Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran rejects US assassination claim, says Washington trying to whitewash its own crimes against Iranians

Press TV – June 3, 2026

Iran has strongly rejected accusations by the US secretary of state that Tehran seeks to assassinate American officials, slamming Washington for attempting to portray itself as a victim while concealing own record of war crimes against the Iranian people.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei sharply rebuked allegations by Marco Rubio that Iran is allegedly plotting to assassinate American officials, denouncing the claims as another example of Washington’s efforts to distort reality and deflect attention from its own actions.

The Iranian official said the unfounded allegations reflected a mentality that projects its own conduct onto others.

“Everyone imagines others according to their own creed,” Baghaei wrote in a post on his X account on Wednesday, stressing, “Playing the victim cannot whitewash the savage war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity that you have committed against the Iranian nation.”

Baghaei responded to remarks that Rubio made during a congressional hearing, where the top US diplomat claimed that Iran was seeking to target American officials.

This came as a US-Israeli military coalition, during an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran that began on February 28, assassinated the Leader of the Islamic Revolution along with several senior officials and military commanders, while also killing thousands of people across the country.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Iran rejects US assassination claim, says Washington trying to whitewash its own crimes against Iranians

The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost

Inside China Business | June 2, 2026

The War on Iran has left hundreds of thousands of tons of fertilizers stranded in the Persian Gulf, and destroyed years of forward natural gas production. Fertilizer supplies are collapsing, with billions of dollars’ worth of contracts to farmers voided. China enacted export curbs on fertilizers and upstream products in the opening days of the war, to ensure domestic farm production was not impacted.

Bonus video:

Resources and links:

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video | | Comments Off on The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost

Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

By Andi Olluri | Al Mayadeen | June 1, 2026

Andi Olluri argues that the Gaza “peace process” serves as a propaganda framework that legitimizes Israeli occupation and Western policy objectives while presenting Palestinian surrender and disarmament as prerequisites for peace. Media and political elites, he contends, have systematically reframed ongoing violence, occupation, and collective punishment as diplomacy, while marginalizing Palestinian proposals for political settlement.

In Gaza, “Israel” has effectively been working toward the goal they have had since day one, namely “not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza”, “not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life” and thus effectively fight against “not only Hamas fighters with weapons”, but “the entire Gaza population”, quoting Giora Eiland, former Israeli head of the National Security Council.

This has been the consistent goal ever since, stated over and over again by the top Israeli leadership. “We are deep inside Gaza and will never leave all of Gaza – that will not happen,” in the words of War Minister Israel Katz. In short, “full conquest of the Gaza Strip, to establish Israeli control over all the territory of the Strip”, as the government explained in April.

The stage for illegal “full conquest of the Gaza strip” was set last fall, when the international community approved of the US Board of Peace (BoP) – Orwell would have loved that one. This brilliant propaganda coup was achieved after we killed at least 200,000 Palestinians, according to Western intelligence estimates, and physically eradicated the country in a war with the specific purpose of ethnic cleansing, and with sadism that would have put Pol Pot to shame.

The background happens to be quite revealing, and is of course completely forgotten now – minimal reporting as there was to begin with. Western designs and plans to control Gaza were basically declared to be tantamount to lawless aggression. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the West is “under obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal” occupation and attack. The ICJ also ordered to immediately halt “financial, economic, military or technological aid to the State of Israel, and punish such violations” and that Western terror states must pay “full reparation” to the Palestinians.

Naturally, then, the West immediately sent tens of billions in military aid to “Israel” – and engaged directly in military operations and occupation administration, as Western intellectuals marched further with self-adulation of our service for international law and democracy. The story was, incidentally, similar to when the International Criminal Court (ICC) declared an arrest warrant for Western-supported Israeli terrorists and war criminals. In that case, the US, Britain, and the EU simply destroyed the court (once a darling, when it went after Russia) with crushing sanctions, outright threats, and carefully orchestrated smear campaigns.

Western leaders were refreshingly honest, and noted that their official stance here is that the court “is for Africa and thugs like Putin,” according to Senator Lindsey Graham. That is entirely correct: we must pretend to care about international law when condemning official enemies, and make sure to keep quiet when we conduct global gangsterism.

This entire episode was plainly too embarrassing to be remembered, and had to be censored into total historical oblivion – an easy task for the Western doctrinal system. On full display is the utter servility and cowardice of the media and intellectual classes, as they joined their state in its rampage against international law, and defenseless people withstanding Western aggression.

Well, after all of these triumphs, the BoP could be created. Its founding documents – as confirmed by the subsequent events, too – made clear that Gaza has no right to self-defense, and that Israeli-American occupation could continue and in fact expand. Thus, the very purpose of the BoP was to enable maintaining the situation created by “Israel’s” illegal attack, in defiance of the world court – and to the deafening praise and awe of the media.

Thus, Dennis Ross, senior US Middle East diplomat and apologist for Western atrocities, celebrated that the BoP “is reason for hope,” and that the “constellation of force” consisting of “a powerful United States” with its Israeli and Arab satellites “are also cause for optimism.” Not everything is so glitzy, however, and there is a problem: “Hamas … could try to violate the cease-fire’s various terms”. If “commitment from Hamas” can be ensured, then we will be able to enforce the “peace plan”, to quote the European Council on Foreign Relations, the leading European policy forum.

Slaughtering hundreds of thousands in an illegal war of extermination, starving the population, destroying the courts that came in our way is no issue of concern and merits not one phrase in the journals of opinion or the public debate. Only “hope” and admiration of our “force” is permissible after a successful genocide.

The fact that we can even talk of a “peace plan” organized by the attackers ethnically cleansing the victim is a logical impossibility in itself. It is comparable only to, say, the Nazi press being filled with “optimism” as the Führer implements his “peace plan” after he successfully conquered Norway. The plain absurdity of it all is too spectacular even to talk about, but cannot be perceived in a society as deeply indoctrinated as ours. Stating the simple truth is simply incomprehensible, comparable to speaking a foreign language or imagining a “round square”.

We read, without anyone raising even an eyebrow, that this is the “best chance .. in decades to create a Gaza controlled not by Hamas or Israel, but by its people” (a total lie, of course). “For the first time in a long while, there are some bright lights in Gaza”, and therefore “any sensible person should wish success for the Board of Peace”, as liberal Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it. If this can be achieved through crushing the indigenous resistance, Hamas, then “that would be a historic feat indeed” – to use the words of Cambridge’s Chair of International Law professor Marc Weller, illustrating his contempt for court orders and international law.

The “best chance” for a free Gaza, then, is not to stop the attack, occupation and then colonization, followed by reparations for this crime of this century. Or perhaps to follow the orders of the world court, which would in fact mandate all of these things. Rather, it is to carry out this “war of extermination: the indiscriminate, unrestrained, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians” as the top Israeli political echelon itself describes it, and then impose a capitulation ultimatum on the population that has not yet been killed and starved to death. Only then can we celebrate the “bright lights in Gaza”.

We witness with clarity the utter irrelevance and disregard for concepts such as illegal aggression, mass slaughter, and international law among Western intellectuals. This is required for anybody wishing to be regarded as a respected intellectual, be granted a nice law professorship at an elite university or gain access to the media; otherwise you cannot be part of the “debate”.

Well, fast forward to today. The dear Leader declared that “peace” had been achieved and that we ought to look away, and naturally loyal media dutifully followed order. Careful studies showed that Western media coverage of Gaza then immediately dropped, while daily Israeli massacres in Gaza (around 1,000 murdered and more than 2,500 wounded as of writing) continue since November 2025, virtually without a whisper of criticism.

The only issue of concern is whether Hamas will “agree” to disarm or not. Translating that from Newspeak to English: will our victim agree to give up all resistance to our invasion and occupation plans, thus alone sticking to our fraudulent version of the accords, as we violate their terms every day? That is the meaning of the entire “debate” about Hamas’ disarmament when you put the euphemisms aside.

In short: the whole purpose of the fraudulent “ceasefire” designed to lower Hamas’ guard is thus to force the Palestinians to be “implementers of the decisions of others,” leaving them “once again not at all the masters of their own fate” (UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths), and thus “prevent a Palestinian state,” according to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a terrorist culture such as this, in which a leading doctrine is that no one has the right to defend themselves from Western attack, it is natural that we are furious and concerned at the slightest sign that the Palestinians should try to defend themselves instead of capitulating. On this issue, near 100% consensus reigns throughout the entire political spectrum.

For example, former Middle East correspondent for AP, Dan Perry, berated that “Hamas is making a mockery of … Trump’s plan” – not the US and “Israel”, of course. The Palestinians, then, “are still trapped under the boot of a jihadist mafia that destroyed their lives” – again, not the Western genocide and war of extermination – and therefore “Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state as long as Hamas remains an armed militia with any prospect of again seizing control.”

Since everybody has already internalized the understanding that no one has the right to self-defense against Western attack, it is pointless to ask why Hamas and the Palestinians must accept the existence of a Western-armed proxy state occupying it and launching constant wars of aggression against the civilian population, deemed illegal by the world court. Or, why Palestinians must accept the attacker’s murderous “plan” that they have no right to dictate. Or, why “Israel” and the West, the aggressors, should not be held to the same standard as the occupied and attacked, and be forced to disarm as they launch multiple wars of aggression in the region. These suggestions are not denied; rather they cannot be thought in the minds of Western elites – a considerable achievement in the history of brainwashing.

Consider Dennis Ross and David Makovsky – leading foreign policy “experts” and senior Obama Middle East advisors. “The success” of the “peace plan” will “depend on the disarmament of Hamas,” they said, warning that “if Hamas chooses not to disarm and Gaza does not reunify, the future looks bleak.” Similarly, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman was worried: “Do I think it [disarming Hamas] would be easy? Of course not. Do I think the Palestinians have an aged, corrupt leadership that needs replacing, energizing and reforming — and have plenty to answer for themselves for their own plight? I sure do.” Therefore, “disarmament” must be forced – perhaps without Netanyahu – so that the West may “consolidate any strategic gains.”

Similarly, Elliot Abrams and his colleagues were worried that the Palestinian Resistance “has largely refused to give up its weapons … As a result, the IDF cannot pull out of Gaza.” Furthermore, “there is no easy way to keep Hamas down” since “Hamas, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist groups come.”

Putting aside the factual falsifications, let’s consider this logic, which everyone regards as correct. By their own standard, then, Palestine – and a host of others being attacked by the West, such as Iran, Yemen, Lebanon – would have to invade “Israel”, kill (in proportion) 1 million Israelis, physically annihilate most of “Israel”, occupy it and demand that the population capitulates, as well as drop bombs on its financiers in Washington, Brussels, London and so on. “Israel, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist” states “come”, and it has “largely refused to give up its weapons” and stop its aggression in accordance with the ICJ orders, so as a result, Hamas cannot pull out of Tel Aviv.

But none of this can be discussed – surely not in any publication that can reach a general audience – since the level of fanaticism, distortion and genocidal frenzy is much too high among Western political and cultural circles.

In other words, only tactical debate over how we best crush our victim and ensure that they will not be able to fight back is permitted to be printed. It is far beyond conceivable that there would be any tactical debate anywhere over how the Palestinians – the party being attacked and ethnically cleansed – could best defeat “Israel” and its Western masters, and that we should send them military aid to do so.

Consider, for example, the leading Middle East “specialist” Julie Norman. She explained that it “was always likely to be difficult to move from the initial ceasefire to the second phase of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.” Reason? Primarily because “Hamas rejected a disarmament plan” by “the US-led ‘Board of Peace’.” Therefore, “there is no peace process on the horizon, nor is there a political pathway available to Hamas if the group lays down its arms.”

In short, “Gaza will also need to deradicalize” and have their weapons removed – only then can “sustainable peace” and the “peace process” be fulfilled (The Atlantic ).

The “peace process” is a funny word used in political discourse. It simply means whatever the West happens to be saying. If “Israel”, Washington, the EU have physically destroyed a country, killed a tenth of the population (almost all civilians), blocked the ICJ orders to stop the illegal occupation, vetoed all diplomatic resolutions at the UN Security Council (UNSC), and then demanded that those left alive in Gaza unconditionally surrender – then that is the “peace process” per definition.

Also, notice that everyone takes for granted as a matter of fact that Hamas has not been willing to accept a political resolution through diplomacy. That fairy tale – which is a total inversion of reality and nurtured in the media – is a remarkable propaganda coup when we look at the actual facts. Unfortunately, the actual historical record is almost uncorrectable thanks to the dishonesty of the Western media and intellectual classes, which have done an impressive job at distorting the plain facts, as they must.

In the real world, the US and “Israel”, with their enthusiastic European sponsors, have rejected all proposals from Hamas, the UNSC, the Arab League, and so on, all of them in fact absurdly accommodating to “Israel” and sometimes going beyond the maximalist and rejectionist claims made even by the Israelis. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to the history spanning one year prior to today, but this has been constant throughout the entire war of extermination in Gaza.

During the spring of 2025, Hamas agreed to the massive reconstruction plan offered by the Arab League, which stipulated that Hamas leave power and be replaced by a technocratic “committee” – which was immediately rejected by the US and “Israel” since it obstructed “ethnic cleansing” of Gazan Palestinians “under any pretext or justification.”

Hamas offered a separate proposal to “end the war in Gaza” with a five-year truce, as well as to “free all hostages at once.”

In September, Hamas repeated its “readiness for a comprehensive deal” releasing “all” captives and ceding all power over Gaza “immediately”, thus “ending war”, in exchange for an end to the Israeli occupation.

In December, Hamas offered “a guarantee that no weapon will be fired from Gaza against Israel, and it will do that by burying the weapons”, and a total truce “for seven to ten years between Gaza and Israel, and Hamas will not use the weapons.”

This month, May, the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, “called for negotiations over the disarmament of Hamas and other groups to be tied to the granting of political rights for the Palestinian people ‘within the national framework,’ as well as to commitments that the people of Gaza would no longer be killed.”

All of these proposals were flatly rejected by the West and “Israel” (thus automatically banning it from history and mainstream reporting too), offering in return only maximalistic demands that we know the Palestinians cannot accept. That is, disarmament and defenselessness before they are given any guarantees in return. They must trust in Washington and Tel Aviv to engage in good behavior and abide by treaties and agreements. Western propagandists cannot comprehend why the Palestinians do not happily agree to this sign of our generosity and humanism, having swallowed their own lofty and embarrassing rhetoric about “peace offers.” But victims have no difficulty in seeing right through the reality which it tries to mask, having witnessed previous “cease-fires” broken by Israel in Gaza, “diplomacy” in Iran, Lebanon and so on.

In fact, Hamas’ compliant stance in diplomatic negotiations is not only infinitely more forthcoming than “Israel’s”, but perhaps unique in modern history. Faced with a lawless aggressor and the world’s superpower waging a war with the intent of – and in practice carrying out – physical eradication of its country, Hamas is willing to guarantee its security, agree to have no means of self-defense against future attack and so on. They do not even demand that “Israel” give back the lands it illegally occupies, nor that it pays reparations, which is the minimum required action as determined by the ICJ court ruling. Most shockingly, Hamas does not even demand that the US and “Israel”, the aggressors that constantly disregard agreements and treaties and attack multiple countries in the region, disarm themselves. That would be the bare minimum any sane person observing the situation would require.

The situation is clear: Hamas’ readiness to accommodate in diplomatic negotiations is – as far as I know – unique in modern political history, agreeing to concessions more far-reaching than, say, the Versailles Treaty. And they cannot demand, and so they do not demand, even the minimal rights they would have in any honest negotiation with the US and “Israel”, since the Western states would never tolerate even the thought of it.

But these trivially obvious truths, and the vast documentation to illustrate them, cannot be mentioned in a cultural climate as ours, where the commitment to terror and lawlessness flourishes and where the population must remain carefully protected from the dangerous realm of fact.

In short, “Israel has effectively been given a licence to torture Palestinians” and continue their war of extermination, “because most of your governments, your ministers, have allowed it”, as UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese put it (the US sanctioned her).

It is through such propaganda techniques and distortions discussed here, that the media and intellectuals have presented the government’s necessary propaganda version of the “peace process.” They have thereby “allowed” for our governments to divert attention away from the basic reality of what is happening, as they exterminate Gaza under the thin facade of “diplomacy.”

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

FSB Blows Lid on Western Plot to Hack Russian Officials’ Phones — But Here’s the Shocker

Sputnik – 02.06.2026

Russia’s FSB has uncovered a foreign spy operation using malware implanted on the smartphones of high-ranking Russian officials. The goal? To extract data, eavesdrop on conversations, and covertly monitor the situation.

But here’s what the headlines won’t tell you.

How the US is weaponizing the global digital backbone — a threat to the entire world

Think of Fastly and Cloudflare. These aren’t basement startups. They are the largest CDN (content delivery network) providers and “security perimeter” operators on the planet. They serve half of the Fortune 500, EU and Asian government websites — including, for example, the official site of the British government, major EU institutions, and critical financial infrastructure spanning the world’s democratic nations.

In plain terms: they are the infrastructural spine of the internet. When you access a government service, a bank, or a news outlet in most of the Western world, your data almost certainly passes through their networks.

This brings up an uncomfortable question: if these companies permit US intelligence agencies to embed spyware code within their services, can anyone still trust American cloud technology?

Because this is not a hypothetical. The FSB’s revelation about malware on Russian officials’ smartphones is just one thread. The larger fabric is this: the US has spent years building legal frameworks — from the Patriot Act to the Cloud Act — that compel American tech companies to cooperate with intelligence agencies, often in secret. FISA warrants, National Security Letters, and classified directives turn cloud infrastructure into a surveillance platform.

Fastly and Cloudflare are not rogue actors. They are deeply integrated into the US national security apparatus. And if the backbone is compromised, every node connected to it becomes a potential target — whether in Moscow, Berlin, or New Delhi.

Is this merely one hack? Hardly. This is systemic betrayal — plain and simple.

The same digital spine that guards the West also feeds allies, neutral nations, and every global power. Break that trust — and the internet shatters. So, get ready for national clouds. Localized walls. Sovereign webs. Welcome to the fragmentation that the open internet promised would never happen.

So when Washington lectures the world about “rules-based order” in cyberspace, the rest of the world is now asking: whose rules? And who is watching the watchers?

Here’s the real takeaway: American tech’s reputation just took a devastating hit. The same internet giants that run global communications stand accused of spying — not on enemies, but on their own allies.

And when the internet’s backbone is no longer solid or trustworthy, the entire digital world turns into a battleground.

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on FSB Blows Lid on Western Plot to Hack Russian Officials’ Phones — But Here’s the Shocker

Do Palantir’s bosses have blood on their hands over the Starobelsk massacre?

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 2, 2026

The murder of 21 Russian students at a college dormitory on May 22 has yet to be fully understood in terms of the exact involvement of NATO states.

The university building in Starobelsk, Lugansk, was attacked in the early hours of the morning with 16 drones in three consecutive waves of assault. The targeting of the dormitory was deliberate. There were no Russian military installations in the vicinity.

NATO’s involvement in this act of terrorism is on multiple levels. Ukraine’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles has ramped up in recent months, in line with the massive financial support provided by the European Union in the form of a €90 billion loan, most of which is dedicated to boosting Ukraine’s drone arsenal, with European manufacturing companies working in partnership.

At another level, the Western corporate news media have largely ignored the Starobelsk atrocity and NATO’s involvement. The Western media have distorted the de facto war crime by highlighting implausible denials from the Ukrainian regime. In short, covering up.

At yet another level is the new and remarkable efficiency of Ukrainian-launched drones to evade Russian air defenses. Since the conflict in Ukraine escalated in 2022, NATO intelligence from satellite surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft has been supplying the Kiev regime with targeting data to attack Russian units.

But in recent months, NATO information flow and data analysis have taken a quantum leap regarding targeting range and lethality. Thus, the close partnership between Ukrainian and NATO drone manufacturing is amplified by the involvement of U.S.-based Palantir Technologies in operating systems.

Palantir was cofounded in 2003 by German-U.S. billionaire Peter Thiel. It has grown to become the “brains” behind operating weapon systems for the Pentagon, as well as the Israelis in their genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, and aggression towards Iran.

Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp visited Kiev on May 12, where he met with the regime leadership to firm up military partnerships for using Artificial Intelligence in attack drones. Karp was ecstatic about the global business opportunities accruing to Palantir by using the Ukraine war as a laboratory for developing technology.

He boasted that his company’s software was the “operating system” for Ukraine’s military deploying against Russia. Significantly, the Palantir boss remarked that the real-time learning and development of his company’s systems were giving Palantir a huge commercial advantage that could not be achieved in peacetime laboratories. In other words, the killing fields of Ukraine are plugging into Palantir’s profitability and global status as a company.

“It’s our software primitives or infrastructure and your people building things that are completely different from what we would have ever built on top of this,” Karp said in an interview with Ukrainian media.

“You’re doing it on the battlefield with a very small number of people and then showing the world how these things work.”

This strategic collaboration between the Kiev regime and Silicon Valley’s hottest company was also revealed in an exclusive report this week by CNN. The CNN report did not mention Palantir by name, but screenshots reposted clearly showed that the Ukrainian drone operators were using the company’s PRISMA software. As reported, the software allows the processing of vast amounts of aviation and radar data in seconds, which is then used to deploy drones that evade Russian air defense systems and hit deep inside Russia.

The success of Ukrainian-NATO drones to strike deep inside pre-war Russian territory has improved dramatically. The air strikes have reportedly damaged 24 out of a total of 33 of Russia’s top oil refineries. Last month alone, it was reported that six refineries were hit, as well as major fuel depots. The installations, such as at Saratov and Volgograd, are hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. The disruption in fuel supplies has necessitated the Kremlin’s imposition of rationing on public purchases.

Palantir’s data processing and AI are such that interception of Ukrainian drones by Russian air defenses is incorporated into the targeting programs, which permits subsequent drone waves to circumnavigate anti-aircraft systems. This feedback loop brings new challenges for defense systems.

The increase in EU and NATO drone funding and technology would account for the quantitative surge in attacks on Russian territory. The complicity of NATO states, primarily the Baltic states, in lending their territories as launch sites is also a factor. The NATO propaganda machine, too, plays a role in minimizing the civilian deaths and thereby blindsiding European and American public opposition to a dangerous provocation and escalation of war with Russia.

But the involvement of Palantir in increasing the kill machine is another crucial qualitative dimension in the escalation, whereby Ukrainian-NATO drones are evading Russian defenses and increasing their capability at hitting its deep interior and vital infrastructure.

The massacre at the Starobelsk college in Lugansk points to the systematic involvement of Palantir in executing such a deadly attack.

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov (2010-14) expressed his astonishment at how 16 drones were able to penetrate Russian air defenses and hit the college in three waves. Azarov told Tass, the Russian news agency: “I think [NATO countries] are involved. Because, first, the drones that were sent flew right past all Russian air-defense systems, which means that someone guided them through. And you can only guide them if you have space reconnaissance data – it was a whole wave of 16 drones, and they passed by air-defense systems. It means they were guided through, solely thanks to the intervention of Western intelligence agencies. I think that, strictly speaking, they [NATO states] were behind this provocation,” he said.

Azarov did not mention Palantir per se. But the complex navigation ability of the NATO drones to thread through layers of Russian defense is the very kind of qualitative edge that the American software company is giving to the Ukrainian operators.

The other grave implication is that the extensive mapping of Russian targets, from oil refinery installations to fuel depots, suggests that the information supplied by the NATO “brains” has a detailed picture of what is being targeted. There is no way that the air strikes on a college dormitory could be confused with military installations that are not even present in the area.

That means Palantir and its multi-billionaire bosses like Alex Karp and Peter Thiel have blood on their hands, no matter how much they scrub their hands at their company’s newly opened office in Kiev.

In a perverse sidenote, Thiel, who was a friend of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, has a personal interest in the topic of the Anti-Christ, traveling the globe delivering exclusive lectures to wealthy audiences about Armageddon and the end of times. It’s not clear what his exact views are on manifestations of the Anti-Christ. But the murder of teenage student girls sleeping in their beds should surely be relevant to his lectures.

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Do Palantir’s bosses have blood on their hands over the Starobelsk massacre?

US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report

Sputnik – 02.06.2026

The US is weighing whether to expand NATO’s nuclear-sharing framework by inviting more alliance members to host American dual-capable aircraft—warplanes configured to deliver nukes, reports the Financial Times.

At present, the arrangement includes Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkiye and the UK.

Under its terms, the US retains full custody of the nuclear warheads, which are stored at select European bases, while allied air forces train for nuclear deterrence missions using aircraft such as the F-35, F-15, and Tornado.

The discussions are reportedly driven in part by a need to reassure European allies of Washington’s enduring commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrent—even as the US scales back some conventional troop deployments on the continent and pushes allies to shoulder more defense responsibility.

The talks remain at an early, highly confidential stage, with no imminent decisions anticipated.

Nevertheless, nations on NATO’s eastern flank—notably Poland and several of Russia’s neighbors—have already signaled interest in a possible expansion of the nuclear-sharing deal.

Russia has repeatedly cautioned that any deployment of nuclear-capable assets close to its borders would be seen as a destabilizing factor, and a direct threat to its national security.

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report

Kiev admitted it launched drones at NATO member – media

RT | June 2, 2026

Ukraine launched explosive-laden drones towards Finland, triggering an alert that affected 1.8 million people, Helsingin Sanomat reported on Monday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The incident took place on May 15 and set off a major security alert in the southern Finnish region of Uusimaa, which includes the country’s capital, Helsinki. The warning halted air traffic at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport and triggered a lockdown order by the authorities.

Finnish officials did not initially disclose details of the alert, stating only that the drones could be approaching from Russia, creating the impression that the threat was linked to Moscow.

According to HS, however, the emergency measures were prompted by a warning from Ukraine, which said it had accidentally sent drones carrying explosives toward Finland.

The Finnish Defense Forces later said no violation of Finnish airspace had been detected. HS reported that it remains unclear why the drones never entered the country, noting that Russian air defenses may have shot them down en route.

The report has prompted criticism from Finnish lawmakers. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee said they were not told that the warning came from Ukraine, which was essential information that should have been shared immediately.

The case adds to a growing list of incidents in which Ukrainian drones have entered or approached foreign airspace while apparently en route to targets in Russia. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland have all reported similar episodes in recent months.

Last month, Estonia shot down an alleged Ukrainian drone over its territory for the first time, while Latvia saw Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities near the Russian border, which ultimately led to the collapse of Prime Minister Evika Silina’s government.

Moscow has repeatedly accused NATO countries of quietly allowing Ukraine to use their airspace for attacks on targets in northwestern Russia, particularly energy infrastructure in Leningrad Region. Russian officials have also warned that Kiev could stage provocations involving drones to draw NATO deeper into the conflict.

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo previously said he had told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki considers Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has likewise urged Kiev to keep its drones away from Estonian territory and to “control their activities better.”

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Kiev admitted it launched drones at NATO member – media

Russia Raises Alarm Over Ukraine’s Surging Black Sea Terrorist Activity

Sputnik – 02.06.2026

MOSCOW – Russia is concerned about Ukraine’s mounting terrorist activity in the Black Sea, which is raising risks for civilian shipping, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Tuesday.

“We are concerned about the noticeable escalation of terrorist activity in the Black Sea by Ukraine, which leads to a deterioration of conditions and an increase in risks to civilian shipping,” Zakharova said in a statement.

On May 29, the Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that a drone had attacked a Turkish-owned vessel in the Black Sea, injuring two people. Ankara said it had conveyed its concern to all parties about a possible escalation in the region.

Ukraine’s military stages bandit raids on Black Sea ships with drones and unmanned boats — then pins the attacks on Russia, the spokeswoman said.

“These attacks on civilian commercial vessels have once again shown that the Kiev junta has complete disregard for the principles and norms of international law — preferring instead to deny any involvement in the incidents,” Zakharova said.

The spokeswoman branded Ukraine’s Black Sea provocations outright banditry — and warned that organizers and perpetrators alike will have to answer for these criminal acts.

“We believe such provocations — which are nothing but terrorist acts — must be the subject of a thorough, impartial investigation, receive a clear public response, and face condemnation from all coastal states that bear special responsibility for navigation safety in the Black Sea,” Zakharova stressed.

Neutralizing Black Sea security threats is crucial to any full crisis settlement, the diplomat noted.

“We confirm our readiness for close cooperation with Ankara in the interests of finding optimal ways to stabilize the Black Sea’s maritime space and exert effective influence on Kiev,” Zakharova added.

June 2, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Russia Raises Alarm Over Ukraine’s Surging Black Sea Terrorist Activity

‘Luring Russia into war’

By Joe Lauria | Consortium News | May 30, 2026

Is NATO provoking a direct war with Russia?

In 2022, the U.S. provoked Moscow to invade Ukraine so Washington could attempt to destroy Russia’s economy with sanctions, orchestrate worldwide condemnation in an information war and lead a proxy ground operation to bleed Russia — all part of an attempt to bring down its government.

In case there’s any doubt that this is the goal, recall what President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government said right after Russia’s intervention.

On the day Russia invaded, Biden admitted that the sanctions weren’t meant to prevent an invasion. “No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening. … This is going to take time. And we have to show resolve so he [Putin] knows what’s coming and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them. That’s what this is all about.”

On March 1, [2022] Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said the sanctions on Russia “we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.”

Biden said on March 26, 2022 at the Royal Castle in Warsaw: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

A month later Biden confirmed that the purpose of the draconian U.S. sanctions on Russia was never to prevent the invasion of Ukraine, which the U.S. needed to activate its plans, but to punish Russia, get its people to rise up against Putin and ultimately to restore a Yeltsin-like puppet to Moscow.

“Let’s get something straight,” Biden said. “I did not say that in fact the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. … The maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain … we will sustain what we’re doing not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year. That’s what will stop him.” Of course it’s taken NATO more than a year but they haven’t given up.

The United States could have easily stopped Russia’s intervention in Ukraine’s civil war from happening by doing four things: forcing implementation of the 8-year old Minsk peace accords; dissolving extreme right Ukrainian militias; saying Ukraine would not join NATO and engaging Russia in serious negotiations over Moscow’s proposed December 2021 treaties about a new security architecture in Europe. Russia threatened a “technical/military” response if NATO and the U.S. did not take those two treaty proposals seriously.

So the U.S. knew Russia would invade if it rejected those proposals, which called for Ukraine not to join NATO, for missiles in Poland and Romania to be removed and NATO troops in Eastern Europe withdrawn. Instead, the U.S. refused to move the missiles and provocatively sent even more NATO forces to Eastern Europe, knowing full well it would lead to war. Washington was singularly uninterested in preventing Russia’s invasion.

Instead the U.S. essentially set a trap for Russia. Using the precedents of the Afghan trap set for the Soviets in 1979 and the Kuwait trap set for Saddam Hussein in 1990, the U.S. forced Russia’s hand by rejecting the treaty proposals while thousands of Ukrainian troops (Russia claimed as many as 122,00) amassed for an offensive against ethnic Russians in Donbass.  Russia invaded on Feb. 24, 2022.

On March 16, 2022 — the same day it was revealed Russia and Ukraine had worked out a 15-point peace plan that later resulted in a tentative agreement to end the war — Biden announced another $800 million in military aid for Ukraine. As we now know, Emmanuel Macron tricked Putin into withdrawing his troops from outside Kiev to make that agreement work, only for Boris Johnson to intervene to stop the deal once the troops had been removed.

Having lost on the ground in Donbass over the subsequent four years, NATO has turned to an air war, hitting targets deep inside Russia with NATO-operated, long-range missiles and swarms of drones fired from Ukrainian territory. These attacks have damaged Russia’s oil exports and killed civilians. The most prominent provocation was last week in Donbass in which NATO and Ukraine slaughtered 21 Russian students in their sleep.

As our guest Scott Ritter pointed out, these attacks are designed to put internal political pressure on Putin. Either he acts more decisively, or risks his hold on power. Thus Russia has warned embassies in Kiev to evacuate their personnel as Moscow threatens to hit “decision-making centers” in the Ukrainian capital. There are also hardline demands on Putin to hit facilities in Germany and Britain that provided the munitions that murdered the students.

Until now Putin has studiously avoided direct war with NATO.  But in the same way that NATO provoked Russia to invade in 2022, NATO now appears to be provoking Russia to strike a NATO country to start a direct war with the aim of strategically defeating Moscow.

Either way Europe thinks it may get what it wants. If Putin doesn’t act against Europe it could threaten his position at home. And if he does hit Europe it could be the casus belli Europe seeks for a direct NATO-Russia war. German and British generals tell their nations to be ready for conflict with Moscow by 2029.

Last week an errant drone — ostensibly Russian — hit a Romanian apartment building near the Ukrainian border. All hell broke loose with calls for an invocation of NATO’s Article 5. It could be a harbinger of what would come if Russia not only devastates Kiev, but conventionally attacks a NATO nation too.

Absent the provocative NATO attacks on Russia, Moscow has shown zero interet in threatening war on Europe.

The big questions are: How would Europe react if decision-making centers are wiped out in Kiev? How would the United States react if Russia hits a NATO country? Donald Trump is no fan of NATO, but would he succumb to pressure from Europe, Congress and his cabinet to directly attack Russia? Without the U.S., NATO could hardly act.

In provoking Moscow with increasingly effective strikes deep inside Russia, why are Britain and Germany — the NATO ringleaders — seemingly so confident that direct war with Russia would not turn nuclear?

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Luring Russia into war’

Russia accuses France and the UK of piracy over cargo ship seizure

RT | June 1, 2026

Moscow accused France and the UK of engaging in an act of “piracy” after French and British naval forces intercepted and diverted a cargo ship sailing from Russia’s Murmansk to Cameroon in international waters.

The vessel, Tagor, was stopped on Sunday, more than 400 nautical miles off the coast of Brittany, according to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. French authorities claim the ship was operating under a “false” flag.

In a statement on Tueday, Zakharova said the Russian Embassy in Paris has demanded full information concerning the circumstances of the detention, warning that the operation violated international maritime law. She also stated that Moscow is taking measures to protect Russian crew members aboard the vessel.

The spokeswoman rejected France’s justification for the operation, which cited Article 110 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The provision allows warships to board and inspect vessels on the high seas under limited circumstances, including when a ship is suspected of having no nationality.

However, international maritime law does not permit a warship to compel a vessel to alter course and escort it from international waters to a national port, according to Moscow.

Zakharova also dismissed French President Emmanuel Macron’s insinuation that the ship was violating “international sanctions,” arguing that only restrictions approved by the UN Security Council qualify as international sanctions. Unilateral measures imposed by European states cannot be considered international under law, she said.

The spokeswoman accused European governments of selectively interpreting legal norms to suit their interests, while cautioning that attempts to enforce sanctions in areas governed by freedom of navigation could have broader consequences for global shipping.

She added that many vessels operating in the interests of European countries sail under so-called flags of convenience, cautioning that extending such enforcement practices to the high seas could prove costly for international maritime trade.

June 1, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Russia accuses France and the UK of piracy over cargo ship seizure

Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?

Orbán is skeptical, writing: “Free cheese is only in the mousetrap”

Remix News | June 1, 2026

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar recently traveled to Brussels to discuss the country’s frozen EU funds, which have reportedly been withheld illegally up until now. Despite Magyar’s claims that the money would be released simply in return for fighting corruption, various media outlets are reporting there is much more to the deal than that, including indications that Hungary will have to implement the EU’s demand for migrant quotas under the Migrant Pact one way or another.

“Based on today’s meeting, €16.4 billion euros have been unlocked,” the Hungarian prime minister told the press after Friday’s meeting. However, that is also not true, as there are still many conditions the country must meet before the money is made available.

Officials from the EU commission were far more cautious with their description of the deal, saying the broad strokes of the deal had been determined, but conditions must still be met.

“We haven’t agreed to disburse the funds,” a senior commission official told Politico. “We’ve agreed on a list of commitments which, if completed by Aug. 31, will trigger the payment of those funds.”

In addition, inquiries made by journalists yielded no official details regarding the specific terms of the pact.

The announcement has sparked widespread curiosity regarding the concessions made by the Hungarian government, given that EU officials previously stated funds would only be released following specific structural reforms.

In fact, after the deal was announced, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán publicly demanded transparency from Magyar regarding the negotiations.

“We call on the Prime Minister to immediately publish the details of the von der Leyen-Péter Magyar pact. What did he sell to Brussels for Hungarian interests? Free cheese is only in the mousetrap,” Orbán wrote in his post.

German media outlet Tichys Einblick appears to be highly skeptical about the deal, which discussed the questions posed by journalists after the deal was allegedly reached.

“The very second question [from journalists] concerned migration policy: Will Hungary implement the Migration Pact? Ursula von der Leyen was the first to reply: Of course, people had talked about the migration pact, it was an agreement that affected and bound all Member States equally, and there had been discussion about how to get Hungary to implement this pact too. It took her a minute to answer that.

Then came Péter Magyar, who began by saying that he too would now answer ‘briefly.’ It took him five times longer than the President of the Commission, of course, and he squirmed around a clear answer. With remarkable verbal slalom technique, he explained that the migration pact was not a big deal, that it did not mean allowing migrants into the country, that one could also contribute in other ways, such as with money or contributions to border protection. (The EU had never accepted that Orbán’s border fence was Hungary’s contribution to European migration policy).

The migration pact, Magyar continued, came about in Orbán’s time, thanks to Orbán, so to speak. In summary: The migration pact is not bad, insofar as it is bad, that is Orbán’s fault, and Hungary… Well, you had to read between the lines for that, but it was actually clear from the combined statements of the two: The Magyar government will implement the migration pact in one way or another.”

While Magyar is claiming the sole condition for securing the over €16 billion was simply stamping out corruption, clearly there could be other conditions attached.

During the press conference, Ursula von der Leyen commended the swift formation of the new Hungarian government and its proactive approach, indicating a willingness to maintain this momentum in future consultations.

Questions were also raised concerning the rule of law, an area where the commission has historically demanded strict compliance before releasing frozen assets. This financial issue remains politically sensitive for the leadership in Brussels. Von der Leyen previously faced intense criticism for her handling of Poland, where funds were released to the former right-wing government before required reforms were fully executed. Furthermore, Hungary is operating under a compressed timeframe to secure the capital.

Time constraints are also a pressing factor for Ursula von der Leyen, who faces domestic political risks and previous votes of no confidence. The broader rise of the European right wing, fueled by dissatisfaction with centralized EU bureaucracy, intensifies the pressure. Any perceived mishandling or bureaucratic delay in delivering the agreed funds could draw heavy criticism from both the left and an electorate increasingly fatigued by centralized governance.

Consequently, the Commission President must balance projecting a firm stance on institutional expectations to her political base while supporting the new Hungarian prime minister, whom she visibly favors. This urgency, however, introduces systemic risks. The European Commission was asked if a rushed implementation of reforms might precipitate a constitutional crisis, mirroring events in Poland where Prime Minister Donald Tusk utilized legally questionable measures to consolidate power and disable opponents. At the time of publication, the chief spokesperson for the European Commission had not provided a response to these inquiries to Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | Comments Off on Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?

Persian Gulf Strait Authority says it processed 300+ transit requests since May

Press TV – June 1, 2026

More than 300 non-Iranian vessels, mostly oil tankers, have submitted their information to secure a safe passage permit from the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) since the entity began its operations in early May, the PGSA announced in a post on X on Tuesday.

The majority of these requests came from outbound ships, which accounted for 77 percent of the total applications. Inbound ships made up the remaining 23 percent.

The PGSA noted that the primary destinations for outbound vessels have been Asian countries, particularly China and India, while the main destination for inbound ships has been the United Arab Emirates.

Iran established the PGSA following the imposition of its sovereign regulatory framework for maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.

According to the PGSA, the authority does not have the power to issue permits for ships from hostile countries.

The move comes as Washington has attempted to prevent Iran from exercising its sovereign rights in the strait.

On May 27, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned the PGSA, accusing the body of funnelling revenue from a toll system to the IRGC.

The PGSA has dismissed the sanctions as an extension of Washington’s “failed” attempts to dominate the waterway, stating that it “considers being sanctioned by a country whose president boasts about piracy to be a sign of its positive performance”.

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Persian Gulf Strait Authority says it processed 300+ transit requests since May