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.
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.
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.
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.
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 éclat: Éclat 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
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.
In Israel, ADL Chief Jonathan Greenblatt Appears to Call for Using Terrorism to Murder Me and My Friends
By Andrew Anglin | The Daily Stormer | January 15, 2025
The head of the Israeli lobbying group the Anti-Defamation League was in Israel last week, where he appeared to call for using Israeli terrorist tactics to maim and murder “antisemites” who criticize Jews on the internet.
Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, Jonathan Greenblatt bemoaned the fact that people are complaining about Jewish behavior online, saying that Jews are “losing the battle” against “antisemitism.” He framed the fight to silence critics of Israel on the internet as the “eighth front” of Israel’s “seven-front war.” He then said that last year’s terrorist attack against Lebanon, which involved explosives being implanted into pagers which were detonated to mutilate and murder Lebanese people, should be the inspiration for silencing people on the internet.
It would have been bad enough if he had said this as a joke, but based on the context and the way he spoke, there is no indication he was joking.
“We need the kind of genius that manufactured Apollo Gold Pagers and infiltrated Hezbollah for over a decade to prepare for this battle,” Greenblatt said.
He went on to state that terrorism is a characteristic of Jewish people: “This is the kind of ingenuity and inventiveness that have always been a hallmark of the State of Israel, that have always been a characteristic of the Jewish people. I know we can do it.”
You can watch the video above to get the full context of the statement, and see if you think he is saying something different. The most generous interpretation would be that he is saying that it took a certain kind of cunning to do the terrorist attack against Hezbollah and that this type of cunning is needed to silence critics of the Jews. It is seemingly unfathomable that he would want to leave people with the impression he was calling for terrorism against internet critics, and furthermore, he calls on the Israeli Defense Force to form a group to shut down these online critics, which definitely implies he is talking about real violence being used.
However, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose he is calling for some kind of metaphorical terrorism, we must ask what exactly it is he is talking about doing to prevent people from holding opinions he opposes.
Believing that Jews should not slaughter children in Gaza, or that they shouldn’t push child transsexualism, mass immigration, pornography, abortion, and other socially deleterious schemes in the West is an opinion. How can you stop people from having an opinion, other than by killing them? What are the other options?
The ADL is primarily a censorship group, which lobbies governments to pass laws criminalizing the criticism of Jews, and lobbying Silicon Valley to silence critics of Jews online. This is obviously anti-American, fundamentally, but the ADL is one of many Jewish groups which engages in this activity. Internet censorship is ubiquitous, and even the supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has recently begun silencing his critics on Twitter.
Jewish groups successfully lobbied for TikTok to be banned in America due to the fact that the Chinese owners feel that Americans have a right to criticize Israel in a way that no American company allows them to.
However, none of this has to do with the government of Israel. If Greenblatt was suggesting that Israel should engage in more active lobbying for internet censorship and hate speech laws, he could have simply said that. Instead, he invoked terrorism and called for the IDF to fight people who criticize Jews online.
Being on the frontlines of criticism of Israel and the collective behavior of individual Jews, I have personally had an adversarial relationship with the ADL for more than a decade, regularly being a target of slander and hate from Jonathan Greenblatt and others in the organization, so this call for the Israeli military to use terrorism to silence people like me is particularly disturbing.
At this point, there is so much criticism directed at Israel, and to some extent also the behavior of diaspora Jews, that it would be virtually impossible to censor all of it. Twitter and Facebook would have to ban tens or hundreds of millions of people, and banning that many people would definitely result in those who weren’t banned criticizing Jews for getting all of those people banned.
However, if the Jews began assassinating critics, that may prove to be a significant deterrent.
Although I’ve said it many times, I want to put it on the record again that I am in very good health, I did not take the coronavirus vaccine so I am not at risk of dying suddenly, and I would never, under any circumstances, kill myself.
The video linked above is a week old and has fewer than 100 views. I have not seen this story reported anywhere else. I hope that others will clip the relevant portions and spread them on Twitter and elsewhere. I would like to see Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Judge Napolitano, and others with large platforms addressing these statements by Greenblatt and demanding that he explain what exactly it is he is calling for when he says that terrorism needs to be used to silence people whose opinions he does not like.
The Jewish agenda to shut down freedom of speech was already extreme enough, but calling for violence to be used as a solution to internet posts takes this into a whole new realm. If America was a serious country, traveling to a foreign country and calling for state terrorism against American citizens would be grounds for serious criminal charges.
‘NATO Lost’: Ukraine War Backfires, Brings Russia and China Closer Together
Prof. Glenn Diesen on BreakthroughNews
Glenn Diesen | January 14, 2025
I discussed on BreakthroughNews how NATO lost the Ukraine War. NATO has also discredited itself as a security provider by provoking the war, rejecting what were initially reasonable Russian security concerns, and then boycotting all diplomacy and negotiations for three years.
In 2014, NATO based the coup in Kiev despite knowing that pulling Ukraine into NATO’s orbit would likely trigger a war and only 20% of Ukrainians even wanted NATO membership. From the Minsk peace agreement to the Istanbul negotiations, every path to peace since was rejected and sabotaged by NATO due to maximalist objectives. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, NATO could not defeat Russia on the battleground, it could not collapse the Russian economy, and it could not isolate Russia in the international system. Russia has now aligned itself closer with China and a just peace in Ukraine is likely not achievable.
For the next decades, Russia’s economic connectivity will be directed to the East and its increasingly powerful military will be primarily tasked to deter the West. While the Ukrainians suffered the most in this war, Europe also suffered a great defeat as its security, economy, political stability, and geopolitical relevance will continue to decline.
Support for Gaza Genocide Top Reason Biden Voters Did Not Support Harris
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 15, 2025
A new poll shows that the Israeli onslaught in Gaza was the top reason that Americans who turned out for Joe Biden in 2020 did not vote for Kamala Harris in 2024.
The poll, conducted by YouGov and the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, “found “what few in the Democratic Party have been willing to admit: Vice President Harris lost votes because of the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.”
A press release on the IMEU explains, “29% of voters nationally who voted for Biden in 2020 and did not for Kamala Harris in 2024 say “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” was the top issue affecting their vote choice.” The economy ranked second at 24%.
After the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, the Biden administration flooded Israel with weapons and other military aid that was used by Tel Aviv to cause mass death and destruction in Gaza. A recent Lancet study found that at least 64,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel over the past 15 months.
Among the dead are tens of thousands of children, many of whom died when Israel dropped American-made bombs from American-made planes. The Lancet study did not count those killed from illness and deprivation caused by the Israeli siege of Gaza. In recent wars, the number of indirect deaths from conflicts is often many times higher than those killed by direct violence.
Before dropping out of the presidential race last summer, President Biden was regularly confronted on the campaign trail by protesters labeling him “genocide Joe.” Several top international aid agencies have determined the Israeli military operations and blockade of Gaza constitute genocide.
The support for Israel, which included at least $22 billion in military aid during the first year of the onslaught, may have cost Kamala the election. YouGov found that the war was the top reason voters did not cast their ballot for Harris in Arizona (38%), Michigan (32%), Wisconsin (32%), and Pennsylvania (19%). Biden won all four states in 2020.
That Democrats viewed the war in Gaza as a genocide should not have come as a surprise to the Harris campaign. In May, a poll found over half of Democratic party voters believed Israel was conducting a genocide.
Still, in the waning days of the 2024 election season, the Harris team refused to say she would cut arm transfers to Israel after taking office. Instead, the campaign notoriously embraced GOP ultra-hawks such as Dick and Liz Cheney.
Settlers abandoning ‘Israel’ amid economic instability and wars
Al Mayadeen | January 15, 2025
A recent report by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics has intensified political discord within the Israeli occupation, highlighting a significant surge in reverse migration at the start of 2025.
According to the report, some 82,000 individuals have left the occupied Palestinian territories, a figure that has shaken its political and security circles. This outflow, prominently featured in Israeli media, underscores a growing disenchantment among Israelis, particularly professionals, doctors, and technicians, with the occupation’s current trajectory.
The data in question led to intense political discourse. Right-wing factions have been particularly vocal, condemning those leaving as government opponents use the data to criticize the incumbent regime. The phenomenon has become yet another battleground in the Israeli occupation’s already fractured political landscape.
Experts attribute this migration to several factors, including restrictive laws, stifling personal freedoms, and a lack of opportunities for creativity and economic growth. The exodus reportedly began during protests against judicial reforms, with the ongoing war on Gaza and the accompanying threats further cementing the decision for many to leave.
Additional contributing factors include the government’s economic policies, the refusal of Haredi communities to perform military service, and attacks on institutions like the Supreme Court. These issues, combined with the war on Gaza and the unresolved fate of the captured soldiers, have exacerbated fears among Israelis about the future.
Israeli research centers have noted a troubling trend: the emigrants are predominantly young, educated individuals aged between 20 and 45, with a significant portion being children and adolescents. This demographic shift threatens to weaken the Israeli occupation’s economy and social structure. High living costs, limited housing and employment opportunities, and inadequate public services are driving these individuals to seek a better quality of life elsewhere.
Despite the alarming implications, the right-wing government has responded with superficial criticisms rather than substantive solutions. The emigration highlights a diminished sense of belonging and trust among those leaving, further strained by war, economic instability, and internal divisions.
Impact of the war on Gaza
The October 2023 war on Gaza triggered a surge in departures, with 14,816 settlers leaving that month alone—more than double the monthly average of 7,145 for the rest of the year.
The northern territories were particularly impacted as heightened tensions and the war on Lebanon, which saw Hezbollah wreaking havoc along the borders drove significant numbers of settlers to abandon these areas.
Gaza Ceasefire: What to expect?
Al-Manar | January 14, 2025
As the Israeli enemy’s war on Gaza enters its 466th day, the besieged enclave stands as a symbol of resilience against an unprecedented campaign of destruction and genocide, carried out with global complicity and silence.
Despite relentless attacks, Gaza has refused to surrender. The Palestinian resistance has engaged the Israeli occupation forces at close range, inflicting heavy losses and proving that its resolve cannot be broken. Over 46,000 Palestinians—children, women, men, and fighters—have been martyred, yet the resistance continues to strike back. Every time Israeli occupation forces believe they’ve secured a foothold, new resistance emerges, keeping them locked in a costly cycle of attrition.
Northern Gaza: A Testament to Failure
In northern Gaza, the Israeli enemy’s aim of “zero confrontation” through systematic genocide and forced displacement has also faltered. Last week in Beit Hanoun, the Israeli occupation forces faced significant setbacks, acknowledging their failure even as they tried to regroup their forces.
The Question of Prisoners
One of the Israeli enemy’s primary objectives has been the retrieval of its captives. However, its strategy of annihilation has failed to achieve this. Any resolution remains contingent on agreements dictated by the Palestinian resistance, which, despite enduring immense hardship, has maintained its strength and thwarted the Zionist entity’s attempts to establish full control, even over small areas of the enclave.
Ceasefire Talks Spark Internal Tensions
As reports emerge of a potential ceasefire agreement in the coming hours or days, tensions within the Zionist government are boiling over. Far-right ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are threatening to resign if the agreement moves forward.
Ben Gvir criticized the deal as a “surrender,” urging Smotrich to join him in pressuring Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Israeli Channel 12 reported that Smotrich is consulting with senior rabbis over the prisoner exchange deal.
The right-wing minister, who previously called the agreement a “disaster for Israel’s national security,” hinted at issuing an ultimatum to Netanyahu in the coming hours. He condemned the proposed terms, which reportedly involve releasing high-profile Palestinian prisoners, ending the war, and nullifying Israel’s so-called achievements.
Admission of Defeat
Through the voices of its leaders, the Zionist entity has effectively acknowledged its failure. The narrative of invincibility is crumbling as the war shifts from conquest to survival for an occupation increasingly entangled in its miscalculations.
Positive Progress in Doha Negotiations
Spokesman for the Qatari Foreign Ministry, Majed bin Mohammad Al-Ansari, announced today that discussions in Doha have entered the final stages. He described the talks as “productive and positive,” focusing on the last remaining details, and hinted that an official announcement of the agreement is imminent.
“We have overcome the primary obstacles in the disagreements between the parties,” Al-Ansari stated, adding, “When the agreement is announced, it will also mark the start of the ceasefire implementation.” He further noted that draft agreements have been submitted, and negotiations are now centered on resolving the final details regarding the Gaza ceasefire.
Urging both sides to finalize the deal, Al-Ansari emphasized the need to end the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza.
Latest Developments in Negotiation Talks
Amid these updates, US President-elect Donald Trump, in an interview with Newsmax, expressed optimism, saying he believes a deal on hostages and a Gaza ceasefire could be finalized by the weekend. Observers have noted that the negotiations are now entering critical hours.
Additionally, the deputy foreign minister of the Israeli occupation entity confirmed that Trump has pushed for the agreement to be concluded before his inauguration on January 20. “I cannot disclose details of the deal, as we want to avoid statements that could affect the morale of the hostages’ families,” she said.
A Closer Look at the Proposed Gaza Ceasefire Agreement
According to leaks from Israeli enemy sources, the initial phase of the agreement will see the release of 33 Zionist prisoners, including women, children, and the wounded. In exchange, Palestinian prisoners will be freed according to a specific mechanism, and a ceasefire in Gaza will be enacted.
Second Phase to Begin After 16 Days
An official from the Israeli occupation revealed that, 16 days after the agreement is implemented, negotiations will begin for the second phase. This will include the release of remaining live hostages—male soldiers and men of military age—along with the return of the bodies of those who died during captivity.
Gradual Israeli Withdrawal and Security Arrangements
The agreement outlines a gradual Israeli withdrawal, though forces will remain near the border. It also includes security arrangements for the “Philadelphi Corridor” (Salah Al-Din) on the southern edge of Gaza, with Israeli enemy withdrawal from parts of the area within days of the agreement’s enactment.
Return of Civilians and Restrictions
Civilians from northern Gaza will be allowed to return, with mechanisms in place to prevent weapon transfers. The Israeli enemy will also withdraw from the “Netzarim” area in central Gaza, which had previously been rejected in negotiations.
Prisoner Release Details
The deal includes the release of Palestinians convicted of killings or attacks resulting in death, although the number will depend on the number of remaining live hostages—still unknown. However, prisoners involved in the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, will not be included in the release list. This marks a significant victory for the resistance, as the Israeli occupation had previously refused to release those it categorized as “convicted murderers” or sentenced to life imprisonment.
Progress Towards Final Agreement
These developments coincide with reports from inside Gaza that Zionist forces have begun dismantling some of their positions in the Netzarim area. Sources from the “Jerusalem Post” suggest that, barring last-minute changes, an announcement on the deal could come today.
Recent Diplomatic Efforts
Earlier on Monday, Axios reported that Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to concessions regarding withdrawals from the Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors and new terms for releasing Palestinian prisoners. This comes as Netanyahu consults with security leaders.
Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden spoke with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, reaffirming that a deal is imminent. Qatar’s emir also met with a Hamas delegation, who expressed their positive stance on the ongoing negotiations in Doha.
Palestinian Resistance: No Compromise on Red Lines
A Hamas official told CNN on Monday that several points of contention remain in the ongoing negotiations. Key issues include Hamas’s demand for the Israeli occupation’s withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor and a call for a permanent ceasefire instead of a temporary halt to military operations.
Qatar Presents Final Draft
An informed source involved in the prisoner swap negotiations in Doha stated that Qatar has delivered a “final draft” of the ceasefire and prisoner release agreement aimed at ending the war. According to Reuters, a breakthrough occurred in Doha after midnight, following talks between Israeli intelligence chiefs, US President-elect Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witztkopf, and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani.
Al Mayadeen obtains terms of Gaza ceasefire deal
Al Mayadeen | January 15, 2025
Al Mayadeen has obtained details of the Gaza ceasefire agreement with the Israeli occupation. The agreement, which outlines an eleven-clause framework, marks a significant step toward resolving the ongoing war and addressing the humanitarian crisis in the region.
Key terms of the agreement
- Israeli forces are required to fully withdraw from all areas of the Gaza Strip and return to the pre-war borders.
- The Rafah crossing must be reopened, with Israeli forces withdrawing entirely from the area.
- “Israel” is mandated to ease the travel of injured individuals for treatment abroad.
- “Israel” must permit the daily entry of 600 aid trucks, as per a humanitarian protocol backed by Qatar.
- “Israel” must facilitate the entry of 200,000 tents and 60,000 caravans for immediate shelter.
- A large-scale prisoner exchange will occur, including the release of 1,000 prisoners from Gaza and hundreds of detainees serving lengthy sentences.
- “Israel” is to release all women and children under the age of 19 from its prisons.
- Israeli forces must gradually withdraw from the Netzarim corridor and the Philadelphi Route.
- Displaced residents must be allowed to return to their homes, with guaranteed freedom of movement throughout the Gaza Strip.
- Hostile aircraft must vacate Gaza’s airspace for 8 to 10 hours daily.
- All hospitals in Gaza must be rehabilitated. Field hospitals, medical equipment, and surgical teams must be permitted entry.
Implementation phases
The first phase of the agreement, lasting six weeks, will involve the release of 33 Israeli captives, both living and deceased. This phase also includes the immediate return of displaced persons from southern Gaza to the north, facilitated by the withdrawal of Israeli forces from al-Rashid Street to the depths of the Netzarim corridor.
Subsequent phases will address the release of the remaining 66 captives held by Palestinian resistance factions.
If the deal succeeds, the gradual ceasefire could mark the end of more than a year of sporadic negotiations and result in the largest release of Israeli captives since the early stages of the war, when Hamas released roughly half of its captives in exchange for 240 Palestinian detainees.
In further detail, an Israeli official stated that negotiations were in advanced stages for the release of 33 of the remaining 98 Israeli captives, marking the first phase of the deal. In exchange, “Israel” will release 1,000 Palestinian detainees, according to a Palestinian source close to the talks, who added that the first phase would last for 60 days.
Meanwhile, Hamas fighters allegedly involved in Operation al-Aqsa Flood would not be released.
The Israeli official mentioned that the first stage of the agreement would involve the release of 33 captives, including “children, women, female soldiers, men above 50, and the wounded and sick,” as well as a gradual, partial withdrawal of invading Israeli units.
Commenting on the number of detainees, The Times of Israel considered, citing a copy of the agreement obtained by The Associated Press, that “Israel” will pay a steep price to secure the release of female soldiers being held captive.
Among the 33 would be five female Israeli soldiers, each of whom would be released in exchange for 50 Palestinian prisoners, including 30 convicted security prisoners who are serving life sentences.
Featured Video
Answers to Myocarditis and Heart Conditions
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Casuistry
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje… loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America…
Aletho News- Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate: There’s a ‘very significant influence operation by the US’ in Iran
- Israel–Syria security pact stumbles as Tel Aviv rejects withdrawal: Report
- The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons
- Italy and the drone that isn’t there
- Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners
- Eilat port faces worst crisis as Red Sea shipping collapses
- Iran protest-riots can only achieve US-Israeli intervention, ‘shadow CIA’ concludes
- The Coming War on Iran: What Has Really Been Happening?
- US Cargo Planes Have Flooded the Persian Gulf Since the First of December
- Deep-state forces from abroad instigated violence in Nepal – former foreign minister
- If Americans Knew
- Israel Has Demolished 2,500 Buildings in Gaza Since Signing Ceasefire Deal
- Iran, Gaza and the politics of counting the dead
- How Israel’s move in Somaliland fits in its broader strategy for regional dominance
- As genocide continues in Gaza, the West Bank is pushed into a new Nakba
- Israeli settlers beat elderly, deaf Palestinian man in West Bank attack, video shows
- U.S. May Bankroll New Israeli Armored Vehicles With Billions of Dollars, Internal Files Reveal
- How Israel and the US are exploiting Iranian protests
- The New Neoconservatives
- As more Gaza children freeze to death, Trump eyes Gaza as starting point for world domination – Not a ceasefire Day 95
- More death: in Gaza, West Bank, Israeli prison – Not a ceasefire Day 94
- No Tricks Zone
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
Aletho News 
