Could Ukraine resort to terrorism against Russian and pro-Russian targets around the world?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 5, 2024
On April 26th, it was reported that the Russian embassy in Brazil had received a phone call informing of a bomb presence on the premises. The Military Police of the Federal District was activated and headed to the location to conduct searches.
After several hours of searching, no explosive device was found within or around the embassy. Nevertheless, even if the “alert” was false, the case warrants a deeper investigation, along with reflections on the risks surrounding Russians and “friends of Russia” abroad, given the current geopolitical climate.
In this specific case, despite no explosive device being found, it falls under Brazilian legislation on terrorism, as our laws also encompass the threat of an attack (and mere insinuation constitutes a threat). Hence, “terrorism” is established, regardless of the presence of an actual device at the embassy.
However, it would be imprudent to consider the matter “closed” for several reasons.
Firstly, attention is drawn to the degeneration of the Ukrainian state into a terrorist institutional apparatus, with its security services having been involved in numerous terrorist attacks inside and outside Ukraine.
Ukraine’s degeneration into normalizing terrorism as a state practice accompanies its inability to confront Russia through regular warfare methods. It is predicted that the degradation of the Ukrainian armed forces will be accompanied by a proportional increase in terrorism usage by its security apparatus. Everyone remembers the terrorist attacks that killed Daria Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky, and the Crocus City Hall attack. Threats to various Russian public figures are constant.
But it is necessary to question whether Ukrainian terrorism (but not only Ukrainian) could extend beyond the Russian-Ukrainian borders and overflow into other nations. Consider, for example, the waves of Russophobia immediately stirred up after the start of the Russian special military operation.
This wave of Russophobia saw not only the cancellation of artistic and academic presentations linked to the Russian World but also physical attacks on some individuals in various countries. Needless to enumerate cases, it suffices to point out that even in Brazil, there were acts of vandalism against Russian Orthodox churches.
To this adds the presence of dozens of Brazilian mercenaries in Ukraine, fighting for Atlanticism. Some of these mercenaries are neo-Nazis, others are neoconservatives, many others are merely useful idiots deceived by unscrupulous influencers on social media. Recently, one of these mercenaries already returned to Brazil, named João Bercle (who, however, according to field information, was never on the front line), stated that Ukraine would “go after” Russians and “defenders of Russia” worldwide, insinuating the possibility of violence fomented, financed, and/or orchestrated from Kiev.
Furthermore, journalist Lucas Leiroz demonstrated in a thread on X that Brazilian President Lula was listed as a “target” on the infamous Myrotvorets website, an authentic “death list” indicating supposed “enemies of Ukraine” to be targeted through terrorist attacks or kidnappings. Many other foreign citizens have also been included on this list.
Well, personalizing the reflection, the author writing this article has indeed received death threats through anonymous accounts on the internet, including threats containing personal information and photos of family members.
Returning, therefore, to the bomb threat at the Russian embassy in Brazil, it is crucial to seriously consider the possibilities, paying attention to future risks.
In any case of such a threat, one must always consider the possibility of it being a troll or a madman or, in general, a person with no specific ideological or collective connections. But the fact that we are in such a geopolitically turbulent period forces us to also insist on other possibilities.
If the origin of the threat is not a troll, then the first suspicion could only fall on Ukrainian security services, such as the SBU and the SZRU, whose involvement in the aforementioned terrorist attacks is at least suspected.
It is notorious that the SBU operates in Brazil, infiltrating the Ukrainian-Brazilian community, which is relatively large, albeit discreet. Years ago, this author learned from a primary source that relatives of Brazilians who fought for the Donbass in Ukraine between 2014-2016 received death threats, with the primary suspicion at the time falling on the SBU.
In this sense, it is evident that the SBU would be the main suspect. And that directly or indirectly.
Indirectly, it is necessary to consider, first of all, Brazilian neo-Nazi groups, most of which have links with analogous organizations in Ukraine and even with the security sectors of that country, such as members of the Misanthropic Division Brazil, especially since some of these Brazilian neo-Nazis fought for the Ukrainian side in the past or went there for training, as reported by the Brazilian mainstream media several times.
The instrumentalization of members of these groups for terrorist attacks against Russian or pro-Russian targets in Brazil would not be particularly difficult. They would require little persuasion and encouragement.
Naturally, if we are still thinking about native Brazilians who could be instrumentalized for this type of terrorism, it would be necessary to observe those who have indeed been engaged in spreading widespread Russophobia and who see Russia as the embodiment of evil.
In this regard, the ferment of neoconservatism and ultraliberalism, proliferated over the last few years in Brazil, with its tendencies toward conspiracy theories, coupled with various behavioral disorders and the possibility of conscious or unconscious cooptation by some intelligence service, opens up the possibility of something in this direction.
Of course, in many of the suspected Ukrainian terrorist actions, some degree of contribution from Western intelligence agencies is suspected.
In this sense, and even considering threats to the President of Brazil, it would be essential to strengthen the counterintelligence work of Brazilian security agencies, as well as to monitor possible connections between neo-Nazi groups or extremist factions of neoconservatism with Ukraine or other intelligence services of NATO countries.
Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta speaks to Al Mayadeen on EU entry ban
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2024
Doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta, a renowned Palestinian Plastic and Reconstructive surgeon, detailed to Al Mayadeen his experience in France’s Charles De Gaulle International Airport, where French authorities stopped and turned him back on Saturday.
Dr. Abu Sitta flew to France to speak at the French Senate at the invitation of the Ecologists Party (The Greens), however, he was stopped and interrogated after arriving at Charles De Gaulle airport, to be later put on a flight back home. French authorities told Abu Sitta that he was barred from entering EU member states after German authorities banned him from the Schengen Area.
The surgeon volunteered with Doctors Without Borders in the Gaza Strip, working in the besieged territories hospitals amid a blatant Israeli genocide, which he bore witness to.
He told Al Mayadeen that the main reason why French authorities denied him entry to the country was to deny him access to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The doctor was also scheduled to speak to authorities in the ICC, which is reportedly exploring issuing arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the interview, Abu Sitta underlined the political pressure that the ICC is being subjected to from the United States Congress, the Joe Biden administration, and the European governments abetting the Israeli regime’s war on Gaza.
In this context, the humanitarian said that a European political decision has been made, aiming to silence any witnesses of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. This policy comes in parallel with an Israeli decision to assassinate all other witnesses to the war crimes remaining in the Gaza Strip or held in detention, Abu Sitta explained.
Moreover, Abu Sitta pointed to collusion between Israeli and European officials, aimed at restricting the movement of witnesses to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, specifically to international courts.
Ukraine’s creditors want their money back – WSJ
RT | May 5, 2024
A group of foreign bondholders have taken steps to force Ukraine to begin repaying its debts as soon as next year, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday. If they succeed, Kiev could hemorrhage $500 million every year on interest payments alone.
The group, which includes investment giants Blackrock and Pimco, granted Kiev a two-year debt holiday in 2022, gambling that the conflict with Russia would have concluded by now.
With no end to the fighting in sight, the lenders have now hired lawyers at Weil Gotshal & Manges and bankers from PJT Partners to meet with Ukrainian officials and strike a deal whereby Ukraine would resume making interest payments next year in exchange for having a significant chunk of its debt written off, anonymous sources told the Wall Street Journal.
The group holds around a fifth of Ukraine’s $20 billion in outstanding Eurobonds, the newspaper reported. While this figure represents a fraction of Ukraine’s total external debt of $161.5 billion, servicing the interest on these bonds would cost the country $500 million annually, the bondholders said.
Should the bondholders fail to strike a deal with Kiev by August, Ukraine could default. This would damage the country’s credit rating and restrict its ability to borrow even more money in the future.
According to the newspaper, Ukrainian officials are hoping that the US and other Western governments will take its side during talks with the bondholders. However, a group of these countries have already offered Ukraine a debt holiday on around $4 billion worth of loans until 2027, and are reportedly concerned that any deal with the bondholders would see private lenders being repaid before them.
Ukraine already relies on foreign aid to keep government departments open and state employees paid. The country’s military is almost entirely dependent on foreign funding; officials in Kiev and the West were predicting imminent defeat until the US Congress approved a foreign aid bill last month which included $61 billion for Ukraine and US government agencies involved in the conflict.
The bill provides almost $14 billion to Ukraine for the purchase of weapons, and includes $9 billion in new “forgivable loans.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, some bondholders have suggested that the US and EU could use frozen Russian assets to pay off Ukraine’s debts. While around $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank have been frozen in American and European banks since 2022, the US only passed legislation allowing for their seizure last month, and no similar legal mechanism exists in Europe, where the vast majority of these assets are held.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) have both urged governments not to steal this money, with ECB chief Christine Lagarde warning last month that doing so would risk “breaking the international order that you want to protect.”
Israeli government shuts down broadcaster Al Jazeera
RT | May 5, 2024
The cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unanimously voted to halt the operations in Israel of Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera, the government has said in a statement.
Israel has long accused Al Jazeera, which remains one of the few international news channels to have correspondents on the ground in Gaza, of showing bias against it and of cooperating with Hamas militants. The broadcaster has been denying the accusations.
Netanyahu took to X on Sunday to announce the development, writing that “the government headed by me unanimously decided: the incitement channel Al Jazeera will be closed in Israel.”
Shortly after that, Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said that he had signed the orders to restrict the broadcaster’s operations, which would be effective immediately.
The hardware “used to deliver the channel’s content,” including editing and routing equipment, cameras, laptops and some mobile phones, is going to be seized, Karhi wrote on X.
The Israeli government’s decision is in line with a law passed by the country’s parliament, the Knesset, in April, which allows for temporary closure in Israel of foreign broadcasters deemed a threat to national security during the conflict in Gaza. According to the legislation, the ban requires recertification every 45 days.
The head of Al Jazeera in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Walid Omary, insisted that the move by Netanyahu’s cabinet was “dangerous” and motivated solely by political considerations. The broadcaster’s legal team is preparing a response to the ban, Omary told Reuters.
Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Gaza, Hani Mahmoud, said that Palestinians are perceiving the shutdown of the news channel as “a desperate move to prevent fair coverage of what’s going on on the ground” in the enclave.
Al Jazeera has “documented the atrocities” and “acts that go against international human rights law,” Mahmoud claimed, adding that this was “something that did not really sit well with the Israeli government.”
The death toll from Israel’s ongoing airstrikes and ground offensive in Gaza has already reached 34,654 people, while 77,908 others have been wounded, according to the Palestinian enclave’s health ministry. The campaign was launched in response to the October 7 Hamas cross-border attack on Israel, in which at least 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage.
Book Burning Goes Digital
Brownstone Institute | May 4, 2024
In March 2021, the Biden White House initiated a brazenly unconstitutional censorship campaign to prevent Americans from buying politically unfavorable books from Amazon.
The effort, spearheaded by White House censors including Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty, began on March 2, 2021, when Slavitt emailed Amazon demanding to speak to an executive about the site’s “high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation.”
Their subsequent discussions remain unknown, but recently released emails from the House Judiciary Committee reveal that the censors achieved their intended result. Within a week, Amazon adopted a shadow ban policy.
Company officials wrote in internal emails, “The impetus for this request is criticism from the Biden administration about sensitive books we’re giving prominent placement to, and should be handled urgently.” They further clarified that the policy was “due to criticism from the Biden people,” presumably meaning Slavitt and Flaherty.
At the time, “vaccine misinformation” was parlance for inconvenient truths. Five months after the Amazon censorship crusade, Twitter banned Alex Berenson at the Government’s behest for noting that the shots do not prevent infection or transmission. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) favorably cited his Twitter ban in a September 2021 letter to Amazon calling for increased censorship of books.
A similar process occurred at Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg wrote in internal emails that the platform decided to ban claims related to the lab-leak theory in February 2021 after “tense conversations with the new Administration.” Facebook executive Nick Clegg similarly wrote that the censorship was due to “pressure from the [Biden] administration and others to do more.” Another internal Facebook email from August 2021 wrote that the company had implemented new “misinformation” policies “stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden] administration.”
Not only does the Biden regime’s call for de facto book bans lead to the suppression of true information regarding lockdowns, vaccine injuries, and the lab-leak theory; it was also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court weighed in on a nearly identical case over sixty years ago.
In 1956, the Rhode Island legislature created a “Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth.” Like “public health” or “inclusivity,” the innocuous language was a Trojan Horse for censorship.
The Commission sent notices to bookshops and book dealers that potentially violated Rhode Island’s obscenity laws. The book dealers challenged the constitutionality of the Commission, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court in Bantam Books v. Sullivan.
The New York Times’ description of the case from 1962 could be transposed to a modern article on the Amazon Files, but The Gray Lady has deemed the news unfit to print and has ignored the revelations entirely.
The challengers argued that the Commission acted “as a censor” while the Government “contended that its purpose was only to educate people,” the Times explained. The Government, desperate to maintain its benevolent facade, insisted its “hope [was] that the dealer would ‘cooperate’ by not selling the branded books and magazines.”
But the Government’s call for “cooperation” was a thinly veiled threat. The Commission did not just notify the booksellers; they also sent copies of the notices to the local police, who “always called dealers within 10 days of the notice to see whether the offending items had been withdrawn,” according to the book dealers.
“This procedure produced the desired effect of frightening off sale of the books deemed objectionable,” a book dealer told The Times. They complied, “not wanting to tangle with the law.”
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Committee’s reports violated the Constitutional rights of the book dealers. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in a concurring opinion: “This is censorship in the raw; and in my view the censor and First Amendment rights are incompatible.”
Here, we again see censorship in the raw; bureaucratic thugs, using the power of the US federal government, call for the suppression of information that they find politically inconvenient. They hide behind the innocuous language of “public health” and “public-private partnerships,” but the Leviathan’s “requests” carry an implicit threat.
As we wrote in “The Censors’ Henchmen,” the censorship demands from White House lackeys Rob Flaherty and Andy Slavitt are like mobsters’ interrogations. Just months after the Amazon demands, Flaherty wrote to Facebook, “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy – period.” Then came the demands: “We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game… This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”
In other words, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Nice company you have here – it would be a shame if something happened to it.
When companies refused to comply, Biden’s henchmen responded with scorn. Facebook ignored one censorship request, and Flaherty exploded: “Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”
Failure to comply would threaten Amazon’s substantial government contracting operations. In April 2022, Amazon received a $10 billion contract from the NSA. Later that year, the US Navy granted Amazon a $724 million cloud computing contract, and the Pentagon awarded Amazon an additional $9 billion in contracts. Amazon also has ongoing contracts with the CIA that could be worth “tens of billions” of dollars.
“Cooperation” is a prerequisite for these lucrative agreements. Sixty years ago, the Court recognized the threat that Government demands for “cooperation” posed to liberty in Bantam Books. Ten years later, the Court held in Norwood v. Harrison that it is “axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
Since then, skyrocketing government spending and public-private partnerships have further blurred the line between state and private persons at the cost of our liberties.
The recent Amazon revelations add to the censors’ parade of horribles that have been uncovered in recent years. The Supreme Court will rule on the crux of the battle between free speech and Biden’s cosa nostra next month in Murthy v. Missouri.
Meanwhile, the revelations keep pouring in, adding to what we know but still concealing the fullness of what might actually have been happening. Adding to the difficulty is that the revelations themselves are not being widely reported, raising serious questions concerning just how much in the way of independent media remains following this brutal crackdown on free speech that took place with no legislation and no public oversight.
Macron warns about Russian missiles in a defeated Ukraine
RT | May 5, 2024
A total Russian victory over Ukraine in which the entire country is defeated would be detrimental to European and NATO security, as it could allow Moscow to place missiles at the EU’s doorstep, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.
In an interview with the French daily La Tribune on Saturday, Macron, who has famously refused to rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine, once again advocated a policy of “strategic ambiguity” towards Russia, arguing that the key idea behind such an approach is to project strength while “not giving too many details.”
Describing Russia as “an adversary,” the French president stressed that establishing “a priori limits” would be interpreted as weakness. “We must remove all visibility from it, because that is what creates the ability to deter,” he argued.
Macron further noted that Ukraine is crucial to France’s security because it is located only 1,500 kilometers from its borders. “If Russia wins, the next second, there is no longer any security possible in Romania, in Poland, in Lithuania and not in our country either. The capability and range of Russian ballistic missiles expose us all,” he said.
The president’s comments come after he suggested last month that Western nations “would legitimately have to ask [them]selves” whether they should send troops to Ukraine “If the Russians were to break through the front lines, [and] if there were a Ukrainian request.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded by calling Macron’s statement “very important and very dangerous,” adding that it was further testament to Paris’ direct involvement in the conflict. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has also warned that “nothing will remain” of NATO forces if they are sent to the front line in Ukraine.
Some Western nations have spoken out against sending troops to Ukraine, including the UK, one of Kiev’s staunchest supporters. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron insisted on Friday that while London would continue to support Ukraine, NATO soldiers in the country “could be a dangerous escalation.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, has repeatedly dismissed speculation that Moscow could attack NATO as “nonsense,” saying that his country had no interest whatsoever in doing so.
Hand of Soros: Georgian Prime Minister Denounces US Color Revolution Tactics

By John Miles – Sputnik – 05.05.2024
The leader of the country of Georgia has criticized US efforts to interfere in the country dating back several years.
A major scandal emerged in 2016 over the disproven conspiracy theory of Russian interference in the United States presidential election. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Americans were told, had spent vast sums of money to influence the outcome of the vote via social media. According to the conspiracy’s most dedicated adherents, US democracy had been near-fatally wounded by the pernicious meddling of a hostile foreign power.
What adherents of the unfounded Russiagate narrative failed to acknowledge is that the United States is guilty of precisely the same type of political interference it accuses others of, and on a far larger scale.
Claims of such foreign meddling came to a head Friday when Georgia’s head of state slammed US support for “violence” and “revolution attempts” amidst anti-government protests in the country’s capital of Tbilisi.
“Spoke to [US ambassador Derek Chollet] and expressed my sincere disappointment with the two revolution attempts of 2020-2023 supported by the former US Ambassador and those carried out through NGOs financed from external sources,” wrote Irakli Kobakhidze, Georgia’s prime minister and head of the social democratic Georgian Dream party, on social media.
The prime minister also criticized “false statements” from the US and European Union concerning draft “Transparency of Foreign Influence” legislation currently working through the country’s parliament.
The proposed law, which is currently the subject of protests in the country’s capital, is aimed at disclosing foreign influence over organizations and media outlets operating in Georgia. Kobakhidze claims the legislation is necessary to promote “transparency and accountability of relevant organizations vis-à-vis Georgian society.” Western critics have portrayed it as a clampdown on civil society, likening it to Russia’s “foreign agents law” – protesters have even taken to deriding the bill “the Russian law.”
But such legislation is common throughout the world, with similar regulation taking place in Canada, Australia, the European Union, and elsewhere. The US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires foreign-affiliated news outlets, such as the one you’re reading now, to register with the US Department of Justice and send copies of all “informational materials” to US authorities.
The United States has frequently opposed such legislation in countries it deems to be foreign adversaries because it threatens the influence of US “soft power.” The United States frequently funds foreign activists, media outlets, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to spread US influence in foreign countries. The US has specifically focused on former Soviet-aligned nations after the end of the Cold War, seeking to ensure leaders are elected who will orient such countries towards the West and away from Russia.
When necessary, the United States has even sought to foment regime change in foreign countries through such methods, paving the way for unrest that generates a change in leadership. Such events are commonly known as “color revolutions,” after a series of such incidents such as Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution and Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is a primary tool of such “revolutions.”
Investigation by Sputnik has uncovered the historical influence of the United States and allied groups in influencing Georgian politics. USAID’s website boasts that the organization has poured a staggering $1.9 billion into the country since 1992. The agency reports funding 39 ongoing projects in Georgia “with a total value of approximately $373 million, and an annual budget of more than $70 million.”
Additionally, USAID’s Georgian Media Partnership Program backs a range of opposition media outlets in the country, including TV Pirveli, Radio Marneuli, Formula TV, and Mtavari Arkhi. The US agency allocated $10 million in 2021 alone. Samira Bayramova, an administrator of the program, has been noted as a prominent leader of the current protests in Tbilisi.
The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) has also strongly backed the ongoing demonstrations. The organization partners with USAID under the pretense of promoting “fair electoral processes in Georgia.”
Additionally, the US allies with partnered “philanthropic” foundations to further strengthen opposition forces. The Georgian branch of George Soros’ Civil Society Foundation openly promotes the current protests, backing a petition initiative to promote hostility toward the current government. The Civil Society Foundation has operated in the country for 30 years, claiming to have poured $100 million into political interference.
Political opposition leader Nika Gvaramia, whose party has helped organize the ongoing protests, is promoted on the foundation’s website.
The US, naturally, has attempted to coerce Georgia’s government to shelve the current draft law, with Chollet expressing “concern for Georgia’s current trajectory.” Senators from both major US political parties have warned the country could face sanctions for attempts to move forward with the transparency legislation.
The United States’ foreign subterfuge has increasingly come to light in recent years, with former President Donald Trump offering a rare acknowledgment of US efforts in Iran, Belarus, and Hong Kong.
Still, millions of others remain uninformed about the destructive influence of the United States and billionaire oligarchs like George Soros.
IS BIRD FLU THE NEXT COVID?
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 2, 2024
As America faces an unlikely bird flu ‘outbreak’ in chickens and cows, many are speculating on when this rare illness will jump to humans. Jefferey Jaxen looked into the previous gain-of-function lab work on H5N1 funded by Tony Fauci and NIAID, and found something very interesting.

The Sharon Tate murders were as bizarre as they were bloody, and the story behind the story is even stranger.









