The New Ukraine with Stavroula Pabst

fighting continues unabated. While that may seem nonsensical to some but the reality is that these actors to Ukraine is the perfect testbed for a host of policies and technologies, particularly invasive surveillance systems that are part of the rollout of the so called Fourth Industrial Revolution or 4IR while the launch of the quote unquote great reset trumpeted that COVID was the catalyst for

implementing these policies and technologies globally. In Ukraine, the chaos of the conflict is being used to turn a desperate war torn country into a four IR testbed. From digital ID to Central Bank digital currency to having sold off or outsourced much of its critical infrastructure to Western businesses and tech giants. Ukraine is changing quickly and

may soon be unrecognizable. Ultimately, whatever Ukraine is becoming it is being made to fit the visions of Western elites, like those who populate the meetings of the World Economic Forum and those who sit within the boardrooms of companies like BlackRock. To discuss this and more. I'm joined by Stavroula Pabst. Stavroula is a writer, comedian and PhD student based in Athens, Greece, who has written for The Grayzone, Slate,

and the satire site Reductress, among many others. She has also recently become a contributor to Unlimited Hangout with her new piece covering the very topics we will be discussing today. It is entitled Ukraine's Future Lies in the Great Reset. Thanks for joining me today Stavroula, and welcome to Unlimited Hangout. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Well, thank you

for writing such a wonderful piece for Unlimited Hangout. So you detail on your piece, this effort to quote unquote, rebuild Ukraine is going on before the conflict has even ended, which seems kind of odd, you know, a lot of the investments these people are making, because the conflict continues could just be blown up or destroyed by by the conflict, right. So you know, what exactly is going on here? Who are the main players? And what are their goals? And more specifically, do the Ukrainian

people have any agency in these decisions? Right, so this is actually one of the main things I discussed in the piece. There's this obsession, I feel with the reconstruction efforts of Ukraine, even though again, the war has not ended, we really don't have any idea about how long the war will be going on. But I personally think that this reconstruction obsession is about preparing, you know, preparing to ensure that the

reconstruction goes on in the leads interest. And we see this reconstruction efforts be led by some of the world's most powerful, and in my opinion, most predatory people who are already preparing to make major investments in Ukraine. One example of this is, of course, Black Rocks memorandum of understanding with Ukraine's it Ministry of Economy. And it's a situation where Black Rock is explicitly saying, we're going to recreate Ukraine, or we're going to reconstruct a new

Ukraine. So they're actively telling us right away some of the most powerful people and powerful groups in the world, they're actively telling us that this reconstruction is about,

Microsoft, both. They're both essentially, they have all of the Ukrainian Government's information on their servers in various ways. They're there, they literally have ownership over critical infrastructure of Ukraine.

I think it's a situation where they understand the elite understand that if they push things like public private partnerships in Ukraine, if corporations take over major wartime efforts now, this is essentially crystallizing a lot of the larger political structures that's critical to the development of the global public private partnership,

right? Where we have these unaccountable groups, you know, public private counter partnerships are essentially situations where corporations take on major aspects of use of Ukraine or whatever is infrastructure, and then it's on accountable to the public. So essentially, what's going on in Ukraine is that we're seeing a number, we're seeing the public private partnership become further crystallized, we're seeing act be activated, essentially, in wartime. And

it's something where they can consistently do it. They can normalize it, they can show us what power corporations and public private partnerships have in Ukraine. And it's a situation where if these efforts and if these policy objectives and structures become normalized in Ukraine, I think it's very easy for them to facilitate that for the rest of us in the future. So essentially, yeah, it's a hotbed. It's a testing ground, whatever works in Ukraine now will probably come first later.

ties into this reconstruction effort? Since a lot of, you know, those governments in particular, those countries have a lot of involvement in this reconstruction process?

true in Ukraine. I mean, the longer Ukraine is at war, the, you know, the more destroyed it becomes, obviously, and it's a situation where they know that they can essentially push whatever they want in Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have very little sovereignty. And actually, the Ukrainian government has essentially, like, expelled, they've already essentially expelled most of the oppositional parties. And my understanding is that Zelenskyy has also consolidated the media.

So they know that they have a very ideal situation to be able to continue these efforts at large.

groups. You know, this campaign argued that COVID-19 was the catalyst for a series of changes that need to be made to all facets of society, right under the sort of this umbrella of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But after COVID-19 started to wane, and as the Ukraine Russian conflict began, there was this new buzzword that came out and maybe you've heard it, they call

it the polycrisis. And it's sort of a way to put Yeah, COVID-19 the Ukraine Russian conflict, not just within Ukraine in Russia, but you know, its global impacts on food and energy

prices, for example, and much else under one umbrella. And what you know, I'm thinking about here in the context of my last question, you have this deliberate effort prolonged Ukraine Russian conflict from Western powers, a lot of government policy from COVID-19 caused a lot of, you know, unnecessarily we know now, a lot of the damage being blamed on,

you know, this polycrisis situation. And so too with Ukraine Russian conflict, a lot of the energy price issues, for example, were policy decisions by groups like the EU to

sanction Russia, for example, right. So, again, it seems like there's sort of this effort to tell the public that these are inevitable crises that are out of, you know, the hands of the elite, but at the same time, a lot of the crises itself, at least in a tangible sense, had been caused directly by unintentional government policies, a lot of it, of course, from the Western world, but not especially in the case

of COVID-19 not exclusive to that. So basically, you know, the way it looks to me, given the the sort of intentionality of creating the polycrisis on a part of a lot of the governments that are affiliated with the World Economic Forum, to me, it sort of seems like, as you note in your piece, right, the chaotic eWCA, quote, the chaotic ongoings in Ukraine are a

microcosm of the larger political moment. And you also refer to the war as the great reset accelerator, I would sort of say that implicit in a lot of what we're seeing right now is essentially a threat from a lot of these elites that, you know, until you acquiesce to these policies that we want to impose on, you know, the world essentially, or have it be, you know, a majority of nations, you know, until that acquiescence takes place, the crises will not only continue, they will get

worse. What are your thoughts on that?

intentionality behind this. We're I live in Greece, this is a situation where they've actively had they had actively told us earlier in the fall this last year, you know, due to the war in Ukraine, it's quite likely that, you know, you may well face power outages there, this could be a situation where food prices go out of out of control, you're not going to be able to necessarily be able to pay for things very easily, they actively were telling us that that was going to be the

situation. And it's quite true that every time I go to the grocery store, I see things, I see the prices of items jump almost every single time, I really do think that a lot of this is about putting a lot of mental pressure on the population, they're kind of trying to tell us, we don't care if you don't want there to be a war or not, we want there to be a war, the Western powers clearly very much actively want

to war, they want to continue the war. And due to the war, of course, that means a lot of living conditions are going to worsen. I think they're making it very clear that they want us to get used to that type of reality that we can't really resist it, I would actually very much agree with that. And if I can connect that back to COVID. And I suppose that's the point of the World Economic Forum's term, polycrisis. We're living in this world where there's crisis after crisis after

crisis. And it's horrible. You know, they, they essentially forced a lot of us to live with two and a half years of very, very excessive restrictions. And it was a situation where, sure, you know, many of us technically got through it. But it was a very mentally stressful time. And there was obviously duration

to that the lockdowns destroyed a lot of lives. And I think that what's happening now is, let's say if COVID was some kind of springboard for what was happening, I think that the war is making things even more direct, they're telling you that living standards will get worse, as long as this war continues, they're trying to tell you that you have really little say about whether the war is happening, or they try to make it sound like you should not be able to fight whether a war is happening, or

you shouldn't be able to resist or protest in certain ways. And yes, in short, I think that that's very intentional. I think they want us to feel that we can't escape the state of crisis, even though this crisis is something they very much have created. So yes, in short, I find there's a lot of intentionality here. Yes.

little traceability and accountability, that this is necessary to ensure democracy in Europe and you know, Putin

There's literally Hitler and all of this stuff, right? And, you know, essentially what you show on your piece is that, you know, this idea that what is really being done by the West and Ukraine is about protecting democracy is really hogwash, at least when you consider, at least if you want to define democracy is like people have an agency and direct involvement in deciding their leaders and their policies and all of this stuff.

And an example you sort of touched on earlier, for example, is the role of big tech like Microsoft and Google Silicon Valley companies, right, having a major role in Ukraine's military operations, the management of the conflict, and also major functions of civilian components of the Ukrainian government. And, of course, these companies are not Ukrainian. They're not based on Ukraine. They're not even based in Europe. They're based on the West Coast of the United States.

And, of course, they have a very extensive ties to the intelligence services of the United States, particularly Google having a very well documented relationship with the CIA and Microsoft's collaboration with intelligence. And well, and, you know, Israeli intelligence, also in the mix there with Israel, all sorts of, you know, non Ukrainian actors

really involved. And, you know, as you noted earlier, you know, the Ukrainian government under, you know, these policy directives, have essentially outsourced most of the functions of not just their military, but also their government to these foreign multinational companies. And people in Ukraine themselves don't have a lot of say over that. And, of course, as we know, now, or have known for several years, the Silicon Valley companies are increasingly interested in just

the mass harvesting of data. And it seems unlikely that Ukrainian people have a lot of say over how their data is being used, and particularly in the Ukrainian government and military. Is there any transparency into how their data is being used? From what I've seen? I don't think so. It seems like Google and Microsoft have, you know, full control over over that to an extent. So, you know, in this type of public private partnership, like you mentioned earlier, what exactly is going

on here? You know, what are the implications for actual democracy in Ukraine?

Ukraine actually has a ministry for digital transformation. The Minister for that, who's Mikhail Fedorov, they're actively going around, they actively show up at any high profile event they can, such as at Davos, such as at the Web Summit of last year, to be able to try to get investments and further, quote, unquote, assistance for Ukraine so that they can, you know, essentially try to fight this war. And, of course, they're acting like they

are able to win this war. I really do not, I don't know how that would be possible. But it doesn't really change the fact that that's essentially what they're trying to do it every single chance that they're able to get, which means that yes, I mean, a large number of corporations have lined up to help Ukraine, but by helping Ukraine, I would argue that they're essentially they're essentially taking Ukrainian

solid sovereignty, right, whatever. Ukraine's Ukrainian sovereignty exists, still, these corporations are eating away with it with every agreement that is signed. And to be honest, it's to the point that if you were interested in looking up what's going on, you could probably just search for a major corporation and its efforts to assist Ukraine, you

will probably find some weird stuff. It is that common. But um, yeah, essentially corporations are eating up, or they are taking on what should be government infrastructure in Ukraine, they are taking that over. I'm not really convinced that there's any real transparency on how these corporations are using the information they now have. I mean, based on what I was able to look for, they published

almost nothing. And I'm not surprised that they tell us very little about the transparency of what they're doing because they realize that they don't have to they understand I think very well, this is a wartime situation where it increasingly seems that anything goes they know that the Ukrainian people are in a state where they can't functionally really ask questions and actually expect somebody to be held accountable? So in short, no, I find that there's very little

transparency. And I think that there's very little chance for anybody to actually say what they'd like. And I actually I should probably talk a little bit about India app, which I discuss a little bit in my piece. Ukraine actually has a state in a smartphone app that encapsulates perfectly what's going on in Ukraine. And this dia app is, it is a state in a smartphone app, which I find to be quite creepy, to be honest.

But okay, it this app facilitates about 120 government services, including digital ID, you can register your business through Diia. You can pay taxes through dia dia has even given like cash payments to people affected by the war time, during COVID. Diia had also facilitated vaccination passports as well as like cash payments to people who didn't get vaccinated. So in short, we're seeing a lot of these efforts kind of

encapsulate itself perfectly in the Diia app. But I would say that very much dia encapsulates a lot of what's going on wrong, because, you know, you're essentially forcing this government app through, you're forcing a lot of tools, you know, Diia is a very easy way to introduce new tools that people may have problems with. But you're able to do it quite

quickly, because you're doing it on a smartphone app, right. So if Diia now holds a digital ID, which it does, it's very difficult to resist that because essentially, the Ukrainian government can say this service is now on Diia Oh, this service is now also on Diia, we can use do however we would like to. And there have been a number of surveillance concerns. Regarding Diia, I think also, there's general privacy concerns in terms of people's like, secure, secure information, or very

private information is on the Diia app. And I think that early last year, Diia was actually dia a number of other Ukrainian government services had been hacked. And a lot of people's information had actually been compromised, if I can remember correctly. So it's a situation where a lot of the public is being asked to use Diia. To do a lot of Everyday Things. The population is especially asked to use Diia since COVID. Because COVID was a time where you weren't supposed to access

services in person. So the population is kind of being slowly coerced into using this, this very invasive smartphone app, where they really have little say over about how it could be used by the government and against the idea that you would use a state in a smartphone app where, you know, who knows about Diia ability to surveil the population. And I know, this has this came up in my piece also. But funny enough,

USAID has supported Diia development. And right now they're actually hoping or it's been announced Samantha Power had announced at the World Economic Forum earlier this year that she would like to see Diia and Diia equivalents make their way around the world, especially the global South, which, I mean, I think that's disgusting, but not really surprise. And so it's been announced that they will be able to try to bring something like Diia to other countries, whether people like it or not.

So in my opinion, Diia kind of encapsulates what's happening, a lot of initiatives are being rammed through quickly, they're being done in this semi coercive way where maybe your life is harder if you don't go long. Or if you don't use Diia, for example, you know, it's harder to get by in your day to day life, if you don't have that digital driver's license, you don't have that digital ID. So I think a lot of that kind of encapsulates the overall problem.

people. So for example, applying for residency and things like that, and Chile, used to be in a government office and because, you know, allegedly because of the migration crisis, it's all online now, and a lot more messy, and a lot of times they claim they, despite you uploading stuff to their servers, they claim to lose your documents and all this stuff.

But essentially, what's important here is that it's um, as they move everything to the digital realm, they tend to remove the equivalent to the physical realm to force you into the digital realm. And it's no surprise that you have Have a group like USAID which has been named by numerous groups of, you know, across the spectrum really as a cut out for the CIA, that you would have them backing this type of initiative program. Because essentially, it's moving, it's generating more

data. And it also makes it much easier to surveil like you mentioned earlier, what people are doing, and how's a lot of people's sensitive data where they can easily access it. Because of course, if it's all on all these different servers of different government offices, and you know, more decentralized and you know, tied up with physical locations, and not in a one stop shop digital program, like dia, for example, it's obviously benefits them a lot more to have it all in one

place. And something that I've noted as part of the great reset and some past interviews, and then some of my past work is that the same you have sort of like two parallel operations going on. So you know, what, what we see here, what we've just talked about, is this effort to push everything into

the digital world, right? And so dia, you know, government in a smartphone, you know, you have to go into the digital realm to to access these necessary services in order to, you know, interact with the economy or do basic stuff like you know, drive a car, for example, but this parallel push we're having is to exert increased control over the digital world, the internet, centralize the internet and make it more easily surveilled under the guise of doing things like preventing hacking, stopping

cybercrime, censorship, to stop foreign malign influence and hate speech and all of this stuff, right? I see these as intentionally an intermingling sort of parallel operation. So you're pushing people into the digital sphere, essentially forcing them there through coercive measures, like you just noted. But you're also consolidating control over the digital world in an unprecedented way. Right. So that sort of makes it take on this more, I guess, nefarious

element, in the sense. And that's why I think stuff like Diia is really, really disturbing, as you point out in the fact that there's really no public say about it. And you

know, people in Ukraine, it's a war torn country. You know, people are not necessarily in a strong enough position to make their voices heard in this in this government, particularly with, you know, the opposition and the media being under the control of Zelenskyy, who is very much aligned himself with the Western oligarchs responsible for these policies.

It's a very sad situation. But something complimentary, in terms of what we've just been talking about with Diia is your discussion of Ukraine and central bank digital currencies. So can you touch on that those policies and how they relate to things like the digital ID and the Diia app and things of that nature?

they want Ukraine to become a cashless society. They want everybody to be using ehealth and education, e education type services. And now it's become kind of in in federal jobs view, it's become essentially this paradise, because everyone now

has a very convenient life. So they're even using the word cashless there, by the way, so I think that while I don't know for sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they did start trying to remove or making these paper versions of services, traditional services, and the digital or, and the paper currency, I'm sorry, available to people, you know, that they're telling you where they want this to go. They actively

talk a lot about where they'd like this to go. And my understanding is that Ukraine is actively trying to portray itself as this very digital, very front forward, whatever that means country that will do anything to be able to prove to the world that it's moved ahead despite this war, and of course, they're acting like Ukraine will win, but that's kind of besides the points in relation to the CBDC, I think there's a lot of interesting stuff going on here. Ukraine does have a CBDC in the

works. It's called the e-hryvnia. And assuming that all goes well with it, this will be launched next year in 2020 for granted when they say that I don't know if the war will affect this, but for now that that's what they're trying. They're positing they will do. Now the e griffonia. There's a couple interesting things. I did find about it because it wouldn't be facilitated by a central bank of Ukraine. But it also would run on the stellar blockchain or the stellar

blockchain network, I should say. And I think that actually, if I, I think stellar is actually worth further investigation, because if you want my honest opinion, it's a little suspect, to say the very least, stellar blockchain is technically a public network. But it's facilitated by the

stellar Development Foundation, which is a nonprofit. And if you look at stellar, I feel that it very much uses the language of the elite, and it's very much in line or the stellar foundation Development Foundation, I'm sorry, it's very much in line with the goals of the elite. If you look at their language that they use publicly, stellar is aiming to become a global payment standard. And stellar actually has been slated or it's been selected to become a prospective European stable

coin. It's also collaborating with Mercado Bitcoin, to help develop a future Brazilian cbdc. And if you look at Stellars public materials, they actively have decided, you know, it's actively fashioning itself to become the blockchain that CBDCs could be used on. So I think that people listening to this, you know, I think a lot of people are aware of the general dangers of CBDC's, I also would like to say that stellar in particular creeps me out and it and it is being used here. In

terms of this, the e griffonia. It's obviously part of this larger push toward CBDC's that's happening worldwide. And I do think that the current situation, we can talk a little bit about the general concerns regarding CBD C's. But in this case, you know, because we already have Diia. You know, let's say that the e-hryvnia is being launched, we already have Diia, which does already have a digital ID. And another thing about Diia is that a lot of people verify their identity,

identity through Diia to do other things. For example, people will verify their identity through Diia to access their banking services, to access the post office, it's even being used for like a chat bot where you can verify that you're Ukrainian, then you can enter the chat bot on telegram to essentially report on enemy activity. So we're already seeing this CBDC launch within the context of a country that's first of all, very hell bent on becoming as digitized as

possible as quickly as possible, I should say. And it already has a digital ID. So it seems quite plausible that if there is an e-hryvnia launched, it would quite likely it could quite plausibly I should say be connected to the digital ID

because that infrastructure already exists. That's, I wouldn't be surprised to see any of that considering the general drive that's ongoing in Ukraine, they're very much hell bent on trying to move as quickly as possible so that there is little safe for about any of the possible dangers that this could pose the population. I think that your audience is very aware of the possible dangers regarding CBDC. But I think in particular, we're concerned about, you know, first of all,

its programmability. And second of all, it being tied to your identity. And, you know, essentially, this digital ID and the e-hryvnia being tied to a lot of basic information about you. So one day, we work to program a CBDC, it would quite be quite easy to say, okay, you know, this is this, this person does or doesn't follow rules. This will therefore determine

their level of access to goods or services. I unfortunately think that a lot of general concerns regarding CBDCs I'm very concerned for them in this case, because it's again, a situation of wartime. It's a situation where a war torn country has very little saying what's going on. And like I've said, it seems that the Ukrainian government is very much interested and pushing forward as quickly as possible.

They don't want discussion they want to look like they are the most advanced country on Earth. So I think this is a situation where priorities are clearly not about listening to people. Priorities are about moving these agendas as quickly as possible, which very much means that if we see a CBDC I fear very much that it will be linked to digital ID and the other software or the other initiatives. The Ukrainian government is moving forward.

identity. And a lot of that, you know, I mentioned on the recent interview, that one contributor to unlimited hangout recently told me that, I shouldn't say that he had to change banks, because they were requiring him to use bio, his biometrics to even be able to access his own money. So you know, wow, that's even before cbdc has been rolled out. And this is, you know, a private commercial bank, making that so it's very plausible to that, you know, when the cbdc is rolled out, in order to access

it, you'll have to prove it's really you. And what better way to do that than the digital ID, right. And there's plenty of groups out there that have already pushed for the idea of having them completely tied together. And actually, the UN has been pretty explicit about this, they had a working paper that they called The People's Money. And silly, very misnamed paper, yes. But it's talking about how you know, in order to

foster in, you know, the cbdc. And all of this is necessary for fostering financial inclusivity and all of this stuff, and that in order to move finances to an increasingly digital, you know, the digital realm, it's necessary to have it also tied to digital ID. I mean, they make that very explicit. And they also tie that, interestingly enough, explicitly to the Sustainable Development Goals, which, broadly speaking, are part of agenda 2030. So it's interesting what you mentioned

with Ukraine 2030, you know, it's essentially the same. And it's interesting, too, because when people think of, oh, Sustainable Development Goals, sustainable development, they don't necessarily see that as meaning turning everything digital, right. But to the UN, if you actually dig into the sustainable development goals and agenda 2030, they're actually quite explicit about a lot of that and frame it as more

quote unquote, sustainable but you know, that's debatable. And one of the ways they tend to do this is by claiming somehow that making everything digital is somehow greener. And this is oddly something that is also being, in a sense, you know, piloted in Ukraine, because as you note in your piece, there's this big push by Zelenskyy, and also by Western billionaires, to turn Ukraine into the quote, world's first green digital economy, and the fastest growing economy in Europe per Zelenskyy.

And one of the ways this is allegedly going to be accomplished is through this entity that you wrote about called the Ukraine Green Growth Initiative, which was launched by Australian mining magnets Andrew and Nicola Forrest forest with two R's. So what can you tell us about Ukraine's vision, not to just be, you know, in almost entirely digital faster

than anybody else, but also greener than anybody else. And if this is actually correlated with environmental justice, in any capacity, or just a talking point,

transformation being paired with a green transformation. So they're kind of actively trying to show you are the elites are actively trying those trying to tie those two transitions, together with their language. So that was something I actually found very interesting when I was doing my research for this piece. In terms of the Ukraine Green Growth Initiative. Well,

there's that initiative, which is an investment fund. And there's just so many other you know, green reconstruction plans, that I find to be very disingenuous to say the very least. And of course, a lot of this is again, being tied into the reconstruction being planned for Ukraine. Again, as we had said earlier, they're talking about reconstruction way before the war is even over. And they're very much talking about Reconstruction in ways that are green. I typically wouldn't

recommend people do a Google search. But I think in this case, it's kind of interesting to see what weird search results Google is going to give you in terms of the elites plan. There's just so if you look up like green reconstruction, Ukraine, green future Ukraine, you'll just see dozens of articles saying why Ukraine's transition should be green. There's been this idea that a green Marshall Plan should be packaged together for Ukraine. And I think in all of these

cases, it's very disingenuous. But what's consistent is transformation of society being positive. Right, this reconstruction is a perfect chance to transform Ukraine in

ways that are green. And within the context of consistent predatory behavior from the green elites were things like decarbonisation, or other green targets are kind of being used as bludgeons to get, you know, other countries to do what they like, I think the same thing is going on in initiatives like the Ukraine Green Growth Initiative. It's an investment fund, as you said, and it's an investment fund, where I think the forests

had put like 500 million US dollars into it. And I think that they are hoping that they will get a billion in suppose in green investments. Obviously, this is being put forth by some of the world's most predatory elite like Blackrock's, Larry Fink, Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden, former UK Prime Minister Boris, Boris Johnson, all of these people were consulted in the process of establishing this investment fund, if that tells

you anything in the first place. If we're talking investments, and we're talking the world's most predatory people, I think what we need to understand right away is that the green elite have a history, not as altruists, but as people that are looking for returns on their investments, right. I think that if they're putting this level of money into Ukraine, they're essentially saying we're investing now to ensure that Ukraine, and Ukraine, this future is the way that they want

it. And I think they're especially interested in using these green targets and these green initiatives to ensure these transformations go this their way, I actually, in terms of the Green Growth Initiative, it's interesting, because they're talking about transforming basic infrastructure. So they're saying they're going to focus on

infrastructure basics, like energy and communications. And they actually talk in the one of the press releases, I think about building a digital green grid, quote, so Ukraine can become a model for the world as a leading digital green economy. And there, again, we're seeing digital and green being put together. At the same time, I think they're trying to show you very much that we're going to do the green transformation and the digital transformation at the same time. And I don't, I'm not

an expert in terms of what digital green grid means. But if you look into it a little bit further, this digital green grid that they're positing, they're going to use these investments to build, you know, it leverages things like artificial intelligence, and the internet of things, you know, they actually use the word Internet of Things to describe how the digital green grid is, I guess, going to be able to optimize production, energy construction in real time to be able to

reduce waste, or maxify maximize efficiency. So they're kind of pushing forward these very advanced technologies that I think a lot of the population would find quite problematic. The idea that you're going to undermine the current infrastructure, okay, I guess some of it's probably getting destroyed by the war. But they're using these investments

to put forth these technologies. They're pushing forth these transformations in ways again, the population has little say over and again, I think in all of this, unfortunately, green is really just being used as a bludgeon. It's a way to get the population both in Ukraine and elsewhere to agree with what's going on. You know, you want to help us save the environment,

right? So you're going to agree with me, the billionaire and my desire to transform society, but it's actually about transforming society into the one they want, or they have the say, not the general population. So in short, yes, I do think that these green initiatives, they are unfortunately very disingenuous. I mean, it's very upsetting to be honest, because it's, we're essentially being told we need to give up a lot of things. To

meet these targets. We're not really being asked what our opinion is, and the Ukrainians especially in our are not being asked. So yes, they are using this as kind of a bludgeon to be able to accelerate their goals for Ukraine.

climate finance stuff. For the UN, ultimately, you know, the digital green grid being built by these billionaire investment funds with billionaire money, they're going to essentially be the owners of that grid, and are going to get a massive return on investment from it. And this is being framed as philanthropy. But if you look at people like Bill Gates, for example, that's also in the space through a Breakthrough Energy, energy

ventures, and things like that. He's been very open in the past several years that his whole approach to quote unquote, philanthropy is about maximizing return on investment. So essentially, what's been done over the past several decades, largely because of PR, is that there's been a real redefinition of what philanthropy means, in practice, but for the public,

most people continue associating the term with altruism. And this has led us to this current point where, because of that, a lot of these billionaires, what they're doing now with building things like a digital green grid, and Ukraine and elsewhere, is being framed, again as altruistic, about concern out of the planet.

But there's not really that much evidence that it will be really that green, and other people, including myself, but you know, people like Cory Morningstar, for example, who you referenced in your piece, have made it very clear that a lot of the particular power generation technology these people want to invest in, requires a lot of mining of minerals, that is going to totally decimate the global South, particularly the

Andes, in South America and much of Africa. And for people familiar with how that mining takes place, and how workers are treated and the environmental and social costs, it's definitely green, really, at all, or at least, you know, any sort of green benefit definitely is, is sort of swallowed up by the enormous environmental and social costs in the places where

the mines actually exist. So, you know, again, I sort of see this as more PR speak to sort of, again, cover up the fact that what they want to do was create a digital grid and a digital economy. But by adding green to it, they're able to sort of tie in the Sustainable Development Goal, PR spin. And like I mentioned earlier, the UN has been very specific about framing, completion and implementation of the SDGs with

moving into this completely digital paradigm. And I think one of the reasons they're so interested in and focusing on energy and stuff like that is because a lot of the Model A lot of these elites want to follow is essentially technocracy, which is all about, essentially, it's essentially a new economic paradigm where it's not really about money, it's about energy,

and how much energy you spend. And so when you recreate a Digital Green, you know, a digital power grid of a completely different type, it seems like the way they're trying to remake it is those so that they can better track, who is using what amount of energy and they can manage it that way. And of course, a lot of it today, will be most likely managed by artificial intelligence and things of that nature. Whereas technocracy in the past, obviously, emerging in

the 30s. And developing in the decades after that, you know, technology wasn't at the same level it is today. So a lot of what they theorized about is a little different from how it's implemented being implemented right now. But I think

ultimately, you know, there's a lot of that there. And then also, when you're talking about these quote, unquote, green economies and development, there's also this major effort to include things like natural capital, things like carbon markets, and all of the stuff basically creating giant new markets that are based around the natural world and don't necessarily protect the natural world, but they certainly are poised to make a lot of powerful people a lot of money as the

SDGs roll out. So, you know, I definitely see a lot of this stuff, particularly some of the things you wrote about, as it relates to quote unquote, green growth of Ukraine sort of

falling under the same under the same measures. And I think it will likely also tie in with some other aspects of what's going on in Ukraine that you wrote about, for example, the, the buying up of farmland and things of that nature will, of course, inevitably be tied into the same system, because as you know, in your piece, a lot of the same people buying up the farmland are kind of onboard for this broader digital, quote unquote, green transformation.

to be green and actually a COP27. I know that the UNDP, Ukraine had hosted some kind of seminar where they're actually discussing carbon markets, for example. So there, there's active talk about a lot of the initiatives you had just described, even though they didn't actually make it into my final piece. It's everywhere. Yeah. And yeah, and I think that they are very interested in developing green tools for Ukraine and green economic or banking tools for Ukraine's

future. You know, and it all sounds very nice, but I almost I don't know how to word it. I almost feel like they're trying to use this flowery language to wash this out to confuse us all out. But the idea that any of this is about sustainability is just a big lie. And I think it's all very disingenuous, in terms of like, the buying out of of farmland. I mean, I was kind of, I would not say I was shocked by it, but it's unfortunately par

for the course. What's going on there. The I find not surprising, again, is that, you know, major agri businesses, major financial groups like Vanguard, BNP Asset Management holding. There's, there's a couple other major Ukrainian agri businesses that have also bought up a lot of the

farmlands. What's interesting about that is actually a lot of these groups I just discussed are indebted to groups like the European Bank for Reconstruction, or development and development, and the European investment great Investment Bank, the International Finance Corporation, which is an arm of the World Bank. So you're seeing a situation where like, oligarchs are buying up Ukrainian farmlands, but in turn, those oligarchs and agribusinesses are actually indebted to the world's major

financial institutions. And I think what's important to say here, or an important note is that the Institute called the Oakland Institute had published a report on this. And they actually note that a large lot of major agribusinesses buying up Ukraine's farmlands are actually indebted to major world Institute, world financial institutions. So they're indebted to like the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The IFC, or the International Finance

Corporation, which is an arm of the World Bank. So we're essentially seeing a situation where oligarchs are buying up Ukrainian farmland, but the intern these oligarchs and agri businesses buying up the farmland, are indebted to the world's major financial groups. And if that's the case, the Oakland Institute posits that, you know, these major financial institutions have a major say, and now major stakes in what

happens to the farmlands. So it's it's just another situation we're seeing the world's largest financial institutions, the world's power elite, just finding every different way they

can think of, to get a stake in Ukraine's future. So that Ukraine's reconstruction is the type of reconstruction that they would like, I don't think it takes a genius to posit that I know that reconstruction that they pause, it is a reconstruction that is about them, and about the society that they would like to create.

at the at the end of the day. So one last question, as we wrap up here, a lot of the policies we've been talking about in Ukraine, including CBDCs, and biometric stuff and all of that. They're not just they're also advancing in the country that Ukraine is fighting as part of this conflict in Russia. So what are your thoughts about, you know, Ukraine and Russia being locked in this? This prolonged conflict, but a lot of the same policies are sort of being rolled out in both countries?

the great reset initiatives than they disagree. Right. They are more in agreement, ultimately, at the end of the day, despite the fact that we have this major war on going. That's essentially the way I see this conflict. And I can understand that the World Economic Forum has technically banished Russia from its, I don't know, its events, I don't know from being part of the World Economic Forum. But that doesn't change the fact that you Russia, at the end of the day, agrees with a lot of what's

going on. I know, they're currently working on a cbdc. I know also, I think we can also say from experience that Russia was more or less on board with a lot of the COVID restrictions. It was on board more or less with the vaccination passports and mandates that were on going. So I think that this is a situation where we can, in my opinion, we can say that perhaps there are genuine hostilities between the powers. But that doesn't change the fact that these countries ultimately agree

or they've been forced to agree for one reason or another. I mean, the sovereignty of many countries has been undermined at this point. I personally have not been to Russia, I don't necessarily know what the mood is there regarding both the war but also the genuine the general feel that a lot of policy initiatives are coming from the top down. While I don't know for sure, I'm not in a position to say it, I feel they will meaningfully resist this. Maybe individuals will resist it.

They're just like individuals resist these initiatives in all countries. But for me, when I look at the situation, my understanding of the conflict or my understanding of the conflict being a proxy, where where there are genuine political geopolitical tensions does not override this overall move towards a technocracy or this overall move towards stakeholder capitalism.

about Ukraine specifically. And, you know, I think, ultimately, some of the actual, you know, reasons for hostilities between these groups is about whether it will continue to be, you know, this agenda 2030 paradigm, whether it will continue to be dominated by the unipolar, so called unipolar order, ie, the West, the Anglo American Alliance and whatnot, or whether it will be more dominated by, you know, the BRICS countries, but a more like multipolar paradigm, as it's called, but

necessary, you know, at the end of the day, the sustainable development goals and agenda 2030 are ultimately about technocracy in a nutshell, when you start to look into them, and who's building it, why so many billionaires are involved in it, why they're pushing to digital ties, absolutely everything under the guise of it being sustainable, when that's not the

same thing as sustainable. And in all of this stuff, you know, it seems to me, at least personally, more like who's going, you know, you know, who's going to be on the top and what the, how power will be divided in this coming, technocracy? Right. As opposed to really being opposed to the, you know, the technocracy itself, right. But again, you know, it's

obviously a really complicated thing to unpack. And, you know, there's a lot of questions being raised on on all different sides about the nature of the Ukraine, Russia conflict, as it was wears on because, you know, it was a wrench, you know, a lot of people thought it was going to end a bunch sooner, because Russia's military is, is so large, and the way the, you know, quote, unquote, special military operation was described, a lot of people thought it would happen faster,

and people are puzzled why it's been so prolonged. And now you have the statements from the head of the Wagner group saying he's been essentially denied ammunition and things like that by the Russian military. I mean, there's a lot of weird things going on. And I honestly don't think any one person can really make sense of at all at this point in time, because there's just so many data points and so many moving parts, but the fact that you have, you know, Ukraine with the Western elites behind

them so committed to agenda 2030 and the SDGs. And then you have Russia and China and Brazil and, and the BRICS nations similar being similarly being so committed to them as well. You know, there seems to be again, a lot of agreement about how to move forward, just not so much about how power will be shared. You know, that's just my opinion. I don't know. Do you want to add anything to that? Or?

same thing had happened during COVID. Right? I mean, a lot of these policies were so top down, and it really didn't matter which country you're in, generally speaking, everybody went pretty universally towards them. And, you know, the idea that BRICS can offer as an actual alternative or meaningful challenge to the unit party, let's I don't know how else to describe it. To be honest, I am increasingly skeptical of that

as time goes on. Because I don't see them challenge. A lot of the main initiatives that are, are part of the great reset, you know, they are also developing CBDCs, they're also quite happy, you know, they're quite happy with a lot of these basic things that I personally have a lot of issues with in terms of just what I consider dignified life where I have the ability to say, you know, this is what I'd like, this is what I wouldn't like.

And I think a lot of people that are still kind of on the BRICS team, they either downplay the possibility for abuse, a lot of these measures imply or they almost say that they are a good thing. And so I am increasingly skeptical. First of all, personally, I should say, but again, it is a very complicated situation. I didn't even know the tidbit about the the Wagner group actually, I didn't know that. So that was a fun thing to learn just now. So that's kind of my thought there. I guess one

other quick point I'd like to say is that, I find it. I don't know if it's surprising or not. But, you know, of course, when I was doing research for this report, I just had to look through so much media, where Ukraine's prospects for victory are being discussed. And everyone writing about Ukraine's prospects for victory, if they belong to the elite political class, if you can call it that. They seem so steadfastly.... They seem very obstinate about the idea that Ukraine will win

no matter what. And I don't know if this is a silly observation or not. But it's really starting to bother me that they keep saying that, because if I look at the objective situation, it just seems that this is going to go on for a long time, I don't necessarily see a clear victim window for Ukraine to win. And so it just really freaks me out to continue to see that juxtaposition of, you know, a military conflict that could take a very long time, unfortunately, to lead to large

loss of life. And then this just arrogant attitude from the West that Ukraine will definitively win. Ukrainian Ukraine is definitely winning right now. It creeps me out. I don't really no, if there's anything to be made about that, specifically?

know exactly what's happening at at any given time. But I think what's important, and what I appreciate you for is, you know, keeping an open mind as these developments show themselves, because like you, you know, I definitely had very different views on on this particular matter, you know, compared to when I, you know, before COVID, and when I worked for ferment press, and all of that, and was really, really focused on reporting about US Empire, and, you know, the military

industrial complex and proxy wars, US foreign policy. But, you know, over time, especially with COVID, it's just become so puzzling, like, why are they increasingly acting like they're

on the same team and all of this stuff? And, you know, how opposed are they do a lot of these, you know, apparently, in my opinion, tyrannical measures and policies, you know, it is a really confusing time, but, you know, the best we can really do as journalists is to keep an open mind and just report the facts and try and, you know, adjust our analysis accordingly and invite our, you know, our audiences to sort of ask, you know, critical questions and think critically about, you

know, the information as it comes out, and, you know, these developments as we're moving into these very crazy and unprecedented times, because it seems to me that a lot of People, in particularly independent media has remained sort of locked in to some of this pre COVID. You know, geopolitical understanding, in a sense. Yeah, and I can understand why that might be. Because it's certainly, you know, maybe more familiar for a lot of people and easier to make

sense of things. But that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the facts on the ground are reflecting at any given time. So, you know, it's always important to keep an open mind and be willing to sort of challenge your own perspectives and views about geopolitics and other matters of, of note, you know, because, man, I mean, a lot of stuff that's gone in the past few years, I don't think really anyone really expected, but it certainly has given us a lot of new information to work

with. And if your ultimate goal is to get to the truth of the matter. You know, I mean, we have to be willing to readjust and reassess the end of the situation as more information becomes available to us, right?

doing this at the same time? And does this mean that these powers agree more than they disagree, and if they agree more than they disagree, that's a big deal. And I as a journalist have to be very open to that I really tried to be very open minded because I understand that I was I definitely was fooled. But I think it's very critical. The stage when it's very hard to say what will happen. I mean, it really feels that all things are kind of a go for the great reset, and all things are kind

of a go for this big transition or transformation of society. So it's such a, it's such a critical time, the best thing that I think we can do is be careful about jumping to conclusions about what any one country will or won't do. And to be trying to be Yeah, just try to keep an open mind. That's what I've been trying to do in my reporting. I've been trying to be honest about that. I want to I want to understand, why do these countries agree more than they disagree? And what does

that actually mean for our future? So yeah, in short, I agree with you.