The Saudi–Israeli normalization ‘delusion’
By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | February 5, 2025
On 4 February, when asked if the Saudis demand the establishment of a Palestinian state as a condition for recognizing Israel, US President Donald Trump, sitting alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, swiftly replied: “No, they’re not.”
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also quick to respond, stating that its stance on the establishment of a Palestinian state remains “firm and unwavering,” insisting that Riyadh would make no deal with Tel Aviv otherwise:
“His Royal Highness (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – or MbS) emphasized that Saudi Arabia will continue its relentless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.”
The statement further stressed that the Saudi position on this is “non-negotiable and not subject to compromises.”
Despite the fervent optimism of Trump’s newly appointed foreign policy team, the much-touted Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement remains an elusive goal, just as it was for his predecessor, Joe Biden. While Washington insists that such a deal is potentially around the corner, a more sober analysis suggests the pathway to a deal remains rife with obstacles.
Spanner in the works
The Abraham Accords, brokered under Trump’s first term, were hailed in Washington as a historic breakthrough in West Asian diplomacy, bringing the occupation state into official relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Yet, the glaring absence of Saudi Arabia – the most influential Arab state – was the missing piece that the US and Israel craved most.
Biden’s tenure, rather than advancing Trump’s initiative, has arguably undermined it. His administration’s unyielding support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its brutal military campaign in Lebanon has alienated many Arab and Muslim states, further diminishing the likelihood of new normalization deals.
Meanwhile, China has capitalized on Washington’s waning credibility, scoring a major diplomatic coup in 2023 by brokering a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran – a relationship that, against the odds, remains intact.
Despite the changed reality on the ground, this US administration still believes that the deal between the world’s largest oil exporter and Israel is still attainable on its terms. Mike Waltz, the Trump administration’s new national security advisor, has stated that reaching a peace agreement between Riyadh and Tel Aviv is a “huge priority” for the new administration.
Saudis caution: A deal on whose terms?
While the Saudis drew a clear line and maintained it for a very long time by linking normalization with Israel to the establishment of a Palestinian state, neither Israel nor the new Trump administration have shown any willingness to accommodate Saudi intentions.
Many of Trump’s supporters and major donors, such as Miriam Adelson, as well as the Israeli government, not only oppose any form of a Palestinian state, but are openly talking about annexing the entire occupied West Bank. Therefore, it is still unclear how Trump intends to reconcile two vastly opposing views and expectations and expand the Abraham Accords.
According to Giuseppe Dentice, an analyst at the Mediterranean Observatory (OSMED) of the Italian Institute for Political Studies “San Pio V,” Trump will likely fall back on his tried-and-tested approach – leaning on the Abraham Accords as a framework while resurrecting elements of his so-called “deal of the century.”
Dentice explains to The Cradle that the ultimate goal of such efforts is to sideline the Palestinian cause entirely, pushing it to the periphery of both regional and global agendas.
Moreover, many believe that the Trump administration will launch a crusade against the “global intifada” and those who dare to criticize Israel or insist on prosecuting Israeli war crimes.
This approach, Dentice contends, essentially forces a single option in the negotiations: Take it or leave it.
“Trump’s aggressive approach to Riyadh could backfire for the US and its interests in the Middle East (West Asia), especially if the Al-Saud kingdom continues to reject these terms, risking closer alignment with the agendas of other international actors (such as China or Russia, if only in strategic or instrumental terms).”
Saudi investments in the US: Buying leverage or time?
Some observers speculate that Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that Riyadh plans to invest $600 billion in the US over the next four years could be understood as a certain early bribe to Trump in return for easing his zealous pressure regarding the Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement and other geopolitical issues as well.
While it is true that convincing the Saudis will be a tough nut to crack, Dentice, for one, does not believe that even such a significant economic commitment could distract or dissuade the new government from its goals.
He believes that beyond the issue of normalization agreements with Israel, Riyadh wants to strengthen its understanding and cooperation with Washington, especially with this government. Nonetheless, it remains true that key figures associated with this administration, such as Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, could undermine Saudi processes and intentions through their own business relationships.
For Dr Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at the College of Bradford, President Trump is far too unpredictable for anyone to conclude on the chances of a deal with Saudi Arabia, but his recent comments on the option of expelling the Palestinians from Gaza indicate a very close relationship with far-right Israeli political factions.
