Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Three-Year-Old Child Among Four Martyrs as Israeli Enemy Strikes Car in Southern Lebanon

Al-Manar | February 9, 2026

A drone strike in southern Lebanon killed three civilians on Monday, including a three-year-old child, as the enemy continued its daily violations of the ceasefire—once again placing children and non-combatants within its target bank.

Al-Manar’s correspondent reported an Israeli drone strike targeting a car in the southern town of Yanouh, in the district of Tyre, leaving casualties.

Ambulances rushed to the scene of the attack as pillars of smoke rose in the area, according to our correspondent.

Lebanese Health Ministry then said the strike in Yanouh killed three citizens including a 3-year-old child.

Local media reported that the victims were Ali Jaber, 3, his father Hasan and Ahmad Salameh, a retired Lebanese army soldier.

The killing of a three-year-old child in a drone strike underscored the nature of the Israeli enemy’s daily aggression in southern Lebanon, where civilians, particularly children, continue to be targeted in flagrant violation of the 2024 ceasefire.

Later on Monday, Al-Manar correspondent reported a citizen was martyred as occupation forces opened fire at him in the outskirts of Ayta Al-Shaab border town.

The town also witnessed bomb attacks as Israeli gliders dropped at least five strun grenades in the area.

Earlier on Monday, Israeli forces infiltrated into the southern town of Habbarieh, assaulted the house of Jamaa Islamiya official Atwi Atwi and abducted him after beating him along with his wife.

Atwi, who was a former mayor of the town, was taken to the occupied territories, as announced by the occupation army.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Made-for-Israel Wars: America’s Dangerous Habit of Forgetting

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | February 9, 2026

As argued in last week’s article, economic coercion is never an end in itself, it is the prelude. When sanctions fail, when financial pressure cannot bend reality to the satisfaction of Washington’s Israel-first demands, the next instrument is always the same: war. The US has fallen into this trap repeatedly, ignoring the lesson every time, especially when Israel’s interest sits at the core.

Promoted as counterterrorism and the export of democracy, US interventions in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and beyond were nothing but proxy wars waged to secure Israel’s regional military supremacy, cement its occupation of Palestine, and preserve and expand a system of Jewish apartheid. The result was predictable and perverse: mushrooming terrorism, new dictators, pulverized states, endless wars, and a region locked into engineered chaos and permanent instability.

These were not failures of execution but successes of design. It was the precise prescription of the Israel-first ideologues in Washington. Wars that were marketed by an Israeli-managed media and paid for in American life and money. Israel-first Zionists, in coordination with Israeli operatives, manufactured the “Weapons of Mass Deception,” transforming the US military into Israel’s hired muscle, leaving US soldiers marooned in Israel-made-swamps for more than twenty years, and still counting.

The Israeli leader who testified to Congress in 2002, claiming that a US invasion of Iraq will have “enormous positive reverberation,” is hard at work. Benjamin Netanyahu’s prediction was partially correct; it was “enormous (negative) reverberation.” His intentional deception came at a massive cost to US taxpayers, $3.9 trillion, and the lives of American soldiers. Notwithstanding, Israel succeeded in destroying its supposed enemy, and got what it wanted without losing the life of one single Israeli soldier, or one cent.

Israel-first loyalists in Washington weren’t done, yet. Iran was always on Netanyahu’s list for America’s saber. Today, the parading US armada near or around Iran, follows the same trajectory of the Israel-first strategy to drag America into another Iraq-style war. As with Iraq, Netanyahu’s objective is not to prevent weapons of mass destruction—but along with Israel-first Zionists in the US to deploy “Weapons of Mass Deception” to drive the US into a new foreign war against Iran.

For this scheme to advance, however, American opposition to foreign wars would have to be neutralised, particularly on the right, where scepticism toward yet another foreign adventure had been gaining traction. According to Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk received a threatening text just 48 hours before his murder. Kirk had actively lobbied Trump against getting entangled into yet another overseas war.

The American Israel-firsters’ strategy is parasitic genius. It latches onto American power, drains it to destroy rivals, fracture neighboring states, and sow permanent chaos. The weaker the region becomes, the fatter the parasite grows, while the U.S. continues to bleed.

What America paid in Iraq may one day be remembered as a mere down payment compared to the devastation an Iran war would inflict on the region, the global order, and cost at home.

Here, American leaders would do well to revisit the sages of the founding father. In his Farewell Address, George Washington—as if he was contemporaneously addressing the ills of Israel-first and AIPAC—warned against “unnatural connections” with foreign powers, cautioning that excessive attachment could cloud judgment, corrupt independence, and subordinate the republic’s interests to those of another state. He urged against foreign entanglements and warned explicitly of outside influence that would “mislead public opinion” or “influence the public councils.”

Alas, foreign influence now shapes U.S. policy and what Americans hear and read in the media. Jewish billionaires, and lobby organizations such as AIPAC discipline political influencers, US lawmakers through funding threats and primary challenges. Political careers rise or fall on donor loyalty. Criticizing Israel is labeled anti-sematic, and dissent is criminalized as disloyalty. Journalists like Candece Own and Tucker Carlson, or even Megyn Kelly who rightly question the irrational Israeli influence, are labeled as haters and anti-Jews. In the Israel-first managed media, moral clarity is treated as treason.

America is possibly the only country in the world that borrows close to $5 billion every year, not counting special military appropriations, to give it away to a foreign state. Along with that, in the last two years, the US gave Israel more than $25 billion (annual aid + additional military aid). These are funds that could have been used to avoid healthcare cuts, or repair aging infrastructures across the United States.

The above is a living example of the “unnatural connection with any foreign Power…” George Washington warned against. Today, that forewarning reads like a prophecy.

In 2025, interest payments on the national debt alone consumed 1/5 of all federal revenue, $970 billion, or 13.8 per cent of the total US budget. Yet both parties continue to borrow more, not to rebuild the American economy, but to fund Israel and to wage wars against Israel’s enemies.

These are not abstract numbers. They are resources diverted from making America healthier, and productive investment like financial aid for college education where the money would circulate back into the economy by raising the incomes, productivity, and tax contributions of future US workers. Tariffs will not retire the debt. Trade barriers shield corporations, not consumers. Sanctions and wars weaken the economy, strain the dollar, and leave ordinary Americans footing the bill through higher taxes and inflated prices at the checkout counter for years to come.

Empires fall when they overspend, overextend, and allow corruption to auction their sovereignty to foreign powers, corporations, and oligarchs. Palestine has exposed the fatal flaw at the heart of this corruption. A government that claims to uphold international law punishes judges who apply it.

A state that lectures on human rights criminalizes those who document the crimes. A nation that boasts its humanitarian virtue enables the starvation of 2.3 million people; a state that allows rich foreign loyalists to dominate its political structure loses its sovereignty.

America’s moral redemption lies in heeding George Washington’s farewell speech, relearning the lessons of history, restoring American moral values, and reclaiming a foreign policy anchored in US interest, not outsourced to Israel-first American Zionists who are ready to drag America into a new Made-for-Israel War.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why didn’t China protect Venezuela from the US?

Beijing is regrouping to adapt to the new hemispheric world order, but not retreating from Latin America

By Ladislav Zemánek | RT | February 9, 2026

The US military intervention in Venezuela in January 2026 – known as Operation Absolute Resolve – sent shockwaves far beyond Caracas. By striking targets in the Venezuelan capital and capturing President Nicolás Maduro, Washington signaled a decisive return to hard power in the Western hemisphere. The operation was not merely a tactical move against a hostile regime; it was a strategic message about influence, hierarchy, and control in the Americas. For China, which had invested heavily in Venezuela’s political and economic survival, the intervention raised immediate questions about the limits of its global reach and the evolving rules of great-power competition in an increasingly multipolar world.

China’s response to Operation Absolute Resolve was swift in tone but cautious in substance. Official statements from Beijing condemned the US action as a violation of international law and national sovereignty, framing it as destabilizing and emblematic of unilateral hegemony. Chinese foreign ministry officials repeatedly urged Washington to respect the UN Charter and cease interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, positioning China as a defender of state sovereignty and multilateral norms.

Yet the rhetoric was not matched by escalation. Beijing avoided threats of retaliation or offers of direct military assistance to Caracas. Instead, it confined its response to diplomatic channels, reaffirmed opposition to unilateral sanctions, and issued travel advisories warning Chinese citizens to avoid Venezuela amid heightened instability. Chinese analysts emphasized that the priority was damage control: protecting long-standing economic and strategic interests without provoking a direct confrontation with US military power in the Western Hemisphere.

This measured reaction highlights a defining feature of China’s approach to Latin America. Beijing has pursued deep economic engagement and vocal support for sovereignty, but it has consistently avoided military competition with the US in a region where American power remains overwhelming. Operation Absolute Resolve exposed both the strengths and the limits of that strategy.

China’s relationship with the Maduro government was neither symbolic nor superficial. Over the past two decades, Venezuela emerged as one of Beijing’s most important partners in the Americas. In 2023, the two countries elevated ties to an “all-weather strategic partnership,” China’s highest level of bilateral designation. This status reflected ambitions for durable cooperation across energy, finance, infrastructure, and political coordination, and placed Venezuela among a small circle of states Beijing regarded as strategically significant.

Chinese policy banks extended large-scale financing to Caracas, much of it structured as oil-backed loans that allowed Venezuela to maintain access to global markets despite US sanctions. Chinese companies became involved in energy projects, particularly in the Orinoco Belt, while bilateral trade expanded substantially. Venezuelan heavy crude, though difficult and expensive to refine, accounted for a meaningful share of China’s oil imports, contributing to Beijing’s broader strategy of supply diversification.

Security cooperation also developed, albeit cautiously. Venezuela became one of the largest buyers of Chinese military equipment in Latin America, and Chinese technicians gained access to satellite tracking facilities on Venezuelan territory. At the same time, Beijing drew clear red lines. It avoided formal defense commitments, permanent troop deployments, or the establishment of military bases – signals that China did not seek to challenge US strategic primacy in the hemisphere.

Beijing’s interests in Venezuela extended well beyond oil and arms sales. The country served as a key node in China’s wider Latin American strategy, which emphasized infrastructure development, trade expansion, financial integration, political coordination, and cultural exchange within multilateral frameworks. This model sought to build influence through connectivity and economic interdependence rather than coercion or force, reinforcing China’s image as a development partner rather than a security patron.

The post-intervention reality, however, has significantly altered this equation. With Maduro removed from power, the US assumed effective control over Venezuela’s oil exports, redirecting revenues and setting the terms under which crude reaches global markets. While Washington has allowed China to continue purchasing Venezuelan oil, sales are now conducted strictly at market prices and under conditions that erode the preferential arrangements Beijing previously enjoyed. This shift directly affects China’s energy security calculations and weakens the leverage embedded in its oil-backed lending.

US control over oil flows also grants Washington influence over debt restructuring and creditor negotiations, potentially complicating China’s efforts to recover outstanding loans. The result is a sharp reduction in Beijing’s bargaining power in Caracas and a reassessment of the long-term viability of its investments. For China, the dilemma is acute: how to defend economic interests without crossing a strategic threshold that would invite confrontation with the US.

These developments align closely with the broader direction of US policy articulated in the 2025 National Security Strategy. The document places renewed emphasis on the Western Hemisphere as a core strategic priority and reflects a clear revival of Monroe Doctrine logic. It signals Washington’s determination to assert influence in the region and to limit the military, technological, and commercial presence of external powers – particularly China.

For Beijing, this creates a structural asymmetry. Decades of investment, trade, and diplomatic engagement cannot offset the reality of US military dominance in the Americas. China’s preferred toolkit – economic statecraft, infrastructure finance, and non-interference – faces inherent constraints when confronted with decisive uses of hard power. At the same time, Beijing’s emphasis on sovereignty and multilateralism continues to resonate with segments of Latin American political opinion that are wary of external intervention and eager to preserve strategic autonomy.

A comparison between US and Chinese strategies reveals different worldviews. The US approach, as outlined in the 2025 strategy, treats the hemisphere as a strategic space to be secured against external challengers through security partnerships, economic inducements, and military readiness. China’s approach prioritizes integration, development cooperation, and respect for national choice, relying on gradual influence rather than explicit enforcement.

Viewed through the lens of ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and the transition to multipolarity, the Venezuelan episode marks a critical inflection point. The US has reasserted hemispheric dominance in unmistakable terms, while China has been forced to acknowledge the limits of its reach far from home.

China may well lose ground in Venezuela, but this does not necessarily signal retreat from the region. Instead, it suggests adaptation. Diversified partnerships with countries such as Brazil and Mexico, along with continued engagement through trade and investment, offer alternative pathways forward. More broadly, the emergence of implicit spheres of influence may align with China’s interests elsewhere, particularly in Asia, where Beijing seeks greater recognition of its own strategic space.

In an international system increasingly defined by negotiated boundaries rather than universal dominance, both Washington and Beijing are testing how far their power extends – and where restraint becomes strategic. The outcome will shape not only Venezuela’s future, but also the evolving architecture of global order in a multipolar age.

Ladislav Zemánek is a non-resident research fellow at China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Decades of broken promises, aggression, Israeli pressure leave Iran no reason to trust US: Analyst

By Press TV | February 9, 2026

Decades of broken promises, military aggression, and Israeli pressure have left Tehran with no reason to trust Washington, says a US-based analyst.

In an interview with the Press TV website, E. Michael Jones, author and editor of Culture Wars Magazine, said it would be “foolish” to put “trust in a regime which violates its own word repeatedly,” referring to the Donald Trump administration.

“Iranians have learned their lesson and will not put themselves in jeopardy again. The US cannot be trusted,” he noted.

Mistrust is not a tactical posture but the logical outcome of experience, Jones said, adding that the United States, particularly under Trump, has demonstrated “again and again” that it does not feel bound by its own international commitments.

That mistrust is sharpened by Trump’s record on international obligations, he remarked.

The US-based journalist and commentator pointed to the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.

“Trump has already torn up the JCPOA. He would not feel bound by any agreement,” he said, adding that this piece of history alone makes any future deal “inherently fragile.”

Jones also dismissed Israeli-backed demands to restrict Iran’s missile range, calling them knowingly unrealistic.

“A 300 km limitation on Iranian missiles is an impossible demand,” he stated, adding that Israel is fully aware Iran would never accept such terms.

According to the analyst, these conditions are not designed to advance negotiations but to manufacture justification for war.

“They are making the demand because it provides a pretext for war,” he told the Press TV website, as indirect Iran-US talks have recently resumed in Muscat under Omani mediation.

The discussions, facilitated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, allowed the two sides to exchange views indirectly almost eight months after the previous round of talks was suspended due to Israeli-American military aggression against Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the latest round of talks as a “good start,” saying Iran’s positions and concerns were clearly conveyed.

More than a week into the June war, the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Between June 13 and 27, 2025, at least 1,064 people were killed in Iran, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.

Against this backdrop, claims that talks could once again serve as cover for military action resonate strongly. Jones believes Iranians “learned their lesson” there.

This distrust is further reinforced by Washington’s expanding military footprint and repeated threats. Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about ending US wars, his administration has bombed several countries and repeatedly edged toward confrontation with Iran.

In his assessment, Trump’s preferred military option remains limited and performative. “Trump’s preferred option at this point is a symbolic strike at targets pre-arranged with the Iranian government,” Jones says, claiming that this approach was already used in June.

Such strikes, he explained, are designed to create the illusion of victory. Trump can declare success, “satisfying the Israelis, who ordered him to attack Iran, and the Iranians, who lose nothing in the attack.”

But the analyst argued that this balancing act is collapsing. “Unfortunately, neither Iran nor Israel is willing to accept Trump’s solution,” he noted.

Israeli pressure, Jones added, is now the central driver of escalation. With Trump set to meet Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, the analyst expects an ultimatum by the latter: “if you don’t attack Iran, we will.”

“If Trump is smart, he will let Israel attack Iran on its own, hoping that the Iranian response will obliterate Israel once and for all, releasing him from Netanyahu’s constant pressure,” Jones remarked.

Still, he believes Netanyahu’s threats mask a deeper constraint. “Netanyahu is bluffing. He knows he can’t attack Iran by itself,” he said, adding that “many here speculate that Netanyahu is blackmailing Trump with the Epstein files.”

Despite the rhetoric, the analyst insists the US is fully aware of the risks of war with Iran.

Iranian officials have warned that any attack would be met with an immediate response, and Iran’s missile capabilities have already demonstrated their ability to penetrate layered defenses. According to the author, this reality is well understood within the US military.

“The American military has always claimed that the US cannot win a war with Iran,” he noted.

Yet, he hastened to add, such assessments rarely determine policy. “Their verdict invariably gets overturned by Israeli pressure,” Jones stressed, explaining why Trump continues to favor prearranged and symbolic strikes rather than full-scale war.

“American forces are now operating according to Israeli rules,” he stated, noting that the US power in the region no longer operates according to international norms.

He cited the assassination of top anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani, carried out while he was on a peace mission in Iraq, as a defining moment.

For Jones, it marked Washington’s abandonment of its own claims to a “rules-based order,” as well as its disregard for institutions such as the United Nations.

He recalled Trump’s own words when questioned by the New York Times. Asked whether he followed international law, Trump said no. Asked what he did follow, Trump replied, “My morality, my mind.”

The analyst described this as a direct reference to John Milton’s Paradise Lost, when Satan said, “The mind is its own place.”

The symbolism, he noted, is unmistakable, adding that it confirms that Imam Khomeini—the founder of the Islamic Revolution—was right when he referred to America as the “Great Satan.”

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Willing to Dilute Enriched Uranium If US Lifts All Sanctions

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 9, 2026

A top Iranian official said that Tehran would be willing to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if Washington agrees to remove sanctions completely.

Iran’s atomic energy chief, Mohammad Eslami, proposed that Tehran would dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower level if “all sanctions would be lifted in return.” Iran is estimated to have 400-600 kg of highly enriched uranium. Eslami explained that Tehran was unwilling to sell or transfer the nuclear material to a third country.

American and Iranian officials met for talks in Oman last week. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”

Tehran says it is willing to agree to a deal with Washington that imposes restrictions and inspections on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and the US abandoning its aggressive policy towards Iran.

Washington and Tel Aviv are seeking a far more expansive agreement that includes restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as Iran cutting ties with its allies in the region. The White House has demanded that Tehran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program and limit the range of its ballistic missiles.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to ensure Washington does not sign a deal with Tehran that violates Tel Aviv’s redlines. Israeli officials have told the White House that Tel Aviv could launch a strike on Iran if the US agrees to a deal that does not include restricting Tehran’s missile program.

Iran has ruled out signing an agreement on the terms proposed by the US and Israel. President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran does not sign a new deal with the US.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Orbán calls Ukraine an ‘enemy’ of Hungary

By Lucas Leiroz | February 9, 2026

Tensions between Hungary and Ukraine continue to escalate. The constant pressure against Hungarian-Russian energy cooperation and the policies of ethnic cleansing through military recruitment in Ukraine have caused fury in Hungary. Furthermore, the pragmatic and pro-peace stance of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is absolutely antagonistic to the neo-Nazi and warmongering ideology of the Ukrainian regime, making both countries irreconcilable rivals.

In a recent statement, Orbán said that Ukraine is Hungary’s “enemy.” The Hungarian leader’s words were extremely strong and signaled a radical shift in Hungary’s stance, moving from moderate opposition to Ukraine to open enmity – a logical and inevitable consequence of Ukraine’s constant provocations against the Hungarian people.

The trigger for the diplomatic crisis that prompted Orbán’s statement was Ukraine’s insistence on demanding that Hungary end its energy cooperation with Russia. The Kiev regime continues to provoke Hungary through its European partners, encouraging them to pressure Budapest to stop buying Russian oil and gas. For Orbán, these provocations are a red line, which is why Ukraine has ceased to be seen as a simple adversary in the international arena and has become a true enemy of Hungary.

Orbán sees the joint pressure from Ukraine and Europe as a direct threat to Hungarian sovereignty and energy security. Cooperation with Russia is seen by the prime minister as vital for national stability, and any attempt to boycott these ties is an attack on the country’s sovereignty.

Furthermore, Orbán emphasizes how serious it is that Ukraine, not being an EU member, is using Brussels bureaucrats to pressure Hungary, which is a member. This situation reflects the EU’s failure to defend the interests of its members and clearly exposes that Brussels is more interested in protecting Ukrainian interests than European ones.

“The Ukrainians must stop their constant demands in Brussels to disconnect Hungary from cheap Russian energy (…) As long as Ukraine demands that Hungary be cut off from cheap Russian energy, Ukraine is not simply our opponent, Ukraine is our enemy,” he said.

In response to this crisis, the Hungarian leader emphasized that his country will reiterate its opposition to Ukraine’s entry into the EU. Orbán considers it unacceptable for Europe to create any military or economic ties with the Kiev regime. Even though the European Commission continues to approve measures to support Ukraine, creating new military and economic assistance packages, Orbán makes it clear that Hungary will not yield to any kind of blackmail and will oppose any pro-Ukraine project.

Although the energy issue is the trigger for the current crisis, tensions between the two countries have been intensifying for a long time. One of the reasons, in addition to energy, is the Ukrainian persecution of ethnic Hungarians in the Transcarpathian region. The regime has been ethnically targeting its forced recruitment policies aimed at eliminating the Hungarian-speaking population of the region.

Several reports have emerged indicating that Ukrainian recruiters are kidnapping Hungarian citizens and sending them to the front lines without proper military training, resulting in mass deaths. The situation has become increasingly critical, drawing the attention of Hungarian authorities and human rights organizations. Obviously, the Orbán government is concerned about the safety of its citizens on Ukrainian soil, which is certainly one of the factors contributing to the Hungarian leader’s decision to consider Ukraine an “enemy country”.

All of this is extremely serious because it shows that tensions in Europe are rapidly escalating. With Hungary’s decision to treat Ukraine as an enemy, it is possible that in the near future there will be harsher measures on the part of Hungary in the political and diplomatic field to retaliate against Ukrainian provocations. When a country is officially considered an enemy, institutional actions are enabled to neutralize it and prevent the proliferation of threats. Hungary, in this sense, may be close to announcing tough measures against Kiev in the near future.

It remains to be seen how the EU will position itself in this scenario. The bloc will have to choose between respecting the sovereign and legitimate decision of one of its official members or attending to the interests of Ukraine – which is not a member, only a candidate country, among many others. The narrative of unconditional support for Ukraine as a “necessity” to prevent a “Russian invasion” and “defend European values” is no longer supported in local public opinion, making it pointless for the Commission to insist on this discourse.

If Brussels continues to position itself against Hungary, it will become clear to all European public opinion that Ukraine is more valuable to the EU than any member of the bloc.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

No Grounds for Talks About New Negotiations With US on New START – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister

Sputnik – 09.02.2026

There are no grounds for talking about launching new negotiations with the United States on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Monday.

“There is currently no basis for discussing the launch of such a negotiation process. We have repeatedly spoken about the need to see deeper, far-reaching changes for the better in the US approach to the issues we are discussing,” Ryabkov said on the sidelines of the BRICS Sherpa meeting in New Delhi, adding that when US policy towards Russia changes for the better, then the preconditions for launching a corresponding dialogue will arise.

Russia regrets that the US administration perceives the New START Treaty as something that requires replacement with something else, the deputy foreign minister added.

“In any such hypothetical process, nothing would come of it without the involvement of the United Kingdom and the French Republic, as the United States’ closest allies, both possessing nuclear weapons and, in the current, highly tense international situation, pursuing a highly aggressive course toward our country. Therefore, ignoring their nuclear arsenals would be irresponsible. They must be at the negotiating table, I repeat, if and when something like this becomes relevant,” Ryabkov also said.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

UK proposes North Sea drone fleet to target tankers – Sunday Times

RT | February 9, 2026

Britain is planning to launch a seaborne drone fleet to seize oil tankers it claims are linked to what it calls a Russian “shadow fleet,” the Sunday Times has reported.

London banned the import of Russian crude and oil products in 2022, along with related maritime transportation, insurance, and financing, imposing sanctions on over 500 vessels.

Despite those measures, Moscow has shipped 550 million tonnes of oil legally through the English Channel with an estimated value of $326 billion, according to the outlet, which said the sanctions are “failing to bite.” At the same time, Politico reported an estimated 40% of diesel-grade petroleum products the UK imported from India and Türkiye over four years originated from Russian oil.

The Royal Navy has drafted proposals for a command center for a remotely piloted flotilla of unmanned boats to police the North Sea. The drones are intended to gather evidence of “illicit activities” by tankers heading to and from Russian ports, which would form the basis for outright seizure of the vessels in the English Channel.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees freedom of navigation, Western powers lack a clear legal basis to enforce sanctions against cargo on the high seas.

Despite this, two tankers have been seized so far this year: the Marinera by the US with UK support in the North Atlantic, and the Grinch by France in the Mediterranean. British Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed afterwards that the two allies were coordinating to detain more vessels.

The Sunday Times noted, however, that the plan faces a significant financial hurdle, as holding seized tankers incurs high costs. To help offset this, London is reportedly considering selling the oil from impounded vessels.

Russian officials have consistently slammed tanker seizures a “blatant violation” of international maritime law. President Vladimir Putin last October called France’s detention of a vessel in neutral waters “piracy.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously characterized piracy as “one of the English traditions,” adding that historically pirates were forbidden to attack English ships but were allowed to plunder rival vessels.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Epstein’s Ukrainian nexus: modeling agencies, trafficking, and elite connections

By Uriel Araujo | February 9, 2026

The Epstein files are still rocking Western and European elite. While much is being made by Western press about Russian women victims, one should also take a look at Ukraine: the files include documents belonging to women from many countries, but Ukraine is mentioned a lot. This imbalance in coverage is itself telling.

In a previous piece, I examined how the Epstein files point to experimental research of an ethically extreme nature, tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s long-documented obsessions with eugenics, genetics, and human engineering. One may recall the allegations about the “baby ranch” in New Mexico. Some of the (underreported) released emails include references to “mouse testing” in a Ukraine lab and even to plans for a “designer baby” or a human clone within five years (files EFTA01003966 and EFTA02625486). The implications are disturbing enough.

Ukraine’s connections to Epstein’s world, however, do not end with potentially clandestine laboratories and futuristic plans about human cloning. The human trafficking dimension is equally strong. The Epstein files contain copies of passports, visas, and personal documents belonging to women from Italy, Morocco, South Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, and Czechia – all seized from Epstein’s estate. Ukraine stands out repeatedly. The correspondence highlights at least two Kyiv-based modeling agencies, Linea 12 Models and L-Models, singled out by Epstein himself as “the best.”

The Linea 12 Models agency, repeatedly cited in the Epstein files, also appears in correspondence linked to Jean-Luc Brunel (file EFTA00753670), the French model agent and convicted sexual abuser long associated with Epstein. In 2022 Brunel was found dead in his cell (in Paris) just like Epstein was in 2019.

Bridal agencies and even the Hyatt Regency Kyiv are also mentioned in this context. In the exchanges, Epstein is provided with the contact of Yulia Kyselova, described as someone who “has about 400 girls for modeling and bridal agencies in Kyiv.”

In 2012 the billionaire’s longtime assistant Lesley Groff coordinated room bookings via Thomas Pritzker, owner of Hyatt, allegedly for individuals connected to the modeling industry. Another curious conversation concerns the purchase of an old house at 24 Borys Romanetsky Street in Lviv, Ukraine, supposedly to be repurposed as a “Pilates studio.”

Ukraine has consistently ranked among Europe’s most corrupt countries, a context that matters. It is also a major source and transit hub for human trafficking: an IOM-commissioned report estimates over 120,000 Ukrainians have been trafficked since 1991, making Ukraine one of the largest sources of trafficked labor in Europe – with earlier figures pointing to hundreds of thousands of women trafficked abroad for sexual exploitation. US State Department reports repeatedly cite allegations of official complicity, including orphanage staff accused of involvement or negligence (2015–2016) and police and judicial officials covering up brothels for bribes (2020–2021). More recent assessments note investigations but few convictions, indicating persistent impunity.

Add to this Ukraine’s role as a CIA hub, documented even by the New York Times. One may recall that US intelligence agencies, in their clandestine endeavors, have historically intersected with organized crime in various theaters, including human trafficking. We now know that Jeffrey Epstein himself was CIA-connected. In such an ecosystem, it is no wonder Ukraine would attract Epstein’s interests, whether in illicit modeling pipelines, trafficking networks, or even illegal human cloning.

The political connections should not be missing from this picture. The files reveal Davos “networking” and “private dealings” with Ukrainian elite figures. In an email dated June 10, 2019, a redacted sender casually states, “I will be with Zelensky this Thursday.” In the same period, Epstein discussed Ukraine with former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, remarking that “Zelensky [is] seeking help” (file FTA00517525). Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is also mentioned in the wider correspondence. These are not trivial name-drops; they situate Epstein within elite political circles at a decisive moment in Ukraine’s post-Maidan trajectory.

This should surprise no one. Back in March 2014, amid the chaos of the Maidan upheaval, Epstein wrote to Swiss banking executive Ariane de Rothschild that the US-supported coup in Ukraine would provide “many opportunities”, a point I discussed elsewhere. Opportunities for whom, exactly? Later correspondence sheds light.

In May 2019, Epstein advised a redacted interlocutor, presumably a Ukrainian woman, to start following Ukrainian politics, including Zelensky, parliament, and corruption, implying this would contribute to her future “success”. She answers: “Now it will be so interesting to watch the politics in Ukraine: all politics as a comedy”, to which Epstein says: “Yes, it is funny, but sophisticated corruption. Huge amounts of money will be made. Huge. I’d like to see you as a female oligarch.”

To sum it up, Ukraine was an important hub in the Epstein network, financially, politically, and as a source of human “assets” (women and girls potentially recruitable and exploitable). And there is no reason to assume it has ceased to be, considering that Epstein did not operate alone and his ring was not the only one. There is an ongoing narrative war; but the question is whether Western journalists are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or whether geopolitical loyalties will continue to dictate what is seen, and what remains conveniently unseen in the New Cold War.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

South American countries’ pragmatic reassessment of ties with China amid US hegemonism, protectionism

Global Times | February 8, 2026

A quiet but profound shift is reshaping the geopolitical map of South America, as revealed by an exclusive Reuters report, “Brazil signals new openness to Mercosur-China talks as Beijing seeks deeper ties”: For the first time, senior Brazilian officials are considering a push for a “partial” trade agreement between the Mercosur bloc and China.

This represents a major shift for Latin America’s largest economy. While Washington is busy raising tariffs and fortifying protectionist walls, countries in the Western hemisphere are recalculating their survival strategies. The result? A pragmatic reassessment of ties with Beijing.

We are already seeing the ripple effects of US pressure on neighbors like Mexico and Panama, but the shifting mood in the wider region is far more significant. The degree to which Latin American nations are pivoting is directly correlated to the economic squeeze they feel from the North.

Mercosur is the customs union comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and newcomers Bolivia and Venezuela (currently a suspended member).

For decades, Brazil acted as the bloc’s protectionist “gatekeeper” against Chinese influence. Fearing that its domestic manufacturing sector would be hollowed out by Asian imports, Brasília consistently vetoed formal negotiations with Beijing. However, what Reuters describes as a “new global scenario” is forcing a change. This is a diplomatic euphemism for a stark reality: the rise of US protectionism coupled with the undeniable allure of Chinese opportunity. Facing the headwinds of American unilateralism, Brazil has done the math. Traditional allies offer no alternative market access, only higher tariff barriers.

Meanwhile, however, China is not only offering a market but also bringing tangible industrial investment, from BYD to Great Wall Motor. When Washington offers only sticks without carrots, Brazil has little choice but to turn toward a pragmatic East. Uruguay’s president, who recently visited China with a large business delegation to demand faster trade talks, is a clear testament to this regional impatience.

Historically, a Mercosur-China deal was viewed as “mission impossible” due to the bloc’s Common External Tariff rules, which forbid members from negotiating individual trade deals. Politics also posed a formidable barrier. Paraguay, a member of Mercosur, maintains “diplomatic ties” with China’s Taiwan region, creating a legal deadlock to any comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Beijing under the one-China principle.

Furthermore, Argentina’s political pendulum – swinging from protectionist Peronism to Javier Milei’s pro-US stance – has made a unified strategy difficult.

This is why the proposed “partial agreement” is a masterstroke of political pragmatism. It serves as a strategic bypass around these obstacles.

Unlike a full FTA targeting zero tariffs, a partial deal sidesteps the sensitive issue of tariff reduction that terrifies Brazilian manufacturers. It also navigates around Paraguay’s diplomatic dilemma. Instead, it would focus on non-tariff barriers, such as harmonizing sanitary regulations, streamlining customs procedures and setting import quotas.

By shifting the focus from tariffs to regulatory cooperation, Brazil is doing more than just clearing the path for soy and iron ore. It is paving the way for deeper integration of Chinese capital.

The China-Brazil relationship has already evolved from simple trade to manufacturing. With Chinese EV makers taking over shuttered Ford factories in Bahia, the two economies are moving toward supply chain symbiosis. This partial agreement could provide the institutional framework needed to secure those investments.

From a macro perspective, this is a snapshot of the Global South’s increasing autonomy. If these talks proceed, they will mark the opening of a new path – one where pragmatism supersedes ideology.

This serves as a stark reminder to policymakers in Washington: trying to block economic gravity with pressure tactics often accelerates the search for new partners. The shifting winds in South America are not merely a passive reaction to fading hegemony; they represent an active and powerful response from nations determined to define their own economic destiny.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Epstein case reveals ‘satanism’ of Western elites – Lavrov

RT | February 9, 2026

The decadent lifestyle of disgraced US financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his entourage is a testament to the moral decay of Western elites, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Last month, the US Department of Justice released a large trove of emails, photos, and videos from the Epstein state, prompting renewed scrutiny of high-profile individuals who associated with Epstein despite his conviction for sex crimes.

The files “have revealed the face of the West and the deep state, or rather a deep union that rules the entire West and seeks to rule the whole world,” Lavrov said in an interview with NTV aired on Sunday.

“Every normal person knows this is beyond comprehension and pure satanism,” Lavrov added.

Epstein died in a New York jail cell in 2019 in what was ruled a suicide. His ex-girlfriend and close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for trafficking and abusing underage women alongside Epstein.

Throughout his life, Epstein associated with politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and royals, several of whom visited his private Caribbean island.

The newly released documents contain claims that Epstein and his associates participated in occult rituals involving human sacrifice. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced last week that his government would examine whether Polish children were abused as part of Epstein’s so-called “satanic circle.”

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Corruption | | Leave a comment