Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Oakland is CLOSING fire stations to save money…

Metal Leo | January 16, 2025

Three fire stations in the Oakland Hills have closed to help address $129 million budget deficit, and four more are slated to close next month for a total of seven fire stations closed in the city of Oakland, leaving this city in high risk

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | | Leave a comment

Dr. Drew Pinsky Criticizes YouTube for Video Removals and Mandatory Reeducation Training Over Vaccine Discussions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 15, 2025

Dr. Drew Pinsky, widely known as Dr. Drew, has publicly criticized YouTube for removing two of his videos over alleged violations of the platform’s medical “misinformation” policy. On January 14, 2025, Pinsky took to X to challenge YouTube’s decision, highlighting concerns about free speech and the suppression of open dialogue on health-related topics.

In order to get the flags removed from his video, YouTube told Dr. Drew that he would have to attend a form of reeducation training and have no violations for 90 days, or else it would delete his entire channel and all of his videos. Pinsky has over 1,000 videos on the platform.

In one of his posts, Pinsky expressed frustration over the platform’s actions: “This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading ‘medical misinformation’ & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I’ve been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube’s existence.”

The flagged videos featured discussions with Dr. Kelly Victory, a board-certified physician, and attorney Warner Mendenhall. Pinsky elaborated that these conversations centered around the side effects of mRNA vaccinations, a topic he argues warrants open discourse rather than censorship. In his discussion with Dr. Victory, she stated that the “vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone.”

Pinsky defended the content, asserting that sharing professional perspectives and personal beliefs in a public forum should not be equated with spreading misinformation. He emphasized that their dialogue was an exchange of viewpoints rather than a promotion of falsehoods.

In a separate video with Warner Mendenhall, the attorney discussed legal cases involving individuals who suffered severe reactions following vaccination. Pinsky highlighted that Mendenhall shared client experiences and expressed personal beliefs—not medical advice. Pinsky wrote, “It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study.”

This isn’t the first time YouTube has targeted Dr. Drew’s content. He noted that previous strikes were resolved after discussions between his production team and YouTube officials. Despite the latest removals, Pinsky confirmed that the videos remain accessible on X, suggesting that alternative platforms may offer more space for unrestricted conversations.

A prominent internist and addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Drew Pinsky has been a notable media figure for decades. His career includes hosting television shows like Dr. Drew On Call on HLN and Lifechangers on The CW.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Biden warns of tech oligarchs’ power in farewell speech, ignoring his own role in expanding censorship

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 16, 2025

Outgoing President Joe Biden concluded his presidency with a farewell address on Wednesday night, sharply criticizing what he termed the “tech-industrial complex” while urging tighter accountability for social media platforms. Ironically, Biden’s remarks highlighted the decline of free press and the dangers of “misinformation,” even as his administration has often been linked to censorship efforts and suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

During his speech, Biden drew parallels to President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex.” He stated, “Six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.” His comments painted a picture of concentrated power in the hands of tech oligarchs, whom he accused of enabling an “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation” to flourish unchecked.

The president, leaving office with historically low approval ratings, accused social media platforms of abandoning fact-checking efforts and contributing to the erosion of public trust. “The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking,” Biden said.

Biden’s condemnation of social media fact-checking policies appeared aimed directly at Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose platform recently transitioned away from third-party fact-checking to a “community notes” model reminiscent of the system employed by Elon Musk’s X.

Throughout his presidency, Biden frequently championed tighter controls on digital platforms under the guise of protecting democracy and public health. However, critics argue his administration’s push for censorship often targeted dissenting views and stifled legitimate debate.

Biden also lamented the decline of legacy media, suggesting that unchecked misinformation on digital platforms undermines democracy. “We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families, and our very democracy from the abuse of power,” he declared.

The president’s rhetoric on misinformation is not without controversy. He has faced repeated accusations of spreading false or unverifiable claims himself, such as recent remarks regarding Los Angeles utilities during wildfire discussions that local officials disputed.

Regarding Covid vaccines, Biden also famously said: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and added, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Those who challenged this idea found themselves banned on several social media platforms.

Meta’s recently abandoned fact-checking model, which involved junior writers downgrading posts based on often-disputed analyses, has faced criticism for censoring accurate information that reflected poorly on Biden. The new community-based approach on X and Meta allows users to collaboratively evaluate content, signaling a move away from centralized content moderation.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | 2 Comments

What legitimacy is the PA talking about?

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | January 16, 2025

“While we are waiting for the ceasefire, it is important to stress that it won’t be acceptable for any other entity to govern the Gaza Strip but the legitimate Palestinian leadership and the government of the state of Palestine,” the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa, stated during a meeting of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.

The PA is not a legitimate leadership. In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections, disturbing the Western world’s preferred outcome. Democracy, according to the West, can only conform with Western expectations; therefore Palestinians got a taste of what the US does when democracy crashes imperialist expectations. Instead of respecting the electoral result, the US and Fatah embarked upon a series of destabilisation and coercion tactics, aimed at marginalising Hamas further and ultimately destroying the legitimate representation of Palestinians according to the 2006 electoral result.

While Hamas was shunned and its diplomatic efforts rebuffed, even though it combined resistance and political pragmatism, the PA intensified its efforts at forcing Hamas to relinquish power, enforcing sanctions on an enclave repeatedly bombarded by Israel. When Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank protested against such authoritarianism and cruelty, the PA unleashed its security services on civilians, and continues to do so. As the US and the EU continued funnelling funds to enhance the PA’s brutality under the guise of state-building, the PA continued harming Palestinians in the name of security, to the point of detaining, torturing and, at times, killing their critics.

All this was orchestrated because the international community sided with an illegitimate political representation under the auspices of democracy. Are we to assume that legitimacy and democracy change meaning according to colonial and imperialist interests? What of the importance of language, which is of equal importance in the anti-colonial struggle against Israel and the PA?

Back to the present. Since Israel started its genocide in Gaza, the PA has consistently sought to navigate the corridors of power by presenting itself as an alternative to Hamas. Yet, in doing so, it completely neglected the fact that its silence on the genocide is tantamount to tacit support. The PA merely reiterated the importance of the two-state paradigm as it has for decades, with no acknowledgement of the fact that not even the hypothesis can sustain itself, let alone implementation. Meanwhile, to garner favour with Israel and the international community, and possibly prove how relevant it is to post-genocide Gaza governance, the PA started its own attack against the Palestinian Resistance.

The question is, since legitimacy does not hold the same meaning for the PA and its accomplices, what does legitimacy mean in the context of its Prime Minister citing legitimacy as the reason why the PA should return to Gaza? There is no other acceptable entity, according to the PA – based on what parameters? Just as genocide became synonymous with human rights in the Israeli and international narrative, is the PA’s illegitimate rule becoming synonymous with democracy? Why hasn’t the PA suggested elections and why has the international community not voiced any concern over Ramallah wanting to extend its power to Gaza?

