Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The UK’s Online “Safety” Act Is Already Causing Protests To Be Hidden

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 26, 2025

British users attempting to view videos of anti-mass migration protests on X found themselves blocked on Friday, coinciding with the day the UK’s sweeping Online Safety Act took effect.

Enacted by the previous Conservative government, and continued by the current Labour government, the legislation is already being condemned for facilitating online censorship under the veil of child protection.

Although sold to the public as a safeguard against minors encountering explicit content, the enforcement mechanisms are now being used to restrict access to politically charged material.

The protests in question were sparked by outrage over an incident in Epping, where a migrant allegedly sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl while living in a taxpayer-funded hotel. Demonstrations followed swiftly, but footage of these events is now being filtered from UK audiences.

Users attempting to access the protest content were met with a message stating, “Due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age.”

The restricted material reportedly included scenes of arrests and clashes during the protests, not the kind of content the law claimed to target.

To meet the law’s requirements, X has implemented various age estimation strategies.

These techniques, originally framed as tools to shield minors from graphic material, are now being used to restrict access to politically relevant video.

With companies facing penalties of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10 percent of their global revenue, platforms are expected to err heavily on the side of caution.

The result is a system that punishes openness and silences dissent under threat of financial ruin.

Elon Musk, who owns X, did not refer directly to the blocked protest videos, but spoke bluntly about the law’s broader intent. “… purpose is suppression of the people,” he posted on Saturday.

The Free Speech Union, which had repeatedly warned about the law’s implications, responded quickly. “If you have a standard X account in the UK – presumably the majority of British users – it appears that you may not be able to see any protest footage that contains violence. We’re aware of one censored post that shows an arrest being made,” the organization stated. “We warned repeatedly about how censorious this piece of legislation would be.”

A petition to repeal the Online Safety Act has now gathered more than 160,000 signatures, surpassing the threshold that requires Parliament to consider it for debate.

At the same time, searches for virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow users to access the internet as if they were located in another country, surged by over 700 percent in the UK.

Rather than safeguarding young users, it is granting extraordinary power to censor politically inconvenient material and narrowing the digital space available for public dissent.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Voices from the Terror List: Palestine Action Members Speak Out After UK Ban

By Kit Klarenberg | MintPress News | July 25, 2025

On July 1, British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that Palestine Action (PA), a crusading campaign effort, would be proscribed as a terrorist group. Describing the movement as “dangerous,” she charged that its “orchestration and enaction of aggressive and intimidatory attacks against businesses, institutions and the public” had “crossed the thresholds established in the Terrorism Act 2000.” As a result, PA is now the country’s first protest group to be formally branded a terrorist entity, placing it in the same league as al-Qaida and ISIS.

Based on Cooper’s characterization, a typical consumer of mainstream media might conclude PA posed a grave threat to Britain’s public safety and national security. However, other comments by Cooper appeared to undermine her incendiary headline charges. In justifying PA’s proscription, the Home Secretary cited recent actions conducted by the movement. These included “attacks” on factories owned by defense contractors Thales in 2022 and Instro Precision in 2024, each causing more than £1 million in damages.

As hundreds of lawyers and multiple U.N. experts argued in the week before the proscription took effect, the move set an extremely dangerous precedent not only in Britain but for Palestine solidarity efforts worldwide. The group did not engage in activities that could plausibly be categorized as “terrorism”—a highly contentious concept, popularized by Israel for political reasons—in other Western jurisdictions. Average citizens were not in Palestine Action’s crosshairs, and not once did the group’s activism harm a human being.

Instead, PA engaged in multifaceted civil disobedience, targeting firms closely tied to Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, most prominently the Israeli-owned defense giant Elbit Systems. Entities providing services to those targets—such as companies leasing commercial space to Elbit—were also in the group’s crosshairs. These actions proved devastatingly effective, hitting Elbit’s bottom line at home and abroad. PA’s disruption also brought unwelcome mainstream attention to Elbit’s operations, spotlighting the firm in ways it clearly sought to avoid.

In proscribing Palestine Action, the British government may have been motivated, in part, by a desire to avoid awkward questions and inconvenient disclosures. In one of the group’s final actions, on June 19, several members broke into Royal Air Force base Brize Norton and defaced two military planes parked there. The site is a key hub for refueling and repairing British jets that have conducted hundreds of reconnaissance flights over Gaza since the genocide began in October 2023.

These routine surveillance flights are just one component of London’s active involvement in the genocide, which authorities systematically seek to conceal from public view. Another is the presence of the SAS conducting “counterterrorism” operations in Gaza, which has been covered up via direct state decree. However, the origins of Palestine Action’s proscription stretch back much further. The story behind the ban is a sordid and largely hidden one marked by long-running, opaque collusion between British and Israeli authorities and the global arms industry.

The Legal and Political Fallout

As a result of PA’s proscription, it is now a criminal offense to be a member of, or to express “support” for, the group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. However, an Actionist who wishes to remain anonymous predicts many will deliberately breach the proscription order, knowing they’ll face legal consequences, to increase pressure on authorities. Already, dozens of British citizens — including an 83-year-old priest — have been arrested for peacefully displaying signs declaring, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

“Things are going to happen, without doubt. The group may be proscribed, but you can’t proscribe ideas, whether that’s opposition to the Holocaust in Gaza, sympathy with Israel’s innocent victims, or a desire to disrupt the network of genocide in Britain to which Elbit and its subsidiaries and suppliers are so central,” the Actionist tells MintPress News. “Still, the chilling effect on Palestine solidarity is obvious, and no doubt deliberate.”

The mass arrest of peaceful demonstrators for simply expressing sympathy for Palestine Action highlights a deeply troubling aspect of British “counterterror” legislation. The term “support” isn’t even clearly defined, and according to legal precedents, can extend far beyond practical or tangible assistance, to “intellectual” support, including “agreement with and approval” or “speaking in favor” of a proscribed group. In December 2024, UN experts expressed immense disquiet over this “vague and overbroad” interpretation, warning that it could “unjustifiably criminalize legitimate expression.”

“The proscription of Palestine Action is unprecedented. It’s the first time Britain has banned as ‘terrorist’ a protest group which has never used guns or bombs,” Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada tells MintPress News. “It seems like a massive overreach, and therefore it’s not surprising there’s been lots of civil disobedience in response.”

Surprisingly, even The Times, typically a reliable megaphone for Britain’s intelligence, military and security apparatus, published an editorial on July 7 intensely critical of “the heavy-handed branding of Palestine Action as terrorists,” dubbing the proscription “absurd.” While describing the group as “a malign force” and “antisocial menace,” the outlet argued that activists’ damage to commercial and private property could be “prosecuted into submission” under existing criminal law and the use of “lighter-touch measures” given the level of threat posed by Palestine Action.

Notably absent from The Times editorial was any consideration of the fact that criminal proceedings against Palestine Action frequently ended in failure. In several cases, Actionists who caused mass disruption or damage to Elbit sites walked free even on relatively minor charges, because the company declined to provide police or prosecutors with witnesses or other evidence.

Elbit is extremely wary of advertising the central role its arsenal plays in the killing of Palestinians. The company’s marketing brochures typically omit mention of its Israeli ownership, instead emphasizing the supposed economic and social benefits its operations deliver to British communities. A January 2023 puff piece on UAV Systems, an Elbit subsidiary repeatedly targeted by Palestine Action, even referred to the company as a “little company making repurposed Norton motorbike engines.”

In cases where Elbit did provide evidence, Actionists used the opportunity to turn the tables and place the company and the Israeli state on trial. In November 2022, five of the group’s activists who vandalized Elbit’s London HQ were acquitted. In defending their actions, several of the accused testified to witnessing first-hand atrocities committed by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza and the West Bank. While Elbit argued Palestine Action’s buckets of red paint were “improvised weapons,” the jury was not persuaded.

Palestine Action members target Allianz offices in London, demanding it stop insuring Israeli arms maker, Elbit Systems. Joao Daniel Pereira | AP

Judicial Battles and Public Defiance

Fast forward to today, and the anonymous Actionist is under no illusions that the British legal system alone will be enough to reverse Palestine Action’s proscription. “It has to be fought amongst the public, on the streets and in the courts,” they tell MintPress News. The group has applied for a judicial review in an effort to overturn its ban. This follows an application for interim relief to delay the proscription, which was denied after Yvette Cooper’s announcement.

Despite submitting an extensive witness statement outlining the serious implications that Actionists—and ordinary British citizens—could face if the ban took immediate effect, a panel of three judges took less than 90 minutes to reject the request. The justices acknowledged that there would be “serious consequences” from the government’s ban, including the risk that individuals could “unwittingly commit” criminal offenses and that those associated with the group might face “social stigma and other more serious consequences at university or at work.”

Palestine Action had warned the ban would create confusion and chaos. Police responses to pro-PA protests across Britain have varied wildly. Some resulted in no arrests, while in Wales, protesters were not only arrested under terror legislation but also had their homes raided. Videos of interactions between Palestine solidarity protesters and police suggest officers themselves are unsure about what is now lawful. In Scotland, four people were arrested for wearing T-shirts that didn’t even mention the group.

Speaking to MintPress News, the anonymous Actionist expressed frustration over the court’s decision. “A UN Special Rapporteur supported us, warning the proscription breached international standards, but apparently British judges know better. It just shows how corrupt the entire system is. Every part of it is rotten,” they lament. “The government, almost unanimously supported by parliament, rammed through the conscription without warning or any public debate whatsoever, after falsely briefing the media we might be funded by Iran. Who will they target like this next?”

As Declassified UK has documented, nearly every major British outlet ran with the Home Office’s Iran narrative, without offering PA a rebuttal. In a particularly revealing twist, the pro-Israel lobby group We Believe In Israel—which does not disclose its funding sources—openly took credit for the government’s decision. In an X post, the organization called the proscription its “victory,” claiming it was the direct result of months of “sustained research, strategic advocacy, and evidence-based reporting” contained in a report it had published earlier in the year.

Collusion and Israeli Influence

Again, the anonymous Actionist is unsurprised that British policy—if not legislation—is effectively being written by Israeli lobby groups. Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Keir Starmer were all named as supporters of Labour Friends of Israel, before the list was scrubbed from the internet ahead of the 2024 general election. LFI, which praised the proscription, maintains a close relationship with Tel Aviv’s London embassy, which is widely believed to be infested with Mossad agents—a connection the group works to obscure.

In recent months, PA and independent journalists have uncovered compelling evidence that the Home Office has been in secret contact with Elbit representatives and Israel’s London embassy almost since the group’s founding in 2020. The full scope of this collusion is still unknown and may never come to light. However, documents released under Freedom of Information laws raise serious concerns about whether this concealed relationship influenced both the prosecution of Actionists and the decision to proscribe the group.

For example, in March 2022, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel met privately with Elbit UK CEO Martin Fausset to reassure the firm—and, by extension, its Israeli handlers—that the British government was taking “criminal protest acts against Elbit Systems UK” seriously. At the time, officials acknowledged that Palestine Action’s activities did “not meet the threshold for proscription” under British law. Before that meeting, no PA members had been successfully prosecuted. In the months that followed, legal actions against the group escalated dramatically.

Still, many Actionists continued to walk free. In December 2023, six members—including co-founders Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard—were acquitted of nine charges by a jury. The following month, internal correspondence revealed Elbit UK’s security director wrote to British officials expressing concern that “a re-trial is not a certainty” and suggesting it was “very much in the public interest” for the trial to be reheard.

Mere days later, a retrial was announced—for 2027. That would mark six years since the alleged offenses took place. One Actionist called the drawn-out process a “form of psychological warfare on defendants,” saying it prevents them from making long-term plans or securing employment. Meanwhile, other PA members are imprisoned awaiting trial, some already incarcerated for extended periods. There are disturbing signs that their detention and prosecution are being coordinated with Israeli authorities.

Among the most alarming revelations are heavily redacted emails showing that, in September 2024, the British Attorney General’s Office shared contact details for the Crown Prosecution Service and counterterrorism units with the Israeli embassy. The timing raises suspicions of Israeli interference in the prosecution of PA members who, earlier that month, broke into Elbit’s Filton factory and destroyed quadcopters—weapons routinely used to maim and kill Palestinians in Gaza.

Source | Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone

In all, 18 Actionists involved are currently remanded in prison, their pre-trial detention period running to 182 days, well in excess of standard limits for non-terror-related cases. Their contact with the outside world has also been severely restricted, in violation of international legal norms. On July 15, another five PA members were arrested and charged in connection with Filton.

If the Israeli government played any role in these prosecutions, it would represent a flagrant breach of Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, which prohibit “undue pressure or influence from any source.”

In May, British prosecutors announced they would consider “terrorism connections” in the case of 10 Actionists who targeted Instro Precision, an Elbit supplier, in June 2024. While the charges—aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder—do not qualify as terrorism under British law, prosecutors say those connections may factor into sentencing. If upheld, that designation could lead to significantly harsher penalties than standard criminal charges would normally carry.

Legal Challenges Mount

On July 21, London’s High Court heard arguments from lawyers representing Huda Ammori, seeking permission to challenge Palestine Action’s proscription. In addition to citing devastating figures related to the genocide in Gaza and Elbit’s direct involvement, the legal team also emphasized the legal uncertainty now faced by activists and journalists as a result of the ban.

In response, government lawyers argued that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission—not a judicial review—was the appropriate forum to challenge the designation. At the hearing’s conclusion, the judge stated a full ruling would be issued on July 30.

Earlier, on June 24, Jewish News revealed that British authorities had hesitated to proscribe PA out of concern that a judicial review “could overturn” the decision. That concern reportedly contributed to initial “reticence” from the Home Office. Even if the review is authorized, it could take months for a ruling to be reached.

In the meantime, journalist and legal scholar Leila Hatoum offered a stark assessment of the situation. She told MintPress News that the British state’s targeting of the group “for standing against genocide and oppression” was “nothing short of tyranny.” She added that the ban not only threatens basic rights—particularly freedom of speech and freedom of the press—but also violates international law.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948, notes it is the duty of all nations and peoples to act to stop a genocide. By legally pursuing those who are seeking to prevent Israel’s ongoing apartheid, occupation and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, especially members and supporters of Palestine Action, the UK has positioned itself against the international law, and alongside the forces of darkness. The country has failed humanity.”

A Legacy of Resistance

Despite this bleak outlook—and the possibility that the group could remain proscribed regardless of any court challenge—Palestine Action’s example remains an inspiration to people across Britain and beyond. A volunteer group of ordinary citizens, spanning every age, ethnicity, faith and gender, without financial or institutional backing, posed such a threat to entrenched power that the British government, for the first time in history, resorted to a legal “nuclear option” to neutralize them.

Civil disobedience aimed at disrupting military operations has a long and established history. Since the early 1980s, the Christian pacifist Plowshares movement has carried out sabotage against U.S. military bases and nuclear installations. In 2003, five activists were prosecuted for damaging American bombers at a British base to prevent their use in the Iraq War. One of the defendants was represented by none other than Keir Starmer, who argued successfully that although their actions were technically illegal, they were justified as an effort to prevent war crimes.

Palestine Action represents the first group to maintain this legacy during an active, ongoing genocide, but ever since its launch, it has achieved major victories. In January 2022, Elbit sold off one of its component factories, and a British government prosecutor acknowledged that PA’s sustained actions against the site “forced the closure.” Two additional Elbit sites targeted by the group have since been shut down. Governments around the world, including Brazil and even Britain, have canceled lucrative contracts with the company.

Had the British state not acted so forcefully, it is likely that Palestine Action’s momentum would have continued building, possibly forcing Elbit out of the UK entirely. Yet despite the risk of arrest or prison, solidarity with Palestine and overt support for Palestine Action show no sign of fading. As Israel’s favorability plummets to historic lows across the West, there are countless individuals around the world ready to follow PA’s example, risking their liberty to stop the ongoing genocide.

After all, it is not just a moral duty. It is a legal one.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli officers admit spoiling aid from 1,000 trucks at southern Gaza’s Kerem Shalom crossing

MEMO | July 26, 2025

Israeli officers have admitted Friday to spoiling food, water and medical supplies that were packed in more than 1,000 aid trucks at the Kerem Shalom crossing that were left to rot after their distribution into the Gaza Strip was blocked, Anadolu reports.

According to the Israeli public broadcaster KAN, the aid trucks were carrying tens of thousands of humanitarian parcels. They had been left for weeks under the sun at the crossing without being distributed, until they spoiled.

The Gaza Ministry of Health announced Friday that the death toll from hunger and malnutrition since October 2023 has reached 122 Palestinians, including 83 children.

One Israeli officer told KAN: “We buried everything in the ground, and some of the supplies we burned,” without specifying the timing of the incident.

He added: “Even now, thousands of parcels are sitting in the sun. If they’re not allowed into Gaza, we’ll have to destroy them too.”

Military sources told KAN that “only 100 to 150 trucks are allowed to enter the Palestinian side of the crossing per day, and most of them are not unloaded due to the breakdown of the distribution mechanism.”

Another Israeli officer said: “The mechanism isn’t functioning. Trucks are halted, the roads are unusable, and coordination isn’t happening.”

He added: “We have here the largest grain storage in the world, and if the current goods aren’t taken soon, we will destroy and bury them.”

Famine has worsened dramatically inside Gaza. Circulating images and videos show Palestinians whose bodies appear skeletal due to extreme starvation, in addition to suffering from nausea, exhaustion and loss of consciousness.

On Tuesday, the World Food Program warned that one-third of Gaza’s population had gone several days without eating due to the continued Israeli blockade.

Since March 2, Israel has backtracked on implementing a ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal with Hamas and has kept Gaza’s crossings shut, leaving hundreds of aid trucks stranded at the borders.

