Maahantuomme ravintolisiä USA: sta, FDA: n tiukasti valvomilta markkinoilta.
Visionamme on tuottaa oikeaa tietoa terveyden uhkatekijöistä.
Suurimpana ongelmana länsimaissa on jatkuva, yksipuolisesti liian hapan ruokavalio, jota elimistö ei kykene riittävästi puskuroimaan, vaan koko aineenvaihdunta -järjestelmä joutuu tekemään työtä happamuutta vastaan.
Lopulta elimistö alkaa tulehtua ja saavuttaa potilaan huomaamatta, jatkuvan tulehduksellisen tilan.
Julkaistu 10.09.2017 21:19, 61867 lukukertaa, Ei kommentteja
USA:n ja Naton hyvin organisoitu salainen sotilastiedustelukeskus ”hybridiosaamiskeskus” on saanut Suomen laissa rajoittamattomat toimintaoikeudet ja täydellisen syytesuojan. Johan Bäckman ilmaisee asian ytimekkäästi: ”Hybridiosaamiskeskuksella on lupa tappaa”.
Suuremmat vapaudet kuin YK:lla ja suurlähetystöillä
Toisin kuin Naton hybridikeskuksen puolustajat ovat jo verranneet keskuksen asemaa YK:n tai suurlähetystöjen koskemattomuuteen, niin Naton hybridikeskuksen oikeudet, tehtävät ja vapaudet ylittävät todellisuudessa huomattavasti edellä mainitut.
Naton hybridikeskuksella on miehitysvallan oikeudet ja vapaudet.
Naton hybridiuhkien osaamiskeskuksen toiminta ei ole Suomessa minkään viranomaisen valvonnassa ja keskuksella on syytesuoja.
Naton hybridikeskus toimintansa mukaisesti kerää ja analysoi dataa itse määrittämien tarkoituksensa mukaisesti – harjoittaa siis tiedustelutoimintaa. Ulkovaltojen harjoittama tiedustelutoiminta on sitä vastoin ollut hyvin tiukasti Supon vastavakoilun valvonnassa. Vieraan vallan hyväksi tiedustelua harjoittavia agentteja on karkotettu maasta. Naton hybridikeskusta Supon vastavakoilu ei saa valvoa, eikä kukaan suomalainen viranomainen saa edes ilmenneiden vakoilutapausten jälkeen puuttua keskuksen ja sen henkilöstön toimintaan.
Naton hybridivakoilukeskus on niin suljettu, että edes Suomen viranomaisilla ei ole sinne asiaa. Samanaikaisesti puhutaan ”tiedustelulainsäädännön” tarkasta oikeudellisesta säätelystä, kun Naton hybridivakoilukeskus on vapautettu kaikesta oikeudellisesta säätelystä ja valvonnasta – jopa sen työntekijät ovat saaneet syytesuojan.
Tiedustelulainsäädännön keskustelu näyttää suurelta vedätykseltä tai bluffilta sen jälkeen, kun Naton ”hybridiosaamiskeskus” on saanut vapautensa ja oikeutensa.
Suomessa säädetyssä laissa jopa vaaditaan, että Naton hybridiosaamiskeskuksen ”arvoa” ei saa loukata – sitä ei ilmeisemmin saa kutsua ja kohdella ”hybridisontakeskuksena”. Lakipykälä on outo, koska se asettaa absurdin ongelman siitä, miten oikeushenkilön kunniaa voisi loukata. Henkilölöiden kunnianloukkaus olisi selvästi ymmärrettävämpi.
Suomen laki ei rajoita Naton hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toimintaa vain ns. julkisten lähteiden avulla tapahtuvaan tiedusteluun ja niiden arkistointiin, mikä sekin olisi oikeusvaltiossa kielletty. Tähän saakka poliisi tai mikä tahansa siviilitiedusteluviranomainen ei ole saanut ryhtyä seuraamaan ja arkistoimaan kansalaisten poliittisia näkemyksiä ilman rikosepäilyä.
Nyt Naton hybridiosaamiskeskus arkistoi niin kuin itse tahtoo kaiken tiedustelutietonsa Suomessa! Sen toimintaa ei laki rajoita mihinkään julkisiin lähteisiin.
Naton hybridiosaamiskeskus on hybridiuhka Suomelle
Julkisuudessa on kerrottu Naton ”hybridiosaamiskeskuksen” tehtävistä hyvin epämääräisesti, muttaJohan Bäckmanluki keskusta koskevan Suomen lainsäädännön ja hämmästelee siinä annettua kuvaa.
”Eduskunnan heinäkuussa hyväksymän lain mukaan ”hybridiosaamiskeskus” on Suomen viranomaisten valvonnan ulkopuolella, sen työntekijöillä on syytesuoja eli oikeus tehdä rikoksia ilman seuraamuksia, eikä Suomen viranomaisilla ei ole mitään oikeutta valvoa keskuksen henkilöitä, tiloja, viestintää eikä ”arkistoja” eli keskuksen keräämää tiedustelumateriaalia.”
Näiden oikeuksien ja vapauksien sekä verkostojen takia on oikein luonnehtia Naton hybridikeskusta USA:n ja Naton vakoilukeskukseksi Suomen alueella.
”Äskettäin Helsingissä keskuksen toimintaan ”tutustuivat” eräs amerikkalaiskenraali sekä Naton tiedustelujohtaja”, Bäckman muistuttaa.
”Se on NATO:n aggressiivinen sotilastiedustelukeskus Suomen maaperällä ja se uhkaa konkreettisesti jokaisen suomalaisen turvallisuutta ja oikeuksia. Keskuksen avulla voidaan esimerkiksi vaikuttaa Suomen vaaleihin tai tukea vallankaappausta Suomessa sekä mahdollista NATO-miehitystä. Suomi ei edes tarvitse mitään uusia tiedustelulakeja, koska kaikki vakoilu voidaan hoitaa ”hybridiosaamiskeskuksen” kautta.”
”Hybridiosaamiskeskusta” koskevan lain vaaralliset vapaudet ja valtuudet käyvät ilmi sitä koskevasta laista.
Tyypillinen tehtävämäärittely vakoilukeskukselle
Lain 1 §säätää ”hybridiosaamiskeskuksen” tehtävästä:
Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen tehtävänä on tukea hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toimintaan osallistuvien hallitusten pyrkimyksiä parantaa hybridiuhkien torjuntaan liittyvää siviili- jasotilassuorituskykyään(…)
Sotilaalliselle vakoilukeskukselle tyypillisen tehtävämäärittelyn mukaisesti Naton hybridikeskus kerää Suomessa tietoa sotilaallisen suorituskyvyn parantamiseksi.
”Kysymys on ulkovaltojen aggressiivisesta sotilastiedustelusta Suomen maaperällä”, Bäckmantiivistää.
Oikeuslaitoksen tavoittamattomissa
Hybridiosaamiskeskusta koskevanlain 2 §säätää
Hybridiosaamiskeskus voi hankkia, omistaa ja luovuttaa kiinteää ja irtainta omaisuutta, tehdä sopimuksia jaolla osapuolena oikeudenkäynnissä.(…)
Lain 2 §:n sisältö on erityinen, koska keskus voi olla osapuolena oikeudenkäynnissä, mutta sen omilla työntekijöillä on kuitenkin syytesuoja ja keskuksella ei ole tuomioiden täytäntöönpanovelvollisuutta. Bäckman huomauttaa ongelmallisesta tilanteesta:
”Keskus voi siis haastaa tahoja oikeuteen, mutta sitä ei voida haastaa mitenkään. Jos keskus häviää oikeudenkäyntinsä, sillä ei ole velvollisuutta noudattaa tuomion täytäntöönpanoa”.
Syytesuoja
Hybridiosaamiskeskusta koskevanlain 5 §säätää:
Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen lainkäytöllinen koskemattomuus Hybridiosaamiskeskuksella on Suomessalainkäytöllinen koskemattomuus, ellei se ole yksittäistapauksessa nimenomaisesti siitä luopunut. Koskemattomuudesta luopuminenei sisällä suostumusta tuomion täytäntöönpanotoimiin. Tuomio on pantavissa täytäntöön vain, jos siihen on suostuttu erikseen. Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen tilat ja omaisuus ovat niiden sijaintipaikasta ja haltijasta riippumattavapautetut pakkotoimista Suomessa, ellei keskus ole yksittäistapauksessa nimenomaisesti siitä luopunut.
Katkelma Suomen lainsäädännöstä, joka suo poikkeukselliset vapaudet ja oikeudet.
Naton hybridikeskuksella on täydellinen syytesuoja ja koskemattomuus kuten diplomaattiedustolla, poliisi ei voi tehdä sinne edes kotietsintä eikä keskuksen tarvitse totella mitään oikeuden päätöksiä. Asian juridista vapautta Bäckman luonnehtii hyvin keskuksen rajuilla vapauksilla:
”Käytännössä keskuksen tiloihin ei ole edes Suomen puolustusvoimilla pääsyä. Keskusta voidaan käyttää siis mihin tahansa NATO:n haluamaan tarkoitukseen, kuten kidutukseen, terrorismiin, vapaudenriistoon tai muuhun. Mitään seuraamuksia ei ole, eikä Suomen viranomaisilla ole oikeutta puuttua toimintaan.”
Vakoilukeskus on turvatalo, safehouse
Lain 6 §säätää hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toimitiloista: Hybridiosaamiskeskuksentoimitilat ovat loukkaamattomatja johtajan välittömässä valvonnassa. Johtaja vastaa hybridiosaamiskeskuksen turvallisuudesta keskuksen toimitiloissa. Virkamiehellä tai muulla Suomessa julkista valtaa käyttävällä henkilöllä on pääsy hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toimitiloihin virkatehtäviensä suorittamiseksi ainoastaan johtajan tai hänen nimeämänsä henkilön nimenomaisella suostumuksella. Keskuksen henkilökunnan turvallisuuden tai keskuksen toimitiloja vaarantavan ja välittömiä toimenpiteitä vaativantulipalon tai muun hätätilanteen sattuessatoimivaltaisilla viranomaisilla on kuitenkin oikeus ryhtyä kohtuullisiin toimenpiteisiin suojellakseen keskuksen henkilökuntaa ja toimitiloja. Suomen toimivaltaisilla viranomaisilla on myös oikeus ryhtyä kohtuullisiin toimenpiteisiinsuojellakseen hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toimitiloja tunkeutumiseltatai vahingolta sekä estääkseen keskuksen rauhan häiritsemisen tai sen arvon loukkaamisen. Hybridiosaamiskeskus ja Suomen toimivaltaiset viranomaiset toimivat tarkoituksenmukaisessa yhteistyössä keskuksen turvallisuutta koskevissa asioissa.
Lainsäädännöllä on luotu Naton hybridikeskuksesta vakoilukeskuksena tyypillinen turvatalo (safehouse), jota voidaan käyttää suojana ulkomaiste tiedustelupalvelujen erikoisoperaatioihin. Asian vakavuudesta Bäckman kirjoittaa seuraavaa:
”Suomen viranomaisilla ei ole mitään pääsyä keskuksen tiloihin, esimerkiksi tilanteessa, jossa siellä piilottelee terroristi, tai tiedetään, että siellä harjoitetaan rikollista toimintaa. Tiloissa voidaan pitää ketä tahansa ja siellä voi tapahtua mitä tahansa, eikä viranomaisilla ole mitään oikeutta puuttua asiaan. Lakiteksti myös viittaa siihen, että keskus olisi valmistaunut siihen kohdistuviin aseellisiin hyökkäyksiin. Kaikki tämä merkitsee, että mistään tavallisesta ”tutkimuslaitoksesta” ei ole kysymys.”
Vakoilukeskus kerää arkistoa
Lain 7 §vaatii arkiston loukkaamattomuutta:
Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen arkisto on loukkaamaton.Arkistoon kuuluu kaikki se tieto, joka kuuluu keskukselle tai on sen hallussa missä tahansa muodossa Suomen alueella.
Johan Bäckman huomauttaa arkiston viittaavan keskuksen keräämään tiedustelutietoon, jota Suomen viranomaiset eivät saa tarkistaa:
”Keskuksen ”arkisto” tarkoittaa vakoilukeskuksen keräämiä tiedustelutietoja, jotka ovat siis loukkamattomia eikä Suomen viranomaisilla tai kenelläkään muullakaan ole mitään oikeutta puuttua niihin. Keskus voi siis kerätä mitä tahansa tietokantoja poliitikoista tai muista kansalaisista ja heidän mielipiteistään tai viestinnästään millä tahansa keinoin ja siirtää näitä tietoja muiden valtioiden käyttöön. Keskus voi kerätä henkilörekistereitä ja tietoja henkilöiden yksityiselämästä. Kaikki on sallittua eikä Suomi voi puuttua asiaan millään tavalla.”
Hybridikeskuksen viestintää ei saa valvoa
Lain 8 §säätää viestinnästä:
Mitään hybridiosaamiskeskukselle tai sen henkilöstölle osoitettuja tai keskuksen tai sen henkilöstön lähettämiä virallisia viestejä ei saa tarkastaa ennakkooneikä niiden yksityisyyteen saa puuttua valvontatoimin tai muin toimenpitein.
Kuvakaappaus Suomen lainsäädännöstä Naton hybridikeskuksen hyväksi.
Bäckman huomauttaa lain suomasta poikkeavasta suojasta:
Kenelläkään ei ole oikeutta valvoa vakoilukeskuksen viestintää. Jos keskuksen epäillään olevan mukana rikollisessa toiminnassa, mikään pakkokeino ei oikeuta viestinnän seuraamiseen. Suomen turvallisuusviranomaisetkaan eivät saa seurata keskuksen viestintää (koska ne ovat siinä mukana).
Verovapaus
Lain 9 §suo jopa verovapauden hybridiosaamiskeskukselle!
Hybridiosaamiskeskuson vapautettu kaikista välittömistä veroista.
Bäckman huomauttaa lain luomasta ongelmasta, ettei kukaan voi tietää, minkälaisia palkkioita Nato agenteilleen maksaa.
”Vakoilukeskus maksaa vakoilijoilleen ”pimeästi” eli palkkioista ei makseta mitään veroja mihinkään. Kukaan ei siis voi tietää, minkänlaisia palkkioita NATO agenteilleen maksaa.”
Keskuksen henkilöstöllä oikeus tehdä rikoksia
Lain 11 §säätää hybridikeskuksen johtokunnan jäsenille ja henkilöstölle lainkäytöllisen koskemattomuuden:
Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen johtokunnan jäsenillä, johtajalla jakeskuksen henkilöstöllä on Suomessa lainkäytöllinen koskemattomuusheidän tehtävänsä perusteella antamiensa suullisten ja kirjallisten lausuntojen jatehtävänsä perusteella suorittamiensa toimenpiteidenosalta. (…) koskemattomuudesta luopuminenei sisällä suostumusta tuomion täytäntöönpanoon.
Tämä laissa myönnetty koskemattomuus on ongelma, kun
”vakoilukeskuksen henkilöstö saa tällä tavoin oikeuden tehdä Suomessa mitä tahansa rikoksia, vaikka tappaa, eikä siitä ole mitään rikosoikeudellisia seurauksia. Keskus tarjoaa suojan mille tahansa rikolliselle toiminnalle. Edes laissa mainittu lainkäytöllisestä koskemattomuudesta luopuminen ei sisällä suostumusta tuomion täytäntöönpanoon. ”
Rahoitus täysin hämäräperäinen
Lain 12 §säätää toiminnan rahoituksesta hämäräperäisesti:
Hybridiosaamiskeskuksen toiminta rahoitetaan toimintaan osallistuvien maiden maksamilla vuosittaisilla johtokunnan hyväksymillä osallistumismaksuilla sekävapaaehtoisilla maksuilla.
Johan Bäckman huomauttaa, että tästä näkee, miten ”vakoilukeskuksen rahoitus on täysin hämärän peitossa”.
Naton hybridikeskuksen pomoHanna Smithon ilmoittanut, että he keskittyisivät vaihtoehtoismedian seurantaan. Mitä muuta toiminta on käytännössä, sitä ei kukaan suomalainen saa selvittää.
Ukrainan tilanne – kuka sotii ja kenen puolesta? – Janus Putkonen #106
Uuden MV-lehden päätoimittajaJanus Putkonenvieraili 21.2.2022Kempenpodcastissa kertomassa todellisena asiantuntijana paljon puhutusta Ukrainan ja Venäjän tilanteesta suoraan paikan päältä nykyisestä asuinkaupungistaan Luganskista käsin. Valtamedian suoltaman propagandan sijaan suosittelemme lämpimästi kuuntelemaan ihan oikean toimittajan kertomaa tilanneraporttia suoraan tapahtumien ytimestä käsin tarkasteltuna.
https://youtu.be/LyCWEpR6kM8
Tässä on Mikko Kempen kirjoittama saatekirjoitus tälle jaksolle linkkeineen:
Vieraana MV-median päätoimittaja ja verkkomedian perustaja Janus Putkonen. Janus Putkonen asuu tällä hetkellä Luganskin kaupungissa Ukrainassa.
Tässä jaksossa kävimme läpi mitä Ukrainassa tapahtuu juuri nyt? Kenen puolesta Janus käy informaatio sotaa ja miksi? Miksi Janus päätti perustaa verkkomedian ja miksi hän muutti Suomesta? Miten Ukraina on päätynyt tähän pisteeseen? Mitä mieltä Janus on länsimedian ja esim. Ylen uutisoinnista? Kuka Ukrainassa juuri nyt taistelee ja miksi?
00:00 – Mitä Luganskissa ja Ukrainassa tapahtuu juuri nyt? 04:30 – Käykö Janus informaatio sotaa venäjän puolesta? 08:20 – Kuka pitää yllä Ukrainaissa käytävää sotaa? 13:00 – Miten Janus on päätynyt nyt asumaan Luganskissa? 23:30 – Miten Janus päätyi perustamaan verkkomedian? 31:00 – Mikä oli se kulminaatio piste minkä takia Janus lähti maanpakoon? 38:00 – Onko Janus venäjämielinen ja suosiiko Janus Putinin ideologiaa? 44:00 – Mitä mieltä Janus on teoriasta, että Kiinan vallankumous olisi rahoitettu joidenkin pankkiirisukujen toimesta? 52:00 – Miksi Donbass on Januksen mielestä ollut paras kansanliike? 54:00 – Onko mahdollista, että Putin olisi korruptoitunut ns. globaali eliitin toimesta? 1:02:00 – Miten Ukraina on päätynyt tähän pisteeseen? 1:15:00 – Kuka Ukrainassa juuri nyt taistelee ja miksi? 1:23:00 – Miten länsimedian ja Ylen uutisoinnista tästä asiasta? 1:27:00 – Mikä on Januksen viesti podcastin kuuntelijoille ja katselijoille?
From “Event 201” to “Cyber Polygon”: The WEF’s Simulation of a Coming “Cyber Pandemic”
Last year, the World Economic Forum teamed up with the Russian government and global banks to run a high-profile cyberattack simulation that targeted the financial industry, an actual event that would pave the way for a “reset” of the global economy. The simulation, named Cyber Polygon, may have been more than a typical planning exercise and bears similarities to the WEF-sponsored pandemic simulation Event 201 that briefly preceded the COVID-19 crisis.
On Wednesday, the World Economic Forum (WEF), along with Russia’s Sberbank and its cybersecurity subsidiary BI.ZONEannounced thata new global cyberattack simulation would take placethis coming Julyto instruct participants in “developing secure ecosystems” by simulating a supply-chain cyberattack similar to therecent SolarWinds hackthat would “assess the cyber resilience” of the exercise’s participants. On thenewly updated event website, the simulation, called Cyber Polygon 2021, ominously warns that, given the digitalization trends largely spurred by the COVID-19 crisis, “a single vulnerable link is enough to bring down the entire system, just like the domino effect,” adding that “a secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.”
The exercise comes several months after the WEF, the “international organization for public-private cooperation” that counts the world’s richest elite among its members, formally announced its movement for a Great Reset, which would involve the coordinated transition to a Fourth Industrial Revolution global economy in which human workers become increasingly irrelevant. This revolution, including its biggest proponent, WEF founder Klaus Schwab, has previously presented a major problem for WEF members and member organizations in terms of what will happen to the masses of people left unemployed by the increasing automation and digitalization in the workplace.
New economic systems that are digitally based and either partnered with or run by central banks are a key part of the WEF’s Great Reset, and such systems would be part of the answer to controlling the masses of the recently unemployed. As othershave noted, these digital monopolies, not just financial services, would allow those who control them to “turn off” a person’s money and access to services if that individual does not comply with certain laws, mandates and regulations.
The WEF has been actively promoting and creating such systems and has most recently taken to calling its preferred model “stakeholder capitalism.” Though advertised as a more “inclusive” form of capitalism, stakeholder capitalism would essentially fuse the public and private sectors, creating a system much more like Mussolini’s corporatist style of fascism than anything else.
Yet, to usher in this new and radically different system, the current corrupt system must somehow collapse in its entirety, and its replacement must be successfully marketed to the masses as somehow better than its predecessor. When the world’s most powerful people, such as members of the WEF, desire to make radical changes, crises conveniently emerge—whether a war, a plague, or economic collapse—that enable a “reset” of the system, which is frequently accompanied by a massive upward transfer of wealth.
In recent decades, such events have often been preceded by simulations that come thick and fast before the very event they were meant to “prevent” takes place. Recent examples include the2020 US electionandCOVID-19. One of these,Event 201, was cohosted by the World Economic Forum in October 2019 and simulated a novel coronavirus pandemic that spreads around the world and causes major disruptions to the global economy—just a few weeks before the first case of COVID-19 appeared. Cyber Polygon 2021 is merely the latest such simulation, cosponsored by the World Economic Forum. The forum’s current agenda and its past track record of hosting prophetic simulations demands that the exercise be scrutinized.
Though Cyber Polygon 2021 is months off, it was preceded by Cyber Polygon 2020, a similar WEF-sponsored simulation that took place last July in which speakers warned of a coming deadly “pandemic” of cyberattacks that would largely target two economic sectors, healthcare and finance.Cyber Polygon2020 was officially described as “international online training for raising global cyber resilience” and involved many of the world’s biggest tech companies and international authorities, from IBM to INTERPOL. There were also many surprising participants at the event, some of whom have been traditionally seen as opposed to Western imperial interests. For example, the person chosen to open the Cyber Polygon event was the prime minister of the Russian Federation,Mikhail Mishustin, and its main host, BI.ZONE, was a subsidiary of the Russian-government-controlled Sberbank. This suggests that the overused “Russian hacker” narrative may be coming to an end or will soon be switched out for another boogeyman more suitable in light of current political realities.
Aside from Mishustin, WEF executive director Klaus Schwab and former UK prime minister Tony Blair participated in the Cyber Polygon 2020 event, which is due to be repeated annually and bears many similarities to2019’s Event 201. Rather than preparing for a potential medical pandemic, Cyber Polygon 2020 focused on preparing for a “cyberpandemic,” one that mainstream media outletslike theNew Yorkerclaim is “already underway.” Given the WEF’s recent simulations, powerful billionaire business owners and bankers appear to be poised to use both physical and digital pandemics to reform our societies according to their own design and for their own benefit.
The Architects of Cyber Polygon
According to Russian cybersecurity firm BI.ZONE, 120 organizations spread over twenty-nine countries took part in the two scenarios that were simulated at Cyber Polygon 2020, with as many as five million people allegedly having watched the livestream in over fifty-seven countries. Like many events that took place in 2020, the Cyber Polygon simulations were conducted online due to COVID-19 restrictions. Together with the World Economic Forum, BI.ZONE, a subsidiary of Sberbank, manages the Cyber Polygon project. Sberbank’s largest shareholder, as of last year, isthe Russian government, and it is thusoften describedby English-language media outlets as a state-controlled bank.
The 2020 event was launched with anaddress fromthe prime minister of the Russian Federation Mishustin, who has a history of courting Western tech companies prior to entering politics. In 1989, Mishustin graduated from Moscow State Technological University (generally known asStankin) with a qualification in systems engineering. During the 1990s, he worked at theInternational Computer Club, a nonprofit organization with the goal of “attracting Western advanced information technologies” to Russia. Between 1996 and 1998, Mishustin was the chairman of the board of the ICC, but the company was liquidated in 2016. Between 2010 and 2020, he served as head of theFederal Taxation Serviceof the Russian Federation. Even though he had never shown any previous political ambitions, on January 16, 2020, hewas appointedprime minister of the Russian Federation by an executive order issued by President Putin.
During Mishustin’s welcoming remarks at the WEF’s Cyber Polygon 2020, the Russian PM warned of the need to create public policy to “strengthen the digital security of critical activities without undermining the benefits from digital transformation in critical sectors that would unnecessarily restrict the use and openness of digital technology.” The statement suggests that “unnecessary restrictions” could become seen as necessary in time.
Mishustin goes on to explain that Russia’s post-COVID economic recovery will be based on the “increasing digitalization of that economy and government,” adding that “we will drastically increase the number of available digital public services and introduce fundamentally new support measures for digital businesses.” He also stated that “Russia has developed a common national system for identification and the prevention of cyberattacks with the government agency’s information systems linked in the system.” He also addressed the Cyber Polygon audience about the international community needing to come together to prevent a “global cyberfraud pandemic.”
Sberbank, the largest Russian banking institution and former Soviet savings monopoly, which was originally founded by Nicholas I, was an official host of the Cyber Polygon 2020 event alongside the World Economic Forum. Asreported in theEconomistin January 2021, the Russian banking giant has begun to reimagine its business in an effort to become a consumer-technology giant. Sberbank has spent around $2 billion on technology and acquisitions, including the acquisition of internet media group Rambler, which it fully acquired in 2020. As late as December 30, 2020, Sberbank acquiredDoma.ai, whichdescribes itselfas “a convenient real estate management platform.” On June 15, 2020,Sberbank bought 2GIS, a map, navigator, and business directory with over 42 million monthly active users.Sberbank’s twenty-two investments, eleven as the lead investor, include some of the most used services in Russia, and its clear intention is to become a one-stop digital shop for all services. The bank also became the owner of one of the largest data-processing centers in Europe when theSouth Port data-processing centeropened in November 2011, replacing the existing thirty-six regional data centers. Sberbank is set to bethe world’s first bankto launch its own cryptocurrency, Sbercoin, and digital finance “ecosystem” this March. It notably announced the coming Sbercoin, a “stablecoin” tied to the Russian ruble,just a few weeksafter the Cyber Polygon 2020 exercise.
Sberbank’s alliance with the WEF and prominence at Cyber Polygon 2020 was underscored at the event during the welcoming remarks delivered by Klaus Schwab. Schwab gave special thanks toHerman Gref, a member of theboard of trusteesof the World Economic Forum and Sberbank’s CEO and also issued the following dire warning:
We all know, but still pay insufficient attention to, the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyberattack which would bring to a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack. We have to ask ourselves, in such a situation, how could we let this happen despite the fact we had all the information about the possibility and seriousness of a risk attack. Cybercrime and global cooperation should be on the forefront of the global agenda.
Similar warnings were heard at a 2019 simulation that was also cosponsored by the World Economic Forum, Event 201. Event 201, which simulated a global pandemic just months before the COVID-19 crisis, presciently warned inits official documentation: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.” In contrast to similar simulations conducted in the past, Event 201 championed a “public-private partnership” approach to combatting pandemics, with a focus on engaging “the private sector in epidemic and outbreak preparedness at the national or regional level.” The WEF is, among other things, a major evangelist for the merging of the public and private sectors globally, describing itself as the “international organization for private-public cooperation.” It is thus unsurprising that their latest disaster simulation, which focuses on cyberattacks, would promote this same agenda.
The Speakers at Cyber Polygon 2020
Aside from Schwab and Mishustin, twenty others took part in Cyber Polygon 2020, including some big names from the top echelons of the political elite. First off, Herman Gref engaged in discussionwithformer UK prime minister Tony Blair, who has been pushing for digital identity systems for decades. Blair straightforwardly told the CEO of Sberbank that biometric digital identity systems will “inevitably” be the tools that most governments will use to deal with future pandemics. Blair, discussing the coronavirus pandemic with Gref, advocated the harshest of lockdown measures, saying the only alternative to biometric digital identities is to “lockdown the economy.”
Next,Sebastian Tolstoy, Ericsson’s general director for Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia and current chairman of the Tolstoy Family Foundation in Sweden, dialogued withAlexey Kornya.Kornyais president, CEO, and chairman of the management board of Mobile TeleSystems. He previously worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers and AIG-Brunswick Capital Management at North-West Telecom. Tolstoy and Kornya presented a segment at Cyber Polygon 2020 entitled “Building a Secure Interconnected World: What Is the Role of the Telecom Sector?” in which they discussed the importance of digital communication and connectivity to our modern way of living.
In the next segment,Nik Gowing, BBC World News presenter between 1996 and 2014 and founder and director ofThinking the Unthinkable, spoke withVladimir Pozner, journalist and broadcaster, on the subject of “fake news” in aconversationthat was actually somewhat refreshing in its arguments and approach.
Stéphane Duguin, the CEO of theCyberPeace Institute, a Geneva-based company that describes itself as “citizens who seek peace and justice in cyberspace,” then gave a talk to the millions of viewers watching the simulation. The CyberPeace Institute,funded byMicrosoft, Facebook, Mastercard, and the Hewlett Foundation, among others,claims tohelp their customers “increase digital resilience and the capacity to respond to and recover from cyberattacks.” The core backers of the CyberPeace Institute are also among the top backers of the Global Cyber Alliance,which unitesthe public sectors of the US, UK, and France with multinational corporations and intelligence-linked cybersecurity firms, employing “a coordinated approach and nontraditional collaboration” to “reduce cyber risk.”
Duguin, who is also on the advisory board of theGlobal Forum on Cyber Expertise,recently launched theCyber4Healthcare initiative, a “free” cybersecurity service to healthcare providers fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cyber4Healthcare initiativeincludes as its main partnersBI.ZONE as well as Microsoft and the Global Cyber Alliance. This isyet anothersuspicious Microsoft-linked free cybersecurity service currently being pitched to and adopted by healthcare providers around the world at a time when warnings of a coming cyberattack on healthcare systems globally are becoming more public.
Dhanya Thakkar, senior vice president of AMEA atTrend Micro, who advertises himself online as a top ASEAN LinkedIn “cybersecurity influencer,” and Wendi Whitmore, vice president of IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence, next discussed the topic “Know Your Enemy: How Is the Crisis Changing the Cyberthreat Landscape?” IBM’s presence is notable due to the company’s longstanding relationshipwith the CIA,dating backto the early Cold War. The company has become so entrenched that the CIA recently recruited their chief information officerdirectly from IBM Federal. Before joining IBM, Whitmore held executive positions at California-based cybersecurity technology companiesCrowdStrikeandMandiant, the latteracquiredbyFireEyein a stock and cash deal worth in excess of $1 billion. Whitmore was responsible for “professional services.” Notably, both CrowdStrike and Mandiant/FireEye are the key organizationsleading the investigationinto the recent SolarWinds hack, which US intelligence has blamed on a “Russian hacker” without providing any evidence. Whitmore began her career as a special agent conducting computer crime investigations with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Jacqueline Kernot, the Australian “partner in cybersecurity” for Ernst and Young, andHector Rodriguez, senior vice president and regional risk officer for Visa, next discussed how to prepare for cyberattacks.Kernot workedfor over twenty-five years as a military officer for the Australian Intelligence Corps and spent two years working at IBM’s Defence|Space|Intelligence for Tivoli Software in the UK with “international responsibilities within the UK Ministry of Defence, Defence Primes, and NATO.” Ernst and Young and Visa, alongside otherWEF-linked corporationssuch as Salesforce, are well represented on the Vatican’s exclusiveCouncil for Inclusive Capitalism. The Council, like the WEF,calls forthe reconstruction of the economic system to be more “sustainable,” “inclusive,” and “dynamic” by “harnessing the power of the private sector.”
TroelsØrting Jørgensen , chairman of the advisory board of the World Economic Forum’s Centre for Cybersecurity, and Jürgen Stock, the Danish secretary general of INTERPOL, also spoke together at Cyber Polygon regarding the changes in global cybercrime over the course of the previous year. A few months after appearing at Cyber Polygon, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority announced in an official statement that “Troels Ørting has notified the Ministry of Business Affairs that he is resigning from the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority’s board.” Citing unnamed sources, Danish financial news service FinansWatch reported that during the time between 2015 and 2018, when he was employed as head of security at Barclays bank, Ørting had been a key figure in the hunt for a whistleblower who had exposed the same criminal activity Ørting railed against at Cyber Polygon.
The man speaking alongside Ørting, Jürgen Stock, is a former German police officer, criminologist, and lawyer. Hewas electedfor a second term as secretary general of INTERPOL in 2019, a term that generally lasts for five years.Craig Jones, the cybercrime director at INTERPOL, also joined the discussion at Cyber Polygon 2020. The New Zealander spent twenty-seven years in law enforcement and is considered an expert in cybercrime investigations. He previously held several senior-management positions in UK law enforcement, most recently at the National Crime Agency.
Petr GorodovandJohn Crainwere briefly interviewed at the Cyber Polygon 2020 event. Gorodov is head of the General Directorate for International Relations and Legal Assistance of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and also sits on theCommission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files. He is on the Requests Chamber of INTERPOL, which examines and decides on requests for access to data as well as requests for correction and/or deletion of data processed in the INTERPOL information system.John Crainis chief security, stability, and resiliency officer atICANN, the nonprofit internet security corporation. He is currently responsible for the management of theL-Root server, one of the internet’s thirteen root servers, making his inclusion at the simulation particularly notable. At Cyber Polygon 2020 he promoted a “long-term solution of working together in the cybersecurity community.”
The final word at Cyber Polygon 2020 was delivered byStanislav Kuznetsov,deputy chairman of the executive board at Sberbank. He is also a board member for the Sberbank charity foundationContribution to the Future, a project that seeks to get Russian schoolchildren from grades seven through eleven interested in AI (artificial intelligence), machine learning, and data analysis and to help them develop math and programming skills. Kuznetsov studied at the Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.
The Main Event: Enter the Polygon
Participants in the Cyber Polygon 2020 event, Source: https://cyberpolygon.com/
The simulation component of Cyber Polygon 2020 saw 120 teams from twenty-nine countries take part in the cybersecurity technical simulation. During the online event, participants “exercise[d] the actions of the response team in a targeted attack aimed at stealing confidential data and thus resulting in damage to the company reputation.” Two teams, the Red and the Blue, went head-to-head in the simulations where the Red Team, made up of the training organizers from BI.ZONE, simulated cyberattacks and the Blue Team members attempted to protect their segments of the training infrastructure. The actual simulation was made up of two scenarios in which the various subgroups making up the teams could gain points.
The first scenario, called Defence, made the Cyber Polygon participants practice repelling an activeAPT (advanced persistent threat) cyberattack. The scenario’s objective was stated as being to “develop skills for repelling targeted cyberattacks on a business-critical system.” The simulation’s fictional organization’s virtual infrastructure included a service that processes confidential client information. This service became the subject of interest to an APT group that planned to steal confidential user data and resell it on the “darknet” to financially benefit and damage the company’s reputation. The APT group studied the target system in advance and discovered several critical vulnerabilities. In the scenario, the cyber “gang” plans to attack on the day of the exercise. The participants involved were judged on their ability to cope with the attack as fast as possible, to minimize the amount of information stolen, and to maintain service availability. Blue Team participants could apply any applications and tools to protect the infrastructure and were also allowed to fix system vulnerabilities by improving the service code.
In the second scenario, called Response, the teams had to investigate the incident using “classic forensics and threat hunting techniques.” Based on the information gathered, participants had to compose a dossier that would help law enforcement agencies locate the criminals. The second scenario’s objective was to develop skills in incident investigation using the scenario in which cybercriminals gained access to a privileged account through a successful phishing attack.
When the BI.ZONE team released the results of the simulation they intentionally avoided using the real names of the organizations so as not to “set off a competition between the participants and keep their results confidential.” However, the teams could later compare their results with the others by using a basic scoreboard, and the hosts could analyse the crucial data showing various organizational weaknesses of each of the participating teams/institutions.
The final report states that the results showed that “banks and companies from the IT industry demonstrated the highest resilience. Security assessment expertise in these sectors is quite well developed, with classic forensics and threat hunting widely applied.” In lay terms, the teams from banks and the IT industry seemed to be better prepared than most other sectors for investigating and hunting down threats. However, all the teams involved proved to be less than able when it came to the initial defense from a cyberattack, with the BI.ZONE report stating that “27% of the teams had difficulties earning points for the first scenario, which allows us to conclude that some of the team members lack or have insufficient expertise in security assessment and protection of web applications.” On the subject of threat hunting, the report goes on to say that “21% of the teams could not earn a single point for the second round of the second scenario. This was attributed to ‘Threat Hunting’ being a relatively novel approach and the majority of organisations lacking experience of applying its techniques in practice.”
The Cyber Polygon 2020 event revealed the weakness in human-led defensive response and resilience as it relates cyberdefense. This outcome is convenient for hi-tech cybersecurity companies like BI.ZONE that wish to highlight the superiority of AI-driven cybersecurity products in comparison to “inefficient” human workers. Also, it should be noted that BI.ZONE’s gaining knowledge of global institutional weaknesses through cyberdefense training could be useful intelligence for their parent company, Sberbank, and in turn the largest shareholder of Sberbank, the Russian government.
Bringing Russia in from the Cold?
Although Russian Federation authorities are quite used to being out in the cold both politically and physically, there appears to be a change in the usual order of nations. Russia’s inclusion as the leader in such an important global cybersecurity initiative is a bit surprising, especially after Russia has been the scapegoat of choice for any cyberattack committed against any Western power for several years, most recently withthe SolarWinds hackin the US. Yet, there was no outcry in the West over Cyber Polygon 2020, in which a company that is majority owned by the Russian government was able to gain direct knowledge of the cyberdefense weaknesses of major global institutions, banks, and corporations through their hosting of the exercise.
The complete absence of the “Russian hacker” narrative at Cyber Polygon as well as Russia’s leadership role at the event suggests either that a geopolitical shift has taken place or that the Russian hacker narrative commonly deployed by intelligence agencies in the US and Europe is mainly meant for the general public and not for the elite figures and policymakers in attendance at Cyber Polygon.
Another possibility for Russia no longer being treated as the perpetual enemy of cyberspace is that it is entirely on board with both the official coronavirus narrative and the allegedly imminent cyberpandemic. Cyber Polygon 2020 appeared, in part, to be a Russian charm offensive that was welcomed by the powerful elite. Tony Blair, who once held out thehand of false reconciliationon behalf of the international community to Colonel Gaddafi, has often been involved in these exercises of international diplomacy on behalf of the elites in the years since he left public office. His involvement in the exercise may have been meant to facilitate support among Western WEF-aligned governments for even greater Russian inclusion in the Great Reset. Part of this is due to the WEF-led effort to bring BRICS nations like China and Russia into the Great Reset fold because it is essential for their agenda’s success on a global scale. Now, Russia is pioneering this new model of supposedly national finance systems that the WEF supports through Sberbank’s creation of a digital monopoly not only of financial services butallservices within the Russian Federation.
Cyber Polygon 2020 was both an ad for pro-Russian relations and a promotional exercise for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. Some of the people who took part and supported the Cyber Polygon event are involved at the highest levels of cyber intelligence; some may have even been unofficial representatives of their national state intelligence apparatus. The decisions of several national governments to participate directly in the WEF-led Great Reset is no “conspiracy theory.” For instance, the incoming Biden administration sent its climate envoy, John Kerry, to the WEF annual meeting last month, where Kerryunderscored the US commitmentto the Great Reset agenda and the associated Fourth Industrial Revolution that seeks to automate most jobs being currently performed by humans. With the governments of Russia, China, the US, the UK, Israel, Canada, and India, among others, on board with this transnational agenda, it becomes deeply unsettling that high-ranking operatives in both the public and private sectors joined the WEF to conduct a simulation of a crisis that would clearly benefit the Great Reset agenda.
As previously mentioned, the WEF cosponsored a simulation of a coronavirus pandemic just months before the actual event. Soon after the COVID-19 crisis began in earnest last March, Schwab noted that the pandemic crisis was just what was needed to launch the Great Reset as it served asa convenient catalystto begin overhauling economies, governance, and social society on a global scale. If the destabilizing events simulated at Cyber Polygon do come to pass, it will likely be similarly welcomed by the WEF, given that a critical failure in the current global financial system would allow the introduction of new public-private “digital ecosystem” monopolies such as those being built in Russia by Sberbank.
This effort by Sberbank to both digitize and monopolize access to all services, both private and public, may be appealing to some because of its apparent convenience. However, it will also be emblematic of what we can expect from Schwab’s Great Reset—monopolies of fused public- and private-sector entities disguised by the term “stakeholder capitalism.” What the general public does not realize yet is that they themselves will not be included among these “stakeholders,” as the Great Reset has been designed by the bankers and wealthy elite for the bankers and the wealthy elite.
As for the Cyber Polygon 2020 event, the coming cyberpandemic is being prophetically thrown in our faces just as the pandemic exercise was prior to the actual disease’s appearance. Such prophetic warnings are coming not only from the WEF, however. For instance, the head of Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, Yigal Unna,warned last yearthat a “cyber winter” of cyberattacks “is coming and coming faster than even I suspected.” In the cyber directorate, Unna works closely with Israeli intelligence agencies, including the infamous Unit 8200, which has a long history of electronic espionage targeting the US and other countries and which has been responsible for several devastating hacks, including the Stuxnet virus that damaged Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli intelligence is alsopoised to beamong the greatest beneficiariesof the Great Resetdue tothe strength of the nation’s hi-tech sector. In addition, last month saw the UAE’s central bank following Cyber Polygon’s lead by conductingits first-ever cyberattack simulationin coordination with the Emirati private-finance sector. Corporate media outlets, for their part, began this year by claiming that “cyberattacks may trigger the next crisis for banks” and, as of February 1, that “the next cyberattack is already underway.”
Some will say that a “cyberpandemic” is an inevitable consequence of the quickly developing hi-tech world in which we live, but it still fair to point out that 2021 is the year that many have been predicting for the financial destruction of big institutions that will lead to new economic systems that align with the Great Reset. The inevitable collapse of the global banking system, resulting from the off-the-charts corruption and fraud that has run rampant for decades, is likely to be conducted through a controlled collapse, one that would allow wealthy bankers and elites, such as those that participated in Cyber Polygon, to avoid responsibility for their economic pillaging and criminal activity.
This is especially true for Cyber Polygon participant Deutsche Bank, whoseinevitable collapsehas beenopenly discussedfor yearsdue tothe bank’s extreme corruption, fraud, and massive exposure to derivatives. In late 2019, months before the COVID-19 crisis began, the CEO of Deutsche Bank warned that central banksno longer had toolsthat could adequately respond to the next “economic crisis.” It is certainly telling that entirely new banking systems, such as Sberbank’s soon-to-be-launched digital monetary monopoly, began to be developed just as it began to bepublicly acknowledgedthat central banks’ traditional means of responding to economic calamities were no longer viable.
A massive cyberattack, such as that simulated at Cyber Polygon 2020, would allow faceless hackers to be blamed for economic collapse, thus absolving the real financial criminals of responsibility. Furthermore, due to the difficult nature of investigating hacks and the ability of intelligence agencies to frame other nation states for hacks they in fact committed themselves, any boogeyman of choice can be blamed, whethera “domestic terror” groupor a country unaligned with the WEF (for now, at least)like Iran or North Korea. Between the well-placed warnings, simulations, and the clear benefit for the global elite intent on a Great Reset, Cyber Polygon 2020 appears to have served not only its publicly stated purpose but its own ulterior motives.
Johnny Vedmore is a completely independent investigative journalist and musician from Cardiff, Wales. His work aims to expose the powerful people who are overlooked by other journalists and bring new information to his readers. If you require help, or have a tip for Johnny, then get in touch via johnnyvedmore.com or by reaching out tojohnnyvedmore@gmail.com
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.