The PA’s attempts to prove itself purportedly worthy of governing Gaza are precisely the reason why it should not. The PA’s only foundations are foreign funding and Israeli colonialism. Having sold itself to the two highest bidders (not forgetting the tangible illegitimacy since 2006), what Palestinian leadership and legitimacy is the PA really talking about?

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Biden’s ’empty threats’ let Israel get away with horrors in Gaza: Prominent US journalist

Press TV – January 16, 2025

An investigative American journalist says the Biden administration repeatedly undermined international institutions and damaged US credibility in a desperate attempt to shield Israel during the regime’s aggression against the people of the besieged Gaza Strip.

Brett Murphy, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2018 for his investigative reporting series, said in a recent article published on ProPublica that Biden’s record of repeated empty threats had given the Israelis a sense of impunity.

The reputed journalist spoke with scores of current and former officials throughout the year and read through government memos, cables and emails, many of which have not been reported previously.

The records and interviews shed light on why Biden and his top advisers refused to adjust his policy even as new evidence of Israeli abuses emerged.

The author maintains that almost none of the US’s demands that Israel improve conditions in the besieged Palestinian territory had been met.

Biden’s failure to follow through led to impunity for widespread human rights abuses, including blocking aid deliveries, even after explicit US warnings, he wrote.

In October, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the administration delivered their most explicit ultimatum yet to Israel, demanding the army allow hundreds more truckloads of food and medicine into Gaza every day.

The October red line was the last one Biden laid down, but it wasn’t the first. His administration issued multiple threats, warnings and admonishments to Israel.

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter. The top US diplomat’s position was immediately called into question.

In the month that followed, the Israeli military was accused of roundly defying the US, its most important ally.

The Israeli military tightened its grip, continued to restrict desperately needed aid trucks and displaced 100,000 Palestinians from North Gaza, humanitarian groups found, exacerbating what was already a dire crisis “to its worst point since the war began.”

On Nov. 14, a UN committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, were “consistent with genocide.”

The international rights groups went further and concluded a genocide was underway.

The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former war minister Yoav Gallant for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations.

Time and again, Israel crossed the Biden administration’s red lines without changing course in a meaningful way, according to interviews with government officials and outside experts.

Last spring, the president vowed to stop supplying offensive bombs to Israel if it launched a major invasion into the southern city of Rafah.

The Biden administration told Netanyahu the US was going to rethink support for the war unless he took new steps to protect civilians and aid workers after the Israeli military blew up a World Central Kitchen caravan.

And Blinken signaled that he would blacklist a notorious Israeli unit for the death of a Palestinian-American in the West Bank if the soldiers involved were not brought to justice.

The southern city of Rafah was supposed to be a haven for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who the Israeli military had forced from their homes in the north at the start of the war.

“It is a red line,” Biden had said, marking the first high-profile warning from the US.

Netanyahu invaded in May anyway. Israeli tanks rolled into the city and the Israeli soldiers dropped bombs on residential areas, including a refugee camp, killing dozens of civilians.

Biden responded by pausing a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs but otherwise resumed military support.

In late May, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to stop its assault on the city, citing the Geneva Conventions.

Behind the scenes, State Department lawyers scrambled to come up with a legal basis on which Israel could continue smaller attacks in Rafah.

Several experts told the author that international law has been effectively discretionary for some states or entities.

Each time, the US yielded and continued to send Israel’s military deadly weapons of war, approving more than $17.9 billion in military assistance since late 2023, by some estimates. The State Department recently told Congress about another $8 billion proposed deal to sell Israel munitions and artillery shells.

“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the red lines have all just been a smokescreen,” said Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and a preeminent authority on US policy in the region. “The Biden administration decided to be all in and merely pretended that it was trying to do something about it.”

Throughout the contentious year inside the State Department, senior leaders repeatedly disregarded their own experts.

They cracked down on leaks by threatening criminal investigations and classifying material that was critical of Israel.

Some of the US top Middle East diplomats complained in private that they were sidelined by Biden’s National Security Council.

The council also distributed a list of banned phrases, including any version of “State of Palestine” that didn’t have the word “future” first.

Two human rights officials said they were prevented from pursuing evidence of abuses in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

During a series of internal State Department meetings, top regional diplomats voiced their frustrations about messaging and appearances. Hady Amr, one of the government’s highest-ranking authorities on Palestinian affairs, said he was reluctant to address large groups about the administration’s Israel policy.

US Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew told the Times of Israel he worried that a generation of young Americans would harbor anti-Israel sentiments into the future.

The repercussions for the United States and the region will play out for years.

Protests have erupted outside the American embassies in Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, while polls show Arab Americans grew increasingly hostile to their government stateside.

By the summer, State Department analysts in the Middle East sent cables to Washington expressing concerns that the Israeli military’s conduct would only inflame tensions in the West Bank and galvanize young Palestinians to take up arms against Israel.

On Wednesday, after months of negotiations, Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire deal.

Early reports suggest if the Biden administration had followed through on its tough words, a deal could have been reached earlier, saving lives.

“Netanyahu’s conclusion was that Biden doesn’t have enough oomph to make him pay a price, so he was willing to ignore him,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute.

“Part of it is that Netanyahu learned there is no cost to saying ‘no’ to the current president,” Omari said.

Over the past 15 months, Israeli soldiers have videotaped themselves burning food supplies and ransacking homes. One Israeli military group reportedly said, “Our job is to flatten Gaza.”

Israel’s defenders within the US administration acknowledge the devastating human toll but contend that American arms have helped Israel advance Western interests in the region and protect itself from other enemies.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Houthi: Israel ‘failed miserably’ in onslaught on Gaza Strip

Press TV – January 16, 2025

The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement says Israel “failed miserably” in the Gaza Strip, and that the US and the Tel Aviv regime were forced to accept the ceasefire agreement with Hamas after committing horrific crimes for months.

“The announcement of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza is an important development. The Israeli enemy and the US were forced to agree to the deal after months of horrendous atrocities,” Abdul-Malik al-Houthi said in a televised speech on Thursday evening.

“The Israeli enemy, with full American complicity, continued its efforts to exterminate the Palestinians in Gaza, committing more than 4,050 massacres,” the Ansarullah chief said.

Houthi said the Israeli military indiscriminately targeted all Palestinians in Gaza, attacking all sections of the society in a barbaric manner.

“The Israeli enemy subjected prisoners and captives to the most heinous forms of torture, violating human dignity. The plight of Gaza marks a gross injustice that can neither be denied nor ignored.

“The steadfastness of resistance fighters in Gaza, under the most challenging circumstances and with the most basic means, is truly praiseworthy,” Houthi stated.

The Ansarullah leader emphasized that the Israeli army failed in Gaza despite possessing sophisticated weapons and extensive intelligence operations aimed at ending the resistance front and eliminating all its fighters.

“The Israeli enemy failed in Gaza even though it employed all tactics to decisively win the battle, with full US support. The Palestinians in Gaza stood firm despite being subjected to daily extermination and all forms of terror that many other nations cannot endure.”

The Ansarullah leader said the Americans had no option but to accept an agreement after a major failure.

Many Israeli leaders, media figures, and research centers were in a state of despair and frustration as well, he said.

“The Israeli enemy failed to achieve any of its declared objectives, and dismally could not release its captives without a prisoner exchange deal. It also failed to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

“What the Israeli enemy achieved in Gaza is an enormous record of unprecedented crimes within a limited expanse of land,” Houthi pointed out.

He also noted that the Palestinian nation was not protected by international organizations, which represent themselves as so-called advocates of justice and human rights.

“The United Nations was mocked and ridiculed by Israelis, with criminal [Benjamin] Netanyahu at its very platform. The world body, however, took no concrete action against the Israeli enemy.

“At the very least, the UN should have rinsed out the deep shame of recognizing Israel and granting it membership. The international community did not intervene to impose a no-fly zone over occupied Palestinian terrorists and establish safe zones, as is the case with other regions,” he said.

Houthi criticized Arab governments for their inaction, as well as their abject failure to politically and economically boycott the Zionist regime and support the Palestinian nation.

Elsewhere in his speech, Houthi stated that Yemeni forces have conducted operations to support Gaza under very difficult conditions, emphasizing that such strikes have significantly affected Israel.

“We carried out 1,255 operations involving ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, drones as well as unmanned underwater vehicles. We worked diligently to do everything possible in support of Gaza, continuously developing our capabilities and escalating our operations,” he said.

Houthi stressed that the US, from the onset of the Gaza genocidal war, sought to provide full protection to Israel, threatening regional countries against taking any action in support of Palestinians.

“The US deployed its naval fleets and provided military and technological protection, intercepting any attacks targeting the Israeli-occupied lands. Certain regimes even collaborated with the US in intercepting missiles and drones launched towards the occupied lands.

“American aircraft carriers and warships initially intercepted some missiles; but now they can barely shoot them down and often resort to retreat,” the Ansarullah leader said.

Houti emphasized that Yemen will continue its pro-Palestinian military operations in case the Israeli enemy insists on its genocidal campaign and reneges on implementing the ceasefire agreement.

He said a total of 106 Yemenis have been killed and another 328 wounded in the course of aggression carried out by the US, Britain and Israel against Yemen.

The Ansarullah leader finally called upon all Yemeni people to participate in mass pro-Palestinian rallies across the country on Friday, reaffirming their unflinching support for Palestinians to the entire world.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Skripal poisoning victim disputed UK narrative, official inquiry reveals

By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · January 13, 2025

An official inquiry into a notorious 2018 Novichok poisoning case has found the victim briefly emerged from a coma, revealing information which wholly undermined the British government’s narrative. While the medical professional she told was muzzled, mainstream media has ignored the new finding.

On March 8, 2018, just four days after being hospitalized for having allegedly been contaminated with novichok, which is said to be the world’s deadliest military grade nerve agent, Yulia Skripal was roused from her coma. Upon waking up, she communicated to an intensive care consultant that she and her father, the turncoat former Russian spy, Sergei, had been “sprayed” with an uncertain substance while dining at a restaurant, before their collapse — and not at their home, as claimed by the UK.

The revelation, which runs completely contrary to widespread reports that Yulia spent almost a month in critical condition before regaining consciousness, stems from recently-disclosed transcripts of an official British inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, who supposedly died after having inhaled novichok from a sealed perfume bottle.

For several years, British authorities have stonewalled, prevaricated, and connived to prevent an inquest into the Sturgess case, and perhaps now it is clear why.

According to the British government, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by two GRU assassins who snuck into Britain using false identities with Russian-produced Novichok, which was supposedly smeared on the doorknob of Sergei’s MI6-furnished home in Salisbury. The Skripals ultimately survived, but in the intervening years, this story has been repeatedly retold by legacy media outlets to hype up the threat Russia poses to the British public.

That narrative is substantially undermined by the recent revelation that Yulia briefly awoke from her coma and countered the official story through a form of visual communication.

The Sturgess inquiry also revealed that after Yulia awoke from her coma and interacted with a doctor, high-ranking officials at Salisbury hospital forbade the healthcare professional from divulging details of his interchange with Yulia with anyone or having any further contact with the Skripals, and warned him not to discuss the poisoning case with anyone.

The Russian government’s supposed involvement in the Salisbury poisoning has proven pivotal in igniting a new Cold War. Moscow was universally depicted as a dastardly pariah in the media, precipitating a British-instigated expulsion of Russian diplomats, dramatically escalating a conflict that eventually erupted in the Ukraine proxy war.

Even if Yulia’s hospital bed claims were inaccurate, they still undermine the British government’s official narrative, while raising serious questions about which substance was used to poison the Skripals, and who was actually responsible. The public is also left to ponder whether the silencing of the healthcare professional who received Yulia’s testimony resulted from state pressure on Salisbury hospital.

Meanwhile, the Dawn Sturgess investigation has closely emulated past British government coverup inquiries, such as the questionable 2016 probe into FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko’s strange death a decade before. In an effort to validate the preordained conclusion that Sturgess was poisoned with the same Novichok that purportedly nearly killed the Skripals almost ten miles away, the inquiry’s chair and counsels have routinely relied on stultifying illogic, highly gymnastic legalistic arguments, speculative claims, and anonymous security and intelligence personnel testimony, while ignoring or outright dismissing inconvenient evidence.

Skripals ‘sprayed’ with poison at restaurant?

Over six weeks from late October 2024, a formal inquiry probed the July 2018 death of Dawn Sturgess resulting from alleged Novichok nerve agent poisoning. The investigation had been rigged to prevent the truth about that tragic incident from reaching the public, and to to suppress inconvenient details about the poisoning of GRU defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia three months earlier. However, the inquiry nonetheless yielded a number of important findings.

That there has been any official investigation into the death of Dawn Sturgess — even a flagrant whitewash — is miraculous. Under English law, a coroner’s inquest is typically completed within six to nine months of an individual’s passing. But as independent journalist John Helmer has exhaustively documented, British authorities have stonewalled, prevaricated and connived to prevent an inquest. This was after an inquest was opened, then immediately adjourned pending further police investigations, on the very same day in July 2018.

After heavy legal tussling between British authorities and Sturgess’ grieving family, British authorities finally authorized a public inquiry in November 2021, with no date for commencement given. This was a highly suspect maneuver. Inquests are legally-mandated to establish how, when and why someone died, and the wider circumstances surrounding it. They have sweeping powers to subpoena documents and witnesses, evidence is given under oath, and absolutely any member of the public, the British government, and its national security apparatus can be called to testify.

Previous high-profile inquests have shed important light on potential MI6 assassinations, and exposed major scandals involving British police.

By contrast, as one law firm explained, inquiries are little more than “highly emotive” public relations exercises, intended to “attract large scale media coverage”. Their terms — who can be interviewed and what evidence will be considered — are sharply limited by direct government decree, and they have no power to compel anyone or anything to turn over evidence.

That authorities exerted so much energy to avoid holding an inquest before opting for a toothless PR stunt should be an obvious source of concern. While some testimony was publicly broadcast and transcribed, the BBC reports that many inquiry sessions were held in secret, with some witnesses’ “names, faces and even voices hidden.” Meanwhile, “only three accredited journalists” were allowed to report directly on proceedings, prohibited from using any electronic devices throughout, and reduced to making notes on whatever was said using “old fashioned pen and paper.”

Still, despite the veil of obfuscation, important public testimony emerged during the inquiry’s six-week-long span. It was Dr Stephen Cockroft, an intensive care consultant who treated the Skripals upon their admission to hospital, who revealed Yulia had awoken after just four days. Cockroft told the inquiry he “never thought [Yulia] would be capable of having a conversation” again, having “suffered a catastrophic brain damage.”

However, he noted that she seemed mentally competent, nodding and crying in response to questions he asked, while looking “absolutely terrified.”

He quizzed her about what happened prior to her collapse, to which she responded with a series of blinks — .

Among Dr Cockroft’s queries was whether she and her father were “sprayed” with a substance at a restaurant called Zizzi. This was where Yulia dined with Sergei on the afternoon of March 4 2018. She responded in the affirmative to the doctor’s question.

When asked if she knew who was responsible for spraying her, Yulia burst into hysterical tears. At that point, Cockroft stopped pushing his subject for answers.

Despite Yulia’s stunning responses, a senior British counter-terror police forensics expert who participated in the probe of the Skripals’ poisoning, Keith Asman, apparently decided not to interview her at all, and attached no credibility to her post-coma declarations.

 

During his inquiry testimony, Asman acknowledged he was informed that Yulia had indicated Zizzi was the site of her poisoning. But the revelation ultimately had zero bearing on his team’s probe. This, they said, was due to forensic investigators finding relatively “low-level” traces of Novichok at the restaurant compared to other sites, and suspicions Yulia may have “wittingly or unwittingly been involved” in the incident that landed her and her father in hospital.

Asman claimed his misgivings about Yulia were due to her crying “when asked who did it” by Dr Cockroft. “I did wonder… if she was crying because she felt maybe she had been identified,” he claimed. This doubt, combined with the Skripals having allegedly “eaten and drank different things” at Zizzi, led British police forensic masterminds to conclude it was “unlikely one particular item of food or drink was the source of the contamination,” and they therefore formally ruled out the restaurant as the site of their poisoning.

Shockingly, when inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) arrived in Salisbury on March 21 2018 to investigate the incident, the Skripals were physically prevented from speaking to them. The inquiry has revealed that on the very same day the OPCW inspectors arrived, Skripals’ doctors unilaterally decided to simultaneously tracheotomize both him and his daughter. Yulia’s tracheostomy tube was removed March 27, two days after OPCW representatives left. Sergei had to wait until April 5 for his tube to be dislodged.

Hospital whistleblower silenced

Another deeply strange detail divulged by Dr. Cockroft was that his interaction with Yulia apparently caused significant consternation at the highest levels of Salisbury hospital. Following this incident, Dr. Christine Blanchard, the institution’s then-medical director, not only removed him from the intensive care rota, but “warned” him he “should not discuss any aspect of the poisoning with colleagues… or other individuals.” Cockroft was outright “forbidden to discuss any aspect of the presentation, recognition or initial treatment of Yulia or Sergei Skripal,” even at regular ICU hospital meetings.

Asked by inquiry counsel if Blanchard believed it hadn’t “been wise” for him to speak to Yulia “about these matters,” Cockroft concurred, though he said that based on his 24-year-long career in healthcare, he didn’t believe he’d done anything wrong. “I always talk to my patients… even when I think they can’t hear me,” he explained, opining, “the worst intensive care doctors… ignore the patients.” Describing the attitude of Dr Blanchard, who had no experience of working in intensive care, as “a little difficult,” he stated:

“I genuinely was concerned that if [Yulia] had some knowledge that somebody had assaulted them… that might be something she would be concerned about. I do feel this was a lost opportunity to discuss with my colleagues what I observed in those first few hours and how I recognized that the Skripals had been poisoned.”

“If [my colleagues] were having a conversation [about the Skripals] they would stop talking about it in front of me,” Cockroft revealed, adding: “it was odd. It was very odd.”

The inquiry made very little of Cockroft’s testimony on this point. Still, his declarations suggest a code of omertà was imposed by the British state around the facts of the Salisbury incident. Whether pressure of some kind was brought to bear on Salisbury hospital to prevent Cockroft’s interactions with Yulia emerging publicly may never be known.

However, it is clear the British government has been committed to preventing inconvenient facts about Salisbury from ever entering the public domain. The narrative of Russian culpability for the Skripals’ poisoning had to be sustained, even before a clear motive was established, perpetrators were identified, or other elementary facts were ascertained.

In the days immediately after the poisoning, a substantial slice of the British public expressed serious doubts about Moscow’s responsibility for the purported poisoning among Britons, and even entertained the possibility that the MI6 had carried out the operation. Battering down that skepticism has apparently necessitated some extreme measures at every level.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | 1 Comment

Hungarian think tank calls into question Transparency International report on corruption under Orbán

Remix News | January 16, 2025

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published each year by Transparency International, which is partly funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, has come under fire by a local think tank in Budapest, the Nézőpont Institute, reports Mandiner.

The ranking, used as a basis for imposing sanctions on and reports condemning countries around the world, is completely contrary to the EU’s official survey, according to Nézőpont Institute’s analysis, which can be viewed in full on its website.

Aside from the Eurobarometer research being based on a representative survey, while the Transparency index is not, the center claims that the CPI is biased, based solely on the opinions of actors critical of the Hungarian government. The 2023 CPI ranked Hungary 76th overall and last in the EU in terms of its level of corruption. The Eurobarometer survey ranks Hungary seventh in the EU in terms of the perception of the government’s fight against corruption in the country.

The group claims that Transparency does not actually measure the level of corruption, but rather evaluates the subjective opinions of certain experts. It also bases its surveys on research by other organizations, which Nézőpont says, often refer back to the Transparency index.

Going even further, Nézőpont claims that the least corrupt countries on Transparency’s list fund its activities, with Sámuel Ágoston Mráz, head of the Nézőpont Institute, asking if the funding provided is a form of “protection money.”

One example cited is Germany, the ninth least corrupt country in the world, home to the Cum-Ex tax fraud scandal where a dividend payment of listed companies was illegally claimed back by the parties involved, a scandal that also reportedly involves the then mayor of Hamburg and current chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz. According to the allegations, this scheme could have damaged taxpayers across Europe by up to $66 billion. Scholz, claims Nézőpont, did not prevent the suspicious Warburg Bank from issuing a tax refund of €47 million, which the bank had to repay after the scandal broke out. “The legislative body’s investigative committee questioned Olaf Scholz on several occasions regarding the matter,” the analysis reads.

The Nézőpont Institute calls on all public figures, Hungarian and foreign, to refrain from referring to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in the future, Mráz said at a press conference on Jan. 15.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Tagesspiegel publishes guide for workplace witch hunts against right-wing views ahead of German election

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 16, 2025

A recent piece published by the mainstream German Tagesspiegel newspaper has advocated for employees across Germany to confront and report colleagues expressing right-wing political views in the workplace.

Quoting workplace diversity trainers and academics, the article describes supporters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as aligned with “right-wing extremism” — despite the AfD’s projected rise to become the second-largest party in the Bundestag — and offers guidance on how those with more “tolerant,” progressive views should respond should political debate occur in the lead up to next month’s federal elections.

Entitled, “Help, my colleague talks like the AfD! This is how you counter right-wing populist slogans in the workplace,” the article presents a framework for addressing opinions considered “anti-human” or “anti-democratic,” citing examples of such unpalatable views as being of the opinion that asylum seekers should be deported or that NATO has played a role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It even singles out those who criticize the mainstream media as the “lying press” as being troublesome in professional settings.

Sandro Witt of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB) is quoted as stating: “In any case, you can’t say nothing if someone in the room makes anti-human comments.” He goes further to argue that “such positions should not go unchallenged,” encouraging employees to intervene and report statements they find problematic to human resources or other workplace authorities.

The article advocates for companies to act decisively against right-wing viewpoints, with Witt stating: “Employers should intervene, make a clear statement, address the workforce, create clarity and draw up a guideline,” effectively promoting a culture of workplace surveillance, where political disagreements could lead to disciplinary actions and even dismissal.

It suggests that employees who encounter dissenting views should not hesitate to involve internal mechanisms, such as “complaint management, equal opportunities officers, or human resources.” This directive, combined with advice to “find allies in the workforce,” has sparked concerns about fostering division and hostility in professional environments.

The call for stricter deportation rules for asylum seekers and the belief that NATO is partly responsible for the war in Ukraine may be contentious and may be deemed unpalatable by some political factions, but they reflect concerns shared by significant portions of the German population as evidence by the growing popularity of the AfD.

David Lanius, a philosopher cited in the piece, provides advice on debating colleagues with differing opinions but warns of the difficulty of changing minds. “The goal cannot be to convince the other person of your own point of view or to proselytize the other person,” he states. Lanius also suggests that confronting such views can take an emotional toll, empathizing with those who have to endure the views of those they don’t agree with. “It’s exhausting. It takes strength to stand against right-wing populism,” he says.

The article emphasizes a long-term approach to countering right-wing opinions, with Lanius asserting: “Constant dripping wears away the stone.” This metaphor implies that repeated coercive challenges to a colleague’s views could eventually lead them to change their mind.

With nearly one in five Germans reportedly supporting the AfD, the article’s framing of dissenting views as “anti-human” or “extremist” has drawn sharp criticism for ignoring legitimate grievances over rising living costs, immigration, and the policies of successive coalition governments comprising of Germany’s legacy parties, namely the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Surveys cited in the piece, such as a study from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation claiming that “almost 1 in 12 Germans has a manifestly right-wing extremist worldview,” are used to paint a picture of growing extremism without acknowledging the broader dissatisfaction driving political shifts.

Despite its focus on “fostering discussion,” the article largely promotes an adversarial approach to political disagreements in the workplace. While it advises employees to engage in dialogue and “try to understand” their colleagues, it simultaneously portrays those with right-wing views as needing to be “re-educated” through persistent challenges.

Reingard Zimmer, professor of labor law at the Berlin University of Economics and Law, is cited in the piece as saying that when right-wing extremist or anti-democratic comments are made at work, it can result in reprimands and ultimately dismissal.

“If a colleague complains about ‘foreign infiltration’ in Germany, the employer will first reprimand the behavior” before issuing a formal warning. If such views are repeated, “you will be terminated immediately,” he adds.

“Employers have a duty to protect their employees and must intervene if a case is so serious that it is unreasonable for them to tolerate the poisoning of the working atmosphere to continue,” says Zimmer.

The fundamental issue with the piece is that the term “racist” has been so fundamentally diluted within society to the point that anything that deviates from the liberal, progressive stance promoted by “palatable” political leaders is questioned.

Immigration has become one of the most prominent topics of concern across many European nations, dominating elections that have resulted in those calling for stricter policies prevailing across the continent — take the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy as just three examples.

When citizens no longer have confidence in institutions and others in society to reasonably define racism, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of uncertainty, distrust, and societal breakdown that further fuels division and creates political opportunities for genuine extremists who prey on a frustrated and disillusioned electorate whose only option of resistance is anonymously at the ballot box.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

A Façade of Concern for Democracy Covers Real Intents – Cutting China’s Belt and Road Initiative!

By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – January 16, 2025

It is rather interesting to see the mask come off such individuals as Congressman Joe Wilson, representative for South Carolina, and head of the US Congressional Helsinki Commission.

Mr. Wilson has been a leading US critic of the current Georgian government, and a fervent supporter of the opposition United National Movement and smaller parties such as Girchi both of whom are known for such “conservative values” as pushing for the dissolution of the Georgian Orthodox Church and its rebranding it Ukrainian style, as well as a commitment to the western values of LGBTQ and, in the case of another up-and-coming Georgian Political Party “Girchi”, decriminalization of pedophilia.

Nice friends you have there, Mr. Wilson

It is especially heinous that Representative Wilson has been a leading campaigner in the “Russian Interference” claims regarding the Georgian elections, while himself interfering far more that Russia would ever dream of doing, with him being a leading proponent of the vilely named MEGOBARI (Georgian for friend) act, which supposedly aims to correct so called “Democratic Backsliding” which, as we have seen in Moldova and Romania, is just code for punishing Georgians for not voting the way the US demands. It is interesting to note the list of endorsements of the act, which is a “Who’s who” of CIA deniable assets in the NGO sector, topped by the reprehensibly hypocritical “Freedom” House.

Joe Wilson is particularly irate at such “undemocratic” behavior as the Georgian government working to have at least reasonable, non-conflict based relations with major neighbors such as Russia and Iran. He was particularly outraged that the Georgian Prime Minister, Irakli Kobkhidze, attended the funeral of the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, and the subsequent inauguration of his replacement, the moderate Pezeshkian, with an irate post on X saying:

Why was Georgian

@PM_Kobakhidze

hanging out with IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Iran just a few months ago? The same terrorists actively plotted to assassinate

@realDonaldTrump

and call for the death of America every day.

We see you.

America will not be fooled.

Of course, Mr. Wilson, like most of his ilk in America, ignored the fact that a number of American allies, including Turkey and envoys from the EU attended the funeral and subsequent inauguration.

In response to criticism, Khobakidze said:

“I attended the Iranian President’s inauguration. Iran holds great significance in the region. Hence, the heads of all regional states attended the inauguration, and envoys of EU High Representative Josep Borrell and the UN Secretary-General were also present. The delegation was notably represented, with the presence of the prime ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, signifying a high-level representation of the region,”

It’s called diplomacy, Mr. Wilson, you Americans should try it sometime…

When it comes to the Georgian elections, Wilson is particularly vitriolic, demanding a re-run, and that this should be “foreign administered” in order to ensure “fairness” (in other words, to ensure the result the US demands), thereby echoing Europe’s imperialist calls.

The lover of democracy, has also called for and cheered sanctions on Georgian government officials he deems responsible for “dictatorial behavior” and “anti-democratic” actions in such statements as:

“The de-facto Georgian government has shed all pretense of democracy and has now started arresting innocent activists and peaceful members of the opposition in their homes and places of work. Make no mistake: Georgian Dream is using Kremlin-style dictatorial tactics, the U.S. government must respond to punish those involved in perpetrating violence and brutality against innocent Georgians immediately.”

Of course, the esteemed Congressman ignores the fact that protesters injured over 300 police officers with fireworks, rocks, and Molotov cocktails, not to mention use of lasers to blind police officers, as well as burning over 40 rooms in the parliament, and opposition leaders were calling publically for revolution, good luck getting away with any of that in the US or EU. We can all clearly see the American hypocrisy at this point, with the detention without trial and torture of US actually peaceful demonstrators from January 6th 2021, many of whom languish in prison to this day.

In further, almost hysterical posts, he went on:

“I welcome the sanctioning of Bidzina Ivanishvili, he hates America and loves China and Iran. Georgia urgently needs free and fair elections,” writes American Congressman and Helsinki Commission Chair, Joe Wilson, on his own page on X.

“I welcome the sanctions on dictator-in-waiting Bidzina Ivanishvili. I called for this in 2020 with thr Republican Research Committee. Ivanishvili hates America and loves China and Iran. He plans to destroy Georgian sovereignty and democracy. Georgia needs free and fair elections immediately,”

Wilson also claims to speak for Donald Trump, with this gem of a post on X:

President @realDonaldTrump has made it very clear where he stands on the self-professed enemies of America. If Bidzina Ivanishvili goes through with his plan to destroy Georgian democracy on Dec 29, he should expect a response like he’s never imagined.

Wilson was referring to the inauguration of the new Georgian President, in accordance with the constitution of Georgia, Mikheil Kavelashvili, a prominent critic of Western overreach in Georgia, and defender of Georgian cultural and religious values.

Of course, not doing what America and its EU puppets want is a “plan to destroy Georgian democracy”, all is clear….

BIGGER Fish to Fry!

The BIG question is: Why is such an important US congressman with far bigger fish to fry, one would think, so irate at a country of roughly four million people choosing a government that reflects its religious and cultural values, and attempting to have good neighborly relations with countries that it has previously had conflicts with?

A little digging through Wilson’s X account soon gives an answer:

Why did Georgia’s dictator-in-waiting Bidzina Ivanishvili give a contract to build the Anaklia Deep Sea Port to a sanctioned Chinese company?

Are you ready for sanctions, Bidzina?

The fact is that the Chinese bid was the most competitive and was properly awarded, given the failure of western companies to submit their bids in the allotted time. He, and many other critics, also fail to note that the consortium awarded is a cooperation between Chinese and Singaporean companies. Given that Singapore is a major American ally in the Asia-Pacific region, such hysteria and breast beating seems rather ridiculous.

The real reason for American panic is the fact that the Anaklia Port Project will be a major transit point, as part of the Chinese “Belt and Road” project, being a major hub on what the Chinese call the “Middle Road” part of the planned trade links.

As the Chinese ambassador to Georgia said:

“The development of the Middle Corridor holds significant importance for China, Georgia, and all countries along its route. Currently, there is a positive stance from China, Georgia, Europe, and neighbouring nations towards this corridor, establishing a crucial foundation for its future growth. Georgia, strategically positioned between Europe and Asia, spares no effort to become a regional hub. The Anaklia port, in particular, will play a pivotal role in bolstering Georgia’s capabilities in cross-border transport, further solidifying its importance in regional and international trade networks,”

The Americans are, not surprisingly, desperate to either stop, or at least control strategic points, along this transport corridor, that will allow China to easily trade with Central Asia, Russia, the Middle East, and Europe, bypassing on land the US Navy, that the US has traditionally used to enforce its will in trade matters.

I humbly submit that Mr. Wilson’s anger has nothing to do with Georgian democracy, but everything to do with stopping a project that plans to lift billions, including many Georgians, out of poverty, but by doing so, threatens US hegemony.

American attempts to cut the Belt and Road show the moral bankruptcy of its claims to be “Defending Democracy”

The mask has slipped, and what is underneath is ugly. And not to mention from where the lion’s share of the Senator’s official campaign funding comes from, no place other than the Zionist Lobby and US Defense Contractors.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Accepting the Truth About Ukrainian Casualties is the Only Real Path to Peace

Will the Truth About Ukraine’s Staggering Death Toll Finally Bring an End to the War?

By Michael Vlahos | Landmarks: A Journal of International Dialogue | January 10, 2025

They say “all wars must end.” Yet how does this actually happen? First, all parties must agree — to go down that path together. Next, they must enter into formal negotiation, which almost always means horse trading, compromise, and accommodation. Finally, and most important, all belligerents must want the war to end.

Russia almost certainly wants this. Its minimum territorial objectives are within reach. Moreover, the destruction of Ukrainian military potential — equipment, infrastructure, and stockpiles — is almost complete. Furthermore, the General Staff’s strategy of attrition is approaching its endpoint. The Ukrainian Army is breaking, and Ukrainian national society is literally on the eve of destruction.

Within the “collective West,” the new “Decider” and the majority of Americans also want this war to end. Yet powerful constituencies in EU and American politics are emotionally invested in keeping war going. Red Hawks and most of the Blue Establishment are committed to defanging Russia and demonstrating Alliance strength and cohesion. A settlement that reeks of defeat, they say, will only embolden predatory “autocracies” and further fissiparous “extreme right wing” populism in Europe.

The Trans-Atlantic War Party Establishment, therefore, is determined to deny the Decider a free hand. If Mr. Trump gives away too much to Mr. Putin, he will be derided as an “appeaser.” Red Hawks — including barons in his new administration — will pressure him to bargain from “a position of strength,” creating an instant fissure in his authority if he shows weakness, and an instant, exploitable opening for Blue. Their bitter establishment, still licking its electoral wounds, will leap at the opportunity to tar Trump as a Paper Tiger, abdicating America’s predestined world leadership while also abdicating the sovereignty of the American Century: They will declare, “Even his advisers say so.”

However, if the new president gives in, and “shows strength” by up-arming Ukraine, and offering only a suspension of hostilities, the war will likely go on. Putin has declared that Russia will not accept a truce, armistice, or ceasefire in lieu of a permanent settlement. A long-term compact can be achieved, he insists, only by accommodating Russia’s inviolable strategic needs. Absent this, negotiation will fail, and failure would surely lead to much buyer’s remorse and dismay among those millions who voted for Trump’s promise to bring the fighting to an end.

For “45/47” it would represent a personal failure as well. After all, he vowed to end the war with speed and éclatÉclat in the sense of “acclamation” as well as “brilliant success.” This is no trivial matter for him: Success could only elevate and enhance his now-mythic persona. In contrast, failure would be a body blow to his stature.

Thus, failure now beckons from two directions. If Trump “appeases,” then Blue will launch him into the meme trajectory of “weak king, enemy comprador.” However, if his Peace Ship fails, and the war goes on, he will be fatefully captured by the War Party, and the conflict will become “Trump’s War.” He will then be well and truly stuck tight in their hand-crafted Tar Baby and its tender snare.

So how then can a new president thread a course between the Scylla and Charybdis of antagonists, foreign and domestic? Perhaps, like Odysseus, the best course might be to “choose the lesser of two evils.”

Here, the lesser evil is a settlement that both accommodates Russia and saves Ukraine. The greater evil is a continuation of the war, leading to the destruction of Ukraine and the breakup of NATO — and just possibly, another world war.

All this means taking on, and overthrowing, the grip of the War Party (Red and Blue) on this nation’s affairs. There is only one way, moreover, to do this: He must break the iron narrative of “Appeasement” — where the only strategic choice is between war and surrender. Thankfully, the hammer and chisel that will break it is at hand.

It means, simply, that the president must tell the whole truth, at long last, about this war.

The Ukraine proxy war against Russia was sold through the greatest Black-and-White story ever told: Of naked aggression unleashed by a maniacal dictator, the latest threat in a long lineage of Evil, from Kaiser to Hitler to Stalin to Mao, and now, the tyrant Putin.

The truth is that the United States, after 2009 (and especially 2014), relentlessly curated conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with the ultimate intent of expanding NATO and breaking Russia. This is the real story. Highly authoritative expert commentary on how it happened is easily accessed: For example, the lectures and videos of John Mearsheimer, and the almost biblical epic volume of Scott Horton, Provoked. There are many, many sources, both scholarly books and an Internet library of unimpeachable analysis.

Yet official “truth” — from the US and NATO governments — has never veered from the iron narrative that is the Manichaean testament of Putin perfidy, Russian savagery, and a “long, twilight struggle” of good vs. evil, of democracy vs. tyranny, of light against the darkness. Moreover, the “commanding heights” of “the collective West” — its entire ruling establishment — sold its credulous electorates this story, supplemented daily by full injections of Ukrainian propaganda. This “Information Op” was itself fully funded by the US and NATO, and orchestrated by a contractual alliance between intelligence agencies and hundreds of PR firms.

This united front presented by Government, Mainstream Media, Intelligence and the propaganda industry effectively marginalized the voice of actual reality. Those advocating for “foreign policy restraint” were labelled “isolationists.” Those who presented the actual backstory to the war were dismissed as Putinists or Orc lovers or Vatniks.

Over three long years of war, however, actual reality began to sink in. More and more Americans became disenchanted with the war and increasingly suspicious of the official story, and of a Biden administration that, on so many fronts, and with so many issues, had simply, brazenly, lied to the American people. Moreover, by the autumn of 2023, the Ukrainian war effort was visibly failing, a reality that propaganda could no longer conceal.

Today, Ukraine stands at the precipice of national existence.

Ukraine in 1994 was 52 million strong. Then the draining began. The best and the brightest sought opportunity in the EU and Russia. Ukraine was a nation of perhaps 33 million in 2022. Today, a quarter of that already-diminished country’s population has fled to the European Union, and another quarter is in the now Russian oblasts, or residing as new migrants in the Russian Federation. The nation itself has shrunk by half.

Yet this is only one edge of the cliff. Ukraine’s fertility has collapsed. Prewar, it was already one of the lowest in Europe. The years of war have pushed it down below 1.0, perhaps even to 0.7. In the war, Ukraine has sustained shockingly massive casualties. Combined with the sheer number of able-bodied men who are fleeing the country, both draft-dodgers and deserters, or those who were migrants loath to come home, Ukraine — sans settlement — is poised to keep shrinking. Within a generation it may wither to the size of Belgium, perhaps even that of Belarus.

Then there is the matter of casualties. Kiev and Washington — and the entire Media and Official Propaganda industrial complex — has been silent on the subject of battlefield losses until recent months, when the yawning catastrophe could no longer be denied. Yet all along there have been signs and signals and harrowing data points. Stitched together, this is the story they tell.

In the first 18 months of the war — simply counting military obituaries and dead SIM cards — comes to ~330,000 Ukrainian soldiers KIA. Moreover, more than 50,000 lost one or more limbs. Moreover, in the last 18 months, monthly losses intensified. Kiev itself has declared that the army needs 30,000 replacements a month just to maintain the current force. Does this mean that, from September 2023 to date, another ~540,000 soldiers were lost?

Here, it is necessary to be mindful of what Soviet historians call “irrecoverable” losses. Hence, a soldier who will never return to the fight is “irrecoverable.” Killed, crippled, missing: This is the true sum of an army’s losses in war. For Ukraine, arithmetic says that number is not less than ~920,000 men.

Yet not all of these are dead or crippled. Deserters also represent, in a very real sense, irrecoverable casualties, as these are the able-bodied who have fled the country, or who have gone to ground inside Ukraine. Eurostat reports that 650,000 men of fighting age have fled Ukraine. Furthermore, reeling under Russian hammer-blows across the Donbass Front, desertions are reportedly over 200,000 in 2024. Thus, Kiev has been forced to raise its monthly mobilization target from 30,000 to 40,000.

Ukrainian journalists cite a desertion rate of 160 per day in early 2024, rising to 200 by summer, and then jumping to 380 by autumn. This suggests that desertion, over the past year at least, has accounted for a thick slice of irrecoverable losses, perhaps 4500-5000 per month. The sudden surge in desertion after September 2024 has been driven by crushing exhaustion and defeat. This in turn has pushed the state to desperate measures. All “conscription” in Ukraine today takes the form of violent kidnapping, even of the sick, aged, and infirm. Yet in spite of the utmost brutality, that 40K per month target is now short about 20,000 each month.

Moreover, actual irrecoverable losses, across the board, are almost certainly understated. For example, many platoon and company commanders simply do not report desertions, for fear of punishment by their field grade superiors. Likewise, the number of missing KIA is massive, given the sheer number of Ukrainian corpses left on the battlefields. A recent composite of casualty estimates puts the KIA total at 780,000. Adding in the severely wounded, total irrecoverable Ukrainian battle losses could be as high as 1.2 million, after 1000 days of war.

To put all this in perspective: Today’s shrunken Ukraine is half the size of the French Republic in 1914. In World War I, France lost 3.6 percent of its population: A monstrous and unnecessary national bloodletting, and a stain on the very idea of “Civilization.”

America’s proxy war against Russia — goading and pitting Ukraine against a nation nearly 8 times its size — has led to yet another unnecessary bloodletting. Ukraine has lost 3.9 percent of its population. Hidden from us for years, in plain sight.

What hath America wrought? Biden’s narrative narcissism would have us believe the United States has been heroically defending democracy against tyranny and pure evil. How he boasted, loudly, that America was bleeding Russia white — all for the price of not one American soldier. What a bargain! However, in sharper focus, an American emperor and his court, in their lust to bring Russia to its knees, destroyed another nation (and this time, not a “primitive,” but rather a “European” nation) to no purpose but to fulfill its own vanity.

Unwittingly perhaps, the real effect of Biden’s fulmination was to fulfill the enemy’s existential need. Curating and handcrafting this naked American proxy war, ironically, gave Russia the signal opportunity to halt NATO expansion, and buy itself strategic breathing room. Biden’s assault served to mobilize and renew Russian national identity. Eager and blind, an addled Emperor thus became Russia’s strategic helpmate.

Now try out this counterpoint. Imagine an alternative reality where Mr. Putin actually agrees to a ceasefire in-place. This is the last fallback wet dream of the US/NATO War Party. An armistice — with NATO “peacekeepers” — would surely let the collective West rejuvenate and rearm Ukraine. A new army, drafted from the 18-25 age cohort, including even women, might then be harnessed by the War Party to have another go at Russia, and give us yet another vicarious national bleed.

In this fantasy, a nation of 20 million (or less) would be trumpeted as the return of Ulysses, i.e., the million fighting men who fled, and their families, would return to their homeland to “fight the good fight” yet again. In the next war, a righteous Ukraine, eager and steel-annealed to exact revenge, would unleash “Fire and Sword” on the Russian serpent: A summoning of NeoCon Nirvana.

Yet think: An armistice premeditating another war could lead only to the further, final hollowing-out of Ukraine. Any male person in that cursed country — given the terrors they know — will surely flee: “Get out now before it’s too late!” The irreversible downhill slope in fertility keeps singing, ominously, of an irreversible path toward national extinction. Ukrainians will never, ever embrace yet more blood after the sheer terror of 2022-2025.

The Ukraine Question must be permanently settled.

Only this argument can silence Red Hawks and the Blue War Party alike. All the peoples American Empire has ravaged and wrecked this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — stand as mute witness to the dark descent of a once stainless and world-redemptive American Mission. The new president could make use of this American myth about itself to proclaim to the world that “The Fall” stops here.

Bringing peace to Ukraine is the very smallest mercy this nation might ever offer to those millions of innocents betrayed by America’s supremely venal, exiting emperor. Adding further to the argument that this all must end: Russia too has suffered in this war. Their KIA is about twice what America suffered in Vietnam, from a population slightly smaller than the US in 1960. Russia will seek no more wars, whatever ever-ardent keyboard War Hawks declare.

Surely, President Trump can end the madness of another “Forever War” — cold or hot — with Russia. This, without hesitation or reservation, is the greater evil we face.

Surely, a permanent settlement in Ukraine is the lesser of two evils.

Michael Vlahos is author of the book Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change. He taught strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the Naval War College and joins John Batchelor weekly on CBS Eye on the World. Follow him on @Michalis_Vlahos

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump unable to end Ukrainian conflict – media

By Lucas Leiroz | January 16, 2025

Western media apparently does not believe in Donald Trump’s ability to end the war in Ukraine. After months of desperate campaigning against the US president-elect, accusing him of being “pro-Russian” and neglecting the Ukraine issue, Western mainstream outlets are now claiming he never had such ability or intention, and that his campaign promise was simply “bluster.”

Reuters published an article on January 15 claiming that Trump’s promise to end the conflict between Ukraine and Russia “in 24 hours” was a bluff with no basis in reality. According to the news agency, people close to the president-elect said that any negotiations or agreements are still long away, and that an end to hostilities is not possible in the near future.

“Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump now concede that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise – to strike a peace deal on his first day in the White House. Two Trump associates, who have discussed the war in Ukraine with the president-elect, told Reuters they were looking at a timeline of months to resolve the conflict, describing the Day One promises as a combination of campaign bluster and a lack of appreciation of the intractability of the conflict and the time it takes to staff up a new administration,” Reuters’ article reads.

The assessment coincides with some recent statements in which Trump has expressed frustration at not being able to advance his diplomatic plans before his inauguration. He repeatedly said he plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin “long before” six months of his presidency, but at the same time has expressed some skepticism about the future of the conflict. For example, Trump recently said that it would be easier to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza than in Ukraine – which proved true, given the end of hostilities between Israel and Hamas announced on January 15.

“I think, actually, more difficult is going to be the Russia-Ukraine situation [than Gaza] (…) I see that as more difficult. (…) I don’t think it’s appropriate that I meet (Putin) until after the 20th, which I hate because every day people are being – many, many young people are being killed,” Trump said.

Reuters’ journalists, citing their sources, claim that despite the apparent impossibility of achieving a quick peace, there is a consensus among members of Trump’s team on the need to take some emergency measures, such as canceling Ukraine’s accession process to NATO, as well as trying to “freeze the battle lines”. In addition, Trump’s advisers warn the president to demand “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which they consider to be an important and necessary step to create the conditions for a peace agreement.

“While the exact contours of a Trump peace plan are still being mulled, Trump’s advisers generally support taking the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, at least for the foreseeable future, and freezing the current battle lines. Most high-ranking Trump advisers also support giving Ukraine a material security guarantee, such as the creation of a demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops. So far, the Trump team’s attempts to end the war have proceeded in fits and starts, underlining the degree to which campaign promises can run into the reality of complex diplomatic negotiations,” the article adds.

In fact, this all seems like a real waste of time on the part of Trump’s advisers. Whether Ukraine’s NATO membership process continues or ends does not change anything in the conflict, since it is already certain that Kiev will not be allowed to join. It is a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that NATO should not admit Ukraine as a member, but rather use it as a proxy in the war. Although Biden and the Democrats show a supposed “support” for such membership, this seems to be a mere rhetorical tool, without any practical meaning.

In the same sense, it is pointless to talk about “freezing the lines” or “giving guarantees to Ukraine”, since only the Russians can decide on these matters. Moscow will not freeze the front lines at least until all of its reintegrated territories are liberated and fully protected by demilitarized border zones.

Moreover, it is not Kiev that is in a position to demand “guarantees”, since Russia is the aggressed side in this war, with the special military operation having begun in 2022 precisely as a response both to NATO expansion and to the massacre of Russians that Kiev has been carrying out since 2014. The position to demand security guarantees belongs to the Russians, not to Ukrainians or Westerners.

In the end, it seems that the Western media is beginning to admit what analysts have been saying since the elections: Trump’s promise to end the war was never feasible. It is not the US that is in a position to demand an end to hostilities, since only the winning side can end a conflict. In fact, the war will end only when Moscow assesses that its strategic objectives have been achieved.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment