Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Planned by Forces Trying to Torpedo Ukraine Peace Push: Expert

Sputnik – 29.12.2025

“They do not consider it possible to step back and allow the situation on our border region to be stabilized. Therefore, they are making gradual attempts to torpedo the negotiation process,” military analyst Alexander Stepanov told Sputnik, commenting on the attack on Putin’s residence in Novgorod region by 91 drones Sunday night.

“We’ve seen this attitude in the openly-stated positions of key EU leaders. Now, we’re seeing it in the intentions of intelligence agencies, mostly likely British, who are clearly continuing to develop plans to launch terrorist strikes on strategically significant targets, to carry out targeted terrorist attacks against high-ranking Russian military personnel, de facto transforming the war into permanent proxy-hybrid mode using the tools of state terrorism,” Stepanov, an expert from the Institute of Law and National Security at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, explained.

Naturally, these efforts serve to further “delegitimize” the Kiev regime, Stepanov said. They make it clear that Ukraine’s authorities are “war criminals and, more broadly speaking, international terrorists, who have neither the right to govern this territory nor the right to control the lives of its citizens.”

Negotiating with such actors is “impossible, and does not fit into any normative framework of international relations,” the observer stressed.

Stepanov expects a “maximum reduction” in US-Ukraine military-technical and intelligence cooperation, including for navigation and targeting systems, in the wake of Sunday’s attack.

If US statements “are backed by real will, it would be possible to remotely disable the control systems of virtually all weapons supplied through Western channels, including American ones, and to end the presence of US military specialists who, at certain stages, support the operation of both sophisticated Patriot air defense systems and long-range HIMARS tactical systems,” Stepanov said.

Same goes for Starlink, which could leave Ukraine’s military blind “within a few hours.”

As far as Russia is concerned, Sunday night’s attack on Putin’s residence will “likely entail reclassifying” those held responsible “as terrorists, subject to capture or elimination,” Stepanov believes.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine launched 91 kamikaze drones at Putin’s state residence – Lavrov

RT | December 29, 2025

The Ukrainian military fired a barrage of 91 long-range kamikaze drones overnight at Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state residence in the Novgorod Region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed late on Monday.

The Kiev regime has fully switched to state terrorism policies, and Moscow will review its negotiating position accordingly, the top diplomat warned.

“All the unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed by air defense systems of Russia’s Armed Forces,” Lavrov confirmed.

The attack came amid “intensive negotiations between Russia and the US,” the top diplomat pointed out, adding that the “reckless actions” of Kiev will not remain unanswered.

Moscow has already designated targets and the timing of the impending retaliatory strikes, Lavrov warned.

The incident is bound to affect the Ukraine conflict settlement process, the foreign minister said without providing any exact details on the potential shifts in Russia’s positions.

“We do not intend to withdraw from the negotiation process with the US. However, given the complete degeneration of the criminal Kiev regime, which has shifted to a policy of state terrorism, Russia’s negotiating position will be revised,” Lavrov stated.

Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky, however, has strongly denied the attack on Putin’s state residence. Moscow is only seeking a pretext to jeopardize the “progress” made by the US and Ukraine, and attack the government quarter in Kiev, he claimed.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Takes Part in NATO War Games, Further Integrating Into Collective Defense Architecture

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 28, 2025

Ukrainian representatives participated in NATO war games simulating the alliance’s response to an attack.

According to a NATO press release, 1,500 soldiers and civilians from multiple European countries participated in the Loyal Dolos 2025 drills that were conducted at the beginning of the month.

On Sunday, the General Staff of the Armed Forces posted on Facebook that Ukrainian officials participated in Loyal Dolos. “Ukraine is becoming part of the collective defense architecture of NATO. Ukrainian JATEC experts have, for the first time, joined the work of the mechanisms of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty on the training LOYAL DOLOS 2025,” the post explained.

Senior National Representative of Ukraine in JATEC, director of Implementation of the programs of the Joint Center NATO-Ukraine Colonel Valery Vyshnivsky said, “The participation of Ukrainian JATEC experts in the LOYAL DOLOS 2025, which is one of the key elements of NATO’s preparation according to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, has strategic significance for us, as for the first time Ukrainian representatives have been involved in the work of the Alliance’s collective security mechanisms.”

Kiev’s military ties to NATO countries are one of the primary reasons Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Kremlin has demanded that Kiev agree to neutrality as a condition for ending the war.

President Zelensky recently announced that Ukraine would agree to stop seeking formal membership in the North Atlantic Alliance if members of the bloc agreed to bilateral agreements with Kiev that are similar to NATO’s Article 5. Article 5 is considered the mutual defense pact in the NATO charter.

That Ukraine is continuing its integration into NATO suggests that Kiev is still seeking to become an informal member of the bloc.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hungary vows to defy immigrant scheme

RT | December 29, 2025

Hungary has vowed a “revolt” against the EU in 2026, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, declaring that Budapest will lead a rebellion against the bloc’s new Migration Pact.

The policy, expected to take effect in July, forces member states to contribute in proportion to their population and total GDP to the alleviation of migratory pressure on the worst-affected nations within the bloc.

Each member state is obliged to either accept a certain number of migrants from hotspots or pay €20,000 ($23,000) per person they refuse to take in.

”Just as in 2025, we will not allow a single migrant into Hungary in 2026 and we will not pay a single forint from Hungarians’ money,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook on Sunday, blasting the requirement as “absurd.”

The EU mandate clashes with Hungary’s own tough national measures, which include border fences and a rejection of mandatory quotas. The stance has already led Brussels to penalize Budapest, with the European Court of Justice forcing it to pay a daily penalty of €1 million since June 2024 for non-compliance.

Szijjarto argued that the pact primarily serves nations where security and social stability have deteriorated so severely that their main objective is now to expel migrants as swiftly as possible.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban previously warned that Hungary will not comply with the new EU requirements, condemning the policy as “outrageous.” Orban is known for his staunch criticism of EU policies, including those related to migration and the Ukraine conflict.

Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have also opposed the EU migration pact. Warsaw and Bratislava have demanded an exemption, and the new government in Prague wants the policy renegotiated.

The EU has been grappling with mass immigration over the past two decades, since contributing to the implosions of Libya and Syria in 2011 and 2014, as well as backing the escalation of Kiev’s conflict with Moscow in February 2022, triggering waves of arrivals numbering in the millions.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese embassy expresses extreme shock, indignation over demolition of Chinese monument in Panama

File photo of the China-Panama Friendship Park and the monument commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of Chinese people in Panama
By Fan Anqi | Global Times | December 29, 2025

The Chinese embassy in Panama on Monday expressed extreme shock, strong indignation, and firm opposition to the demolition of the China-Panama Friendship Park and the monument commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of Chinese people in Panama, on Saturday night without any prior notice or communication with Chinese community.

“The move not only brutally trampled on the collective sentiments of the 300,000 Chinese nationals and people of Chinese descent in Panama, but also severely harmed the friendly feelings of the Chinese people toward the Panamanian people,” read an embassy statement issued on Monday morning.

Chinese ambassador to the country, Xu Xueyuan, said in a post on Saturday that she rushed to the place upon hearing the news, but the monument was already on the ground. “Countrymen tried to protect the remains, but they were prevented from doing so,” she said.

Xu called the day “a darkened day for the 300,000 Chinese-Panamanians” and “a day of great pain for Chinese-Panamanian friendship.”

According to local media reports, Arraiján Mayor Stefany Peñalba announced plans to “rescue public spaces to promote culture, tourism, the economy and business,” with renderings of a new park without the monument. The 20-year concession for the monument had expired, and the municipality did not respond to the Chinese Association of Panama’s requests to renovate it.

The embassy statement also noted that the Chinese community organizations engaged in repeated communications with the Arraiján city government as early as 2024, but received no substantive response. The Chinese Embassy in Panama also likewise conveyed its goodwill to support the renovation of the park, only to be met with silence.

The Chinese side urged a thorough investigation into the demolition incident, and strict accountability for any illegal acts that undermined Panama’s historical heritage and social unity and stability. Meanwhile, it asked to restore the China-Panama Park and the Chinese memorial at the original site after consultation with Chinese community groups, the embassy statement read.

Panama President José Raúl Mulino, several government officials, and deputies from various political parties have strongly condemned the brutal demolition of the Park and the monument, Xu noted in a later post on Monday, saying that she finds it encouraging that the public throughout Panama has reacted with strong indignation.

Mulino on Sunday condemned the “act of irrationality” as unforgivable, and an investigation should be initiated immediately. He said there is no justification whatsoever for the barbarity committed by the mayor of Arraijan in demolishing the monument to the Chinese Community, he said in a post on X.

The Government of Panama on Sunday ordered the Ministry of Culture to coordinate the restoration of the Chinese Monument as part of a Historical Heritage together with the Chinese community in Panama, per local media reports.

According to Newsroom Panama, the demolition unleashed a wave of political and diplomatic outrage that continues to grow. Government figures, former presidents, and opposition leaders all agreed in describing the act as shameful, irrational, and unforgivable.

The Minister for Canal Affairs, José Ramón Icaza, was one of the first to react and strongly supported the position of President José Raúl Mulino. “Nobody tears down a monument on a Saturday at 9 pm —in the dead of night, typical of criminal acts— unless it is to commit an aberrant and irrational act,” he stated, Newsroom Panama reported.

The issue also exploded on social media, with many netizens flooding the Chinese ambassador’s X posts expressing their sorrow and shame for such a behavior. One netizen EdwinRodrigo2 wrote, “Many Chinese participated in the construction of the Canal and their descendants integrated into the multi-racial society of which we are proud. I don’t know who ordered the demolition of the monument, but it is outrageous to know that we have authorities capable of doing whatever it takes, to please the US.”

Sun Yanfeng, director of Latin American research at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times on Monday that “the demolition decision, made by a local government, reflects a degree of compromise by certain local authorities under US pressure.” Sun added that the choice to carry out the demolition at night during the Christmas holiday reveals a sense of unease on the part of the local authorities – an apparent attempt to avoid public scrutiny and the risk of a broader social backlash.

The expert noted that the eruption of public reaction to this incident has demonstrated that, even amid intense US pressure, Panamanian society at large maintains a strong desire to develop and uphold friendly relations with China. “It also reflects widespread public dissatisfaction with US interference in Panama’s internal affairs, including pressure related to the Panama Canal and China’s cultural presence in the country,” Sun said.

At another level, the regrettable incident may serve as an opportunity to provide new social momentum for deeper ties and cooperation between China and Panama, the expert noted.

171 years ago, large numbers of Chinese people crossed the oceans to Panama to take part in the construction of the trans-isthmian railway. In recognition of the contributions made by the Chinese community, the Panamanian government in 2004 designated March 30 each year as “Chinese Day,” fully reflecting Panama’s openness and diversity. That same year, with funds raised by Chinese community organizations and support from the Chinese government, the China-Panama Park and the monument commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of Chinese people in Panama were completed—an expression of respect for history.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

The Epstein Saga: Chapter 3, Those friends in the Secret Service

Someone has to do the dirty work

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 28, 2025

One piece of information that emerged from the declassified material is seemingly marginal, but nonetheless colorful: a T-shirt from Mossad, one of Israel’s secret services. The press immediately began to label dear Jeffrey a secret agent, without further exploring the reasons for a T-shirt in the closet. While waiting for the next documents to be made public, we will now outline some interpretations regarding that ambiguous T-shirt.

Let’s start with some historical context. The idea that Epstein was connected to Mossad first arose in the 2000s in investigative and alternative circles, but it gained strength after his arrest in 2019 and, above all, after his death in prison, when the public struggled to explain how he had been able to operate almost undisturbed for decades. Commentators and journalists note that, historically, Israeli intelligence has used economic and political networks of influence, creating a context in which Epstein—rich, with access to global elites and involved in sexual blackmail—appears plausible as an “asset.”

Towards the end of 2025, several investigations based on the analysis of leaked or recently released documents—including House Oversight Committee materials and email archives—were revisited and discussed as evidence of repeated contacts between Epstein and Israeli circles, as well as travel patterns and financial flows considered atypical. CNN reported that journalists sifted through more than 23,000 pages of documents and thousands of email threads as part of this broader examination. According to commentators and newspapers that have republished these materials, they reveal “extensive collaboration with Israeli intelligence” or, at the very least, frequent interactions with figures linked to intelligence circles.

Numerous articles refer to personal and financial ties—meetings, communications, and alleged references to money transfers—between Epstein and high-level Israeli figures, particularly former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as entries in diaries and emails that investigators say warrant attention. Common Dreams and some investigative series have highlighted recurring patterns of interaction between Epstein and Barak and have claimed that Israeli operatives or collaborators were long-time visitors to Epstein’s properties; however, the exact origin and interpretation of these documents remain disputed.

Proponents of the Mossad connection hypothesis describe Epstein as a recruited asset or honey trap operative tasked with gathering compromising material for leverage. This narrative, long present in various articles, has been further amplified by partisan commentators and media outlets. Some websites and opinion makers explicitly claim a connection to Mossad, arguing that Epstein’s network of relationships and the alleged presence of Israeli operatives in his residences are typical of intelligence practices.

Prominent Israeli figures have strongly rejected these claims. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—who has stated that he had the Mossad under his direct command during his term—has called the idea that Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad” “categorically and totally false.” Mainstream publications such as Newsweek and Times of Israel have highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence indicating that Epstein was a formal Mossad agent and have warned against conspiracy theories, which are sometimes intertwined with anti-Semitic stereotypes.

The resonance of the issue has been uneven and often linked to different political orientations: some progressive investigative outlets have insisted on pursuing the story, while conservative figures and commentators have sometimes exploited the accusation for political purposes. Critics warn that this encourages conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic narratives to be used opportunistically. It should also be noted that Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have on some occasions emphasized media coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel for domestic political messages, making it more difficult to analyze the motivations.

But that’s not all.

Funds for all

On September 2, 2025, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna shook public opinion with explosive statements made after meeting with some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors during a press conference in Congress: “After speaking with Epstein’s victims today, it is clear that this story is much bigger than anyone could have imagined: rich and powerful people must go to prison. It is possible that Epstein was an asset of a foreign intelligence service.” Her words, captured on video, sparked a media storm: Was Epstein just a predator or something more? Was he perhaps an agent of the Israeli Mossad, tasked with ensnaring global elites for Zionist political purposes? The clues are disturbing and form a picture too coherent to be ignored. In 2025, amid leaks, transcripts, and denials, the time has come to address the issue openly.

The apparatus built by Epstein may still exercise influence on the upper echelons of power today. Steven Hoffenberg, his partner in the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, went even further. Before his death in 2022, he told reporters that Epstein had confided in him about direct links to Mossad, attributing his wealth and access to high society circles to these contacts. Hoffenberg, who ended up in prison while Epstein remained free, had nothing to gain by lying, if anything, a score to settle.

Then there is the testimony of Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s first victims (identified as Jane Doe 200 in court documents). Farmer described Epstein’s network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail scheme linked to the Mega Group, a private circle of pro-Israel billionaires. She also recounted episodes of racial abuse, pointing to Les Wexner as a central figure. Three independent voices—Ben-Menashe, Hoffenberg, and Farmer—all converge on the Mossad. Coincidence or hidden agenda?

The source of Epstein’s fortune remains unclear. How can a former college student become a billionaire with only one known client? Following the financial flows, the connection to Israel appears clear. Les Wexner, magnate of Victoria’s Secret and co-founder of the Mega Group, gave Epstein a $77 million New York mansion — equipped with a sophisticated surveillance system — as well as large sums of money. The Mega Group, created by Wexner and Charles Bronfman, is known for financing pro-Israel causes. Epstein’s financial career began in 1976 at Bear Stearns, thanks to Alan Greenberg, also a member of the Mega Group, despite Epstein having no credentials other than a background as a physics teacher. We are talking about $77 million.

Court documents indicate that Epstein received over 7,000 wire transfers, some linked to arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who in turn was associated with Mossad networks. Ben-Menashe claims that Epstein was involved in Israeli arms trafficking. A 2025 private investigation, conducted by hedge funds linked to the Epstein case, speculates that a substantial portion of his wealth came from Israeli funding. Not charity, but the financing of an intelligence operation.

Epstein’s circle looks like a list of intelligence targets. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak visited Epstein’s residence dozens of times between 2013 and 2017, as records and photographs show. The two were also involved in founding Carbyne, a technology company with numerous former members of Israeli intelligence. Leaked emails show Epstein connecting Barak with Russian and Israeli figures. In 2004, Barak received $2 million from the Wexner Foundation for unspecified “research” activities. Barak denies any wrongdoing but admits that it was Shimon Peres who introduced him to Epstein.

Epstein possessed multiple passports—a typical feature of clandestine operations—and took refuge in Israel after the 2008 charges, before obtaining an extremely favorable plea bargain. In 2025, Tucker Carlson, during a very harsh speech, openly accused him of being a Mossad agent. Why would so many Israeli officials associate with a sex offender if he were not a strategic asset?

The 2008 plea bargain, which secured Epstein a lenient sentence, is perhaps the most revealing element. Former prosecutor Alexander Acosta later stated, “I was told that Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and that I should drop it.” The agreement also protected accomplices in several states, safeguarding a network that victims, such as Virginia Giuffre, have described as a kompromat factory, with hidden cameras ready to record politicians and powerful figures in compromising situations. This practice is reminiscent of techniques attributed to Mossad, as in the Robert Maxwell operations (which we will discuss in the next “chapter” of our Epstein Saga).

Epstein’s death in 2019, officially classified as suicide, appears to many to be a cover-up, with speculation of unofficial involvement by Israeli intelligence services. In 2025, the DOJ and FBI’s statement on the absence of a “client list” under the Trump administration — which had promised revelations that never came — only reinforced suspicions.

The pieces fit together: Epstein, introduced through Zionist networks, built a blackmail system aimed at influencing political and media decision-makers in a pro-Israel direction. Alleged links to PROMIS software (according to some sources modified by the NSA and Mossad for monitoring) and Palantir, an advanced surveillance company, add further layers of unease. Journalist Whitney Webb speaks openly of a “joint CIA-Mossad operation.” Ian Carroll goes even further, linking this network to events such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, identifying a common thread in the Israeli services.

It is true: Epstein’s network also involved Russia and Saudi Arabia. However, the Israeli connections—Wexner, Barak, Maxwell, Mega Group—appear predominant. Is there a lack of definitive evidence? Perhaps. But the smoke is so thick that it is difficult to ignore the fire.

Epstein’s survivors have just announced their intention to publish their own list of names: “We know who abused us. We saw who came and went. This list will be led by survivors, for survivors.”

The state hesitated. The victims did not.

Of course, Israeli authorities reject all accusations. Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer and a well-known supporter of Zionism, claims that Epstein would have laughed off the espionage allegations, arguing that he would have used such connections to get an even better deal. But these denials appear fragile in the face of testimony, financial flows, and political connections that all lead to the same conclusion: the Epstein operation has the flavor of an intelligence operation, and the trail leads straight to Tel Aviv.

The most damning evidence comes from those who knew Epstein from the inside, people who risked everything to speak out. Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence officer, claims that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a Mossad “honey trap” aimed at blackmailing the world’s elite. He claims to have met them in the 1980s while they were working in arms trafficking under the supervision of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father and a known Mossad collaborator who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Several Israeli prime ministers attended his funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy. A mere coincidence? Hard to believe.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Venezuela under siege: Why US escalation could destabilize an entire region

By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | December 28, 2025

Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela has entered a dangerous new phase. What began years ago as sanctions aimed at pressuring President Nicolás Maduro’s government has now escalated into naval interdictions, oil tanker seizures, and open discussion of military action — a shift that risks destabilizing not only Venezuela but much of Latin America.

In recent weeks, the United States has intensified its campaign by intercepting Venezuelan oil shipments at sea, effectively enforcing what officials describe as a “blockade” of sanctioned vessels. Caracas has denounced the move as piracy and a violation of international law, while Washington frames it as a legitimate enforcement of sanctions and a counter-narcotics operation.

Yet behind the legal arguments and political messaging lies a deeper strategic shift, one that signals a return to a more coercive US posture in Latin America, with potentially profound consequences.

To understand the implications of this escalation, alngside current regional developments and historical precedents, this article draws on an in-depth interview with veteran journalist and leading Latin America expert Richard Lapper.

A sharp escalation at sea

The most visible sign of Washington’s new approach has been its actions in international waters. US naval forces have seized and disabled Venezuelan oil tankers accused of violating sanctions, while additional vessels remain under surveillance. These measures go beyond financial penalties and diplomatic pressure, marking one of the most forceful uses of maritime power against Venezuela in decades.

Caracas has condemned the seizures as an illegal blockade and accused Washington of weaponizing sanctions to strangle its economy. Venezuelan officials argue that the actions violate international maritime law and set a dangerous precedent for global trade.

Legal experts remain divided. While the US claims it is acting within the scope of sanctions enforcement, critics argue that interdicting vessels in international waters — especially without multilateral backing — risks undermining established norms of freedom of navigation.

Richard Lapper, also an author of several books, including Lula!: The Man, The Myth and a Dream of Latin America, is blunt in his assessment. “This is a breach of international law,” he says. “But I don’t think that really matters for the Trump administration. This is about exerting power.”

The return of the Monroe Doctrine

According to Lapper, Washington’s Venezuela policy reflects a broader reassertion of hemispheric dominance reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century principle that Latin America falls within the United States’ exclusive sphere of influence.

For decades, US policy toward the region oscillated between overt intervention and softer approaches centred on democracy promotion and economic reform. That balance now appears to be tilting decisively toward coercion.

“This is a fairly clear restatement of a traditional US approach,” Lapper explains. “It says: this is our region, and we are going to exert our power.”

He points to recent US involvement in Honduras as emblematic of this shift. Washington strongly backed political actors aligned with its interests, even when they carried significant legal and ethical baggage. In doing so, the US signalled that strategic loyalty now outweighs democratic credentials.

From sanctions to military pressure

For years, sanctions were Washington’s primary tool against Venezuela. Initially justified as a way to pressure the Maduro government toward democratic reforms, the measures expanded to target the country’s oil industry — the backbone of its economy.

While sanctions inflicted economic pain, they failed to dislodge Maduro. Instead, Venezuela’s political system hardened, opposition forces fragmented, and millions of citizens left the country.

Now, sanctions are being reinforced by overt military pressure.

Trump has publicly refused to rule out armed conflict with Venezuela. While a full-scale invasion remains unlikely, Lapper, warns that limited military escalation is a real possibility.

“I don’t think war in the sense of large ground troop deployments is likely,” he says. “But significant military escalation — including drone strikes or targeted attacks on government assets — could happen.”

Such an approach would mirror recent conflicts elsewhere, where technologically advanced militaries sought to degrade adversaries without committing troops on the ground.

Yet Venezuela is not a small or easily controlled state. It is geographically vast, with difficult terrain and powerful non-state actors operating in rural areas.

“Venezuela is a big country,” Lapper cautions. “It would be very difficult for any external power to secure control of the entire territory.”

Drugs, terror labels, and political framing

Washington has justified some of its actions by framing Venezuela as a major hub for drug trafficking, alleging links between senior officials and organized crime networks such as the so-called “Cartel of the Suns.”

There is little dispute that narcotics pass through Venezuela en route to North America. The question is whether this justifies the current escalation — or whether it serves as political cover.

“You have to take the drug stuff with a pinch of salt,” Lapper says. “A lot of drugs do go through Venezuela, but to what extent Maduro himself is at the centre of this is highly contested.”

He notes the inconsistency of US drug policy, pointing to cases where Washington has quietly abandoned its tough stance when political interests demanded it.

“It’s a convenient wrapper for the policy,” Lapper argues. “But the real objective is regional domination.”

A changing political landscape in Latin America

The escalation against Venezuela is unfolding amid a broader political realignment across Latin America. After the so-called “pink tide” of left-wing governments in the early 2000s, the region has swung sharply to the right.

Conservative and far-right leaders now dominate in countries such as Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, while left-wing governments face mounting pressure elsewhere.

“These are the leaders setting the regional mood,” Lapper says, pointing to figures like Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele. “Not the Lulas and Chavezes of the past.”

This shift has two implications. First, it reduces regional resistance to US pressure on Venezuela. Second, it creates an environment in which hardline security approaches are politically fashionable.

Ironically, however, overt US intervention can still backfire. In Brazil, for instance, perceived external interference has boosted nationalist sentiment and temporarily strengthened President Lula’s standing.

Venezuela’s economic collapse: Sanctions 

One of the central debates surrounding Venezuela concerns responsibility for its economic collapse. Washington argues that sanctions are a response to authoritarianism and corruption. Caracas insists that sanctions themselves are the root cause of suffering.

“Sanctions make things worse, Venezuela was producing three million barrels a day in the late 1990s,” Lapper notes. “Now it produces around a million. It used to be a major force in OPEC. It isn’t anymore.”

However, he also pointed out that even without sanctions, Venezuela would face deep structural challenges. With sanctions, those challenges have become existential.

Humanitarian fallout and migration pressures

The human cost of Venezuela’s crisis is staggering. Roughly one-fifth of the population has left the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in modern history.

Escalating sanctions and blockades are likely to worsen this trend.

Within Venezuela, reduced oil revenues mean fewer imports, higher inflation, and deeper reliance on informal and illicit economic activities. Outside the country, neighbouring states struggle to absorb waves of migrants.

Brazil, which shares a long land border with Venezuela, has a direct interest in preventing further destabilisation. It has attempted to mediate politically, but with little success.

“Brazil wants stability,” Lapper says. “But its soft diplomacy hasn’t been effective.”

As conditions deteriorate, migration pressures are likely to intensify — not only toward neighbouring countries, but eventually toward the United States itself.

International allies and a shrinking safety net

Venezuela is not entirely isolated. Cuba remains its most important security ally, receiving subsidized oil in exchange for intelligence and political support.

Russia and China provide diplomatic backing, but neither appears eager to dramatically escalate its involvement.

“I don’t see Russia or China rushing to Venezuela’s aid,” Lapper says.

If US pressure cuts off oil supplies to Cuba, the effects could be destabilizing across the Caribbean. Cuba is already facing severe economic strain, with blackouts and protests becoming more frequent.

The risk, analysts warn, is a cascading crisis affecting multiple states simultaneously.

Lessons from past US interventions

History offers sobering lessons. US military interventions in Latin America have had mixed results at best. While short operations in Panama and Grenada succeeded tactically, longer engagements — such as Haiti — produced prolonged instability.

Elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East, US interventions over the past three decades have often exacerbated conflict rather than resolving it.

“The US does not have the staying power,” Lapper says. “There isn’t domestic support for long, messy interventions.”

That reality limits Washington’s options.

Sanctions alone have failed. Full-scale invasion is politically untenable. High-tech, limited strikes remain a temptation — but one fraught with risk.

What lies ahead for Venezuela?

Looking toward 2026, Lapper sees no easy resolution.

“I don’t see the end of the Maduro regime at the moment,” he says. “Escalation would have to be quite significant for that to happen.”

The most likely scenario, he argues, is continued stalemate: a current government clinging to power, an economy under siege, and a population increasingly forced to flee.

“There’s a lot of explosive material piled up in Venezuela,” Lapper observes. “But right now, there’s nothing to blow it up.”

Whether Washington’s escalating pressure will eventually trigger change — or simply deepen chaos — remains an open and deeply consequential question.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Italy arrests Palestinian activist amid crackdown on anti-Israel voices

Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun
Press TV – December 28, 2025

Italian authorities have detained prominent Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun as European countries mount a crackdown on voices exposing Israel’s genocidal crimes against the oppressed nation.

Hannoun, president of the Palestinian Association in Italy, was arrested along with eight other people on Saturday for allegedly financing the Palestinian Hamas resistance group through charities.

In a statement, prosecutors claimed that the activist is the “head of the Italian cell of the Hamas organization.”

They also alleged that the suspects had sent about 7 million euros ($8.2 million) to “associations … owned, controlled, or linked to Hamas.”

However, Hannoun’s lawyer Fabio Sommovigo said that the funds were collected peacefully for humanitarian purposes, adding that the case was based on the Israeli authorities’ interpretation of money movements.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has faced backlash for her pro-Israel stance during the regime’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, expressed her “appreciation and satisfaction” for the arrest operation.

Born in Jordan in 1962, Hannoun has been residing in the Italian port city of Genoa for many years.

He is an architect by profession and has organized and taken part in public demonstrations, solidarity initiatives, and awareness campaigns in support of the Palestinian cause.

He had previously described Hamas as a legitimate political actor, saying, “I am simply a Palestinian who has been engaged for decades in the struggle for the rights of his people. Hamas received more than 70 percent of the vote in Gaza and the West Bank, so it is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. And I am a sympathizer of Hamas, just as I am of every faction that fights for my rights.”

The arrests come at a time when certain European countries have stepped up efforts to silence pro-Palestinian activists and groups through judicial proceedings, forced dissolutions, and account freezes.

The same European states are complicit in Israel’s war crimes as they maintain their economic and military ties with the criminal regime, which has killed 71,266 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Arms Sales to Taiwan Push Region Toward Conflict – Chinese Embassy

Sputnik – 28.12.2025

WASHINGTON – The arms supply from the United States to Taiwan is pushing the region closer to conflict, the Chinese Embassy in Washington told RIA Novosti.

“Such moves will not reverse the inevitable failure of ‘Taiwan independence,’ and will only push the Taiwan Strait into the danger of military conflict at a faster pace,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said, commenting on the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcement of $11.1 billion worth of weapons, equipment, and military services approved for sale to Taiwan.

Specifically, the US arms shipment includes Javelin systems, ALTIUS-700M and ALTIUS-600 unmanned aerial vehicles, spare parts for AH-1W SuperCobra helicopters, HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, M107A7 self-propelled artillery units, and TOW anti-tank missile systems.

“For the US, assisting the ‘independence’ agenda by arming Taiwan will only backfire,” the spokesman added.

China has repeatedly called on the United States to stop selling arms to Taiwan and creating tension in the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Foreign Ministry noted that military interaction between the United States and the island, as well as the US leadership’s arms sales to Taiwan, grossly violated the “one China” principle and the three joint Sino-American communiques, causing great harm to China’s sovereignty and security interests and threatening stability in the Taiwan Strait.

Official relations between the central government of the People’s Republic of China and its island province were severed in 1949 after the Kuomintang forces led by Chiang Kai-shek, defeated in the civil war with the Communist Party of China, relocated to Taiwan. Business and informal contacts between the island and mainland China resumed in the late 1980s. Since the early 1990s, the two sides have been in contact through non-governmental organizations.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Anti-Russia States Cannot Join Ukraine Peacekeeping – German Lawmaker

Sputnik – 28.12.2025

NATO and EU countries using anti-Russian propaganda cannot join any potential peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, while Germany’s direct military involvement risks dragging it into foreign conflict, Steffen Kotre, a Bundestag member of the Alternative for Germany party, told Sputnik.

On Friday, Manfred Weber, the leader of the European Parliament’s largest European People’s Party called for sending troops from EU countries to Ukraine. The politician added that he would like to see soldiers with the European flag on their uniforms in Ukraine.

“Such measures should be seen as part of militarization that contributes to prolonged confrontation with Russia. If we are talking about deploying contingents, they should be provided by neutral countries, not states with anti-Russian propaganda or NATO members,” Kotre said.

In addition, Kotre opposed further supplying Ukraine with weapons, as well as the EU countries’ intention to commit to permanently maintaining the Ukrainian armed forces at a high level of combat readiness.

“I fundamentally oppose sending multinational military forces to Ukraine – even if they are called ‘protection forces’ or ‘multinational forces.’ I consider German direct military involvement a mistake, as it could drag the country into someone else’s war and entail significant risks of escalation,” he said.

Since this spring France, as the co-chair of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, has been trying to broker a deployment of a multinational “deterrent” contingent to Ukraine. In September, French President Emmanuel Macron said that 26 countries committed to joining the deployment after a ceasefire is reached in Ukraine.

On December 15, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the European Union and the United States had agreed to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, modeled on NATO’s Article 5. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow and Washington had reached an understanding that Ukraine should return to being a non-aligned, neutral, non-nuclear state.

In 2024, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said that the West planned to deploy the so-called peacekeeping contingent of about 100,000 in Ukraine to restore its combat capability. The SVR called this scenario a de facto occupation of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there is no point in the presence of foreign military personnel in Ukraine after a possible sustainable peace agreement. The Russian leader also stressed that Russia would consider any troops on the territory of Ukraine to be legitimate targets.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky demands more money from Western backers

RT | December 28, 2025

The West is not providing Ukraine with sufficient financial and military support, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has complained, despite Kiev’s backers having already approved massive aid packages and loans.

In a post on Telegram on Friday, Zelensky lamented that “air defense is not enough now, weapons are not enough now,” adding that “frankly, there is a constant shortage of money, in particular, for the production of weapons and, most importantly, drones,” even despite a recent decision by the EU to provide Kiev with a huge loan.

“We need to be strong at the negotiating table. To be strong, we need the support of the world – Europe and the United States of America,” Zelensky added.

The appeal for additional funding comes as the EU approved this month a loan of €90 billion ($105 billion) to Kiev for 2026-2027, which will cost European taxpayers €3 billion ($3.5 billion) annually in borrowing costs. In addition, the bloc failed to agree on using frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine due to staunch opposition over overwhelming legal risks from several EU members, most notably Belgium, which holds most of the funds.

The loan is aimed at propping up the struggling Ukrainian economy, with the International Monetary Fund estimating that Ukraine will need approximately $160 billion for 2026 and 2027 combined. For 2026 alone, Ukraine’s parliament adopted a budget with a deficit of around $45 billion, or 18.5% of GDP. The financial conundrum has also been exacerbated by Ukraine’s endemic corruption.

On top of that, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior adviser to Zelensky, said this week that Ukraine cannot finance potential elections due to the budget deficit, stressing that Kiev should prioritize “militarization” efforts instead. Earlier this month, he also indicated that a vote could only take place provided the West steps in to cover the costs.

Commenting on Podoliak’s remarks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Kiev “resorts to all sorts of tricks” to obtain Western funding. Moscow has also warned the EU that any assistance for Kiev would be essentially covered by ordinary taxpayers.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

HHS/CDC Fund Online Game ‘Bad Vaxx’ to ‘Psychologically Inoculate’ Vaccine Resistance

Ironically, the game uses the very techniques it claims to train users to detect.

By Jon Fleetwood | December 27, 2025

U.S. taxpayer funds are being used by federal health agencies to develop and test online psychological games designed to condition how people—especially younger audiences—interpret and respond to vaccine skepticism.

An August Nature Scientific Reports study reveals that the project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through a CDC award administered by the American Psychological Association.

The paper states that the funding totaled “$2,000,000 with 100% funded by CDC/HHS.”

The grant supporting the project is titled “COVID—INOCULATING AGAINST VACCINE MISINFORMATION,” award number 6NU87PS004366-03–02.

That award has already handed out over $4.3 million in taxpayer funds since its activation in 2018.

The project language mirrors the study’s conceptual framework: dissent is treated as exposure to a pathogen, and resistance to dissent is treated as immunity.

The government-funded study centers on the creation and evaluation of an online game called Bad Vaxx.

According to the authors, the purpose of the game is not to examine disputed vaccine claims or to compare competing evidence, but to reduce what they define as “vaccine misinformation” by shaping how players cognitively process vaccine-critical content.

This is despite the CDC’s own VAERS data confirming over 2.7 million injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to vaccines since 1990.

The study authors explain their premise at the outset:

“Vaccine misinformation endangers public health by contributing to reduced vaccine uptake.”

From this premise, the study moves directly to intervention design.

“We developed a short online game to reduce people’s susceptibility to vaccine misinformation.”

The paper frames this approach as a form of psychological prevention, borrowing language from immunology rather than education or debate.

“Psychological inoculation posits that exposure to a weakened form of a deceptive attack… protects against future exposure to persuasive misinformation.”

The Bad Vaxx game operationalizes this concept by training players to recognize four specific “manipulation techniques”: what it refers to as emotional storytelling, fake expertise, the naturalistic fallacy, and conspiracy theories.

These techniques are treated as characteristic of vaccine misinformation as a category.

“The game trains people to spot four manipulation techniques, which previous studies have identified as being commonly used in the area of vaccine misinformation.”

The study does not include a corresponding examination of whether similar persuasive techniques may be used in vaccine-promoting messaging, government communications, or pharmaceutical advertising.

Ironically, the Bad Vaxx project itself relies on the same persuasive architecture it claims to neutralize—emotional framing, authority cues, and repetition—embedded in a gamified format designed to shape intuition rather than invite scrutiny.

The classification of “vaccine misinformation” is established in advance and applied only to information critical of injectable pharmaceutical products.

Throughout the paper, vaccine skepticism is framed as a behavioral and social risk rather than as a possible response to uncertainty, evolving evidence, or institutional error.

The taxpayer-funded authors write:

“Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 predicts lower compliance with public health regulations and lower willingness to get vaccinated.”

The choice of a game as the delivery mechanism is emphasized as a strength of the intervention.

The authors repeatedly describe the format as “entertaining,” “immers[ive],” and scalable, highlighting its ability to shape intuition rather than deliberation.

“A practical, entertaining intervention in the form of an online game can induce broad-scale resilience against manipulation techniques commonly used to spread false and misleading information about vaccines.”

Games function by rewarding correct pattern recognition, reinforcing desired responses, and reducing analytical friction.

The study’s outcome measures reflect this design: discernment scores, confidence ratings, and willingness to share content, rather than independent evaluation of claims or evidence comparison.

The researchers also emphasize the potential reach of such interventions.

“The Bad Vaxx game has the potential for adoption at scale.”

This matters because the funding source is not an academic foundation with no policy stake.

The CDC is the primary federal agency responsible for vaccine schedules, promotion, and uptake.

Yet the study does not address how this institutional role shapes the definition of misinformation used in the intervention, nor does it acknowledge the conflict inherent in a public health authority funding psychological tools aimed at managing disagreement with its own policies.

The dystopian nature of the project emerges from the structure itself: state funding, psychological conditioning, asymmetric definitions, and a delivery system designed to bypass debate in favor of intuition.

What the paper documents, in concrete terms, is the use of taxpayer funds to develop and validate a behavioral intervention—delivered through a medium optimized for psychological conditioning—that trains users to reflexively distrust a predefined category of speech, while exempting vaccine-promoting institutions from equivalent scrutiny.

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »