Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

USDA’s $1 Billion Plan to Combat Bird Flu Calls for Vaccines and Killing More Birds — Will It Work?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 28, 2025

The government has a new, $1 billion plan to combat the spread of bird flu among U.S. chickens and rising egg prices.

But some critics said the plan will just perpetuate the ineffective and harmful practice of culling birds and promote the potentially risky vaccination of chickens.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins on Wednesday announced the five-pronged “$1 billion comprehensive strategy,” including funding for biosecurity measures, financial relief for farmers, actions to reduce “regulatory burdens” and increase egg imports — and “$100 million for vaccine research.”

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same day, Rollins said the USDA is “working with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful spending” — that will pay for the strategy’s $1 billion price tag.

According to the op-ed, the average price of a dozen eggs increased 237% in the last four years. Rollins said the increase “is due in part to continuing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has devastated American poultry farmers and slashed the egg supply.”

The USDA did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Chicken culls have had ‘disastrous consequences’

Some farmers and medical experts questioned the USDA’s plan, under which chicken culls will continue.

Vermont attorney and farmer John Klar said, “Economic relief for poultry farmers is appropriate, as is monitoring flocks and supporting improved biosecurity measures.” However, Klar said he is “dismayed by the fearmongering about bird flu” and fears that a “silver bullet” to tackle the crisis may not be available.

According to Rollins, about 166 million laying hens have been culled since 2022. Culling “can be an effective way to stop an outbreak,” CNN reported.

But, according to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher of the McCullough Foundation, bird culls are ineffective.

“The single most effective action to reduce egg prices in the long-term is to stop the practice of mass depopulation, which has led to a costly and ineffective cycle that not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also worsens the spread of H5N1.”

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said the USDA plan potentially incentivizes measures that have not been effective.

“By taking government money to cull healthy birds and then bring eggs to market at higher prices, big egg producers have perverse incentives to keep the poorly conceived biosecurity measures going,” McCullough said.

According to CNN, culling has contributed to higher egg prices, due to a reduced egg supply and because taxpayers are “footing the bill for the dead birds.”

Over the past three years, the U.S. government has issued $1.25 billion in compensation to farmers who have had their chickens culled. Approximately 20% of those payouts “have gone to farms that have become infected multiple times,” CNN reported.

Hulscher said these payments have had “disastrous” consequences. “Mass culling has failed to stop the spread of bird flu, caused egg prices to reach a 45-year high, and resulted in the only source of chicken-to-human transmission.”

McCullough said culling mostly healthy birds “doesn’t stop bird-to-animal transmission of the next index case coming into farms by migratory birds, mainly mallard ducks. Instead, he said, “Culling causes the spread of H5N1 from birds to mankind” and “puts the workers at unnecessary risk.”

Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger said that during a 2016 bird flu outbreak in his area, USDA officials stacked culled chickens in compost piles. Within days, infected flies made their way to nearby farms, leading to the death of a laying hen.

“They notified USDA and USDA subsequently euthanized every bird on their farm, even though the broilers were not exhibiting any sign of sickness,” Vlieger said.

Vlieger also questioned the accuracy of tests used to determine whether birds are infected. He cited the example of a neighboring farm where a chicken initially tested positive to a USDA test, but a second test was negative.

“We know the tests they use have very low reliability,” Vlieger said.

Natural immunity more effective than vaccination in birds

Klar suggested that “better policy would be to let the birds develop ‘flock immunity,’ which would be better for humans as well.”

McCullough agreed. “A healthy bird flock allowed to acquire natural immunity to the mild current H5N1 strain will essentially end the current outbreak,” he said.

Several studies have found that bird culls are ineffective in stopping the spread of viruses among birds and that allowing natural immunity to develop may be a more effective means of containing outbreaks.

A December 2024 New England Journal of Medicine study found that between March and October 2024, “All the case patients who were exposed to infected poultry were involved in depopulation activities.”

According to a March 2024 report by the European Food Safety Authority, the number of bird flu detections in birds from December 2023 to March 2024 “was significantly lower, among other reasons, possibly due to some level of flock immunity in previously affected wild bird species, resulting in reduced contamination of the environment.”

“The new plan should stop culling,” McCullough said. “Biosecurity measures should focus on protecting the workers and allowing natural immunity to settle in on American farms.”

Experts question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for birds

The USDA plan also calls for a “hyper-focused” and “targeted and thoughtful strategy for potential new generation vaccines, therapeutics, and other innovative solutions to minimize depopulation of egg laying chickens.”

The USDA recently granted a conditional license to Zoetis for a bird flu vaccine. CNN reported that other bird flu vaccines for poultry already are licensed in the U.S.