Dr Rogers tells The Cradle that he suspects “that the Saudis will stay away from any kind of agreement, no matter what offer they make.”
Arab public opinion: A hard sell
Beyond geopolitical calculations, public sentiment in the Arab world remains a major obstacle to normalization. The rejection of a Palestinian state, coupled with an aggressive push for Saudi–Israeli ties, is widely viewed as an attempt to erase the Palestinian cause altogether – an agenda that lacks legitimacy among Arab and Muslim populations.
Furthermore, many observers believe that Israel’s war crimes and the genocide in Gaza have made it very difficult and uncomfortable for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) to continue peace talks.
But West Asian views against normalization precede even the brutal 15-month war. According to the Arab Opinion Index from 2022, for example, an average of 84 percent of citizens in 14 countries rejected diplomatic relations with Israel. These figures show that the Arab enforcers of the Abraham Accords ultimately failed to reach or sway wider Arab public opinion.
The war in Gaza has only cemented anti-Israeli views in Saudi Arabia, and an unconditional normalization agreement with Israel would only increase the risk of destabilizing the crown prince’s image in the kingdom and abroad. It would also humiliate MbS, who has publicly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, recognizing them as a “genocide.”
A mirage in the desert
Palestinian statehood is by no means a simple issue, even if an Israeli government supported the initiative, which the current one resolutely rejects.
Palestinian national aspirations can lose momentum due to internal divisions, the lack of an organized leadership capable of addressing current and future challenges, and the faltering support of traditional Arab sponsors – notably the loss of Syria following the ousting of former president Bashar al-Assad by Al-Qaeda-linked extremists – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – who now form the new government.
For all the speculation surrounding a Saudi–Israeli deal, the reality is that no proposal for Palestinian statehood has made meaningful progress in the past three decades. As a result, ad hoc unilateral initiatives have increasingly taken center stage, often yielding disastrous consequences.
In this context, the push for a Saudi–Israeli accord seems less like a diplomatic breakthrough and more like a mirage conjured by Washington and Tel Aviv.
Dentice believes that in such a context, and with the prospect of a possible Saudi–Israeli agreement, the Palestinians will have even less political relevance in the future. This will give space for radical and armed groups to gain ground and further exacerbate tensions on the Palestinian and Arab streets.
Trump’s aggressive tactics may succeed in strong-arming some leaders, but they are unlikely to change deep-seated regional attitudes. If anything, the pursuit of an agreement without major concessions for Palestinians could inflame tensions further, pushing the region into even greater instability.
For now, the notion of a Saudi–Israeli deal may be more fantasy than fact – an illusion sustained by wishful thinking rather than political reality.
Trump’s call for US ‘takeover’ of Gaza sparks international backlash
The Cradle | February 5, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington will “own” the Gaza Strip and expel its residents has sparked widespread backlash and condemnation.
Hamas said in a statement on 5 February that it condemns “in the strongest terms and reject[s] the statements of US President Trump aimed at the United States of America occupying the Gaza Strip and displacing our Palestinian people from it.”
“We confirm that these statements are hostile to our people and our cause, will not serve stability in the region, and will only add fuel to the fire,” the statement added. “We … will not allow any country in the world to occupy our land or impose guardianship over our great Palestinian people.”
“We call on the US administration and President Trump to retract these irresponsible statements that contradict international laws and the natural rights of our Palestinian people in their land,” Hamas went on to say, calling on the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the UN to hold urgent meetings to address Trump’s statements.
Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and top adviser to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said: “The Palestinian leadership … confirms its rejection of all calls for the displacement of the Palestinian people from their homeland. This is where we were born, this is where we lived, and this is where we will remain. We appreciate the Arab position committed to these constants.”
Several regional countries have also expressed their opposition to Trump’s statements.
“Trump’s statements regarding Gaza are unacceptable. Expelling (the Palestinians) from Gaza is an unacceptable issue neither on our part nor on the part of the countries of the region. There is no need to even discuss it,” said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
Saudi Arabia said in a statement that it rejects any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land, adding that Riyadh will not normalize ties with Israel until a Palestinian state is established – in response to the US president’s claim that the kingdom is not demanding statehood in exchange for normalization as it has been publicly calling for.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aati and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa jointly rejected “the exodus” of the Palestinian people and called for “accelerated” entry of aid and recovery programs.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jiang responded to Trump, telling reporters Beijing “has always believed that Palestinians governing Palestine is the fundamental principle for postwar governance in Gaza.”
“We oppose the forced displacement and relocation of the population in Gaza,” he added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to Trump’s remarks as a manifestation “of Western cancel culture.”
The French Foreign Ministry said the future of Gaza must be based on a “future Palestinian state” and not controlled by “a third state.”
UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed said that “it is the view of the [British] Government that Palestinians should be able to return to their homes and rebuild their shattered lives.”
Members of the US Democratic and Republican parties also responded. Democratic senator Chris Murphy said Trump has “totally lost it.”
“A US invasion of Gaza would lead to the slaughter of thousands of US troops and decades of war in the Middle East. It’s like a bad, sick joke,” Murphy said.
Democratic representative Jake Auchincloss called the Trump plan “reckless and unreasonable.”
Former Republican member of the US Congress, Justin Amash, said: “If the United States deploys troops to forcibly remove Muslims and Christians … from Gaza, then not only will the US be mired in another reckless occupation but it will also be guilty of the crime of ethnic cleansing. No American of good conscience should stand for this.”
Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel during Barack Obama’s presidency, said it “was not a serious proposal” and “would require a huge cost in American money and troops, without the support of key partners in the region.”
Trump’s controversial remarks came during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 5 February and during separate statements made during the Israeli premier’s visit.
“The US will take over the Gaza Strip … I see it as a long-term ownership position,” Trump said.
“I have a feeling that the king in Jordan and that … the general president [of Egypt], but the general and Egypt will open their hearts and will give us the kind of land that we need to get this done,” Trump said.
Trump has been insisting that over a million Palestinians in Gaza be expelled and that Jordan and Egypt take them in – which both Cairo and Amman have rejected.
He called Gaza “a symbol of death and destruction” and said that its residents only want to go back there because they have nowhere else to go.
Trump plans withdrawal from Syria – media
RT | February 5, 2025
The Pentagon is drafting plans for a full withdrawal of US troops from Syria, NBC News has reported, citing two anonymous defense officials. This comes shortly after President Donald Trump suggested that America’s military involvement in the country serves no useful purpose.
US troops entered Syria in 2014 on the pretext of fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), and have maintained a presence in the country ever since, despite never being invited by Damascus.
According to NBC’s report on Tuesday, US defense officials have begun preparing withdrawal plans, with timelines ranging from 30 to 90 days. Sources told the network that Trump’s new national security adviser, Mike Waltz, met with senior military commanders at the headquarters of US Central Command in Tampa, Florida on Friday. He was reportedly briefed on the situation in the Middle East.
Commenting on media reports suggesting that he had informed Israel of the imminent pullout, Trump said last week: “We’ll make a determination on that. We’re not getting, we’re not involved in Syria.”
“Syria is its own mess. They got enough messes over there. They don’t need us involved,” he added.
The Israeli public broadcaster Kan made the claim regarding the supposed withdrawal plans late last month, which presumably caused concern among Israeli officials.
In December 2018, during his first term, Trump announced plans to withdraw US troops from Syria. The decision faced significant pushback from Defense Secretary James Mattis, who ultimately resigned in protest. While some personnel were withdrawn, many were later redeployed
Shortly after the overthrow of Bashar Assad’s government in December 2024 by a loose coalition of armed opposition groups, the Pentagon acknowledged that the number of US troops in the country was in fact 2,000, as opposed to the previously reported 900. Several media outlets claimed later that month that several large US military convoys carrying weaponry and equipment had crossed into Syria from Iraq, further reinforcing the US contingent.
Assad and Moscow have repeatedly denounced the US military presence as an illegal occupation, stressing that Washington was never granted permission to station troops in Syria. The former government in Damascus also accused Washington of stealing the country’s natural resources, given that the US bases are located in the oil-rich northeastern parts of Syria.
The latest claims about the potential withdrawal from Syria came as Trump announced on Tuesday a proposal that includes a plan to “take over” Gaza. He did not rule out deploying US troops to the Palestinian enclave, vowing to “do what is necessary.”
How the CIA Spawned Google
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 05.02.2025
American tech giant Google has faced regulatory scrutiny on numerous occasions amid accusations of antitrust violations. Google’s relationship with the CIA, ranging from early financial support to collaborative efforts have been decried as undermining privacy rights and free speech in the digital landscape.
Google’s creation played a crucial role in the US intelligence community’s scheme to attain global dominance by controlling information.
How it Started
- The Pentagon founded its private sector project the Highlands Forum during the Clinton administration in 1994, according to the INSURGE INTELLIGENCE project.
- Together with defense contractors, the group hammered out a strategy for “network-centric warfare.”
- The 9/11 terrorist attacks were seized upon by US spy agencies to justify not only military invasions across the Muslim world, but also mass surveillance of civilian populations.
CIA Steps In
- The CIA’s Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) program, which originated in the 1990s, was designed to enhance query techniques and track users’ digital footprints.
- To better serve its goals, in 1999, the CIA established its own venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, to invest in potentially useful technologies.
- Ph.D. students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were working on precisely such a tech start-up.
- The design of the search engine and algorithms that ultimately evolved into Google was funded by CIA grants through a program aimed at enhancing mass surveillance capabilities.
PRISM
- Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the NSA had direct access to Google’s systems through its secret PRISM program, enabling the agency to harvest vast amounts of data on American citizens, Washington’s allies, and foreign nationals.
- Ex-CIA spooks are employed in almost every department at Google, according to a 2022 report based on the analysis of employment websites.
- Google has been slapped with multiple lawsuits stemming from its history of data misuse and privacy violations.
Which left-wing NGOs does Brussels fund in Hungary with taxpayer money to go after Orbán?
By Liz Heflin | Remix News | February 5, 2025
The European Commission is essentially manipulating NGOs to achieve its own goals in exchange for financial support. A Dutch newspaper has exposed part of this process, writes Magyar Nemzet, which then shows how Brussels does this and who the biggest domestic beneficiaries are.
On Jan. 22, De Telegraaf reported on secret contracts that the European Commission had signed with green NGOs to conduct alleged covert lobbying activities. According to the newspaper, the lobbying organizations, commissioned by Brussels with EU money, were tasked with persuading MEPs and member states to support the commission’s ambitious green policy initiatives.
For example, the European Environment Bureau (EEB), an umbrella organization for green groups, was tasked with providing at least 16 examples of how the European Parliament had tightened green legislation thanks to its lobbying. According to documents reviewed by the newspaper, the EEB was also tasked with supporting the controversial nature restoration bill initiated by former Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
In addition, they could use around €700,000 in support to steer the debate on agricultural activity in a more environmentally friendly direction.
In Hungary, the EU provides funding to certain organizations, which then use their activities to serve Brussels’ political goals. Here are some examples.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee is heavily dependent on international funding. According to their latest available financial report for 2023, more than 61 percent of their annual income came from private foundations, including George Soros’s organization. They received a total of 48.85 million forints from the European Commission, which accounted for 6.1 percent of their income. Helsinki has received funding for various projects serving legal protection purposes, typically for several years.
In recent years, the organization has often criticized the Hungarian government’s immigration policy, especially the measures related to border closures and the operation of transit zones, and has also undertaken the legal representation of migrants, for example, at the European Court of Human Rights.
One of the “results” of Helsinki’s operation is that in June 2024, the European Court of Justice imposed a migration fine of €200 million on Hungary and ordered our country to pay an additional €1 million per day until we change the relevant regulations.
Helsinki has actively contributed to the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report, which contains a number of criticisms of Hungary, including problems and recommendations in the areas of justice, the fight against corruption, and institutional checks and balances. The Helsinki Committee, together with other NGOs, including Transparency International Hungary, has submitted a nearly 100-page submission to the European Commission, which is withholding billions of euros from Hungary.
Transparency International Hungary (TI Hungary) has regularly attacked the Hungarian government in recent years, primarily on issues related to corruption, lack of transparency, and the management of public funds.
The organization also receives significant foreign funding, including funds from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, but their supporters also include the European Commission, from which they received a total of 13.7 million forints in revenue, according to their 2023 report.
Transparency International produces its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) every year, which is used to calculate which countries are the most and least corrupt in the world. Tamás Lánczi, president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, has already held the organization accountable for the bias experienced in determining the CPI.
All of this is significant because the index serves as a reference point for the withholding of EU funds due to Hungary.
The 2023 report from Amnesty International Hungary shows that the organization is significantly dependent on foreign sources.
Their revenues from the European Union budget, as well as other states and international organizations, exceeded 170 million forints, which represented 42 percent of their total revenue in that year.
They received almost 53 million forints in funding from the European Commission in 2023, which is almost 13 percent of their total annual income. They received the money as the winner of a call for proposals under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Value (CERV) program to promote gender equality. Amnesty has been working against Hungary’s interests on several fronts, as shown below.
The organization reports that it prepared its analysis related to the European Commission’s annual rule of law assessment, which examined, among other things, the Hungarian justice system, corruption, the press, civil society organizations, and the legislature. It says: “The success of our work, which has been carried out for four years, together with our civil society friends, is also demonstrated by the fact that many of our recommendations are reflected in the report published in July.”
In other words, they are explicitly proud of having put Hungary at a disadvantage.
The annual report also mentions that in March 2023, in addition to the European Parliament, 15 EU member states joined the European Commission v. Hungary lawsuit filed on the side of the commission over the child protection law adopted in 2021. Amnesty boasts that the actions of many member states are due to their work.
The Hungarian Digital Media Observatory (Lakmusz–HDMO) was established in January 2023 as the Hungarian center of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), established by the European Commission in 2020. Six organizations work together within the framework of the project: Political Capital, Mérték Médiaelemző Műhely, AFP news agency, Lakmusz, Idea Foundation and Epresspack. According to their own admission, their activities include fact-checking and related research and analysis, and they also provide training for journalists and teachers on the topic of fact-checking and conscious media consumption.
The HDMO Project is being implemented with the partial support of the European Commission, and the consortium forming the HDMO was selected by the Commission through an open tender. Lakmusz, which participated in the project, has also previously attacked the Hungarian government. For example, they have tried to discredit the institution of the national consultation on several occasions. Political Capital, Mérték, and Lakmusz can also be directly or indirectly linked to the foundations of George Soros.
Did Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Just Leak?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025
A leaked document has given us a first glimpse at President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian online newspaper Strana, U.S. officials handed the plan to European diplomats who then passed it on to Ukraine.
The existence of the plan has not been verified, and Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has said “no ‘100-day peace plan’ as reported by the media exists in reality.”
If the plan is real, and if it is being put on the table by the Trump administration as a finished product that, if rejected, will lead to more sanctions on Russia and more weapons for Ukraine (as Trump has threatened), then the war will go on, and Trump’s promise to quickly end the war will vanish in a puff of delusion. But if the plan is real, and if it is put on the table as a starting point for negotiations, then there is hope. And there is suggestion that it is a starting point.
Here is an item by item analysis of what each side may consider acceptable in the supposed plan and what each side may insist on negotiating further.
The process begins with an immediate phone call between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed by discussions between Washington and Kiev. That the plan may be intended as a starting point for negotiations is suggested by the fork in the schedule that negotiations will continue if common ground is found or pause if it is not. Further negotiations would lead to an Easter truce along the front line, an end of April peace conference, and a May 9 declaration of an agreement.
Russia has said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” In June 2024, Vladimir Putin set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for current territorial realities. Putin’s proposal had four points: Ukraine must abandon plans to join NATO, they must withdraw from the four annexed territories, they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and they must ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
The alleged Trump plan can be evaluated by comparison to Putin’s proposal and to recent statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Kursk at the time of the April Truce. This would be acceptable to Russia, who would insist on Ukrainian troops leaving its territory. But for Ukraine, this would be a difficult concession; not because of the withdrawal but because of the timing. Aside from the strategically catastrophic hope that the Kursk invasion would divert Russian troops away from the Donbas, the point of taking Russian territory was to use it to barter for the return of Ukrainian territory. Giving up the bargaining chip before the negotiations begin would nullify Ukraine’s hope of using it to force the return of more of its land.
- Ukraine must end martial law and hold presidential elections by the end of August and parliamentary elections by the end of October. This could be a bitter pill for Zelensky. Recent polling has shown that he could well lose that election. Elections would be welcomed by Russia, who see Zelensky’s government as intransigently hostile and anti-Russia. This would legally transfer hope for regime change to Ukrainians.
- Ukraine must declare neutrality and promise not to join NATO; NATO must promise not to expand into Ukraine. Ukraine was willing to abandon its NATO hopes in Istanbul. Though accepted by Kiev as inevitable, it would now be a painful concession. In the absence of NATO membership. It would be a hard sell to Ukrainians that the war after the Istanbul talks was worth the devastation. For Russia, this point is key, and there can be no negotiations without it. It would be the key accomplishment to get the two-sided promise that Ukraine will not ask for membership and NATO will not offer it.
- Ukraine will become a member of the European Union by 2030. This item is acceptable to both. EU membership will be necessary for Zelensky to present to Ukrainians as something that was worth fighting for. Ukraine is now free to pursue its ambitions to turn west and join Europe. Though Russia had concerns in 2014 with the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine because of its implied integration of Ukraine into the European security and military architecture, Putin has long left EU membership on the table for a postwar Ukraine, and that was specifically agreed to in the Istanbul agreement.
- Ukraine will not reduce the size of its armed forces and the United States will continue modernizing the Ukrainian military. While Ukraine will welcome this, it may not be enough. Russia will have a hard time with this one. This is like “the Israeli model” that then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Putin and Zelensky were both open to in the early days of the war. But, in the absence of NATO, Zelensky has been adamant about American supported security guarantees. And, already by Istanbul, Russia was demanding limits on Ukraine’s armed forces. At the very least, modernized Ukrainian weaponry would have to be defensive and with a cap on firing into Russian territory.
- Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories, but does not officially recognize Russian sovereignty. This item does not go far enough for Russia and too far for Ukraine. Zelensky has accepted that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.” So, he will accept not attempting to return the occupied territories militarily. He has also insisted that Ukraine would never officially recognize Russian sovereignty over those lands. But the added clause, that he will not attempt to return them diplomatically, may be going further than Zelensky has been willing to go. In the case of Crimea, he has reserved the right to try to bring territory back diplomatically. For Russia, the de facto recognition of the territory it occupies will likely be enough. In his proposal, Putin insisted on the complete withdrawal from the territories while saying nothing about Ukraine officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over them. However, though Russia may be willing to negotiate over Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less likely to accept only the lands east of the current front without it including all of the Donbas.
- Some sanctions on Russia will be lifted, including European Union bans on Russian oil. This item will likely be acceptable to Ukraine, especially since temporary duty on sales of oil will be used to restore Ukraine. It will likely be acceptable, at least as a starting point, for Russia.
- Parties that support Russian language and peaceful relations with Russia can participate in Ukraine’s elections. State actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Russian language must cease. Though difficult for Zelensky and some forces in Ukraine to accept, protection of language, religious and cultural rights is the second key Russian demand along with NATO.
- The idea of a European peacekeeping force is to be discussed separately. The recognition that security guarantees are both key and difficult for both parties is realistic. Neither side will agree to a European security force: Russia because it goes too far, Ukraine because it goes not far enough.
If this possible plan is a final draft whose rejection means negotiations end, then the war will not end. But if Donald Trump’s plan is intended as a starting point to negotiations—the most difficult of which may be the security guarantees — then there is hope.
Moscow welcomes Trump’s stance on Kiev’s NATO bid
RT | February 5, 2025
Russia welcomes the statements made by US President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Trump is the first Western leader to admit that it was wrong to support Kiev’s plans to join the military bloc, the diplomat said on Wednesday.
Trump stated last month that he understands the Russian stance that Ukraine should not be part of NATO. Speaking to reporters in Florida, the US president said Moscow’s position had long been “written in stone,” but that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had ignored it, which contributed to the current conflict.
“Somewhere along the line, Biden said, ‘[Ukraine], they should be able to join NATO.’ Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feelings about that,” Trump added.
Speaking at an ambassadors’ roundtable on Ukraine, Lavrov said Trump’s comments suggest Washington may finally be ready to address issues linked to Ukraine’s NATO bid and the bloc’s eastward expansion.
“President Trump bluntly said that one of the main mistakes was drawing Ukraine into NATO, and that if he had been in power the past four years, the conflict would not have happened,” Lavrov noted.
“For the first time, a Western leader… the leader of the entire Western world, uttered these words, which we welcome because for the first time the problem of NATO was identified as something that the US is ready to discuss seriously,” he added. Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a root cause of the current conflict, saying that warnings not to encourage these aspirations either fell on deaf ears or were met with “duplicity” and “hypocrisy” by Western politicians.
“The root cause is the conscious, long-term desire and… practical steps of the West to create direct military threats to Russia on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, and drawing it into NATO. We have raised this issue repeatedly, demanding NATO honor its pledge not to expand eastward, but all was in vain,” Lavrov said. He suggested Trump’s remarks could signal a shift in US policy, which he called crucial as “Washington is the one who will ultimately make the decisions” regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, insisting any settlement of the ongoing conflict must include Kiev’s neutrality and demilitarization. Ukraine, however, considers its membership a strategic foreign and security policy objective, and has recently claimed that it sees its admission to the US-led military bloc as a security guarantee to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. While NATO last year declared that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to joining the bloc, its members warned that Kiev would have to meet certain conditions first, such as resolving the conflict with Moscow.
Zelensky a ‘maniac’ to demand NATO nuclear weapons – Moscow
RT | February 5, 2025
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s statements on obtaining nuclear weapons are cause for serious concern, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. In a social media post on Wednesday, she branded Zelensky a “maniac [gripped by] sick delusions” who could seek a ‘dirty bomb’.
Zelensky reiterated his nuclear aspirations in an interview with British television host Piers Morgan on Tuesday, in which he lamented that Kiev traded Soviet-era deterrence “for nothing” in the 1990s.
“Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons,” Zelensky told Morgan. “What missiles can stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That is a rhetorical question.”
He called on NATO to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a stopgap measure while Kiev awaits accession to the US-led military bloc.
Responding on Wednesday, Zakharova wrote: “Zelensky’s latest statements that he wants to possess a nuclear capability expose him as a maniac, who considers the planet as an object for his sick delusions. They also prove that for him nuclear power stations are not a source of peaceful energy, but a dirty weapon that the Kiev regime needs for blackmail.”
Ukrainian nuclear rhetoric predates the outbreak of hostilities with Russia. Zelensky suggested that Kiev could build atomic weapons in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022, days before the escalation of the conflict.
Russian officials have expressed concern over Ukraine potentially developing a dirty bomb amid its battlefield setbacks. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported no diversion of declared radioactive materials in the country.
Ukraine inherited a well-developed civilian nuclear industry from the USSR, and currently operates three nuclear power plants and two research reactors.
Contrary to Zelensky’s assertion, independent Ukraine lacked a true nuclear deterrent as it did not possess the unilateral capability to launch Soviet weapons deployed on its soil in response to an attack. The disarmament of Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was part of a broader nuclear reduction initiative in the 1990s. Western nations incentivized the host nations with aid programs.
Kremlin comments on talks with ‘illegitimate’ Zelensky
RT | February 5, 2025
Moscow is ready for talks with Kiev even though Vladimir Zelensky currently has no legal right to lead Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
On Tuesday, Zelensky told British journalist Piers Morgan that he could hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The comments marked a significant shift from Zelensky’s stance adopted in the autumn of 2022, when he signed a decree banning any negotiations with the Russian leadership.
“If that is the only setup in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this setup, for this meeting,” Zelensky told Morgan.
Asked to comment on Zelensky’s remarks on Wednesday, Peskov said there is “no place for emotions” when it comes to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “What is needed here is legal analysis and absolute pragmatism… Zelensky has significant de jure legitimacy issues within his own country,” the spokesman pointed out.
Peskov referred to the Ukrainian leader’s refusal to hold a presidential election and the fact that his term expired last May. Moscow maintains that the legitimate power in Ukraine now lies with the parliament and its speaker.
“Despite this, the Russian side remains open to negotiations,” Peskov stressed, arguing that Moscow’s successes on the battlefield “clearly suggest that Kiev should be the one to demonstrate openness and interest in such negotiations.”
Peskov also weighed in on Zelensky’s suggestion that the West could give Ukraine nuclear weapons as a substitute for NATO membership to guarantee its protection.
“In general, such statements are borderline madness. There is a nuclear non-proliferation regime,” the spokesman said. Peskov suggested that EU politicians, despite their flaws, should understand the “absurdity and potential danger of discussing such a topic.”
Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the deal after Crimea voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Russia has argued that the deal was fundamentally undermined by NATO’s expansion towards its borders.
Putin has said that Russia would not allow Kiev to create or obtain nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.”
US pulls out of UN human rights council, cancels funding to UNRWA
Press TV – February 4, 2025
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order withdrawing Washington from the UN Human Rights Council and UNRWA, the refugee agency that works primarily with the Palestinians being oppressed by the Israeli regime.
Trump signed the order in the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday ahead of his meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who had carried out a 15-month genocidal war against the people of Palestine in Gaza in which more than 47,300 people were killed, mostly women and children.
The ceasefire between the Palestinian resistance group Hamas and Israel was reached after the regime failed to realize any of its wartime objectives, including freeing the captives, “eliminating” the Gazan resistance, and causing forced displacement of Gaza’s entire population to neighboring Egypt.
Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians began returning to the northern part of the Gaza Strip.
Trump’s aide introduced the measures, saying, “Next up, in light of numerous actions taken by a number of bodies of the United Nations which exhibited deep anti-American bias, we have an executive order prepared for your attention that would withdraw the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council.”
“I would withdraw the United States from the UNRWA, which is a refugee organization, and would also review American involvement in UNESCO, which also exhibited anti-American bias,” he added.
“More generally, the executive order calls for a review of American involvement and funding in the UN in light of the wild disparities in levels of funding among different countries that, as you’ve expressed previously, is deeply unfair to the United States,” the aide concluded before giving the order to Trump to sign.
Following the signing of the executive order, Trump said, “So I’ve always felt that the UN has tremendous potential. It’s not living up to that potential right now. It really isn’t and has been for a long time. It has– there are great hopes for it, but it’s not being well run, to be honest, and not doing the job. A lot of these conflicts that we’re working on should be settled, or at least we should have some help in settling them.”
“But we never seem to get help. That should be the primary purpose of the UN and the United Nations. And again, it’s got great potential. And based on the potential, we’ll continue to go along with it. But they’ve got to get their act together,” he added.
“What would they need to do to get their act together?” a reporter asked Trump.
“Well, they’ve got to be fair to countries that deserve fairness. They have some countries, as you know, that are outliers that are very bad, and they’re being almost preferred as countries to those that do their job and are doing a good job. And they have to really they’re going to end up losing a lot of countries and end up losing their credibility like other organizations,” Trump replied.
Trump also said Palestinians would “love” to leave their embattled homeland in Gaza and live elsewhere if given an option.
They would “love to leave Gaza,” he told reporters at the White House. “I would think that they would be thrilled.”
Last week, Trump suggested cleaning out the Palestinian land and relocating the war-stricken people there to neighboring Arab countries, namely Egypt and Jordan.
“You’re talking about probably a million and half people … I’d like Egypt to take people. And I’d like Jordan to take people,” he said. “[W]e just clean out that whole thing,” he said.
In the meantime, the Palestinian leaders and people in Gaza condemned any attempt to relocate them, saying such a move is reminiscent of a dark page in Palestine’s modern history known as the “Nakba” or catastrophe – when millions of Palestinians were forcibly displaced to create room for Israel’s illegal creation.
Member of Hamas’s political bureau, Bassem Naim, said that Palestinians would “foil such projects” as they have done to similar plans “for displacement and alternative homelands over the decades.”
“Seek them out and destroy them where they live”
Remembering Merck’s Australian doctor hit list
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | February 3, 2025
This evening I pondered the news of Caroline Kennedy’s hit letter against her cousin, RFK, Jr., and the fact that she was the Biden Administration’s Ambassador to Australia, and the fact that she has served as a powerful ambassador for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.
The association of Australia and Merck reminded me of the company’s “seek out and destroy” campaign against Australian doctors who expressed concern that the company’s blockbuster Vioxx seemed to be causing heart attacks and strokes. As was reported by CBS in May 2009:
Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.
According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:
“We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live …”
During this same period in the United States, Merck was accused of concealing negative results of clinical Vioxx trials from the FDA and paying reputable doctors to put their names on research they did not conduct or write up. The company also published a fake journal, paying Elsevier to create a phony publication to serve as a marketing tool titled the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.
Ultimately the company was found guilty of knowingly concealing data about the elevated risk of stroke and heart attack from Vioxx and agreed to pay a class action settlement to stroke and heart attack victims totaling $4.85 billion.
I wonder if the nice folks at Merck would ever yield to the temptation to overstate the benefits of the HPV vaccine and downplay its risks, as some plaintiffs have alleged. I also wonder if the company’s PR department might yield to the temptation to smear RFK, Jr. during his Senate confirmation process.
Or am I just being cynical?
