Safe Havens - the move to Substack

I have moved this blog and my writing to Substack. Check it out here - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/safe-havens

Archive of stories:

5 May 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/war-is-a-scam

24 May 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/back-on-deck

26 May 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/stalingrad-on-the-don

3 June 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/the-danger-of-ideologues

21 June 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes

30 June 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/old-mother-hubbard

24 July 2022 - https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com/p/grain-and-ratlines

McGowan versus Palmer Federal Court Clown Show

Following a murky series of political shenanigans between Queensland mining magnate, Clive Palmer, and Emperor of the Known Universe, Shadam IV (aka Mark McGowan) over iron-ore mining rights, a dodgy piece of legislation was rushed through the rubber stamp 'parliament' of Western Australia to deny Palmer any legal recourse against the state and premier McGowan personally for....basically anything. This all occurred at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis in 2019, which allowed McGowan to use the lockdown to ban Palmer from visiting the state and raising the matter in court. This whole affair stinks to high heaven of government corruption - why else would the state government rush through secret legislation that indemnified themselves and the state from prosecution. Both Palmer and McGowan then took their dispute public with full page adverts in The West Australian slagging each other off as tyrants, crooks and fat bastards. It was childish and pathetic, but that's modern politics for you.

From there the dispute moved into the courts with Palmer suing McGowan for defamation and McGowan countersuing. This debacle of a court case has finally come to a resolution, Justice Lee pretty much declaring that both parties have wasted a huge amount of money - public money in McGowan's case - on a petty, personal spat.

Ultimately the outcome is a turd. Palmer gets $5000 and McGowan gets $20,000 - I wonder if he'll pocket that himself or pop it back in the treasury? What is more interesting in the findings below is the exposure of the dodgy goings on around the indemnifying legislation, how it was pulled together and slipped through parliament. This is what you get in a single party state that is able to write and pass legislation to legalise whatever illegality it is involved in.

My earlier post on this matter: https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/03/a-crack-in-western-australian-covid.html

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893

SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at the Court’s website. This summary is also available there.

INTRODUCTION
Enoch Powell once remarked: “for a politician to complain about the press, is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea”. As these proceedings demonstrate, a politician litigating over the barbs of a political adversary might be considered a similarly futile exercise.

Both the applicant, Mr Palmer, and the respondent, Mr McGowan, have chosen to be part of the hurly-burly of political life. Many members of the public will have instinctive views about them absent any personal interaction. These views are likely to align with their broader political beliefs.
Although Mr Palmer resisted characterisation as a “political figure”, in truth, these proceedings arise out of a prolonged and heated dispute between two political antagonists dealing, in large part, with matters best described as political. This reality presented a recurring challenge during all stages of these proceedings, including when dealing with both liability and damages.

BACKGROUND
Two contextual matters dominate the background to this dispute: first, the COVID-19 pandemic and the controversy as to the Western Australian “hard border”; and secondly, the enactment of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Act 2020 (WA) (Amendment Act) preventing the maintenance of a claim for damages (said to have been worth approximately $30 billion) arising from the Western Australian Government’s proven breach of an agreement with Mineralogy, a company controlled and beneficially owned by Mr Palmer.

While the first of these matters is well known, the second requires some elaboration.

In late May 2020, Mr Quigley and Mr McGowan had an SMS exchange in the following terms:

Mr Quigley: I must be a bit OCD! I have been awake since 4.15 thinking of ways to beat big fat Clive and his arbitration claim for 23.5 billion in damages remembering the turd has pulled off 2 big wins in arbitration … The solution is to be found in an amendment to legislation obstensibly [sic] to protect us Re [the possibility of an unrelated dispute] … which amendment for that purpose is merely a Trojan horse as within the very small legislative amendment will be a poison pill for the fat man … It’s such a neat solution obstentially [sic] to solve one almost non existent problem but the side wind could drop drop the fat man on his big fat arse ! … Hey are you glad me single again … not making love in sweet hours before dawn instead worrying how to defeat Clive! 😂😂😂🤣
Mr McGowan: Let’s discuss the $23 billion claim. We need to really sort out what to do. I don’t want to let Parker know or any journo before we r ready.
Mr Quigley: Absolutely secrecy of essence … 😂😂😂

Work on the proposed legislation continued until just before 5pm on 11 August 2020, when the Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill moved through the Parliamentary process with the speed of summer lightning. It reached the Legislative Council on the morning of 13 August; passed the Legislative Council at about 10:35pm on the same day; and the Governor provided Royal Assent approximately 40 minutes later.

Other than Mr McGowan and Mr Quigley, and possibly one or two other Ministers, no member of Cabinet had any inkling of the Bill’s existence until 45 minutes prior to its introduction.

It was common ground that the Amendment Act was extraordinary legislation. Among other things, it terminated the arbitration in relation to the damages claim of Mineralogy, and granted immunity from the criminal law to “the State” (including Mr McGowan) in relation to “protected matters” (including any conduct “connected with” the Amendment Act).

On 13 August 2020, Mr Quigley gave a colourful radio interview on ABC Radio Perth, during which he purported to explain the tactics adopted in relation to the preparation of the Amendment Act:

(1) “[I]t is like a complicated game of chess, but in no way is it a game. I certainly, together with the Premier, feel the heavy weight of responsibility on behalf of all Western Australians to repel this rapacious claim by this … by this … Palmer man”. (2) “[T]his is a game of tactics. Ah, Mr Palmer got … an Arbitrator’s award back in 2014 and in the intervening six years has failed to register the award. We … identified this weakness … in his position. And so we prepared legislation that terminates the arbitration, terminates it, full stop … the crucial part was it had to be terminated prior to … the arbitration being registered in the Supreme Court.”
(3) “[W]e kept it so tight and then brought it in at 5:00pm on Tuesday, after every court in the land was closed, and the doors were locked”.
(4) “And as I said to you, it is like, it is like a fight. And like my near neighbour, Danny Green says, you’ve just got to jab, jab, jab with your right, and move him over to the left, and then just knock him down with a right – a left hook. And what’s happened here is that Mark McGowan has been jab, jabbing away with insults, his lawyers have been busying themselves, were sending us back reams of defamation writs, when they should have been looking at the main game, of file – of registering the arbitration. And we got through in time. We got that legislation into the Assembly on Tuesday night while all the courts were locked”.
(5) “This is crucial that this bill is introduced and passed. And the academics and the other people can write about it afterwards, can analyse it afterwards, all they like for months to come. And criticise us, whatever. I don’t care. But we’ve got to unleash the left hook today. We’ve gotta knock [Mr Palmer] down, and knock him down today. There is too much at risk for all Western Australians, for namby pamby inquiries; “what does this word mean, what does that word mean?””.

With the background now explained, it is appropriate to turn to the alleged defamatory publications.

THE PLEADINGS AND PUBLICATIONS
Mr Palmer commenced these proceedings in August 2020. He sues Mr McGowan on six alleged defamatory publications, all made in a two-week period between 31 July and 14 August 2020 (Primary Proceeding). By way of response, in September 2020, Mr McGowan filed a cross-claim, by which he sues Mr Palmer in respect of nine alleged defamatory publications (Cross-Claim).

In the Primary Proceeding, Mr Palmer’s pleaded defamatory imputations, and my findings as to whether those meanings were conveyed, are as follows:

First Matter

• Imputation 3(a): Mr Palmer is a traitor to Australia - No
• Imputation 3(b): Mr Palmer intends to harm the people of Western Australia - No
• Imputation 3(c): Mr Palmer intends to harm the people of Australia - No
• Imputation 3(d): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Western Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes
• Imputation 3(e): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes

Second Matter

• Imputation 5(a): Mr Palmer intends to inflict harm on the health and wellbeing of the people of Western Australia for his own selfish gain - No
• Imputation 5(b): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Western Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes

Third Matter

• Imputation 7(a): Mr Palmer promotes a drug which all the evidence establishes is dangerous - Yes
• Imputation 7(b): Mr Palmer is seeking to harm the people of Western Australia by providing them with a drug he knows is dangerous - No
• Imputation 7(c): Mr Palmer is dishonestly promoting hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19 when he knows it is not a cure - No

Fourth Matter

• Imputation 9(a): Mr Palmer deliberately intends to damage the health of Western Australians for his own personal gain - No
• Imputation 9(b): Mr Palmer selfishly uses money he has made in Western Australia to harm West Australians - Yes

Fifth Matter

• Imputation 11(a): Mr Palmer intends to harm Australians - No
• Imputation 11(b): Mr Palmer represents a threat to Australians and is dangerous to them - Yes

Sixth Matter

• Imputation 13(a): Mr Palmer intends to steal $12,000 from every man, woman and child in Western Australia - No
• Imputation 13(b): Mr Palmer is prepared to bankrupt a state merely because he is unhappy with standard conditions set on a project by the State Government that apply to all mining projects - Yes
• Imputation 13(c): Mr Palmer is so dangerous a person that legislation was required to stop him making a claim for damages against the State of Western Australia - Yes

As to the Cross-Claim, Mr McGowan’s pleaded imputations, and my findings, are as follows:

First Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 3(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia when he said that he had acted upon the advice of the Chief Medical Officer in closing the borders - Yes
• Cross-Claim Imputation 3(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia when he told them their health would be threatened if the borders did not remain closed - Yes

Second Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 5(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan was abusing the parliamentary system by overseeing the passing of laws designed to protect him against criminal acts he intended to commit - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 5(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia about his justification for imposing travel bans - Yes

Third to Seventh Cross-Claim Matters

• Cross-Claim Imputation 7(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan corruptly attempted to cover up the personal involvement of himself and others in criminal acts by overseeing the passing of laws designed to provide exemptions from the criminal law - Yes

Eighth Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan behaved criminally, and was improperly seeking to confer upon himself immunity from the criminal law - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan was acting corruptly by seeking to confer upon himself immunity against his criminal acts - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(c): As Premier, Mr McGowan was acting corruptly by seeking to confer upon himself criminal immunity - Yes

Ninth Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 11(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan was open to accepting multi-million dollar bribes from Chinese interests in return for permitting them access to valuable state natural resources - No

As is evident from their terms, each of the imputations conveyed was defamatory.

DEFENCES
Mr McGowan’s only substantive defence is to rely upon three versions of qualified privilege: (1) common law qualified privilege; (2) statutory qualified privilege under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (Defamation Act); and (3) the species of common law qualified privilege concerned with publication of government or political matters, being the defence identified in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.

Mr Palmer advances three defences against the Cross-Claim: (1) substantial truth; (2) contextual truth; and (3) the reply to attack aspect of common law qualified privilege.

For the factual and legal reasons set out at length in the judgment, the defences advanced by Mr McGowan and Mr Palmer have been unsuccessful.

OBSERVATIONS AS TO THE WITNESSES
In making factual findings and considering relief, it has been necessary to pay close regard to the evidence of three witnesses. Both parties made lengthy submissions as to credit. In summary, my findings are as set out below.

Mr Palmer

Mr Palmer is an indefatigable litigant. This was evidently not his first experience in a witness box. His confidence and self-assuredness was evident. Indeed, he carried himself with the unmistakable aura of a man assured as to the correctness of his own opinions.

Although Mr Palmer displayed obvious intelligence and was across the relevant detail, he was generally a combative and evasive witness who, on more than one occasion, was unwilling to make obvious concessions. Further, in one important respect, he gave fantastic evidence (in the original but now secondary sense of that word).

Mr Palmer gave evidence-in-chief (not adduced directly by his highly experienced senior counsel) that upon first reading the Amendment Act, he had a genuine fear for his physical safety, the safety of his employees in Western Australia, and his family. I asked clarifying questions on this topic because I was unsure of what Mr Palmer meant. Was he really saying that he thought the Premier or other agents of the State may either initiate or authorise physical violence towards him or those associated with him? The unsettling spectre of Western Australian Government thugs or assassins needing immunity from the State to absolve them from the criminal consequences of physical violence had, I confess, not occurred to me.

To even his most rusted-on partisans, Mr McGowan would be unlikely to have been thought to resemble Ian Fleming’s fictional MI6 character, James Bond. But Mr Palmer gave evidence that he thought Mr McGowan had a “licence to kill”. He swore he regarded the Amendment Act as “a statute that authorised Mark McGowan to kill Clive Palmer”. One does not need to dwell long on the principles explained by the High Court in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 to form the view that this is an unsound construction of the relevant provisions of the Amendment Act.

But Mr Palmer is not a lawyer. He submits that any attempt to discredit him by reference to his fears upon reading the Amendment Act must be rejected. It is not to the point that Mr Palmer’s approach to statutory construction does not accord with orthodox notions, but his assertion he was fearful was genuine.

This submission is fanciful. Although Mr Palmer may have subjectively believed that the Amendment Act was drafted in such broad terms so to absolve specified persons (including the Premier) from criminal liability for physically harming him, this is not to be equated with any belief of Mr Palmer that the passage of the Amendment Act meant that there was a real prospect that he or those associated with him would be attacked.

Mr Palmer was angry and upset about the Amendment Act. That is hardly surprising. No doubt he thought he had wide scope in attacking its swingeing immunities. But his evidence he was genuinely concerned about his health and safety was so unbelievable that it had the effect of seriously undermining the persuasiveness of his evidence as to his subjective feelings generally.

Further, other aspects of his evidence were unsatisfactory and overall, my impression was that Mr Palmer was often willing to fashion his evidence to suit what he perceived to be best for his case. After reflecting upon his evidence generally, I do not consider it safe to place any significant reliance upon it.

Mr McGowan

Mr McGowan is often required to field questions from journalists. Superficially, such engagements might be perceived as being similar to exchanges between a witness and cross-examiner in a courtroom. But there are many differences, including one critical distinction: in the courtroom, a witness cannot (or at least should not) avoid a question with an indirect answer. The witness is there on the cross-examiner’s terms. Mr McGowan was generally an impressive witness, but sometimes when he was pressed on aspects of his evidence, he did exhibit what might be described as the muscle memory of a questioned politician in being non-responsive. It suffices to mention one example.

In his cross-examination, Mr McGowan accepted that what he was telling the public over an extended period was that the medical advice was that the hard border was “necessary”. In response to questions from senior counsel for Mr Palmer, Mr McGowan skirted the substantive question as to whether Dr Robertson (the Chief Health Officer) had given advice to the effect that a hard border was necessary. This approach did not assist. But although Mr McGowan was sometimes non-responsive, he was otherwise generally candid in his evidence.

Mr Quigley

Mr Quigley is the Attorney-General of Western Australia. Regrettably, his evidence was both confused and confusing. Mr Quigley’s evidence-in-chief was directed to one proposition: there had been no “Attack Plan” as alleged by Mr Palmer.

During cross-examination, however, Mr Quigley debunked the claim made by him in the ABC Radio Perth interview that he and Mr McGowan had “identified a weakness” in Mr Palmer’s position, namely the non-registration of the arbitral awards. In doing so, he engagingly accepted that his version in the witness box was “truly spectacularly different” to what he had said at length and in detail in the radio interview and repeatedly stressed that his evidence should be preferred because he was under oath.

Then, on 8 April 2022, Mr Quigley was recalled. Mr Quigley’s second appearance in the witness box just added to the brume of his testimony. Mr Quigley was placed in the uncomfortable position of having to concede that part of the account he gave in the radio interview was not “completely and utterly false” – as he had asserted on 9 March 2022 – but was, in fact, “completely and utterly true”.

Mr Palmer submits that Mr Quigley’s evidence was a web of untruthfulness. I do not accept this submission. Senior counsel for Mr McGowan frankly conceded that “[i]f one were to try logically to reconcile [Mr Quigley’s evidence], you would be utterly defeated”, labelling it as “outright silly”. To similar effect, my comment at the time was that I considered Mr Quigley’s evidence was not dishonest, but was “all over the shop”. I adhere to this view. It is worth stressing that being a confused witness is a quite different thing from being a dishonest one. As anyone experienced in calling witnesses is aware, the unexpected sometimes happens. This is one of the vicissitudes of litigation. It appears Mr Quigley had limited time to prepare himself for the giving of evidence. But whatever the combination of reasons for Mr Quigley’s confounding testimony, I do not think any are malign. It suffices to note that Mr Quigley was not a reliable historian of events.

DAMAGES
The defences having failed for a combination of legal and factual reasons, it was necessary to turn to the question of relief. Damages were sought for non-economic loss. The award of damages is governed by the statutory requirement “to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship” between the harm sustained and the damages awarded. This requirement ensures remedies are fair and effective in the context of achieving the objects of the Defamation Act with the aim of ensuring consistency of awards and correcting any imbalance with awards of damages for personal injuries.

The three purposes of an award are: first, consolation for the personal distress and hurt caused; secondly, reparation for harm done to the person’s reputation; and thirdly, vindication of reputation. The assessment is an intuitive, evaluative process conducted at large, but subject to the provisions of Pt 4 Div 3 of the Defamation Act.

Four general observations are worth making about damages in this case before identifying the assessment.

The first relates to the environment in which the publications were made. Mr Palmer submits that it is incorrect to characterise the exchanges between the parties as taking place “between two political combatants”, and that any characterisation of him as “an active political figure” needs to be approached with care. This is because at the time of Mr McGowan’s publications, Mr Palmer was a former Australian politician, having retired from Parliament in 2016. Rather, it is said that at the time of the relevant publications, Mr Palmer was involved in actively pursuing his business and philanthropic interests.

These facts may be accepted, but no-one picking up a newspaper in Australia in 2020 could be in any doubt as to the political profile of Mr Palmer. Although he was not running for office in 2020, he was the Chairman of the United Australia Party, and was one of the most well-known figures operating in the sphere of Australian politics generally. The contention that the exchanges between the parties in July and August 2020 were not taking place between two political combatants is unpersuasive and superficial.

Secondly, and relatedly, a consequence of the protagonists in this case being political figures is that many listeners and readers will have had well-entrenched perceptions as to their character and reputation. Indeed, people could likely be placed on a continuum between admiration and resentment, with some who are neutral or open-minded in the middle. The parties recognised that those on the admiration end will tend to support the political figure no matter what material is published, while those who resent the political figure will tend to disbelieve and criticise. Some in the middle, in an ideal world, will be influenced by reason, independent judgment and a scrutiny of the facts. Mr Palmer submits it is necessary to put aside those persons who have views about either Mr Palmer or Mr McGowan that are so prejudiced or stubborn to mean they are impervious to the impacts of defamatory statements. That is said to be because such a person is not an ordinary, reasonable listener, viewer or reader. But this puts the matter too highly. As White J explained in Hanson Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981 (at [78]) and repeated in Dutton v Bazzi [2021] FCA 1474; (2021) Aust Torts Reports ¶82-713 (at 63,437 [186]), many ordinary, reasonable people will not be influenced, positively or negatively, by statements concerning a politician about whom they have already formed a view.

Thirdly, this is a case where Mr McGowan and Mr Palmer have taken advantage of the opportunities created by publication of the impugned matters to respond forcefully in public and (particularly in the case of Mr McGowan) to advance themselves politically. Because there must be an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained and the amount of damages awarded, if a person defamed is able to avoid some of the damage to reputation by use of media and public statements to reduce, to an appreciable extent, some of the harm to reputation which would otherwise have resulted, this is necessary to take into account in an assessment. Fourthly, both parties advanced lengthy submissions as to aggravated damages, which largely mirror arguments deployed in seeking to establish malice, being arguments I rejected. No aggravated damages should be awarded.

As to Mr Palmer

Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 5(b) and 11(b) (which relate to Mr Palmer representing a threat and danger to the people of Western Australia and Australia) position Mr Palmer as acting contrary to the interests of the broader community. Imputations 7(a), 9(a) and 13(c) (that Mr Palmer promotes a drug which all the evidence establishes is dangerous, selfishly uses money he has made in Western Australia to harm Western Australians, and is so dangerous a person that legislation was required to stop him making a claim for damages against Western Australia) are pointed criticisms of Mr Palmer.

One cannot dismiss these imputations as being trivial, but any evaluative assessment as to seriousness must take into account context. Justice Windeyer observed in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 (at 210) that political discourse “extends to the use of language that is vigorous, and sarcastic, as well as that which is reasoned, restrained and elevated. Invective is not banned”. Further, and importantly, his Honour remarked that “a man who chooses to enter the arena of politics must expect to suffer hard words at times”.

Mr McGowan had a bully pulpit. He was a highly popular Premier who had an opportunity to speak out to a wide audience. The tone of political discourse in this country is not usually characterised as being milquetoast (or to adapt Mr Quigley’s term, used in a different context, “namby-pamby”). Mr McGowan was speaking to an audience including reasonable people used to receiving criticisms by politicians expressed forcefully, and often couched in hyperbolic terms. Mr McGowan used hard words, but Mr Palmer’s submission that the publication of these defamatory imputations amounted to a serious libel pitches his case too highly.

Linking or demonstrating any causal connexion between the defamatory publications and any actual damage to reputation cannot ignore the reality that for many, views as to Mr Palmer’s reputation were already “baked in”. The estimation of some may have diminished, or the adverse views held by some may have become more entrenched, but identifying any real or material damage to reputation in the present context is difficult. While damage to reputation is presumed, I conclude there was very little damage to Mr Palmer’s reputation caused by reason of the defamatory publications.

Mr Palmer also gave evidence about his hurt feelings.

While I accept that Mr Palmer was upset with the course that the State was taking as to the hard border, it seems to me that his real frustration and anger, unsurprisingly, was directed to the passage of the Amendment Act. Although standard hurt to feelings evidence as to the publications was carefully adduced, this case reinforced my view that it is best to receive such evidence in person and orally. In general it was unpersuasive, peppered with defensive comments as to why Mr Palmer was in the right and Mr McGowan was in the wrong, and consistent with Mr Palmer not suffering great vexation but rather forming the view that he “didn’t think [the comments] were called for” and thought they were “unfair”.

I have not reached a state of actual persuasion or reasonable satisfaction that Mr Palmer suffered any real or genuine hurt to feelings by reason of the defamatory publications.

Mr Palmer submitted that even if the Court considers that there is no damage to reputation, vindication is still necessary and the judgment should still reflect the baselessness of the charges. While I accept that vindication is a separate consideration that must be given weight in assessing any award of damages, the relationship between the three purposes of damage, particularly damage to reputation and vindication, ought not to be forgotten. To use language drawn from the speech of Lord Hailsham LC in Broome v Cassell and Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 (at 1071), there is little need for an award of damages to convince the ordinary bystander of the baselessness of the charge if it has not been demonstrated that the charge has materially affected the opinion of the ordinary bystander. Given the lack of significance of the damage to reputation, the appeal to vindication is overstated.

In the end, I am required to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm I have found sustained (which is very minor) and the amount of damages awarded (which should, as a consequence, be very minor). Taking all matters into account, I assess damages in the amount of $5,000.

As to Mr McGowan

Mr McGowan’s case as to damage to reputation collided head on with the objective facts.

It is not in dispute that at the time of First Cross-Claim Matter, in July 2020, the West Australian celebrated Mr McGowan as “Mr 89%”. As at March 2021, some seven months later, Mr McGowan’s personal approval rating was still at the stratospheric level of 88% or 89%. Indeed, a little later, at the state election that same month, the Australian Labor Party won 53 out of 59 seats in the Legislative Assembly. This victory made the “Wranslides” of 1978 and 1981 look close run things. Further, Mr McGowan increased the margin in his own seat of Rockingham to 37.7%, achieving a swing that made it the safest seat in Western Australia.

Notwithstanding any presumption that arises from the extent of publication and the seriousness of the imputations carried, the evidence establishes the inconsequential impact of the publications upon Mr McGowan’s reputation. Indeed, it is more likely that Mr McGowan’s reputation was enhanced. As Mr McGowan accepted, Mr Palmer was someone with whom Mr McGowan was “happy to have a blue with”. Although his damage to reputation was non-existent, Mr McGowan’s evidence as to an aspect of the subjective hurt he suffered was compelling. But he is the Premier of Western Australia. Robust criticism is, and should be, part and parcel of the job. Weighing up all the factors, I have concluded that the appropriate amount for general damages is an award of $20,000.

OTHER RELIEF
As to the mutual applications for an injunction, this is a part of the case where context matters. The right of free speech is essential to the proper functioning of a representative democracy, and subject to certain statutory and other exceptions, should generally not be interfered with or restricted. No injunction should run.

CONCLUSION
The game has not been worth the candle.

These proceedings have not only involved considerable expenditure by Mr Palmer and the taxpayers of Western Australia, but have also consumed considerable resources of the Commonwealth and, importantly, diverted Court time from resolving controversies of real importance to persons who have a pressing need to litigate.

Political figures occupy a special place in our system of representative and responsible government. Insofar as a subset of political figures (serving members of Parliament) are concerned, this special place carries with it protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. Political figures more generally have a position which allows them to further their agenda, and potentially influence the course of economic and social policy and current events. But balanced against these considerable privileges are the costs or downsides of a political profile, including the reality that such figures must expect a degree of public criticism, fair or unfair, not usually visited upon other members of the public. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1996, 999 UNTS 171, 6 ILM 386 (entered into force 23 March 1976) relevantly provides that no-one shall be subjected to “unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation” and that “(e)veryone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”. This important human right does not vanish like a will-o’-wisp once someone becomes a political figure. But at a time when public resources devoted to courts are under strain, and judicial resources are stretched, one might think that only a significant interference or attack causing real reputational damage and significant hurt to feelings should be the subject of an action for defamation by a political figure.

I will hear the parties on the appropriate award of costs. A relevant consideration will be the glaring disproportion between the damages awarded and the extent of legal expense.

JUSTICE M B J LEE

2 August 2022
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/palmer-v-mcgowan

Recommended resources

I'd like to recommend a couple of writers / analysts who are covering the Ukraine crisis.

Firstly, Ian Kummer, the Reading Junkie. Very good analysis and insight from the perspective of a US army public relations point of view. Highly recommended: https://readingjunkie.com/author/ianmichaeladmin/

For a more visual presentation of the progress of the war, check out Military Summary channel on Youtube. Really detailed analytics of the tactical level developments from both sides. The channel can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUnc496-PPmFZVKlYxUnToA

To track the war in virtual 'real time', go here: https://liveuamap.com/

I'll repeat two other excellent sources that I have mentioned earlier. The first one is Larry Johnston, a US writer and political analyst. He used to post on the formerly excellent Turcopolier site, but against all expectations, Turcopolier jumped onto the pro-Ukrainian propaganda train. Very sad. Larry publishes his excellent work on his own site: https://sonar21.com/

And of course there is the very excellent military analyst, Andrei Martyanov. Andrei calls it like it is. He also has a YouTube channel https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

This site collates interesting sitreps from various sources: https://sitrepworld.info/

My friend, political analyst Andrew Korybko now publishes on Substack: https://korybko.substack.com/

Check out this great blog from William Schryver. He has some excellent analysis on the military front. https://www.imetatronink.com/

Do remember to check out the recommended resource links tab on the right hand side. I am always adding interest links there.

You can find my writings now on Substack here https://stolzuntermenschen.substack.com

Shogui briefs Putin on Mariupol - Seal them in

Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu provided a briefing to president Vladimir Putin about the status of the operation in Mariupol. The briefing was televised and presented for public consumption and contained a surprise development. Having trapped the Azov and mercenary troops within the network of tunnels under the Azovstahl plant, Putin called a halt to the operation. Instead, all exits - and the Russians know where all the exits are - will be blocked and the mercenaries left to their fate. They are effectively neutralized so there is no need for Russian soldiers to risk their lives. The mercenaries will either die or surrender.

Sergei Shoigu: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

Mariupol was liberated by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the people's militia of the Donetsk People's Republic. The remnants of the formation of nationalists took refuge in the industrial zone of the Azovstal plant.

Mariupol is a major industrial and main transport hub on the Sea of Azov. In 2014, the Kyiv regime declared the city the de facto temporary capital of the Donetsk region, turning it into a powerful fortified area and a haven for radical Ukrainian nationalists in eight years. This is actually the capital of "Azov" - the "Azov" battalion.

A large number of heavy weapons, military equipment, including tanks, MLRS "Smerch", "Hurricane", artillery systems of high power, missile systems "Tochka-U" were pulled into the city. Tochka-U has a range of 120 kilometers, and our Taganrog is 94 kilometers from Mariupol, the capital of the Southern Federal District, Rostov, is approximately at this distance.

Reserves of missiles, ammunition, fuels and lubricants, food for long-term combat operations have been created. The main objects of urban infrastructure, including the seaport and fairway, were mined and not only mined, but also blocked by floating cranes. The ships that were there were mostly foreign ships.

In total, if we talk about armored vehicles - tanks, armored combat vehicles, there were 179 of them, 170 different guns and mortars, including multiple rocket launchers, I already spoke about them, "Tornados" and "Hurricanes". At the time of the encirclement on March 11, the total number of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and nationalist formations, as well as foreign mercenaries, who were also enough, was more than 8100 people. During the liberation of the city, more than four thousand were destroyed, 1478 surrendered, the remaining group - more than two thousand - was blocked in the industrial zone of the Azovstal plant.

Offering resistance, the nationalists turned almost all residential buildings into long-term firing points. Armored vehicles and artillery were installed on the ground floors, and snipers were installed on the upper floors. Separate detachments - with ATGMs. On the middle floors and in the basements, they gathered all the inhabitants, turning them into a human shield. They were kept both on the middle floors and in the basements. It was in fact in every home.

Retreating, the Ukrainian army, nationalist battalions in Mariupol, as well as in other Ukrainian cities, were covered by the civilian population. Here we have many cases when, retreating to cover their retreat, in any case, we recorded four such cases, covering their retreat, they drove people out of the basements. By the way, this was literally four days ago, when the port area was liberated and they drove almost everyone from high-rise buildings to the streets in order to hide themselves, leaving behind continuous destruction, including socially significant, cultural objects.

While liberating Mariupol, the Russian army and units of the people's militia of the DPR took all measures to save the lives of civilians. Here, on your instruction, Vladimir Vladimirovich, humanitarian corridors have been opened daily since March 21 for the evacuation of civilians and foreign citizens.

Servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and militants of nationalist battalions were asked to lay down their arms. They were guaranteed, of course, life, safety and medical care.

As for the planned humanitarian actions - I call them “actions”, they combined both corridors and the supply of transport, these were both ambulances and buses, we had days when there were up to 100 such buses, and 25 30 ambulances – we notified and were in contact with the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of Ukraine [Irina] Vereshchuk daily.

Diplomatic missions of foreign states that appealed in one way or another, since [their] citizens were there – by the way, many were released and taken out of Mariupol during these humanitarian actions – the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, specialized structures of the OSCE, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international organizations, they were officially notified of the time and place. And, of course, at some point we even demanded their presence, in order, of course, to comply with all humanitarian rules in this regard, as far as it was possible with the constant, uninterrupted conduct and non-cessation of fire from Mariupol by the National Battalions and the armed forces of Ukraine.

Despite their opposition - both militants and everyone else - we managed to evacuate 142,711 civilians from Mariupol after your instruction. All the hostages who were in the commercial seaport were released, including the crews of the sea vessels, whose communication systems were destroyed by those who captured them so that they could not contact anyone. The port is mined. The sea area is closed. I hope that now they will have the opportunity to leave this port.

Today, the entire Mariupol is under the control of the Russian army, the people's militia of the Donetsk People's Republic, and the territory of the Azovstal plant with the remnants of nationalists and foreign mercenaries located is securely blocked. Over the past two days, again on your instructions, we have declared a silence regime from 14:00 to 16:00, all hostilities have completely ceased, and humanitarian corridors have been opened for the exit of civilians who may be on the territory of the Azovstal plant.

We have prepared about 90 buses and 25 ambulances for them. Naturally, bearing in mind that all this is constantly distorted, we installed videoconferencing cameras, and there was almost a live broadcast here, in our control center. No one left Azovstal. But other civilians, more than 100 people, were able to leave. During these days, this is, perhaps, a lot of work that we have been doing with all international organizations.

At present, the situation in the city is calm, allowing us to start restoring order, returning the population and establishing a peaceful life. As for those who fled at the Azovstal plant and were thoroughly blocked there and around the entire perimeter, it takes us about three or four days to complete this work at Azovstal.

The report is finished.

Vladimir Putin: I consider the proposed storming of the industrial zone inappropriate. I order you to cancel.

Sergei Shoigu: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: This is the case when we must think – that is, we must always think, but even more so in this case – about preserving the life and health of our soldiers and officers. There is no need to climb into these catacombs and crawl underground through these industrial facilities. Block off this industrial area so that even a fly does not escape.

Sergei Shoigu: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Once again invite everyone who has not yet laid down their arms to do so. The Russian side guarantees their lives and decent treatment in accordance with the relevant international legal acts. All those who are injured will receive qualified medical assistance.

The completion of combat work to liberate Mariupol is a success. Congratulations. Send your thanks to the troops. Please submit proposals for awarding our distinguished soldiers for state awards. It is clear that in such cases it cannot be otherwise, these are different awards, but I want them all to know: in our understanding, they are all heroes, in the understanding of all of Russia. They are all heroes.

In this regard, in addition to fulfilling all social obligations to our military personnel, especially to those who were injured, to the families of our dead comrades, it is necessary to ensure the unconditional fulfillment of all social guarantees.

But it seems to me that this is not enough. We need to think about additional support measures, and in some cases think about perpetuating the memory of those of our comrades who really showed heroism and sacrificed their lives for the peaceful life of our people in the Donbass and to ensure the peaceful life and existence of Russia itself, the peaceful existence of our country. These people deserve it with their actions and their attitude to the oath.

On the line of the Ministry of Defense, please work it out. I will give the relevant instructions to the Presidential Administration, I will talk with colleagues in the regions, and they will carry out the corresponding work in the municipalities of Russia. Of course, putting such an important center in the south as Mariupol under control is a success. Congratulations.

Sergei Shoigu: Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Western and Ukrainian commentators are already claiming that Shoigu is lying to Putin to hide the 'disaster' of the Ukrainian operation. It's an idiotic argument. Of course none of this is unscripted; it's a performance for the public. None of this was news to Putin. There is no point in pursuing the mercenaries underground. It would be a waste of effort and lives so calling an end to the assault makes strategic sense. However, it needs to be explained to the public, who are not as stupud as the west likes to believe. Shoigu presents his report and Putin makes the hard call. This is what accountability looks like. The buck stops with Putin and he makes the decision. No bullshitting and splitting hairs like western politicians.

The original in Russian http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68254

The Ukrainian De-Nazification Operation - Panic in Mariupol

While the Russians were reconstituting their forces and things were 'quiet', I took a week off from the war. The pause allowed the western narrative of substantive Russian defeat to be escalated among media drones. Very shortly, the facts of Ukrainian defeat will no longer be able to be hidden. I foresee that it will shortly become very dangerous to be a narrative sceptic in the free west. There is a real risk that a significant false flag event will occur that will be used to justify draconian censorship and suppression of dissenters.

Briefly on the topic of false flags, a week ago the Ukrainians fired a Toschka U ballistic missile into the crowded train station at Kramatorsk, killing a dozen or so Ukrainians attempting to flee the battle zone. This attrocity was predictably blamed on the Russians as an Iskander missile strike, even though the missile is clearly a Toschka U, a weapons system that the Russians no longer have in their arsenal.

Western and NATO sources continue to warn that Russia is a planning a chemical weapons strike in Ukraine, revealing that they are clearly planning a false flag attrocity to cover up the looming exposure of NATO and US war crimes and criminality in Ukraine. Russia continues to report and publish documents seized in Ukrainian bio-weapons labs in the east of the country. The Russians - rightly - will not let this go and will be building a case to present both at the UN and in the war crimes trials that will follow the Ukrainian operation. Senior figures in the US are implicated.

Also causing panic in US and NATO centres is the situation in Mariupol. Russian forces have driven the last vestiges of the Ukrainain and nationalist units into the enormous Azovstahl steel complex. This vast industrial facility was once the largest steel works in the Soviet Union. There is rumoured to be a nuclear bomb shelter beneath site and network of tunnels. Between 1500 and 3000 nationalists and foreign mercenaries are trapped in the plant and there have been desperate attempts by Ukrainian and NATO forces to evacuate them. Six helicopter evacs have been attempted. All have failed. Two helicopters managed to land and take off some troops but these were shot down killing most on board. Three survivors were captured and undoubtedly will be helping the Russians with their enquiries.

An attempt was made to evacuate the troops by ship. A Ukrainian coastal freighter attempted to run the gauntlet of Russian coastguard in the Sea of Azov. The ship refused all calls to stop and be boarded so the Russians opened fire, striking the ship on its stern. It hove to and was captured.

Russian radio intercepts have picked up frantic calls in multiple languages, including English, Polish, French and Spanish from the besieged troops, back to NATO command centres reporting on the desperate situation in Azovstahl. The troops are almost out of food, water and ammunition. All attempts to break out have failed with significant loss of life. A request to Kiev for permission to surrender was denied and the nationalist units were instructed to fight to the death and prevent any attempt by foreign mercenarnies of conscript soldiers to surrender. There have been desperate attempts by European leaders, notably French president Macron and the Austrian chancellor, Karl Nehammer, to negotiate with Vladimir Putin a 'humanitarian corridor' for Mariupol. These transparent moves have failed.

So why the panic in Washington and Brussels? Because among the troops trapped in Mariupol are a large number of active service NATP personnel, including senior military ranks. A US general is rumoured to be among them. The Russians will want to capture these assets alive. The Ukrainians and their sponsors cannot counternance that, even if it means killing their own people. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Two British mercenaries were among 1300 Ukrainian marines who surrendered at the Ilyich plant in Mariupol. Both are singing and denying they played an active role in the fighting. Their families are hoping there will be a prisoner exchange soon and their poor, wayward sons will be returned home. Fat chance. They were mercenaries fighting on behalf of a despicable regime. They can expect long prison sentences.

The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, was lost in mysterious circumstances over the easter weekend. The Russian defence ministry announced there was a fire aboard ship which resulted in a magazine explosion. The Moskva was taken under tow back to Crimea but sank in rough seas. The Ukrainians predictably claimed to have sunk the ship with anti-ship ballistic missiles, but have provided no evidence other than faked videos. I personally doubt the Ukrainian claim as the Moskva, although old (built in the 1970s) was an air-cover unit and would likely have been able to deal with two ground launched missiles. Although I have absolulely no evidence to base this on, it's possible the Moskva struck a loose mine. The Ukrainians sowed mines outside of Odessa in order to prevent a Russian amphibious landing. These were WW2 era mines and were poorly secured. Many have already broken from their moorings and washed back into Odessa, exploding on the beach or drifting off into the Black Sea. It could have been a fire. Ships do catch fire and magazines do explode. The Russians have already lost one transport ship to fire.

Elsewhere in Ukraine, the Russians are now pounding the 30-40,000 Ukrainian troops trapped in the cauldron west of the LDPR. Estimated Ukrainian troop losses to date are around 26,000. The troops that remain have been without fuel, ammunition, food or water for nearly a month now. The breaking point is nearing.


I'll close for today with two videos which are symptomatic of Ukraine's problems and why they were doomed to lose this war.

The Ukrainian De-Nazification Operation - Game Plans Exposed

The problem with having a senile puppet as president is that he says things he shouldn't. He reads stage directions from scripts and repeats parts of private conversations held in his presence in public. "Come on, man,", he's 79 years old! On Saturday 26th March 2022, in a speech in Warsaw about the Russia-Ukrainian crisis, Joe Biden dropped a clanger, publicly revealing the US plan for regime change in Russia. Closing his speech, Biden passionately demanded "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power!" There was a sharp intake of breath across the punditsphere as the implications were understood and the White House instantly began walking back the claim. When questioned by reporters within hours of the speech, Biden had been given talking points backtracking on what he had said.

For all the western media's feined surprise that Biden would explicitely call for regime change in Russia, none of this was even slightly news. The US HAS been actively attempting to regime change Russia since Vladimir Putin stepped into Boris Yelstin's vodka-soaked slippers. US politics is performative. Politicians and pundits posture and blather on TV, exposing their plans and openly incriminating themselves. US intentions to invade Iraq were openly telegraphed to the world even before 911. The 'hate Russia' media campaign did not start in February 2022, it's been running at full tilt since 2000. Russia, resource rich and independent, cannot be allowed to exist in a world where the US is hegemon. It must be destroyed, broken up, split into warring regions and delivered into the hands of corrupt oligarchs and plundered for the benefit of international finance cartels.

The Russians know this. This is why Putin enjoys overwhelming popular support in Russia.

If the people behind the Biden regime were hoping that Biden's speech would rev up enthusiasm for war with Russia, they were badly mistaken. Biden's speech was recieved with horror and even the big media players, such as the New York Times, openly criticized Biden's ill considered foreign policy. Polls across the US show Biden's popularity has been consistently falling since his election with no recovery in sight. There are multiple, mainly domestic, reasons for this. The Biden regime openly expouses woke ideology and race grifting and aggressively pursues extremely harsh Covid mandates. And yet the regime's anti-freedom, radical agenda has been an abject failure. The Supreme Court has consistently struck down all Biden's Covid mandates, yet they duck and weave and try again. To even the most ignorant observer, the administration lurches from one self-created crisis to another, oblivious to its failures and resistent to reality.

The Hunter Biden laptop story, which was deep-sixed by the news media and social media giants before the 2020 election, has returned with a vengence. The laptop and its associated evidence of pervasive Democratic leadership corruption in Ukraine is now openly admitted by the newspaper of record. Republican representative Matt Gaetz entered the four laptop hard drives into the congressional record. Hunter Biden's name is not only associated with financial corruption, but he is also implicated in the US sponsored biolabs in Ukraine.

All polling suggests that the Democrats will be slaughtered in the mid-term elections later in the year. There seems to be no bright spot on the horizon to lift their prospects, not even war.  Historically, foreign wars have generally been a good distraction for politicians, as I explained here:
https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/02/a-short-victorious-war.html The idiots driving the Democratic Party (and their Republican Party co-conspirators) desperately need war with Russia, but a war that stays 'over there', in Europe. They believe their own propaganda, believe Russia is weak and collapsing, on the ropes and waiting only for that 'one swift kick on the door' to bring the whole rotten structure crashing down. They do not understand that once a real war is started, it cannot be managed to suit their ends. Fake videos and wall-to-wall media messaging will not stop bombs falling on their heads.

The beating of the war drum has continued without let. If the west's media showed no enthusiasm for Biden's call to arms in Warsaw, then maybe they'll get on board with attrocity porn. In Syria, western intelligence agencies, in conjunction with their pet media and paid-for terrorists groups, manufactured attrocity after attrocity to rev the public up for war. It ultimately failed, but a great many people still believe the Syrian government was responsible for horrendous war crimes perpetrated by western proxies. Having no new ideas, the playbook is being repeated in Ukraine.

The pattern of false flag war crimes by the Ukrainians has escalated to the orchestrated massacre in Bucha reported over the weekend. The story as portrayed in western media is clealy false, but this does not mean that innocent people were not killed. Neither ISIS nor the Ukro-Nazis have any compunction over slaughtering civilians for a good video. Bucha, a town on the outskirts of Kiev, was occupied by Russian forces in early March. During the month long Russian occupation the Russians shipped in food and supplies and life continued largely as normal. Russian forces left the town on 30 March 2022 as part of the repositioning of forces ahead of the impending Donbas campaign. The following day, 31 March 2022, the mayor of Bucha tweeted that the town had been liberated by Ukrainian forces. There was no mention of battles or attrocities. Ukrainian forces officially moved into the town from 1st April, but video of the carnage was only published on 3rd April on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website. Are we to believe the massacre perpetrated on 30 March at the latest was only noticed four days later? B from Moon of Alabama covers the incident in more detail:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/the-bucha-provocation.html#more

There will be endless debate whether the whole affair was staged with fake bodies - as has been observed in several other attrocity videos - or was a real massacre of 'traitors.' A Ukrainian report on 2 April would suggest the later - "In the liberated Bucha, the territory was cleared of saboteurs and Russian accomplices" https://www.unian.ua/war/bucha-u-zvilnenomu-misti-rozpochali-zachistku-teritoriji-vid-diversantiv-ta-rosiyskih-posobnikiv-novini-kiyeva-11770498.html Exterminating defeatists and traitors entirely fits the Ukrainian MO. Western media and politicians exploded with outrage at the 'Russian war crime' and called for action, but a Russian call in the UN Security Council for an investigation into the incident was vetoed by Britain. We are unlikely to know what really happened in Bucha for some time to come, but the truth will out. The truth will always come out in the end. I don't doubt Russian intelligence has a list of names.

Bucha is just another escalation aimed at expanding the war. It hasn't succeeded. The long promised chemical provocation is likely next.

And in other news... Hungarian prime minister, Victor Orban, wins in a landslide. Orban has always pursued Hungary's national interest and follows an independent path from the centralised EU administration. Since the beginning of the crisis, Orban has said Hungary will not participate in anti-Russian sanctions and will continue to purchase Russian gas and other resources. Hungarian energy company MVM is in discussions with Gazprom on the details of new trade arrangements. Neighbouring Slovakia has also stated the same. Both countries stand to gain as conduits for Europe-Russian trade.

Speaking of bypassing Russian sanctions, both Germany and the United States have quitely removed several Russians exports from the sanctioned list. Despite all of its rhetoric and pressure on other nations, the US has hypocritically increased Russian oil imports by 45% in the last month. Nevertheless, as of April Russia will only accept payment into Russian-controlled bank accounts through specific non-sanctioned finanical institutions. Resources will be priced in rubles and as Russia sets the exchange rate, the price in hostile currencies will only increase.

Germany faces a huge energy crisis. It has no reserve gas storage and Chancellor Sholz has stated catagorically Germany will not pay for gas in rubles, declaring that the contracts Germany has with Gazprom specify payment in Euros. Germany's gas supply contract however is not with Gazprom itself but a German registered subsidiary, Gazprom Germania. Gazprom Germania does not supply gas. It operates as a gas storage company. As political tensions rose between Russia and Germany over the past year due to issues with the certification and completion of Nordstream II, Gazprom began reducing supply to Gazprom Germania so that if matters came to a head, it would not be facing a massive loss of stored Russian gas on German soil. The German gas reserves were allowed to fall to the point where Gazprom Germania is only holding 0.5% of its storage capacity. When the Ukraine crisis hit at the end of February, Gazprom sold it's Germania subsidiary to an undisclosed buyer. If the gas isn't paid for in accordance with the new arrangements, Gazprom can shut off the supply and avoid any financial loss. This move has only just been understood by the German government and it immediately intervened to seize Gazprom Germania from its new owner. Such an illegal move smacks of desperation on Germany's part. They now have the seized without warrant or compensation a privately owned but empty gas storage facility. Germany's gas reserves are basically gone. German industry representatives have warned the government that there is no alternative to Russian energy and that economic collapse looms if the crisis is not resolved quickly. Andrei Martyanov lays it out: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/04/for-financists.html

The ruble has almost recovered its pre-crisis exchange rate.

The battle for Mariupol is nearing completion. Several large contingents of Ukrainian marines surrendered to Russian forces. The remains of Azov are trapped in the Azovstahl plant which is being blasted and cleared. There will be no escape for these guys. Several desperate attempts were made by the Ukrainians to evacuate important assets, among them some western intelligence officials (likely French). Over two nights, at least four helicopters attempted a landing at the Azovstahl plant. One was shot down over the sea on the first night with the loss of all crew. The other helicopter escaped. The following night a second attempt was made, this time from the landward side. Both were shot down after they'd managed to take on their passengers and were attempting to escape. One was destroyed with the loss of all onboard. There were three survivors from the second helicopter, who were all captured and are being interrogated about their mission. The identities of those aboard are being looked into.


Mercenary recruit numbers have substantially fallen away since the training and logistic camp at Yarovosky. Other mercenary camps and concentrations around the country are being systematically destroyed in an equally decisive manner. Naval launched Calibre missiles took out the headquarters of special operations forces in Ochakiv.

For those who don't understand the Russian strategy and the nature of this war, I recommend this interview with Scott Ritter by Alexander Mercuris and Alex Christoforou of the Duran.

Another good video resource is Andrei Martyanov, very highly recommended - https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

Yemen Ceasefire Announced

 

There are major moves afoot as the world repositions itself away from the US-centric 'unipolar' moment and reverts to a more natural multi-dimensional, multi=polar world. The significant indicator of the US' collapsing authority occurred at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis when the Saudi authorities refused to take a telephone call from US president Joe Biden. For a US satrapy to openly snub the reigning president was unheard of in and of itself. Saudi Arabia however doubled down and publicly announced it would not participate in the anti-Russian sanctions the US was pushing. This was then followed by an even more significant announcement - Saudi Arabia would sell oil to China in yuan priced contracts. Everyone should already understand the importance of Saudi Arabia and the pricing of oil in US dollars so I won't belabour the point.

What was interesting at the time was the geopolitical effect that this open defection to the China-Russia camp would have. Saudi Arabia has been a US protectorate since 1975. For a long time this arrangement benefitted both parties. Saudi Arabia was able to expand its influence in the Muslim world under US protection, exporting radical Islam into the Soviet borderlands. The Saudi's bankrolled the mujahaddin's war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, caused unrest in the former Soviet 'stans' and sponsored Chechen terrorists in the Caucusus. It would be fair to say that the Saudi's and the Russians were firm enemies. This proxy war would continue in the Syrian conflict and in Saudi and Iranian rivalry.

In response to Russia's intervention in the Syrian war, the US pushed the Saudi's to undertake a series of actions which ultimately undermined the Kingdom's economic and politicial security. Saudi Arabia had already poured billions of dollars in weapons, money and men into the Syria project, which the Syrians and Russians had destroyed. The Saudi's then ramped up oil production in an effort to crash the oil market. In the 1980s, this move had seriously weakened the Soviet Union, hastening its collapse, but repeating the same move again would only work if the Russian's had not learned from the past. Despite the claims of US strategists, Russia is not dependent on oil exports and proved far more resilient to lower oil prices than the Saudis. For the first time in its history, Saudi Arabia faced a budget deficit.

Saudi Arabia's next moves were closely aligned to American plans for military action against Iran. Geography is king and Iran holds the strategic position controling the Straits of Hormuz. In the event of a western war against Iran, the Iranians could easily close the Straits and cut off Saudi oil exports, blowing up the oil market and setting off a chain reaction of collapse through the futures market, stock market, etc. It was therefore essential for the US to secure an alternative, secure route for Saudi oil exports. With the Syrian overland route blocked (seizing control of the oil pipelines across Syria was a key goal of the war on Syria), there was only one route left - southwest through Yemen to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia had often interfered in the affairs of their poor, southern neighbor and in 2015 militarily intervened in the Yemen civil war in support of the Saudi puppet president, Hadi. Backed by US intelligence and resources, the Saudi's expected to quickly subdue impoverished Yemen, but the Yemeni's proved to be far more resilient fighters than anticipated. This war should have been a lesson for all military strategists - a technically advanced military can be fought to a standstill by a technically inferior foe, if that foe is appropriately motivated. Unfortunately, learning things is not something US strategists do. It took the Yemeni's a long time to expose Saudi Arabia's fundamental weakness - it's oil infrastructure - but once exposed, it was only a matter of time.

The Yemeni's, using a combination of short range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, struck at vulnerable Saudi facilities - the capital Riyad, airports, oil terminals, refineries and most vulnerable of all, oil pipelines. Even small, cheap drones carrying a small explosive charge could be crashed into a pipeline and cost the Saudi's tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue. To protect themselves, the Saudi's purchased US built Patriot anti-air, anti-missile systems, but discovered to their horror that the Patriot is ineffective. In desperation, they realised the only effective anti-missile systems belong to....Russia. If the mountain won't come to Muhammad.... On 27 March 2022, Yemeni drones penetrated again penetrated the Saudi's ineffective Patriot shield and destroyed the oil refinery and storage tanks at Jeddah.

Russia's foreign policy is often described as seeking to turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into supporters, and supporters into allies, so Saudi Arabia's suprise announcement, indicates that Russian diplomacy must have been going on behind the scenes for an extended period. Russia talks to all sides and, unlike the US, negotiates in good faith. Russia undoubtedly used its influence on the Iranians, to influence the Yemenis, and used its influence on the Saudis to bring all the parties to acceptance of a ceasefire. The UN negotiating team, which has for years spun its wheels and failed to achieve anything, can claim success. Admitting any role for Russia would only have muddied the waters. The important thing is that the fighting has stopped and talking recommenced. Saudi Arabia may find that from this side of the table, it will be more beneficial to stop this pointless war. https://en.abna24.com/news//yemens-ansarullah-saudi-led-coalition-welcome-un-brokered-truce_1243906.html

Russian Foreign Ministry Statement on Response to Anti-Russian Sanctions Decisions of the European Union

The sanctions policy of the European Union towards Russia goes beyond all boundaries. After the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, Brussels massively and arbitrarily subjected Russian citizens and domestic companies to unilateral restrictions. Ignoring all applicable international legal norms, they post their personal data in the public domain. On the go, they invent absurd extra-legal "criteria" for further replenishment of this list.

In trying to portray our country as the culprit of a systemic European security crisis, Brussels European officials refuse to admit that over the years they have condoned the strengthening of Russophobic and neo-Nazi sentiment in Ukraine, its militarization and integration into NATO efforts to contain Russia militarily. Despite our repeated appeals, they indulged the sabotage by the Kiev regime of the Minsk “Package of Measures” and the strangulation of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine. They turned a blind eye to the systematic extermination of civilians in Donbass.

Now, instead of drawing lessons from what happened, in Brussels, out of inertia, they are following a dead end path of introducing restrictive measures against Russia. Moreover, they are trying to involve other sovereign countries in these senseless and illegitimate efforts from the international legal point of view, which are fraught with a further escalation of tension in Europe and the world, contrary to their national interests. They are subjected to unprecedented pressure and blackmail.

As in the case of other manifestations of the “hybrid war” declared by the West against Russia, Russian citizens and Russian-speaking residents of foreign countries, as well as the leading companies of our country, the EU’s calculation is obvious - to force us to retreat from our vital interests. All this is part of the policy of the collective West to contain Russia, attempts to subordinate its development to the goal of restoring its undivided global dominance, to deny our country the provision of its own security, the protection of national interests and the right to build an independent and creative agenda on the world stage.

The events of recent weeks prove that these efforts are futile.

By its actions, the European Union not only leads to a dead end in relations with Russia, but also endangers the well-being and security of its own citizens, as well as the stability of the global financial and economic system.

In response to the massive unilateral sanctions of the European Union, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, which is basic for international law, the Russian side has significantly expanded the list of representatives of EU member states and European structures, which, in accordance with the Federal Law "On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation" from August 15, 1996 No. 114-FZ entry into the territory of our country is prohibited.

The restrictions apply to the top leadership of the European Union, incl. a number of European commissioners and heads of EU military structures, as well as the vast majority of deputies of the European Parliament promoting anti-Russian policies. The response Russian "blacklist" also includes high-ranking officials, including representatives of the governments and parliaments of some EU member states, as well as public figures and media workers who are personally responsible for promoting illegal anti-Russian sanctions, inciting Russophobic sentiments, infringing on the rights and freedoms of the Russian-speaking population.

The corresponding note verbale of the Russian Foreign Ministry, informing about this step, was submitted to the EU Delegation in Moscow.

We reaffirm that any hostile actions on the part of the EU and its member states will continue to be inevitably met with a harsh response.

The Ukrainian De-Nazification Operation - 9 Metres!

A little more information has come out about the missile strike on the NATO mercenary forward base at Yarovorsky. The base was struck by at most eight caliber missiles, which were used to take out the barracks, command facilities and weapons stores. There was however one other component in the strike that was not mentioned in the initial reports - a single Iskander ballistic missile was used to take out the concrete 'nuclear bunker' at the site where strategic weapons were stored. NATO had expected that subterranean weapons store, sunk nine metres below the ground encased in reinforced concrete, would be safe from any Russian strike, but they were very wrong. No wonder there is panic in Washington and NATO.

When surviving mercenaries starting reporting the strike in the days afterwards, they invariably talked of 'thousands' of casualties. I put this down to exaggeration and the fog of war. Initial reports were of a few hundred casualties, but the number has quietly increasing. We won't the truth of the matter until after the war is over, but I now believe the numbers are actually on the higher side and included a large number of NATO officers.

The results of similar missile strikes on barracks and troop agglomerations have been devastating. The footage below is from a TOR-1 thermobaric weapon strike on a Ukrainian bunker. Thermobaric weapons were developed especially to annihilate troops in fortified positions. The fireball created by the explosive is so intense that it consumes all the oxygen in the surrounding area, with the resulting shock wave bursting soldier's lungs.


Mariupol

Mariupol is nearing the end game. DPR and Chechen special forces began a clearing operation in Mariupol on Friday 25th March 2022. The nazi Azov Battalion hold outs were given to midnight to surrender. No quarter would be given after that time. Some units fought to their destruction but others dropped their uniforms and attempted to slip away among the evacuating civilians. Most were caught, identified by their tattoos or reported by the civilians they were using as cover. Azov's treatment of Mariupol's residents has been so appalling that there is no love lost on them. The house to house search is exposing many horrors of torture and murder on a mass scale. Destruction within the city is terrible, in part due to the Russian's having to fight street by street, but also because Azov have carved a swathe of destruction in their wake, blowing up buildings and infrastructure as they go.

As clearing Mariupol involves house to house searching, it has gone very slowly. There is little coherent defence left as the Azov units have retreated into the vast Azovstahl steelworks. There is an ongoing debate whether to proceed with a clearing operation, with its attendent casualties, or simply annihilate the entire complex with stand-off weapons.

Interestingly, a Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopter was shot down attempting a landing at night at the Azovstahl works. This was obviously an attempt to evacuate a high value target from the doomed garrison. Someone is worried.

Nikolaev will be next for libertation after the Mariupol operation is completed. Ukrainian troops have pinned around the city outskirts for some time now and these are being reduced with Caliber missiles and MRLS. Within the city itself, a Caliber missile destroyed the regional administration building from where the city's defence was being coordinated. The missile strike was captured on the buildings own surveillance camera.

The result is devastation.

In all other theatres positional warfare is now largely over and the process of reducing the encircled troops continues to grind on. On 29th March 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced that there would be a reduction in offensive operations in the area of Kiev and Chernigov. This was immediately seized on commentators in the west as proof that the Russian campaign is nearing collapse. This is moronic wishful thinking by idiots who don't understand the Russian strategy - pin down Ukrainian forces in the cities and on the battlefield and defeat them in detail. We are now at that point. Mariupol will cleared shortly and troops will move north to Nikolaev. Some units around Kiev and Chernigov will be repositioned to the south east to block the large Ukrainian force pinned down on the Donestk frontline, so that it can be destroyed. Russia's moves are calculated and rational.

There's lots of political and economic news to cover and this post has been delayed for days due to other commitments, so I will stop here and start a new post. In the meantime, I recommend B from Moon of Alabama's analysis of the Russian position. https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/03/ukraine-sit-rep-part-ii-of-russias-military-operation-unfolds.html#more