Other vaccines, including one by Moderna, are under development. However, Bloomberg reported this week that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is “reevaluating” the $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna.

The World Organization for Animal Health recently stated that vaccination may be necessary to stem the spread of bird flu.

According to CNN, “Poultry producers have resisted the use of bird flu vaccines, which are costly and labor intensive to administer to millions of birds,” adding that “many countries won’t accept” exports of vaccinated poultry.

Klar questioned the practice of administering bird flu vaccines to poultry, saying he “strongly objects” to the use of mRNA vaccines in birds or other wildlife.

“I am far more concerned about adverse health effects from experimental pharmaceuticals than I am about natural microbes,” Klar said.

In a December 2024 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for the immediate approval of bird flu vaccines for humans and ramped-up testing throughout the U.S.

Over the past year, former public health officials and mainstream news outlets have also stoked fears of a bird flu outbreak among humans.

Is current bird flu strain a product of gain-of-function research?

While the USDA plan suggests that bird flu has a zoonotic — or animal — origin, McCullough cited research suggesting the current clade of H5N1 avian influenza may have originated from gain-of-function research in mallard ducks performed at the USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia.

According to the study, the strain of the virus circulating globally was first found in mallard ducks and other wildlife in Georgia and other locations near the USDA’s laboratory in 2021 and 2022.

Gain-of-function research involves the genetic alteration of an organism to enhance its biological functions — potentially including its transmissibility.

The McCullough Foundation’s research, published last year in the journal Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, calls for investigations to identify laboratory leaks that may have resulted in the release of bird flu strains, and a global moratorium on gain-of-function research.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust

By Jonathan Turley | March 1, 2025

We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a  lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:

“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.”

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.

While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”

This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.

Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.

The question is whether viewers and readers can still be brought back into the fold. New media is expanding as citizens have looked elsewhere for news. In the meantime, some media outlets and organizations seem to have doubled down on the bias. Just last year, Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. The newspaper did not say a thing about the incongruity of one of its leading reporters calling for censorship.

After Trump was elected, NBC selected Yamiche Alcindor to return to the White House despite a history of alleged bias. Alcindor, who also worked for PBS, was criticized for often preceding questions with attacks on conservatives or over-the-top praise for Joe Biden or Democrats. While others saw raw political bias, Alcindor explained that it was her job to use journalism to bend the “moral arc toward justice.”

Recently, the White House Correspondent’s Association picked an anti-Trump comedian who promptly encouraged Trump not to come to the dinner, saying that no one wants to be in the same room with him.

In the meantime, “J schools” continue to dismiss objectivity and crank out journalists who are told to embrace activism as the public flees legacy media for new media.

For the moment, it seems like journalists are content to write for each other and about 30 percent of the public. The echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller. So are the staffs on the outlets. Without public trust, the media is just talking to itself as the public turns to citizen journalists and new media on blogs and social media.

As someone who has worked for three networks and written as a columnist for three decades, the decline of American media has been painful to watch. The industry has operated like a ship of fools with no regard for their viewers or readers. However, we need the media. The press plays a central role in our democracy as reflected in the press protections afforded under the First Amendment.

The effort to break this culture at outlets like the Post and L.A. Times is encouraging, but these polls indicate that time is of the essence.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

A dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat: What now for the humiliated Zelensky?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 1, 2025

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.

And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.

“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist ); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel ); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde ); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times ) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.

The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.

Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.

Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long ago have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.

In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.

And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.

The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.

Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.

The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.

Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.

Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.

There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.

Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.

It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.

The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.

What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump gives Zelensky bum’s rush and flushes the European ploy to escalate war against Russia

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2025

After his mauling from President Trump live on TV and then being booted out of the White House, Ukraine’s Zelensky immediately phoned European leaders.

That reaction shows that the Ukrainian actor-turned-president had flown to Washington from Kiev not to merely sign a supposed minerals deal with the U.S., but to inveigle Trump into a trap to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

No doubt there is consternation and alarm among the Europeans that their agenda for prolonging the war against Russia is in disarray. Worst still, a furious Trump may now cut Ukraine loose and leave it completely at the mercy of Russia.

European leaders are huddling in London on Sunday for an emergency meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Zelensky is to attend and be showered with European expressions of support and billions more of taxpayer money. Incredibly, they still champion the impudent conman as a “Churchillian hero”.

The fallout in the Oval Office on Friday was a sordid spectacle. Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, tore into Zelensky under the full glare of TV cameras for daring to make more demands for U.S. security guarantees as part of a deal giving American companies access to Ukraine’s alleged mineral wealth, including oil, gas and rare earth metals.

The meeting started cordially, but Trump refrained from giving specific “security guarantees” to Ukraine. Zelensky’s sniveling insistence on getting explicit U.S. commitments for military support following any peace deal with Russia triggered Trump and his officials to rebuke the Ukrainian leader for wrangling in public and not being respectful.

After their fireside fireworks, an incensed Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush. No minerals deal was signed and Zelensky left Washington empty handed. That’s not the end of it either. Trump later told reporters that Zelensky is not welcome back until he is ready to make the peace with Russia.

Trump was astute to the attempted rumble. He told reporters on the White House lawn following the slap-down of Zelensky: “We want peace. We’re not looking for somebody to sign up a strong power and then not make a peace deal because they feel emboldened. That’s what I saw happening. He wants to fight, fight, fight. I am not looking to get into anything protracted.”

Zelensky’s immediate phone calls to French President Emmanuel Macron and the NATO chief Mark Rutte after the White House fiasco is the big reveal here.

Days before Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday, European leaders had lobbied Trump for U.S. security guarantees as part of any peace deal with Russia.

Macron met Trump on Monday. On Thursday, it was Starmer’s turn to ingratiate with Trump. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas was also in Washington. Significantly, her meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was abruptly called off “due to scheduling issues.”

The main objective for Macron and Starmer was to extract a commitment from Trump for a military “backstop” in Ukraine to beef up their proposal to deploy French and British troops under the guise of “peacekeepers”.

The British wanted American “air cover” for their troops, according to the BBC.

Both Macron and Starmer were palmed away with vague nothings despite the bonhomie and compliments, and a British sweetener from King Charles to invite Trump on a royal visit.

Trump’s diplomatic overture to Russian President Vladimir Putin, beginning with a phone call on February 12 followed by a high-level meeting of U.S. and Russian diplomats in Saudi Arabia on February 18, has sent shockwaves across the European NATO members.

They feel aggrieved that Trump is going to make a peace deal with Putin without them. The Europeans are still beholden to the propaganda narrative of the previous Biden administration about “defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine from Russian aggression.”

Trump wants out of the extravagant mess in Ukraine. He recognizes that the conflict was always a proxy war with an ulterior agenda to defeat Russia. Hundreds of billions of dollars and euros have been wasted fueling a futile proxy war that, as it turns out, Russia is decisively winning.

Marco Rubio, the U.S. top diplomat, disclosed in an interview to CNN after the Oval Office spat, that a European foreign minister had told him that “their plan” was to keep the war in Ukraine going for another year in the hope that it would eventually “weaken Russia” and make Moscow “beg for peace.”

The callousness of the Europeans and their Russophobic obsession are grotesque. The three-year conflict in Ukraine has cost up to one million military deaths, millions of refugees across Europe, and broken economies, not to mention the danger of it turning into World War Three.

Sneakily, the Europeans are covering their desire for continuing the proxy war with a belated apparent concern for making peace and backing Trump’s diplomacy.

Macron and Starmer ostensibly commend Trump (after initially being in a flap over this call with Putin) and they talk about “finding a path to a lasting peace.”

However, their seeming offer of deploying French and British soldiers as “peacekeepers” is a Trojan Horse that has nothing to do with keeping the peace. For its part, Moscow has categorically stated that any NATO troops in Ukraine will not be acceptable and will be attacked as combatants.

That is why Macron, Starmer and other European leaders were so insistent on trying to get Trump to give “security guarantees”. The so-called American military “backstop” would be a way to escalate the proxy war against Russia.

Zelensky was in Washington on a mission to beguile Trump into giving a security guarantee while dangling the bait of a lucrative minerals deal.

It was reported that the Trump White House wanted to cancel the meeting for Friday before Zelensky departed from Ukraine on Thursday. But Macron intervened and implored Trump to go ahead with the reception.

Zelensky, having got used to being indulged with endless blank checks, thought he could wheedle more out of Trump than just a mining deal. He was expected to extract the direct U.S. military involvement that the European Russophobic leaders want. In that way, the proxy war would escalate and those riding the war-racket gravy train would continue to extort the world’s biggest security crisis.

Fortunately, Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush and flushed out the European ploy.

The irony is that Trump had earlier in the week lavished praise on Macron and Starmer, exalting France for being America’s “oldest ally” and Britain for its “special relationship”. Trump might want to radically revise those cliched notions.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ukrainian attack on TurkStream threatens Hungary’s sovereignty – FM

RT | March 1, 2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has condemned a recent drone attack on a compressor station of the TurkStream gas pipeline, labeling it an assault on his nation’s sovereignty due to the conduit’s critical role in its energy security.

Szijjarto’s comments came on Saturday after the Russian military reported thwarting a Ukrainian drone attack on the Russkaya compressor station on Friday night. This station is a critical facility for the TurkStream, also known as Turkish Stream, pipeline in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, serving as the point of exit on Russian soil for gas deliveries. The Defense Ministry stated that three drones were neutralized by air defense systems, preventing any damage to the station’s operations.

“The Turkish Stream pipeline is the guarantee of Hungary’s natural gas supply security; therefore, any potential disruption would seriously jeopardize our energy security,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook. “Energy security is a matter of sovereignty, and therefore this type of attack should be considered an attack on sovereignty.”

The pipeline, which has been operational since January 2020, delivers Russian natural gas to Turkish customers and several European countries, including Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece.

The Hungarian minister also called on the European Commission to clarify its stance on the matter, reminding it of its recent assurance that Ukraine would not target EU-bound infrastructure.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov informed Szijjarto about the attempted attack during a phone conversation initiated by Hungary, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. He explained the incident and its implications for the pipeline’s security.

The incident is not the first involving the facility. Back in January, Ukrainian forces attempted to attack it with nine kamikaze drones, according to the Russian military. All of the UAVs were intercepted, but debris from the explosions caused minor damage to the station.

Commenting on the incident at the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused Ukraine of engaging in acts of “energy terrorism.”

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump takes on the ‘collective west’

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 1, 2025

The dramatic scene in the Oval Office on Friday evening signals that  President Donald Trump is decoupling the US from the ‘forever war’ in Ukraine that his predecessor Joe Biden left behind. The war is poised to end with a whimper, but its ‘butterfly effect’ on our incredibly complex, deeply interconnected world will define European and international security for decades to come. 

The western media which is hostile toward Trump, have seized the opportunity to caricature him as an impulsive figure in a role reversal with Zelenskyy. In reality, though, Trump has been literally driven to this point by the Biden administration. 

The highly charged emotional reaction by the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen commiserating with President Zelensky speaks for itself: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Trump’s refusal to give Von der Leyen an appointment may partly explain her fury as a woman scorned. Truly, the ‘Collective West’ find themselves at a crossroads and do not know which road to take. Without US air cover and satellite inputs, western troop deployment in Ukraine will be impossible. Even French Emmanuel Macron would agree that his troops will be put through a meat grinder. 

Both Von der Leyen and Macron had a whale of a time as cheerleaders of Biden’s war but any further adventures in Ukraine will be suicidal, to put it mildly. Ukraine’s military will collapse if Trump freezes support. None of the European powers will risk a collision with Russia. 

Trump knows by now that the western narrative of Biden’s war is a load of bullshit peppered with falsehoods and outright lies, and that the war erupted only out of the diabolic western plot to poke the bear, which got provoked finally and hit out. 

The CIA’s coup in Kiev in February 2014 was a watershed event paving the way for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil. Indeed, terrible things happened, which have been shoved under the carpet — for instance, then German foreign minister (current president) Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s dubious links with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian groups who acted as storm troopers in the 2014 coup. Just think of the grotesqueness of it — a German social democrat patronising neo-Nazi groups!  

Most certainly, Trump knows that the US deep state had set in motion an agenda to destabilise the Russian Federation and dismember it as the unfinished business no sooner than the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Chechen War has no other explanation. In fact, Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding the insurgents. 

Again, the Bill Clinton administration floated the idea of NATO expansion as early as in 1994. It came out of the blue but was obviously a work in progress since the disbandment of the Soviet Union. By the mid-nineties, even Boris Yeltsin understood that he was played nicely. The return of Evgeny Primakov to the Kremlin and Yeltsin’s overture to Beijing were the surest signs of a course correction. 

Those familiar with Soviet history had known all along that Ukraine would be the theatre where the US would try to seal the fate of Russia. If further confirmation was needed, it came with the CIA’s colour revolution in Ukraine in 2003 where the election was rigged (as is happening in Romania today) and carried to a third round till the proxy emerged victorious and surely, Viktor Yushchenko brought the NATO membership issue to the table. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted that the alliance formally offered membership to Ukraine!       

Today, Britain’s MI6 calls the shots in Kiev. Zelenskyy admitted recently that much of the money given by Biden simply ‘disappeared’. Sordid tales of massive kickbacks and corruption are galore. Biden ignored them. The Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s cesspools is widely known. Contrary to his pledge earlier not to do so, Biden felt constrained finally to grant a presidential pardon to son Hunter Biden so that he wouldn’t end up in jail. 

Suffice to say, Zelensky’s ‘strategic defiance’ stems out of his quiet confidence that western leaders — starting with Boris Johnson and Biden — who have been fellow travellers in the gravy train during the past three years of the war are beholden to him till eternity. 

The axis between Zelensky and his European Union supporters is cajoling Trump, pressuring him and flattering him in turn to get him on board the bandwagon so that the war rolls on for another four years. Last week alone, the presidents of France and Poland and the British prime minister descended on the White House one after another seeking assurance that the war in Ukraine will continue. But Trump has refused to oblige.

Zelensky and his European backers want a ‘forever war’ in the western border lands of Eurasia, the traditional invasion route to Russia. And last week Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. He also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”

Trump repeated last week that the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” Basically, he realises that this is an unwinnable war, and is apprehensive that a prolonged war may transform into a quagmire sinking his presidency and derailing the grand bargain he hopes to strike with the two other superpowers, Russia and China, to create synergy for his ambitious MAGA project. 

Trump has chalked up 2026, the Quarter Millennial of the United States Declaration of Independence, for hosting the leaders of Russia and China on American soil to celebrate the high noon of his quest for world peace. The European political elites weaned on the liberal-globalist ‘rules-based order’ cannot understand Trump’s deep-rooted convictions and his abhorrence of war. 

The big question now is wether the unprecedented fracas in the White House yesterday could backfire on Zelensky, since Washington has significant leverage vis-a-vis Kiev and given the latter’s heavy dependence on the US for some of the critical elements of its defence.

Following the Oval Office argument, Zelenskyy has issued a lengthy statement admitting that it is “crucial” for Ukraine to have Trump’s support. A patch-up cannot be ruled out but the transatlantic system has received a big jolt, as the overwhelming majority of European countries have voiced support for Zelensky. In fact, there hasn’t been a solitary voice censuring Zelensky. Britain kept mum. Keir Starmer, UK prime minister is hosting a meeting of European leaders on Sunday which Zelensky is due to attend. It is unlikely that Europeans will push the envelope further   

In this dismal scenario, the best hope is that Zelensky’s ouster, which seems probable, will not be a violent bloody event, considering the power rivalries within the regime in Kiev. At any rate, his replacement may not be a terrible thing to happen since it would necessitate holding the long overdue election and lead to the emergence of a legitimate leadership in Kiev, which has now become a dire necessity for what Trump would call ‘common sense’ to prevail.  

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

German factories counting on return of Russian gas – Bloomberg

RT | March 1, 2025

Key German industrial leaders have expressed their desire to see Russian gas return to Europe once a resolution to the Ukraine conflict is found, Bloomberg has reported.

Chemical and manufacturing sector representatives argue that affordable energy is crucial for Germany’s economy to recover, the agency wrote on Friday.

European gas prices surged after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Pipeline gas imports from Russia mostly ceased due to sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. Nevertheless, EU nations have still been buying record volumes of Russian LNG, the cost of which has nearly quadrupled in three years, according to Eurostat.

Christian Gunther, managing director of the Leuna chemical park, emphasized that bringing back Russian gas would be a logical step if peace is achieved. “We must ensure the damage caused by this conflict is repaired,” he told Bloomberg, adding that resuming deliveries “would be the logical consequence.”

In 2021, Russian pipeline gas accounted for 32% of the total demand of the EU and UK, while Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its consumption, according to the European Council and Statista. Since cutting ties with Russian energy, the EU has turned to expensive LNG imports, primarily from the US. The shift has driven natural gas prices on the continent to their highest levels in two years, prompting discussions in Brussels about price caps. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has warned that soaring energy costs could cripple the EU economy.

The EU’s latest sanctions package, introduced on Monday, tightens restrictions on Russian energy but stops short of banning LNG imports. Gunther earlier criticized Germany’s energy policy, pointing out the inconsistency of banning Russian pipeline gas while still importing LNG.

Bloomberg reported that Sven Schulze, the economy minister of German’s Saxony-Anhalt state, believes permanently excluding Russian gas “would be a mistake.”

US President Donald Trump has been urging Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, warning that failure to do so could result in the loss of American support. On Friday, during a heated meeting at the Oval Office, Trump reportedly told Zelensky to leave the White House and return when he was ready to pursue peace.

Ukraine refused to extend its gas transit contract with Russia’s Gazprom beyond 2024, further reducing EU access to Russian pipeline gas. The only remaining supply flows through the TurkStream pipeline via Türkiye and Greece.

“We need peace to reopen pipelines, ensure supply security, and lower prices,” said Manuela Grieger, former chair of the workers union InfraLeuna, told Bloomberg. The EU has pledged to phase out Russian energy by 2027. Germany’s Economy Ministry insists that independence from Russian gas remains a priority for the country.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Israel pushes for six week ‘extension’ of Gaza ceasefire’s phase one

The Cradle | February 28, 2025

An Israeli delegation in Cairo is negotiating with mediators a potential extension for the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, according to Egyptian security officials cited by Reuters on 28 February.

“Hamas opposes the extension and insists on proceeding to the second phase of the deal as originally agreed,” the sources said. They added that Tel Aviv seeks to extend the first phase for another 42 days.

Israeli sources had previously told the British news outlet that Tel Aviv sought an extension and the release of three Israeli captives per week in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

According to a military source cited by Times of Israel, Tel Aviv “still prioritizes dismantling Hamas’s ability as an authority in Gaza.”

Hamas released a statement on Friday confirming “its full commitment to implementing all the terms of the agreement in all its stages and details.”

“We call on the mediators, guarantors, and the international community to pressure the Zionist occupation to fully commit to its role in the agreement and immediately enter the second phase of it without any hesitation or evasion,” it added.

US envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, is expected to travel to Israel on Sunday to negotiate an extension of the first phase of the ceasefire deal, which ends on 2 March. Tel Aviv has continuously delayed talks for phase two of the agreement.

Israel recently imposed new conditions on the Gaza ceasefire agreement, demanding a full disarmament of Hamas’s military wing.

According to reports, Israel is looking to violate the deal by maintaining its military presence along the Philadelphi Corridor on southern Gaza’s border with Egypt.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, said on Thursday that the corridor will remain “a buffer zone just as the case is in Lebanon and Syria.” Tel Aviv is also reportedly planning for a resumption of its brutal war against Gaza

A recent report by Haaretz says that “as far as [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is concerned, there is no second stage” of the deal.

The report says Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer recently told Witkoff that Netanyahu’s plan is to secure the release of all captives in a single stage, and that Hamas will receive prisoners in exchange. Otherwise, “Israel will return to intense warfare” and reimplement a “version” of the Generals’ Plan – which saw the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from north Gaza, the killing of thousands, and the destruction of the Gaza health sector.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Euro-Med Monitor documents ‘shocking’ crimes, torture against Palestinian prisoners

Press TV – February 28, 2025

An independent Geneva-based human rights organization says the tragic and shocking health condition of the Palestinian prisoners recently freed under the multistage ceasefire agreement with Hamas shows the Tel Aviv regime’s “ongoing use of torture to terrorize and persecute” them.

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said in a statement on Thursday that the traces of torture were evident on the prisoners’ frail bodies, reflecting the extent of the systematic crimes and inhumane treatment they endured, which exceeded all moral and legal boundaries.

“All evidence indicates that Israel continues to use torture as a weapon to intimidate and persecute prisoners and detainees and to break their will until the last moments of their detention,” the organization said.

The Switzerland-based group noted that its field team documented serious injuries among the prisoners and detainees, including amputations and severe swelling resulting from torture, in addition to extreme weakness and fatigue.

It added that the released prisoners revealed that they had been subjected to brutal beatings, abuse, and continuous threats right up to the last moments before their release, despite the lack of any specific charges against the majority of them.

The organization stressed that the brutal torture and deliberate medical neglect faced by prisoners and detainees have reached shocking levels that surpass all moral and legal limits.

It noted that Israel’s ongoing use of brutal torture and deliberate medical neglect against Palestinian prisoners and detainees proves its systematic intent to intimidate them and break their will.

The rights group emphasized that such actions constitute blatant war crimes and crimes against humanity, as reliable information has indicated the death of dozens of prisoners inside Israeli prisons and detention centers, while Israel continues to hide any data related to them.

It called on all concerned countries and organizations to take immediate and decisive action to stop these systematic crimes, underlining the need to intensify human rights and media efforts to highlight the suffering of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, and to work towards holding the occupiers accountable and forcing them to end these ongoing violations.

Israeli authorities released 641 Palestinian prisoners in the “Flood of Freedom” deal early on Thursday, as part of the ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreements with Hamas, after delaying their release for almost a week.

The physical status of the released prisoners showed that they had been deprived of adequate food throughout their detention, with testimonies confirming that they received minimal amounts of food, while some were denied food and sleep as a form of harsh and deliberate punishment.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

US State Department slashes USAID assistance to Ukraine – NBC

RT | Marh 1, 2025

The US State Department has terminated a US Agency for International Development (USAID) initiative for a large-scale effort to restore Ukraine’s energy grid, which has been severely damaged by Russian strikes, NBC News reported on Friday, citing sources.

USAID, Washington’s primary agency for funding political projects abroad, found itself in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump shortly after taking office, accusing it of corruption and inefficiency. He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the State Department.

As part of the crackdown, the State Department not only stopped a USAID program that invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine’s power grid, but also sharply reduced the agency’s footprint in Ukraine, the network said.

Before the reported cuts, 64 American government employees and contractors were on the ground supporting the agency’s mission; now only eight are expected to remain, with the Trump administration placing the remaining USAID personnel on administrative leave and ordering all but “critical” staff to return to the US, NBC reported.

”It significantly undercuts this administration’s abilities to negotiate on the ceasefire, and it’d signal to Russia that we don’t care about Ukraine or our past investments,” a USAID official working on the Ukraine mission told the outlet, adding that the decision would significantly undermine the country’s economic resilience.

In 2024 alone, USAID allocated $825 million to support Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The move comes as Russia continues to carry out drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s defense-linked energy infrastructure to undermine the country’s military effort, resulting in recurring rolling blackouts. Moscow insists that it never targets civilians.

The timing of the reported USAID pullout coincides with a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in the White House, in which the US president accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the substantial aid provided to Kiev, and of being unwilling to negotiate an end to the conflict with Russia. As a result of the heated exchange between the two sides, an agreement granting the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources as compensation for past aid was not signed.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Trump and Zelensky Clash in the Oval Office

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | February 28, 2025

The disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates why sensitive diplomacy should be done behind closed doors and not in front of the public. At such press conferences, one speaks to both the leader of the other country and the public. Both Zelensky and Trump escalated the rhetoric as they were in front of the cameras to win over the public and not appear weak. The need to prioritise the public as the main audience is a wider problem for diplomacy as, for example, the Europeans have for three years refused to engage in basic diplomacy with Russia (that could have reduced the risk of nuclear war) because it can “legitimise” Putin in the eyes of the public. The immense focus on narrative control in international politics makes it even more important to defend diplomacy.

The Trump-Zelensky meeting was predictably sensitive, as the issue of security guarantees had not been resolved before the press conference. Subsequently, the press conference became a battleground to win over the public. The purpose of the meeting was to sign an agreement that would give the US significant control over Ukraine’s natural resources, yet the document prepared in advance was deliberately vague. Trump was confident that Zelensky would fall in line as the US enjoys overwhelming leverage, while Zelensky had hoped to pressure Trump into offering security guarantees in return for the resources.

A security guarantee would pull the US into a direct war with Russia if a future peace agreement broke down. Such a security guarantee would deter Russia from breaking the ceasefire, yet it would also incentivise Ukraine to restart the fighting as the US would then be pulled into the war on the side of Ukraine to assist with reconquering lost territories. A likely outcome would be World War III with a possible nuclear exchange.

The visits by Macron and Starmer in the days before Zelensky’s arrival were also intended to prevent the US from decoupling itself from the conflict by obtaining US security guarantees. Europe cannot send troops into Ukraine without the promise of a US military “backstop”. Macron and Starmer probably also wanted to shower Trump with flattery to warm him up before Zelensky visited with economic incentives to get the US entangled in the war. The appeal to Trump’s vanity and greed did not work, as Trump seems to recognise that the war has been lost and that nuclear war is a growing possibility in the absence of peace negotiations.

The positive outcome of this very undiplomatic confrontation is that Zelensky may abandon his delusions. The Biden administration and the Europeans have been stringing along Ukraine for more than a decade on a path to its destruction. Trump and Vance seemed genuinely bewildered that Zelensky would not change course as his country is obliterated. The Europeans’ promises of NATO membership, return of territories and ironclad security guarantees are presented as expressions of support, but in reality they are fantasies to uphold dangerous delusions. NATO lost the proxy war in Ukraine, and there are no good solutions left. However, this should not have been done in public.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 2 Comments

Interview with Romanian Investigative Journalist, Iosefina Pascal

“People’s trust in public institutions has been destroyed”

Hungarian Conservative | February 15, 2025

Romania has been in a political crisis since the presidential elections were suspended at the end of last year. So far, the Constitutional Court of Romania has not presented any evidence to justify the act. Why do you think the elections were actually suspended?

Romania is in a deep political, social, and economic crisis. The causes are manifold, but the chaos was installed when the presidential elections were cancelled while the people were voting. Without a shred of evidence.

The people’s trust in public institutions has been destroyed. People lost faith in the justice system, which should have sanctioned this undemocratic decision. All of this destabilizes the country and serves hostile interests. In other words, both the so-called ‘judges’ of the Constitutional Court of Romania and the director of this coup, Klaus Iohannis, have served foreign interests rather than the national interest.

They cancelled the elections because none of the candidates from the governing coalition made it to the second round, as was indicated by most polls. They cancelled the elections because they realized that Romanians voted against this coalition, against the political establishment blindly subservient to the EU. They cancelled the elections because they wanted to set an example with Romania for the other EU states so they would not choose the ‘wrong candidate’.

Q: Do you think they will let Georgescu run again? If so, it wouldn’t make sense since who would let a candidate run again who supposedly, according to the Constitutional Court of your country, has had foreign interference?

Given the latest actions, described by some lawyers and analysts as political persecution launched against the collaborators and supporters of Călin Georgescu, it is clear that now they are trying to ‘produce’ evidence to justify the cancellation of the elections and the prohibition of Călin Georgescu’s candidacy.

Considering that I have proven in my investigations that several so-called judges of the Constitutional Court of Romania have worked for NGOs funded by Soros, anything is possible.

Given the people’s absolutely low trust level in the judicial system and public institutions, any scenario in which Georgescu is banned, arrested, or harassed with criminal investigations would only paint him as a martyr.

A scenario in which Călin Georgescu would not be allowed to run in the presidential elections would be an explosive one, again giving other countries the platform to ban candidates and parties simply because they pose a threat to the positions and businesses of the globalist political establishment.

Q: Iohannis resigned this week. Why do you think he did it now and not when it was his turn, or why didn’t he wait until the May elections?

Given the sudden disappearance of intelligence agency reports of alleged ‘foreign interference’ and ‘cyber attacks’ after the abrupt resignation of illegitimate President Klaus Iohannis, I am considering two options.

First, he resigned now because he needed time to actually hide those reports on which the illegal annulment of the elections was based. This was to prevent them from falling into the hands of the future President elected by the people and exposing his strategy of cancelling 9 million votes in December.

Second, he resigned now because he was about to be removed through a parliamentary procedure that was due to be approved on the day of his resignation, which would have meant he would lose all the financial benefits that a former president has, according to Romanian law.

In fact, both scenarios could be valid simultaneously.

Q: Do you think the Constitutional Court will reverse its decision and return to the second round that should have happened in the country?

Regardless of who else resigns, be it the Prime Minister or even the judges of the Constitutional Court, people need answers, and, more importantly, they want the second round of the elections to resume.

Technically and legally speaking, the Constitutional Court can reverse its own decision; it did so when it decided to annul the presidential elections, reversing its previous decision, which validated the first round of the elections. Will they do it? I don’t know. These judges have skeletons in their closets, as I said, and have total contempt for the people; Klaus Iohannis decorated them, interestingly enough, the day before he resigned. The conclusion is that they have been ‘rewarded’ for the chaos into which they have plunged Romania.

Q: In the last weeks you have been investigating the USAID scandal, which has affected Central and Eastern Europe and Romania. What did you find regarding Romania?

I’ve uncovered an extensive and well-coordinated network of so-called ‘independent’ NGOs and publications. This network had the same funding and the same goal. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of euros directly and illegally allocated by the European Commission and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from USAID.

As for the European funding, this took the form of grants from the EU directly from taxpayers’ money to NGOs, mainstream publications and ‘independent’ publications. The goal was to promote left-wing globalist politics and to manipulate public opinion through the so-called fight against disinformation, especially during election campaigns, promoting gender ideology, combating any national and conservative values, and labelling conservative parties, journalists, publications, and activists as ‘Russia’s people’. The EU had developed a complex funding mechanism for these entities, which completely lacked transparency and operated under the cover of excessive bureaucracy. Therefore, my work to expose these matters in detail was titanic.

As for the entities funded by USAID, here we’re talking about a network consisting of several large NGOs that funded smaller NGOs with the same goals, including campaigning against sovereignist leaders like Trump, Orban, Georgescu, etc.

Q: In the course of these investigations, you have also looked at what the European Union does with its funds and found many subsidies to NGOs, journalists, international news agencies… What is the biggest scandal you have discovered?

The most serious case so far is that of the secret contract signed by Ursula von der Leyen, similar to the secret Pfizer contract, through which the European Commission awarded 130 million euros to a French advertising agency (involved in a corruption criminal case along with Emmanuel Macron) before the 2024 European Parliament elections. This French advertising agency was also involved in the 2019 campaign.

The 130 million euros it received were distributed to major media outlets and NGOs to promote the work of European bureaucrats in a favourable light and, more importantly, to stop any criticism and negative information about the EU.

In short, we have the first proof that we can no longer talk about independent media in the EU but about media mercenaries who run pieces for the highest bidder. And we are the ones who have been unknowingly funding these media mercenaries.

Iosefina Pascal is a 32-year-old, conservative Romanian investigative journalist. She works tirelessly and independently to get information in her country that the institutional media are keeping quiet. She started working as an independent online journalist in 2018 when the Soros-backed protests shook her country. Since 2020 she has been collaborating with various Romanian TV and radio stations.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries