Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

HHS REINSTATES VACCINE TASK FORCE

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 21, 2025

Aaron Siri reveals how ICAN has fought HHS since 2017, relentlessly exposing and litigating the agency’s decades-long neglect of its legal duty under the 1986 Act to ensure vaccine safety. After disbanding its safety task force in 1998—following just one report—and failing to submit even a single required biannual report to Congress, HHS is finally being forced back to the table. Now, with RFK Jr. at the helm of HHS, the task force is being revived—and ICAN is ready with decades of overdue recommendations.

 

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

Green Energy Wall Coming Into Focus In New York?

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 17, 2025

It was back in 2021 that I started to ask which country or U.S. state would be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” It has long been obvious to anyone who looks at the situation that the fantasy of a fully de-carbonized energy system, with everything run on electricity generated by intermittent wind and sun, could never happen.

But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to the madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage? Or perhaps a string of blackouts caused by insufficient backup of the wind and solar generation?

Here in New York, we are starting to see some push back from politicians on the fantasy green energy transition, but the source may be the last thing you would have predicted. The immediate issue is the cost of upgrading local delivery infrastructure to transmit sufficient electricity for the imagined future of electrified buildings and vehicles.

Supposedly, under a statute known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, we are faced with a 2030 deadline to get some 70% of our electricity from “renewables.” Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls. Without another Niagara Falls on the horizon, theoretically we should be building vast fields of wind turbines and solar panels to meet the statutory mandates; but that effort has stalled out, and the costs of wind and solar generation, and of backup to make the grid run all the time, have barely started to show up in consumer bills. Nor have various big new long-distance transmission projects yet come into consumer bills.

But meanwhile, the big utilities have come forward with large demands for rate increases. So why the need for big rate increases if not from new generators or long-distance transmission? The answer is that the rate increases mainly relate to the portion of the consumer bills referred to as the “delivery” charge, as opposed to the charge for generation. The utilities seek funds to add delivery infrastructure like substations, transformers, and cables to deliver vastly increased amounts of electricity for things like vehicle charging stations (for both cars and trucks) and for the electrification of building heat.

In upstate New York, a utility called National Grid has been petitioning the regulator for a large electricity rate increase, mostly to support these kinds of upgrades to the delivery infrastructure. The service territory of National Grid in upstate New York covers the region between about Syracuse and Albany, and from there North to the Canadian border. After prolonged negotiations, the regulator (Public Service Commission) and National Grid entered into a “settlement” a few days ago on August 14. Here is the PSC release describing the settlement. Basically, the PSC congratulates itself on beating back a much larger rate increase originally sought by National Grid. (The headline is “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request.”). But if you read on you find that they still agreed to a very large increase. The release makes clear that most of the increase relates to the delivery infrastructure:

National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year.

Basically, they spread NG’s requested increase out over three years; but it still comes to almost a 30% jump on the delivery side by the time it all kicks in.

Governor Hochul then issued a release expressing extreme displeasure:

While I appreciate that the New York Public Service Commission worked to significantly lower the outrageously high initial rate proposals, it’s still not enough. I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority.

Well, Governor Hochul, good luck trying to blame the utility, but you are the one with all the electric vehicle mandates and incentives and subsidies, thus calling on the utility to provide all this new infrastructure. In all likelihood few will ever buy the electric vehicles, and nobody will ever generate the extra electricity from wind and sun, and thus this infrastructure will mostly be wasted. But can the utility just refuse to make itself ready to meet your ridiculous mandate?

And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97). It is likely that the result of the Con Edison rate proceeding will be a settlement agreement comparable to what occurred in the National Grid case a few days ago.

I am an intervenor in this Con Edison rate case, and in recent days I have actually been personally participating — in a minor way — in the settlement negotiations. My co-intervenors and I are objecting to any rate increases based on adding infrastructure to support building and vehicle electrification unless and until the additional electricity generation capacity has been built to support these mandates. (There is no chance that this additional capacity, supposedly wind and solar generators, will actually be built.)

The New York Post has a lead editorial today summarizing how the green energy madness is coming around to bite New Yorkers in their pocketbooks. Excerpt:

New York’s state Public Service Commission just OK’d big National Grid rate increases that’ll hike many upstate utility bills by $600 a year — fueling outrage Democrats will soon feel. Downstate, Con Edison is seeking an 11.4% hike to electric bills and 13.3% gas hike — largely thanks to green-energy mandates that Gov. Kathy Hochul embraced along with the rest of the party. The “climate agenda” is delivering pain we’ve long warned of, in New York and New Jersey.

If we ever get to the point of building dozens of gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity, and enough backup and storage to make them work to support a grid, that would cause electricity rates to multiply by a factor of five or ten or more. We are a long way from that. But here we are just trying to add enough substations and transformers to support 30-50% vehicle electrification, and a comparable amount of building electrification, and it is causing politicians to start to scream. How much more of this will it take before we quit?

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Israel systematically targeting journalists in Gaza, says senior Hamas official

Press TV – August 25, 2025

A senior Hamas official has condemned in the strongest terms Israel’s killing of five journalists in an attack on Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza, saying that the occupying regime is deliberately and systematically targeting members of press to cover up its atrocities in the besieged Palestinian territory.

“The crime of targeting Nasser Hospital could only be committed by a rogue terrorist entity, with the continued complicity of the United States and the helplessness of international law,” Basem Naim said on Monday.

He added, “The repeated targeting of Palestinian journalists and the prevention of foreign media from entering the Gaza Strip have become a constant goal for the Zionist enemy so that it can hide its crimes from the international public opinion.”

Five journalists were among 20 people killed in an Israeli attack on Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza, according to the region’s Ministry of Health.

The ministry said that the victims were killed on the fourth floor of the hospital in a double-tap strike – one missile hitting first, then another moments later as rescue crews arrived.

Those killed included Al Jazeera photographer Mohammad Salama; Hussam al-Masri, who worked as a photojournalist for the Reuters news agency; Mariam Abu Daqqa, who worked as a journalist with several media outlets, including The Independent Arabic and The Associated Press news agency; and journalist Moaz Abu Taha, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office.

A fifth journalist Ahmed Abu Aziz, who worked for the Quds Feed Network and other media outlets, succumbed to his wounds, according to the media office statement.

“The journalist colleagues were martyred when the Israeli occupation committed a horrific crime by bombing a group of journalists who were on a press coverage mission at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis Governorate and many martyrs fell victim to this crime,” the statement read.

“We hold the Israeli occupation, the American administration, and the countries participating in the genocide crime such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France fully responsible for committing these heinous brutal crimes.” the media office noted.

As Israel persists in prohibiting foreign journalists from accessing the coastal territory, Palestinian reporters continue to be the exclusive source of firsthand reporting from within the war zone.

The Federation of News Agencies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has expressed its deep concern over the continued assassination of Palestinian journalists by the Israeli forces while carrying out their duties.

The federation emphasized that what is happening in Gaza constitutes a clear violation of international laws and norms, and comes in the context of Israeli violations of freedom of the press and media, and its policy of confiscating the truth, gagging, covering up its daily violations, and preventing them from reaching global public opinion.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Gaza: Southern displacement impossible as shelter shortage exceeds 96%

MEMO | August 25, 2025

The Government Media Office in Gaza has said that displacement to the southern governorates is almost impossible, as they cannot absorb 1.3 million people forcibly displaced from Gaza City.

In a statement, the office warned: “With the Israeli occupation threatening to invade Gaza City, we caution against the worsening humanitarian disaster experienced by more than 2.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

The office added: “Since the occupation announced that it would allow the entry of tents and shelter supplies, only around 10,000 tents have actually entered Gaza. This represents just 4 per cent of the urgent need for 250,000 tents and caravans, highlighting the manipulation and deliberate delays in meeting essential humanitarian requirements.”

It pointed out that the deficit in providing shelter in Gaza has now exceeded 96 per cent, stressing that no tents or shelter materials are currently available at the crossings because of strict Israeli restrictions on the work of international organisations, which has further deepened the suffering of hundreds of thousands of displaced people.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Syria, the Druze, and the Greater Israel project

By Gavin O’Reilly | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 25, 2025

On the 12th of August, media outlet Axios revealed that the United States and Israel were in discussions to establish a land corridor between the occupied Golan Heights and the southern Syrian city of Suwayda, ostensibly to protect the country’s Druze minority. The following Saturday, protests broke out in Suwayda calling for Druze self-determination, with many in attendance waving Israeli flags.

Last December, following a lightning offensive by insurgents based in the northwestern city of Idlib, the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad collapsed in dramatic fashion. This marked the culmination of a thirteen-year effort by various powers to impose regime-change on the Arab Republic. One such power was Israel, who had provided arms to Salafist militants opposed to Assad’s secular rule. Syria, having acted as a conduit between Iran and Hezbollah, had long been in Tel Aviv’s crosshairs.

Within hours of Assad’s fall, Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Syria. Tel Aviv declared that this was in order to establish a buffer zone between Israel and Syria’s new Islamist government, in spite of the fact Damascus’ new rulers had effectively acted in Israel’s interests over the past decade. Israel also later stated that it intended to defend Syria’s Druze minority.

Syria, like Iraq and Libya before it, had subsequently fallen into bloody sectarian strife following Assad’s removal from power. In early March, government pogroms along Syria’s coast resulted in the deaths of more than 1,400 members of the Shi’a Alawite minority. Rather than any concern over sectarian bloodshed however, Israel’s interest in the Druze instead lies primarily in achieving a geostrategic goal that has been planned for decades.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, a senior official at the Israeli foreign ministry, penned a paper entitled A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. More commonly known as the Yinon Plan, the document was published by the World Zionist Organisation in the Hebrew journal KIVUNIM. In it, Yinon prioritised the dissolution of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines as a key long-term strategic goal for Israel.

Iraq, which subscribed to the pan-Arab Ba’athist ideology, had begun to emerge as Israel’s main regional rival following the Camp David Accords and the normalisation of ties between Egypt and Israel. In 1981, the Israeli Air Force had bombed the under-construction Osirak in eastern Iraq, after suspecting it would be used to develop nuclear weapons.

In early 1991, amidst the breakout of the Gulf War, Iraq launched dozens of scud missiles towards Israel. This was done in the hope that an Israeli response would galvanise Arabs across the region and undermine Gulf support for the U.S.-led coalition. Following pressure from the United States however, Israel would ultimately not respond to these strikes. By the end of February 1991, Iraqi forces had been defeated in Kuwait.

Though it subsequently emerged that the U.S. had gone to war on a fabricated account of Iraqi troops removing premature infants from incubators and leaving them to die on a hospital floor, Washington still maintained a belligerent stance towards Iraq. In April 1991, the U.S., Britain and France imposed a no-fly zone over northern Iraq, ostensibly to protect the Kurdish minority. The following year, a similar no-fly zone was put in place over the south of the country, this time under the pretext of protecting Shi’ite Muslims. Like Israel’s current interest in the Druze, this too had a strategic purpose.

The Yinon Plan outlined how in order to Balkanise Iraq, the country would have to be divided into three distinct sections. In the north of the country, a Kurdish separatist state based around the city of Mosul, in central Iraq, a Sunni region tied to the capital Baghdad, and in the south, a Shi’ite region centred around Basra. The United States’ no-fly zones effectively polarised Iraq along these lines.

Following the 9/11 attacks, a radical new U.S. foreign policy was put into place, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Eighteen months after September 11th, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, in spite of the fact no tangible evidence was ever produced to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Coalition forces quickly toppled the Iraqi government, and replaced it with a provisional authority. Its first executive order was to permanently ban all members of the Ba’ath Party from working in the public sector. Iraq subsequently plunged into sectarian bloodshed in the wake of the invasion.

Like Iraq, Ba’athist Syria was also identified by the Yinon Plan as a target for Balkanisation. The 1982 document envisaged a Sunni state in northern Syria centred on the city of Aleppo, an Alawite state along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and another Sunni state, based around the southern capital of Damascus and hostile to its northern counterpart. Amidst this division, Yinon predicted the establishment of a separatist Druze state in the occupied Golan Heights and the Hauran region of southern Syria and northern Jordan.

Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government, such an arrangement has now effectively been put in place. Northwest Syria, where Aleppo is located, has become a stronghold of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which led the offensive that ended Assad’s rule, is based in the capital Damascus. Its recent pogroms against the coastal Alawites polarising Syria along the same sectarian divisions outlined in the Yinon Plan. The recent Israeli-backed calls for Druze self-determination serve to even further fragment the former Arab Republic in line with the 1982 paper.

On the same day that Axios outlined U.S.-Israeli negotiations to establish a land corridor to Suwayda, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interviewed by journalist and former Knesset member Sharon Gal for the Israeli outlet i24. When presented by Gal with an amulet containing ‘a map of the Promised Land’, Netanyahu stated that he felt a connection to a vision of ‘Greater Israel’. This is a historical Zionist term referring to an expansionist Israeli state that would incorporate the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights at a minimum.

On Wednesday, Israel announced plans to construct 3,400 housing units in the West Bank between Jerusalem and the eastern settlement of Ma’ale Adumin. Such a move would effectively partition the territory between north and south. Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli minister who announced the plan, declared that it would ‘bury the idea of a Palestinian state’.

Last year, Miriam Adelson, wife of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, donated $100mn to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. This was done on condition that the Republican candidate would endorse the formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank if elected. Sheldon Adelson, who died in 2021, had previously donated $20mn to Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016. This too had a stipulation attached. That the U.S. Embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that Trump subsequently followed through with in December 2017.

24 hours after Trump’s inauguration in January of this year, Israel launched Operation Iron Wall. Intended to destroy the Jenin refugee camp, Iron Wall has resulted in the largest mass-expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank since 1967.

Since October 7th 2023, Israel has subjected the beleaguered Gaza Strip to a military onslaught in response to Hamas’ Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This was the largest military incursion into Israel since the 1973 October War. Global media attention was drawn to the fact that the Supernova music festival was taking place on the Gaza border at the same time. However, less attention was paid to the revelation that the event had only been moved to that location two days beforehand. That there were no security or insurance concerns over holding a music festival in direct proximity to a location where clashes had taken place between Islamic Jihad and Israeli forces the previous summer, simply beggars belief.

Further questions arose when it emerged that Egypt, which acts as mediator between Hamas and Israel, had repeatedly warned Tel Aviv that ‘something big’ was coming in the run up to October 7th. This was corroborated by two media reports from The New York Times and CNN, which revealed that U.S. intelligence had also passed on similar warnings to Israel prior to Al-Aqsa Flood. By December 2023, it was revealed that Israel had known of Hamas’ attack plan over a year in advance.

Seven months prior to October 7th, Orit Strock, the Israeli minister responsible for the development of settlements in the West Bank, called Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza a ‘sin’. Strock was speaking upon the repeal of legislation that had ordered the dismantlement of four West Bank settlements. This was declared by Strock as a precursor to the eventual re-occupation of Gaza, a move that would ‘involve many casualties’.

Indeed, this sentiment was later echoed by Israeli security minister Yoav Gallant, who in the days following October 7th announced a blockade on Gaza, cutting off electricity and preventing food and fuel from entering the besieged strip. Gallant described Palestinians as ‘human animals’, language that couldn’t be described as anything less than genocidal.

In April 2024, a report by The Times of Israel revealed that an offer by Hamas to release all civilian captives in exchange for Israeli forces not entering the strip had been rejected by Tel Aviv. Three months later, a Haaretz report revealed that the Hannibal Directive had been applied on October 7th. This is an Israeli military directive in which a command is given to fire upon their own troops in order to prevent them being taken captive. Its use on October 7th was a significant contributory factor to the death toll on the day. Despite these damning revelations, the Israeli slaughter in Gaza has continued unabated for almost two years.

On Friday, the United Nations released a report officially acknowledging the presence of a man-made famine in Gaza. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk did not shy away from placing blame for the situation, and held Israel responsible for what is in reality, a genocide. Starvation is being used to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip in line with the Greater Israel project. A project that now also has designs on the Druze and southwestern Syria.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pentagon begins sudden troop withdrawal from major Iraq bases: Report

The Cradle | August 25, 2025

US forces have begun their withdrawal from two major military bases in Iraq, accelerating a previously negotiated timeline for the drawdown of International Coalition troops, Iraqi Kurdish media reported on 24 August.

According to a high-level source in the Iraqi government speaking with Kurdistan24, the withdrawal began Sunday morning following an order issued by the US Embassy.

The source stated that the Ain al-Asad base in Anbar and the Victory base at Baghdad International Airport are expected to be completely evacuated within the next few days.

The source added that some 2,000 US troops have been stationed at Ain al-Asad, a key hub for US operations in the country.

An Iraqi security source speaking with Shafaq News had provided a longer timeline for the withdrawal from Ain al-Asad, stating last week that the last US soldier would leave the base by 15 September, after which the international coalition headquarters there would be permanently closed.

Washington has justified the presence of US troops in Iraq under the pretext of fighting ISIS as part of an international coalition.

However, the US military has covertly supported ISIS in the past, including during the organization’s lightning capture of Mosul – the country’s second largest city – in June 2014.

The source speaking with the Kurdish news outlet indicated that a portion of the soldiers who have withdrawn have been transferred to Erbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

The Kurdistan region is controlled in part by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Masoud Barzani.

The KDP assisted ISIS in taking over Mosul in 2014 and in carrying out the Genocide of Yezidis in nearby Sinjar two months later. Following the genocide, some ISIS leaders continued to live in safety in Erbil under KDP protection.

The abrupt withdrawal of US forces also accelerates the official timeline recently announced by Hussein Alawi, an advisor to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.

Alawi announced a timeline for a gradual withdrawal that would begin in September of this year and be completed by September 2026. He said the move would return relations between the US and Iraq to a “normal state,” giving the US military only an advisory role in Iraq.

US troops invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 in a war to topple the government of Saddam Hussein. After withdrawing in 2011, they returned in 2014 following the rise of ISIS.

Alawi stated that “the Iraqi government is committed to its governmental program by building up the armed forces, ending the mission of the International Coalition, and transitioning the security relationship with them to a stable, bilateral defense relationship.”

Earlier this month, the US Defense Department announced that US forces had departed three military bases in northeast Syria. US troops were also stationed in Syria under the pretext of fighting ISIS.

A quarterly report from the Defense Department’s Inspector General said US and coalition troops had withdrawn from Mission Support Site Green Village, H2, and Mission Support Site Euphrates, sometimes referred to as the Conoco gas field, in May.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

Trump Hopes to Meet with North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un This Year

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2025

President Donald Trump met South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and discussed improving ties with North Korea during a White House summit on Tuesday. Pyongyang has ruled out talks with Seoul and pledges only to engage with Washington if Trump drops the demand that North Korea denuclearize.

“I have very good relationships with Kim Jong-un, North Korea,” he said. “In fact, someday I’ll see him. I look forward to seeing him. He was very good with me. We had two meetings, we had two summits. We got along great. I know him better than you do. I know him better than anybody, almost other than his sister,” said Trump.

Trump met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un three times during his first administration. Lee asked Trump to leverage his relationship with Kim to improve ties on the Korean Peninsula. Lee suggested building a “Trump Tower” and playing golf in North Korea.

Trump said he would like to meet with Kim this year.

At the end of Trump’s first administration, tensions on the Korean Peninsula were at a low point. Pyongyang and Washington were working to implement the steps agreed to during the 2018 Singapore summit. The US and South Korea canceled most war games, and North Korea froze missile tests.

However, during the 2019 summit in Hanoi, Trump allowed his then National Security Adviser John Bolton to demand that Kim agree to undergo “Libyan-style” denuclearization. Pyongyang often cites Libya, where dictator Muammar Gaddafi agreed to denuclearize and was then overthrown in a US-backed revolution, as a reason for maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

President Joe Biden took a more confrontational approach towards North Korea. The Biden administration resumed live-fire war games with South Korea and pushed Tokyo and Seoul into a trilateral military pact with Washington.

In response, Kim resumed missile tests and signed a defense pact with Russia. North Korea provided weapons and soldiers for Russia’s war with Ukraine. Additionally, Kim ruled out talks with South Korea and said North Korea no longer sought to reunify the Korean Peninsula.

Trump said that ties with Pyongyang would not have deteriorated had he been president, and Lee agreed.

Over the past month, Pyongyang has ruled out talks with Seoul. North Korea argues that South Korea is subservient to the US. Kim Yo-jong, Sister of Supreme Leader Kim and senior party official, said North Korea was still open to talks with the US if Trump would drop the demand for denuclearization.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU shows ‘outdated worldview’ as von der Leyen uses China, Russia as excuse to defend trade deal with US

By Wang Qi | Global Times | August 25, 2025

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the EU’s trade deal with the US. By invoking Russia and China, she suggested that the failure to strike a deal would have been a gift to Europe’s rivals, according to media reports.

Chinese analysts have observed that von der Leyen’s remarks reveal a tendency among certain European politicians to politicize trade matters. Their emphasis on alliance with the US underscores Europe’s anxiety over American pressure, especially as Washington prioritizes its own interests and fails to treat Europe as an equal partner.

A trade war between the EU and the US would have been “celebrated” by Russia and China, von der Leyen wrote in a guest commentary for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on Sunday, per the Bloomberg report.

“Instead, we agreed on a strong, if not perfect deal,” she added, warning that retaliatory tariffs could fuel a costly trade conflict with “negative consequences for our workers, consumers, and our industry,” Bloomberg reported.

Similarly, von der Leyen wrote in an op-ed for Spain’s El Mundo on Saturday, “Imagine for a moment that the two largest democratic economies had not managed to reach an agreement and instead launched a trade war — only Moscow and Beijing would be celebrating,” the Politico reported.

Von der Leyen’s remarks came after the release of EU-US joint statement on Thursday, which confirmed that the EU will accept tariffs of 15 percent on 70 percent of its exports to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. In return, the bloc will expand market access for US agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market, according to media reports.

Although von der Leyen described the move as a choice for “stability and predictability over escalation and confrontation,” the controversial trade deal with the US has drawn criticism. Former director-general Pascal Lamy has warned the accord risks undermining Europe’s credibility as a defender of rules-based trade, the Politico reported

Cui Hongjian, director and professor of the Center for European Union and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday that von der Leyen’s comments primarily serve to justify her compromises, as the US-EU trade agreement has substantially undermined European interests.

“Ironically, when the US imposes tariffs on Europe, it prioritizes its own interests, clearly not treating Europe as an equal partner,” Cui said, “Yet, Europe is willing to endure losses in its dealings with the US to maintain ongoing cooperation, in order to counter what it perceives as a greater ‘threat’ from non-Western economies, an approach [that] blatantly politicizes trade matters.”

Cui said such actions reveal that some European politicians cling to an outdated worldview, unwilling to face the reality of the US gradually distancing itself from its traditional alliance with Europe. “Their emphasis on the alliance only underscores their anxiety over the losses and economic shocks inflicted by the US, not by China and Russia.”

The South China Morning Post said the Thursday deal did not explicitly mentioned China, however, “veiled references appeared throughout” in terms of AI chips, as EU pledged to purchase $40 billion of AI chips from the US, and that it would adopt US security standards to “avoid technology leakage to destinations of concern.”

According to Cui, China and the EU are scheduled to engage in high-level interactions in the latter half of the year, which requires fostering a constructive atmosphere, adding that China will judge Europe more by its actions than its words.

If Europe takes actions that harm China’s interests, China will undoubtedly respond with countermeasures. However, when EU politicians exploit criticism of China for political gain, it sows discord in China-EU relations and even risks creating conflict, which would in turn affect China’s relationships with individual member states. This is a situation China cannot accept as well, said the expert.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Are Democrats More Neocon Than Republicans Now?

By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2025

Last week as Donald Trump met separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine head Volodymyr Zelensky to potentially seek an end to the years long war between their countries, Democrats have been very upset.

That peace might happen. They are worried Ukraine might have to make concessions to Russia to reach an agreement, including land.

Never mind that it is Ukrainians who are dying. Never mind that most Ukrainians themselves want to end this war. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainian respondents want a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, while only 24% said they still want to fight “until victory.”

Democratic voters sitting in the United States, with no imminent bombs or bullets to worry about, insist that this war go on for as long as it takes, and are being loud about it. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agrees with them. This doesn’t seem to faze Democrats.

This opposition to Trump’s diplomacy seems to be the consensus of many Democrats, shown in spades all over media this week.

This is a position shared by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This is the position of Bill Kristol. This is the position of virtually every neoconservative hawk in either major party and has been since this conflict started, that Ukraine must “win” at all costs.

Even at the cost of more Ukrainian lives.

Let me be clear about the definition of “neoconservative” I’m using here. I’m not just talking about the narrow and few band of post war, ex-Trotskyites of the Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz variety who stood for a number of things, including the pursuit of a hyper aggressive American foreign policy. I’m talking about Senator Graham, Kristol, the late John McCain, talk host Mark Levin and any other figure on the right who has been rabidly pro-war and hateful toward Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and any other prominent antiwar Republican leader of the last thirty years.

I’m talking about the Republicans who use “isolationist” as a pejorative slur for non-interventionism.

I tend to “neoconservative” as carefully here as those people use “isolationist.”

There have always been neocons in both major parties. But this week it has seemed Democrats have outweighed Republicans on this front. There is no poll on this. There is no hard data. I’m just observing.

President Trump has said he wants the killing to end between Ukraine and Russia. Cheering him on in this effort is Congresswoman and MAGA booster Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and many other GOP members. Also, pundit Tucker Carlson and former Trump aide and talk host Steve Bannon, whose audiences are large and full of MAGA supporters who also endorse Trump’s pledge to end America’s “endless wars.”

There are still plenty of GOP neocon members of Congress and voters within the base, but Trump’s Republican party is a very different one than George W. Bush’s when it comes to hawkish foreign policy.

On the other side, there are progressives like Ro Khanna (D-CA) who have expressed in the past wanting to see Trump help achieve some kind of diplomatic peace.

This week, Khanna has been silent on this, and who could blame him? Because Democrats by and large seem upset that Trump could achieve some sort of deal. They even got mad when Trump shook Putin’s hand during the summit.

Embracing war by avoiding diplomacy is key to neoconservatism. It’s why hawks got so mad in the mid-1980s when President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev. It’s why neocons were absolutely irate when Trump met with not only Putin but North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and even Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney, got her and her father Dick Cheney’s endorsement and slammed Trump for “bowing down” to dictators, sending a signal to her neocon friends that she would not be engaging in that kind of diplomacy.

Now the people who voted for Harris are reflecting the same sentiment. Trump’s diplomatic efforts have them fuming.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney said that Russia was the United States “No. 1 political foe.” President Barack Obama mocked Romney at the time, saying in a debate, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for twenty years.”

Romney was clearly representing the neoconservative Bush-Cheney foreign policy legacy that still resonated with so many Republicans at the time, and Obama, the anti-Bush message that had delivered him the White House in 2008. Obama did not remotely live up to that promise, but this was roughly the dynamic in the 2012 election.

Politics change and history happens, but it is feasible today that there are more Republicans, in Congress and in the base, who think constant U.S. hyperventilating about Russia, even now, is overblown and Americans should be more concerned about their own country first.

It’s also feasible that there are more Democrats, in Congress and in the base, for whom Trump and Putin are considered one in the same and those folks are more laser focused on hating both men than any other concern, including the health and security of their own country or any other (Ukraine).

When Barack Obama was a rockstar in 2008, Democrats prided themselves on being the complete opposite of Bush-Cheney neoconservative Republicans. In 2025, it appears that more Democrats than not now staunchly side with Bush-Cheney neoconservatives regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

What changed? That might be a longer discussion. But it wasn’t neoconservatives.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

The End of the Conflict in Ukraine at Sight?

Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 25, 2025

Seven European leaders rushed to Washington under the official banner of solidarity with Volodymyr Zelensky. Yet, the real motive was less about unshakable support for Ukraine and more about damage control.

Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face

With negotiations advancing — and with Ukraine’s loss of territories and NATO membership already ruled out by Donald Trump — Europe’s leaders were scrambling to craft a narrative to their domestic audience that could justify defeat without admitting failure.
The Struggle to Save Face

For three years, the European mantra has been that “Russia cannot win.” Yet on the battlefield, it is Moscow that has the upper hand. The tactic, therefore, was to insist that Russia, as the supposed aggressor, must accept the obligations of the loser. But the reality is moving in the opposite direction: Europe now seeks symbolic concessions to sell to its public.

One of these face-saving gestures is the return of “kidnapped” Ukrainian children, based on contested numbers but useful as a talking point. Another is security guarantees for Ukraine — not NATO membership, but something that can be framed as protection. Zelensky, keen to please Trump, asked for $100 billion in arms, to be funded by Europeans but manufactured in the U.S. NATO’s Secretary-General eagerly echoed this line, presenting himself as a loyal messenger to “Daddy” Trump at Europe’s expense.

Meanwhile, territorial concessions remain taboo in European discourse. To admit them would be to acknowledge Putin’s victory, a political sin for leaders who have invested heavily in a narrative of inevitable Ukrainian triumph.

The Casting: Putin Absent, Yet Present

The most striking absence in Washington was also the most palpable presence. Putin was not in the room, but Trump invoked his name repeatedly, even phoning him for 40 minutes while Europe’s leaders waited. Each mention of Putin’s name drew visible discomfort across European faces, an unmistakable reminder of their diplomatic impotence.

As Djoomart Otorbaev, former Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan, put it: “Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Putin didn’t earn Trump’s respect through backroom schemes. He earned it on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. And that reality says more about today’s shifting world order than any rumour.”

Trump’s deference to Putin was not ideological; it was grounded in recognition of Russia’s gains. Western efforts to reverse the war’s trajectory have not succeeded, despite supplying Ukraine with advanced weaponry.

Europe’s Century of Humiliation Has Started

Europe’s frantic arrival in Washington — “like the Middle Ages, to homage their master” — symbolised a humiliating dependency: the continent’s leaders reduced to courtiers around a U.S. president already imagining his Nobel Peace Prize.

The delegation was a tableau of weakness. Ursula von der Leyen, in the name of the European Commission, reconfirmed the one-sided trade arrangements: 15% tariffs on European goods entering the U.S., zero tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe, $750 billion in energy and arms purchases, $600 billion in European investments in the U.S., and €150 billion earmarked for EU rearmament. A transfer of wealth and sovereignty dressed up as transatlantic unity.

The body language told its own story. Giorgia Meloni’s irritation was poorly disguised; Friedrich Merz remained wooden; Emmanuel Macron projected disdain; Keir Starmer hid behind note-taking. Von der Leyen managed only a strained smile, Mark Rutte melted into insignificance, and Zelensky — who should have been the central figure — appeared isolated at the margin, dignified but sidelined. Putin, a former KGB officer, and Trump, a former reality TV star and a real estate millionaire, both despised by the Europeans, loomed as the peace brokers. As put by a French analyst: “Quel cirque”.

The Security Guarantees Conundrum

The question of security guarantees has become the crux of European debate. Openly, leaders say territorial concessions are for Ukrainians to decide. Privately, they know the map is already shifting. What remains is an attempt to provide Ukraine with protections that appear credible, but that does not include NATO membership.

POLITICO reported that the Pentagon’s top policy official made clear the U.S. intends to play only a minimal role in guarantees. “There’s the dawning reality that this will be Europe making this happen on the ground,” admitted a NATO diplomat. In other words, Europe is on its own.

European capitals, however, still plead for U.S. assets: fighter jets stationed in Romania, access to American satellites for GPS and reconnaissance. Russia, through its envoy Mikhail Ulyanov, flatly rejected any foreign troops in Ukraine, while Sergey Lavrov dismissed Western security schemes without Moscow and Beijing as “a road to nowhere.”

Ukraine itself is unimpressed. Ten nations, including France and the U.K., have floated the idea of deploying troops, but Kiev sees such proposals as vague, amorphous, and unlikely to provide real guarantees. Former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba captured the mood: “The so-called security guarantees are so amorphous. The only news is that the U.S. is willing to take part.”

Europe’s Internal Fractures

Even as leaders paraded unity in Washington, Europe’s internal divisions deepened. The European Parliament announced it would sue the Council over being excluded from negotiations on the €150 billion SAFE defence loan scheme.

In a telling sign of institutional fragility, Parliament was sidelined by Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission in the rush to fund rearmament. As Euractiv reported, 18 member states have already expressed interest in loans totalling €127 billion, but without parliamentary oversight, Europe’s democratic deficit widens.

In sum, the “road to nowhere” that Lavrov mocked may yet prove prophetic, not only for Ukraine’s elusive guarantees but for Europe’s strategic autonomy itself.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Friedrich Merz Are You Nuts?

By William Dunkerley | Ron Paul Institute | August 25, 2025

Do you know what German Chancellor Merz did?

Amidst serious negotiations to end the bloody and destructive Ukraine war, this guy’s putting up a veritable roadblock right in front of progress.

Here’s what it is: Merz was in Washington along with several other European leaders for a Ukraine meeting with President Trump. When it came Merz’s turn to talk he expressed, “I can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire.”

Clearly no one in the world with a heart would like to see the fighting go on. So at first glance a ceasefire seems like a quick fix. But Merz’s strongly spoken statement had strings. Pointedly, he wants to delay peace talks until a ceasefire takes hold.

There’s one enormous obstacle to that. There’s a strong reason why Russian President Putin would be very reluctant to accept Merz’s condition. It’s simple to understand:

Earlier in Ukraine hostilities both Germany and France achieved Putin’s agreement to a ceasefire while a negotiated peace agreement was underway. The efforts were called the Minsk Accords.

Doesn’t that sound like what Merz is proposing now? But it turned out in an unexpected way.

After a period of ceasefire and negotiating, the German and French leaders publically admitted they had tricked Putin into the ceasefire. They confessed their real objective was not peace. It was to buy time to better equip Ukraine to fight Russia.

You may have heard the idiom, “once fooled, twice shy.” It’s a modern version of the Old English translation from Aesop’s Fables that goes, “He that hath ben ones begyled by somme other ought to kepe hym wel fro[m] the same.” That’s a position that Putin might well take with regard to Germany’s current leader. Why should he be trusted, particularly when it comes to a ceasefire?

Certainly Merz must know the background of this. He would be remiss not to understand that a ceasefire without a peace agreement might be as unattainable as the end of a rainbow. That’s what leads me to suspect that Merz must be deliberately sabotaging the peace process, as would be any other European leader who joins him in his emphatic request.

It is time to address the significant real obstacles that must be faced if a settlement of territory is to take place.

For instance, Ukrainian President Zelensky claims that his constitution is a roadblock to such a settlement. But he is only partly right.

It is true that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow him to divide territory. He also offered another roadblock in that even changing the constitution would not be a simple matter. It would even require an extensive public referendum he says.

He is right on both points. But he is wrong to represent them as ultimate roadblocks or even something that would result in much delay. In the past, Ukraine, in the view of its leaders, successfully negotiated a way to deal with problematic constitutional provisions that stood in its way.

This happened when leaders found it cumbersome to remove the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych from the presidency. Some reports claimed he was impeached. But the votes weren’t there to do that according to the constitution. Other reports claimed that he removed himself by abandoning his office when he fled for his life amidst immediate threats. But the constitution wasn’t followed there either. Nonetheless, they got rid of Yanukovych.

Here’s how they did it. The Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, simply passed a resolution. It said that the current circumstance was threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency. As a result they removed Yanukovych while not observing the constitution.

Now, all Ukraine has to do is to repeat that technique. Is not the current circumstance threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency, too?

A straightforward resolution echoing the Rada reasoning above can authorize a reasonable and peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war that involves, as necessary, the trading of territory or the acknowledgment of certain changes that were made militarily. This approach will save lives, save homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and, indeed, save Ukraine. That truly would be standing with Ukraine and its people.

So it’s time to say no to Merz, throw him out of the planning group, if need be, so the more well-intentioned leaders can finally support peace in Ukraine expeditiously and once and for all.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Don’t threaten us’ – EU state to Zelensky

RT | August 25, 2025

Hungary has warned Ukraine to stop disrupting its energy supply from Russia after Kiev targeted a key pipeline delivering oil to Central Europe.

Ukrainian forces struck the Soviet-era Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline three times this month, sparking outrage in both Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. The flow through the pipeline was last halted on Friday.

At a press conference during Independence Day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday, a reporter asked Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky how the attacks relate to Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions.

“We have always supported friendship with Hungary, but now the very existence of this friendship depends on Budapest’s position,” Zelensky replied with a smile, playing on the pipeline’s name.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto issued a sharp rebuke on X. “Zelensky used Ukraine’s national holiday to threaten Hungary. We firmly reject the Ukrainian President’s intimidation,” Szijjarto wrote. He described the attack on Hungary’s energy supply as “an attack on sovereignty.”

“A war to which Hungary has nothing to do with can never justify violating our sovereignty. We call on Zelensky to stop threatening Hungary and to end the reckless attacks on our energy security!” he added.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X, writing to Szijjarto: “You don’t need to tell the Ukrainian President what to do or say, and when.” He urged Budapest to “diversify and become independent from Russia, like the rest of Europe.”

Szijjarto shot back: “Stop attacking our energy security! This is not our war!”

Unlike many EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has heavily criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. The country maintains that Ukraine’s NATO membership could trigger an all-out conflict with Russia.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries