Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s call to Bibi probably didn’t happen

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 4, 2026

Donald Trump’s explosive telephone call to Benjamin Netanyahu has taken the internet by storm. But can we really believe it’s true?

Can we believe what we have just witnessed with the explosive telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu? According to Washington insiders who provide no concrete evidence of the call, Trump exploded with rage over the telephone with Bibi shortly after Iran pulled out entirely from the so-called peace talks – after Israel continued its bombing and illegal invasion of Lebanon.

Indeed, it was reported that Israel had actually cancelled air strikes on Lebanon at the request of Trump, as he tries to bring Iran back to the negotiating table – or so the British pro-Israel broadsheet The Telegraph presents it.

According to The Telegraph, the U.S. president phoned Benjamin Netanyahu on the evening of June 1st after Iran walked away from peace talks and said it would return only if Israel ceased its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.

Apparently, the call was so heated that a number of swear words were used by Trump, followed by threats – indicating, if we are to believe the call took place, that Trump is really desperate to get out of the Iran war, a war he started because he was talked into it by Israel’s intelligence chiefs.

One U.S. official told Axios that Mr Trump told Mr Netanyahu that following through on his plans to bomb Lebanon would further isolate Israel on the global stage, adding that he thought Netanyahu was “crazy”. Two sources went further and recalled how Trump claimed that he had helped keep the Israeli prime minister out of jail – a reference to Mr Netanyahu’s ongoing graft trial.

Summarising the U.S. president’s remarks, a Washington official said: “You’re f—ing crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your a–. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

A second source briefed on the call said Trump was “p—-” and at one point yelled at Mr Netanyahu: “What the f— are you doing?”

Yet was any of what was reported the truth? Given that the outlets reporting on the call are Zionist, it begs the question: why would they report on something which is so damaging to the Israeli prime minister and hardly paints Trump in a good light either?

One answer might be that the whole call was staged and leaked to the press in a bid to regain the confidence of the Iranians, who lack motivation to move forward in the talks as they trust nothing that comes from the American side. Another possibility is that Western consumers of media are being prepared for a huge false flag attack, and the architects of such a plan believe that reasserting Trump over Netanyahu is a good move. Of course, a third scenario is that it really did happen, and it was a tactic for Trump to leak the essence of the call to the press in a desperate bid to claw back some credibility, given that he is looking so foolish and very much under the thumb of Netanyahu. In this last scenario, it doesn’t necessarily ring true that the dog and its tail have been restored to their correct positions, in terms of who tells whom what to do on the foreign stage.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that Israel has stopped bombing Lebanon for the moment, which would indicate that Trump is trying his best to get a deal with Iran. Lebanon for the time being seems to be playing a pivotal role in the entire Iran war, although it is likely that most of the information Trump is being given is tailored to what he wants to hear, rather than the truth. In the Oval Office, he announced that no ships are getting through the blockade when, on the same day, 24 ships got through escorted by the Iranians – as well as announcing that nearly all of Iran’s missile production had been taken out (which couldn’t be further from the truth). Given the amount of lies and fantasies being produced on Trump’s side, it’s not hard to not take the Bibi telephone call seriously. The only real test of whether Trump is really calling the shots now is whether Israel will continue to disrupt any deals that he tries to put together. Whether the call was genuine or not is less important than what those who presented it to the press are attempting to pull off: a recalibration of the working relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

For the moment, the internet has gone into overdrive with the creativity you might expect, even animating the call itself with AI. While it is true that Trump in many ways has saved Netanyahu, for the moment, from being netted by the judiciary on corruption charges, it seems far-fetched that Trump would tell him everyone hates him. If only that were true. If you struggle to doubt the authenticity of the call, then simply ask yourself: if Trump were to call Bibi and give him a real piece of his mind, how would you fantasize that call might go?

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s call to Bibi probably didn’t happen

Iran moved to change the US-Iran equation yesterday

By Trita Parsi | June 3, 2026

Over the past eight or so days, the US has targeted Iranian vessels as well as targets on the Iranian mainland. This included non-Iranian oil vessels. In essence, this was the US seeking to escalate the blockade of the blockade.

At first, Iran’s response was proportional. The US could tolerate that response.

In fact, it was beneficial to the US to continue the exchange of blows but keep them relatively limited, as it would slowly but surely erode Iran’s deterrence without imposing intolerable costs on the US.

But yesterday, Iran moved to change that equation.

After the US struck a Botswana-flagged tanker as part of Trump’s blockade, the Iranians counter-escalated disproportionally.

Tehran struck Kuwait International Airport as well as a US base in Kuwait, Ali Al-Salem.

It struck the 5th Fleet facilities in Bahrain. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck Jordan. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck northern Iraq. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the UAE. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It was a demonstration – and reminder – that Tehran retains escalation dominance.

Whereas the US is comfortable with either a possible deal or a low-level exchange of fire, but not a return to full-scale war, Tehran is comfortable with a possible deal or a full-scale war, but not with a low-level exchange of fire that erodes Iran’s deterrence and allows for Trump’s “blockade of the blockade” to become effective.

The area where both can actually be comfortable is some sort of a deal. Reaching it, however, is a different story.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Iran moved to change the US-Iran equation yesterday

Former Israeli soldier: I left the Gaza war with shame and regret

Palestinian Information Center – June 3, 2026

GAZA – British magazine The Economist published an extensive testimony from a former Israeli soldier who took part in the war on Gaza, describing practices he says he witnessed firsthand during military operations and expressing deep feelings of shame and regret over what occurred in the territory.

The interview was conducted through the Israeli organization Breaking the Silence, which collects testimonies from soldiers who served in the Palestinian territories. The soldier was identified under the pseudonym “Jonathan.”

He said he joined the fighting following the October 7, 2023 events, believing he was participating in what he considered “the most just war in Israel’s history.” However, his experiences on the ground led him to completely reassess those beliefs after months of combat.

According to the soldier, his unit entered Gaza under what he described as vague combat directives. He said troops were not given clear rules of engagement regarding civilian protection and that the prevailing assumption was that anyone remaining in targeted areas after evacuation orders and bombardment could be treated as a legitimate target.

He added that Palestinian men of fighting age were often viewed as potential threats and noted that many of those killed during operations were unarmed. In many cases, soldiers were unable to verify the identities of those they targeted amid the chaos and destruction of war.

In one of the most significant parts of his testimony, the soldier alleged that the Israeli military used Palestinian detainees in field operations, forcing them to inspect buildings and move ahead of troops to check for explosives or ambushes. He said the practice was commonly referred to among soldiers as the “Mosquito Protocol.”

He further stated that discussions within military units focused less on the legality of using civilians as human shields and more on how to manage those compelled to carry out such tasks.

The soldier also described widespread destruction of homes and infrastructure across Gaza, saying that demolition gradually became the primary mission for many infantry units, even though soldiers often did not understand the broader strategic objectives behind the operations.

He said doubts increasingly emerged among soldiers as the war continued without achieving its stated goals, and that frustration grew within the military over the lack of a clear strategy and the prolonged nature of the conflict.

The former soldier accused Israeli media outlets of ignoring much of the suffering endured by Palestinians in Gaza, saying the gap between what he witnessed firsthand and what was presented to the public ultimately motivated him to speak out.

He concluded by saying that he no longer feels pride in his Israeli identity or his military service, adding that he is ashamed of what took place and can no longer imagine raising his country’s flag above his home as many citizens do elsewhere.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Former Israeli soldier: I left the Gaza war with shame and regret

The UK Government Will Persecute Those Vocal about Israel, But Not War Criminals

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | June 3, 2026

After Declassified-UK revealed that around 2,000 Britons have served in the Israeli military since the beginning of the Gaza Genocide on October 7, 2023, a campaign has now been launched to demand that London pursue justice. Instead of pursuing potential war criminals, the British authorities appear too busy cracking down on critics of Israel.

A major campaign has been launched by Declassified and the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), demanding “in the interests of transparency, public safety, and justice”, the British government adhere to the following demands:

  • “Track the movements of Brits who have served in the IDF (Israeli army – PC)”.
  • “Subject them to secondary screening where necessary at ports of entry”.
  • “Support robust war crimes investigations in line with domestic and international law”.

Producing a letter addressed to the British leadership, the campaign quickly attracted the signatures of 60 prominent individuals– including lawyers, military veterans, politicians and Genocide Scholars. The campaign was also grounded in the fact of the recent meeting of the Hague Group, where 40 States convened to demand the implementation of international law in order for Israel to be held accountable.

This is but one of various initiatives launched to achieve justice for the victims of the Gaza genocide, aligning alongside activist work, legal projects, political lobbying efforts, and even efforts through the world’s top legal bodies.

Notably, the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have so far failed to achieve their desired results. Similarly, South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is still pending. Having worked to discourage the usefulness of international law, these cases also highlight a clear reality: individual nations’ leaders must be forced to take action, not simply a court.

The Declassified-ICJP campaign seeks to push the UK government to implement the law, which is why so many are getting behind it, hoping that the pressure will finally make London do the right thing.

For its part, the British government has been doing precisely the opposite of what this new campaign demands. In fact, in a recent move, it decided to reject the entry of prominent Leftist commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker. Instead of admitting in a public statement why they had done this, they instead fed the information to The Times newspaper, informing them that comments critical of Israel were the reason for refusing them entry.

A range of personalities, from journalists to activists and former politicians, have also notably been detained at British ports of entry, under the Terrorism Act, all because of their outspoken stances on the issue of Palestine and criticism of the Israeli government. Palestine Action was even designated a terrorist organization for launching a campaign to directly confront weapons manufacturers in the UK that are affiliated with Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, or supply the Israeli military directly.

Journalists like Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada and activists such as Sarah Wilkinson were even subjected to police raids on their personal homes. These are not isolated cases and there have been numerous others since the beginning of the genocide.

All of this begs the question: If the free speech rights of Britons and foreign visitors to the UK are nullified when it comes to criticizing and voicing discontent at Israeli war crimes, does the British government care for domestic legislation, let alone international law? Or, is there simply an exception to Israel that puts its officials and citizens outside of the law altogether?

Take, for example, the infamous case of Shemema Begum, a British national who was brainwashed by Daesh (IS) propaganda and headed to Syria in order to become part of the group as a bride to a fighter. Begum had made this decision at 15 years of age, and as a result, the British State revoked her citizenship, refusing her entry back into the country.

Keep in mind that Begum never committed any provable war crime, much less engaged in committing genocide; she was also a young teenager when she made this decision. The UK government, however, made the determination that she was unfit for her British passport and could no longer return to the nation of her birth.

A few years after this was all decided in court and the British Home Office fought its case – after presenting its arguments as both legally binding and moral principles – there are now some 2,000 Britons who were adults who made the decision to actively fight in a military, committing what the ICJ has ruled a plausible genocide.

Thousands of UK citizens who served in a military commanded by men who now have war crimes arrest warrants issued for them, yet not a single one has been stripped of their citizenship, there is no evidence that a single one of them has even been questioned at a port of entry, let alone investigated. All of this again points back to the question of double standards and whether the UK considers Israelis as above both domestic and international law.

If the answer is that Israel is simply above the law, then this sets a dangerous precedent and poses a major security threat inside the UK and outside its borders also. If London believes that the law doesn’t apply to Israel, then its legal system loses all legitimacy in the eyes of the public and downgrades the status of the nation in the international order.


– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on The UK Government Will Persecute Those Vocal about Israel, But Not War Criminals

Is Hungary about to give Ukraine the EU green light?

RT | June 3, 2026

Hungary is on the cusp of lifting its veto on Ukraine beginning formal accession talks with the EU, according to hints from Prime Minister Peter Magyar and strategic leaks from Brussels. But why now? And will he compromise on Hungarian rights?

Speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin on Tuesday, Magyar said that he is “very optimistic” that a deal can be done to guarantee the rights of Ukraine’s Hungarian minority, in exchange for his government lifting the veto.

“The negotiations are progressing encouragingly,” he said, adding “I am ready to meet with Ukraine’s president at the beginning of next week, if we manage to agree on these fundamental human rights.”

Within an hour of Magyar’s statement, Politico published an article claiming that Budapest had privately “signaled it will drop its long-standing opposition to Ukraine’s bid for EU membership,” citing four unnamed diplomats.

What did Politico say?

