WW: Welcome to Unlimited Hangout. I'm your host Whitney
Webb. For well over a year the war in Ukraine continues to rage
on with little sign of slowing down. Despite the havoc wrought
by the conflict within Ukraine, Western elites and multinational
corporations are pouring millions and millions of dollars
into the post war reconstruction of the country while the
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,
SP: They want to make Ukraine especially pliable, politically,
speaking to a lot of policy instruments, let's say, that
makes it much easier to undermine its sovereignty,
especially what's going on right now in Ukraine specifically, is
a lot of corporations are really just taking on, they are taking
over the war effort in Ukraine. They're doing basically
everything except the dying, we see goo. We see Amazon and
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.
WW: So thinking about how the conflict is played out. Of
course, we know by now that there's been several efforts,
particularly by the UK Government and the US government
to essentially egg on the conflict and scuttle scuttle
events that could have led to peace in the past, for example.
So do you see that sort of as an intentional prolongation, that
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?
SP: Personally, yes, I do see it as intentional I don't think a
lot of the world's larger powers want this conflict to end. I
think that that's for a number of reasons. But in relation to
this, and in relation to implementing the great reset in
Ukraine, I think that they would love for this to continue
forever, because they know, they have the world that in a state
of crisis through war, they have a world that's now much more
pliable to their initiatives. And I think that's especially
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.
WW: All right, so you know, considering the great reset,
right. So essentially, that was a campaign launched during
COVID-19. And that particular campaign, launched by now King
Charles and the World Economic Forum, and supported by other
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?
SP: I really do think that what's going on in Ukraine is a
microcosm, as I wrote in the piece of the larger situation.
And I really do agree with the idea that there is
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.
WW: So another thing I wanted to bring up the you've already sort
of touched on, but I might want to make it a little more
explicit is that, for example, in Western media, we're told all
the time and half men over the course of this conflict, have
been told that, you know, it's necessary to support the
Ukrainian side, you know, and this is why the US and UK and
other governments have told the public to justify them sending
millions upon millions of dollars to the conflict with
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?
SP: Sure, um, you know, that this is a situation. Of course,
it's quite complicated, and a lot of lot is happening. In
short, I, you know, as we've said, I really don't think any
Ukrainians have any real sovereignty. And this is
actually a situation what's really been interesting, though,
I will say none of this is surprising is that Zelenskyy,
both he and the Minister for digital transformation. Yes,
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.
WW: So in my experience in Chile, and I assume it's
probably similar in Ukraine, essentially, what happens when
you have a lot of these government services move online,
you stopped being able to conduct them in person as you
did before. And this is often very inconvenient for regular
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?
SP: Sure. So I will touch on Ukraine cbdc. And quickly, I do
really think that I think it's a little bit hard to say for sure
what will happen but I think Ukraine is fairly hell bent on
ensuring it becomes one of the world's most digitized
countries. And I actually start the piece off with Mikhail
Fedorov tweeting about this video where they were, it's
about Ukraine 2030, where they're actively telling you,
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.
WW: Well, I think you're absolutely right about that.
Because from what I've seen, with, you know, the push to
increasingly digital, you know, make currency digital and move
to sort of the CBDC or pre CBDC paradigm, one of the ways
they're trying to sell it isn't just convenience, right. It's
also stuff like safety from hacks, like your money safe and
where they're pitching that is to tie it to some sort of
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,
SP: um, in short, I would have to say this is more or less a
talking point. It's actually interesting that you had brought
up you know, this push for digitalization and green at the
same time, because when I was doing research for this piece, I
had actually seen some people use the phrasing twin
transition, where there's two prongs of like the digital
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.
WW: So you know, it's seems to me like, and I've seen this too,
not just in Ukraine, but elsewhere, a lot of the same
billionaires you've mentioned, like Mike Bloomberg, for
example, he was a UN special envoy. And Mark Carney, the
former Goldman Sachs and central banker who runs a lot of the
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.
SP: Yeah, yeah. And I think I guess the best way to put a lot
of this is that I'm unfortunately not surprised by
any of it. And I think it's all I think it's all unfortunately
happening in a perfect way in Ukraine. And because they know
they have us in a state of crisis, and they know that they
have had Ukrainians in a state of crisis. I didn't touch on
this in the piece, but I'll have to share it with you. I have
been doing some looking into like, you know, Ukraine's plans
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.
WW: Yeah, well, it seems like, you know, with these particular
actors using the the crisis, you know, the conflict in Ukraine to
rebuild it this way, I think it's pretty fair to say that
whatever crises, you know, in anywhere else will be used in a
similar fashion, to rebuild, to reconstruct to make society more
just and inclusive. I mean, it doesn't really matter. They can
make any crisis, you know, fit the the talking points, I think,
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?
SP: Sure. I mean, I think this is something that I've thought
about a long time and it's something where I wonder what if
I will agree completely with what I say today, but I think
what I would have to say today is that you No, while it does
seem there are some gems, there are genuine hostilities between
the world's most powerful nations, it is true that there
is a war going on. But it doesn't really change the
overall reality where these countries, they agree more on
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.
WW: Well, what concerns me is that, you know, Russia and some
of its allies, and BRICS, and, you know, the multipolar order
has some have called it are very much committed also to agenda
2030. And the Sustainable Development Goals, which, as
we've talked about, you know, sort of entail a lot of the same
policies that are under scrutiny, and in your piece
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?
SP: Um, yeah, I guess the only thing I really have to say about
that maybe a couple of things is, I mean, yeah. And this has
kind of changed or challenged my politics a lot over the last
couple years, essentially, because I, yeah, I mean, I
really don't see the BRICS bloc opposing a lot of these things
in fundamental ways, or meaningful ways. And I think the
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?
WW: I think that's probably a good place to leave it. I mean,
ultimately, at the end of the end of the day, it's hard to
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?
SP: Yeah, definitely. And I think for myself, yeah, I mean,
COVID was personally a, it was a very big turning point, because
I know I fell for it for a few months. I don't know how else to
word it. Yeah, I fell for a little while. And then kind of
when I realized the damage that lockdowns were doing to society
and realizing that a lot of people were just outright
ignoring the dangers of these takedown measures. I mean, it
kind of forced me to ask questions like, Why is everybody
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.
WW: All right. Well, that's probably a good place to leave
it. So thanks so much for coming on. So for everyone listening,
can you let us know how we can follow your work and support
you?
SP: Sure. So you can follow me on Twitter at Stavroula dot
Pabst, and it's all lowercase. I also do have a sub stack. It's
just stavroulapabst.substack.com and I to be honest, anybody
following me anybody sharing my work, that's the best way to to
support me at this time. You're also welcome to give me
donations, or, you know, subscribe to my substack either
for free or paid. I am an early career journalists. So any
support and sharing my work is actually very appreciated this
time. Thank you.
WW: Oh, thank you. And thanks to everyone for listening,
hopefully sharing this podcast around and as always a big very
special thank you to people who support this podcast. So thanks
so much, everybody and catch you on the next episode.