Western media has been shockingly nonchalant about Austria announcing it would become “the first European country” to make vaccines against Covid 19 mandatory, with possible prison sentences for non-compliance. Can we get a second opinion?

Amid a surge in new Covid cases, Austria has ordered a 10-day lockdown of its entire population – including those who have received inoculations – starting on November 22. On top of that, the government said it was preparing legislation for a mandatory vaccine regime to be rolled out on February 1st, the chancellor, Alexander Schallenberg, has announced.

“We haven’t been able to convince enough people to vaccinate,” Schallenberg said in an effort to rationalize the draconian decision. “For too long, I and others have assumed that you can convince people to get vaccinated.”

Incidentally, Schallenberg, who descends from a long line of blue-blooded Austro-Hungarian nobles, was hand chosen to replace Sebastian Kurz as chancellor last month as the latter became embroiled in a testy corruption probe. Immediately following Schallenberg’s appointment, wily Covid-19, perhaps seeing a golden opportunity for a power play amid the chaos, surged in the country.

What the new Austrian chancellor seems to have forgotten, however, in his desire to play medical dictator is that people have a right to self-autonomy over their bodies. Strongly encouraging civilians to receive a vaccination is one thing; forcing it upon them by coercion – on pain of financial penalties and even imprisonment in the event they cannot pay – is crossing the humanitarian red line. That much, at least, has been determined by the United Nations.

Austria will now be imposing a COVID lockdown on vaccinated AND unvaccinated people.

They have also announced that a VACCINE MANDATE for the ENTIRE COUNTRY will be put into force by February — the first in the world.

— Dr. David Samadi (@drdavidsamadi) November 19, 2021

In October 2005, some 190 UNESCO Member States adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which committed the signatories and the international community to “respect and apply fundamental ethical principles related to medicine, the life sciences and associated technologies.”

Article 6, Section 3 reads:

“In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

Speaking on the need for the Declaration, Pierre Sané, former UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences (2001-2010), discussed a meningitis pandemic that swept through the Nigerian city of Kano in 1996. Pfizer, in what it described as a “humanitarian gesture,” offered to help by making available a new antibiotic drug called Trovan, which could be administered orally to children. Pfizer failed to acknowledge, however, that Trovan had never been tested in a disease outbreak, nor was it ever given to children orally. Nevertheless, six weeks after the outbreak had occurred, 200 children participated in Pfizer’s clinical trial.

Sané explained what eventually happened: “A governmental committee of medical experts investigated the Trovan trial and concluded that it was illegal and unethical. The desperation of the parents and the emergency situation made it easy to enroll patients in the trial, suggesting free treatment for a serious disease. Parents with infected children were often not aware that they were included in a clinical trial; they were afraid for their children and did not ask many questions…

“In many cases no permission was requested to test the drug. Pfizer argued that informed consent could not be obtained from parents because they were illiterate. In this impoverished part of the country, few parents indeed could speak or write English,” Sané added.

Shocking as it was, the 2001 report by the Nigerian medical authorities was never released to the public. Not until May 2006 did the Washington Post (thanks to the intervention of a whistleblower) report that Pfizer had conducted an illegal trial of an unregistered drug. The revelations showed a clear case of exploitation, in violation of international law, where impoverished, illiterate and uninformed people unwittingly stood in for guinea pigs. It also appeared that the medical trial had never been approved by an ethics committee, although Pfizer produced a letter of approval, dated March 1996. There was no ethics committee in existence in Kano at that time.

In addition to Pfizer’s apparent criminal record, the recipients of their vaccines have no legal recourse in the event they are injured or worse. And although it is rarely discussed in the mainstream media, people are suffering severe injury, even death, as a result of these unproven inoculations. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has recorded 4,694 deaths, 5,413 “life-threatening” reactions to Pfizer’s vaccine, and 23,867 hospitalizations as a result of the inoculation in the U.S. to date (critics contend, however, that the numbers of injuries have been drastically underreported). Yet, the pharmaceutical companies enjoy full indemnity from any legal action, which should be of concern considering these vaccines, issued in accordance with an ‘Emergency Use Authorization,’ were developed in – to quote former U.S. President Donald Trump – “warp speed.” Just a non-professional hunch, but ‘warp’, ‘speed’ and ‘vaccine’ are three words that should never appear in the same sentence.

Florian Dagoury, currently the world’s top static breath-hold free diver, has been diagnosed with myocarditis and pericarditis 40 days following his second dose with the Pfizer vaccine. He is known for the fact he officially held his breath for 10 min30sec https://t.co/rxXVMD5ipO

— George Fareed (@GeorgeFareed2) November 8, 2021

Incidentally, should anyone be interested in educating themselves on the details of the Pfizer vaccine before they submit to the jab, they will have to wait until the year 2076 when the 329,000 pages of data can be released in its entirety (or, as a judge recently ruled, 500 pages per day).

“It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021),” argued Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which submitted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDA. “While [the FDA] can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public.”

Despite what must be considered a shadowy record at best, Austria just committed itself to the astonishingly draconian demand that its people either take one of these jabs (from either Pfizer, or another brand) or be ostracized from polite society, and possibly even sent to prison.

Chancellor Schallenberg may wish to inform himself that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took a heavy cue from the Nuremberg Code (1947), which issued from the Nuremberg trials of medical researchers (known as the ‘Doctors’ Trial’) who were convicted of committing horrific crimes against humanity in the name of medical research.

Month 21 of a pandemic and I still haven’t heard any public officials talk about the benefits of eating real food, exercise, and increasing vitamin D exposure towards positive public health outcomes. Weird. @joerogan

— James DiNicolantonio (@drjamesdinic) November 21, 2021

The first recommendation of that Code concerns the issue of informed consent, which acknowledges respect for personal autonomy in medicine, as well as recognizing that physicians should avoid actions that injure human patients.

It reads as follows: ”The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”

The Austrian government is glaringly ignoring the very first line of the Code that reads: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” This is a gross denial of history, a notoriously grim history, which condemned millions of innocent people to a humanitarian nightmare. While vaccines can play a major role in fighting against the current pandemic, to enforce this medical intervention on anyone violates every aspect of human liberty and freedom, which many generations of men and women have fought to ensure. It’s time to stop the segregation of society, a creeping global apartheid, which will ultimately lead to far more death and injury than any virus.

Austria was the first Western nation to enter into a gas-supply agreement with the Soviet Union in 1968. Today Russia is responsible for roughly 60% of Austria’s gas imports. Last year this trade was valued at $4.1 billion, an increase of 4.5%, while Russian exports to Austria grew by 78.9%. to $1.9 billion. Despite the sanctions, Russia’s imports from Austria also expanded by 18.5%, to reach $2.2 billion. Russia’s total investments in Austria were worth $22.9 billion as of mid-2017, and Austria held $4.7 billion of investments in Russia. Austrian companies have no plans to cut back on their business activities in Russia. Vienna strongly supports the Nord Stream 2 offshore project to supply Europe with cheap natural gas via the Baltic Sea.

The Austrian government pursues an independent foreign policy, opposing the EU leadership on such issues as migration and what it believes to be excessive interference in the internal affairs of the bloc’s member states. It has also formulated its own policy toward Russia.

In July Austria takes over the EU rotating presidency for six months. Its government wants to use this opportunity to build some bridges between Europe and Russia. The Freedom Party (FPÖ), a part of the ruling coalition, has on many occasions called for an end to the sanctions imposed against Russia by Brussels. An FPÖ delegation visited Crimea in 2017.

Vienna refused to join the over 20 EU member states that expelled Russian diplomats over what is being called the Skripal case. During President Putin’s talks with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and his meeting with President Alexander Van der Bellen on June 5, both sides seized the opportunity to emphasize their desire to boost bilateral relations. Mr. Kurz called Russia a superpower with which he’d like to “keep the channels of communication open.” The Austrian chancellor chose Russia as his first non-EU destination after he took office in December 2017. That visit took place in February.

There are signs that the EU-Russia relationship is beginning to gradually recover, given the deepening rift dividing Europe and the US, including the recently unleashed trade war. Austrian Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, who also heads the Freedom Party (FPÖ), believes that lifting the anti-Russian sanctions would be the right thing to do in response to the US imposition of tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from the EU. Last year, the Austrian party signed a partnership agreement with the United Russia party, which enjoys a majority in the Russian parliament. Some prominent members of the FPÖ support the unification of Crimea with Russia.

Austria’s neighbors, including Hungary, Slovenia, and Italy, are also frustrated with the EU, especially regarding its stance on the influx of immigrants. They are concerned about US policies and want to improve relations with Russia. Sebastian Kurz may use his upcoming EU presidency to lead the emerging group of states that long for change.

All this brings to mind the words of French President Emmanuel Macron, who told Le Journal du Dimanche in May that he opposes the idea of isolating Russia and wants to be a link that can connect Russia with Europe. Marine Le Pen, the head of the French National Rally party, sees Putin’s visit to Vienna, along with the rapprochement between Hungary and Italy, as the beginning of the process of Europe’s liberation. On June 5, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told the Italian Senate that his government wants the anti-Russian sanctions to be revised, with no strings attached. “We will be the advocates of an opening towards Russia,” he said, opening a rift within the EU over the issue. He’ll make his stance known during the G7 summit June 8-9 in Canada. Conte’s remarks coincided with Putin’s visit to Vienna. Matteo Salvini, the interior minister and leader of the Northern League, which is a part of Italy’s ruling coalition, said that he was an admirer of the Russian president, and believed Mr. Putin was “one of the best statesmen.”

The shifting political winds in Europe are paving the way for positive changes, moving toward normalizing the ties between the EU and Russia. Obviously Vladimir Putin does not lack friends in Europe.

Like back then, FPÖ will likely be a junior partner in a coalition government of Sebastian Kurz, the thirty-one-year old leader of the center-right People’s Party (ÖVP). Eighteen years ago, the presence of a far-right party in government prompted other European countries to form a ‘cordon sanitaire’ and impose diplomatic sanctions on Austria. While such measures are not coming back, the emerging government will raise a different set of challenges for those who are hoping for deeper reforms to the EU, especially in the area of asylum and border protection.

In a break with ÖVP’s reputation as a bland middle-of-the-road party, Mr. Kurz’s electoral success was driven partly by his ability to offer, like Emmanuel Macron in France, a promise of political renewal. More importantly, he succeeded in capturing a large part of FPÖ’s electorate by taking a hard line against immigration from Muslim-majority countries. A law that he proposed, which was adopted last year, bans full-face veiling in Austria. During the election campaign, Mr. Kurz also promised cuts to benefits available to refugees, threatened to impose sanctions against the home countries of asylum seekers, and suggested creating “hot spots” outside of the EU where prospective asylum seekers would be detained as their applications are being processed.

As a result, one can expect the new Austrian government to be receptive to efforts to beef up Europe’s external border service, Frontex, which now relies solely on tools that member states voluntarily make available to it. Starting in 2014, the Italian government ran a substantial policing and rescue operation, “Mare Nostrum,” in the Mediterranean Sea. Since then, such activities have been downsized, inviting smugglers and leading to more deaths on the way. The problem illustrates a key flaw of the Schengen Area: the combination of free, passportless travel and a decentralized system of border protection and asylum policy.

While Mr. Kurz’s election might facilitate further investment into common European border protection capabilities—a largely uncontroversial matter—it is unlikely to lead to a compromise over the EU’s asylum policy. What made the refugee crisis of 2015 so severe was the fact that, under the existing EU rules, countries that happen to be at the bloc’s external border are supposed to carry the burden of registering, processing and accommodating incoming asylum seekers. With hundreds of thousands arriving on Greece’s shores, for instance, that became unsustainable, particularly as refugees and migrants sought better prospects in wealthier European countries, which also offered higher chances of successfully obtaining asylum.

Recall that to relieve pressure and discourage chaotic secondary migration, in the summer of 2015 the European Commission devised the ill-fated system of relocation quotas, which aimed to spread the burden of registering and accommodating asylum seekers, and processing their applications, more evenly across member states. Although adopted by a qualified majority, the quotas were adamantly rejected by a number of Central European countries, most notably Poland and Hungary. Since then, the debate over asylum policy has been in a deadlock between the Willkommenskultur championed by Germany and the refusal to consider a single asylum application, an attitude prevalent across Central Europe.

Regardless of how generous one thinks the EU’s asylum policy should be, the absence of a coherent EU-wide approach large migratory waves will lead to chaos, as in 2015. Because of its geography, Europe does not have the option of sealing itself off completely from external migration, especially across the Mediterranean—no matter how well-resourced Frontex might be.

The only way to strengthen the EU’s resilience to future refugee and migratory crises is through a political bargain that would reconcile the humanitarian obligations of some of the world’s wealthiest democracies with the urge of Europe’s nation-states to be in control of their immigration policies. Such a bargain might involve a new legal form of refugee protection, short of the full rights and open-ended nature of asylum, as well more flexible forms of refugee relocation across the EU. If Mr. Kurz proves to be as effective a dealmaker as he is a political campaigner, maybe such a compromise is not that far off.

nationalinterest.org

This hostility wasn’t even publicly recognized at all, until it leaked out, on that date, from a tapped phone-line of arguably the most powerful person at the US State Department, the person whom American President Barack Obama had personally entrusted with running his Administration’s most geostrategically sensitive secret foreign operations (and she did it actually throughout almost the entirety of Obama’s eight years in office, regardless of whom the official US Secretary of State happened to be at the time): Victoria Nuland.

Her official title was «Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs» and she was appointed to that post by the President himself, but nominally she reported to him through the Deputy Secretary of State William Joseph Burns, who reported to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, reported to the President. 

She ran policies specifically on Ukraine (and, more broadly, against Russia). In the famous leaked phone call that she made on 4 February 2014 to the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, she instructed him to place in charge of Ukraine’s government, once America’s coup in Ukraine would be completed (which then occurred 18 days later and overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, entirely in violation of Ukraine’s own Constitution), «Yats» or Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He did, immediately after the coup was completed, receive this crucial appointment — basically, the power to control all other top appointments in the new Ukrainian government. With this appointment, the coup, which had started by no later than 2011 to be planned inside the US State Department, was effectively completed.

In this phone call, Nuland said «F—k the EU!» and no one, at the time, paid much attention to what this outburst was all about, but only that it sounded shockingly undiplomatic. Finally, however, clear evidence has now emerged, concerning what it was actually about. 

This crucial evidence consists of a refusal (at long last) by both Germany and Austria, to ratchet-up further, as the US regime now demands, economic sanctions against Russia, sanctions that are a key part of America’s plan ultimately to conquer Russia — a plan that’s been carried out consistently by all US federal governments since the moment, on the night of 24 February 1990, when US President George Herbert Walker Bush himself secretly announced it to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and afterward to other US vassal-heads-of-state — that, though the Soviet Union was already irrevocably in the process of ending the Cold War against the US and its allies, the US and its allies would secretly continue that war, henceforth, against Russia, until Russia itself would be conquered. He was implicitly informing them, there, that the Cold War, on the US side, wasn’t really about ideology (capitalist versus communist), but instead, was actually a long war for conquest, of the entire world (now it would be to strip Russia of its allies, and then to go in for the kill), by the US aristocracy and its vassal aristocracies (whom those European leaders represented).

On 15 June 2017, the Associated Press headlined «Germany, Austria slam US sanctions against Russia», and reported that both of those US vassal-nations, while paying obeisance to the imperial master, were not going to proceed further all the way to destruction of their own major oil and gas companies, in order to please that master:

In a joint statement, Austria's Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was important for Europe and the United States to form a united front on the issue of Ukraine, where Russian-based separatists have been fighting government forces since 2014.

«However, we can't accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies», the two officials said, citing a section of the bill that calls for the United States to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Half of the cost of the new pipeline is being paid for by Russian gas giant Gazprom, while the other half is being shouldered by a group including Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, French provider Engie, OMV of Austria and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall. Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don't pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

Gabriel and Kern accuse the US of trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. They said the possibility of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project «introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations».

Currently, and for a very long time, the leading energy-supplier to the EU has been Russia, in the forms of oil and, especially, natural gas, both of which are transported into the EU via an extensive network of pipelines, most of which travel through Ukraine, which is a major reason why the US rulers wanted to take over Ukraine — in order to stop that, or at least to cause a necessity for Russia to build alternative pipelines (which the US regime would likewise do everything to block from happening) — but now both Germany and Austria are saying no to this US effort. 

The US regime wants fracked US natural gas to fill an increasing portion of Europe’s needs, and for natural gas from US-allied fundamentalist Sunni royal regimes to fill as much of the rest as possible, so as to squeeze-out the existing top supplier, Russia. (Until recently, the plan was for US ally Qatar, owned by the Thani royal family, to become Europe’s main supplier, via pipelines which would traverse through Syria, for which reason Syria needs to be conquered (so that those pipelines through Syria can be built, perhaps even by American firms). However, the Sauds, who usually run US foreign relations — often with assistance from the Israeli regime, which is far more popular in the United States and also in Europe (and thus serves as the Sauds’ agents in the US and Europe) — have now blockaded Qatar because of Qatar’s insufficient compliance with the Sauds’ demand for total international isolation of Iran and of any other nation where Shia are or might become dominant. (For example, the Sauds bomb Yemen to impose fundamentalist Sunni leadership there and kill the Shia population.) And, so, now, after the break between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, even more than before, the main beneficiaries of cutting off Russian gas-supplies to the EU would be US fracking companies.

However, the big European oil and gas corporations would then play a smaller role in the European market, because those firms have mutual commitments with Gazprom and other Russian giants. The only big winners, now, of increased sanctions against Russia, would thus be US firms.

«Europe's energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America», Kern and Gabriel said.

Europe already has suffered considerable economic harm from complying with the US on taking over Ukraine, and from absorbing millions of destitute and alien refugees from Syria, Libya, and other countries where the US CIA, and other agencies, fomented the «Arab Spring» to unlock, in those countries, the oil and gas pipeline potential, which, if controlled by the US, would go to US oilfield-services firms such as Halliburton, and not to European ones such as Schlumberger. 

Kern and Gabriel — and the local national aristocracies (respectively Austrian, and German) whom they represent — are now speaking publicly about the limits beyond which they will not go in order to obey their US masters.

Consequently, back in February 2014, when the European aristocracies complied with the US aristocracy’s coup in Ukraine even though knowing full well that it was a barbaric and very bloody coup and nothing ‘democratic’ such as the US-manufactured story-line alleged it to have been, those aristocracies accepted the heist because they thought and expected to be cut in on enough of the looting of Ukraine so as to come out ahead on it. But that’s no longer the case. Because of the Sauds’ campaign against the Thanis (the owners of Qatar), the gang are starting to break up. The US gangsters are no longer clearly in control, but are being forced to choose between the Sauds and the Thanis, and have apparently chosen the Sauds. The Sauds financed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, but are the largest foreign purchasers of US-made weapons.

The US aristocracy hate Europeans because the US aristocracy are determined to conquer Russia, and because Europeans aren’t fully cooperating with that overriding US government goal — many EU billionaires want deals with Russia, but America’s billionaires are determined instead to take over Russia, and so the US (and the Sauds) might be losing its traditional support from the EU.

International affairs — US, Russia, Sauds, Thanis, Iran, Germany, UK, etc. — are in unpredictable flux. But Europe seems gradually to be drifting away from the US

And resistant European aristocrats seem to be digging in their heels on this. Here is a translation of a report dated June 17th from the most reliable source of news regarding international relations, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or «German Economic News»:

Eastern Committee: US sanctions against Russia are a threat to Europe

German Economic News | Released:17.06.17 00:36 Clock

The Eastern Committee of the German economy is indignant at the new US sanctions against Russia.

The German companies have sharply criticized the US sanctions against Russia. «The sanctions plans of the US Senate are deeply alarming and, in principle, a threat to the European and German economy», said Klaus Schäfer, Deputy Chairman of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy, on Friday evening in Berlin. «America first is a new dimension to open up international markets to US providers at the expense of European jobs. Furthermore, we consider an extraterritorial application of economic initiatives generally wrong, «he said. In the Eastern Committee, the German companies active in Eastern Europe are organized. The federal government had also clearly criticized the sanction decision.

«Every further turn at the sanctioning screw increases the danger of new trade wars and the uncertainty of the world economy», warned Schäfer. The solution of the Ukraine conflict is not a step closer. A de-escalation on all sides was necessary. He pointed out that the US-Russia trade represented only one-tenth of the EU-Russia trade. «We pay the price of sanctions to Europeans», he criticized. «Implementation of the planned sanctions would make Europe more difficult to provide with favorable energy and inevitably lead to higher prices».

The most remarkable thing about this intensification of economic aggression by the US aristocracy against some of the European aristocracies, is that instead of the aggression being spearheaded this time by the US President, it’s being spearheaded by an almost unanimous US Senate: 97 out of the 100 US Senators voted for this bill. One cannot, this time around, reasonably blame «Donald Trump» for this ‘nationalism’ — it is instead clearly a Cold War, this time, by the US aristocracy (who are represented by the US government), against some European aristocracies, which are paying insufficient obeisance to the demands by the imperial aristocracy: the US gang.

Whereas, at the time of the US coup in Ukraine, the EU swallowed in silence their shock at how brutal and bloody it had been, and stayed with the Americans because the Americans claimed that the takeover would benefit European aristocracies too (‘expand the EU’), the lie about that is now clear to all (and Ukraine has been too wrecked by America, to be of much use to anyone but the Americans as a staging base for their missiles against Moscow), and therefore «the Western Alliance» might finally be breaking up.

The vassal-governments have put up with a lot from the US aristocracy, such as when German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was revealed to be tapped by America’s NSA, and the case was quietly dropped because, «Prosecutors say they can find no actionable evidence to support claims German chancellor’s mobile phone was tapped by US National Security Agency» even though everyone knew that the refusal by Germany’s prosecutors was based upon a lie, and that Germany «remains heavily reliant on the US», and that the US government’s knowing everything that German politicians do, provides against those politicians a blackmail-potential against themselves, that cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, perhaps there now exists a countervailing force that can outweigh even considerations such as that. Maybe Germany’s billionaires have, somehow, finally become able to turn the tide on this.

The bill says the US government «should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy». But the European foreign chiefs believe that «Europe’s energy supply is Europe’s business, not that of the United States of America». Gabriel and Kern said they «can’t accept» proposed US sanctions targeting European energy companies as part of measures against Russia.

German firms BASF and Wintershall, Austria's OMV and Voestalpine, and Royal Dutch Shell are involved in Nord Stream 2, a pipeline project to pump Russian natural gas via the Baltic Sea to landfall in Germany. Russia’s Gazprom and its European partners are pushing ahead with the plans to double the capacity of the existing Nord Stream undersea gas pipeline to Europe. Gazprom has already received more than €1 billion from its partners for Nord Stream 2 financing. In April Uniper, Wintershall, Shell, OMV and Engie agreed to each loan 10% of the cost of the venture, or up to €950 million each. The Russian company will shoulder 50% of the cost of the 55 billion cubic metre pipeline, which is due to start operating in 2019.

The foreign ministers emphasized that the very fact that the US bill threatens European firms taking part in pipeline construction is «a completely new and very negative dimension into European-American relations». The officials wrote that, «In noticeable frankness, the draft US legislation describes what it's really about: the sale of American liquefied petroleum gas and the squeezing out of Russian natural gas from the European market». German Economy Minister Brigitte Zypries joined in the criticism on June 16 and warned of possible retaliation if Washington ended up fining German companies. The Senate’s move is a way for the US «to try to favor its own gas» in Europe, Isabelle Kocher, the chief executive officer of Engie, France’s former gas monopoly, told reporters in Paris on June 15. «I don’t think at all that the United States can stop this project». she said.

It’s worth to note that the US space agency (NASA) is exempt from the Senate bill but fines against foreign companies are specifically mentioned! Can there be a better example of double standards practiced by America’s political elite?

It’s very important to emphasize that the joint statement of the foreign ministers goes beyond the Nord Stream project. It puts into doubt the very idea of US-European joint policy on Russia. The paper says, if the bill becomes a law it would «diminish the effectiveness of our stance on the conflict in Ukraine if we were to no longer take joint action» against Russia in future.

Actually, the attempts to undermine Russia’s gas exports to Europe are doomed if the game is fair and politics is not mixed up with economy. Russia has a clear advantage. Natural gas transportation by pipeline is significantly cheaper than building and employing expensive LNG port infrastructure. Besides, the Russia’s export infrastructure is already built while the US export terminals are still under construction. At present, only Sabine Pass LNG export facility in the Gulf of Mexico is operational but still has a long way to go to reach full operational capacity. And with more terminals built, the US will be seeking to export LNG to Asia, which is more profitable than the supplies to Europe.

Russian Gazprom can produce and export gas to Europe at a much lower cost than LNG from across the Atlantic. It can flood Europe with cheap gas to kill off US sea exports. It has 100 billion cubic meters of annual gas production capacity sitting on the sidelines in West Siberia, which can effectively be used as spare capacity. The company’s latent capacity is equivalent to 3 percent of global production. This large volume of capacity is the result of investments in a major project on the Yamal Peninsula.

And the bottomline? Evidently, the United States clout in the Middle East is on the wane, while Russia is emerging as an important broker. Qatar, a leading world gas exporter, has recently started to shift to the Moscow-spearheaded Russia-Turkey-Iran axis as a result of the US-supported recent rift in the Arab world. What does it mean for global energy market? A new gas cartel is emerging to include Russia, Iran and Qatar – a dangerous competitor and for the US nascent shale industry. What to do about it? Here they are – the US lawmakers are going to any length to turn the tide. No scruples, anything will do when it comes to the implementation of the «America First» principle.

Another aspect to take into account. The Russia sanctions are part of the Iran bill. European companies are chomping at the bit for sealing lucrative contracts with Iran. Europe does not have to join the restrictive measures unilaterally imposed on Tehran by US Congress. The interests diverge and the gap between the US and Europe is getting wider. The process is gaining momentum.

The statement made by the German and Austrian officials is not just a separate event – another scoop to hit headlines. This present rift between the US and its European allies is another reflection of the trend that has been gaining momentum recently. America and Europe appear to go separate ways on many issues and no turgid words and high-fallutin’ speeches can hide this fact.

And this problem is being created by the sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU. Vienna is starting to recognise both the political ineffectiveness of these sanctions and the economic damage they are inflicting. But Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern’s (Social Democratic Party) attempt in February to link a hypothetical «partial lifting» (?) of sanctions against Russia with «new ways to put leverage on President Vladimir Putin» (?) to implement the Minsk Agreement is frustrating any kind of solution to the problem. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that Russia is not a party to the Minsk agreement. And as for attempts to put leverage on the Kremlin, then these can only lead to the opposite result.

Yet there is a political force gaining influence in Austria whose representatives are separating the wheat from the chaff. I am referring to the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), which currently holds 38 of the 183 seats in the National Council (parliament). In terms of the number of seats, FPÖ is second only to the parties of the ruling coalition – the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party (52 seats and 51 seats respectively).

In April 2016, two National Council deputies from the Freedom Party of Austria, Axel Kassegger and Barbara Rosenkranz, were among the few European politicians who took part in the Yalta International Economic Forum in Crimea despite resistance from Kiev. «Lost trust needs to be restored and I want to be more actively involved in this process. This is one of the reasons for my trip to Yalta», said Axel Kassegger at the time.

On 19 December 2016, an FPÖ delegation headed by the party’s chairman, Heinz-Christian Strache, signed a cooperation agreement in Moscow with the United Russia party outlining plans for Russia and Austria to share experiences in economic, trade and investment related areas. Welcoming the signing of the inter-party agreement in Moscow, Norbert Hofer, one of the Freedom Party’s leading politicians and a presidential candidate in Austria’s 2016 elections, stressed: «There is no doubt that the Freedom Party, as possibly the future ruling party of Austria, must make every effort to maintain good relations with Russia. The agreement is aimed at strengthening ties, which will have a positive impact on the Austrian economy in the future.» It is worth bearing in mind that nearly 50,000 jobs in Austria depend on the state of economic ties with Russia.

On 2 April 2017, an FPÖ delegation from Linz took part in the international forum «Cooperation instead of Confrontation: putting an end to the sanctions against Russia» held in the German town of Freiberg (Free State of Saxony) on the initiative of the Alternative for Germany party.

Another parliamentary opposition party, the Greens (24 seats in the National Council), is completely opposed to the lifting of sanctions and, accordingly, the expansion of economic ties between Austria and Russia. Recently, on the initiative of Greens deputy Tanja Windbüchler-Souschill, a request was even sent to the president of the National Council demanding an answer to whether the talks involving Reinhold Mitterlehner (People’s Party) held in Moscow in February violated the sanctions regime.

The next parliamentary elections in Austria are set to take place in October 2018 (unless they are brought forward) and preparations are already under way. According to the latest poll, 32% of voters are planning to vote for the FPÖ, 30% for the Social Democrats, and 21% for the People’s Party. The poll speculates further, however. If the People’s Party were headed by Austria’s current foreign minister, Sebastian Kurz, then this would ensure that the party outstrips its rivals: 34% versus 25% and 24% respectively for the Freedom Party and the Social Democrats.

One of the FPÖ’s advantages is that it has a strong leadership. The only reason the party’s deputy chairman, Norbert Hofer, failed to become Austrian president in May 2016 is that the results of the vote were blatantly manipulated. The party’s chairman, Heinz-Christian Strache, can take all the credit for transforming the FPÖ from a marginal party into one of the country’s leading parties. At the FPÖ congress in March 2017, he was re-elected as chairman by 99% of the delegates. The congress also confirmed that he is at the head of the party list for the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

Aware of the magnitude of the forthcoming battle, Strache is seeking to destroy the traditional ‘black-red’ duo, a pairing that makes the modernisation of public policy impossible since the government is made up of either the Social Democratic Party with the People’s Party or the People’s Party with the Social Democratic Party.

Victory in the 2018 elections will be difficult. Strache says that his party would need a ‘miracle’ to win. But even if the FPÖ does not win the majority of votes next year, an increase in its representation in the National Council will influence the government’s agenda. In fact, the Freedom Party is already having an impact now.

This is evident in how heavily politicians from both parties of the coalition are borrowing from the FPÖ’s ideas on the refugee issue. And this is where the main intrigue of Austrian politics is hidden. Sebastian Kurz, for example, is being credited for closing the ‘Balkan route’ to refugees; Kurz also suggested setting up a refugee camp outside of the EU in Georgia (his proposal caused quite a stir in Tbilisi); and it was the Austrian foreign minister who spoke out in favour of ending talks with Turkey on its accession to the European Union. All of these initiatives in some way follow the ideology developed by the Freedom Party of Austria, but this actually creates extra difficulties for the FPÖ since it is taking away some of its votes. This is why Strache is calling Kurz «a champion at copying».

The Freedom Party’s ideas (the party is regarded as ultra right-wing) are now so widespread that they are not only being ‘appropriated’ by the right-wing People’s Party, but also the left-wing Social Democratic Party. Concerned with how to win back those Social Democrat voters who have switched allegiance to the FPÖ, in January Chancellor Christian Kern issued something akin to a public confession: «It is not you who have deviated from our path, it is us [Social Democrats – N.M.]… We have ignored uncomfortable truths», he said. In his ‘confession’, the chancellor also said he was ready to challenge Brussels with regard to the refugee policy.

As for the FPÖ, it is going to be difficult, given the increased level of political competition, for the party to find a general direction for its party programme that will allow it to maintain its recognisable face without letting its opponents capitalise on its success.

But the miracle that Heinz-Christian Strache mentioned is still possible – as long as the party believes in it and makes it happen.

There is also a second plane, however, where everything looks different. During bilateral talks with Russian representatives, the EU member countries voting at their summits to extend sanctions against Russia are increasingly questioning the detrimental effect of the ‘sanctions war’ unleashed by Brussels on the interests of their countries. Just a couple of years ago, there were very few such statements. Today, however, Europe is starting to realise that the lack of trust between Russia and the European Union is not benefiting either side.

Austria – one of the engines of European integration that has, at the same time, maintained its historical and privileged relations with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, not to mention Germany – is playing an important role in this reassessment of values. Therefore, the mood in Vienna can boldly be projected onto the processes currently under way both within German politics and in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc and the Balkan region.

This mood is being expressed to some extent by Austria’s charismatic and ambitious foreign minister, 30-year-old Sebastian Kurz. In January 2017 he visited Moscow, where, following talks with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, he stated that the economic sanctions against Russia could be «lifted at any time by a unanimous decision of the 28 EU Member States». Whatever the intention behind these words, they reflect a reaction to the damage that the ‘sanctions war’ is inflicting on relations between Austria and Russia. The potential for cooperation between these two countries in the economic and investment sectors cannot be overemphasised. First and foremost, this includes the gas energy sector, transport infrastructure development, and the high-end engineering sector.

The possibility of transforming the Central European Gas Hub in Baumgarten, Austria, into Europe’s largest gas hub capable of handling pipeline gas supplies to the countries of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe is an absolute priority and is at the heart of relations between Austria’s OMV AG and Russia’s Gazprom. In 1968, OMV became the first Western company to enter into a long-term contract for the supply of gas from the USSR to Europe, and today it is Gazprom’s main partner in Austria and one of the key stakeholders in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction project.

Working meetings and talks between Alexey Miller, Chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee, and Rainer Seele, Chief Executive Officer at OMV, have become fairly regular in recent years. The most recent such meeting took place on 20 April. After addressing issues related to the development of bilateral cooperation, the meeting’s participants noted that Austria continues to increase its gas imports from Russia amid Europe’s growing demand for Russian gas in light of the region’s declining indigenous production. Between 1 April and 19 April 2017, Gazprom’s exports to Austria were 69.9 per cent higher than in the same period of 2016. The heads of Gazprom and OMV also reiterated the importance of Nord Stream 2 for ensuring reliable gas supplies to European consumers.

In terms of a more general trend, in 2016 Gazprom exported 6.1 billion cubic metres of gas to Austria – 37.9 per cent more than in 2015. Price dynamics are also bolstering this trend. Mario Mehren, the CEO of Germany’s Wintershall, predicts that «Russian gas prices will shortly fall below the price of LNG from the US or Qatar», and that «pipeline gas will remain the cornerstone of gas supplies to Europe for a long, long time to come».

At present, cooperation between the heads of Gazprom and OMV is also regulated by the Basic Agreement on Asset Swap signed on 14 December 2016. In accordance with this agreement, Gazprom will receive a 38.5 per cent stake in OMV Norge AS, a company focused on geological exploration and production in Norway, and OMV will obtain a 24.98 percent stake in the project for developing Blocks 4 and 5 of the Achimov formation in the Urengoy oil, gas and condensate field.

Another promising area of bilateral cooperation is Russia and Austria’s joint investment and project activities to build a broad-gauge railway line between Kosice and Vienna. The integration of this project into the Europe-Asia transcontinental freight system through Russia could turn Austria into a key logistics centre for Central, Eastern and Southern Europe.

In 2010, a corresponding project put forward by Russian Railways was endorsed by the political leaders of Russia, Austria and Slovakia. The project involves the construction of a 1520 mm gauge railway through Slovakia following the Kosice-Bratislava-Vienna route at a cost of around €5 euro. By 2025, the volume of traffic along the Kosice-Bratislava section of the new broad-gauge line could reach 23.7 million tonnes and allow for 18.5 million tonnes of freight traffic between Bratislava and Vienna. The total length of the railway line will be around 500 km.

The aim of the project is to connect Central Europe’s railway system to the Trans-Siberian railway and encourage freight traffic between Asia, Russia and Central Europe. When completed, the project will prevent overloading at stations connecting Europe’s railway lines to the broad gauge track. According to Russian Railways’ calculations, the project will also halve delivery times from Europe to Asia compared to the sea route (from 30 days to 14 days).

A number of European countries are gravitating towards the planned railway line including Slovakia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, Serbia, and Croatia. An analysis of the locations of natural resources and the markets for finished goods shows that the geography of the 1520 mm broad gauge line will be of huge benefit to transport operations between Europe and Asia. Manufacturers and suppliers will save between $100 and $1000 on the transportation of a single standard container. Both containerised cargo and raw materials (iron ore, ferrous metals etc.) will be transported along this line to Europe, and in the opposite direction will be predominantly containerised cargo.

Yet another promising area of bilateral cooperation between Russia and Austria is the high-tech manufacturing segment of heavy engineering associated with hydropower and the supply of related equipment and materials, in which the cooperation between Russia’s RusHydro and Austria’s Voith Hydro plays a central role. In November 2013, before the start of the ‘sanctions war’, the management of RusHydro approved a loan agreement for €200 million secured by Oesterreichische Kontrollbank Aktiengesellschaft to modernise the Saratovskaya hydropower plant. This is being carried out in cooperation with Voith Hydro and involves the comprehensive modernisation of the hydro turbines in accordance with the agreements signed between RusHydro and Voith Hydro in 2012 and 2013. Over the next 10 years, five hydro-turbine units will be replaced with new turbines. The cost of the entire Saratovskaya HPP modernisation project being carried out by RusHydro in partnership with Voith Hydro is estimated at €1 billion and it should be completed by the end of 2025.

Lukoil’s acquisition of OMV’s loss-making lubricant blending plant is another example of a successful bilateral cooperation between companies in Russia and Austria. By taking advantage of the relative cheapness of Russian oils, the deal has turned the plant from loss-making to profitable, created new jobs, and provided the conditions for the subsequent promotion of Lukoil-OMV oils on global markets. At the same time, Lukoil’s production facility in Austria has been certified as conforming to the German Association of the Automotive Industry’s VDA 6.3 standard and classified as a ‘Grade A Supplier’, the highest certification level, confirming the willingness of German car companies to fill the cars on their assembly lines with Lukoil oil.

It goes without saying that all of this merely reinforces the positions of those political forces in Austria who are fully aware of how much their country could benefit from the development of economic cooperation opportunities with Russia. The significance of these opportunities goes far beyond bilateral relations, and business people, unlike political demagogues, understand this very well. Noting that «Austria maintains good relations with Moscow», there is good reason why the influential Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung called Vienna «a neutral intermediary» in the rebuilding of relations between Russia and the West.

The problem is that politics is entering into a dispute with economics and is slowing it down – insofar as the policy parameters of the EU member states are determining the anti-Russian policy of the EU’s central institutions. There are indications, however, that Austria no longer considers this flawed political paradigm to be the only option. And that is the subject for a separate discussion.

After the historic strong second-place finish of French National Front leader Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election, the surprising referendum victory of the English and Welsh sovereigntist BREXIT forces in deciding to that the United Kingdom should leave the EU, the demise of the pro-EU Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, the presidential win of Donald Trump in the United States, and a consolidation in power of nationalist political parties in other countries, traditional political parties have taken note of the fact that the forces of anti-globalism and workers’ rights must be reckoned with and not in a negative sense. For that reason, the pro-EU and left-of-center Austrian Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) has stricken from its political rule book a restriction barring forming any national governing coalitions with the right-wing and anti-EU Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). In fact the SPÖ and FPÖ have been jointly governing the province of Burgenland since 2015.

Burgenland’s SPÖ governor, Hans Niessl, has little choice but to align with the right-wing party. Burgenland, which lies on the Hungarian border, was feeling the brunt of the migrant invasion of Europe. Niessl is but one of a growing number of European politicians considered to be left-of-center and moderate who have decided that cooperating with the far right is in the interests of national sovereignty. Niessl’s socialists and the FPÖ coalition have capped social benefits to newly-arrived immigrants and beefed up security on Burgenland’s border with Hungary.

The current Austrian coalition government of SPÖ Chancellor Christian Kern, who governs Austria in concert with the traditional conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), has been pushed to adopt sovereigntist policies, as the result of the popularity of the FPÖ, a party once disparaged as a fringe neo-Nazi group. The FPÖ has been hovering between 30 to 33 percent popularity in Austrian opinion polls. The next parliamentary election is scheduled for 2018 but may be held earlier.

Although the FPÖ’s candidate for president, Norbert Hofer, narrowly lost to Green Party-linked Alexander Van Der Bellen in two successive elections for Austrian president, the party’s candidate for Chancellor, Heinz-Christian Strache, has been polling ahead of both the SPÖ and ÖVP.

The public speeches and statements of ÖVP foreign minister Sebastian Kurz and ÖVP Interior Minister Wolfgang Slobotka have become almost indistinguishable from that of the FPÖ. Kurz and Slobotka routinely accuse the EU of «weakness» in such issues as border security, the EU’s accommodation of migrants from mainly Muslim countries, and burdensome regulations routinely issued by «Eurocrats» in Brussels.

The corporate media, taking direction from their globalist masters in the elite power centers of Washington, London, New York, Frankfurt, and Brussels, have worked overtime in painting sovereigntist political parties in the worst light possible. On the eve of the French election, European integrationists and Atlanticists sounded the warning klaxon about the dangers posed to them by the «far right», Brexit, and conservative nationalist anti-EU political leaders like Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, and, of course, Le Pen in France. However, there are also anti-globalist political leaders on the left, including leaders of Communist and left-wing socialist parties in Greece, France, Germany, and Italy.

French left-wing leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who campaigned on a platform of the EU fundamentally reforming or face a French exit – «FREXIT» finished fourth in the French first-round presidential election. That means that the anti-EU votes of second-place finisher Le Pen and Mélenchon accounted for some 42 percent of the vote. Moreover, the candidates of the traditional center-right and center-left parties, Francois Fillon of the Republicans and Benoît Hamon of the Socialist, respectively, did not make it into the final round. Hamon led the Socialists to an inglorious fifth place finish with a mere 6 percent of the vote.

Le Pen scored her greatest victories – with over 25 percent of the vote – in northeastern France in Ardennes, Meuse, Haute-Marne, Vosges, Haut-Saône, Territoire-de-Belfort, Haut-Rhin, and Meurthe-et-Moselle; the island of Corsica; Alpes-Maritime, Gard, and Vaucluse in southeastern France; Eure, Eure-et-Loire, Loir-et-Cher, Aube, and Yonne in north-central France; Lot-et-Garonne, Tarn-et-Garonne, and Pyrénées-Orientales in southwestern France; Pas-de-Calais, Nord, Aisne, Pas-de-Calais, Seine-Maritime, Oise, and Somme in northwestern France; and Ain in eastern France. Le Pen saw a 5 percent or higher increase in support in several departments since her third-place finish in the first round of the 2012 presidential election. Le Pen scored her greatest gains in Ardennes, Meuse, Haute-Marne, and Haut Saône in northeastern France; Aude and Pyrénées-Orientales and Hérault in the Pyrenees region; Seine-Maritime, Oise, Somme, and Eure and Nord in northwestern France; and Nièvre in central France.

The EU leadership, in a vainglorious attempt to claim the sovereignty and national pride agenda for themselves, have stated that European nations cannot be «sovereign» without the EU. Of course, this policy ignores the existence of separate nation-states on the European continent.

After the Malta EU Summit in March, EU Council President Donald Tusk tried to claim that the EU and national sovereignty movements are compatible: «There is no contradiction between an integrated Europe and the independent of our nations; indeed, the more united Europe is the more capable it is of protecting national and sovereign interests.» Tusk’s comments across Europe were laughed off as a pathetic attempt by Brussels to co-opt the national sovereignty parties and movements in Europe. In fact, the EU is anathema to national interests within Europe as witnessed by its complete disregard for European religion and culture in promoting the mass migration of Muslims from war-ravaged regions, all at the expense of the safety of European women and children, social service programs, and overall national security.

Even though the mainline pro-EU French conservatives and socialists failed to make it into the second round, EU federalist pests like German Social Democratic candidate for chancellor and former president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz congratulated Macron, a former banker, and urged French voters «to unite so the nationalist does not become president.» EU integration fanatics like Schulz, Tusk, and others should be careful about for what they wish.

Brussels-nurtured political creatures and bureaucratic leeches like Schulz, Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker are a main part of the reason there is a nationalist and sovereigntist rejection of the EU and globalism throughout Europe. Europeans have tired of the arrogance and elitism, sometimes punctuated by the drunken outbursts of Juncker, of the EU oligarchs.

In the 2002 second round presidential election between Jacques Chirac of the traditional conservatives and Jean-Marie Le Pen – the National Front candidate and father of Marine Le Pen – several of those who voted for the Communist candidate in the first round, mostly workers upset about imported labor grabbing their jobs for less wages in and around the Marseille and northern border regions, opted to vote for Le Pen. In the May 2017 second-round, Macron, the favored Euro-politician, cannot take the leftist vote for granted. The real left in France – not the bourgeoisie intellectuals who produce nothing but hot air, but the workers in Marseille, Nice, Calais, and other cities that have borne the brunt of the migrant invasion – will see Le Pen as preferable to the banker Macron. Many from the working class in Nice voted for Le Pen because they or someone they knew lost one or more relatives in the July 14, 2016 truck attack massacre by a crazed jihadist declaring his loyalty to the Islamic State.

Many French citizens will see Macron, who would rather want France to forget about the Bastille Day massacre, as a modern version of the disinterested French monarch tossed out of power by Bastille-emboldened revolutionaries. Le Pen, on the other hand, will be seen by many French citizens as someone who will not take orders from a domineering, albeit secular version of the Holy Roman Empire in Brussels.