Politico, the Axel Springer-owned Brussels insider, reported that Magyar’s government had “privately signaled openness to lifting its veto following a meeting on Monday between Ukrainian and Hungarian experts.” The Ukrainian side, the outlet claimed, provided verbal assurances that they would resolve most of Hungary’s concerns – including the Hungarian minority’s right to use their native language in schools – and formal accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova will be opened at an EU leaders’ summit on June 15.

Why was Politico’s article important?

That this story first appeared on Politico was likely no coincidence. Politico’s neoliberal, Atlantacist worldview is literally written into the constitution of its owner, Axel Springer, and its journalists’ proximity to power in Brussels has made it the outlet of choice for all kinds of strategic communications from within the EU machine – from telegraphed policy moves like Tuesday’s report, to outsourced smear campaigns.

For example, when Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever shot down the European Commission’s plan to use €185 billion ($218 billion) in frozen Russian assets to finance a massive aid package for Ukraine in December 2025, Politico responded with a hit piece portraying his country as “Russia’s most valuable asset” in Europe.

Further hit pieces – all of them citing EU diplomats and officials – followed, claiming that “Europe is failing Ukraine,” de Wever “fears retaliation from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” and “Europe still doesn’t want to pay to save Ukraine.”

Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orban, derided Politico as “the Brusselian elite’s official publication” after it named him 2025’s “disruptor of the year.”

How are Hungarians treated in Ukraine?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, around 156,000 ethnic Hungarians found themselves trapped within Ukraine’s borders, after Kiev refused to recognize a successful self-rule referendum in the region of Transcarpathia. Relations between Budapest and Kiev rapidly declined from 2017 onwards, when Ukraine passed a series of laws mandating the sole use of the Ukrainian language in schools and local government.

Tensions were further inflamed after 2022, when the Ukrainian military targeted Transcarpathians in what the Hungarian Foreign Ministry called a “brutal” military draft.

Ukraine’s language laws have been criticized by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission for failing to safeguard minorities’ linguistic rights, and condemned by human rights organizations.

Why lift the veto now?

Orban maintained that Ukraine joining the EU would drag the bloc into open war with Russia, undercut Hungary’s agricultural sector, and effectively give a free pass to the corruption and criminality of the Ukrainian government. However, the Transcarpathia issue was the brightest of red lines for Orban, with the then-prime minister declaring in 2023 that Hungary “will not support Ukraine in any issue in international life until the previous laws that guaranteed the rights of Transcarpathian Hungarians are returned.”

Anita Orban, Magyar’s foreign minister (and no relation of Viktor), has maintained this policy, telling an interviewer last month that “until the situation of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine is resolved, we cannot make progress in any other area.”

Hungary’s concerns are laid out in an 11-point plan. Anita Orban has refused to say whether her government would compromise on these demands, but Politico noted that Ukraine would address “most” – but not all – of the points, and added that this would be done without “passing new legislation in Ukraine.”

All of this suggests that the language laws will not be repealed or replaced, and that Magyar will abandon some of the document’s points, which have not been made public. It is unclear, but likely, that Magyar and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addressed Ukraine’s EU membership when they met to discuss frozen EU funding for Hungary last week.

Although Magyar said afterwards that the funding issue is “not connected in any way with the issue of Ukraine,” EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said beforehand that she expects Hungary to lift the veto ahead of the June summit. With accession a pet project of von der Leyen, and with Vladimir Zelensky set to attend the summit, it is highly likely that Magyar has come under some pressure to resolve the dispute in the coming week.

Could anyone else block Ukraine’s path to the EU?

With Viktor Orban out of office, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is now considered the EU’s most Ukraine-skeptic head of state. However, while Fico maintains cordial relations with Russia and opposes all military aid to Ukraine, Zelensky claimed that the Slovak prime minister would support Ukraine’s EU membership bid after the two met in Armenia last month.

Has Zelensky’s veneration of Nazi collaborators harmed Ukraine’s EU bid?

Polish President Karol Nawrocki said last week that Ukraine “is not ready to be part of the European family,” after Zelensky granted the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’ to a Ukrainian commando unit. The UPA, or Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and collaborated with Nazi forces to murder around 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine between 1943 and 1945.

However, Nawrocki added that supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia remains Poland’s “strategic goal.”

Even if Nawrocki wanted to block Ukrainian accession, the decision would not be his to make. Poland’s government is run by Nawrocki’s pro-Brussels rivals, and Nawrocki would be unable to veto any accession treaty without finding a majority of MPs or senators to support him.

What if nothing happens?

Despite all the signs pointing to a deal between Budapest and Kiev, nothing is set in stone at the moment, and it’s possible that some last-minute obstacle could emerge between now and June 15. The passage of the summit with no deal would represent a setback for von der Leyen and her maximalist plans for Ukraine, but even if Zelensky secures formal accession talks, all of the old issues between Kiev and its European counterparts will return to the forefront: corruption, agricultural market disruption, and the prospect of a permanent welfare recipient joining the European bloc.

These long-term issues could be far more challenging for Zelensky and his officials to solve than the Transcarpathia impasse ever was.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Comments Off on Is Hungary about to give Ukraine the EU green light?

EU pushing Armenia to expel Russian Orthodox Church – intel service

RT | June 3, 2026

The European Union is pressuring Armenia to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to EU integration, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has alleged.

In a statement on Wednesday, the SVR said that EU officials had made severing religious ties with Moscow a condition for closer ties with the West, a policy it said is being pursued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The landlocked nation maintains close economic ties with Russia and hosts one of Moscow’s few military bases abroad. It is set to elect a new parliament on Sunday. Critics of Pashinyan have warned that he is steering Armenia down a path similar to Ukraine’s after the 2014 Western-backed coup. One of Kiev’s hallmark policies has been a crackdown on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which authorities accuse of promoting Russian interests.

Armenia’s religious landscape differs from Ukraine’s. The country’s dominant religious institution is the Armenian Apostolic Church, an ancient denomination that broke with mainstream Christianity in the 5th century, centuries before the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The ROC does not recognize the Armenian Church as canonical, but regards it as a close Christian ally with shared traditions and common goals. The ROC maintains its own diocese in Armenia, encompassing five parish churches, a monastery, and two military chapels.

In its report, the SVR referenced a May statement by two Armenia-based NGOs that accused an ROC priest of influencing the upcoming election through his sermons, including those delivered at a church on the Russian military base in Gyumri. The agency said the allegations are part of a campaign orchestrated by Brussels and that EU operatives “are currently fabricating compromising evidence” to smear other Russian clergy.

Pashinyan’s government was rocked by mass protests in 2024 and 2025, as critics, including senior figures in the Armenian Apostolic Church, accused him of betraying national interests in his handling of the conflict settlement with neighboring Azerbaijan. The prime minister, in turn, accused his opponents of plotting a coup and launched prosecutions against the alleged organizers, including several members of the clergy.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on EU pushing Armenia to expel Russian Orthodox Church – intel service

From Evo Morales to Rodrigo Paz: Bolivia’s Dramatic Shift Toward Israel

Israel finds another South American country to prey on

José Niño Unfiltered | June 3, 2026

Bolivia is experiencing its deepest political and economic crisis in four decades, and the responses from Washington and Jerusalem have been striking in their similarity. Since early May 2026, a massive wave of protests led by Indigenous communities, miners, peasant unions, transport workers, teachers, and supporters of former leftist president Evo Morales has swept the country. Dozens of roadblocks have shut down highways, cutting off food, fuel, and medical supplies to cities. Protesters are demanding the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz, a center-right figure who took office on November 8, 2025, ending nearly 20 years of rule by the left-wing Movement for Socialism.

The protesters’ core grievances include fuel shortages, year-on-year inflation exceeding 20 percent at the time Paz took office, austerity cuts including the elimination of state fuel subsidies under Supreme Decree 5503—which practically doubled the consumer cost of fuel overnight—and a land classification law, Law 1720, seen as threatening Indigenous land rights by making farmland eligible for seizure as loan collateral. Although the government repealed Law 1720 on May 13, protests have continued to spread, with demands expanding to include wage increases, labor reform, and Paz’s resignation

The Paz government came to power on a platform of re-aligning Bolivia with the United States and Western financial institutions. Within weeks of taking office, Paz met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and signed a deal restoring Bolivia’s full diplomatic relations with Israel, which had been severed in 2023 under the prior MAS government to protest the war in Gaza. He also secured a $3.1 billion loan from a Latin American development bank, invited the DEA back into Bolivia, and joined Trump’s “Shield of the Americas” security coalition alongside Argentina, El Salvador, and a dozen other right-leaning governments.

When the protests erupted in mid-May, both the United States and Israel issued statements that journalist Max Blumenthal flagged for their remarkable similarity. Blumenthal, editor at The Grayzone, tweeted that “The US and Israel have released strikingly similar statements on Bolivia. It’s almost like they’re one single consolidated regime mobilized in defense of global oligarchy, and against indigenous resistance.”

The Israel Foreign Ministry posted on May 17 that “The State of Israel expresses its support and solidarity with the government and people of Bolivia, as well as with President @Rodrigo_PazP, who was legitimately and democratically elected. We are following with concern the humanitarian situation caused by the riots and road blockades, which have led to shortages of food and essential supplies for the population. Israel supports the efforts of the Bolivian government to promote dialogue and preserve democratic stability in the country.”

Two days later, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs tweeted that “In Bolivia, riots and blockades have created a humanitarian crisis, causing shortages of medicine, food and fuel. We condemn all actions aimed at destabilizing the democratically elected government of @Rodrigo_PazP and support it in its efforts to restore order for the peace, security, and stability of the Bolivian people.”

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called the protests a “coup d’état” and said “Make no mistake about it. This is a coup that’s being financed by this unholy alliance between politics and organized crime throughout the region.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that “the United States stands squarely in support of Bolivia’s legitimate constitutional government. We will not allow criminals and drug traffickers to overthrow democratically elected leaders in our hemisphere.”

The coordinated messaging reflects a deeper history between Bolivia and Israel that has oscillated dramatically over eight decades.

Bolivia’s relationship with Israel began on a supportive note. On November 29, 1947, Bolivia voted yes on UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan that paved the way for Israel’s declaration of statehood. Bolivia formally recognized Israeli sovereignty in 1949, and the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1950. This support was not accidental. Bolivia had served as a sanctuary for thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Europe throughout the 1930s and 1940s. German-Jewish mine owner Maurice Hochschild used his relationship with Bolivian President Germán Busch to facilitate visas for German and Austrian Jewish refugees, and founded the Sociedad de Protección a los Inmigrantes Israelitas (SOPRO) to support refugee integration. An estimated 7,000 Jewish immigrants had settled in Bolivia by the end of 1942, per the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Jewish community established the Círculo Israelita de Bolivia in La Paz, which became the highest synagogue on earth at nearly 12,000 feet above sea level.

For the first five decades of their formal relationship, Bolivia and Israel maintained stable and cooperative ties. Israel’s development cooperation agency MASHAV, founded in 1958, extended its agricultural technology transfers, water management expertise, and capacity-building programs to countries across Latin America and Africa. A bilateral visa waiver established in 1972 allowed Israeli citizens to travel to Bolivia without a visa. Every year, some 20,000 IDF veterans discharged from compulsory military service headed to South America to decompress, and Bolivia—with its dramatic Andean landscapes, the Salar de Uyuni salt flats, the Amazon basin, and the Yungas jungle—became one of the most popular destinations on the circuit.

Everything changed with the election of Evo Morales in 2006. Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, built his foreign policy around a fierce anti-imperialist agenda that treated U.S. foreign policy and Israeli military actions as twin expressions of the same Jewish supremacist system of dominance engulfing most of the globe. He rapidly aligned Bolivia with the ALBA bloc, which included Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Venezuela, with Iran as an outside partner.

The first direct rupture came on January 14, 2009, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. Morales announced Bolivia’s severing of diplomatic relations, calling Israel’s treatment of Palestinians “a genocide.” He demanded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert face criminal charges and called for Israeli President Shimon Peres to be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize.

The relationship deteriorated further during Israel’s 2014 Gaza War. Morales declared Israel a “terrorist state” and announced the cancellation of the 1972 visa waiver agreement. “We are declaring [Israel] a terrorist state,” Morales stated during a talk with a group of educators in the city of Cochabamba. Earlier that month, he had filed a request with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to prosecute Israel for crimes against humanity.

The Morales years also introduced a significant covert dimension to Bolivia’s estrangement from Israel. As Bolivia aligned with Iran, the country became what U.S. intelligence officials described as a “secondary node” for Iranian intelligence operations in the region. Morales’s disputed reelection in October 2019 triggered mass protests, and he resigned under pressure from the military on November 10, 2019, after Bolivia’s military commander publicly called on him to step down. The interim government led by Jeanine Áñez, who assumed the presidency on November 12, immediately began reversing Morales-era foreign policies. Within days, Foreign Minister Karen Longaric announced the expulsion of Venezuelan diplomatic staff and Bolivia’s withdrawal from ALBA, and the government joined the Lima Group. Bolivia severed ties with Cuba on January 24, 2020, becoming the only country in the Western Hemisphere without diplomatic relations with Havana. On November 27, 2019, just two weeks after Morales’s resignation, Bolivian Foreign Minister Karen Longaric announced the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel.

Bolivia’s October 2020 elections brought the Movement for Socialism back to power under Luis Arce. The most provocative development of the Arce period came in July 2023 when Bolivia’s Defense Minister Edmundo Novillo traveled to Tehran and signed a security and defense memorandum of understanding with Iranian Defense Minister Mohammad Reza Ashtiani. The agreement included provisions for Iranian military drones to be deployed in Bolivia for ostensible border security and counternarcotics purposes.

Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza, the Arce government moved quickly. On October 31, 2023, Bolivia became the first Latin American country to sever diplomatic relations with Israel over the latest Gaza war. Deputy Foreign Minister Freddy Mamani announced the decision “in repudiation and condemnation of the aggressive and disproportionate Israeli military offensive taking place in the Gaza Strip.” Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lior Haiat called the move “a surrender to terrorism and the Ayatollah regime in Iran.”

In October 2024, Bolivia filed a Declaration of Intervention at the International Court of Justice, joining South Africa’s case alleging Israeli genocide in Gaza. Bolivia’s October 2025 presidential election produced a watershed result. Rodrigo Paz won with more than 54 percent of the vote, the first time in 20 years that no MAS candidate won the presidency. Paz, son of a former Bolivian president and educated in the United States, campaigned under the slogan “Capitalism for all.” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar signaled Israel’s desire to mend bilateral relations with Paz in the days following his election.

On December 10, 2025, Sa’ar and Bolivian Foreign Minister Fernando Aramayo signed a joint declaration in Washington restoring full diplomatic ties. Bolivia’s Foreign Ministry stated that “Bolivia and Israel fully restore their diplomatic relations and open a new stage of strategic cooperation.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Paz directly on December 10, 2025. The two “agreed on the need to promote cooperation in various fields, with an emphasis on security, and to restore the vibrant tourism of many Israeli travelers” to Bolivia, per an Israeli government readout. Netanyahu personally invited Paz to visit Israel.

Israel’s most significant strategic interest in Bolivia is its lithium. Bolivia holds the world’s largest proven lithium reserves, an estimated 23 million metric tons representing approximately 20 percent of global reserves. Under Morales and Arce, Bolivia struck lithium deals primarily with China and Russia. Bolivia’s rapprochement with Israel places it within the orbit of the Isaac Accords, a framework modeled on the Abraham Accords and championed by Argentine President Javier Milei. The Genesis Prize Foundation celebrated Paz’s election as “a new opportunity for friendship and closer ties with Israel.” The unusually strong expression of solidarity with Paz’s government amid the May 2026 protests represents a level of public backing rarely extended to a foreign head of state.

As Bolivia is drawn into the web of the Isaac Accords, the pattern becomes unmistakable. Israel’s intervention in Bolivian politics is a calculated maneuver to secure lithium and dismantle indigenous resistance to naked forms of resource extraction. When we stop viewing Israel as just another nation and start recognizing it as an imperial entity, things become clearer. This is a transnational power structure that advances the interests of a Jewish supremacist elite at the expense of every nation in its path. Bolivia is simply the latest frontline in the expansion of this parasitic endeavor.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on From Evo Morales to Rodrigo Paz: Bolivia’s Dramatic Shift Toward Israel

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?