Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Bogota Summit launches Global South’s legal intifada against Israel and US impunity

By José Niño | The Cradle | July 17, 2025

From 15–16 July, Bogota became the unlikely capital of a global insurrection against western legal impunity. Over 30 countries – including key powers from the Global South and even some European states – gathered in the Colombian capital for the Hague Group Emergency Summit.

This was the most ambitious multilateral initiative yet to directly confront what participants unflinchingly termed Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the broader culture of impunity that has shielded the occupation state since 1948.

From steadfast client to anti-imperial spearhead

That the summit was held in Colombia – a long-standing US vassal in Latin America – was not incidental. Once regarded as Washington’s most loyal client in the hemisphere, Colombia’s dramatic pivot under President Gustavo Petro represents the boldest regional defiance of US authority in decades.

Petro, who severed diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv in 2024, has placed Bogota on a collision course with the US over his unwavering opposition to the occupation state’s onslaught in Gaza.

Washington reacted predictably by issuing warnings to allies against the “weaponization of international law,” and sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her “illegitimate and shameful efforts” to advance the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutions of Israeli and US officials. Bogota responded with direct defiance. In the run-up to the summit, Petro publicly backed Albanese, declaring that “the multilateral system of states cannot be destroyed,” in a thinly veiled rejection of US diktats.

Over 30 nations participated, including the eight founding members of the Hague Group – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa. They were joined by more than 20 additional states spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia, and even Europe.

The participation of European countries such as Portugal and Spain was noteworthy. Both states only established full diplomatic relations with Israel in the latter part of the 20th century: Portugal in 1977 and Spain in 1986, emblematic of their historic caution over Israel’s contested legitimacy.

But since Tel Aviv’s genocidal war on Gaza began in late 2023, Madrid has adopted a string of punitive diplomatic moves.

Spain canceled a €6.6 million (around $7.2 million) ammunition purchase from an Israeli firm, scrapped a €285 million (around $310.7 million) anti-tank missile deal with the Spanish subsidiary of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, banned Israeli weapons from port entry, formally recognized Palestinian statehood, and pushed to suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement.

Though neither European state fully endorsed all of Bogota’s proposals, their participation and scathing denunciations of Israeli policy reflect a deeper fracture within Europe over Tel Aviv’s legitimacy and the cost of complicity.

Laying the legal gauntlet

Central to the summit was a blistering legal and moral condemnation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The Hague Group issued a detailed catalog of war crimes: the mass killing of over 57,000 civilians, the targeting of hospitals and schools, the weaponization of starvation and siege, and the deliberate use of forced displacement.

The apartheid state in the occupied West Bank, enforced through racial segregation, parallel legal systems, and land confiscations for settlements, was cited as a textbook violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and, per the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion, a breach of international prohibitions against forced territorial acquisition and apartheid.

Francesca Albanese delivered the summit’s keynote, setting the tone with an uncompromising indictment:

“For too long, international law has been treated as optional – applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful … That era must end.”

The ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing crimes such as starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate civilian targeting, and the murder of Palestinian non-combatants – were repeatedly invoked as a historic turning point.

The Resistance Axis of lawfare

The summit’s ethos was clearly to rupture the impunity enabled by the UN Security Council’s paralysis. The Hague Group, founded in January 2025, framed itself as the Global South’s corrective to a postwar order that protects violators so long as they are shielded by US power.

That paralysis, most attendees argued, was not accidental but structural: The P5 veto system ensures impunity for those, such as Israel and its allies.

Meeting in the San Carlos Palace, delegates from 12 states – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa – announced six binding measures. These included a full arms embargo on the occupation state, port bans for Israeli military vessels, contract reviews to terminate commercial complicity with the occupation, and firm support for domestic and international prosecution of Israeli officials.

These policies were anchored in the ICJ’s 2024 opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal and the UN General Assembly’s September 2024 resolution urging decisive global action within 12 months.

A global rift – but still an uphill battle

Despite the breakthrough, significant limitations remain. Only 12 states adopted the measures outright. Others were given until the UN General Assembly in September to sign on. Key powers, including China, withheld endorsement – despite supporting the initiative’s aims – likely due to economic entanglements with Israel, including port infrastructure investments.

Organizers acknowledged the uphill road ahead: absent broader UN uptake and stronger alignment from economic powers, Washington’s veto and European hesitation could neuter the Hague Group’s legal insurgency. But the coalition remains adamant that justice is no longer negotiable.

Colombian Vice Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir captured the summit’s urgency:

“The Palestinian genocide threatens the entire international system … The participating states will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action.”

A warning – and a promise

The Bogota summit was not just another international conference. It openly challenged the post-1945 legal fiction of a “rules-based order” – a system long exposed as a euphemism for western prerogative.

As South Africa’s International Relations Minister, Roland Lamola, asserted

“No country is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered.”

Yet the struggle remains unfinished. The Hague Group’s bold confrontation with Israeli impunity marks a decisive break, but the future of this legal uprising hinges on whether its momentum can breach the fortified walls of New York and The Hague, and whether powers like China, India, and Brazil shift from quiet endorsement to active alignment.

On 16 July, as thousands gathered in Plaza Bolivar in support, the message was unambiguous: either the era of impunity ends, or the legitimacy of the global order collapses with it.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Between China & USA: Australia chooses trade over geopolitics

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 17, 2025

While the Trump administration doubles down on its ‘America First’ approach to reshaping global power dynamics, key allies like Australia are quietly charting their own course—rebalancing relations with China in ways that may diverge from Washington’s long-term strategy in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albances was supposed to meet Donald Trump on the sidelines of G7 summit in Canada. The meeting did not take place, as Trump left the summit in the middle of Iran-Israel war. While such diplomatic snubs would normally raise eyebrows, Canberra seemed unperturbed. Instead, Albanese’s subsequent high-profile visit to Beijing sent a clear message: for Australia, economic pragmatism continues to trump imperatives of ideological or geopolitical alignment. With trade relations with China showing signs of recovery after years of friction, the visit underscored Australia’s effort to navigate a delicate path between its largest trading partner and its key strategic ally.

This calibrated diplomacy comes at a time of renewed uncertainty surrounding the AUKUS pact—a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the US, and the UK aimed at equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to bolster its naval presence in the Indo-Pacific to check Chinese advances. The deal, worth tens of billions of dollars, is currently under review by the Trump administration in Washington. This review includes calls for Australia by the Trump administration to increase its defense spending and overall contributions to the pact, further highlighting Canberra’s growing dependence on the whims of US domestic politics.

This visit comes against the backdrop of the fact that AUKUS, while it offers an unprecedented opportunity to Australia to acquire modern systems, also exposes a deeper vulnerability: Australia’s limited ability to shape the strategic direction of its own neighborhood, caught as it is between economic ties with China and defense commitments to an America that may no longer see alliances as sacrosanct. In this shifting landscape, Australia’s challenge is not just about balancing Beijing and Washington. It’s about asserting agency in an Indo-Pacific increasingly shaped by volatility, mistrust, and great-power rivalry. This assertion has once led it to redefine its ties with China.

Australia’s recalibration is not taking place in a vacuum. There is considerable domestic political support for this policy. Despite how Washington portrays China as a ‘threat’, within Australia, only a minority considers China to be a threat. A majority of the Australians see ties with China as a complex configuration that nonetheless should—and can be—managed because it is ultimately beneficial. Even within China, this publicly backed support for better ties with China and Canberra’s efforts to mutually balance ties between the US and China is clearly well received and understood. China’s state newspaper Global Times says Albanese’s visit “carries special significance” and shows “Australia’s desire to seek more reliable partners in an uncertain world order… with China being the obvious choice”. There is little denying this. China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and Albanese’ visit is about furthering these ties. As reports indicate, Albanese is accompanied by a business delegation to the cities of Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu for his six-day trip. His official itinerary included meetings with groups involved in business, tourism and sports.

From AUKUS to new forms of bilateral and multilateral trade

In this context, therefore, many observers view the Australian Prime Minister’s recent visit to China as a strategic step toward reinvigorating economic ties and potentially paving the way for China’s entry into the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Australia, which currently chairs the CPTPP, plays a central role in shaping the pact’s direction. The CPTPP evolved from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the United States withdrew in 2017 under President Trump. China formally applied for CPTPP membership in 2021 and continues to lobby for inclusion.

Beijing is increasingly framing its engagement with Canberra within the broader context of a new multilateralism represented by the CPTPP—one that spans beyond the Indo-Pacific to include countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. Underscoring its commitment to deepening trade ties in all possible ways, the Chinese ambassador to Australia has published op-eds in major Australian newspapers emphasizing Beijing’s willingness to deepen bilateral economic partnership, even highlighting emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence as potential areas of collaboration.

The core message from Chinese officials has been consistent: China does not view Australia as an adversary, and there is ample room for peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. With no direct territorial disputes or major political conflicts between the two nations, this message has found a receptive audience in parts of the Australian political landscape. Labor senator Raff Ciccone, who chairs the Australian Parliament’s security committee in Australia, recently stated that economic engagement with China can play a stabilizing role. “When there’s trade, when there’s dialogue, when there’s economic interests at play,” he said, “countries are less likely to engage in the worst-case scenario, which is war.” In other words, Australia, too, does not necessarily view China as a foe. Albanese’ visit may thus not only reset diplomatic relations but also signal Australia’s openness to a broader regional vision where economic pragmatism and strategic dialogue can go hand-in-hand.

This will not go unnoticed in the White House as well. However, what matters is how the Trump administration responds or can possibly respond. Either it could threaten to withdraw from AUKUS and focus more on developing its own resources or it could double down on its commitment to shoring up Australian naval capability. However, as long as Washington continues to lack a viable programme to reverse China’s economic dominance in Australia specifically and the Indo-Pacific generally, countries like Australia will continue to maneuver in ways that best serve their interests. It is increasingly clear in Australia that their trade interests are best served by having stable ties with China. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Australia’s ties with China and the US must not be mutually exclusive. This, for China, is a major victory.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China Ready to Work With SCO Countries to Restore Peace in Middle East

Sputnik – 17.07.2025

China is ready to cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member countries and the international community to promote a political settlement and the speedy restoration of peace in the Middle East, the Chinese Foreign Ministry told Sputnik on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asked the SCO to promptly consider the situation with Israel’s aggression against the Islamic Republic, as well as to provide Tehran with political support in light of the June conflict with the Jewish state.

“The peoples of China and Iran are bound by traditional friendship. China is committed to maintaining friendly cooperation with Iran in order to benefit the peoples of both countries and bring positive factors to maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said when asked to comment on Iran’s request to the SCO.

The ministry noted that “the situation in the region currently remains complex and sensitive.”

“China is ready to cooperate with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the international community to uphold peace, promote a political settlement and quickly restore peace and stability in the Middle East, which meets the common interests of the countries in the region and the international community,” the ministry added.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: World bodies giving up legitimacy, ‘sense of mission’ to bullying, unilateralism

Press TV – July 17, 2025

Iran says the imposition of US sanctions targeting a UN-appointed human rights expert and the mass resignation of members of the UN Palestine inquiry show that the world bodies are no longer allowed to even record the truth.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in a post on his X account on Thursday after the US on July 9 announced punitive measures against Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, while all three members of the UN commission investigating crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories submitted their resignations on Monday.

In his post, Baghaei said the sanctions and the resignations should not be taken lightly as they are an “alarming sign of the erosion of the global legal and normative order.”

“International institutions are giving up their legitimacy, effectiveness, authority and ‘sense of mission’ to militant bullying & radical unilateralism,” the Iranian spokesperson wrote.

He said future generations would affirm that silence, indifference, and double standards in the face of grave injustices and wars led to the collapse of the world normative order.

Albanese, independent from the UN bureaucracy, operates under a UN Human Rights Council mandate. She has faced repeated smears and threats from Israeli officials and lobby groups for her accurate, evidence-based reporting on the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Despite growing political backlash, human rights defenders continue to raise the alarm over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.

Since October 2023, the Israeli regime has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians—most of them civilians, women, and children—amid widespread destruction and blockade-induced starvation.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Due Process at Gitmo

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | July 17, 2025

Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., invalidated a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has been incarcerated at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for 20 years. Mohammed has been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder in the United States on 9/11. Originally, the federal government blamed Osama bin Laden as the 9/11 mastermind. Then, after bin Laden was murdered in his home in Pakistan by the feds, they decided that Mohammed was the real mastermind. Bin Laden had never been charged with any crimes in the U.S.

After 20 years of litigation, the feds and Mohammed and his lawyers entered into a written plea agreement. The agreement, which was sought and drafted by the prosecutors, relieved them of the intractable burden of defending torture in a public courtroom and removed the death penalty from the menu of penalties available for imposition upon the defendant.

Both sides presented the plea agreement to the military judge, who held hearings on its voluntariness, after which he accepted the plea agreement and all parties reasonably believed they had a guilty plea on their hands — a valid, freely negotiated, publicly accepted, lawful guilty plea.

Then, Lloyd Austin, who was the Secretary of Defense at the time, decided that the Biden administration did not want to answer for allowing the 9/11 mastermind to escape the federal death penalty. So, he ordered the same legal team that sought and negotiated and actually drafted the guilty plea to ask the trial judge to vacate it. Following standard criminal procedure, the court upheld the agreement as a binding, judicially approved contract between the United States government and Mohammed.

Then the feds appealed this denial to a military court of appeals, which also upheld the plea agreement. Thereupon the feds appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, last week, on a 2 to 1 vote, rejected the plea, holding that the decision was Austin’s to make; and it didn’t matter if he said no well after the agreement had been entered.

Here is the backstory.

Due process has numerous definitions and aspects, but for constitutional purposes it basically means that all charged persons are presumed innocent and entitled to a written notice of the charges, a speedy and fair hearing before a neutral fact finder, a right to appeal; and the entire process imbued with fairness and a profound recognition of personal innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process also explicitly prohibits the use of torture.

In order to ensure that due process and habeas corpus — the right to compel the jailer to justify one’s confinement — would trump the whims of government officials, stated differently, to ensure that the British system of torture and confession and conviction did not occur here, James Madison and the Framers crafted protections in the Constitution to which all in government needed to swear allegiance and support.

Fast forward to Gitmo, and you can see the constitutional system turned on its head.

This George W. Bush-crafted American Devil’s Island, which costs $500 million a year to operate, once held 780 prisoners, allegedly there due to their personal involvement in the war on terror against the United States. Not a single one of them has been convicted of 9/11-related crimes, and only one former detainee is currently serving time in an American federal prison.

Nearly all the prisoners were tortured, and most were captured by roving militias and sold to American forces for bounties. Last year, the Biden administration laudably released 11 detainees, all of whom had been at Gitmo for 20-plus years and none of whom had even been charged with a crime.

The best known of the remaining 15 prisoners is Mohammed, who was scheduled for trial when the military judge in his case retired. The new judge — the fifth on the case — was confronted with the daunting task of reading 40,000 pages of transcripts and documents concerning the torture of Mohammed by U.S. personnel.

At the same time, a new team of military and civilian prosecutors was assigned to the case and the new prosecutors told their bosses in the Pentagon, chief among whom was Austin, and the new military judge that unlike their predecessors — who sought to mitigate the 183 torture sessions U.S. personnel administered to Mohammed — they were prepared to acknowledge it and decline to use any evidence obtained from it in the courtroom.

This remarkable turnaround — one that rejected the premises upon which Gitmo came into being — resulted in the prosecutors commencing plea negotiations.

The Bush-inspired premises of Gitmo were that since it is located in Cuba, federal laws don’t apply, the Constitution doesn’t apply and federal judges can’t interfere. In five landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected all these premises, and the new team of prosecutors and the new judge recognized as much.

The prosecutors basically said that they cannot ethically defend torture, they will not offer evidence derived from it in the case and the case is difficult to prove without evidence derived from torture.

This is a remarkable lesson to be learned. Instead of cutting holes in the Constitution, follow it. Instead of using torture, use acceptable investigative techniques. Instead of crafting a Devil’s Island, use the systems in place that have basically worked for hundreds of years.

None of this jurisprudential mess would have occurred if Bush had allowed the criminal justice structure to proceed unimpeded. The use of torture, rotating judges and prosecutors, and incarceration for a generation without charges or trial are all hallmarks of an authoritarian government.

If justice consists in convicting the guilty using established norms and fair procedures, Gitmo has been an unjust unhumanitarian disaster. But if justice consists in the government getting whatever he wants, then the Constitution is useless as a protector of freedom.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

500+ Chemical Attacks: Russia Details Ukraine’s Use of Toxic and Poisonous Agents

Sputnik – 17.07.2025

Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops, stated that more than 500 instances of Ukraine using chemical and toxic substances have been documented during the special military operation.

“Throughout the special military operation, over 500 cases have been recorded where the Ukrainian side employed riot control agents (chloroacetophenone, CS gas), as well as toxic substances with psychotropic (BZ) and general poisonous effects (cyanogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide),” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“Since the beginning of 2025, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been systematically using copter-type drones to drop containers filled with CS gas and improvised munitions containing chloropicrin on Russian military positions,” he added.

Kiev is planning a provocation involving the release of ammonia at a facility near Novotroitsk in the DPR, says Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops. The goal is to accuse Russia of intentionally causing a man-made disaster.

“With the support of Western handlers, the Kiev regime has not abandoned its long-developed barbaric tactic of warfare—the ‘chemical belt’ method, which involves placing and detonating containers with toxic chemicals in areas where Russian troops operate. Available evidence indicates preparations for another such provocation,” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“On July 3, 2025, operational measures confirmed that Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel had installed antenna-mast equipment at a major ammonia distribution facility near the settlement of Novotroitsk. The plant is a first-class hazard facility, and if struck, it could release over 550 tons of liquid ammonia into the environment. The plan is to subsequently accuse our country of deliberately causing a man-made disaster and inflicting reputational damage,” Rtishchev added.

He presented the original letter from the deputy director of the Kiev-controlled “Ukrkhimtrans-ammiak” enterprise to the head of the regional military administration, confirming the placement of military equipment at the site.

“I remind you that using a high-risk facility for military purposes violates international humanitarian law,” the head of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Troops emphasized.

According to the documents disclosed by Rtishchev, the incident concerns the village of Novotroitsk in the Kramatorsk district of the DPR.

Western countries will continue to use the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts, head of the Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops of the Russian armed forces Major General Aleksei Rtishchev said on Thursday.

Last week, Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans informed the country’s parliament that Russia, according to Dutch intelligence services, allegedly intensified the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, which is a violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC).

“It is obvious that the West will continue to use the OPCW as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts. The Russian side will continue to work to counter this policy and to inform the world community about the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Kiev regime and its curators,” Rtishchev told a briefing.

The activities of the OPCW have become highly politicized due to pressure from Western states, which, at their whim, impose unilateral sanctions, make unfounded accusations against undesirable countries, and abuse the provisions of the Convention, the military said.

Additionally, the military said that Russia had recently asked the OPCW head to send a team of experts from the organization’s technical secretariat to Russia to assist in the investigation of Kiev’s crimes, as well as a draft agreement between Russia and the OPCW on organizing and conducting visits for the purpose of such assistance.

“This step is due to the fact that all previously presented documentary evidence and expert opinions have not received the proper response from the organization. About 40 verbal notes from the Permanent Mission of Russia to the OPCW still remain without a meaningful response. At the same time, unsubstantiated requests from the Ukrainian side receive immediate support from the bureaucratic structures of the OPCW with the involvement of accredited laboratories,” Rtishchev said.

Taking advantage of its preferences, Ukraine has repeatedly involved the OPCW technical secretariat in legitimizing incidents falsified by Ukrainian and Western intelligence services regarding the alleged use of chemical means of riot control by Russian military personnel on the line of combat contact, he added.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Colombia must sever ties with NATO – president

RT | July 17, 2025

Colombia must cut ties with NATO as the leaders of the military bloc support “genocide” of Palestinians, President Gustavo Petro has declared.

Colombia, a traditional US ally in South America, became the first country in the region to obtain the status of NATO global partner in 2017. Petro, who took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist president, severed diplomatic relations with Israel last year over what he describes as a genocide being carried out by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

”What do we do in NATO? If NATO’s top brass are for genocide, what are we doing there?” Petro said at a pro-Palestinian international conference in Bogota on Wednesday.

”Hasn’t the time come for another military alliance? Because how can we be with armies that drop bombs on children?” he added. “Those armies aren’t armies of freedom, they’re armies of darkness. We must have armies of light.”

Petro argued that NATO is a Cold War relic and asserted that nations like Colombia are treated as “half-members” within the US-led military bloc, granted symbolic partnerships but not full accession.

The two-day conference in Bogota hosted representatives from a dozen countries in the Global South. Attendees signed a joint declaration calling for economic sanctions and legal actions against Israel, including an arms embargo, restrictions on dual-use goods, port denials for vessels carrying cargo for Israeli forces, and support for international accountability for crimes allegedly committed in occupied territories.

Petro’s criticism reflects a break from Colombia’s historically warm relationship with Israel. The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once dubbed Colombia the “Israel of Latin America,” arguing it served a similar geopolitical role in the region.

Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza following a deadly raid led by the militant group Hamas in October 2023. The first independent study of casualties in Gaza, published last month, estimated the number of fatalities in the enclave at almost 84,000 by January 2025. Israel is currently pushing Palestinians to move to a “humanitarian city” that would purportedly be free of Hamas influence – which critics say is just a euphemism for a concentration camp.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Mearsheimer: Trump’s Fooling Himself

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive | July 14, 2025

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Audio Podcasts

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Connecticut Passes Law Mandating Water Fluoridation at Existing Levels in Move to Preempt Federal Changes

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Connecticut Gov. Ted Lamont on Tuesday signed legislation requiring public water systems to continue fluoridating drinking water at the levels currently recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In the press release, Lamont said current recommended levels of water fluoridation have been proven to be “safe and effective for many decades.”

The new law will ensure that “this public health standard continues in Connecticut regardless of whatever political decisions are made at the federal level,” Lamont said.

Previous state law mandated that water be fluoridated at levels recommended by HHS. Currently, the agency recommends 0.7 milligrams per liter, but it may reexamine that recommendation.

The law mandates that the amount of fluoride that must be added to the state’s water supply remains at the HHS-recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.

Pro-fluoridation lobbyists, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and state dental associations, celebrated the news. The ADA said it was pleased that Connecticut “has taken a proactive approach to protecting community water fluoridation.”

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which educates the public about the dangers of fluoridation, criticized the move. “Change is hard,” it posted on X. “Connecticut has stubbornly fossilized current fluoridation levels into law.”

In a press release, Lamont’s office cited outdated statistics claiming water fluoridation reduces cavities by 25%. It also quoted Connecticut senators, the state’s public health commissioner, and several dental organizations who affirmed the importance and safety of fluoridation. It didn’t cite any evidence to back those claims.

A growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, gained national attention when a federal judge in September 2024 ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a landmark lawsuit brought by the FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and must be regulated.

Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.

The decision to fluoridate water is usually made by local governments. However, fluoridation infrastructure typically has state funding, and a handful of states require fluoridation, usually for communities of a certain size.

Trump administration gives mixed signals on water fluoridation

Since the September federal court ruling, more than 60 communities, towns and states — including Florida, the third most populous state — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water systems.

Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since the 1940s. At the time of the lawsuit ruling, 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride.

Water fluoridation hasn’t always been a partisan issue. In the early 2010s, Democratic cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to end water fluoridation over concerns about the chemical’s toxic effects.

However, the issue became more politicized in November 2024, after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime fluoride critic, said the incoming Trump administration would advise local water systems to stop fluoridating water. Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary in February.

Since then, Democratic politicians and the mainstream press have vocally supported water fluoridation and attacked critics — including even CNN and Washington Post health commentator Dr. Leana Wen.

However, the Trump administration has given mixed signals on its approach to water fluoridation.

In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation. Also that month, Kennedy said he planned to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.

However, that recommendation has not happened.

Instead, last week, Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark fluoride lawsuit, announced on X that the EPA plans to appeal Chen’s decision ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation.

The agency is expected to file its appeal later this week.

In 2015, President Barack Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.

The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues, with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic. Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Massie Proposes to Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Opening Door for Thousands of Lawsuits

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced legislation to repeal the “sweeping” liability shield that exempts COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers from responsibility for serious injuries or death caused by their products.

The liability protection amounts to “medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said in a press release.

The PREP Repeal Act (H.R.4388) would revoke the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, a law that provides legal immunity to “covered persons” who manufacture or administer countermeasures during a public health emergency.

“Covered persons” under the PREP Act include vaccine makers, manufacturers of masks and other personal protective equipment, and physicians, nurses and pharmacists who administer vaccines.

The Biden administration ended the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023. However, the public health emergency, declared in January 2020 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the PREP Act, remains in effect.

In December 2024, HHS extended the liability protections through 2029. It was the 12th extension since 2020.

Massie’s bill would strip away these protections, repealing the PREP Act’s liability shield and restoring civil remedy rights for people harmed by products covered under the act.

“Τhe ability of citizens to seek redress for injury or harm is a fundamental principle of justice and due process,” the bill states, adding that the PREP Act’s liability shield has “undermined public trust and accountability” and “enabled regulatory capture.”

“The 2005 PREP Act prevents people from holding corporations accountable for the pain and suffering they cause during Presidentially declared emergencies. Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products. The PREP Repeal Act will restore that right,” Massie said in the press release.

In an interview today on the “Brian Thomas Morning Show,” Massie said the bill would apply to all COVID-19-related countermeasures, not just vaccines.

“If somebody made a mask that had cancer particles on it, and you inhaled those … too bad, they’re covered by the PREP Act,” Massie said. “I don’t like lawsuits, but they do keep corporations sort of in check. There’s this incentive not to harm people if you’re going to have to pay for it, if it becomes unprofitable.”

Attorney Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense and an expert on the PREP Act, said:

“The ‘sweeping liability protections’ extend far beyond manufacturer shields to condone every conceivable medical atrocity. If Massie’s bill passes, the pandemic assembly line would be dismantled. It would be goodbye liability protections, goodbye mandates and goodbye mass-human experimentation.”

According to Flores, repeal of the PREP Act would also end other current public health emergencies, including mpox (monkeypox), pandemic influenza, anthrax and Zika.

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said the bill “will stop another COVID vaccine fiasco and also stop the widespread use of unproven tests such as the COVID-19 PCR tests, which were also issued under emergency use authorizations (EUA).”

Wayne Rohde, author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said the bill contains “nonspecific language” and gaps that require attention. Rohde said this includes:

“How to wind down the Act, address all of the amendments added to the Act over the last 4 years, covered persons, how to handle the covered countermeasures such as medical devices, medications, drugs and personal protective equipment, and, of course, the elephant in the room, the vaccines used and their future legal liability.”

Legislation would open the door to thousands of lawsuits previously blocked by PREP Act

Massie’s proposed legislation would apply to all current and future lawsuits challenging the PREP Act, including pending appeals.

Attorney Rick Jaffe said the proposed legislation is retroactive to March 10, 2020, “reopening the courthouse doors to thousands of injured individuals whose claims were previously blocked by PREP’s sweeping liability shield.”

The legislation would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine makers directly, Jaffe said:

“The bill, if passed, allows people injured by the COVID shots to sue, presumably, the manufacturers as well as those who administered the shots, and that would be a big and much unwanted thing from the perspective of the manufacturers and pharmacy chains which administered the shots.”

Massie told Brian Thomas he believes the PREP Act is unconstitutional, as it preempts state medical malpractice laws.

“Here’s why I call the PREP Act medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said. “It’s a federal law that says none of the state laws apply, and I think it’s a violation of the 10th Amendment. There’s nowhere in the Constitution that lets the federal government say that all state laws dealing with liability are null and void.”

Most, but not all, courts have so far sided against vaccine injury lawsuits challenging the PREP Act’s liability shield.

In March, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable under the PREP Act.

The Maine ruling came one week after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s ruling in a similar lawsuit in Vermont. In that case, a school administered a COVID-19 vaccine to a 6-year-old boy despite his and his parents’ objections. Last year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the PREP Act shielded school officials from liability.

At least two recent lawsuits challenging the PREP Act have cleared initial judicial hurdles but remain pending.

In March, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that a lawsuit filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy given a COVID-19 vaccine at school without consent can proceed. The court ruled the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination.

In November 2024, a federal court ruled that a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine during a U.S. clinical trial can continue.

According to the complaint, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants promised enrollees medical treatment in the event of illness or injury suffered during the study. The court rejected the drugmaker’s claim that a federal liability shield protects it from breach-of-contract claims.

Bill would end ‘dismal’ PREP Act vaccine injury compensation program

Massie’s proposed bill also rescinds unused federal funds earmarked for injury claims under the PREP Act.

Such claims are heard by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a government-run COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation program established under the PREP Act.

CICP has faced criticism for its slow pace of resolving claims and the limited compensation it offers.

Jaffe said:

“The PREP Act created a legal black hole where traditional tort rights and due process protections disappeared, replaced by a virtually unreviewable administrative compensation program — the CICP — that has denied nearly every COVID-related claim. In effect, Americans injured by federally endorsed products were stripped of their constitutional right to seek redress. This bill restores that right.”

According to the most recent CICP data, of the 13,836 claims related to COVID-19 countermeasures filed to date, 75 were found eligible for compensation. As of June 1, 39 of those have been compensated. The overwhelming majority of claims were denied (4,338) or are “pending review or in review” (9,423).

Dr. Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon injured by COVID-19 vaccines and co-chair of React19, an organization advocating on behalf of vaccine-injury victims, said CICP strips claimants of their constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial.

“The CICP program was intended to be the safety net for those Americans injured by the emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots. However, the program is a dismal failure with over a 98% denial rate,” Wallskog said.

If the proposed legislation passes, Flores said, the most likely outcome would be attempting to move COVID-19 injuries into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers injuries from vaccines routinely administered to children and pregnant women.

However, such a move may face obstacles, including complications regarding how to handle claims pending before the CICP.

Rohde said:

“Money obligated for current operations would not be affected [but] how do you determine the monetary need for pending CICP petitions? How to handle the CICP petitions already received and what about the future claims? Do you move all the CICP vaccine petitions into the VICP? That creates all sorts of new problems.”

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children. The CDC now recommends that parents of healthy children consult their pediatricians and together make decide whether to vaccinate against the virus.

According to Flores, “Now that these injections are not on the routine recommended schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, they wouldn’t qualify” for compensation from the VICP.

‘It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way’

Massie’s proposed legislation is similar to a bill introduced last year that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths, by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.

The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act (H.R.7551), has since languished in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Wallskog said Massie’s bill faces “an uphill battle to make it to the Congressional floor and get to a vote.”

Flores was less optimistic about the bill’s future because it would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers directly.

“The bill, in theory, is just what we need. However, implementing it would cause utter chaos,” Flores said. “Absent a miracle, the prospects [of passage] are slim to none.”

Nass said public awareness and support are crucial for the bill’s success.

“It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way,” Nass said.

Wallskog said if the legislation is passed, it would be more far-reaching than a declaration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removing COVID-19 countermeasures from the PREP Act.

“Executive orders can simply be reversed by the next HHS secretary. Legislative change is much more powerful with more staying power,” Wallskog said.

This has not occurred to date, which Flores said is “the greatest indication of the forces that Kennedy and Rep. Massie are up against.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers

By Timur Tarkhanov | RT | July 16, 2025

There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds “freedom campaigns” through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who’s really pulling the strings.

Yet that’s precisely what Britain’s Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of “democracy support” and “combating disinformation.”

Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn’t be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless.

This covert campaign didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s merely the latest incarnation of Britain’s longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – “Russian disinformation,” “violent extremism,” “authoritarian propaganda” – but the machinery is strikingly similar.

Only now, it’s all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and “evidence-based interventions.” Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia’s near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers.

A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow’s narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren’t setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn’t wander into critiques of NATO or London’s chosen regional allies.

This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it’s the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it’s “building resilience against disinformation,” it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that’s undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently.

It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn’t the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn’t London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries.

In truth, “disinformation” has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there’s a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s.

Likewise, “freedom” in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain’s worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it’s what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc’s approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation.

This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural “nudge” industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement.

The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated.

If that’s what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »