Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies

Glenn Diesen | February 14, 2026

Patrik Baab is a German journalist and best-selling author who reported on both sides of the frontline in Ukraine. Baab outlines how the freedom of speech is destroyed by a failing political elite.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ exports Israeli ‘ceasefire’ diplomacy to the world

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026

The new order that is being brought about by the US Trump administration, through his Orwellian-named “Board of Peace,” is simply an Israeli model being exported to the world. It is a desperate attempt to both safeguard America’s position as the dominant superpower while also being a Zionist coup.

Although the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP) was granted legal authorization by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over its proposed purpose in supporting the Gaza ceasefire, the organization’s founding charter fails to mention Gaza or Palestine once. It also has no Palestinians who are part of it.

The BoP itself is very clearly a body that seeks to replace the United Nations, paving the way for a world that no longer considers the Geneva Conventions or International Law. We also see proof of the US moving in this direction through its latest 2026 defense budget, recently passed through Congress. Not only does it direct its mandatory $4 billion to the Zionist entity, but it also bars financing the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Washington actively sanctions UN officials and ICC judges. Additionally, it withdrew from the UN’s Human Rights Council. None of this is random; it is all part of a carefully calculated plot, one that ultimately works to the benefit of the Israelis.

During the Biden administration, the United States adopted what is known as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), something proposed before the G7 nations and is being continued by the Trump administration, with a few Republican policy-leaning tweaks.

The PGII is the US’ vision to combat China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but using precisely the opposite approach. Washington seeks Western multi-national corporations to work under a model of stakeholder capitalism – originally proposed through the World Economic Forum – meaning that the corporations make all the major decisions. Projects driven by shareholders, corporations that direct public relations and shape soft power, also allow them to inject the funds instead of the government. Think of the unofficial role of the East India trading company, yet on steroids.

While the corporations pursue their agendas, shape policy, and are exempt from any real oversight or accountability, here comes the “Board of Peace” that will preside over the entire project. The BoP is a pay-to-play subscription service, a system run by a dictator and filled with billionaires, one that uses the power of the US in order to force the world to bend to its demands.

The BoP is filled with Zionists, UAE stooges, corrupt authoritarians, and Trump’s inner circle of both competent and incompetent business elites. Its first major project, where it will behave just like a replacement UN, is the Gaza Strip.

Forever wars

Such a world order, if this project doesn’t crash and burn, is designed to work on the basis of Donald Trump’s favourite slogan: “Peace Through Strength.” In other words, might makes right, which is exactly the way that conflict management is achieved.

If we look at the way that the Trump administration commits itself to ceasefire diplomacy, spearheaded by Zionist businessmen Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, it becomes clear that the way they work is through imposing impossible scenarios to sustain, instead of solving issues. This is born out of pure arrogance.

The brief exchange between Pakistan and India was not resolved, nor was the dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which are both claimed by US President Trump as wars he ended. Ceasefires may have been concluded, but there are no solid follow-up steps that seek to properly address any root issues. It is just an order issued to both sides that now is the time to bring the fight to a close.

Where this is the most evident and relevant to the BoP is the case of Gaza, the first testing ground for the new alternative UN system. The Gaza ceasefire addresses none of the underlying political issues, doesn’t use any legal framework to find solutions, and is simply an agreement that gives the Israelis everything they want.

If Hamas even appears to have committed a small violation of the ceasefire, the US-led Civil Military Coordination Center (CMCC) – which 20+ US-controlled regimes are member to – the Israelis are given a free hand to commit mass murder. Meanwhile, the Zionist entity has been monitored every step of the way in its slaughter of 600 Palestinians and 1,600+ ceasefire violations.

It’s the same kind of ceasefire diplomacy that gave the world the predicament of Lebanon, where the Israelis have committed over 10,000 violations of the ceasefire since November 2024. The Zionist entity has gained a world record by violating the Lebanon ceasefire more times than any army has ever done in recorded human history.

Despite the clear faulty nature of this kind of businessman, diplomacy by intimidation, strategy, the US regime and its Zionist handlers brag about their successes and the alleged “peace” they have restored. In reality, they are only fanning the flames of forever wars, conflicts which actually become more unsolvable as a result of the ceasefires brought about.

The BoP also hopes to use this same strategy to bring about an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but is dramatically failing to do so. One newer target has also been Sudan, but again, this kind of ceasefire will not solve the underlying issues that caused the conflict to begin with.

The US-Israeli alliance wants a new system under the BoP, one that replaces the UN, but not one that mirrors it. Nations no longer make decisions; corporations and billionaires do, while the Israelis and the US regime are able to operate in any way they choose, without even considering the implications of their actions on anyone else.

Ultimately, this kind of chaotic world order that is being built comes as a result of the UN’s failure, but it demonstrates just why the world valued the United Nations for so long, because it was supposed to stop genocides and war crimes. Unfortunately, the US-Israeli alliance decided that the world that existed prior to the Second World War was a desirable future.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli army closes dozens of cases involving killing of Palestinians inside torture camps

The Cradle | February 13, 2026

The Israeli military has closed dozens of war-crimes investigations into its soldiers arising from the first two years of its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the Jerusalem Post reported on 8 February.

Publication of the details of the case closures was delayed by fears that doing so would ease the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue war crimes charges against the soldiers.

Many of the closed cases relate to the deaths of as many as 98 Palestinian detainees from Gaza held in military detention facilities.

Torture and rape are common in Israeli detention centers, including Sde Teiman, where a 2024 leaked video showed the gang rape of a Palestinian detainee.

The arrest of the soldiers who carried out the rape was widely condemned by Israeli politicians and media commentators, who argued that rape was justified.

According to the Jerusalem Post, cases involving the deaths of detainees in custody constitute a “significant number” of about 100 criminal probes that the military’s legal division has opened into soldiers’ conduct.

However, the 100 cases where a probe has been opened make up just a “small proportion” of the roughly 3,000 cases of alleged war crimes for which a preliminary review took place.

Additional indictments may be filed in the Sdei Teiman cases, the Jerusalem Post added.

That Israel has closed many cases with no prosecutions undermines its argument that the ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute its soldiers and politicians for war crimes.

Israel claims that it has a “robust, independent, and functioning” legal system capable of investigating any alleged wrongdoing. Therefore, according to the Complementary Principle, the ICC has no jurisdiction over its actions, Israel argues.

The Complementary Principle asserts that the ICC should complement national criminal systems, not replace them.

In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant on war crimes charges, including using starvation as a weapon of war.

Israel and the US responded by issuing threats and imposing unilateral economic sanctions on the court’s judges.

Israel is also facing charges at a separate international court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), that it is in breach of the Genocide Convention.

In March 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling requiring that Israel must take provisional measures to stop the possibility of perpetrating a genocide, including halting the military assault it was carrying out on the city of Rafah, allowing humanitarian aid to enter unhindered, and permitting a fact-finding team to enter the strip.

In December 2023, South Africa filed a case at the ICJ alleging Israel is carrying out a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel’s response to the South Africa case, due on March 12, is still being prepared by its legal team. It will reportedly include a 1,000-page legal brief, along with 4,000 or more pages of exhibits.

The South African case covers Israel’s actions in Gaza between 2023 and 2024. Pretoria has not yet submitted a detailed attack on the Israeli military’s conduct in 2025. It is expected to do so this spring or summer.

Israel will likely be required to respond by the spring of 2027.

“There are concerns among Israeli lawyers about the genocide charges, not only due to exaggerated public statements made by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, but also resulting from statements made near the start of the war by more authoritative defense figures,” the Jerusalem Post reports.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Gallant, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and many other Israeli politicians have made multiple public statements urging the army to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

According to the UN, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group:

Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe creates a ‘Russian government-in-exile’, consisting of a bunch of losers

By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 14, 2026

The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), part of the Council of Europe (not the European Union), established in October 2025 a platform for Russians in exile called the Russian Democratic Forces, which is intended to represent a new Russian government-in-exile in Europe.

With little media attention, Europe is attempting to elevate the status of the Russian opposition, while openly admitting that the new, so-called opposition lacks the structure and power to make a significant difference. Above all, they admit that the selection of members for this so-called government-in-exile was fundamentally undemocratic.

Following the formation of a so-called representative delegation of Belarusian democratic forces, the Assembly recently decided to appoint a Russian delegation as well – again, without democratic consultation.

Regarding the Russian Democratic Forces, some individuals were invited to participate in hearings organized by Assembly committees. During these hearings, the discussions focused solely on how these figures could help end what they call “Russia’s war of aggression” and on ways to strengthen sanctions against Russia.

The most absurd claim is their desire to guarantee Russians access to free and independent media in order to counter Russian disinformation. This is reminiscent of the sanctions Europe has imposed on Russian media outlets such as RT, Sputnik, Channel One Russia, etc., and, of course, this geopolitical website, the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article is published. The new media outlets they propose to establish are, naturally, funded by Europe itself – a platform for the so-called Russian government-in-exile.

They will rely exclusively on European disinformation articles opposing the current Russian government. The Russians in exile, out of fear, will write articles filled with anti-Russian propaganda and criticism, afraid of losing their European residence permits or visas should they write anything positive about Russia.

The absurdity of it all, of course, is that Europe itself has been censoring its own media and journalists since new legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), was approved. Since February 2025, the EU has officially implemented the 2022 law to combat disinformation, particularly what they call “fake news” originating from Russia.

Or take the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA): This law came into effect in May 2024 and supposedly protects media pluralism and ensures that journalists can work without state interference or abuse of legal process. An example of this absurdity – and the exact opposite of what the EMFA advocates – is the case of German journalist Hüseyin Dogru, who has been completely cut off from funding due to European Union sanctions and can no longer provide for his family’s basic needs while living in Germany. He is accused of spreading disinformation about Russia and Israel.

Another initiative is the so-called European Democracy Shield, presented in November 2025. This initiative aims to protect the EU’s democratic information space from foreign interference and information manipulation. Yet this initiative is now being violated by Europe itself. As they state: “The European Democracy Shield initiative aims to strengthen information integrity in Europe by addressing issues such as disinformation and election interference.” But this is exactly the opposite of what the EU is doing by establishing – by Europeans – a so-called Russian government-in-exile, which, by their own admission, may not have been entirely democratic in its establishment or candidate selection.

After all, it is the European Union itself, through the European Commission, that has established an undemocratic Russian government-in-exile, as they themselves admit. The president of the so-called committee that approves the candidates and the structure of the platform is German, and other committee members come from Spain and Cyprus. Not a single Russian sits on the Assembly’s board.

They even prepared a list of so-called “democratic” candidates promoting the new Russian government-in-exile – a list of “Participants of the Russian Democratic Forces” for the platform. This list is approved exclusively by the Bureau of the Assembly – the European Union, or in this case, the European Commission – based on a proposal from the President of the Assembly, who, as mentioned, is a European citizen of German nationality. The list of potential candidates is submitted to the President of the Assembly in consultation with organizations of the Russian Democratic Forces whose members meet the criteria, and is approved by them.

This is, of course, utterly absurd. Imagine the reverse situation: Russia establishes a committee for, say, Dutch or German citizens in exile, appoints them as the opposition government for the Netherlands and/or Germany, and recognizes them as a government-in-exile in Russia. Perhaps Russia should do this as counter-propaganda – to show Europe and make it clear that their behavior is absurd, undemocratic, and, above all, insane. I can just imagine the headlines in European media and the outrage from European politicians and journalists – full of words like “undemocratic and criminal” – if Russia were to do this!

Among the members of the so-called Russian government-in-exile are names such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch once convicted in Russia for fraud and theft, who has already served time in a Russian prison, and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, who has a far stronger connection to modern-day Azerbaijan or Armenia, having been born and spent his entire childhood in Baku, present-day Azerbaijan.

Another well-known opponent is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who claims to have been poisoned by Putin – similar to the Skripal and Litvinenko cases, or more recently, the allegation that Navalny was poisoned in a Russian prison. He is described as a Russian-British political activist, journalist, author, filmmaker, and a former political prisoner. He is the vice-chairman of Open Russia, an NGO founded by the convicted former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which promotes civil society and democracy in Russia. In essence, they promote the interests of the US and Europe and advocate for Russia’s subordination to them, running as puppet presidents and governments for the West.

Also part of the new Russian government-in-exile are the deranged members of the provocative punk rock group Pussy Riot, such as Nadya Tolokonnikova. These individuals, eager to attract attention with provocative actions against the Russian Orthodox Church – actions bordering on Satanism (in Europe they are called feminists) – have been condemned in Russia for their behavior. Wikipedia (a Western propaganda tool) even acknowledges that public opinion in Russia is not sympathetic to the band members. They have been labeled an extremist organization in Russia. These are just a few candidates; the rest of those chosen are even less significant or unknown to the Russian people.

Europe is also using ethnic minorities in Russia – such as the Bashkirs, Chuvash, Tatars, Chechens, and many others – to sow division and thus break up Russia, following the example of the Balkanization of the former Yugoslavia. A good example of the propaganda machine targeting ethnic minorities in Russia is the German Center for East European and International Studies, called ZOiS, located in Berlin, Germany.

For instance, a certain PD Dr. Sabine von Löwis has written an article there on “Conflict Dynamics and Border Regions,” which discusses: “The disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the creation of not only the fifteen successor states but also a series of de facto states and peoples.” The goal is likely to drive a wedge between the various groups living in the Russian Federation.

The Russian government-in-exile, as the EU calls it, was established following the example of the Americans, who have appointed puppet presidents and governments worldwide to destabilize the countries they effectively occupy and thus plunder their resources. Russia itself is rich in resources such as gas, oil, and minerals. Some members of Russia’s indigenous peoples, as mentioned above, are also on the list of the so-called Russian government-in-exile. This is a blatant provocation by the EU to drive a wedge between Russians – or at least that is the intent. In recent years, entire sessions have appeared on YouTube proposing to divide Russia along ethnic lines, just as was done with the former Yugoslavia, which is now under the control of Europe and the US.

Recent examples of US regime change, with European assistance, include Syria, Venezuela, the blockade against Cuba, the ongoing destabilization of Greenland, and, of course, the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s neighbors, such as Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, have also fallen victim to provocations involving regime change and destabilization. This task is now largely reserved for the Europeans – particularly in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia – with US assistance behind the scenes.

But do not think for a moment that Ukraine will be completely abandoned to Europe. The Americans, together with the Europeans, are eyeing the riches, natural resources, and rare earth metals found primarily in the Donbas, which are now largely in Russian hands. Leaving Ukraine to the Europeans is merely a pretext for so-called peace talks.

Times are growing dangerous these days, with an American administration that talks about peace while simultaneously attacking countries, kidnapping presidents, and throwing them in jail. It supports terrorist leaders in Syria and transfers thousands of ISIS terrorists from the Kurdish-controlled al-Hawl camp to Iraq. What will they do with them? Release them for a potential coming war against Iran – an ally of Russia? Hopefully not, but these days, we cannot be sure. The West is in free fall, without rules or morals.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Munich, 2007: The Day the West Was Told No

The Islander | February 13, 2026

They like to pretend it came out of nowhere.

They like the bedtime story: Europe was peacefully humming along in its post-history spa — open borders, cheap energy, NATO as a charity, Russia as a gas station with a flag… and then, one day, the barbarian kicked the door in for no reason at all.

That story is not just dishonest. It’s operational. It’s the propaganda you tell yourself so you can keep the addiction going without ever admitting how self-destructive it is.

Because the truth is uglier and far more incriminating:

In Munich, on February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin stood on the most flattering stage the Atlantic system owns — the Security Conference where Western officials applaud themselves for maintaining “order” and he laid out, to their faces, the skeleton of the coming disaster. He didn’t whisper it in a back channel. He used the microphone to deliver some much needed medicine, however hard it would be for the Empire to swallow.

He even signaled he wasn’t going to play the usual polite theatre — the kind where everyone agrees in public and stabs each other in classified annexes. He said the format allowed him to avoid “pleasant, yet empty diplomatic platitudes.”

And then he did the unforgivable thing, (gasp!) he described the empire as an empire.

He named the unipolar intoxication — that post–Cold War hallucination that history had ended, that power had found its final owner, that NATO could expand forever without consequences, that international law was optional for the enforcer class and compulsory for everyone else.

Putin’s core argument was brutally simple: a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, it’s impossible.

Not “unfair.” Not rude. Impossible.

(Because in a world with) “one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making” is a world where security becomes privatized — where the strong reserve the right to interpret rules (with exemptions for themselves), and the weak are told to accept it as morality. (And yes, he put it in exactly those terms — one center, one force, one decision — the architecture of domination.)

And when you build that kind of world, everyone else does the only rational thing left: they stop trusting the wall of law to protect them, and they start arming for survival.

Putin said it outright: when force becomes the default language, it “stimulates an arms race.”

This is where the Western client media — professionally disengious as ever, clipped one or two spicy lines and missed the larger point: Munich 2007 wasn’t “Putin raging.” It was Russia publishing its redlines in front of the class.

And then came the part that should have frozen the room. Putin named it – NATO expansion.

Putin didn’t argue it as nostalgia. He argued it as provocation — a deliberate reduction of trust. He asked the question no Western leader ever answers honestly:

“Against whom is this expansion intended?”

And then he drove the blade in: what happened to the assurances made after the Warsaw Pact dissolved? “No one even remembers them.”

That line matters because it goes well beyond grievance — it’s a window into how Russia saw the post–Cold War settlement: not as a partnership, but as a rolling deception. Expand NATO, move offensive infrastructure, then call it “defensive.” Build bases, run exercises, integrate weapons systems, and insist the other side is paranoid for noticing.

Putin’s formulation was clean: NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”

Now pause and look at the psychology of the West in that room. They didn’t hear a warning. They heard audacity. They didn’t hear “security dilemma.” They heard “how dare you speak like an equal.”

That’s the cultural glitch at the heart of the Atlantic project: it believes its own core lie and cannot process sovereignty in others without treating it as aggression.

So Munich 2007 became, in Western memory, not the moment Russia told the truth — but the moment Russia “showed its hand.” The implication: Russia’s “hand” was evil, and therefore any response to it was justified. Which is exactly how you sleepwalk into catastrophe.

The real prophecy: not mysticism — mechanics

What was prophetic about Putin’s speech isn’t that he had a crystal ball.

It’s that he understood the West’s incentive structure:

  • A security system that expands by definition (NATO) needs threats by definition.
  • A unipolar ideology needs disobedience to punish, otherwise the myth collapses.
  • A rules-based order that breaks its own rules must constantly produce narrative cover.
  • An economic model that offshore-outs its industry and imports “cheap stability” must secure energy routes, supply chains, and obedience — by finance, by sanctions, by force.

Putin was saying: you can’t build a global security architecture on humiliation and expect it to be stable. Russia had lived through the wreckage of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and that this playbook would be used again and again, with Georgia, with Syria, Libya, Iran and Russia itself if Putin did nothing.

He was also saying and this is where the Russophobic mass hysteria accelerates — that Russia would not accept a subordinate role in its own neighborhood, on its own borders, under a wannabe hegemon’s military umbrella.

This is where the Western catechism kicks in: “neighborhood” is called “sphere of influence” when Russia says it, and “security guarantees” when Washington says it. And so the hysteria machine warmed up.

You saw it in the immediate reception: Western elites, including Merkel and McCain treating the speech as an insult rather than a negotiation offer. You saw it in the years that followed — the steady normalization of the idea that Russia’s security concerns were illegitimate, and therefore could be ignored with moralistic lectures, free of consequences.

Ignore, expand, accuse, repeat.

That loop is your road to 2022 and to today, in Munich 2026. Groundhog day without learning the vital lessons to end the loop of utter madness.

Munich, Feb 13 (2026): Merz admits the order is dead — and calls it “uncertainty”

Fast forward. Same city. Same conference. Same Western liturgy, just with more panic in the eyes and the nucleus of a terrifying realization.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz using his best perfomative courage, murmured that the world order we relied on is no longer there. Framing the post–Cold War “rules-based order” as effectively crumbled and almost begging for a reset in transatlantic relations.

He goes further: he talks up a stronger European defence posture, and pointed to discussions with France about a European nuclear deterrent concept, a “European nuclear shield.”

And then comes the line that should be carved into the marble of the Munich conference hall as Exhibit A: Merz argues that in this era, even the United States “will not be powerful enough to go alone.”

Read that again.

The BlackRock chancellor on NATO’s spiritual home turf is effectively saying: the empire is overstretched, the illusion of old certainties are gone, and Europe will be left hung out to dry. Talk about strategic vertigo!

And it is exactly what Putin was talking about in 2007: when one axis tries to act as the planet’s owner, the cost accumulates — wars, blowback, arms races, fractured trust, until the system starts to wobble under its own contradictions.

Merz also reported begged the U.S. and Europe to “repair and revive” transatlantic trust. Repair trust with what currency?

Because trust isn’t repaired by speeches. Trust is repaired by reversing the toxic and suicidal behaviors that destroyed it.

And those behaviors were precisely what Putin named in 2007:

  • expanding military blocs toward another power’s borders,
  • treating international law as a menu,
  • using economic coercion as a weapon,
  • and then pretending the consequences are “unprovoked.”

Europe is now gasping at the invoice for that policy set: industrial stress, energy insecurity, strategic dependency, and a political class that can’t admit how it got here without indicting itself.

So instead of confession, you get moral performance. Instead of strategy, you get hysteria and cartoon slogans.

Instead of peace architecture, you get escalation management — the art of walking toward the cliff while calling it deterrence.

Merz’s remarks underscore that Europe is being forced to contemplate a harsher security environment and greater responsibility, all of its own suicidal making — but it still frames the Russia question in the familiar moralizing register.

Which is the whole tragedy: they can feel the tectonic plates shifting beneath them, yet they keep reciting the same old prayers that summoned the earthquake.

Why we’re here: the Western addiction to expansion — and the manufactured Russophobia that lubricated it

Russophobia is more than just bloodthirsty prejudice. It’s the (failed) policy tool of choice of the last few empires against Russia.

It’s what you pump into the Mockingbird media bloodstream to make escalation feel like virtue and compromise feel like treason.

You don’t have to love everything Russia does to see the mechanism: a permanent narrative of Russian menace makes every NATO move sound defensive, every EU economic self-harm sound righteous, and every diplomatic off-ramp sound like appeasement.

It creates a psychological environment where:

  • NATO expansion becomes “freedom,”
  • coups become “democratic awakenings,”
  • sanctions become “values,”
  • censorship becomes “information integrity,”
  • and war becomes “support.”

And once you install that operating system, you can torch your own industry and still call it moral leadership.

That’s the dark comedy of Europe since 2014 — accelerating post 2022: self-sanctioning, deindustrializing pressure, energy price shocks, and strategic submission to Washington’s delusion of carving up Russia, sold as “defending democracy.”

Meanwhile, Moscow reads the West’s behavior the same way it read it in 2007: as a hostile architecture closing in, dressed up as virtue.

Putin’s Munich speech — again, not mysticism — warned that when the strong monopolize decision-making and normalize force, the world becomes less safe, not more.

So what did the West do?

It made the “rules-based order” a brand — while breaking rules (international law) whenever convenient. Exceptionalism at almost biblical levels, God’s chosen people.

It expanded NATO while insisting the expansion was harmless.

It treated Russian objections as evidence of Russian guilt — which is circular logic worthy of an inquisitor.

And it nurtured a media culture that could not imagine Russia as a rational actor responding to a pattern of ugly regime change behavior — only as a cartoon villain driven by pathology. Not analysis but theological warfare.

The punchline Munich won’t say out loud

Here’s the line Munich still cannot speak, even in 2026, even with Merz admitting the old order is gone:

The West didn’t misread Putin’s warning. It rejected it because accepting it would have meant limiting itself.

Munich 2007 was a chance — maybe the last clean one — to build a European security architecture that wasn’t just NATO with better PR. A chance to treat Russia as a Great Power with legitimate interests, not a defeated adversary to be regime changed and broken apart.

And now, in Munich 2026, they stand amid the wreckage and call it “uncertainty,” as if the storm blew in from nowhere. The BlackRock Chancellor calls for resets, for revived trust, for Europe to become stronger, for new deterrence ideas.

But the reset Munich needs is the one it refuses:

  • reset the premise that NATO will remain a viable alliance beyond the war in Ukraine,
  • reset the premise that Russia must absorb strategic humiliation and accept the inverse, the reality as it is – where it’s in fact Western Europe that is wearing the humiliation.
  • reset the premise that international law is a tool of the powerful,
  • reset the premise that Europe’s role is to be the forward operating base and European sovereignty sacrificed to buy the Empire time .

Until that happens, Munich will keep happening — every year, more anxious, more militarized, more rhetorical, more detached from the material reality its own disastrous policies created.

And Putin’s “prophecy” will keep looking prophetic — not because he conjured the future, but because he correctly described the machine.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy

The Dissident | February 13, 2026

Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently appeared at the Munich Security Conference- supposedly to showcase her foreign policy knowledge- in what many believe may be the lead up to an eventual presidential run in 2028.

Unfortunately, what AOC showcased was that, while being critical of aspects of U.S. foreign policy, she gets it dead wrong on issues ranging from NATO to USAID to Iran to Ukraine.

Calling To Fund A CIA Cutout

While AOC called out some U.S. hypocrisy around the claim of a “rules-based international order”, she still gave credence to the idea that such a thing even exists, or that the U.S. is concerned with human rights and democracy around the world.

At one panel, she said , “That does not mean that the majority of Americans are ready to walk away from a rules-based order and that we’re ready to walk away from our commitment to democracy.”

This apparently includes support for so-called U.S. “democracy promotion” initiatives such as the CIA cutout USAID, which AOC called to support at two different conferences.

When asked at the aforementioned panel, “Are there any particular institutions that a democratic administration would want to save?”, AOC replied, “ first and foremost, I think we need to revisit our commitments to international aid not just USAID but the the dozens of global compacts that the current secretary of state and President Trump have withdrawn from” adding, “They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarianisms of authoritarians that can carve out the world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox where Putin can saber rattle around Europe and and try to bully around our own allies there.”

At another panel, AOC complained that the Trump administration was playing “hokey pokey with USAD”.

In reality, USAID and other “aid organizations” such as the National Endowment for Democracy are used to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries that do not bow down to U.S. demands, including by attempting to undermine democratically elected governments.

Foreign Policy magazine wrote in 2014 , “Foreign governments have long accused the U.S. Agency for International Development of being a front for the CIA or other groups dedicated to their collapse. In the case of Cuba, they appear to have been right.”

The magazine added, “In an eye-opening display of incompetence, the United States covertly launched a social media platform in Cuba in 2010, hoping to create a Twitter-like service that would spark a ‘Cuban Spring’ and potentially help bring about the collapse of the island’s Communist government” adding, “It was a digital Bay of Pigs, but it was funded by USAID, an arm of the government dedicated to doing good work in bad places, not by the CIA.”

The outlet noted that this was far from the only time USAID has been used as a tool of U.S. regime change, writing:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez frequently and famously accused the United States of covertly trying to overthrow him, but only after his death did evidence emerge to support his seemingly paranoid claims. A WikiLeaks cable released in 2013 outlined the U.S. strategy for undermining Chavez’s government by “penetrating Chavez’s political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” and “isolating Chavez internationally.” The strategy was to be carried out by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives, the same office responsible for developing “Cuban Twitter,” and involved funding opposition organizations in Venezuela.

USAID has also played a role in funding the 2004 coup against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the 2014 coup against Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych, the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, and the 2024 judicial coup against Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu.

Claiming NATO Stops Regime Change Wars

At one of the Munich Security panels, AOC claimed that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, later clarifying that she meant transatlantic partnership, i.e., alliances like NATO would somehow stop, “the installation of regional puppet governments”.

AOC claimed, “it actually is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is our global alliances that can be a hard stop against authoritarian consolidation of power, particularly in the installation of regional puppet governments.”

In reality, the “transatlantic partnership” through NATO, since the end of the Cold War, has done nothing but regime change wars to overthrow unfriendly governments and install puppets.

In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia and Kosovo in what was billed as a humanitarian intervention to save Albanians in Kosovo from the Serbian authorities, but in reality, it was an orchestrated regime change war against Slobodan Milosevic.

As James Bissett, the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, explained , “Media reports have revealed that as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization with a reason for its continued existence.”

Following this, NATO intervened in Afghanistan and did exactly what AOC claimed it would prevent: it occupied the country and propped up a puppet government.

Journalist Seth Harp meticulously documented in his book “The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces” that the NATO propped up government led by CIA asset Hamid Karzai was “the world’s leading narco-state, with an economy almost entirely dependent on the drug trade”.

NATO then overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, one of the key planks in the greater Zionist/Neo-Con clean break plan for greater Israel.

While the intervention was billed as a humanitarian intervention to stop Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering innocent civilians and to support moderate rebels, a 2015 UK parliament report later admitted that “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence” and “It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards”.

The CIA then used Gaddafi’s weapons stockpile to further the next regime change war on the “clean break” hit list in Syria with journalist Seymour Hersh reporting that following the fall of Gaddafi, the CIA “authorised a rat line in early 2012” which was “used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” noting that, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.

Repeating CIA/Mossad Talking Points About Iran

While AOC did oppose bombing Iran at the behest of Israel, she repeated CIA and Mossad talking points without giving vital context before doing so.

When asked, “Would you support direct U.S. military strikes on Nuclear facilities if direct negotiations fail with Iran?” AOC responded, “I think that that is a dramatic escalation that no one in the world wants to see. Right now what the Iranian regime is doing particularly with respect to protesters is a horrific slaughter of some estimates have tens of thousands of people.”

The claims of “tens of thousands of people” killed by the Iranian government during protests comes from biased sources openly supporting war with Iran, such as Amir Parasta a German-Iranian eye surgeon who is a lobbyist for the Israeli opposition puppet Reza Pahlavi and the outlet Iran International, which Israeli journalist Barak Ravid said , “the Mossad is using… quite regularly for its information war”.

In other words, AOC opposing war with Iran but repeating the claim of “tens of thousands dead” is akin to saying in 2002, “I oppose war with Iraq, but Saddam definitely has WMDS”.

Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to give some vital context on the protests in Iran.

For one, she did not mention that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent twice boasted that the protests in Iran were caused by U.S. sanctions on the country’s economy, saying:

President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.

and

What we can do at treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country, at a speech at the Economic club in New York in March I outlined the strategy, it came to a swift -and I would say grand- culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under, there was a run in the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.

(Emphasis: Mine)

Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to list the mountains of evidence that the CIA and Mossad infiltrated the protests to turn them in a violent and pro-regime change direction.

This includes:

  • A Mossad-connected X account in Persian boasting, “Let’s all come out to the streets. The time has come. We are with you. Not just from afar and verbally. We are also with you in the field.”
  • Former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo wishing a “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
  • Israel’s Channel 14 reporting that “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.”
  • Former head of the Military Intelligence Directorat in Israel, Tamir Hayma, saying, “There is currently a very significant influence operation by the US” in Iran.
  • The Financial Times reporting that, “Another witness in western Tehran told the FT he saw about a dozen fit men, ‘looking like commandos’, dressed in similar black clothing, running through the area and calling on people to leave their homes and join the protests. ‘They were definitely organised, but I don’t know who was behind them,’ he said.”
  • Mossad connected Israeli journalist Yonah Jeremy Bob cryptically writing , “Only after the air is clear will the full story of the Mossad’s involvement likely be cleared to be told. But when it comes to the Mossad and Iran, there is always far more than meets the eye”.
  • Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu boasting , “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.

Supporting The Ukraine Proxy War

When asked about the proxy war in Ukraine, AOC said, “there’s no conversation about Ukraine that can happen without Ukraine, and so they of course lead in terms of setting their terms on this, but I think that overall as a principle, we shouldn’t reward imperialism. And I don’t think that we should allow Russia to continue or any nation to continue violating a nation’s sovereignty and to continue to be rewarded”.

This was a strong signal in support of continuing the proxy war in Ukraine.

At no point did AOC mention that in 1997, veteran diplomat George F. Kennan warned that NATO expansion eastward would “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking” a view he said was “not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters.”

Nor did she mention that former U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, warned in 2008 that, “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.

AOC did not mention the Maidan coup in 2014, which, as Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko noted, was carried out because “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia this was why Western politicians, diplomats, and civil society representatives actively supported the Euromaidan (coup against Yanukovych) as a mechanism for overthrowing Yanukovych, even going as far as providing financial support for the ‘revolutionary’ process”.

She similarly ignored the recent bombshell admission from Biden Administration official Amanda Sloat, who said :

We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done.

I guess if you want to do an alternative version of history, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January of 2022, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we will stay neutral.’ Ukraine could have made a deal around March/April of 2022 around the Istanbul talks

There is certainly a question, almost three years on now, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks, it certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life.

Nor did AOC mention the fact that Russia and Ukraine agreed to end the war in April of 2022, but the deal was blocked by then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the behest of the collective West.

Through all of her answers, AOC showed she is not serious about being anti-war and will undoubtedly give in to the foreign policy establishment on many issues.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing – Orban

Sputnik – 14.02.2026

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Saturday that Europe has decided to go to war with Russia by 2030 and that preparations are already underway in certain European countries.

“Europe has decided that it will go to war [with Russia] by 2030. Not that it wants to, might, or plans to – it has decided. It has made the decision,” Orban said.

Preparations for war are being carried out across Europe, except in Hungary and Slovakia, he added.

“Nine [European] countries already have compulsory military service. In some places, it also applies to women. The population is being sent instructions on what to do in the event of war. Military spending has risen sharply. Agreements have been signed to send troops to Ukraine,” he said.

In recent years, Russia has noted unprecedented NATO activity near its western borders. The alliance has expanded its initiatives, describing them as measures to deter alleged Russian aggression. Russian authorities have repeatedly expressed concern over the buildup of NATO forces in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that Russia remains open to dialogue with NATO on an equal footing, provided that the West abandons its course toward militarizing the continent.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia and China Are Expanding Their Cooperation to Counter US Efforts to Bully Iran and Cuba

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR 21 | February 14, 2026

This will be a rather lengthy article, but you need to know what Russia and China are doing in a closely coordinated series of actions that show a serious commitment to counter US actions to punish and isolate Iran and Cuba. Let’s start with Iran… Since the June 2025 12-day Iran–Israel war (which ended with a US-brokered ceasefire on 24 June 2025), Russia and China have provided Iran with a combination of diplomatic, economic, military-technical, and strategic support. This has helped Tehran recover from strikes on its nuclear sites, air defenses, and missile infrastructure, while deepening their “axis” alignment against Western pressure. Support has been pragmatic rather than unconditional—neither offered direct intervention during the conflict, leading to some Iranian frustration—but has accelerated in the months since.

The biggest news — a development that has been largely ignored in the West — was the signing of the Trilateral Strategic Pact (signed 29 January 2026), which provides a comprehensive framework for diplomatic, economic, and security coordination (emphasizing sovereignty, sanctions resistance, and multipolarity; no formal defense alliance). The signing occurred through simultaneous ceremonies in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow, as confirmed by state media in all three countries and reported across outlets like Middle East Monitor, GV Wire, and others. It represents a significant escalation in coordination among the three nations, building directly on their existing bilateral frameworks.

It formalizes a trilateral coordination mechanism for the first time, linking the three powers in a shared strategic framework. It builds on the bilateral agreements that Iran had signed previously with Russia and China:

The Iran-Russia 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (signed January 17, 2025, entered into force October 2025), focused on economic, political, defense, and sanctions-evasion ties.

The Iran-China 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement (signed 2021), emphasizing trade, infrastructure, energy, and Belt and Road Initiative projects.

While the full text has been released incrementally (with portions still emerging as of early February 2026), public descriptions and official statements highlight the following core elements:

  • Diplomatic coordination — Unified stances on international issues, including opposition to Western sanctions, support for multipolarity, and mutual backing in forums like the UN.
  • Economic resilience and cooperation — Enhanced trade (e.g., energy exports, yuan/ruble-based mechanisms), sanctions circumvention, and infrastructure projects (e.g., expanding Belt and Road ties, North-South Transport Corridor involvement).
  • Strategic and security alignment — Military-technical cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint exercises (e.g., building on annual “Maritime Security Belt” drills; a major joint naval exercise involving all three that will take place in the Gulf of Oman and northern Indian Ocean in the coming weeks).
  • Nuclear sovereignty — Emphasis on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear development and resistance to external interference.
  • Trilateral nuclear and military talks — Including IAEA discussions and coordinated exercises.
  • No mutual defense clause — It explicitly stops short of a formal military alliance (unlike NATO’s Article 5), focusing instead on coordination and mutual support without automatic defense obligations.

State media in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow described it as a “cornerstone” for a new multipolar world order, with Chinese messaging highlighting opposition to “unilateral coercion” and Russian/Iranian outlets framing it as bolstering sovereignty against external threats. While I do not believe that Russia and China will join the fray if Iran is attacked, they are making a concerted, substantive effort to ensure that Iran can effectively defend itself and thwart US attempts at regime change.

Both Russia and China are providing important military assistance to Iran, but China appears to be playing a bigger role in supplying hardware while Russia is supplying Iran with critical intelligence. According to press reports and photographic evidence, Russia has deliveried Mi-28NE attack helicopters (confirmed in early 2026) and possible MiG-29 fighters. Russia also has sent a large number of military transport flights to Iran, but there are no reports about what was on board. The most likely case is that Russia is fulfilling supplies of weapons based on prior contracts and in defiance of reinstated UN/EU arms sanctions via the JCPOA “snapback” mechanism.

China has focused on upgrading Iran’s air defense system by supplying HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems (a long-range SAMs comparable to Russia’s S-300; deliveries reported from July 2025 onward, with Iranian officials confirming integration to replace losses from Israeli strikes). In addition, China has deployed the YLC-8B long-range surveillance radars (for detecting stealth aircraft like the F-35), and shipped missile components (e.g., solid-fuel propellants, guidance systems) to rebuild ballistic missile production lines damaged in the war. Iran is in a much stronger position militarily than it was on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched its surprise attack.

CUBA

Russia and China also are providing significant political, economic, humanitarian, energy, and material support to Cuba, especially amid the island’s severe fuel/energy crisis, food shortages, and economic strains intensified by the longstanding US blockade and recent US actions under President Trump (e.g., pressure on Venezuelan/Mexican oil supplies and threats of tariffs on countries aiding Cuba).

Russia and China are coordinating rhetorically (both denounce US “inhumane” tactics and reaffirm support in bilateral calls and statements). They also are coordinating the kind of aid that each supplies to Cuba… Russia focuses on supplying direct oil/fuel while China is aiding Cuba with financial/renewables/food assistance. There is not a formal trilateral mechanism like the one they signed with Iran, but both countries frame their support as countering US pressure in the Western Hemisphere. This support is ongoing and responsive to Cuba’s acute needs (fuel rationing, blackouts, food scarcity). Deliveries and projects continue despite US threats, with both countries emphasizing it as humanitarian and sovereign cooperation.

Russia’s Support

Russia emphasizes solidarity, political backing, and practical material/energy assistance, framing it as opposition to “suffocating” US measures. Russia’s help consists of the following:

Energy Aid (Oil and Fuel): Russia is preparing to deliver crude oil and petroleum products to Cuba “in the near future” as humanitarian aid. The Russian Embassy in Havana confirmed this to Izvestia. Russia last sent a major shipment in February 2025 (100,000 metric tons of crude under a $60 million state-backed loan approved by Putin). The Kremlin (via spokesman Dmitry Peskov) states it is in active contact with Havana to discuss assistance options and has described Cuba’s fuel situation as “critical.” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed Russia is providing material assistance, including supplies already underway.

Political and Diplomatic Support: Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (phone call with Cuban FM Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Feb 2, 2026) reaffirmed Russia’s “principled position” that economic/military pressure on Cuba is unacceptable and committed to continued political and material/financial support. Russia repeatedly condemns the US blockade, opposes any military intervention, and expresses solidarity with Cuba (and Venezuela). Ambassador Viktor Koronelli has stated Russia “will not abandon Cuba.”

Historical/Longer-Term Ties: Russia wrote off ~90% of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt (~$32 billion) in 2014. Ongoing cooperation includes trade, scientific/academic exchanges, and past energy deals.

China’s Support

China has positioned itself as a major strategic partner, focusing on humanitarian aid, energy infrastructure, food security, and debt/investment cooperation (Cuba is a Belt and Road Initiative partner). The recent Emergency Aid Package (Approved by Xi Jinping, Jan 2026) provides $80 million in financial assistance (in euros equivalent) for purchasing electrical equipment and other urgent needs — specifically to help resolve the energy crisis (blackouts affecting >60% of the country). China also donated 60,000 tons of rice in emergency mode (first shipment of ~4,800 tons arrived Jan 2026; rest in coming months) for food security.

China also is expanding support that builds on prior commitments. Previously it was helping Cuba with a 200 MW photovoltaic (solar) energy projects and, recent days, has delivered 5,000 solar panel kits for isolated homes (new executing company established with Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Trade). Shortly after Venezuelan President Maduro was abducted, China, acting under an emergency program, delivered 30,000 tons of rice (first shipments in Jan 2026)… This was in addition to prior donations of solar lamps, roofing materials, mattresses, and generator sets.

In the face of the US effort to crush Cuba economically, China is helping Cuba with debt restructuring negotiations (banking/financial/corporate debts). Cuba also is being Integrated into China’s CIPS payment system and increased use of yuan in trade (announced 2025). China is in effect helping wean Cuba off of the US dollar. China also is helping Cuba with biopharma (e.g., technology transfers for aspirin production), digital transformation (Phase 4 program), high-definition TV projects, mining, oil exploration, sugar industry recovery, and renewables (China investing in solar to help Cuba reach 25% renewables by 2030).

The support that Russia and China are providing to Iran and Cuba sends a clear message to Donald Trump and to the nations of the global south: i.e., Russia and China are building a new financial and security infrastructure designed to immunize countries against US coercion and threats. They are doing more than just offering words of solidarity… They are backing up their words with concrete economic, diplomatic and military actions. The foundation of the American hegemon is crumbling.

I started my vlogging day with Nima and Colonel Wilkerson:

Video Link

Ray McGovern and I discussed the latest developments with Iran and the war in Ukraine with Judge Napolitano:

Video Link

And here’s my interview with Alastair Crooke… we analyzed the impending attack on Iran and the prospects for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine:


Video Link

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow

RT | February 14, 2026

NATO countries are plotting an illegal maritime blockade of Russia, particularly in the Baltic and the Arctic regions, Moscow’s ambassador to Norway, Nikolay Korchunov, has said.

In an interview with RIA Novosti published on Saturday, Korchunov accused the bloc’s members, including Norway, of “putting the Baltic-Arctic region on a barrack-like footing” by holding a series of exercises. This, he added, is aimed at “restricting freedom of navigation and violates international law norms.”

According to the envoy, NATO is also developing plans for “a partial or complete naval blockade” of Russia. In addition, such NATO members as Norway, Sweden, and Finland “are working together to increase military mobility through the development of transport and logistics corridors from west to east, as well as through cross-border use of bases and other military infrastructure.”

These preparations increase tensions and represent a direct threat to Russia’s national security and would force Moscow to take countermeasures, Korchunov warned.

His remarks come after Bloomberg reported on Friday that UK Defense Secretary John Healey had met with counterparts from Baltic and Nordic nations on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to discuss seizing Russia-linked oil tankers.

In recent months, Western countries have detained several Russia-linked cargo vessels under various pretenses. Moscow has consistently condemned the seizures as “piracy” and a blatant violation of international maritime law.

Last year, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev warned that NATO is seeking to undermine Moscow’s economy by considering a blockade of the country, including by paralyzing Russian ports in the St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad regions. He also pointed out that the bloc is seeking to turn the Black and Baltic Seas into “internal waters of the alliance,” adding that Moscow is preparing countermeasures in response.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026

In late January, the US Department of Justice dumped millions of documents detailing the criminal activities of US oligarch and serial paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including his vast rolodex of paedophilic celebrities, financiers, politicians and public figures. The tranche is so vast, independent journalists and researchers have barely scratched the surface yet. But preliminary investigations amply demonstrate Epstein was centrally enmeshed with multiple foreign spy agencies. First and foremost, the Zionist entity’s notorious Mossad. The horrors wrought on West Asia as a result are incalculable.

A recurrent phenomenon in the newly-released documents, emails and text messages is Epstein and his grand global nexus seeking to profit from Western-inflicted misery the world over. On March 18th 2014, in the Maidan coup’s immediate, violent aftermath, he emailed Ariane de Rothschild, a French banker and CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group since March 2023, due to her marrying into the famous, powerful Jewish family. Epstein was exhilarated. “Ukraine upheaval should provide many opportunites [sic],” he wrote.

De Rothschild was drained after a “very long day sitting on bank board,” but delighted to hear from her close friend. “Miss our talks and hope you’re well,” she gushed. “Will be at home tomorrow night, will you be free? And let’s discuss Ukraine.” The “opportunities” Epstein perceived in the shattered post-coup country, as it plunged into Western-sponsored civil war, ranged from an untapped reservoir of young girls and vulnerable women to pimp out to high-ranking ‘clients’, to pillaging the country’s vast resources.

In July 2011, Epstein emailed associate Greg Brown, declaring “the Libyans now are legit, but need real help,” adding “they must be careful there will be many claims on that money.” He was referring to Tripoli’s frozen overseas assets, seized by Western powers in March that year, after the country plunged into insurrectionary violence. Epstein fired off this missive right when NATO’s bombing of Libya graduated from striking government forces to actively supporting rebel advances, as foreign fighters closed in on the country’s capital.

Brown excitedly responded, “there are already $80 billion in frozen funds/assets internationally,” and perhaps “three to four times this number in sovereign, stolen and misappropriated assets.” He was working with MI6 and Mossad veterans to “identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” If they could “identify/recover 5% to 10% of these monies and receive 10% to 25% as compensation,” the Anglo-Israeli private spying network could reap “billions of dollars”.

However, this paled in comparison to gains to be had once the Western-sponsored National Transitional Council unseated Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. “The real carrot is if we can become their go-to guys because they plan to spend at least $100 billion next year to rebuild their country and jumpstart the economy,” Brown salivated. He reminded Epstein the country was “rich”, with a small population but “the ninth largest crude oil & natural gas reserves on the planet.” Gaddafi was murdered by rebel forces that October.

‘Secret Weapon’ 

Numerous declassified materials amply indicate Epstein was a journeyman intelligence asset, with connections to several ostensibly separate spying agencies. Tellingly, some heavily redacted communications contain references to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). These buildings are used by US intelligence and government agencies to exchange top secret information, and access requires the highest security clearance. In a secret January 2018 discussion with political strategist Steve Bannon, Epstein bragged that his sprawling New York mansion was “similar to a SCIF.”

Bannon was one of many right-wing figures Epstein courted. Another was Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of shadowy data harvester Palantir. In June 2014, Epstein emailed to say he increasingly lent credence to Thiel’s “‘intentionality’ argument” – the proposal that the “mess” unfolding across the Arab and Muslim world over recent years was what then-US President Barack Obama “really wanted”. Epstein remarked, “we would have to admit a strategy brilliantly executed.” Thiel fired back:

“The ‘intentionality’ argument would center on making sure the US gets less involved with the rest of the world (I think that’s the ‘plan’). The more of a mess, with just lots of bad guys on different sides, the less we will do.”

Thiel was well-placed to know this was the Obama administration’s strategy. Birthed with seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir made vast sums serving as the War On Terror’s “Secret Weapon”. It was used to hunt “bad guys” at war with the US, and “Israel” – the key beneficiary of West Asia being set on fire during this period. Not coincidentally, the Zionist entity has for years employed a variety of Palantir products. Thiel commented in July 2024, the Gaza Holocaust well-underway:

“My bias is to defer to Israel.”

Accordingly, Epstein was clearly in the employ of both US and Israeli intelligence. In a February 2016 email exchange with Thiel, he declared, “as you probably know I represent the Rothschilds.” The banking dynasty was instrumental in “Israel’s” creation, funding construction of colonial settlements in Palestine from the late 1800s onwards. Epstein’s own ties to the Zionist entity were deep and coherent. From September 2010 to March 2019, he formally met with prominent Israeli politician and military veteran Ehud Barak over 60 times.

Barak was a repeat visitor to Epstein’s private island, Little St James. On at least one occasion, in January 2014, Barak visited with his wife, and specifically left his security detail behind. In June that year, Epstein arranged for Barak to meet Thiel. The Israeli politician was such a frequent guest at Epstein’s New York apartment on 301 East 66th Street, his staff referred to the lodgings internally as “301.”

‘Terrorism Financing’

In January, Barak sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming he “deeply regret[s] having any association with him.” However, their bond was intimate, warm, and long-running. Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex offences didn’t dim their connection, and come November 2018, Barak referred to Epstein as a “great friend” in discussions with Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani, a businessman and member of the Qatari royal family. An FBI investigation was opened into Epstein on June 12th 2018.

That same day, Epstein lodged an order for six 55 gallon drums of sulfuric acid, “with fuel and insurance charge for transport,” with now-defunct, Florida-based Gemini Seawater Systems. It would be unsurprising if he’d been tipped off about the Bureau probe. Someone within the FBI, or a foreign spying agency keeping a close eye on the agency, could’ve alerted him. Just as Epstein maintained ties between different foreign services, he enjoyed relations with high-ranking state figures the world over.

Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani was but one Gulf royal who the paedophile financier counted as a close confidante. Epstein was evidently considered a go-to figure when Qatar was seeking to communicate with “Israel”. In February 2010, Al Thani wrote to Epstein that the “Israeli operation… doesn’t help anyone.” He referred to the brazen assassination of Palestinian Resistance fighter Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai the previous month by Mossad. A day earlier, local authorities formally blamed Mossad for the killing, triggering a media firestorm.

In July 2017, following the UAE and Saudi Arabia leading Arab states in severing diplomatic relations with Qatar, and imposing a US-supported land, air and sea blockade on the monarchy in advance of a planned land invasion, Epstein wrote to Al Thani, offering him advice on how Dubai could rescue herself. “I think Qatar should stop kicking and arguing,” and make nice with the Zionist entity, he proposed. “Let the heat come down a bit.”

In reference to the monarchy’s support for Hamas, he suggested “Qatar needs to come out against terrorism,” as “the smell of terrorism financing will be around for years.” Epstein went on to reference Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent international jaunt, where he’d met Trump in June, before becoming the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit the Zionist entity. Modi also snubbed the Palestinian Authority, eliciting condemnation from PA officials. Epstein reported:

“Modi took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US president [Donald Trump]. They had met a few weeks ago. IT WORKED!”

Troublingly, Epstein’s filial alliance with Ehud Barak overlapped with Barak serving as Tel Aviv’s security minister, raising the obvious question of whether Epstein in any way directly influenced Israeli policy during this time, or acted as an advocate and broker for the Zionist entity with other countries in West Asia and beyond. Barak solicited Epstein’s input with his public writing, including a draft of his book My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel, Searching for Peace, which was released in May 2018.

That month, Barak’s wife emailed Epstein while visiting New York demanding an “urgent short meeting” between Epstein and her husband. One day later, Donald Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement, in favour of a “maximum pressure” campaign. In July 2018, Barak’s private surveillance firm Toka broke cover publicly for the first time, announcing it had raised $12.5 million in seed funding from investors including venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Andreessen Horowitz invested in several ventures also backed by Jeffrey Epstein, including CoinBase. It is unknown whether Epstein invested in Toka, although his interest in such a company would be clear. The firm is stacked with former Israeli cyber spies, and has patented technology capable of locating security cameras and webcams, hacking into them, then altering their live feeds without trace. Such a resource removes any need for real-life individuals to oversee “honey trap” operations, and targets to take the bait.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment