 'the employment of conventional weapons, which creates a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity.'"

(To read the full article, click here.)

Treachery Continues to Characterize NATO Countries' Call for Ceasefire

Istanbul talks, May 16, 2025

Despite the fact that peace talks between Ukraine and Russia started in mid-May in Istanbul, thus far all they have given rise to is a successful prisoner exchange which started on June 9: 1,000 Ukrainian prisoners for 1,000 Russian prisoners. This decision was taken at the talks in Istanbul conducted on June 2.

On May 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed restarting direct negotiations with Ukraine on May 15 "without preconditions." The leaders of France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland, meeting in Kiev, had issued an ultimatum to Russia on May 10 for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, saying they had the support of U.S. President Donald Trump, and threatened Russia with stepped-up sanctions if it did not submit.

This was not agreed to by Putin who pointed out that the sole aim of the proposal was to permit Ukraine time to recoup and rearm.

"We are committed to serious negotiations with Ukraine," Putin said, adding that agreeing to a ceasefire later, in the course of direct talks with Ukraine, would not be ruled out. He said that Russia needs a truce that would lead to a "lasting peace" instead of one that would allow Ukraine to rearm and mobilize more men into its armed forces. Russia recalls that during the 2015 Minsk Accords, rather than working for peace and de-escalation, NATO countries treacherously used this period to buy time to arm Ukraine for purposes of provoking a military conflict. NATO countries similarly sabotaged peace negotiations in April 2022.

Recent events indicate that treachery continues to characterize the role of the U.S. and NATO amidst the current peace talks.

On June 1, the day before a second round of talks was to take place in Istanbul, Ukraine carried out lethal drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, including its eastern seaboard city, Vladivostok. Prior to this, Ukraine was under direction from NATO to limit its attacks to only border regions of Russia.

Former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter points out that Ukraine would not have been able to carry out the drone attack without U.S. intelligence data, a view confirmed by former high-ranking French army officer Guillaume Ansel who told Le Monde. "This is possible and conceivable only with satellite communications support. The Ukrainians do not have such systems and, if they managed to operate them remotely, then, undoubtedly, it was with U.S. support."

During the June 2 talks, Russia laid out two options for a ceasefire, the news agency Sputnik reported.

"Option 1: The beginning of the complete withdrawal of the Ukrainian armed forces and other military formations of Ukraine from the territory of the Russian Federation, including the DPR [Donetsk People's Republic], LPR [Lugansk (also known as Luhansk) People's Republic], Zaporozhye [Zaporizhzhia] and Kherson regions, and their withdrawal to a distance agreed by the Parties from the borders of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the approved Regulation."

The second option, referred to as a package deal, "requires the demobilization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and halting all foreign military aid to the Ukraine regime, including intelligence."

Russia reiterated its demands in the negotiations, namely:

- "International legal recognition of Crimea, LPR, DPR, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions as part of Russia; complete withdrawal of units of the Ukrainian armed forces and other paramilitary formations of Ukraine from their territories."

- Ukraine's Neutrality, Non-Entry Into Military Blocs: "Ukraine's neutrality entails its refusal to join military alliances and coalitions, along with a prohibition on any military activities by third states within its territory. This includes limits "on the number of the Ukrainian armed forces and other Ukrainian military units, the maximum number of weapons and military equipment and their acceptable limits; dissolution of Ukrainian nationalist units within the Ukrainian armed forces and the National Guard."

- No Third Countries' Troops in Ukraine: "Exclusion of the military presence of third countries on Ukrainian territory, cessation of participation of foreign specialists in military actions on Ukraine's side, guarantees of Ukraine's refusal to conduct sabotage and subversive operations against Russia and its citizens," the document read.

- Guaranteeing Rights of Russian-Speaking Population: "Key parameters of a final settlement... Ensuring the full rights, freedoms, and interests of the Russian and Russian-speaking population; granting the Russian language official status," the document stated.

- Ban on Glorification of Nazism: "The main parameters of the final settlement ... Legislative prohibition of glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism, dissolution of nationalist organizations and parties."

Role of European NATO Countries to "Broker" Ceasefire

Russia, in proceeding with the peace talks on May 15 and June 2, called the bluff of the U.S., UK, France, Germany and Poland who had given a May 10 ultimatum that Russia comply with a 30-day unconditional ceasefire or else face even more severe sanctions. The ultimatum was issued the day after Russia marked the 80th anniversary of the victory over fascism in Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron said at that time, "In the event of a violation of this ceasefire, we have agreed that massive sanctions will be prepared and coordinated between Europeans and Americans."

Macron said the ceasefire would be mainly monitored by the U.S. but that "Europeans will contribute." He claimed that imposing this "truce" on Russia would pave the way for "immediate work and negotiations with parties involved to build a robust and lasting peace."

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, "The position we've now got to today is absolute unity across a whole range of countries around the world, including the United States, that there must be that 30-day unconditional ceasefire."

Some 20 other countries took part in a video conference with the UK, France, Germany and Poland on this matter on May 10. With typical chauvinism against those who do not support U.S./NATO warmongering, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said of this small number of countries, "For the first time in a long time we had a feeling that the whole free world is truly united."

The attempt by these countries to use threats and ultimatums to impose a ceasefire, which can only be meaningfully reached through negotiations that serve the interests of both sides, is an irreconcilable contradiction. It is no surprise that Russia simply declined to take up this "offer" and instead has proceeded straightforwardly with direct peace talks with Ukraine, despite this interference from the European NATO countries and the so-called coalition of the willing.

Prisoner Exchange Takes Place -- 1,000 for 1,000

The only concrete outcome thus far in the talks between Ukraine and Russia to end the war in Ukraine is the agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners from each side reached during the talks in Istanbul on June 2. The prisoner exchange started on June 9.

Dmitri Kovalevich, writing for Al Mayadeen, pointed out on May 31:

"During the halting peace talks that took place in Istanbul earlier this month, Ukraine and Russia agreed to exchange prisoners, 1,000 on each side. Kyiv demanded a 'one-for-one' exchange. However, there are far fewer Russian prisoners of war in Ukraine compared to Ukrainian soldiers imprisoned in Russia.

"The Russian army has been steadily advancing in recent months; it is mainly Ukrainians who are being captured and taken prisoner. It turns out that Ukrainian authorities are including civilian dissidents disloyal to the Zelensky regime among their 'Russian prisoners of war' in the prisoner exchanges."

The Ukrainian online publication Strana wrote on May 20:

"On the eve of the largest prisoner exchange to date of '1,000 for 1,000,' pretrial detention centres in Ukraine began to fill up with prisoners accused of 'treason,' 'separatism,' 'collaborationism' and other similar political charges. These prisoners were then used for the prisoner-of-war exchange."

"Those whom Kyiv is offering to exchange for its captured soldiers include businessmen, youth caught taking photos or video of military facilities [strictly forbidden under Ukraine's martial law regime], people setting fire to the vehicles of military recruiters, and people who were simply set up or betrayed under accusations of 'pro-Russian' views or sympathies."

Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky issued a statement on June 9 which said, "Ukrainians are coming home from Russian captivity." Zelensky said the exchange would continue in several stages. "Among those being returned now are wounded and severely wounded prisoners, as well as those under 25," he said.

The Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War said the first group of released prisoners includes personnel from Ukraine's Navy, Ground Forces, Air Force, National Guard, Border Guard Service, Territorial Defence, and State Special Transport Service.

The Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement that "the first group of Russian servicemen under the age of 25 was returned from the territory controlled by the Kiev regime."

Record Amount of Arms and Equipment Pledged at Meeting of Ukraine Defence Contact Group

The Ukraine Defence Contact Group, founded by NATO in 2022, met on June 4 at NATO headquarters in Brussels, to mobilize more arms for Ukraine. The meeting was chaired by the U.S. and Germany, with some 50 countries taking part.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, attending by video link, told the meeting that they need to provide more U.S.-made Patriot missile systems, and they should follow through on past commitments.

Zelensky also called on countries to directly fund Ukraine's arms industry by buying its arms. "We need to scale this up by at least 50 per cent. The Ukrainian defence industry still has a lot of unused capacity -- it only needs financing... We have only $17 billion for the purchase of weapons in our national budget -- for an industry with a potential [annual] output of $35 billion." He called on countries to make up the $18 billion funding gap.

Ukraine's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov later told reporters, "Our partners asked me if Ukrainian companies could build production in their countries to produce the latest products. Our partners are ready to fully pay for the production and the products will be sent to Ukraine for as long as the war lasts."

"Under this initiative, Ukrainian manufacturers can invest in partner countries, and companies from partner countries can build their mega-factories in Ukraine," Umerov said.

Amidst ongoing Ukraine-Russia peace talks, various countries pledged further commitments of offensive weaponry and other military equipment that will clearly escalate the conflict and will not contribute to peace or a ceasefire that these same countries say they want.

For example, UK Defence Secretary John Healy said the UK plans a tenfold increase in drone production to help Ukraine, to the tune of 350 million pounds, that would see the transfer of 100,000 drones in 2025.[1]

A similar commitment was made by France coming out of the meeting. French Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced a new partnership between an unnamed French car manufacturer and a French defence company to produce unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Ukraine, which he described as a "win-win partnership."

Germany approved a new military assistance package of 5 billion euros. The package includes financing of long-range weapons to be produced in Ukraine and the transfer of air defence systems, weapons and ammunition.[2]

The Netherlands pledged military aid of 400 million euros, which includes a mine-clearing ship, boats and naval drones.

Belgium announced annual aid to Ukraine in the amount of 1 billion euros until 2029, and the transfer of a mine-clearing ship.

Norway pledged U.S.$700 million for drones, with a focus on supporting the Ukrainian defence-industrial complex, and U.S.$50 million to the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine trust fund.

Sweden pledged 440 million euros for international procurement of artillery ammunition, drones and other weapons for Ukraine.

Canada, represented at the meeting by Defence Minister David McGuinty, pledged U.S.$45 million for drones, electronic warfare equipment, IT solutions, as well as Coyote and Bison armoured vehicles.

A June 6 Department of National Defence press release regarding Canada's pledge at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting also stated:

"Minister McGuinty also shared with partners updates on advanced pilot training for Ukrainian pilots underway in Canada. Canada has taken over leadership of the fighter-lead-in-training (FLIT) element of the UDCG Air Force Capability Coalition (AFCC). This $389 million investment over five years includes F-16 pilot training for Ukrainian personnel, critical airfield equipment, and other support to Ukrainian air bases and fleets -- all provided by Canadian industry."

Overall, UK Defence Secretary Healy claimed that the meeting had procured commitments of 21 billion euros (U.S.$24 billion), calling it a new record.

The U.S. was represented at the meeting by U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker. The Associated Press writes, "U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth did not attend, the first time a Pentagon chief has been absent since the forum for organizing Ukraine's military aid was set up three years ago." The AP suggests that his absence "is indicative of the Trump administration distancing itself from the policy of all-out unconditional support for Ukraine of the Biden administration. On June 10, Hegseth told a congressional committee that the U.S. would be making a reduction in next year's fiscal budget for aid for Ukraine, without specifying a figure."

Since the Ukraine Defence Contact Group was formed, some U.S.$126 billion in weapons and military assistance has been pledged, including more than U.S.$66.5 billion from the U.S., with Germany as the second leading funder at 44 billion euros (U.S.$51 billion). None of this has succeeded in turning the tide in Ukraine's favour on the battlefield.

Notes

1. On June 4, following the release of Britain's Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the British delegation at the meeting of NATO's Ukraine Defence Contact Group issued a press release which stated that the "Ministry of Defence said it is increasing its drone supply to Ukraine tenfold, taking the total target for this year to 100,000."

Defence Secretary John Healy boasted that "the UK is stepping up its support for Ukraine by delivering hundreds of thousands more drones this year and completing a major milestone in the delivery of critical artillery ammunition." This refers to the government's 4.5 billion-pound package of military aid in 2025, and that the UK has completed a delivery of 140,000 artillery munitions since the start of the year. The press statements boasted that Ukrainian units have confirmed that UK-provided drones "currently kill more people than artillery on the frontline in Ukraine."

2. Regarding Germany's commitment, a June 5 report from The Defense Post informs, "German firm Diehl Defence has received a 2.2 billion-euro (U.S.$2.5 billion) contract to deliver IRIS-T missile systems and related warheads to the Ukrainian Armed Forces."

The report adds, "The latest IRIS-T contract was revealed during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin in May. [...]

"'There will be no range restrictions, allowing Ukraine to fully defend itself, even against military targets outside its own territory,' Merz remarked at the meeting.

"This bilateral cooperation follows a U.S.$3.25 billion military aid package that the NATO country earmarked for Ukraine on top of 4 billion euros (U.S.$4.5 billion) in assistance for fiscal year 2025. Another 8.3 billion euros (U.S.$9.4 billion) is planned from 2026 to 2029.

"'This means contracts with the German defence industry will now be signed for the future – a significant step toward building long-term security guarantees,' Zelensky said during a funding update in March."

European Union Announces 18th Round
of Sanctions

The European Commission on June 10 proposed an 18th round of sanctions against Russia. The proposal, announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative Kaja Kallas, targets Russia's energy, military industry and banking sector.

It has proposed a transaction ban for Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 and added 77 vessels transporting Russian oil to the list, bringing the total to over 400. It has also proposed to lower the oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel and ban imports of refined products made in third countries using Russia crude. It has blacklisted an additional 22 Russian banks which would ban them from the SWIFT financial messaging services based in Belgium.

The reduced oil price cap will be discussed at the 2025 G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta from June 15 to 17, China Daily informs. Asked if the EU would go it alone on the price cap, von der Leyen suggested it would not, at least not for the time being. "My assumption is that we do that together as G7," she said, adding: "We started as G7, it was successful as a measure from the G7, and I want to continue this measure as G7."

But adopting the sanctions requires unanimous agreement by all 27 EU member states, and Hungary and Slovakia have criticized the proposed sanctions, saying they harm the EU's economy more than Russia's.

The Slovak parliament approved a resolution on June 5 urging the government not to vote in favour of new EU sanctions on Russia. "If there is a sanction that would harm us, I will never vote for it," Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on June 8.

Ding Chun, director of the Centre for European Studies at Fudan University, said the EU's latest move is to reinforce sanctions on Russia's energy, financial and technological sectors. It also shows that U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to mediate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine have not been effective.

"In a certain way, it is pressuring the Trump administration and highlighting the EU's role in the conflict," Ding said.

The move to impose more sanctions on Russia is "likely to face opposition from some member states and a less cooperative U.S. government," China Daily reports, citing officials and experts. "U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was also skeptical about the oil price cap move when it was discussed at a G7 finance ministers' meeting [in May]. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been lobbying for a 500 per cent tariff on any country that buys Russian oil, applauded the new EU proposal," posting on X: "Well done to our European allies."

Graham's bill was sharply criticized by Senator Rand Paul, who said on X, "The Graham tariff bill would shut down trade with China, India, Türkiye, half of the EU, and dozens more just for buying energy from Russia. It could trigger a global depression. One of the most reckless, ill-conceived economic proposals I've ever seen."

Did You Know...

Anti-Fascists Interned in Kananaskis During WWII

Archive photo of internment camp in Kananaskis, circa 1940-42

TML Monthly is posting below a chapter from the book Interned Without Cause by Peter Krawchuck. Krawchuck explains that, on June 4, 1940, by Order in Council, the government banned the Communist Party of Canada along with a whole series of progressive organizations which supported the struggle of the Canadian workers for social justice and democratic rights, had participated in the Spanish Civil War against the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco and were active in support of Soviet Russia and against the Anglo-American policy of appeasing Hitler.

The internment of anti-fascists and communists from Halifax to Vancouver began. They were imprisoned in concentration camps in Petawawa, Ontario and Kananaskis, Alberta. The internees in Kananaskis were transferred in time to Petawawa. Finally they were sent to Hull Jail in Quebec.

Peter Krawchuck was himself sent to Kananaskis, then to Petawawa and finally to jail in Hull. In the chapter entitled "Kananaskis," he describes the internment camp and the plight of the anti-fascists who the government of Canada treated worse than the supporters of Hitler.

The Canadian anti-fascists, with the communists as their most consistent representatives, were interned without legal indictment. They were not put on trial and were not sentenced to a definite period of imprisonment. Krawchuck writes that those who were arrested for the violation of "war regulations" and acquitted by the courts were seized by the RCMP on the courthouse steps and sent to concentration camps or to prisons across the country.

In spite of the fact that the anti-fascist internees were de jure and de facto innocent, the government considered them to be "potential enemies." They were held for two years and more until the mass movement developed to the point that first the government had to agree to separate them from the Hitlerites, transferring them to the Hull Jail where they had their own quarters, and finally had to permit their conditional release. Thirty-nine were interned in Kananaskis and then transferred to Petawawa where another 70 were already interned, along with another 20 or so who were imprisoned in various Canadian jails.

* * *

Kananaskis
– Peter Krawchuck –

Sixty-five kilometres to the southwest of Calgary, on the railroad line stretching to Vancouver, was the small station of Seebe. Eleven kilometres to the south of Seebe, in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, was the Indian settlement of Kananaskis, past which flowed a river of the same name. This name came from the legend that allegedly it was here that the Indian Kananaskis had recovered from a blow to the head with an axe. The natural picturesque beauty of the area drew the attention of tourists who travelled by the lakes, rivers and dense forests on the Rocky Mountain ranges via the Trans-Canada Highway.

In the midst of this blissful beauty, in 1939 when the Second World War began, the federal government opened an internment camp to which the RCMP transported arrested Germans from Western Canada, who had been active in or were sympathetic with the pro-Hitler organization Deutsche Bund fur Kanada. In the opinion of the authorities these people were enemies of Canada, which was fighting Nazi Germany together with other countries. These people not only desired victory for the Vaterland but also hindered the Canadian war effort with their malicious, whispered rumours which they received from the German Ministry of Propaganda and bow-legged Josef Goebbels in Berlin through the United States of America, which still had not been dragged into the war.

The police brought the first of the arrested anti-fascists from Winnipeg -- Jacob Penner and John Naviziwsky -- to that very concentration camp in June 1940. At that time in the camp there were 250 interned Germans. John Naviziwsky was given number 251. On July 8, 17 arrested antifascists were delivered there. As an immediate consequence the internees who ideologically had nothing in common with the German fascists formed a group and immediately demanded to be physically segregated from the Germans, to have separate barracks for themselves and to have their own representative recognized by the administration.

The camp commandant was Lieutenant-Colonel W. H. de Watson -- a coarse person, a typical British officer, viciously disposed toward communists and generally against progressive people. Punctiliously maintaining the camp regulations, he declined to allot separate barracks to the anti-fascists and did not agree to a separate representative for them. He agreed only to an assistant spokesman for the anti-fascists. In Kananaskis the assistant spokesman was Andrew Bileski. On the commandant's orders the camp administration scattered the anti-fascists among the Nazis -- one, two or three to a barrack. After some time a single barrack was allotted to the anti-fascists because of their resolute insistence. It was not only the abode of 12 internees but became in reality the communal quarters for all interned anti-fascists. Meetings, lectures and even rehearsals of an improvised choir were held in this barrack. It was only in the beginning of 1941 that all anti-fascists were separated from the Nazis and given their own barracks.

The German Nazis talked as if the commandant had told them to "mop the barracks' floors with the communists." Knowing his anti-communist disposition one could easily believe that he could give such instructions to the German Nazis, his sympathies for whom he did not hide.

The camp was bounded on the west by the foothills overgrown with forest, on the south by the precipitously high Barrier Mountains, on the north by the Kananaskis River, and on the East by the plains which stretched out to Seebe railway station. The camp was divided into two sections: in one section, behind barbed wire, were the barracks of the internees; in the other were the administrative buildings, the guards' barracks, the stores and the dining hall.

The section of the camp holding the internees was surrounded by two parallel barbed wire fences, four metres in height. Between the fences there was quite a narrow corridor (perhaps three metres wide), through which at established intervals the sergeant-major regularly conveyed the relief guards. The camp looked like a triangle. A guard tower dominated each corner. Inside each tower was a soldier armed with a rifle. He followed the internees' movements in the prison section of the camp.

Wire was strung alongside the fence, several metres from it. This was the boundary to which an internee could go. If he were to step over this wire and approach the fence, then the guard, after warning him, had the right to shoot him. During the whole of my stay at the camp there was no instance of a guard shooting someone or someone endeavouring to step into the forbidden zone. True there were several attempts to escape but not from the camp itself, only during work in the forest. One time some Nazis rioted and the guards mounted machine guns on the towers, aiming the muzzles at the mob which was assembled on the parade-ground shouting fascist rallying cries and singing their anthem Horst Wessel Lied. The anti-fascists did not take part in this riot: they had segregated themselves immediately from the Nazi adventure.

The camp guard was made up of older soldiers -- the Home guard -- among whom were quite a few former members of the Organization of the Unemployed and participants in the On to Ottawa Trek. There was even one guard, Jimmy Wilson, who fought in the ranks of the Canadian Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion against the fascist insurrection in Spain in 1936-39. He was a personal friend of Pat Lenihan, the communist Calgary alderman, who was in the camp at Kananaskis. It was through Jimmy Wilson that we learned the news of our comrades at liberty and also passed on to them information about our living conditions. Often this information was passed to him by William Rigby of Vancouver and myself because we both, alternately, served the guard room and had direct contact with the soldiers. Generally they were sympathetic towards us and could not understand why we were being held behind barbed wire, knowing that we hated fascism. Without exception the soldiers hated the interned German Nazis. Nevertheless it should be noted that not all the interned Germans were fascists, for among them were guiltless victims who had nothing in common with the Nazis; they also hated Hitlerism.

The internees' barracks were located along the north and south sides of the camp. In the western part were the kitchen and lavatory. In the eastern part were the offices of the internees' representative and the quarters of the internal military guard. Every four hours the guard changed there. They were unarmed. Their duty was to ascertain, along with the commandant or his assistant, the presence of the internees on the parade-ground and in the buildings (at night). They escorted the internees, accompanied by the camp representative, to the commandant's offices or to the quartermaster's stores. In their quarters they distributed parcels and mail received on behalf of the internees. They were under the command of the sergeant-major. In the northeastern corner of the camp was the solitary confinement cell where an internee would be dispatched for breaking the regulations, particularly if he refused to salute the senior military ranks, beginning with the sergeant-major up to the lieutenant-colonel (commandant of the camp). In the southwestern part was the camp hospital for the internees. In the southern part was the recreation hall where meetings permitted by the administration, concerts and showings of old motion pictures took place. Early on Sundays church services were held there. Whoever wished to do so took part in them; no one was constrained to attend.

In the middle, between the rows of barracks, was the parade-ground where the internees played soccer in the evening and on Sunday. The Nazis named this square Hitler Platz. By the way, they called the little avenue by our barracks Stalin Strasse.

The internees had their own canteen where they could buy tobacco, cigarette papers, matches, note-books, pencils, soap, toothbrushes, razors and other small items. The internees were not allowed to have money. They were given yellow paper tokens on which was designated the equivalent value in money. The administration gave goods from the canteen in return for these tickets. One was not allowed to have money so that one could not bribe the guards with it.

The barracks were built of thin boards, the roof was covered with tar paper and barbed wire was stretched over the windows. Beside the walls stood the beds -- six on each side. Near the rear wall there was a shelf on which was a bucket of water, and near the bucket there was a tin cup. On the floor was located the pail used as a urinal. In the middle of the barrack was located a long table primitively knocked together from boards. On both sides of the table stood benches. Not far from the table there was a wood stove. The smoke went outside through a pipe in the roof.

At night the barrack was locked from outside. If an internee needed to go to the latrine then he had to pound on the doors so that the guard would hear and take him outside. In that case the internee woke not only all his barrack mates but also those in the neighbouring barracks since they were located near by.

There was no plumbing in the barracks and thus the internees used a single common latrine, a long deep pit under a shed. In the morning the barrack orderly carried out the pail of urine to the latrine. When the latrine pit filled up, is was covered over with earth and another dug. In the first months the barracks were lit at night with oil lamps. Later electricity was brought in and each barrack was lit with a single lightbulb. Of course, one bulb was not enough for proper lighting -- especially for reading books.

The military section of the camp, which was not fenced off, was separated from the prison section by a great gate through which trucks drove occasionally and a narrow wicket, through which an internee passed under escort by a sergeant or corporal. When the prisoner returned to camp the guard at the wicket searched him: he turned his pockets inside out and felt him to see that he had not brought in any contraband under his clothing. The prisoner had to hold his hand up in the air then.

The military administration of the camp consisted of the commandant (the lieutenant-colonel), a major, captains, lieutenants and soldiers. Altogether they numbered perhaps close to 200 men. The officers lived in comfortable buildings, with modern fittings -- bathtubs, toilets with running water, small furnished rooms. The soldiers lived in ordinary wooden barracks.

Access to the camp was forbidden to civilians. Not even the wives and children of the internees were allowed in. But very often, particularly in the summer, the officers brought women, perhaps their lovers, to their quarters.

(Peter Krawchuck, Interned Without Cause, Kobzar Publishing Co., 1985, pp. 31-35)

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca

Mass protests in Tehran, Iran on June 14, 2025 denouncing U.S.-backed Israeli aggression.

Actions Stand with Palestine and Demand End to Israeli Attacks on Iran

MontrealJune 14

Toronto

June 13June 15

Chicago, USA

June 14

New York City, USAJune 14

London, England

June 14

The Hague, Netherlands

150,000 people reject Israeli aggression on June 15.

Tehran, Iran

June 14

Sana'a, Yemen

One million people condemn Israel's aggression, June 13. Seoul, Korea

June 14

June 13, 2025 Security Council meeting

Water Rally at Calgary city hall

British Government's Plan for "Active Government" and "National Renewal"

British Labour Party's "Plan for Change"

For Your Information: Starmer's Keynote Speech

There Is an Alternative

Notes

1. "PM remarks on the fundamental reform of the British state," Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, March 13, 2025.

The monarch owns the seabed and half of the foreshore around large parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, generating revenues from oil and gas drilling rights and royalties, as well as wind and wave farm developments.

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch "in right of the Crown" but it is not their private property. The monarch surrenders the revenue from the estate to the Treasury each year for the benefit of the nation's finances, in exchange for the sovereign grant.

Under the taxpayer-funded sovereign grant, which is currently £86.3 million a year, the King receives 25 per cent of the Crown Estate's annual surplus, including an extra 10 per cent for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

The funding arrangement dates back to 1760, when George III reached an agreement to surrender his income from the estate in return for an annual fixed payment.

The current value of the seabed rights is estimated at £5 billion, and six newly awarded licences could generate up to £9 billion over the next 10 years.

Notes

2. The Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, on its website explains that "William Browder, Founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005, when he was denied entry to the country and declared 'a threat to national security.' [...]

"Since then, Mr. Browder has been leading the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign which seeks to impose targeted visa bans and asset freezes on human rights abusers and highly corrupt officials.

"Since then, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Baltic states, the European Union and Australia have passed their own versions of the Magnitsky Act. Mr. Browder is currently working to have similar legislation passed in other countries worldwide including in New Zealand and Japan."

Russia's Nuclear Doctrine

(To read the full article, click here.)

Istanbul talks, May 16, 2025

Role of European NATO Countries to "Broker" Ceasefire

Notes

2. Regarding Germany's commitment, a June 5 report from The Defense Post informs, "German firm Diehl Defence has received a 2.2 billion-euro (U.S.$2.5 billion) contract to deliver IRIS-T missile systems and related warheads to the Ukrainian Armed Forces."

The report adds, "The latest IRIS-T contract was revealed during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin in May. [...]

"'There will be no range restrictions, allowing Ukraine to fully defend itself, even against military targets outside its own territory,' Merz remarked at the meeting.

"This bilateral cooperation follows a U.S.$3.25 billion military aid package that the NATO country earmarked for Ukraine on top of 4 billion euros (U.S.$4.5 billion) in assistance for fiscal year 2025. Another 8.3 billion euros (U.S.$9.4 billion) is planned from 2026 to 2029.

"'This means contracts with the German defence industry will now be signed for the future – a significant step toward building long-term security guarantees,' Zelensky said during a funding update in March."

Archive photo of internment camp in Kananaskis, circa 1940-42

* * *

Kananaskis – Peter Krawchuck –

(Peter Krawchuck, Interned Without Cause, Kobzar Publishing Co., 1985, pp. 31-35)

Montreal

June 14

June 13

June 15

New York City, USA

June 14

One million people condemn Israel's aggression, June 13.

Seoul, Korea

Kananaskis
– Peter Krawchuck –