Rejecting international calls for a ceasefire, the Israeli army has pursued a brutal offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, killing more than 59,600 Palestinians, most of them women and children. Deaths by starvation have climbed in recent days due to a months-long blockade and poor distribution of aid by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.​​​​​​​

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Officer exits Australian army after showing more loyalty to ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

An Australian army officer has left the Australian Defence Force (ADF) after the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) stripped him of his security clearance, citing concerns over his loyalty to “Israel”. The case, first reported by The Guardian, has raised broader questions about foreign influence, undisclosed training, and security integrity within Australia’s military ranks.

The officer, anonymized as “HWMW” in tribunal documents, was removed from active service after the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) upheld ASIO’s findings earlier this year. Initially placed in the inactive reserve, The Guardian reports that he has now formally exited the ADF.

ASIO flagged serious loyalty concerns during interviews, where the officer declared he did not consider “Israel” a foreign government. He also admitted he would share classified Australian military information with the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) if asked.

These revelations led ASIO to conclude that he lacked the “appropriate character and trustworthiness” necessary to hold any security clearance.

Further investigations revealed the officer had failed to disclose participation in training programs conducted in “Israel” in 2016 and 2019. Despite serving 19 years in the ADF, he concealed courses involving self-defense, firearms training, and security techniques.

These sessions were linked to his volunteer role in a Sydney-based Community Security Group (CSG), which provides intelligence and protection services to the Jewish community. He was affiliated with the CSG between 2014 and 2023. When questioned, he claimed the omission was not a lie but “not a complete disclosure.” He further admitted that such CSG programs could serve as “natural recruiting pools” for Mossad, “Israel’s” intelligence service.

Political reactions

Greens Senator David Shoebridge, the party’s defence spokesperson, sharply criticized the government’s response. In Senate estimates, Shoebridge questioned whether the defence department had conducted a broader review of ADF personnel with ties to similar CSG training.

He expressed frustration over the lack of answers, stating: “This should have been a simple exercise. Having discovered an ADF member undertook secret training associated with a foreign government, then the exit should have been rapid.” Shoebridge also criticized what he described as Australia’s inconsistent stance on foreign affiliations, pointing to a double standard in the acceptance of loyalty to the US and its allies.

ASIO Director General Mike Burgess emphasized that while community security groups serve a legitimate and important purpose, transparency is key.

“There is nothing wrong with the community security groups,” Burgess said, but noted that foreign training, even for community protection, must be declared. “Training done overseas in Israel might present an opportunity,” he added.

The defense department has reiterated that all holders of security clearances undergo regular evaluations, including reviews of foreign connections and external loyalties. Individuals are required to report any affiliations that might compromise their suitability.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

FT hit job on Zelensky is a clue as to Trump’s thinking

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation |  July 25, 2025

It’s finally happened. After months of pundits wondering when would the moment come when western media would finally take a clear and decisive stand against Ukraine’s venal president, it has finally happened – and by the most ardent pro-EU broadsheet to note. The all-out hit piece on Zelensky recently by the Financial Times should indicate that something is about to happen in Ukraine and it will probably involve the president either having his own Ceausescu moment or simply fleeing the country. How long has he got?

Legacy media always likes to be on the right side of history and for the FT to come out like this with the piece that they’ve written must be ominous. It was published at the same time as the British conservative political chronicle The Spectator did much the same thing. Timing seems to be worth noting given that a few days beforehand unconfirmed ‘reports’ on social media were claiming that Trump had indicated to Zelensky that he needs to step down with even suggestions of who would take his role. It also comes amidst a series of reports which show that Zelensky’s panicking has reached an all-time high with the recent arrest of the of the anti-corruption activist Shabunin. Interestingly, that same day, ex-Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov was also targeted. In both raids at their homes, armed men showed no warrants and blocked lawyers from attending the searches, it is claimed. The arrest of the anti-graft campaigner is significant as is the take of the FT itself: The article says: “A crackdown on the country’s most famous anti-corruption crusader can’t be happening without at least the silent approval from President Zelenskyy, if not active permission,” it explains.

The significance and timing of the FT piece should not be underestimated. It’s not simply that on the battlefield itself that the Russians are advancing and that it becomes more openly accepted that the Ukrainians simply don’t have the men to fight this war, but more about Zelensky himself who is beginning to be portrayed as a dictator now clinging onto power and using all of the vestiges of martial law to crack down on even the faintest trace of dissent. Ukraine is now a totalitarian state with the level of Zelensky’s paranoia now starting to become widely known and discussed. The FT, one of those media giants which largely supported Zelensky and which barely considered elements of his brutal measures worth even reporting, such as the appalling murder of U.S. blogger Gonzalo Lira, is now reporting on even campaigners merely being roughed up by Zelensky’s henchmen – a considerable U-turn and worth noting is the detail it goes into with its zeal. Indeed, it has been the FT which has chosen not to cover a number of stories since the beginning of the war which many would argue created a positive aura around Zelensky which can be noted even as recently as in May when a key opponent of Zelensky was assassinated in broad daylight by a gunman in front of the victim’s children’s school in Madrid. In this case, the murder of Andriy Portnov was covered, but he was portrayed as a criminal “wanted in Kiev for treason”.

The FT’s support of Zelensky is over, we can assume.

It noted that “Shabunin and Kubrakov labelled the recent raids as politically motivated, adding that the SBU had presented no court-issued warrants and would not allow time for their lawyers to be present for the searches”.

Vitaliy Shabunin even is quoted in the article as explaining what the stunt was supposed to achieve. He told the paper, “Zelenskyy is using my case to send a message to two groups that could pose a threat to him. The message is this: if I can go after Shabunin publicly — under the scrutiny of the media and despite public support — then I can go after any one of you”.

The FT goes even further in its analysis of the situation and could even be assessed of being a catalyst to a revolution in the making.

“This is a straight-up, Russian-style scenario of dividing society, which could lead to protests in the streets”, Oleksandra Ustinova MP was quoted in the piece as saying.

The author suggests that the West has little interest any more in keeping up any pretence up that Ukraine is some sort of western democratic country which has had to give up on some of its democratic tenets. This apathy, it claims, is responsible for Zelensky now pushing his authoritarian, brutal control to new levels.

A western diplomat in Kiev who has worked closely with Ukraine’s civil society said the cases of Shabunin and Kubrakov “aren’t isolated events”.

“There’s a sense inside Ukraine’s presidential office that the west and especially the U.S. has shifted its focus,” the diplomat said. “That rule of law and good governance no longer matter as much.” With U.S. attention elsewhere, Zelensky is testing how far he can go, the FT claims, but doesn’t say that this is because he is in his last days and believes he can stay in power if he cracks down even further against those who could potentially pose a threat to him or even question his strategy. The recent dispatch of anti-aircraft missiles from Trump is not expected to do anything as the gesture represents way too little, way too late for it to have any impact. The corner that Trump is backing himself into with this 50-day deadline with Putin is more likely going to result in the man child in the Oval office looking for an easy victim which can distract voters away from the real story of him having to back down from the outlandish threats he has made to Putin.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Europe’s addiction to sanctions is terminal

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

It has been said there are two kinds of European countries: small countries and those that have not yet realized they are small. As of mid-2025, it appears most of the continent has yet to reach this realization.

More than three years into the grinding attritional war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union, having finally secured President Trump’s support for its maximum pressure campaign against Moscow, announced its most severe round of sanctions to date. In this 18th round, the EU expanded its blacklist of Russia’s so-called ‘shadow-fleet,’ used to export energy, to 444 vessels, denying operators access to European ports as well as insurance services. EU-member states were also prohibited from any dealings with a further 22 Russian banks, bringing the total to 44, to strangle Moscow’s financial channels to the outside world.

Alongside expanded export bans on ‘dual-use’ technologies, Brussels sanctioned entities in China, Türkiye, and 11 other countries for assisting Russia to circumvent sanctions and further lowered the price-cap on Urals crude oil, aiming to choke off the entry of Russian energy, in any form, from entering the bloc.

Besides the impressive hubris involved in declaring that Europe, as an importing region, will dictate the price it and other customers will pay for Russian energy, last weeks’ measures serve only to make permanent the long-term damage to its own economic viability, while Russia simply pivots to other buyers.

Parallel to the drafting of the latest sanctions salvo, the EU’s two largest members, Germany and France, alongside the UK, also pursued a maximum hostility campaign against another crucial energy exporter. Rather than condemning the 12-day war launched against Iran by “Israel”, European leaders, German Chancellor Merz in particular, chose to give the game away entirely, announcing their support for Israeli aggression because it was doing their “dirty work” (undermining the Islamic Republic) for them.

Upon the beginning of a ceasefire, the French and British foreign ministers, as if taunting Tehran after its nuclear facilities and scientists had been attacked, threatened to initiate the “snapback” mechanism of the defunct nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, if Tehran retaliated. The “snapback” mechanism would enable any of the signatory countries in the JCPOA to unilaterally trigger the reimposition of UN sanctions against Iran, which had been lifted under its terms post-2015. As the JCPOA itself will expire by October, the window for European states to trigger the snapback is closing.

Talks between Iran and the E3 were announced this week to take place in Istanbul over exactly this issue. Given Europe’s enthusiasm for compensating for its shrinking global clout with economic warfare, as well as pursuing American [Israeli] geopolitical goals ahead of its own, the likelihood of all three states foregoing the chance to “punish” Tehran for adhering to the agreement they signed on to seems a fading possibility.

If Europe ultimately follows through on its snapback threat, it will in a matter of months have destroyed any possible rapprochement with two states who could realistically have helped it out of its self-inflicted economic blood-loss. While no doubt damaging to both Moscow and Tehran, it will have solidified in the minds of both the necessity of forming economic routes and institutions outside the control of Western states.

The International North-South Economic Corridor, connecting Russia to the Indian Ocean via Iran, is the most prominent example of such cooperation. Since its effective launch in 2022 at the onset of operations in Ukraine, cargo traffic in energy, food, and other raw materials along the route has risen year-on-year, nearly hitting 27 million tons in 2024. As well as bilateral trade, the route’s growth has been fueled by intensified exchange between Russia and India. The latter is largely ignoring economic sanctions on Moscow, with two-way trade expected to approach $100 billion by 2030. The INSTC also crucially grants land-locked Central Asian states much-needed maritime access, magnifying regional buy-in.

The reimposing of UN-sanctions, along with the threat of secondary measures against third-party states could ironically create the kind of space for Chinese involvement with the region, leveraging INSTC’s points of interoperability with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Whatever course it takes, the leaders of Europe still seem not to have realized either the declining impact of their actions, nor the long-term negative consequences they will have for the continent. The last five centuries of economic history undoubtedly belonged to Europe, but Brussels’ seemingly terminal lack of vision writes it out of the coming chapter being authored in Asia.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to the PRC

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – July 26, 2025

The official visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the PRC, which took place from July 12 to 18 this year at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, became a notable event in the rapidly developing process of reshaping the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Formally, Albanese’s visit was considered a reciprocal event following the visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in June last year, during the latter’s regular tour of several countries in the region. However, the current visit of the Australian Prime Minister coincided with a period of rapid acceleration in the long-anticipated transformation of the global order and therefore deserves special attention.

Geopolitical uncertainty stimulates the continuation of the China-Australia dialogue

The very fact and nature of this visit serve as yet another testament to the increasing relevance of the “strategy of balancing,” which is being adopted by all more or less significant participants in the current phase of the “Great Game.” This is especially evident in its focal point, which is rapidly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. One of the most striking examples of this trend toward “balancing” has previously been noted in the policy of one of the leading Asian powers — Japan. To reiterate, this trend itself is a characteristic feature of the reshaping of the world order that began with the end of the Cold War, and it is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of various factors of uncertainty in global politics.

Lately, particularly significant among those factors are the ones triggered by the “tariff war,” launched on April 2 of this year by the 47th President of the United States. Although outwardly motivated by fairly understandable considerations of a “purely economic” nature, it has inevitably affected the sphere of political relations. And this includes countries with which Washington remains in military-political alliances that were once formalized through binding agreements.

Australia belongs to such countries. Along with New Zealand, it has been part of the trilateral ANZUS alliance (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) with the U.S. since 1951. Although the alliance had shown few signs of life after the end of the Cold War — primarily due to New Zealand’s de facto boycott — the sharp escalation of the international situation that began at the end of the last decade, as well as the coming to power of the conservative National Party in Wellington in early 2023, appear to be breathing new life into the pact. Australia also participates in “politically non-binding” configurations with the United States (Quad, AUKUS).

All these alliances and configurations are aimed, directly or indirectly, at Washington’s current primary geopolitical opponent — China — which, however, has been Australia’s main trading partner for over ten years. This fact constitutes a fundamentally important departure from the Cold War era and compels Canberra to maintain constructive relations with Beijing in order to ensure the prosperity of Australia’s export-oriented economy.

Let us note that in 2023, Australia exported various goods (mainly from the mining and agricultural sectors) to China worth an enormous $220 billion. At that time, the volume of accumulated Chinese investment in the Australian economy had reached almost $90 billion.

One would think Washington should appreciate the risks Canberra takes by joining overtly anti-Chinese actions in the South China Sea or in matters related to the increasing importance of controlling the Pacific Ocean’s waters. Yet the inclusion of Australia in the list of countries targeted by the “tariff war” waged by the current U.S. President does not suggest that such assessments are present in the thinking of U.S. leadership.

By contrast, the longstanding demand for Australia to “more clearly” demonstrate its stance on the Taiwan issue was once again voiced by the current architect of U.S. defense strategy, Elbridge Colby — and precisely on the eve of Albanese’s visit. In response, during the visit itself, the Australian government issued a reply along the following lines: guided by national interests, our troops will not be sent abroad based on hypotheses regarding the situation in specific regions.

Just a few years ago, Australia’s “older brothers” nearly forced the country into AUKUS, promising to build it a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. But now, the same Elbridge Colby is pondering the possibility of the U.S. pulling out of the project.

In short, Anthony Albanese, who resumed his post as Prime Minister of Australia following the most recent general elections, had ample reason to choose this visit as his first trip abroad — in order to “clarify the situation” in relations with a political adversary.

Some outcomes of the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to the PRC and the prospects for bilateral relations

The entire week-long visit of Albanese to the PRC can be divided into three components: “business,” “general political,” and “associated.” The first was held mainly in Shanghai with the participation of relevant ministers and business representatives; the second took place in Beijing; and the third, involving representatives of public organizations, was held in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province. Regular meetings were held on several bilateral platforms, including those at the level of prime ministers and ministry heads. The high-ranking Australian guest was received by the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

Following the events, several documents were adopted. Of particular note is the “Joint Statement” outlining the outcomes of the latest meeting between the prime ministers. This document includes ten equally important points, of which we will briefly highlight a few here.

Point 3 reaffirms the relevance of maintaining and further developing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, as well as the commitment to “wisely overcome” differences. In point 4, the Australian government reiterated its adherence to the “One China” principle — essentially reaffirming the aforementioned response to U.S. demands concerning the Taiwan issue. A message to the same effect is conveyed in point 6, which emphasizes the importance of a “fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment,” along with its chief regulator, the WTO. Point 8 refers to the intention to further develop this environment within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2015.

Finally, let us point out the potentially greatest challenge to the continued constructive relations between Australia and the PRC. This may turn out to be not so much the renewed U.S. focus on the 1951 alliance, but rather the development of the process of forming (still, it should be repeated, quasi-) allied relations between Australia and Japan. Even more so, since the current leadership of the Philippines is showing increasingly clear interest in joining this emerging regional alliance.

However, within the Philippines itself, resistance to anti-Chinese political trends is growing. In particular, in July of this year, a retired general questioned the usefulness of the well-known 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (in favor of the Philippines) regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea. According to this general, the only practical result of that decision is turning the country into a “second Ukraine.”

It seems that the word “Ukraine” is beginning to acquire a symbolic meaning and now plays a role in global politics similar to that of “Baba Yaga” in children’s fairy tales — stories that are better left unread before bedtime.

Australia would also do well to avoid a prospect defined in such terms. Today, Canberra has every reason to do so, and those reasons were only strengthened during the visit of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as discussed here.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine War Will Now Be Resolved on Battlefield

John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | July 25, 2025

I had the great pleasure of speaking with John Mearsheimer and Alexander Mercouris about developments in Ukraine. The Ukrainian frontlines are falling apart with greater speed and NATO’s recent plans of rearming Ukraine will not be able to turn the tide. Yet, the NATO countries have not sought to end the war through a peace agreement and instead continue to push for an “unconditional ceasefire” without a political settlement. Without an agreement to end NATO expansion, Russia will impose its own settlement through a military victory. Such an “ugly peace” will not benefit anyone.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Georges Abdallah returns to Beirut after over 40 years in French prison

The Cradle | July 25, 2025

Lebanese activist and resistance fighter Georges Abdallah has been released from French prison after over 40 years of incarceration, arriving in Beirut to a hero’s welcome on 25 July and renewing his call for armed resistance across the region.

“The resistance is rooted in this land and cannot be uprooted,” Abdallah expressed upon his arrival at Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport.

Speaking from the VIP lounge, he said, “the prisoners’ steadfastness in their prisons depends on the steadfastness of their comrades outside.”

Abdallah, a former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Factions (LARF), was arrested in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison in 1987 on charges of involvement in the killings of US military attache Charles Ray and Israeli diplomat Yakov Barsimentov in Paris in 1982.

The Lebanese resistance icon was also accused of involvement in the attempted assassination of US consul General Robert Homme in Strasbourg.

The killings of Ray and Barsimentov were claimed by LARF and framed as a response to Washington and Tel Aviv’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war.

Held at Lannemezan Prison in southern France, Abdallah became eligible for parole in 1999, but 10 successive requests for release were rejected. A 2013 ruling approving his release on condition of expulsion from France was never implemented.

On 15 November 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal again approved his release, conditional on his permanent expulsion, with the decision confirmed on 17 July 2025 by the French Ministry of Justice.

His lawyer, Jean-Louis Chalanset, described the outcome as “a judicial victory and a political scandal,” confirming that repeated US and Israeli pressure had obstructed prior legal decisions.

Abdallah was the longest-held prisoner in western Europe.

Now 74 years of age, Abdallah returned to Beirut on Friday, where he emphasized the need for greater support for resistance, saying, “Our resistance is not weak, but strong.”

He added, “As long as there is resistance, there is a return to the homeland,” and saluted fallen fighters as “the foundation of any idea of liberation.”

He also called for the escalation of resistance in Palestine and condemned Arab governments for their inaction over Gaza.

“They must work to stop the genocide and famine in the besieged strip because they are capable of doing so,” he said, calling on the Egyptian people directly.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Interview with Pezeshkian by Carlson: Breaking Through the Wall of Western Lies

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – July 25, 2025

In July 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian gave a historic online interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson. This was not just a conversation—it was a powerful blow to the Western propaganda machine that has portrayed Iran as the world’s primary threat for decades. While the U.S. and Israel fuel the flames of war, bomb nuclear facilities, and sabotage diplomacy, Tehran advocates for dialogue while retaining its right to self-defense and sovereign development.

Amid rising tensions in West Asia, where the West habitually reduces Iranian politics to a caricature of menace, Pezeshkian’s appearance on one of the world’s most influential shows shatters stereotypes. This was not merely a statement—it was a challenge to entrenched narratives, a call for deeper and more critical engagement with Iran’s stance. The interview provides a detailed examination of Pezeshkian’s key arguments, their context, and the significance of this exchange as a reflection of the crisis in international relations. The world must understand the legitimacy of Iran’s concerns, allowing its voice to be heard—without undue demonization or idealization.

The conversation took place during a period of heightened tensions: the U.S. and Israel have attacked Iranian nuclear sites, and Tehran has responded with force. The region teeters on the brink of escalation, where diplomacy is giving way to military confrontation. In this climate, Pezeshkian emerges as a leader combining firmness with a willingness to engage. His assertion that Iran “has not started wars” and “has no interest in prolonging them” reflects both a principled position and an attempt to counter the perception of Iran as a source of instability. He presents himself as a pragmatic actor in international affairs—open to negotiations but deeply distrustful of the West.

Who Is Really Responsible for the Chaos? 

The Middle East stands once again on the edge of catastrophe, and the blame lies with the aggressive policies of Washington and Tel Aviv, who choose to bomb over dialogue and provocation over diplomacy. In his interview, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made it clear: Tehran did not initiate conflicts but will defend its people against external aggression. He stressed that Iran has always advocated peaceful coexistence yet faces relentless Western pressure—sanctions, threats, and interference in its internal affairs. Now, as Tehran demands compliance with international law and respect for its sovereignty, it is accused of “destabilizing the region,” while it is the actions of the U.S. and Israel—support for terrorist groups, assassinations of Iranian scientists, and provocative airstrikes—that drive escalation.

Pezeshkian particularly emphasized Iran’s nuclear program, noting that Tehran has always been open to IAEA inspections and operated within international agreements. Yet, Washington and Tel Aviv exploit intelligence—even inspectors’ data—not for oversight but for sabotage. The president recalled the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyberattacks on infrastructure, and the deliberate undermining of trust in negotiations. “They offer us surrender under the guise of dialogue,” he said. “Every time there’s a chance for peace, the U.S. and its allies sabotage it—imposing impossible demands or tearing up existing agreements.”

Pezeshkian also accused the West of hypocrisy: while Europe and America preach human rights and stability, they have for years funded terrorist groups in the region, armed radicals, and blocked Iran’s independent development. “They want us to submit to their rules, abandon our security and technological progress,” he declared. “But Iran will no longer play by their imposed schemes. If the West chooses force over diplomacy, it will face a proportionate response.”

Pezeshkian reiterated that Tehran remains open to dialogue—but only on terms of equality and mutual respect. “We do not seek confrontation, but we will not allow our country to become another victim of Western hegemony. The responsibility for chaos lies with those who have sown war for years and now shift blame onto their victims.”

 U.S. Double Standards: Peace for Themselves, War for Others

In the interview, Pezeshkian sharply criticized U.S. policy, exposing its hypocrisy and double standards. He argued that Washington has spent decades selling the false image of a “champion of democracy” while being the primary source of global instability. “Iran is always open to dialogue, but how can we trust a country that systematically violates its commitments?” he asked. He reminded viewers that the U.S. not only abandoned the nuclear deal (JCPOA) but continues to impose sanctions despite Tehran’s compliance. “You demand we follow rules you yourselves ignore. Where is the logic?”

The Iranian president listed examples of U.S. interference: the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadegh, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, funding of militant groups in the Middle East, and endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. “You call us ‘sponsors of terror,’ but it is your allies—the Saudi regime and Israeli government—bombing hospitals and killing civilians. Who is the real aggressor?” He referenced the war in Yemen, where Saudi airstrikes—often lacking credible intelligence—have for years targeted not military bases but civilian areas, inflicting suffering primarily on ordinary Yemenis.

Pezeshkian also noted that the U.S. touts a “rules-based order” but disregards it when convenient. “You ignore UN resolutions when they don’t suit you but demand others obey them. You condemn our defense programs while selling billions in arms to dictatorships. This isn’t order—it’s the tyranny of the strong.”

Despite Carlson’s criticism of U.S. interventionism, he remained captive to Western propaganda, framing questions around stereotypes: Iran as a “threat to peace,” the U.S. as a “victim of Iranian aggression.” Pezeshkian countered: “You speak of ‘freedom’ while enforcing sanctions that kill our children by denying them medicine. You talk of ‘human rights’ while enabling genocide in Gaza. Your rhetoric is a smokescreen for maintaining hegemony.”

In closing, the Iranian leader stated that Tehran does not seek conflict but will not accept ultimatums. “We propose dialogue on equal footing, but if Washington prefers the language of force—it will receive a fitting response. History shows empires built on violence inevitably collapse.”

This interview made one thing clear: while the U.S. speaks of “peace and stability,” its actions bring only war and chaos. Iran, despite pressure, remains steadfast in defending its sovereignty and just international principles.

Pezeshkian’s interview is more than words—it is a call for peace that the West ignores because its elites thrive on chaos. As the U.S. and Israel escalate aggression, Iran stands as the sole power offering diplomacy over war. But peace is possible only when the West stops seeing itself as the planet’s master and recognizes other nations’ right to sovereignty. Until then, the bloodshed in the Middle East will stain the hands of Washington and Tel Aviv.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert 

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Brussels’ Frankenstein: How the EU is building its next dictatorship

The fact that Brussels is even considering Maia Sandu’s Moldova for accession speaks volume of its proclaimed ‘values’

By Timur Tarkhanov | RT | July 25, 2025

By all appearances, Maia Sandu should be the darling of Brussels. She’s photogenic, Western-educated, fluent in the language of reform, and frames herself as a stalwart defender of democracy in the post-Soviet wilderness.

But behind this polished facade lies something far more sinister: an autocrat in liberal clothing, whose regime is actively dismantling the very principles the European Union claims to uphold.

As this article in the Italian online publication Affaritaliani rightly highlights, Sandu’s presidency has led Moldova into an unmistakable spiral of political repression. On July 20, the opposition political bloc Victory was denied registration for the September 2025 parliamentary elections by Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission – effectively barred not just from winning, but from even participating. This isn’t a one-off bureaucratic hiccup. It is a calculated maneuver to ensure total political control. Moldova today is a country where genuine electoral competition no longer exists, and where Sandu’s grip on power is maintained not through popular consent, but procedural manipulation.

A sham democrat draped in EU flags

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic: the very woman hailed as Moldova’s great European hope has become its most dangerous democratic backslider. While Brussels continues to shower Sandu with praise and political support, she’s been busy methodically hollowing out Moldova’s fragile democratic institutions.

Consider the judiciary. Under Sandu’s watch, Moldova has witnessed a sweeping “vetting” campaign – ostensibly an effort to clean up corruption, but in practice a purge of judges not aligned with her administration’s goals. Critics in the legal field, including members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, have been sidelined or coerced into resignation. Independent prosecutors have been replaced by loyalists. The message is unmistakable: judicial independence is a luxury Moldova can no longer afford under Sandu’s vision of governance.

The media landscape is no less concerning. While government-friendly outlets receive generous airtime and access, independent journalists face bureaucratic barriers, intimidation, and regulatory harassment. Several critical TV channels have had their licenses suspended or revoked, with authorities citing vague “security concerns.” Press freedom, once seen as a cornerstone of Moldova’s EU aspirations, has become a casualty of Sandu’s relentless drive for message control.

Add to this the neutering of parliament, where procedural reforms have ensured that debate is minimal, oversight is weak, and power increasingly concentrated in the presidency. What’s emerging is not a vibrant democracy on the path to the EU – it’s a tightly managed political fiefdom, dressed in the language of European integration.

Russia: The all-purpose boogeyman

Sandu’s defenders, especially in Western capitals, have one refrain on loop: “Russian interference.” Under Sandu, Russia has become a pretext. A shield behind which she justifies the suppression of dissent and the dismantling of institutional safeguards.

Every opposition voice is painted as a puppet of Moscow. Every protest is portrayed as foreign subversion. Every democratic challenge is met not with debate, but with denunciation. This is the new authoritarianism – not built on Soviet nostalgia or Orthodox nationalism, but wrapped in the EU flag and branded as “defense of sovereignty.”

Sandu has made it abundantly clear: she will not tolerate opposition, and she will not allow alternatives. Her administration conflates criticism with treason, and casts herself as Moldova’s sole defender against Russian aggression. It’s a familiar script – one that echoes leaders she claims to oppose.

EU accession: A theater of hypocrisy

Yet in the halls of Brussels, Sandu remains a VIP. Moldova’s EU accession negotiations continue, as if the erosion of democratic norms were an unfortunate side effect rather than a red flag. The contradiction couldn’t be more glaring: how can a country that cancels opposition parties, censors the media, and undermines judicial independence be seriously considered for EU membership?

The answer, of course, lies in geopolitics. Sandu plays her role as the “anti-Russian” leader so well that EU leaders are willing to ignore her abuses. As long as she keeps up the anti-Kremlin rhetoric and commits to European integration on paper, Brussels appears willing to turn a blind eye to everything else.

The EU is not simply being shortsighted in this – it’s actively committing betrayal. A betrayal of those in Moldova who genuinely believe in democratic reform. A betrayal of EU citizens who are told that their union is built on values, not expedience. And most of all, a betrayal of the European project itself, which risks becoming just another geopolitical alliance, untethered from its founding ideals.

Sandu’s Moldova is not Europe

Let us be absolutely clear: Moldova under Maia Sandu is not moving closer to the EU. Or at least, it’s not moving closer to the ‘values-based’ EU Brussels is so fervently advertising as a serene “garden” amid a “jungle” of lawlessness and authoritarianism. Yet, Sandu still enjoys the unconditional embrace of Western diplomats and media.

That must change. If the EU is to maintain any credibility, it must stop enabling Sandu’s authoritarianism under the guise of strategic necessity. Moldova’s EU bid should be frozen. Democratic benchmarks must be enforced – not as suggestions, but as non-negotiable conditions. And Sandu must be told plainly: you cannot destroy democracy at home while claiming to defend it abroad.

The EU deserves better. Moldova deserves better. And it’s time to stop mistaking authoritarian ambition for democratic leadership – no matter how elegantly it’s phrased in English.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

UK could ‘easily’ stab US in the back – Putin aide

RT | July 25, 2025

The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.

Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow.

“If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.

His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea.

Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.

Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives.

Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »