New York Times On Climate Change: Two Candidates For Quote Of The Day
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | May 21, 2025
Over at the New York Times today, print edition, there is a big front page article documenting how their side is losing the latest battle in the climate wars. The headline is “U.S. Embraces Climate Denial In Science Cuts.” (online headline somewhat different). Also in the Times today (online version) is a feature called “Quote of the Day.” Today’s “quote of the day,” as selected by the Times, is taken from the “climate denial” article just previously linked. Here it is:
“It’s as if we’re in the Dark Ages.”
This quote is attributed to one Rachel Cleetus, identified as senior policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But then, if you take some time to read the article, you come to what I would propose as another excellent candidate for quote of the day. It’s from Brooke Rollins, recently confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture in the Trump administration. Here it is:
“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.”
The focus of the article is what the Times calls “getting rid of data.” In Times spin, the purpose is to “halt the national discussion about how to deal with global warming.” But what kind of “data” are we talking about here? The article is short on specifics as to which exact data series are being cut back or eliminated, let alone whether those series are accurate or useful. But there is enough to give you a general idea:
In recent weeks, more than 500 people have left the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government’s premier agency for climate and weather science. . . . NOAA also stopped monthly briefing calls on climate change, and the president’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for the agency’s weather and climate research. The administration has purged the phrases “climate crisis” and “climate science” from government websites.
Ah, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). They’re the people who, via their branch called NCEI, put out the so-called “surface temperature” series that have been systematically altered to create a falsely-enhanced warming trend to support regular claims of “warmest day/month/year ever.” This is the subject of my now 33-part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”
Let me remind you of the basics of the temperature-alteration scam: (1) the surface temperature records as presented by NOAA/NCEI are not raw instrumental data, but rather have been altered, (2) NOAA admits that it alters the records, (3) NOAA gives seemingly-plausible reasons for altering the records (e.g., to account to station moves and instrument changes), (4) however, the alterations as implemented are not associated with any specific issues like station moves and instrument changes, and (5) the alterations systematically enhance the reported warming trend and are used to support the “climate crisis” narrative. For more detail, go to Part XXXIII of the “Greatest Scientific Fraud” series. Here are just a couple of backup points in case you are skeptical:
-
As to whether NOAA alters the raw data, from ABC News, February 25, 2025, “Yes, NOAA adjusts its historical weather data: Here’s why.” Excerpt: “When digging into conspiracies claiming that the federal agency “manipulates” its historical weather data, ABC News chief meteorologist and chief climate correspondent Ginger Zee was able to confirm that it was true — but that the routine, public adjustments to records happen for good reason. . . . NCEI [a branch of NOAA] adjusts weather data to account for factors like instrument changes, station relocation and urbanization, and it does so through peer-reviewed studies that are published through its federal website.”
-
As to whether the data alterations implemented by NOAA/NCEI can be tied to any specific legitimate bases like station moves or instrumentation changes, I cite a 2022 article by O’Neill, et al. (17 co-authors) from the journal Atmosphere, title “Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset.” I couldn’t get a pithy quote from the article, but here is my summary: “[The authors attempt] to reverse-engineer the adjustments to figure out what NCEI is doing, and particularly whether NCEI is validly identifying station discontinuities, such as moves or instrumentation changes, that might give rise to valid adjustments. The bottom line is that the adjusters make no attempt to tie adjustments to any specific event that would give rise to legitimate homogenization, and that many of the alterations appear ridiculous and completely beyond justification. . . .” There is much, much more detail if you follow the links.
It is not clear from the Times article whether the 500 recent departures from NOAA include the people who have been carrying out this temperature alteration scam. If those people aren’t gone yet, with any luck they will be soon; and maybe we’ll even get some details of how they have been practicing their dark arts.
Meanwhile, back in the world of climate reality, the Real Clear Foundation on Monday (May 19) held something they called the “Energy Future Forum.” Conference co-chairs David DesRosiers and Mark Mills gave opening key-notes. Kevin Killough of Just the News published a summary of the conference on May 20. From DesRosiers’ remarks:
“I think we’ve gone from scarcity to abundance — from the green gospel of scarcity and its Trinitarian ESG god — to the promised land of abundance guided by the values of affordability and reliability,” David DesRosiers, conference co-chair and founder of the RealClear Foundation, said.
And from Mills:
While many tech companies, such as Microsoft, embraced net-zero goals, Mills explained that the energy demands of data centers forced companies to contend with the reality that although fashionable in some circles, intermittent wind and solar power are not adequate. “Eventually, reality rears its ugly head, and we recalibrate around what reality permits,” Mills said.
Bottom line: the Times can scream all it wants, but the world is moving on. From my point of view, it can’t happen too fast.
London Times Condemns Shadow Censorship While Quietly Endorsing Selective Speech Control
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 25, 2025
The London Times editorial board recently delivered a pointed critique of groups like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), accusing them of acting as “self-appointed censors” who operate “in the shadows” and pose a “threat to free speech.”
Yet, in the same breath, the Times reveals its own willingness to endorse a selective approach to censorship, so long as the targets align with its own criteria.
While the editorial draws a firm line between malicious falsehoods and legitimate dissent, it doesn’t reject censorship outright.
Instead, it carves out an exception: “harmful disinformation, such as a doctored video designed to cause distress or inflame tensions, is one thing; legitimate journalism seeking to question the status quo is quite another.”
That distinction may sound reasonable on the surface, but it hinges entirely on who gets to decide what counts as “harmful.” In practice, this gives room for silencing speech under subjective definitions, provided those definitions align with elite sensibilities.
The Global Disinformation Index, a little-known nonprofit founded in 2018, has taken it upon itself to grade news organizations based on vague notions of “trustworthiness.”
Its reports, which have been used to influence online advertising decisions, can financially strangle outlets by placing them on exclusion lists. Once flagged, a publication can see its ad revenue evaporate as advertisers steer clear, often without the public, or the publication, ever knowing why.
Their influence far exceeds that of traditional editors or publishers, largely because they operate through algorithms and financial incentives, targeting revenue rather than content directly.
The Times editorial stops short of fully embracing the principle of open inquiry. While decrying the secrecy and self-importance of outfits like the GDI, it leaves the door open to censorship, provided it’s targeted at the content they believe crosses an undefined line into “harm.”
This undermines the editorial’s own warning about the chilling effect of selective enforcement. Once any authority is granted the power to judge truth in service of suppressing it, the essential freedom of press and expression is already compromised.
By calling for protection of “legitimate journalism” while conceding the need to crack down on “harmful disinformation,” the Times falls into the same trap it criticizes. It grants a moral and editorial license to define acceptability, not based on transparency, accountability, or open debate, but on perceived intent and potential impact. The risk, as always, is that this standard will be wielded not to protect the public, but to shield the powerful.
Do You Condemn October 7? China Says “No”

By Mike Whitney • Unz Review • May 25, 2025
China has never explicitly condemned the attacks of October 7. In China’s view, October 7 can’t be separated from the more than seven decades of Israeli brutality, apartheid and occupation. Naturally, this has drawn harsh criticism from Israel which expressed its “deep disappointment” over China’s refusal to repudiate Hamas. Even so, China has not caved in to Israeli pressure or softened its rhetoric. Quite the contrary, on February 22, 2024, Ma Xinmin—a legal advisor to China’s Foreign Ministry and a member of the International Law Commission—summarized China’s views of Hamas’ activities during a presentation to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Here’s part of what he said:
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights. The right to self-determination served as the precise legal foundation for this struggle. MEMRI
The fact that China chose a legal scholar—who is a member of the International Law Commission—to argue their case, underscores the importance China places on the broader legal issue of whether the Hamas attack was justifiable under international law. Ma concludes that the attack was not only justifiable, but that the militants involved in the attack had an “inalienable right” to conduct operations that were aimed at ending the Israeli occupation. Here’s Ma:
“The Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right …. The struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terrorism.” MEMRI
Ma’s statement should not be construed as support for the injuring or killing of innocent civilians. It is, however, a powerful defense of the right of persecuted people to participate in armed struggle against their oppressors.
Most readers don’t know that China resisted Israel’s coercion and defended international law as it relates to the October 7 attacks. They don’t know that China took a stand on a matter of principle and never flinched. Of course, most people don’t realize that of the 195 countries in the world, only 13 officially designate Hamas as a “terrorist organization”. Many believe that the terrorist moniker is applied universally and that the rest of humanity see the world through the same distorted lens as people in America. But they don’t. They see Hamas as a national liberation movement that was duly elected to govern Gaza in 2006 following “free and fair” elections that were forced on the Palestinians by the Bush administration. Now Hamas is being used as the pretext for the slaughter women and children in Gaza on an industrial scale. Most Western leaders have expressed their support for Israel’s 18-month bloodbath, while China has not only opposed it but also defended the Palestinians right to armed struggle. Here’s Professor Richard Falk, a leading scholar in international law and former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine:
“The right of resistance was affirmed during the decolonization process in the 1980s and 1990s, and this included the right to armed resistance. However, this resistance is subject to compliance with international laws of war.”
Even the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
Israel does not comply with international laws of war—for example, the entire situation in Gaza is one of the most flagrant violations of Israel’s complete disregard, not only for the laws of war, but for the entire apparatus of international and humanitarian laws.
Palestinians, on the other hand, who are in a permanent state of self-defense, are driven by a different set of values than Israel. One is that they are fully aware of the need to maintain moral legitimacy in their methods of resistance….
“To the extent that there is real evidence of atrocities accompanying the October 7 attack, those would constitute violations, but the attack itself is something that, in context, appears entirely justifiable and long overdue,” Falk said. Palestine Chronicle
This is why Israel has fabricated so many stories about beheaded babies, mass rape and the killing of innocent civilians. The intention is to persuade the public that October 7 was not a legitimate expression of political resistance but a wanton act of terror aimed at ordinary people. Western analysts typically focus on fake atrocities that are used to drown out any reasonable discussion about historic oppression or political realities. Here’s Falk again:
One of the tactics used by the West and Israel has been to almost succeed in decontextualizing October 7 so that it appears to have come out of the blue... The UN Secretary-General was even defamed as an antisemite for merely pointing out the most obvious fact—that there had been a long history of abuse of the Palestinian people leading up to it,” he added, referring to Antonio Guterres’ simply stating that October 7 “did not happen in a vacuum”. (Palestine Chronicle)
“Decontextualizing October 7”?
Precisely. The case for genocide is made on the basis that October 7 can be removed from its broader historical “context” and seen as a “stand alone” event that requires a particularly violent response. But October 7 is not a stand-alone event; it is the unavoidable explosion of collective resistance to decades of ethnic hatred and brutality aimed at a particular people who have been stripped of their civil rights and left to languish in an apartheid state. Here’s Ma again:
“Our state is obliged to promote the realization of the right to self-determination and to refrain from any forceful action, which deprives people of that right. In pursuit of their right to self-determination, these people have the right to engage in struggles, seek and receive support on the basis of that right….
“Numerous UN General Assembly resolutions recognize the legitimacy of struggle by all available means, including armed struggle, by peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation, to realize the right to self-determination.
MEMRI
Naturally, Ma’s speech has largely been blacked out in the western media where anything that doesn’t jibe with the Israeli narrative (that October 7 was an act of terrorism) winds up “on the cutting room floor”. We are confident that if Ma’s powerful moral statement was more widely circulated, Israel’s support in the US would crumble.
China Offers To Rebuild Gaza
China has supported every UN Resolution aimed at providing humanitarian relief to the people in Gaza. They have been staunch supporters of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution from the beginning. They have repeatedly called for an end to the fighting and an immediate ceasefire. They have even met with leaders of Hamas and Fatah (in April and July 2024) to see if reconciliation between the two groups was possible in order to promote Palestinian unity. Finally, China has repeatedly offered to “rebuild Gaza” following the end of hostilities which underscores Beijing’s commitment to an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel.
At every opportunity, China has supported policies aimed at de-escalation, reconciliation and peace. They have exhibited the type of ‘moral clarity’ and moral leadership we would like to see from the United States but never do. It is China’s moral clarity that “guides its decisions, even in complex or ambiguous situations, without being swayed by competing interests or relativism. It’s about aligning actions with a consistent moral framework, often rooted in universal values like honesty, fairness, or compassion.”
Israel’s savagery in Gaza suggests that the West is in a state of irreversible moral collapse. We should be grateful that China is stepping in to fill the void and lead the world into the next century.
On one of the most consequential issues of our time, China has come down on the side of decency and humanity.
Israel’s deadly aid plan for Gaza delayed due to ‘logistical issues’
The Cradle | May 25, 2025
The Israeli and US-led aid distribution mechanism, which was meant to be launched on 25 May, has been delayed, as UN agencies continue to reject participation in the controversial plan.
Correspondent for Israel’s Channel 12, Tamir Morag, confirmed the new postponement of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). He also accused Hamas of looting humanitarian aid, a claim repeated by Israel, which the UN says there is no evidence for.
Security sources cited in other Hebrew media reports say the UN has doubled down on its rejection of the aid distribution plan, and that “logistical issues” have delayed its launch.
This comes after Israeli media cited suppliers as saying last week that nobody is able to fulfill the plan’s “huge” requirements.
GHF was conceived at the very start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. While US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said when the plan was unveiled this month that it would be “inaccurate” to call it an “Israeli plan,” the project has its roots in Tel Aviv.
According to the New York Times, the details of the plan were first discussed by a group of officials and businesspeople with ties to the Israeli government, called the Mikveh Yisrael Forum, who came up with an idea that aims to bypass the UN and all other humanitarian groups in Gaza.
The Washington Post reports that the initiative’s planning documents anticipated the widespread condemnation and likening of the plan’s distribution centers to “concentration camps with biometrics.”
Even some within the Israeli military establishment have questioned whether the plan could potentially lead to chaos, the report says.
GHF relies on the use of private US contractors who will be in charge of several distribution centers in south and central Gaza. Palestinians in other areas who have had their homes destroyed and have already been displaced multiple times will have to travel across the strip under bombardment to secure aid, while forfeiting the right to return home.
The UN has said the mechanism is designed to reinforce Israel’s plan to displace Gaza’s entire population southward.
It has also condemned Israel’s plan to employ facial recognition technology aimed at screening Palestinians in exchange for humanitarian aid.
“It appears the design of a plan presented by Israel to the humanitarian community will increase ongoing suffering of children and families in the Gaza Strip … The use of humanitarian aid as a bait to force displacement, especially from the north to the south, will create this impossible choice: a choice between displacement and death,” UNICEF spokesperson James Elder said earlier this month.
Gaza’s Government Media Office warned on Saturday that the levels of aid currently entering the strip are less than one percent of what the population needs.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to target Palestinian security officers guarding aid and preventing it from being looted by Israeli-backed gangs.
According to multiple reports, ISIS-linked gang leader Abu Shabab, responsible for the looting of aid under Israeli protection throughout the war, has now “established a fortified base in an Israeli-controlled zone in Rafah.”
Israeli settlers escalate violence, forced displacement across occupied West Bank

Photo credit: AFP via Getty Images
The Cradle | May 25, 2025
The last few days have witnessed a dangerous escalation of violence, theft, and vandalism against Palestinians by illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Settlers attacked Palestinians in the Al-Auja Waterfall area in Jericho on 25 May for the third time in one day, as part of ongoing efforts to displace families who have lived in the area for decades and establish a new illegal settlement outpost.
This came a day after settlers, under the protection of the Israeli army, cut off the water supply to the area.
In the Salim plain east of the occupied city of Nablus, settlers also continued to set fire to wheat fields on Sunday, coinciding with separate attacks on Palestinian livestock herders in the northern Jordan Valley area.
On Saturday, at least 40 dunams of wheat fields in the village of Sebastia near Nablus were set ablaze by illegal settlers.
“The colonists came from the Shavei Shomron settlement and a newly established outpost in the area. The arson targeted farmland in the village’s plain, destroying crops owned by local Palestinian residents,” Mohammad Azem, head of the Sebastia municipality, told WAFA news agency on 24 May.
Large amounts of crops were totally destroyed, decimating the livelihoods of the local Palestinian landowners.
At least 70 olive trees belonging to a Palestinian farmer in Hebron were uprooted by settlers on the same day.
The attacks on Saturday came as Israeli occupation troops carried out a large-scale arrest campaign across the West Bank.
Last week, around 150 Palestinians were forced by settlers to leave the village of Mughayyir al-Deir east of Ramallah, following the establishment of a new illegal outpost there and five days of attacks and intimidation.
Settlers harassed Palestinian men while they were dismantling the metal and wooden frameworks of their houses and preparing to evacuate. One of the attackers was Elisha Yered, a member of the extremist Hilltop Youth group who is subject to UK and EU sanctions for numerous crimes against Palestinians.
“This is what redemption looks like! This is a relatively large outpost that contained about 150 people from the enemy population, but it was broken,” he boasted.
Just four days ago, settlers under army protection attacked Palestinians and set fire to homes and vehicles in the town of Bruqin in the northern West Bank. Bruqin and the nearby village of Kafr al-Dik have been under a tight army siege and continuous attacks since the killing of a settler in a shooting on a settlement in the area earlier this month.
Illegal land grabs and expansion of settlements have continued brazenly by the Israeli government, in stark violation of international law.
The UN Human Rights Office noted in a report in March that there has been a significant expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territory, citing reports from Israeli NGOs indicating that tens of thousands of new housing units are scheduled to be built in new or existing settlements.
Since the start of this year, Israeli occupation forces have been been carrying out a deadly military operation and siege against several West Bank cities. The operation began on 21 January and was dubbed Iron Wall.
According to the UN, at least 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced from their homes, as Israel continues to systematically demolish Palestinian houses in the refugee camps of Jenin and Tulkarem.
Will the international community rethink its support for Israel’s security narrative?
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | May 24, 2025
Earlier this week, Israel fired warning shots at an international diplomatic delegation in the occupied West Bank. According to the Israeli military, the delegation “deviated from the approved route and entered an area where they were not authorised to be”. The delegation was visiting the Jenin refugee camp, which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have targeted in a bid to extinguish the Palestinian anti-colonial resistance. Over 22,000 Palestinians have been displaced from Jenin.
The diplomatic delegation was targeted just a day after the EU said it would be reviewing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. In response to the Israeli military’s actions, several governments spoke up immediately, condemning the threat to the diplomats’ lives and asking for immediate investigations. Diplomats, after all, have diplomatic immunity, as UN spokesperson Stephanie Dujarric swiftly reminded. “Diplomats who are doing their work should never be shot at, attacked in any way, shape or form,” Dujarric stated.
But what governments and UN representatives are leaving out is the fact that diplomats witnessed Israel’s security narrative in action against them. Israel’s action was not a mere breach of diplomatic immunity. It was a taste of what the settler-colonial entity feels entitled to impart to anyone who oversteps its imagined boundaries.
The question is, therefore, how far has the international community normalised Israel’s security narrative? The answer will give an idea of how far reaching Israel perceives its security narrative to be.
When the international community upholds Israel’s purported right to defend itself, it automatically applies Israel’s security narrative against the Palestinians who have the right to resist colonisation by all means. The same warped politics was applied to the genocide in Gaza since October 2023.
But Israel internationalised its security narrative. It exported the narrative to all corners of the world, marketed it when the US embarked on its War on Terror, and consolidated the principle through the sales of military and surveillance technology. The UN endorsed it at a global level; individual countries followed suit. Diplomacy became beholden to Israel’s security narrative, as did the Palestinian right of return, the two-state paradigm and even mere symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state. The EU’s illusory state-building, associated with the PA and the occupied West Bank, was also controlled by Israel’s security narrative. As were the EU’s infrastructure and development projects, many of which were destroyed by Israel under the pretext of security. When diplomats and UN personnel were refused entry by Israel, international condemnation was softer than a lullaby. And when Israel’s targeted assassinations involved violating other nations’ sovereignty, Israel’s security narrative took precedence. After all, Israel had a reason that the international community pledged to support – the complete colonisation of Palestine.
Through complicity and silence, the international community enabled a colonial ideology to shape all political and humanitarian initiatives. By enabling and being complicit in colonisation, the international community assumed immunity from Israel’s bullets. But nothing and no one is immune in a colonial framework.
Of course, the countries whose diplomats were targeted in Jenin are expected to take care of their own. But have world leaders paused to realise that ignoring or normalising the consequences of Israel’s security narrative can spill out to endanger the entire world?
Unlike the limits within which Palestinian anti-colonial resistance fights its battle, Israel has embroiled the entire world in its colonial violence and genocide. Israel presented Palestinians as a threat to its colonial establishment that must be annihilated. To promote its security narrative, Israel equated the Palestinian people with international terror. It sold genocide in Gaza as moral and the world acquiesced. After Gaza, does the international community really think that Israel will shy away from firing at diplomats?
We must also take note of the fact that Israel fired warning shots at diplomats in the occupied West Bank, which is the international community’s playground when it comes to its donor funding schemes. Far removed from Gaza, the international community would have us believe, simply because of its investments which create an illusion of prosperity. It only took a few Israeli bullets targeting international diplomats for governments to shatter the illusion they promote.
Will the international community now pause to at least rethink who Israel considers an enemy? Alongside Palestinians, UN personnel have been killed in Gaza, as have humanitarian workers. Yet even in these cases, the international community was more concerned with enabling Israel to continue its genocide. Besides normalising Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the deliberate, targeted killing of international aid workers, despite the initial outcry, was also normalised as collateral damage.
Without safeguarding Palestinians from genocide and all forms of Israel colonial violence, the international community’s safety will be breached over and over again. And while international safety is gradually eroded, Palestinians are being murdered, forcibly displaced and ethnically cleansed, in the name of security.
Israel’s security narrative is a dangerous spectrum that must be seen as a whole. To see the entirety of it, the international community must turn its attention to the colonised Palestinian population, who have been beaten, shot at, detained, tortured and murdered, merely for inhabiting their own land. Not by sending delegations on exploitative tours that do nothing to end colonialism, but by protecting Palestinians and their anti-colonial resistance.
Can the international community at least acknowledge that, despite the support it has given to Israel, it finds itself in a position where power and vulnerability meet in a space that is still controlled by Israel and its colonial violence? How profitable is it to support the colonisation of Palestine and the genocide of its people, when Israel’s aggression against the international community remains unacknowledged except through stale condemnations?
A breach of diplomatic immunity is an offence. Genocide is a war crime. This is the spectrum that Israel’s security narrative dominates, financed by the same governments who paid money into colonisation and genocide. The only difference is that the international community endorses the illusion of a single enemy as fabricated by Israel – the Palestinians – even though Israel targets anything and anyone standing in its way. Israel is a threat to security, but unfortunately for Palestinians and the rest of the world, it doesn’t stand alone.
SignalGate 2.0 and the Casual Indifference to War
By Abigail R. Hall | Independent Institute | May 23, 2025
We recently learned that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared details of impending drone strikes on Yemen in a group chat with his wife, brother and personal attorney. If this story sounds familiar, it’s because it comes just weeks after national security leaders—including Hegseth—accidentally added Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat.
The outrage is understandable. Why were military plans shared on an unsecured channel? Were U.S. personnel put at risk? Why did the president not respond strongly to this apparent breach? And of course, the attempted cover-up is making headlines, too.
Something else strikes me. Few seem angry that the government conducts offensive military operations in a country with which we are not formally at war. Headline after headline emphasizes the leaking of war plans—not the “war” itself.
I’ve studied conflict for over a decade. From terrorism and counterterrorism to the development of drone technology and how foreign intervention alters domestic institutions, I know what war does. It kills. It destroys property and devastates economies. It enables people to do the unthinkable—to rape, torture, maim children, and use them as soldiers. War destroys.
Yet, our secretary of defense tells his brother about coming strikes with the same gravity as he’d relay his grocery list.
What’s equally jarring is the public reaction. People aren’t aghast that U.S. drones are killing people in Yemen. People aren’t batting an eye over officials bypassing Congress’s war powers.
We are more concerned about the data leak than about what the data contains.
This indifference isn’t new. In my research, I’ve documented how Americans have become desensitized to war. We’ve been in some state of conflict for more than 93 percent of the calendar years between 1775 and 2018.
I’ve studied how the typical American is constantly exposed to pro-military, pro-U.S. foreign policy messaging. For example, television shows and movies are often subject to editorial review by the Department of Defense in exchange for using military hardware and personnel. We see that messaging in sports, too. In football, we have “bombs,” “blitzes” and “trenches” around the line of scrimmage. We “blow away” the opposing team. We have military homecomings on the pitcher’s mound or centerfield and celebrate without ever asking why our military personnel are deployed in the first place.
Meanwhile, modern technology allows us to easily wash our hands of misgivings.
Drone technology lets officials sell us on the supposed—and false—“surgical precision” of drone strikes, effectively sanitizing the violence. We “eliminate” or “neutralize” “high-value targets” and “combatants.” Never mind that intelligence failures are common and that many of those “combatants” were labeled as such because they happened to be “military-aged males,” or MAM. In other words, they were males aged 14-65 in a strike zone. And what of the civilians, the women and the children? Unfortunate “collateral damage.”
As a result, most of us don’t recognize America’s massive military boot print. How many Americans know the United States operates 750 military bases in more than 70 countries? How many know about the U.S. drone strikes conducted in the last five years in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and across Africa? Hundreds of civilians were killed.
For too long, we’ve failed to ask policymakers and ourselves the hard questions. We don’t need to ask about the leaks; we need to ask about the normalization of perpetual war. We need to ask about the moral costs of our government’s actions and about whether our proactive, military-forward policy is truly in our best interests.
US de facto financing persecution of Christians in Ukraine – Tucker Carlson
RT | May 25, 2025
The US is essentially facilitating the persecution of Christians in Ukraine by supporting the Kiev government, which has been waging a purge campaign against the nation’s canonical Orthodox church, American journalist Tucker Carlson has said.
Carlson made the statement during an interview with a former Ukrainian MP, Vadim Novinsky, released on Friday.
“Every day, churches and temples are seized by soldiers with machine guns who come in, throw out priests, beat believers, children, old people, women…” the former lawmaker stated, adding that “it is happening all over Ukraine.”
“I think very few Americans understand the degree to which the Ukrainian government under [Vladimir] Zelensky has persecuted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Carlson said.
The former Fox News host then asked Novinsky what he would like to say to the American lawmakers who have nevertheless approved financial aid to Kiev. “The Speaker of the House of the United States Congress is a man who describes himself as a Christian and he has been paying for this,” the journalist said, referring to Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.
The former Ukrainian MP replied that he would like to see the US aid going directly to ordinary Ukrainians and not the authorities, who “live in parallel realities.”
US government agencies appropriated a total of $182.8 billion on various forms of assistance to Kiev between 2022 and the end of 2024, according to Ukraine Oversight, an official portal that tracks such expenditures.
Last week, US President Donald Trump stated he was concerned that billions of dollars were being wasted on aid to Ukraine. He said Congress was “very upset about it” and that lawmakers were asking where all the money was going.
Kiev has accused the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) of maintaining ties to Russia even though it declared independence from the Moscow Patriarchate in May 2022. The crackdown has included numerous arrests of clergymen and church raids, one of the most notorious of which took place in the catacombs of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, where holy relics are kept.
Last year, Zelensky signed legislation allowing the state to ban religious organizations affiliated with governments that Kiev deems “aggressors,” effectively targeting the UOC.
Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow would not abandon the Orthodox believers in Ukraine and vowed to make sure that “their lawful rights are respected.”
Washington’s “Golden Dome” – Multi-Trillion Tax Dollar Heist at Best, Dangerous Provocation at Worst
By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – May 25, 2025
US President Donald Trump has announced his administration has chosen the architecture for the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, claiming it will cost $175 billion and be operational in “less than three years” with a “success rate close to 100%.”
During President Trump’s announcement on May 21, 2025, it was claimed the Golden Dome will consist of technology deployed across land, sea, and space capable of intercepting hypersonic, ballistic, and advanced cruise missiles, “even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.”
Former-US President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program (also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative) was repeatedly cited during the announcement. That program sought to use space-based weapons to void the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” allowing the US to conduct a nuclear or non-nuclear first strike on another nation and avoid what had otherwise been an inevitable nuclear retaliation that would destroy both nations in the process.
Specifically, because mutually assured destruction was seen as a better deterrence against a first strike by one nuclear-armed nation against another, along with concerns over costs, technological limitations, and then-existing arms control treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the initiative was never fully realized.
Granting the US Impunity to Attack, Not “Defend” Itself
US Space Force General Michael Guetlein, picked to lead the Golden Dome project and present during its announcement, would claim:
As you’re aware, our adversaries have become very capable and very intent on holding the homeland at risk. While we have been focused on keeping the peace overseas, our adversaries have been quickly modernizing their nuclear forces, building out ballistic missiles capable of hosting multiple warheads, building out hypersonic missiles capable of attacking the United States within an hour and traveling at 6,000 mph, building cruise missiles that can navigate around our radar and our defenses and building submarines that can sneak up on our shores and worse yet, building space weapons. It is time that we change that equation and start doubling down on the protection of the homeland.
Yet what General Guetlein calls “keeping the peace overseas,” is in reality the United States encroaching along the borders and shores of nations like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.
This includes the stationing of not only missile defense systems like Patriot, THAAD, and the Aegis Ashore system in close proximity to these nations in violation of the ABM treaty the US has since abandoned, but also first-strike offensive weapons like the Typhon missile launcher capable of firing both Standard SM-6 anti-air missiles, but also ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles previously prohibited under the INF treaty the US has also since abandoned.
For example, the US has positioned THAAD systems in both the Middle East and Asia, and its Typhon missile system is currently stationed in the Philippines with additional units on the way, specifically aimed at China.
Beyond the global-spanning military footprint of the United States, Washington is also preparing for or already directing multiple proxy wars against these nations.
The conflict in Ukraine was entirely engineered by the United States, beginning with Kiev’s political capture in 2014, the training and arming of Ukraine’s military, and the capture, reorganization, and direction of Ukraine’s intelligence agencies by the US Central Intelligence Agency.
The US has been waging war and proxy war against Iran for decades, including invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq right on its borders, invading and overthrowing the government of Iran’s ally Syria, the waging of war on Yemen-based Ansar Allah – also an Iranian ally. The US also maintains constant financial, political, and military support for Israel, which has repeatedly attacked Iran and its allies.
And despite officially recognizing Taiwan as part of “One China,” the United States has continued supporting separatist political parties administering Taipei, is arming local military forces, and is even stationing US troops on the island province itself.
All of this has forced Russia, Iran, China, and other nations to respond by bolstering military spending, increasing research and development into missile technology, and the creation of credible deterrents against decades-spanning US aggression and proxy war along and even within their borders.
While the Trump administration depicts the Golden Dome as necessary to “forever end the missile threat to the American homeland,” it is instead being built to enable the US to forever threaten other nations around the globe with its missiles.
Dubious Claims About Golden Dome’s “Near 100%” Success
At one point during the Golden Dome’s announcement, US President Trump would claim:
I will tell you an adversary told me, a very big adversary, told me the most brilliant people in the world are in Silicon Valley. He said, “we cannot duplicate them. We can’t.”
He also claimed:
We have things that nobody else can have. You see what we’ve done helping Israel. You probably wouldn’t have in Israel. They launched probably 500 missiles all together and I think one half of a missile got through and that was only falling to the ground as scrap metal.
Except none of this is true.
If President Trump is referring to the 2024 Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel, up to 200 missiles were fired, with dozens if not scores of them circumventing Israeli missile defenses and striking targets, including dozens striking and damaging Israel’s Nevatim Airbase alone, according to NPR.
No air or missile defense system has a “success rate close to 100%.”
While any particular system may have a “success rate close to 100%” intercepting individual targets, retaliatory strikes are planned specifically to include a large enough number of missiles, drones, and other projectiles to saturate a defense system’s ability to intercept them all during a single attack. This means that while many incoming targets will be intercepted, many others will not, and critical targets will inevitably be struck and destroyed.
Regarding the state of US missile defense technology, unless President Trump is referring to undisclosed innovations, nothing the US currently is known to possess in terms of air and missile defense systems consists of “things that nobody else can have.”
And while in the past Silicon Valley drove unparalleled advances in technology contributing to a decisive military advantage for the US, the gap has since drastically closed and in some instances is widening in favor of nations like Russia and China.
The conflict in Ukraine, for example, has demonstrated glaring Russian advantages in several key areas that void the entire premise the Golden Dome is predicated on. Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of producing both larger quantities of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as layered integrated air defense systems and at a fraction of the cost the US and its European partners spend on arms and ammunition production.
Russia’s advantage is so great, it prompted the first-ever US National Defense Industrial Strategy in 2022.
The paper admitted the US (and the rest of the collective West) suffers from a bloated, inefficient military industrial base incapable of meeting the demands of the type of large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare taking place in Ukraine and likely to take place in future conflicts with either Russia or China.
As previously reported, the paper lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US military industrial base including a lack of surge capacity, an inadequate workforce, overdependence on offshore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.
In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.
Nations like Russia and China do not rely on private industry partners for national defense programs. Much of the industrial power researching, developing, and mass-producing arms and ammunition in these countries takes place within state-owned enterprises. Because national defense is the chief priority of these enterprises, money is invested whether it is profitable or not.
This is what allows Russian and Chinese industry to maintain huge workforces, facilities, and tooling even when production is reduced, while private industry in the West would slash all three to maximize profitability. The first model allows a nation to surge the production of arms and ammunition on short notice – the other requires strong enough “demand signals” to justify the time-consuming process of building up the levels of all three – a process that can take years.
None of the problems described regarding the US military industrial base have been addressed since the National Defense Industrial Strategy was published in 2022. Corporations like Lockheed, Raytheon, L3Harris, and newer companies like Anduril slated to play a role in the proposed Golden Dome system continue to pursue a strictly for-profit model that will create the same disparity in quantity and quality seen playing out on and over the battlefield in Ukraine.
This leaves the likelihood the Golden Dome – like all other modern US military programs – will fall far short of stated expectations because of the fraud, waste, and abuse that defines US military industrial production.
The ultimate irony is that while the Golden Dome is sold to the public as “protecting” America, vast sums of public money that could actually improve the lives of Americans at home through infrastructure, education, and healthcare, will instead be siphoned off by demonstrably incompetent and corrupt arms manufacturers, all in an attempt to enhance Washington’s ability to menace the rest of the world with greater impunity – not protect the US at home.
The rest of the world will predictably react to the Golden Dome by creating their own means to defend themselves and retaliate against the US if attacked, making Americans not only less safe, but in the process of building the Golden Dome, less prosperous.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.
The West pressures Moldova’s president to launch a blitzkrieg against Transnistria
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 24, 2025
As Russia celebrated Victory Day on May 9 – honoring the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War – tensions in Europe, particularly in Moldova and Romania, have reached a boiling point.
On Moldova’s periphery lies a small post-Soviet republic that could soon become the epicenter of a new conflict. Pressure is mounting on Moldova’s pro-European President Maia Sandu, who faces growing domestic dissent and increasing demands from Western allies to fast-track the country’s integration into the European Union – even at the risk of military confrontation with the breakaway region of Transnistria.
Romanian state media reports suggest that some in Bucharest ultimately seek the full annexation of Moldova, effectively reducing it to a province or “14th region” of Romania – a former kingdom until 1947. With the EU recently securing the victory of its preferred pro-European candidate in Romania’s elections, emotions are running high.
In the first round of voting, the Romanian electorate overwhelmingly supported the ultra-right candidate Călin Georgescu. Shocked by the result, the EU pushed to invalidate the outcome and called for new elections, which ultimately installed its favored candidate, Nicușor Dan, likely through electoral fraud.
Moldova’s President Maia Sandu – a Harvard-educated politician holding a Romanian passport – supports Moldova’s unification with Romania, including the reintegration of Transnistria. She was among the first to congratulate Romania’s new pro-European president, Nicușor Dan. Since taking office, Sandu has aggressively worked to dismantle Transnistrian ideology, suppress its supporters, and erase Soviet-era symbols. Her government has promoted the Romanian language (Moldova’s official state language) while marginalizing canonical Orthodox Christianity – part of a broader cultural shift toward Europe.
But in Transnistria, residents have long rejected Chișinău’s authority, wary of rising Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiment from the Moldovan capital. Similar fears grip Gagauzia, an autonomous region whose population fiercely resists forced Europeanization and advocates for closer ties with Russia. Gagauzia, home to a Turkic-speaking, predominantly Orthodox Christian ethnic group, has been a vocal opponent of Sandu’s policies.
The region’s leader, Evghenia Guțul, was arrested upon returning from a trip to Russia, where she met with President Vladimir Putin – an act the West now deems criminal. Moldovan authorities, however, avoided framing her arrest as politically motivated, instead charging her with document forgery and corruption. Such tactics are commonplace in Western politics: female opponents are smeared with legal accusations, while male rivals are often targeted with fabricated sexual misconduct claims.
Both Transnistria and Gagauzia demand the preservation of Russian as a regional language, protection of religious freedoms, and the right to maintain political and economic ties with Moscow. Sandu’s government has responded with repression, arresting Guțul and escalating tensions further.
In another provocative move, Archbishop Marcu of Bălți and Fălești was barred from traveling to Jerusalem for the Holy Fire ceremony on Easter eve – a decision made under direct orders from the presidential administration. Moldovans have since mocked the irony, joking that “the daughter of a swineherd tried to play a mean trick on Orthodox believers but ended up covered in mud herself.” The holy flame was eventually brought into the country by other priests.
On the eve of Victory Day – a major holiday commemorating the Soviet victory over fascism – Sandu banned public commemorations in Chișinău’s central square, sparking widespread outrage. Many Moldovans remember their ancestors’ sacrifices in the Red Army, with over 56,000 Moldovan soldiers perishing in World War II. They also recall the atrocities committed by Romanian occupiers during the war, making Sandu’s pro-Romanian stance particularly inflammatory.
Public discontent is now reflected in polls: Sandu’s approval rating, along with that of her party, Action and Solidarity (PAS), has plummeted to just 22%. Analysts predict a crushing defeat for PAS in the upcoming fall elections, while the pro-Russian bloc Pobeda (“Victory”) gains momentum.
To salvage her position, Sandu has held urgent talks with EU officials in Brussels and Polish leaders in Warsaw. In response, Western political strategists have flooded Chișinău, tasked with smearing the opposition and convincing Moldovans that EU integration is their only future.
Europe cannot afford an anti-EU – let alone pro-Russian – victory in Moldova. Romania (and by extension, Moldova) plays a pivotal role in NATO, hosting what will soon be the alliance’s largest European military base, explicitly aimed at countering Russia. Construction began in 2024.
Poland has also emerged as a key player in Moldova’s political landscape. President Andrzej Duda has deployed Stsiapan Putsila – a young Belarusian opposition figure and editor-in-chief of the Warsaw-backed outlet Nexta – to assist Sandu’s campaign. Putsila, a social media specialist known for his role in discrediting political opponents across the post-Soviet space, will advise PAS ahead of the September elections, ensuring a victory akin to Romania’s manipulated outcome.
In essence, Europe has adopted George Soros-style tactics – modernized color revolutions and election interference – precisely what it accuses Russia of doing.
Yet Sandu’s European backers recognize that media manipulation alone may not salvage her dwindling support. Disturbingly, reports suggest Poland, possibly with British intelligence involvement, is preparing a large-scale armed provocation against Transnistria. Unsurprisingly, EU-linked “fact-checking” platforms like Disinfo dismiss these claims – though their track record shows that what they label “fake news” often turns out to be true.
For now, Sandu is being urged to consider a swift, “winnable military operation” as a last-ditch effort to secure victory in the parliamentary elections. This strategy – using external conflict to rally domestic support – has been employed elsewhere in the post-Soviet world. Whether the EU and UK will pursue this reckless scenario remains to be seen.
The critical question is whether Sandu will take such a suicidal gamble – for both her country and herself.
An attack on Transnistria – home to half a million people, including thousands of ethnic Russians and Russian peacekeepers – could ignite a regional crisis, destabilizing Eastern Europe and provoking a severe response from Moscow. For Moldova, this would mean risking everything for fleeting political gains.
The current turmoil in Moldova is more than a local power struggle. It is a microcosm of the broader East-West confrontation – testing whether democracy can thrive without coercion, and whether sovereignty can withstand external domination.
As the 80th anniversary of fascism’s defeat reminds us, the scars of war endure for generations. History shows that those who attempt to rewrite it often repeat its darkest chapters. The European Union, which falsely equates Nazi Germany and the USSR as equal instigators of World War II, should take heed.














