Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Alternative for Germany Party Mulls Energy Cooperation With BRICS Countries – Lawmaker

Sputnik – 16.11.2025

SIRIUS, Russia – The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is considering the possibility of cooperating with BRICS countries in the energy sector, lawmaker Steffen Kotre told Sputnik on Saturday.

“One of the reasons I am here is to meet with representatives of the BRICS nations. We discussed some positions on this issue [energy cooperation]. This is a positive process. Whether this will have any results is another matter. The main goal now is simply to get to know each other,” Kotre said on the sidelines of the BRICS-Europe symposium, which is underway in Russia’s Sirius Federal Territory.

The pressure on the AfD over its members’ trip to Russia is growing, but the party does not intend to abandon what it considers “a realistic political line,” the lawmaker noted.

“Quite the contrary, this pressure certainly strengthens our understanding that we will certainly achieve normal relations. And by this I mean a peaceful exchange of views with Russia,” he said.

Communication channels should be open in both directions, including to show Moscow that “there are sensible people in Germany and not only warmongers,” Kotre added.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Oceania: The Erosion of Sovereignty as a Political Trend

The Pitfalls of Australia’s New Defense Pact with Papua New Guinea

By Ksenia Muratshina – New Eastern Outlook – November 16, 2025

Once Upon a Time in Oceania

Last October, a significant event took place in the Oceania region—significant, that is, in a negative sense. It was the signing of a Mutual Defense Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG). The very necessity for “defense” is an open question—just who in the modern world would need to attack PNG? Or, more precisely, who would have wanted to before it tied itself to an American ally that is constantly getting bogged down in one conflict after another, following Washington’s lead? Nevertheless, this treaty became the first military alliance in the history of the independent New Guinean state (since 1975).

As for Australia, its authorities claim they haven’t signed a treaty of this level and substantive depth in 70 years, not since the well-known ANZUS pact. While Australia is in a military alliance not only with the US and New Zealand but also with the UK, the AUKUS agreements are not as detailed. The document with PNG is also remarkable because it demonstrates Canberra reaching a new level of interference in the internal affairs of neighboring countries. It elevates the status of interaction between the parties to an allied level and stipulates a series of corresponding measures. The main one is mutual assistance in the event of an external threat. Furthermore, it outlines the inadmissibility of actions that could hinder the fulfillment of allied agreements—a clause that sounds extremely broad and allows for any interpretation. The parties commit to developing a full spectrum of military-technical cooperation: personnel exchanges, military education and personnel training, “synchronization of military doctrines,” bilateral and multilateral exercises, “actions to support security interests at sea, on land, in the air, in space, and in cyberspace,” the sharing of intelligence and other “sensitive information” through secure channels, “logistics integration,” and “mutual access to defense infrastructure.” The treaty even approves the possibility of recruiting each other’s citizens into their armed forces on a mutual basis.

In plain English, all this means the following: Papua New Guinea is, in effect, losing the remnants of its even somewhat formal sovereignty (part of it, one could say, was left with the British Commonwealth; another part was taken by the US, which signed a less obligatory but almost identical military-technical cooperation agreement with PNG in 2023) and is signing up for the role of Australia’s squire. Or, more accurately, one of its squires.

The Wrong Kind of Falepili

The fact is that the Port Moresby treaty with Canberra fits perfectly into a troubling trend observed in Oceania: small island states, which already lack full autonomy in foreign and domestic policy, are voluntarily or under pressure ceding their remaining shares of sovereignty to Australia through such agreements. Earlier notable examples include Australia’s use of Nauru’s territory to host migrant detention centers, its police “cooperation” with the Solomon Islands, and the so-called “Falepili Treaty” with Tuvalu. According to the latter, Australia committed to “protecting” the small state from “external aggression” and accepting its residents as “climate refugees” should their territories be submerged due to rising sea levels. In return, Tuvalu lost the ability to make independent decisions in the spheres of foreign policy and security.

At the time, its citizens noticed something interesting: they nicknamed the treaty “falepili,” as in Tuvalu, this refers to a situation where one party does a genuine favor for another, expecting nothing in return, and can later ask for help in the same way. However, it turned out that Australia has its own understanding of “falepili,” fundamentally different from the Tuvaluan one. But by then, it was too late for the Tuvaluans to complain and say, like the bees in the famous cartoon, “That’s not right, falepili.”

Those Who Don’t Vote for Palestine

This inherently unequal interaction between Australia and its neighbors contributes to the limitation of Oceania’s sovereignty on a global scale. By exerting military-political and economic pressure on small island states and leveraging instruments of influence dating back to colonial times, the collective West uses its Oceanic partners merely as sources of raw materials and bargaining chips in its own ruthless political games.

We can regularly observe, for example, how the coerced votes of such specific international actors (due to their formal and de facto incomplete sovereignty) as the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, or Tuvalu are used for anti-Russian resolutions, partial recognition of the Taiwanese regime, or, from recent events, countering the international recognition of Palestine. The diplomats of many Oceanic countries seem to feel no Global South solidarity with the Palestinian population. Following the lead of the US and Israel, such international heavyweights as Palau, Nauru, the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga have already been compelled to voice their “weighty word” at the UN against the establishment of a Palestinian State.

When studying voting patterns in General Assembly resolutions, one is reminded of the joke that if a cat ran for office, only the mouse wouldn’t vote for it. In this case, it’s a specific contingent of politicians that votes for categories of issues beneficial to the West and “against” those that are not—those who, willingly or unwillingly, have found themselves dependent on Western coordinators and who, at some point, compromised the sovereignty of their states.

But it’s not just about resolutions! The governments of Fiji and Papua New Guinea went even further and, following the example of the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, and the unrecognized Kosovo, moved their embassies to Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv. By doing so, they openly display sympathy for Israel and the US, seemingly declaring that while they have no money for their own population’s social security, education, healthcare, agricultural support, or creating new industries, they somehow have the funds to move embassies to occupied territory.

At the same time, the obsequiousness of many Oceanic politicians towards the West is gradually beginning to cause ferment within their societies, which are tired of neocolonial practices. Moreover, this development is moving in the opposite direction, demanding an independent and multi-vector foreign policy. There are also emerging examples of active resistance to the imperialist treaties imposed by Australia. Notably, since 2022 (!), Vanuatu has been resisting the ratification of an agreement similar to the one with PNG. Serious internal political battles are underway there, and society has fully begun to realize that the issue of defense sovereignty is a matter of survival—for the country as an independent international actor and for normal relations with the rest of the world.

Incidentally, the Australia-Papua New Guinea treaty also still has to go through a ratification process. And the example of Vanuatu could prove useful for New Guinean society. Because only a critical understanding of the situation and a measured, rational approach to what is happening can help the states in this part of the world strive for a sovereign policy, rather than acting as tools in someone else’s hands and hostages to others’ interests.

Ksenia Muratshina, Ph.D. (History), Senior Research Fellow, Center for Southeast Asia, Australia, and Oceania Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

In Busan, China did not just stand firm—it watched America blink

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 16, 2025

Beyond the optics of handshakes and photo-ops at the Busan summit, the much-hyped Trump–Xi meeting laid bare the paradox that defines US–China relations today: deep economic interdependence coupled with unrelenting strategic rivalry.

Washington’s fear of Beijing’s ascent—and Beijing’s determination to rewrite the terms of global power—mean that even when the two leaders talk of “cooperation,” they are really negotiating the limits of competition. Far from heralding a new détente, the Busan meeting merely pressed pause on a conflict too entrenched to be resolved by diplomatic theatre.

The Summit of Distrust

At the Busan meeting, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping announced a limited set of economic and diplomatic understandings aimed at easing immediate tensions without altering the fundamentals of their rivalry. The U.S. agreed to reduce certain tariffs on Chinese imports, while China pledged to resume large-scale purchases of American agricultural products and to delay the expansion of its rare-earth export controls. Both sides promised greater cooperation on curbing fentanyl precursor exports and maintaining stable supply chains, and they reaffirmed the need to prevent escalation in trade and technology disputes.

While the Busan deal was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, it exposed a deeper void: there is still no framework for strategic coexistence between Washington and Beijing. The reason is simple—there is no trust. Beijing knows that under Donald Trump, U.S. foreign policy swings between confrontation and concession, depending on the political winds. And despite years of tariffs and rhetoric, Trump’s trade war has failed to dent China’s global standing. If anything, Beijing has learned how to weaponize US vulnerabilities. By withholding soybean purchases and rare-earth exports, it extracted precisely what it wanted in Busan: a rollback of select tariffs and a pause on new export controls. The so-called “agreement” restored the status quo—China promised to resume buying soybeans, a gesture aimed squarely at Trump’s Midwestern base, while deferring for a year the rare-earth restrictions that Washington fears most. The optics looked like cooperation; the substance showed who really dictated the terms.

Therefore, the Busan summit was less a diplomatic reset than a reckoning for Washington—a reminder of how limited its leverage over Beijing has become. After years of tariffs and bluster, the US has discovered that China can absorb the pain, reroute its exports across Asia, and keep its economy humming. The numbers tell the story: China’s trade surplus this year is projected to exceed last year’s record levels, and its stock market has surged more than 30 per cent in dollar terms, even as US inflation, stoked by tariff pressures, hit an election-year high of 3 per cent. Beijing has not only weathered the storm but also turned it into a strategy. By weaponising its $12 billion soybean market and dangling rare-earth supplies, China forced Washington into a truce on its own terms. In Busan, it wasn’t China that blinked.

Who will blink next?

The real question after Busan is not whether the US and China will clash again, but who will blink first. Washington’s arsenal of tariffs and tech bans is running up against the limits of its own economic pain threshold, while Beijing’s state-driven resilience is tested. Trump’s “America First” protectionism, fueled as it is by an aggressive form of politics, may soothe his domestic base, but it erodes US influence among allies, both in Europe and in Southeast Asia, who now see a power more obsessed with trade deficits than offering and/or providing strategic leadership. China, meanwhile, is playing a longer game: tightening regional supply chains, expanding the yuan’s footprint, and anchoring new trade corridors from Asia to Africa. Both sides are recalibrating rather than retreating, but the advantage increasingly lies with the player who can endure short-term costs for long-term control. If Busan revealed anything, it is that China is betting on (growing) American fatigue while America is still betting on Chinese collapse, which remains an unlikely event to take place even in the distant future.

In the end, Busan revealed not a reset but a reckoning: China has learned to endure pressure, while America has learned the limits of its own leverage. The US–China rivalry is now a contest of stamina, not ideology, in which Beijing appears better equipped to play the long game. With expanding regional trade networks, a growing technological base, and a much better, state-driven, and state-backed capacity to absorb external shocks, China has turned resilience into a strategy. Washington, by contrast, remains trapped between domestic populism and global ambition, unable to sustain confrontation without hurting itself. Busan showed that when forced to choose between economic pain and political optics, it is the US that blinks first. Therefore, what Washington can learn is this: in this rivalry of endurance, China’s patience—not America’s pressure—may prove decisive. The sooner it learns this lesson, the less it will hurt itself.

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

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Israelis NOT Sweating Sde Teiman Rape!

Prosecutor’s ONLY Concern: Leaked Rape Tape Undermines Israel’s International Legal Impunity

By Ilana Mercer • Unz Review • November 15, 2025

There’s a reason I purposefully avoided mention of the fracas in Israel over the leaked Sde Teiman video, in the companion column to this one: “Rectal Raping of Palestinian Men Is Habitual In the Sexually Deviant, Serial-Killer State.”

You see, the Hasbara herd seems to have one gift, in Israel and stateside. They live in a self-reverential and self-referential world: They talk from under wet cement about … themselves. And, they are training you to do the same: talk about them.

As hard as it is for this lot to compute; the genocide, however, is about their victims, Israel’s victims, the Palestinians.

About the Sde Teima leaked rape tape, suffice it to say the following: Like the Hostage Square demonstrators in Tel Aviv, whose concern was exclusively for only their hostages; the same Israeli society is not unhappy about crimes against Palestinians; but that one such crime had been made public to the detriment of their criminally complicit countrymen.

More so than mere publicity—after all, Israel is conducting genocide to a packed house, the world—Israel’s military advocate general worries that the leaked Sde Teiman footage will undermine Israel’s international legal impunity.

The case of the rectal-rape-with-objects of a Palestinian hostage, one among thousands held in the legal limbo of detention-without-trial, was leaked by the Military Advocate General’s office (MAG), whose apparatchiks had heretofore never expressed—nor acted to convey—regret, remorse, contrition, or penitence over the genocide ongoing. (So you know, Israel has merely shifted to “genocide lite” and to the “ghettoization” of the Strip.)

There are no nettles of conscience in the genocidal society. The on-camera rape has just become a PR (public relations) problem. Unless the world’s yelling can be quelled, Israel’s legal representatives fear for the country’s legal impunity, which is meant to last in perpetuity.

Like all shouting scraps in Israel, this one is entirely without an ethical or moral dimension. The leak of the filmed rape is but a procedural, administrative annoyance, the “Minister of Defense and many others in the political sphere and public discourse,” even claiming that any criminal proceedings constitute a “blood libel.

At about this time, Israeli think-tank residents are fretting. As the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) put it (in all sincerity), it is imperative to preserve “Israel’s legal and diplomatic ‘resilience’ internationally, and thus … our ability to protect IDF (Israel Defense Forces) service members from legal risks around the world.”

If the IDF justice system, headed by the [aforementioned] MAG [Military Advocate General], is not perceived as professionally independent, Israel will struggle to argue that there is no place to advance overseas legal proceedings against soldiers and commanders alleged to have violated the law of armed conflict, and that the Israeli justice system should be given primacy in handling suspects. (IDI)

Cloaking themselves in the raiment of decency, the code-word for “impunity” in Israeli think tanks is “resilience.” The country must remain “resilient” internationally. Bathed in blood though it is; Israel and its military advocate general still want continued carte-blanche from the international community for their crimes. Hence the Brownian motion over the public rape of a Palestinian hostage.

Again, the leaked Sde Teiman tape threatens Israel’s legal impunity which is meant to last in perpetuity.

Let us, then, end forthwith conversation about Israel’s two-bit Kabuki players. We who inhabit the Global Genocidal Western Woke matrix have a responsibility to help pilot Palestinians through these dangerous shoals. Or, support those who are doing that work. Let’s, then, return to the resilient victims of the genocidal entity, the Palestinians.

Early in the genocide, in essays that provide a comprehensive chronology of the signal events, the people violated and the first principles flouted, I had picked up on—and postulated about—the seemingly systematic nature of the sexual sadism evinced by Israel’s army and security forces.

Palestinians are “living alongside serial-killing sexual sadists,” I remarked in a subsection of the essay, “Why The Israel-Occupied Levant Must be Liberated, S.O.S.,” further noting that “the pairing of sexual arousal and violence toward Palestinians, in the practices of the IDF and Israeli Security Forces, makes for a particularly irremediable pathology, the stuff of serial killers.”

As though Israel was not already outside all moral gravitational pull—the evidence for my deductions is now in. What we’ve known to be deductively true has been empirically confirmed. The social science is in: Palestinians are sexually brutalized by Israeli occupation forces!

If you had lingering doubts that sexual perversion and predation by the Israeli military and security forces is systemic and statistically significant—new social science nixes that naïve notion.

Incidents of sexual torture are not outlier cases. The Israel Occupation Forces are indeed a festering cauldron of serial-killing sadists and sexual deviants. Helpless Palestinians are the repository of this rot.

Having investigated the phenomenon and tabulated the results; the UN International Commission of Inquiry has revealed that rape, genital mutilation—of men, women, boys and girls—exhibitionism (public flashing); all the sexual perversions and paraphilias I had picked up on—are systemic, pervasive, carried out happily, seemingly ordained from above. No crime is a “one-off.”

“Israel uses sexual violence as a weapon of war,” concludes the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, writing, on March 13, 2025, that,

The frequency, prevalence and severity of sexual and gender-based crimes perpetrated across the Occupied Palestinian Territory leads the Commission to conclude that sexual and gender-based violence is increasingly used as a method of war by Israel to destabilize, dominate, oppress and destroy the Palestinian people. The Commission documented a pattern of sexual violence, including cases of rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and other inhumane acts that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Section number 222 of the report’s summary states that, “Israeli detention is characterized by widespread and systematic abuse and sexual and gender-based violence. These practices have increased significantly in severity and frequency since 7 October 2023, following orders and statements of the Minister for National Security Ben Gvir who is in charge of prisons. The mistreatment of Palestinian detainees by Israeli authorities is a result of an intentional policy that utilizes sexual, reproductive and other forms of gender-based violence to humiliate and degrade Palestinians in detention. This was observed across several facilities, temporary holding locations, during interrogation and while in transit.”

These Israelis are men and women of cold violence. Their hearts are as black as boot polish. The brutalized bodies of Palestinian men, women, and children; their pets and livestock bear this out. But broad-brush statements aggregating their practices are not enough.

Daily, the Palestinians’ closest neighbors, the settlers, make manifest their red-hot hatred toward them, stealing private Palestinian property, vandalizing installations on this land, regularly slaughtering helpless livestock with biblical cruelty (watch settlers gouge the eyes out of helpless lambs), and generally menacing Palestinian property owners. Most disturbing is the overt, perverted threat of sexual violence from settlers and their soldier helpers.

Indeed, the poisonous cabal of Israeli settlers and soldiers works cheek by jowl.

In “Holy Redemption: Stealing Palestinian Land,” a TRT World exclusive documentary, there is no editorializing. The videographers plainly followed and recorded these settlers in character. Twenty-nine minutes and 20 seconds into this TRT settler odysseyTurkish TV captures a uniformed IDF, in cahoots with settlers, publicly manhandling himself on camera, in a manner not fit to print.

Said IDF soldier hisses:

“I spit on Palestine. F-ck your mother. I’m the Israeli Army.” He is not done. Just as I imagined this breed of Cain could not expose itself as more indecent, the same soldier comes close to indecent exposure. At the said timestamp, the atavistic, low-brow individual shows himself to be lacking the inhibitions to keep his perversion private. Reflexively. Quite obviously, this IDF had been aroused by threatening a helpless group of Palestinian homesteaders. He had likely imbibed a pornographic sensibility and had not been taught propriety and shame in public.

Right there on film is that pathological pairing of violence and sexual arousal, the stuff of serial killers!

In another unremarkable vignette, filmed by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, an armed settler threatens a Palestinian farmer in the South Hebron Hills with rape. “Rape in the name of God,” a la SdeTeiman, promises settler Shem Tov Luski, to a mortified, modest Palestinian man. “No officers were dispatched, and the residents were advised to file a complaint at the Kiryat Arba police station,” reports Wikipedia.

At one point, the “Halachic right to rape” (See “Sde Teiman: Genocide, Snuff Films, Extra-Judicial Assassinations & Rape Are De Facto Legal in Israel”) had been issued from the very top of Israeli moral precincts.

His flesh softer than sin, the delightful Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim, the head of the military rabbinate of the Israel Defense Forces, had instructed, in 2016, that, essentially, any carnal demands of the flesh be allowed: “As part of maintaining fitness for the army and the soldiers’ morale during fighting, it is permitted to … satisfy the evil inclination by lying with attractive Gentile women against their will… .’ News of the rabbinical rape-injunction came courtesy of Israel’s own YnetNews.com.

Before Rabbi Karim, there was Shmuel Eliyahu, chief rabbi of Safad, who “urged a genocide in Gaza and excused rape by soldiers.” (Via Electronic Intifada.)

Israel’s female soldiers are as sadistic and malevolent. In a clip, “Israel’s ‘Sick’ Female Guards,” young Israeli uniformed IDF females and security police terrorize Palestinian men as they shuttle from one check point to the next.

We zoom out again to the abstraction of the aggregated data:

214. “Israel has targeted civilian women and girls directly, acts that constitute the crime against humanity of murder and the war crime of willful killing. Women and girls have also died from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth due to the conditions imposed by the Israeli authorities impacting access to reproductive health care, acts that amount to the crime against humanity of extermination. …”

221. “Palestinian men and boys have been subjected to specific persecutory acts intended to punish them collectively. The way in which these often-sexual acts are committed, including their filming, photographing and dissemination online, in conjunction with similar cases being documented in several locations, shows that forced public stripping and nudity, as well as sexualized torture and ill-treatment, are part of the persecutory attack against men and boys committed to punish, humiliate and intimidate Palestinian men and boys into subjugation. …”

224. “Specific forms of sexual and gender-based violence such as forced public stripping and nudity, sexual harassment including threats of rape, as well as sexual assault, de facto form part of the Israel Security Forces (ISF) standard operating procedures towards Palestinians. The Commission concludes that these and other forms of sexualized torture, including rape and violence targeting the genitals, are committed with either explicit orders or an implicit encouragement by the top civilian and military leadership. The Commission found that all its documented incidents of sexual and gender-based violence committed by members of the ISF were met with impunity. Under these circumstances, the civilian and military leaders are as responsible for these crimes, as are the direct perpetrators. …”

In the “widespread use of sexualized violence against men and boys,” the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security has [too] identified several specific patterns of sexualized violence that are indicative of a genocidal process, not all overlapping the findings of the International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory:

Life-force atrocities (including ritualized humiliations); separation of families and other reproductive violence; and possible elitocide through the use of sexualized violence.

By “elitocide,” the Lemkin Institute is probably referring to sexual violence to whittle at the finest and noblest; the people we most rely on: altruistic aid and rescue workers, healers in their clinics ministering to their patients, peace activists, writers, reporters and intellectuals recording the crimes for posterity.

Dr. Adnan Al Bursh, for example. The 50-year-old renowned orthopedic surgeon headed the orthopedic department at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. “A doctor. a stellar surgeon. The embodiment of Palestinian ethics, Dr. Al Bursh was likely raped to death.”

To genocide, snuff films, the torture and torching of animals, and the rape and robbery of their Palestinian owners; to bombings, boobytrapping and extra-judicial assassinations the world over—add “elitocide.”

Another new term to add to Israel’s lexicon of crime. All this, remember, is customary, informal law in the Genocidal Society.

***

* Image of Lebanese boys disfigured by Israeli boobytraps courtesy of Rania Khalekhttps://raniakhalek.com/israeli-terror-in-lebanon-inside-the-pager-attacks-bt-documentary-exclusive/

Ilana Mercer, paleolibertarian author, essayist and theorist, has been writing up an anti-war, anti-woke storm since 1998, starting in Canada. On arriving in the US, in 2002, her weekly column was right away syndicated. Mercer’s national syndication fell through shortly after due to writing in strident opposition to the war in Iraq. ILANA is described as “a system-builder. Distilled, her modus operandi has been to methodically apply first principles to the day’s events.” She’s Jewish, grew up in Israel ages five to nineteen, and left, at 19, never to return. She had refused to serve in the IDF, Israel’s compulsory military. Ilana’s focus since October of 2023 has been the genocide (because that is our obligation). A war against civilians is a war on civilization.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Surgeon General’s Final Diagnosis: When the Doctor Who Silenced the Sick Prescribes “Love”

By Sayer Ji | November 11, 2025

Before Dr. Vivek Murthy prescribed “community” as America’s cure, he helped engineer the policies that tore it apart.

When outgoing Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released his January 2025 essay, My Parting Prescription for America,” it was framed as a heartfelt reflection on the nation’s loneliness and disconnection. The document reads like a sermon on “love,” “service,” and “community” — invoking Christian compassion, Hindu dharma, and African Ubuntu to offer a kind of spiritual healing for America’s fractured soul.

But beneath the soft prose lies a striking irony: the very official who now urges the nation to “choose community” presided over one of the most divisive and dehumanizing public health regimes in U.S. history. His tenure was marked by systematic censorshipdefamation of independent scientists and health advocates, and the suppression of truthful reporting about vaccine injuries and deaths — all documented in federal court filings and corroborated by congressional investigation.

The Surgeon General Who Prescribed Silence

In 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy partnered with the now-disgraced Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its soon-to-be-deported founder, Imran Ahmed, to launch a campaign labeling “health misinformation” as a public threat and urging social media companies to “take more aggressive action” against those who questioned the official COVID-19 narrative.

As detailed in Finn v. Global Engagement Center (3:25-cv-00543) (Doc. 83), Murthy’s office collaborated with entities like the CCDH, the White House, and Big Tech platforms to pressure for the removal or throttling of lawful speech — including posts about natural immunity, vaccine injury, and early treatment protocols.

This coordination, which the complaint describes as a “fusion of state and private power to suppress disfavored viewpoints,” forms part of a broader transnational censorship enterprise now under legal scrutiny.

Murthy’s rhetoric about “protecting public health” masked an unprecedented effort to erase public testimony from the vaccine-injured and to delegitimize independent medical experts whose research contradicted pharmaceutical and government messaging. Many of those targeted — including myself — were falsely branded as part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a defamatory construct disseminated to newsrooms worldwide through UK-linked NGOs and U.S. federal agencies.

Covering the Wounds He Helped Inflict

In his “Parting Prescription,” Murthy writes that “community is the formula for fulfillment” and that the modern epidemic of loneliness demands “love, courage, and generosity.”

Yet his own tenure systematically dismantled trust and belonging, dividing families, churches, and workplaces through moralized public health edicts.
Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates — all publicly championed by Murthy — fractured communities, creating the very isolation he now laments.

The Surgeon General who now preaches about “connection” was among those who ordered Americans to sever their most human bonds: to distance from loved ones, to shun the unvaccinated, and to treat dissenters as diseased threats.

His later call to “build a new social contract” founded on service and civic programs like the “Youth Mental Health Corps”is telling. It repackages the same surveillance-based public health infrastructure — behavioral tracking, centralized intervention, social credit by another name — in the language of compassion.

Weaponizing Psychology: Pathologizing Dissent

Murthy’s tenure advanced a subtle but potent form of psychological warfare: pathologizing dissent as sickness.

When he declares that division and distrust are symptoms of a “spiritual crisis,” he erases the political and moral legitimacy of resistance. Those who refused the experimental injections, questioned corporate capture of science, or defended medical choice are reframed not as engaged citizens but as patients in need of behavioral correction.

This framing, echoed by the World Health Organization and the Surgeon General’s “advisories,” lays the groundwork for the next phase of informational control — one cloaked not in censorship, but in therapeutic paternalism.

The Great Inversion: Coercion as Care

At the heart of Murthy’s “Prescription” is a moral inversion: coercion recast as compassion.

Throughout the pandemic, his messaging repeatedly equated compliance with virtue and questioning with harm. His Office’s partnership with the CDC and White House COVID Response Team normalized the language of “protecting others” — a phrase that justified censorship, job loss, and social exclusion.

Now, Murthy’s final reflection dresses that same ideology in the soft robes of empathy. His triad of “relationships, service, and purpose”reads less like a personal wellness philosophy than a state catechism — urging citizens to find meaning through collective obedience to approved narratives.

The Spiritual Disguise of Technocratic Power

Murthy’s invocation of faith traditions — Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Ubuntu — is striking not for its inclusivity, but for its instrumental use of sacred language to legitimize centralized authority.

In merging spirituality with governance, Murthy mirrors a broader trend in global health policy: the conversion of care into control, where moral virtue is measured by conformity to bureaucratic “truth.”

The true crisis is not loneliness, but alienation from truth — a wound deepened by those who censored, shamed, and silenced the nation under the guise of saving it.

From Surgeon General to Social Engineer

Murthy closes his “Prescription” with a challenge:

“We are kin, not enemies… Good people with hearts full of love can change the world.”

But for the thousands of Americans censored, deplatformed, and defamed under his watch, and many more who were injured or killed by the experimental jabs he declared were necessary, those words ring as hollow as a pharmaceutical apology after the damage is done.

True love cannot coexist with coercion. True community cannot be built on lies.

The enduring legacy of Murthy’s public health tenure is not one of healing but of division, distrust, and epistemic violence — the destruction of the social immune system that protects a free people: open inquiry and dissent.

A Prescription Reversed

If Murthy’s farewell message was sincere, his repentance would begin with acknowledgment — of the vaccine-injured, of the silenced physicians, of the citizens whose livelihoods and voices were destroyed in the name of “safety.”
Until then, his “parting prescription” serves not as medicine, but as mirror — reflecting the psychological alchemy of a technocratic era that calls its injuries love.

Referendes

  1. Murthy’s My Parting Prescription for America (your uploaded PDF) — referenced for quotes and thematic contrast.
  2. Ji et al. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate et al. (Doc. 83 – Second Amended Complaint) — for legal and factual references regarding Murthy’s actions, coordination, and the broader censorship regime.
  3. Judicial and congressional context — including Missouri v. Biden and Kennedy v. Murthy, which form the legal frame for federal involvement in viewpoint suppression.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Trump dumps Marjorie Taylor Greene in escalating Epstein-files clash

Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2025

US President Donald Trump formally withdrew his support for Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Friday, publicly severing ties with one of his most loyal MAGA allies after she criticized his attempts to block the release of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump announced the break on Truth Social, writing: “I am withdrawing my support and endorsement of ‘Congresswoman’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the great state of Georgia. All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!”

He added that he would offer his “unyielding support” to a primary challenger “if the right person runs” for Georgia’s 14th congressional district. The rupture came hours after Greene told Politico that Trump was wrong to try to halt the release of Epstein-related documents at a time when many US citizens, including his own supporters, are struggling financially.

“It’s insanely the wrong direction to go. The five-alarm fire is healthcare and affordability for Americans. And that’s where the focus should be,” she said.

“Releasing the Epstein files is the easiest thing in the world. Just release it all. Let the American people sort through every bit of it, and, you know, support the victims. That’s just like the most common sense, easiest thing in the world. But to spend any effort trying to stop it makes – it just doesn’t make sense to me,” she added.

Policy clashes and Gaza stance fuel Greene’s widening split with Trump

It marks the sharpest public split yet between Trump and the 51-year-old lawmaker, who built her national profile as one of his fiercest defenders. In recent months, Greene has increasingly broken with the White House and members of her own party on domestic and foreign policy.

Earlier this week, Trump rebuked her criticism of his agenda, saying she had “lost her way” after she accused him of prioritizing foreign affairs over the economic struggles facing US citizens. Greene responded on X: “The only way is through Jesus. That’s my way, and I’ve definitely not lost it. Actually I’m working hard to put my faith into action.”

Since Trump’s return to office, Greene has clashed more frequently with Republican leadership. She denounced plans to send “billions of dollars” in weapons to Ukraine and broke with the party’s longstanding support for “Israel” by calling its war in Gaza a “genocide.”

She has also voiced frustration with congressional leaders during the government shutdown that ended this week. In a rare move for a Republican, she joined Democrats in pushing for expanded healthcare subsidies.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US plan for a divided Gaza cements long-term occupation, trapping 2 million Palestinians in ruins: Report

Press TV – November 15, 2025

The US is drafting a plan to entrench Gaza’s division, creating a fortified “green zone” under “joint Israeli–international control,” while relegating most Palestinians to a devastated “red zone” left in ruins and neglect, a report says.

According to internal documents obtained by The Guardian and sources briefed on US deliberations, Washington is working towards institutionalizing a partition of Gaza along the Israeli-imposed “yellow line.”

Under the blueprint, foreign troops would be deployed alongside Israeli forces in the east, while nearly the entire Palestinian population remains displaced west of it, the daily reported on Friday.

One senior American official, acknowledging the depth of Washington’s ambitions, admitted, “Ideally, you would want to make it all whole, right? But that’s aspirational. It’s going to take some time. It’s not going to be easy.”

The revelation sharply contradicted earlier American pledges, including President Donald Trump’s own assurances, that a 20-point so-called ceasefire scheme announced by the chief executive earlier this year would pave the way to full Palestinian governance across Gaza.

Instead, Washington’s planning documents pointed to a fractured, semi-occupied coastal sliver, where reconstruction is limited to the Israeli-controlled sector, while the rest of Gaza is effectively abandoned.

The United States has been cycling through back-to-back plans, from fenced “alternative safe communities (ASC)” to a “green-zone enclave model,” all devised without Palestinian involvement and without addressing more than two years of Washington-backed Israeli genocide that Gaza has suffered since October 2023. Even humanitarian agencies, long alarmed by US proposals, were not informed of the abrupt scrapping of the ASC model.

Observers say, with no credible roadmap for Israeli withdrawal, international peacekeeping, or large-scale rebuilding, Gaza risks being locked into a “not war but not peace” paralysis.

This, they note, would pave the way for a divided territory under constant threat of Israeli attacks, stripped of Palestinian self-rule, and starved of the reconstruction needed for even minimal recovery.

Trump’s 20-point scheme hinges on, what he calls, an “international stabilization force (ISF)” mandated by the UN Security Council.

However, Washington refuses to place a single American trooper on the ground or finance the reconstruction Palestinians desperately need, the paper wrote.

European nations were drafted into early versions of the plan, including as many as 1,500 British troops and 1,000 French forces, but diplomats from allied capitals dismissed the proposals as unrealistic and politically suicidal, it added.

According to the report, after long, bloody missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, few leaders are willing to send troops into Gaza’s shattered landscape. One source described the plan in blunt terms as “delusional.”

The documents, The Guardian revealed, also envision Jordan sending hundreds of infantry forces and thousands of police officers, despite King Abdullah’s explicitly rejecting any deployment.

With more than half the Jordanian population of Palestinian descent, such participation would be explosive domestically and a direct threat to Jordan’s internal stability, it said.

A US “concept of operation” states that foreign troops would operate only within the “green zone.” None would enter the Palestinian-held western side, where the Hamas resistance movement is reasserting control.

The “enclave” would begin with just a few hundred troops and slowly expand to a force of 20,000, integrating with Israeli forces along the dividing line.

According to the report, the parallels to the United States disastrous invasions of the 2000s are, therefore, unavoidable. In both wars, US-created “green zones” became symbols of occupation, shielded by blast walls, while chaos and destruction consumed the surrounding cities.

US planners openly hope that limited reconstruction in the green zone will “attract” desperate Palestinians into the Israeli-controlled area. As one US official put it, “People will say ‘hey we want that,’ and so it evolves in that direction. No one’s talking about a military operation to force it.”

Experts commenting on the report said the blueprint envisages a future for Palestinians conditioned on accepting the Israeli regime’s authority, not on justice, sovereignty, or the right to rebuild their own homeland.

The report came as more than 80 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, including nearly every school and hospital, lies in ruins.

Israel continues to block even basic aid items. Tent poles, water filters, and construction materials remain barred under “dual use” claims.

Around 1.5 million Palestinians still wait for emergency shelter items, and more than two million are crushed into the narrow territory that the US plan designates as the red zone.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran rejects Canada’s baseless claims of foiling ‘lethal plots’ by Tehran

Press TV – November 15, 2025

Iran has strongly dismissed allegations of sabotage operations raised by the head of Canada’s domestic Security Agency against the Islamic Republic, calling the claims baseless and fabricated.

On Thursday, Dan Rogers, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, claimed that the agency this year foiled potentially lethal threats by Iran directed against people whom Tehran sees as enemies.

He claimed that the agency countered actions by Iranian intelligence services and what he called their proxies, who allegedly targeted individuals they perceived as threats to Iran.

Rogers also alleged that his agents had blocked attempts by Russia to illegally acquire Canadian goods and technologies. He also levelled some accusations against China and India for espionage and transnational repression efforts against Canada.

Zahra Ershadi, Iran’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said in a statement on Friday that the allegations were aimed at shifting attention away from Israel’s ongoing actions in West Asia and Canada’s role in supporting them.

“The ridiculous accusations of the Canadian Security Organization against Iran have no purpose other than to divert attention from the ongoing violations and crimes committed by the Zionist regime in the West Asia region and Canada’s support for it,” she said.

Ershadi also criticized the obstruction of consular services for Iranians living in Canada, urging the Canadian government to reverse “irresponsible and unjustified” policies toward Tehran.

During the genocide in Gaza, Canada and several other Western countries continued to supply lethal weapons to the Israeli regime despite the enormous human toll in Palestinian territory.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Ansar Allah official slams UN sanctions, West’s double standards

Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2025

Mohammed al-Farah, a member of the Political Bureau of Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, commented on the recent UN Security Council decision to extend sanctions on Yemen, stating that Yemen would respond in kind to anyone who attacks its people’s interests or attempts to undermine its sovereignty.

He emphasized, in this context, that Yemenis will not hesitate to defend their rights, religion, and national dignity by all legitimate means.

In a post on X, al-Farah accused the Security Council of perpetuating “the worst example of double standards,” noting that it has long turned a blind eye to crimes of genocide in Gaza, even supporting “Israel” while ignoring the bloodshed, and covering up the blockade and aggression against Yemen without any moral or legal stance.

He continued, saying the council “continues to apply double standards while Gaza is being devastated under two years of bombing and blockade with US and Western weapons,” reminding how “Yemen has been under siege for a decade.”

Al-Farah described the council as a platform for advancing Western interests, where “human rights are defined only as Western human rights and international interests are reduced to those of Washington alone.”

NGOs; culprits in espionage operations in Yemen

The Ansar Allah official also warned that some NGOs operating in Yemen have engaged in “dangerous practices”, including espionage on behalf of “Israel” under the guise of humanitarian work, exposing what he called the extent of “Zionist exploitation of UN institutions.”

Al-Farah, however, praised Russia and China for refusing to renew sanctions on Yemen, contrasting their stance with what he described as the “moral failure” of the UN Security Council. He said Moscow and Beijing’s positions reflect a “humanitarian and ethical awakening” and awareness of the dangers of US policies that use sanctions to subjugate nations.

At the same time, he expressed hope that Russia and China’s position would amount to a definitive rejection and veto of the resolution, describing it as a stand that “rejects the exploitation of the Security Council and restores some balance against Western dominance.”

Sanctions on Yemen are merely tools for Israeli objectives

Al-Farah also criticized the West and the United States for openly supporting “Israel” with weapons and financial aid while shielding it politically, arguing that the proposed sanctions on Yemen are merely “tools to serve Zionist objectives and punish the Yemeni people for their resilience, independent decision-making, and solidarity with Gaza.”

He concluded by reaffirming Yemen’s steadfast support for Gaza and for oppressed communities across the region, pledging to continue opposing Western and US hegemony over the countries and peoples of the region without hesitation.

UNSC extends sanctions on Yemen

On November 14, the UN Security Council approved a resolution extending financial sanctions and a travel ban on Yemen for another year, until November 14, 2026, while also extending the mandate of the panel of experts supporting the sanctions committee until December 15, 2026.

The resolution, adopted by a 13-member majority with Russia and China abstaining, renews Yemen’s international sanctions under Resolution 2140 for an additional year. It maintains frozen assets and travel restrictions on designated individuals and entities and extends the mandate of the expert panel overseeing Yemen sanctions until mid-December 2026.

The Security Council imposes these sanctions on Yemen under US pressure and under the cover of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, through Resolutions 2140 (2014) and 2216 (2015).

The UN Security Council first imposed sanctions on Yemen in 2014 through Resolution 2140, targeting individuals and entities linked to destabilizing activities during the country’s ongoing conflict.

These measures included asset freezes and travel bans aimed at those accused of threatening Yemen’s stability or obstructing peace efforts.

In 2015, Resolution 2216 expanded the sanctions framework, further restricting financial and travel activities of key figures aligned with armed groups and reinforcing the Council’s oversight through a dedicated panel of experts.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

IOC’s Double Standards Trample Principle of ‘Sport Above Politics’ – Russian Ministry

Sputnik – 15.11.2025

MOSCOW – The International Olympic Committee’s double standards have trampled on the principle of “sport above politics,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told Sputnik on Saturday, commenting on the IOC’s refusal to accredit the RIA Novosti news agency for the upcoming Olympics in Italy.

“By pursuing a harmful policy of double standards and discriminating against athletes on the basis of nationality, IOC officials have effectively trampled the principle of ‘sport above politics’ that was enshrined in the Olympic Charter by Pierre de Coubertin,” Zakharova said.

The spokesperson accused IOC functionaries of “insulting athletes and their fans worldwide, depriving them on chauvinistic grounds of the last opportunity to follow competitions that should be open to all.”

Olympic authorities have a history of imposing restrictions on Russian journalists during major sporting events, Zakharova said. The Paris Olympic Committee denied accreditation in 2024 to several Russian journalists, including those from RIA Novosti and the Izvestia media group, citing French government’s decisions as the reason for the ban.

“Every time the governing bodies of the Olympic movement hid behind the host country, presenting themselves as obedient executors… But, whereas previously the IOC cited the host nation’s stance with affected modesty and embarrassment, now it is inventing nonexistent reasons to deny our correspondents access to competitions. Its claim that a number of other Russian journalists have already been accredited for the 2026 Olympics looks laughable in form and disgraceful in substance, even to an outside observer,” she added.

This is “a ridiculous pretext and yet another manifestation of the Russophobic position that this organization consciously promotes, with dire consequences for the Olympic movement and its ideals, including the rejection of political games in sport,” the spokeswoman said.

Russia expects international organizations, such as the United Nations, the UN sports agency UNESCO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), to speak out on the IOC’s politicized approach, which violates the principle of equal access to information and media pluralism in favor of “certain pseudo-democracies, including Italy, the Olympic host,” Zakharova said.

“If they ignore this shameful incident, we will regard their inaction as yet another example of bias and dysfunction,” Zakharova added.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia Communicates Consistently, But the West Won’t Listen

By Bryan Anthony Reo – New Eastern Outlook – November 15, 2025

Russia consistently states its interests, goals, and security concerns, but the West often ignores these statements, considering them irrelevant and refusing to consult on issues directly affecting Russia. This attitude reflects hubris and folly and risks disastrous consequences, as it is both unjust and historically unsound.

Over the last several decades, Russia has consistently communicated a clear stance to the West, a stance that has largely been ignored or even ridiculed. As I say, “over the last several decades,” it becomes clear I am going to pick a starting point for a divergence or breakdown of East/West communications, and I must necessarily pick some point. I could go back to the Crimean War and show how Britain and France were engaged in imperialist interventions to try to harm Russia as far back as 1854 (and very few British patriots who honor the glory of the Light Brigade ever think to inquire as to why the British Army was in Crimea in the first place), or I could even go back to 1054 with the East-West Schism, but for the sake of simplicity, brevity, and precision, let’s focus around 1989-1991 as the starting point. It is necessary to pick a point, so I choose 1989-1991 for the purpose of this writing.

The Decline of the Soviet Empire and NATO’s Promises

As the Cold War was winding down and Soviet Premier Gorbachev tacitly conceded that Marxism-Leninism had not prevailed in the competition of ideas with the Western nations, agreements were made, understandings were reached, and terms were established for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe and from the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact member territories. Then US Secretary of State James Baker promised guarantees: “NATO jurisdiction or forces will not move eastward” regarding the possibility of NATO eastward expansion. Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow available in the National Security Archive.

There was also the follow-up conversation with President Gorbachev (held the same day as the initial conversation with Mr. Shevardnadze), where Baker told Gorbachev, “Not one inch to the east.”

Consequences and Lessons of the Eastern Bloc

It was on this basis that the Soviet Union consented to German reunification under Western auspices favorable to the FRG, by which the DDR was essentially absorbed. The Soviets also withdrew, in peace, throughout the Warsaw Pact nations, and nowhere did they use violence to oppose the popular mass demonstrations occurring throughout 1989-1990 across in the Eastern Bloc; not even in Romania, where the demonstrations were not only not peaceful, but morphed into a bloody revolution. As an aside, Brussels technocrats might do well to ponder what the Romanian people did to Ceausescu and the simple fact that when people are pushed to the breaking point, they snap, and that no technocratic tyranny is immune to being brought down by its own working class. In the end, Ceausescu was at least as out of touch with the reality of his own population as most of the empty suits in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London are with their respective populations, and only time will tell if those empty suits in those cities meet a similar fate.

The Russians (previously Soviets) had communicated clearly to their Western counterparts and obtained promises and assurances that they thought were as good as gold. The only thing we can fault President Gorbachev for is that he trusted the words of Western so-called statesmen, and he actually believed what they told him. They would later cynically proclaim, “Those promises were never in writing,” as though a verbal guarantee means nothing and it would only matter if it were written on paper. Ask the American Indians how valuable American government written guarantees were in the 19th century, or ask the Czechs and Slovaks what they think of British written guarantees from 1938 and 1939. The West would have violated even written guarantees, because it is now obvious that the West had the intention to betray Russia from the start.

History Lessons: Why Russia Will Never Forgive NATO Expansion

The West occasionally maintains the position that no guarantees were ever given to Russia, a position I do not support. The available evidence strongly indicates that the guarantees were made, and common sense would suggest that seasoned Soviet/Russian statesmen would have procured such guarantees before undertaking the steps to dismantle the Warsaw Pact and shift forces back to the Soviet Union. However, even if the guarantees were not made, good neighborliness and political reality would dictate that the prudent course of action would be to respect Russian interests and not expand NATO, as such expansion is a needless provocation that risks much and gains little.

Russia has clearly communicated, repeatedly, “Do not expand NATO to the east,” “Do not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact members,” and finally, “Do not expand NATO into former Soviet Republics.” The standard response the West gives Russia has come from people such as John McCain, who dismiss Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country,” which they say isn’t worthy of listening to or taking seriously. I urge my fellow Americans, only adopt Mr. McCain’s attitude if you do not value peace and if you wish to test that hypothesis in a knock-down, drag-out fight with Russia, a fight that might end in nuclear fire.

Suffice to say, Russia is a great and historical power and cannot be flippantly dismissed as a “gas station” simply because a pseudo-statesman like John McCain said so. Such remarks are as constructive to international dialogue as a Russian dismissing the USA as a “Super Walmart pretending to be a country,” which, as far as I know, has not happened, because Russian diplomats are actually classically educated and know how to behave themselves. One-liner insults or verbal jabs are best left to comedians, not aspiring statesmen hoping to go viral while sounding “cool” for a younger audience.

The Russians seldom speak of Americans or America in the sort of denigrating or insulting terms Americans use to describe them, because it is not how mature statesmen dialogue with partners or even competitors or rivals; childish insults are generally not a tool in the box of statecraft, unless you are Bismarck trying to start a war with France in 1870. The Russians don’t seem to have the American penchant for starting unnecessary wars.

In fact, the Russians have shown incredible restraint and forbearance in an attempt to keep the peace and avoid escalation to war. Russia reluctantly accepted NATO expansion in 1999, which saw the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland incorporated into NATO, although it was in clear violation of the prior assurances made by Western leadership. It is likely that the Western powers, looking at the dire situation in Russia in the late 1990s, decided, “Russia is in crisis, the situation is terrible, we can violate the prior agreements with impunity, and Russia won’t be in any position to oppose us.”

One more round of expansion of NATO in the former Warsaw Pact and even in the former Soviet Republics occurred, and that was in 2004.

Putin at the Helm: How the Change of Power in Russia Coincided with a New Wave of NATO Expansion

Something dramatic and historically significant had happened in Russia around that time; that was the ascension to the presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was appointed prime minister in 1999 and then elected president in 2000.

The 1999 NATO expansion happened prior to the beginning of his administration, and the 2004 expansion happened while he was still stabilizing the situation in Russia and was working to resolve the internal issues of the Second Chechen War (the jihadi groups in Dagestan likely had support of CIA/Western-organized global jihadi networks such as Al Qaeda, which the CIA had formed and organized to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, which ultimately turned and bit its American master).

In 2004 the Russians very reluctantly witnessed the expansion of NATO into the Baltic States and the rest of the former non-Soviet Warsaw Pact members who were not included in the 1999 expansion, but red lines were drawn; the message was clear: “Do not ever attempt to expand NATO into a former Soviet Republic again.”

The West went away hearing what its delusional technocratic rulers wanted to hear and what its thoroughly dishonest corporate press wanted to report: “Russia is unreasonable and threatens a peaceful military alliance simply for expanding right to its front door.” They also convinced themselves Russia was weak and could be subdued or subverted.

Two Failures of the West: Lessons of 2008 and the Fate of the Puppets

The West has only dared try to expand into former Soviet Republics on two more occasions, one in 2008, where the Western/Soros-backed pawn Mikheil Saakashvili (emboldened by ultimately empty Western guarantees of support) foolishly and recklessly ordered his military to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and found out the hard way that Western guarantees aren’t always reliable and that Russia was not as weak as his Western handlers doubtlessly assured him. Saakashvili is presently a naturalized Ukrainian citizen who claims a right to the leadership of Georgia, but he is incarcerated for his crimes against Georgia and the Georgian people. Readers may ponder on such things and contemplate the worthiness of Western guarantees, something Saakashvili will have many years to ponder on from his prison cell, where he may also contemplate that his treason against Georgia and aggression against Russia came with high price tags.

2008 was different from 1999, as Russia now had President Putin at the helm, Russia’s recovery was proceeding at full speed, and what NATO was able to get away with in 1999, it found it couldn’t manage in 2008.

I said there were “two more occasions” where the West tried to expand NATO into former Soviet Republics. One was in Georgia in 2008. The other is right now; it is history we are living in and watching unfold. We are part of a generation that is watching (in some instances writing) this history. I speak, of course, of Ukraine.

In 2008 NATO affirmed, “Ukraine will one day become a member,” and President Putin warned them not to try, not to do it; he warned of a forceful response if such a thing was attempted. NATO ignored Putin, at its own peril, and proceeded forward with operations in the Ukraine, first subverting the lawful government with the illegal (and immoral) Maidan Coup of 2014, and then turning the Ukraine into an armed camp with tens of billions of dollars of weapons from 2014 to 2022 and then finally hundreds of billions of dollars since 2022.

Russia communicated clearly, “Do not expand NATO in this manner,” and the NATO response was essentially demonstrated by deed, “We don’t care what Russia says or does, Russian responses are not relevant, and we don’t factor Russia into our calculations.”

Why does NATO seek to expand? Why does NATO even exist in the post-Cold War era? Perhaps the NATO leaders understand well something Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “An alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value.” So NATO exists to wage war; this much is clear. The question then is, “Against whom does NATO seek to wage war?” A question whose answer is also obvious. NATO is an aggressive dagger aimed at the heart of Russia.

Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment