Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Munich Security Conference shows the West has come to a reluctant reckoning with reality

By Warwick Powell | Global Times | February 15, 2025

The annual Munich Security Conference serves as a crucial forum where global leaders, policymakers and analysts converge to discuss pressing security and geopolitical issues. The 2025 iteration of the conference, themed around “Multipolarization,” represents a significant, albeit reluctant, recognition by the collective West that the era of American unipolarity has come to an end. The conference’s annual report openly acknowledges this shift, noting that power is now diffused among a greater number of actors, influencing key global issues in ways that unipolar decision-making cannot accommodate. This shift, while long predicted by some, has taken decades to be acknowledged within Western strategic thought.

In 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech that has since proven prophetic. He warned against the dangers of unipolarity, cautioning that a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a single global sovereign, namely the US, would lead to instability. He criticized the West’s tendency to impose rules on others while exempting itself from those same rules.

At the time, Western policymakers largely dismissed Putin’s warnings as revanchist rhetoric. The US and its allies, still intoxicated by the “sugar high” of post-Cold War unipolarity, assumed that their dominance would persist indefinitely. They expanded NATO, pursued military interventions in the Middle East and dismissed the concerns of rising powers like Russia and China. However, 18 years later, as the Munich Security Conference convenes once more, the world finds itself in a different reality.

The most telling sign that unipolarity is over is the rhetorical and strategic shift within American foreign policy. Rather than embracing a multilateral world order, underpinned by multilateral institutions and practices of diplomatic and inclusive consensus-building, Washington appears to be consolidating its influence through a conventional great-power lens – one that prioritizes spheres of influence.

Simultaneously, the US administration seeks an exit strategy from the war in Ukraine. Faced with mounting costs and diminishing strategic gains, Washington is recalibrating its position. The theme of the Munich Security Conference 2025 reflects this reality: The West is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world, and it must now navigate a landscape where multiple centers of power shape global affairs.

While Washington’s response to multipolarity leans toward traditional power balancing, other actors have long envisioned a different kind of global order – one rooted in multilateralism, peaceful coexistence and economic interdependence. BRIC, for instance, has evolved into BRICS, incorporating South Africa and a handful of other full members.

The BRICS organization, alongside other initiatives such as the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and ASEAN-led regional frameworks, represents a multipolar order that prioritizes economic cooperation and security arrangements independent of Western hegemony. These initiatives draw on a diverse array of traditions and historical precedents. China’s advocacy for multipolarity is deeply rooted in its millennia-old governance principles, emphasizing the pursuit of harmony amid the presence of difference. The discourse also reflects principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, which emerged from the Bandung Conference in 1955, advocating for sovereignty and self-determination beyond Cold War bipolarity.

Furthermore, the idea of “indivisible security,” which found expression in the Helsinki Accords but was never truly operationalized in Western security architecture, is being revived in contemporary multipolar discourse. Putin has repeatedly emphasized that the security of one nation cannot come at the expense of another – a principle that challenges NATO’s expansionist logic and Western unilateral interventions.

The 2025 Munich Security Conference represents another step in the West’s reluctant confrontation with reality. The world is no longer unipolar. The conference’s theme, “Multipolarization,” signals an implicit acknowledgment that power is now distributed among multiple actors and that the West must adapt to this new environment.

Yet, the response from Western policymakers remains mixed. While some political figures acknowledge the shift, their rhetoric and policies indicate an attempt to retain influence through traditional great-power competition. European leaders are grasping for new bearings, as the risk of the US administration pulling out of Ukraine (and perhaps even Europe altogether) grows. In contrast, alternative models of multipolarity, articulated by Russia, China and the broader Global South, emphasize multilateralism, economic interdependence, and security arrangements that move beyond hegemonic frameworks.

The question now is whether the West will fully embrace this new reality or continue to resist it through strategies of containment and competition. This year’s Munich Security Conference may not offer definitive answers, but it marks a crucial moment in the ongoing transition from unipolarity to a multipolar world. What remains certain is that the era of American dominance, which shaped global affairs for over three decades, is now over. The future of international relations will be defined not by a single sovereign power, but by a complex and dynamic interplay of states, regions and institutions navigating the challenges and opportunities of a multipolar world.

The author is an adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology, senior fellow at Taihe Institute and former advisor to Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Judge Pauses Murthy v. Missouri Amid Trump’s Free Speech Order

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 13, 2025

A federal judge has temporarily halted proceedings in Murthy v. Missouri, a case central to efforts aimed at curbing government involvement in online censorship, following a Supreme Court decision that declined to address the case’s core arguments.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Terry Doughty approved a motion from the defendants — former President Joe Biden and key administration officials — to stay the case. According to Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the pause was granted in light of former President Donald Trump’s recent executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“The government suggested that we move to stay discovery,” Younes told The Federalist. “They want to put in a statement about what effect they think the executive order has. I’m guessing they’re going to say it makes the case moot.”

If the judge agrees, the case could be dismissed as moot after President Trump’s new order. While plaintiffs went along with the stay to allow the judge time to review, Younes noted that the broader concern over government-driven censorship remains a live issue.

“We haven’t staked out our position yet, but there are arguments against mootness,” she said. “Especially if there’s a chance that could happen again and the executive order won’t necessarily be binding on a subsequent administration.”

Initially known as Missouri v. Biden, the lawsuit—brought by the states of Missouri and Louisiana—accused Biden administration officials of working with Big Tech to suppress online speech. The case unearthed extensive evidence showing how federal agencies collaborated with private platforms to censor topics ranging from The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to alternative viewpoints on the COVID-19 vaccine.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Geneva rejects amnesty grants to nationals fighting in Ukraine

Al Mayadeen | February 15, 2025

Switzerland’s parliament on Friday upheld its ban on citizens joining foreign military conflicts by rejecting a proposal to grant amnesty to those who fought in Ukraine. This decision comes after the country confirmed its first combatant casualty in the war.

Earlier, the Legal Affairs Commission of the National Council had opposed the initiative, which was introduced by Social Democratic Party deputy Jon Pult to exempt Swiss nationals fighting in Ukraine from prosecution.

“The prohibition of participating as a volunteer in combat led by foreign forces is a fundamental principle of Swiss law. Granting amnesty or proceeding with rehabilitations in ongoing conflicts would constitute an undesirable political recognition of mercenarism,” the commission said in a publication on the Swiss Parliament’s website.

The commission emphasized that Swiss law strictly forbids nationals from joining foreign militaries, reaffirming the country’s commitment to neutrality. Consequently, Swiss citizens involved in such conflicts will still face legal consequences upon their return.

Earlier this week, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) confirmed the death of a Swiss national who had joined Ukraine’s Armed Forces (AFU)—the first officially acknowledged case since the conflict escalated. The AFU had previously notified the Swiss embassy in Kiev of the individual’s likely death in combat, though details about their unit or deployment remain undisclosed.

30 out of 57 Swiss nationals reportedly died while fighting in Ukraine, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, although the exact number of Swiss mercenaries in Ukraine remains unclear. According to Swiss military justice authorities, 13 investigations were ongoing last year into nationals suspected of mercenary activities.

How is Ukraine handling dissertations and losses?

Since the war with Moscow escalated in 2022, Ukraine has actively recruited foreign fighters to counter battlefield losses and desertions.

The Ukrainian government adopted sweeping mobilization measures and intensified efforts to enforce conscription. These measures include stricter penalties for draft evasion, prompting an increase in attempts to flee the country illegally.

The Ukrainian military, which has been grappling with acute shortages of soldiers, has lowered the mobilization age and intensified recruitment efforts.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s measures also included severe penalties for draft evaders, including the seizure of property and freezing of bank accounts.

Efforts to escape conscription have led to tragic consequences, with reports of Ukrainian men drowning in attempts to cross into neighboring countries like Romania.

The challenges of evasion are compounded by border restrictions and heightened surveillance.

In response to mounting evasion attempts, Ukrainian authorities have cracked down on corruption within the conscription process, dismissing regional military recruitment chiefs implicated in bribery scandals.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Kremlin responds to Vance’s comment on troops for Ukraine statement

RT | February 15, 2025

The Kremlin has acknowledged that US Vice President J.D. Vance did not threaten the deployment of US troops to Ukraine during his interview with The Wall Street Journal. He has accused the newspaper of misrepresenting his words about what leverage Washington can use in peace talks with Moscow.

“Yes, we have taken note,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Saturday.

In a summary of an article on Thursday titled “Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal” the paper stated that the vice president had pledged to impose sanctions and possibly intervene with troops if Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a peace deal guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence.

Vance’s communications director, William Martin, criticized the article, calling it “pure fake news,” posting a transcript of the vice president’s interview with the newspaper and argued that he had not made any threats. In the transcript, Vance had said that Trump would consider a wide range of options in discussions with Russia and Ukraine. He mentioned that “economic tools of leverage” and “military tools of leverage” exist but did not specify any actions.

“There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Vladimir] Zelensky,” the transcript read.

“As we’ve always said, American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security,” Vance wrote on X. “The fact that the WSJ twisted my words in the way they did for this story is absurd, but not surprising,” he added.

The Kremlin sought clarification regarding Vance’s comments following the initial report. Peskov told reporters on Friday that the remarks were new to Moscow. “We have not heard such statements before,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal’s report has since received a community note on X, which states: “JD Vance made no explicit pledge to either sanctions or military actions.” The note links to Martin’s post containing the transcript.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump sends defense stocks crashing

RT | February 15, 2025

US defense stocks took a sharp dive this week after President Donald Trump announced that he could slash military spending in half. The announcement came amid a wider cost-saving push by his administration.

Companies which saw share prices fall this week include aerospace manufacturers Lockheed Martin (-4.86%) and Northrop Grumman (-6.58%) as well as General Dynamics (-5.30%), according to Friday’s trading data.

Speaking at a White House press conference on Thursday, Trump said he planned to discuss a potential reduction in defense budgets with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“At some point, when things settle down, I’m going to meet with China and I’m going to meet with Russia… and I’m going to say there’s no reason for us to be spending almost $1 trillion on the military… and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half,” Trump said.

Defense firms have enjoyed increased demand for weapons and military equipment since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Lockheed Martin, the primary producer of the F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missile systems used in Ukraine, posted a 21% year-on-year increase in revenues in 2023.

The new US administration has so far sent mixed messages on military spending. Trump has tasked Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency with cutting federal costs, including at the Pentagon. The president has also pushed for a quick resolution of the Ukraine conflict, announcing imminent talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

The current $1 trillion in annual US military spending accounts for about 3.4% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during his confirmation hearings at the US Senate in January that he wouldn’t want to spend less than 3% of GDP on defense.

Russia has criticized the US arms sector for fueling global instability. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed in September that soaring profits prompt defense firms to provoke new armed conflicts.

Meanwhile, claims have resurfaced in recent months about NATO weapons and ammunition being put on sale on the dark web. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson alleged earlier this month that the Ukrainian military was selling American weapons systems on the black market, including to drug cartels.

In January 2024, a US Department of Defense Office of Inspector General report revealed that the Pentagon was unable to fully account for over $1 billion worth of military aid to Kiev. In 2023, CNN reported that criminals and arms traffickers in Ukraine had stolen some Western-provided weapons and equipment intended for troops.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

The Cost of Freedom: Confronting Military-Industrial Profiteering and Restoring Fiscal Integrity to Preserve Our Republic

By Dennis J. Kucinich | The Kucinich Report | February 14, 2025

Our government is drowning in multi-trillion-dollar financial corruption and debt while a fear-peddling national security state has reached deeply into the personal lives of each and every American, justifying its existence through endless wars cooked up by a deep state which has become the most corrupt marching band and chowder society in American history.

That deep state of permanent governance, entrenched media, think tanks, NGOs, and multi-billion-dollar government contractors, notwithstanding elections, has demanded US taxpayers pay additional TRILLIONS for wars, for subsidizing conflicts in other countries, for secret and not-so-secret arms deals to “rebels” for regime change, subverting governments through the pretext of foreign aid.

The government that we have succeeded most in subverting is our own.

There is an undeniable link between fiscal integrity and the preservation of our freedoms as Americans. When government becomes corrupt, it erodes not only our personal liberties and financial security, but also fosters a culture of lawlessness in both the public and private sectors. In order to restore our nation’s values, all three branches of government must demonstrate rigorous oversight, discipline, and integrity. Our nation requires an honest media. We must remain vigilant in holding government officials accountable. Government is too important to our lives to be left up to only those who govern.

The constitutional crisis in the form of massive federal government financial corruption looms like a giant iceberg about to sink the Ship of State. Unless its course is corrected, and soon, our nation will perish in a sea of deficits as private interests swim shark-like to feast on corpus America.

The corruption has been institutionalized in the federal budget. It has been normalized as standard operating procedure. The waste of taxpayers’ money is ubiquitous — trillions for wars, trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse. Trillions have been lost in an accounting jumble. This has been our government’s system of checks and balances: The Administration writes the checks, and Congress doesn’t know what the balance is. Is it possible that change is coming?

Congress, which by the Constitution must pass a budget, places spending bills from all federal departments into an “omnibus bill.” “Omnibus” is Latin for “budget-busting.” Most members do not know what is in the $7.3 Trillion spending bill, and those who do aren’t talking.

Welcome to America’s version of Dante’s Inferno, where in the ninth and lowest concentric circle of Hell, Cocytus, those who betrayed their countries are cast. Here is the final unresting place for those who spun the damnable lies which took us into a $3 trillion war against Iraq, which resulted in an unforgivable hemorrhage of American treasure and blood, that destroyed Iraq, killing one million Iraqi men, women and children.

The Iraq War, which began under the Bush administration, turned into a budget bacchanal of bribery, bilking, blight, and betrayal. Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been CEO of Halliburton, a major defense contractor, stood to indirectly benefit from government contracts awarded to his former company during the war.

Halliburton was awarded lucrative no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure and provide logistical support to the U.S. military, bringing in billions of dollars. Cheney’s ties to Halliburton raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Cheney’s former company was found to have overcharged the government and failed to deliver on its contracts in Iraq.

As a member of the House of Representatives (1997-2013), on the floor of the House, I consistently called out corruption, and also within the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Through two Presidential campaigns (2004 and 2008), I worked to end perpetual war, the waste of money and lives which war creates, and to refocus our resources to America’s needs at home.

Over the years, I called for an end to the systemic waste, fraud and abuse plaguing war spending, including the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq War and other military conflicts. I introduced multiple pieces of legislation, including measures to hold defense contractors accountable, strengthen oversight mechanisms, and enforce stricter regulations to prevent corruption in federal contracts. It is one thing to criticize a system. It is another thing to relentlessly work to change it.

A Few Examples of My Efforts in Congress:

1. 2003-2007: Led efforts in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to scrutinize defense spending, especially contracts awarded to companies like Halliburton, to ensure taxpayer dollars were not being wasted or siphoned off into private hands. During this period, I made multiple floor speeches highlighting the lack of accountability in the U.S. military’s procurement processes and demanded comprehensive audits.

2. 2007: Introduced H.R. 2042, the “Contractor Accountability Act of 2007,” requiring the Department of Defense to report on waste and fraud in military contracts, particularly those related to the Iraq War. This was a direct response to massive issues with no-bid contracts awarded to companies with ties to high-ranking government officials, such as Halliburton.

3. 2009-2012: Urged Congress to conduct investigations into the billions of dollars spent on “reconstruction” projects in Iraq that failed to materialize or were poorly managed. I consistently pushed for more robust transparency and oversight measures, speaking out against the disastrous consequences of unchecked spending in conflict zones.

4. 2011-2012: As a ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I called for audits on military contractors and their role in fueling waste and corruption. One of the biggest examples I highlighted was the $61 million overcharge by Halliburton for transporting oil into Iraq.

My Call for Expanded Oversight: USAID and Other Agencies

In addition to the scrutiny of military contracts, I repeatedly called for comprehensive oversight of U.S. foreign aid and development programs. USAID has long been a channel through which billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled abroad, often with little accountability or transparency. For years, I pushed for the auditing and review of USAID’s operations, specifically targeting the lack of measurable results in the countries it sought to “help.”

One of the most glaring examples came in the early 2000s, when billions in USAID funds were allocated to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq for reconstruction and development. There was little oversight into how those funds were being used, leading to ineffective and sometimes outright fraudulent projects.

I demanded oversight into USAID’s practice of funneling funds to for-profit companies, without competitive bidding and called for legislation enforcing stricter accountability measures.

The Pushback:

My efforts to root out waste, fraud, and corruption in military spending were often met with harsh criticism from both the mainstream media and political opponents, who characterized my calls for accountability as naive, unrealistic and damaging to national security.

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, called my opposition to military interventions misguided, suggesting that my views were out of touch with the political mainstream. Politico went as far as to label my approach idealistic and impractical.

On the political front, many of my Republican colleagues dismissed my positions as unpatriotic, arguing that scrutinizing defense spending would weaken the country’s ability to defend itself. But the problem wasn’t just with Republicans.

Democratic leadership, despite campaigning on promises to end wars, repeatedly voted to fund them once in office. Key figures like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War authorization in 2002, and President Obama, despite vows to withdraw, continued the Iraq War and expanded military actions into Syria and Libya.

This hypocrisy—condemning endless wars while funding and escalating wars—allowed the military-industrial complex to thrive, betraying both the promises of peace and the trust of the American people.

The First Trump Administration

Unlike his Democratic predecessors, President Trump did not initiate new military conflicts during his first term. While the U.S. remained engaged in existing wars, particularly in Syria and Afghanistan, Trump made efforts to reduce troop deployments and avoid escalating military action. This stood in stark contrast to the actions of previous Democratic administrations, which, despite campaign promises to end wars, continued or expanded military engagements once in office.

Trump’s stance on reducing foreign military involvement marked a departure from the longstanding cycle of military escalation under Democratic leadership. Yet, even as he moved toward peace and restraint abroad, his first administration’s approach to military spending remained largely influenced by the military-industrial complex—a reality he must confront more directly in his 2025 agenda.

The Trump administration’s fiscal approach was entrenched in the military-industrial complex. Trump advocated for increasing military spending, and in 2019, his administration requested $732 billion for the Department of Defense for FY2020 alone—reflecting a continuation of the military-driven fiscal expansion.

Notably, the Trump administration also continued to rely heavily on private military contractors, which flourished during this period. With little oversight, defense spending and contracts grew, with military companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing benefiting enormously.

One of the more controversial policies was the Trump administration’s continued involvement in the war in Afghanistan, where taxpayer dollars were flowing into both military operations and private contractors, despite bipartisan calls for an end to the conflict.

The second Trump Administration must focus on rooting out the massive, systemic corruption and corporate giveaways that continue to drain our resources and undermine our national security.

Will President Trump now reign in military spending and fight the entrenched interests that have profited from endless war?

The Biden Administration:

The Biden administration’s 2023 budget proposed a military spending request of $813 billion. This included funds for continued involvement in global conflicts, counterterrorism operations, and military contractors.

While the Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of the war in Afghanistan, it also made efforts to address the domestic impacts of military spending, focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and increasing social safety nets. However, waste, fraud, and abuse continued to plague the system. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, reported more than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments in 2023, echoing concerns about the massive inefficiencies within federal spending.

With Dick Cheney’s endorsement of the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, the Democrats were officially recognized as the war contractors’ party, with Trump as a threat to business as usual.

Cheney’s endorsement of the Democratic nominee marked a pivotal shift in the political landscape, where the party that once claimed to stand against endless wars had now fully embraced the military-industrial complex.

It’s encouraging to see that in recent years a growing number of Americans and lawmakers are beginning to recognize the dangers of unchecked military spending and corruption. However, the consequences of years of waste, fraud, and abuse will take years to undo. The growing recognition of the necessity of reform must translate into transparency and fiscal discipline.

This Administration must be made aware of glaring examples of waste and corruption which, in the past, became “business as usual:”

$10 Billion in Cash… Vanished

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, over $10 billion in freshly minted $100 bills, shrink-wrapped into bundles of $75,000 each, were placed on skids and loaded onto a C-130 transport to be flown from the United States directly to the U.S.’ Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad.

Over $10 BILLION in CASH disappeared in an orgy of corruption, ultimately ending up in the hands of enemies of the United States. That the money derived from proceeds from the sale of Iraq oil compounded the corruption, placing an exclamation point on zero accountability in protecting Iraq’s money or, as you will see, the taxpayers.

A Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated the cost of waste, fraud, and abuse to be upwards of $60 BILLION, deriving from a lack of oversight, no internal controls in keeping track of who received the money, who spent it, and what it was spent for—and if indeed its purpose was accomplished.

A 2007 audit of Iraq Reconstruction couldn’t determine how $1.3 BILLION for Iraq internal security was spent.

Well-connected government contractors cashed in, overcharging the government for tens of millions, notably Halliburton, which overcharged the government $61 million for transporting oil into Iraq.

DynCorp nicked U.S. taxpayers for millions, inflating Iraq contract costs and billing the U.S. for unauthorized projects, like an Olympic-sized swimming pool built in a war zone.

RTX (Raytheon) was caught in a web of no-bid contracts, involving bribery, fraud, lying about labor and material costs, and double-billing. RTX (Raytheon) paid back $950 million in a settlement last October.

Trillions of hard-earned U.S. taxpayer dollars were spent on a war based on lies, notably the biggest one: that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) ready to use against the U.S. Iraq did not.

Years later, the WMDs have been discovered, not in Iraq, but in Washington. Lying is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Corruption is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A $37 trillion dollar deficit is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

This is the war machine of wealth transfer at work. Each conflict escalates the flow of public money into private hands, further enriching defense contractors, military suppliers, and multinational corporations, while the costs of war—lives lost, communities shattered, and nations destabilized—are borne by the public. The more destruction and chaos generated abroad, the more contracting opportunities arise, providing new revenue streams for those who profit off the war economy.

The federal government needs to be cleaned from top to bottom. It must align with the principles expressing the connection between honest government and freedom. Those principles were implicit in Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, in which he forecast the insidious danger and reciprocal nature of a corrupt government which corrupts the public and thereby induces despotism:

“… I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

As he was leaving Independence Hall, Franklin was asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

His reply, bids us to be eternally vigilant citizens, if we are to remain free:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Algeria demands France acknowledge ‘nuclear crimes’ committed on its soil

MEMO | February 14, 2025

The speaker of Algeria’s lower house of parliament yesterday called on France to officially acknowledge its responsibility for “nuclear crimes” it committed during its colonial era in the North African country, Anadolu reported.

“We demand with one voice an official recognition from France of its full responsibility for these nuclear crimes,” Ibrahim Boughali, speaker of the People’s National Assembly, told an event commemorating France’s first nuclear test in Algeria on 13 February 1960.

Algeria cannot accept “a mere political acknowledgment, but an acknowledgement followed by a clear moral commitment” from France, he added.

France carried out its first nuclear test in 1960, named Blue Jerboa (Gerboise Bleue in French), in the Reggane desert of southern Algeria. Paris continued its nuclear tests on Algerian territory until 1966.

Boughali said that France had carried out 17 nuclear explosions in the area, leaving devastating effects that persist to this day.

The nuclear tests “were a dark chapter in [the French] colonial history that continues to cast its shadow, as its dangerous and destructive effects continue to affect the environment and humanity,” he added.

The Algerian speaker called for forcing France to compensate the victims of the nuclear tests and clean up nuclear waste in Algeria.

Diplomatic relations between Algeria and France remain volatile, particularly due to unresolved issues stemming from France’s colonisation of Algeria for 132 years (1830–1962). Paris has refused to fully address the historical grievances that continue to affect Algerian society.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

17 State AGs Set Their Sights On Fauci

The HighWire | February 13, 2025

While Biden’s historical preemptive pardon of Tony Fauci protects him federally, 17 states attorneys are moving forward on holding him culpable legally on a state level for hiding knowledge on COVID-19 origins and pushing a poorly tested vaccine on the entire country.

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

German Court Orders X to Share Data with Researchers Ahead of National Vote

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | February 13, 2025

With a ruling that raises serious concerns about government-endorsed monitoring of online speech, a German court has ordered Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, to provide researchers with data to track so-called “election-swaying” information. The decision, handed down by the Berlin district court, follows an urgent complaint filed by two civil rights organizations demanding access to platform analytics ahead of Germany’s national election on February 23.

The court justified its ruling by arguing that “waiting any longer for access to the data would undermine the applicants’ research project since the period immediately before the election is crucial.” X had reportedly failed to respond to a request for information, leading the court to rule against the company and order it to pay €6,000 ($6,255) in legal costs.

The GFF and Democracy Reporting International claim that under European law, platforms like X must provide structured, easily searchable access to information about post reach, shares, and likes.

While this data is already publicly available, albeit requiring manual collection, activists insist that X should make it more accessible to their research efforts — effectively demanding that the platform do its work for them.

With this ruling, X is now compelled to provide this data from now until shortly after the election, a move that could open the door for further demands to police speech under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” The broad and subjective nature of what constitutes “misinformation” raises concerns about selective enforcement, particularly given the German government’s increasingly aggressive stance toward online speech regulation.

Given the timing of the ruling and the increasing pressure on social media platforms to police political speech, this case highlights the growing tension between free expression and state-backed efforts to control online speech.

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US government’s deep involvement in European journalism

By Anne-Laure Dufeal | Brussels Signal | February 10, 2025

The US government, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has been funnelling millions of dollars into student and professional media outlets across Europe mainly in Eastern and Central Europe, data from US government spending has shown.

This long-term financial support has been framed as part of  Washington’s “commitment to supporting democratic values and civil society in the [European] region” under the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia/Economic Support Fund (AEECA/ESF PD) programmes.

The scale and scope of the funding have raised questions about the extent of US influence in shaping media narratives and civil society in these regions.

Democracy or Influence? Moldova case study 

In the heart of Eastern Europe, in Moldova, a former Soviet Union country strategically located between Ukraine and Romania, the US has quietly poured millions of dollars into the nation’s media sector.

The funding, directed toward media organisations such as Internews Network Moldova, the journalist association Asociația Presei Independente (API), the Media Alternativa Association and investigative outlet Rise Moldova, has played a pivotal role in transforming Moldova’s media landscape. It has undone, little by little, the deep-rooted influence of Russia in the country television networks replacing that with its own Biden administration American influence.

Between 2019 and 2024, the Media Alternativa Association — owner of TV8, the fourth most-watched television channel in Moldova —received $1.85 million (€1.7 million) from  Washington.

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, Western sanctions resulted in the suspension and cancellation of licences for several Russian-owned TV stations in Moldova, creating a vacuum.

US-funded media outlets quickly moved in, filling the space once occupied by Kremlin-aligned broadcasters.

According to the Media Alternativa Association, until 2022 Moldova’s broadcast landscape remained heavily influenced by Russian networks, with political parties leveraging media holdings to shape public opinion.

That influence is now waning — replaced by institutions receiving direct financial backing from the US.

US-funded investigative outlet Rise Moldova has exclusively focused on exposing Russian influence within Moldova.

It is also a member of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an international investigative network with close ties to US agencies.

Critics have argued this funding has fostered a media environment more aligned with Washington’s strategic goals rather than true editorial independence.

A key architect of Moldova’s evolving media landscape is Internews Network Moldova, a US-backed organisation which has played a similar role in reshaping media environments in other Eastern European nations such as Ukraine.

Members of Internews Network Moldova – Ziarul de Gardă and NewsMaker – two of Moldova’s leading investigative media outlets, have frequently published reports linking Moldovan corruption to Russian interests.

In 2017, Internews launched a new initiative in Moldova titled “Media Enabling Democracy, Inclusion, and Accountability in Moldova” (MEDIA-M) — a project bankrolled by USAID and the UK government.

Officially, MEDIA-M sought to develop an independent, professional press sector resilient to political and financial pressures.

Its impact has been unmistakable: a media environment increasingly aligned with Western narratives and a weakened Russian presence in Moldova’s information space.

The US has also funded democratic programmes fostering the Western identity of Moldovans.

Washington’s $20 million (€19.4 million) “Moldova Resilience Initiative,” initially planned to run from 2022 to 2023 but extended to 2026, was designed to “strengthen popular support for a democratic, European Moldova” by “uniting Moldovans around a shared European identity.”

In 2024, the US government gave $83,602 to the US billionaire George Soros Moldova Foundation.

According to the website, the Soros Moldova Foundation has been supporting the European integration process of the Republic of Moldova for almost fifteen years.

These developments seemed to bear fruit when, in October 2024, Moldova held a decisive presidential election and a referendum on European Union accession.

With voters asked to choose between a pro-European future or maintaining ties with Russia, the election outcome — narrowly favouring EU integration — was attributed by some analysts, at least in part, to sustained US influence.

The monitoring of the election was entrusted to Promo-LEX, a think-tank heavily funded by the US government. In 2024 alone, Promo-LEX secured  $1.7 million (€1.6 million) in US grants.

The scale of US financial involvement in Moldova’s political and media ecosystem has been significant.

According to USAID records — some of which are no longer publicly accessible —the US has invested over $640 million (€620.6 million) in Moldova since 1992.

The actual financial commitment through grants and indirect funding mechanisms has probably hit the several  billions in payments for the whole country.

USAID “backbone” of the Ukrainian media landscape

Across the Moldovan border in Ukraine, USAID’s influence is, perhaps, even more pronounced.

Via Internews Network Ukraine, USAID funded a network of social media-driven news platforms in Ukraine, including New Voice of Ukraine, VoxUkraine, Detector Media and the Institute of Mass Information.

These outlets have published reports targeting figures including US economist Jeffrey Sachs, Republican commentator Tucker Carlson and journalist Glenn Greenwald, portraying them as part of a “Russian propaganda network”.

According to Wikileaks, Internews Network globally has ties with the Democratic Party in the US.

Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information in Ukraine, said an estimated 80 per cent of Ukrainian media outlets have collaborated with USAID in some capacity.

While this support has been instrumental in sustaining independent journalism during the ongoing conflict with Russia, it has also raised questions about the extent of US influence over Ukraine’s media environment

A report by the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), titled US Aid Freeze Numbs Ukraine, revealed that USAID was “reaching deep into areas of the state and civil society” in Ukraine.

Funding for independent media has been drawn from a $290 million (€281 million) pool allocated for democracy, human rights and governance initiatives.

These efforts, framed as support for democratic values, have also underscored the significant leverage the US holds over Ukraine’s media and civil society sectors.

USAID’s involvement in the media landscape has intensified following the outbreak of the war with Russia in 2022.

Since 2021, the organisation has provided technical support to 66 local media outlets in Ukraine, aiming to bolster independent journalism in the face of Russian disinformation and propaganda.

In the UK, the publicly-owned BBC acknowledged that USAID contributed to 8 per cent of its BBC Media Action charity funding in 2023-24.

“Like many international development organisations, BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8 per cent of our income in 2023-24. We’re doing everything we can to minimise the impact on our partners and the people we serve,” the charity stated on its website.

While it is not directly linked to the BBC’s core news operations, that has raised questions about foreign funding in public media-led enterprises.

Similarly, it was revealed that US-owned international news outlet Politico received money via subscription to its Politico Pro platform from the US government.

Although this funding is not directly allocated to Politico’s journalism activities, subscriptions to Politico Pro — used by policymakers and industry leaders — are a source of revenue for the media organisation.

Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media giant that also publishes the German Bild, Bild am Sonntag, Welt, Welt am Sonntag, as well as the TV channel Welt, Business Insider and the US newsletter Morning Brew.

Washington’s involvement in European media has extended beyond direct funding to local outlets.

Perhaps the most explosive revelation came in December 2024, when French investigative outlet Mediapart exposed the extent of US control over the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

According to Mediapart, Washington has supplied half of OCCRP’s budget, retained veto power over senior staff appointments, and directed investigations targeting political regimes opposed by the US, such as those in Russia and Venezuela.

OCCRP’s 2023 audit report confirmed $11 million (€10.6 million) in funding from US agencies.

This revelation has sparked concerns about the independence of OCCRP and the potential for US influence to shape its investigative priorities.

The White House’s involvement in European media and civil society appeared to be part of a broader strategy.

A paper from the US Congressional Research Services published in 2022 argued that US foreign assistance was an essential instrument of the country’s foreign policy.

“Foreign assistance is the largest component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many Members of Congress as an essential instrument of US foreign policy,” the document stated.

It revealed that in the 2019 financial year, US foreign assistance totalled an estimated $48.18 billion (€46.7 million) of the federal budget authority.

The report said that meant US foreign assistance served the United States’ soft power and sharp power ambitions around the globe. It likened it to the Marshall Plan after the Second World War that was designed to rebuild European economies so they could resume trade with the US, benefiting US industries.

In Albania, for instance, the US has recently committed $20,000 to initiatives aimed at preventing hate speech and discrimination.

While modest compared to other regions, the funding reflected a broader pattern:  Washington’s use of financial support to advance its foreign policy interests or liberal ideals.

Observers ask, where does support for democracy end and influence begin?

The US government’s funding of media and civil society organisations has reshaped narratives and counteracted Russian influence in Eastern and Central Europe.

But at what cost? Critics have argued this financial involvement risked undermining the very independence it was designed to protect.

On February 3, USAID worldwide funding was officially halted for 90 days.

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Larry Ellison Pushes for AI-Powered National Data Centralization and Mass Surveillance

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 14, 2025

Oracle co-founder and the company’s executive chairman and chief technology officer Larry Ellison is trying to persuade governments to descend deep into AI-powered surveillance dystopia by centralizing the entirety of their national data in a single place.

And when he says everything should go into this “unified” database, Ellison means everything. That includes health-related data, such as diagnostic and genomic information, electronic health records, DNA, data on agriculture, climate, utility infrastructure…

Once in there, it would be used to train AI models, such as those developed by Oracle – Ellison shared with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during a panel at the World Governments Summit in Dubai.

As for why any government would do such a thing – his “sell” is that it would allow AI to be used to provide better services. But this time, he left out how this centralization would also represent an exceptional opportunity to “turbocharge” mass government surveillance, even though there is little doubt that many governments are hearing him loud and clear on that point as well.

In September, Ellison wasn’t so coy regarding this angle when he spoke in favor of introducing real-time population surveillance. And naturally, that would be done with Oracle’s machine learning tech.

“As long as countries will put their data – all of it – in a single place we can use AI to help manage the care of all of the patients and the population at large,” Ellison told Blair.

As over the top, as all this may sound, Ellison appears to figuratively and literally mean business: he revealed that his company is building a 2.2 gigabyte data center to train AI models and spending “between 50 and 100 billion dollars” on these endeavors.

And, he suggested that massive amounts of data would not be the only thing centralized in a handful of places, going forward – the same is true of the AI model training, because of the high price tag attached.

In other words, Ellison’s vision of the future is complete control over everyone’s data in the hands of governments and a select number of super-rich companies capable of building and running this infrastructure for them.

Ellison also told Blair about Oracle’s AI-powered biometric ID that’s currently used only to log into the company’s system:

“The computer recognizes you. It recognizes your voice. It might ask you to put your index finger on the return key. And we know, we’re absolutely certain it’s you. There’s no reason to enter a password.”

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

House panel seeks Columbia Palestine protesters’ disciplinary records

Al Mayadeen | February 14, 2025

The US House Committee on Education and the Workforce demanded Columbia University turn over disciplinary records by the end of this month for students who participated in anti-“Israel” protests between April and January 2024, denouncing the Ivy League University’s handling of the students.

The House panel sent a six-page letter to the university leadership saying that the university failed to deliver its promise to students, faculty, and Congress that it’d address “anti-semitism”, saying that “Columbia’s continued failure to address the pervasive anti-semitism that persists on campus is untenable, particularly given that the university receives billions in federal funding.”

The letter cites the protesters taking over the campus last year, and students disrupting an Israeli professor’s lecture this semester. The letter adds that Columbia failed to properly discipline those responsible, which created a “hostile environment for members of Columbia’s Jewish communities.”

Trump cracks down on student protesters

Students across major universities in the US launched anti-war, pro-Palestine protests across the country, setting up solidarity encampments, with some students calling for their universities to cut ties with “Israel.”

Trump signed an executive order that allows the US government to use “all available and appropriate legal tools to combat anti-semitism, including prosecuting and deporting those accused of anti-Semitic harassment,” with the order targeting pro-Palestine student protesters.

The current US president vowed to expel student protesters from the United States and get rid of pro-Palestine protests to a group of donors saying, “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.”

American-Zionist group World Betar compiled a list of names of students on Visas to send to Trump to deport them for joining in anti-“Israel” protests after the group launched a campaign to identify these students.

Columbia professor, NYU students persecuted over pro-Palestine activism

Earlier last month, Katherine Franke, a law professor and outspoken supporter of pro-Palestine students, parted ways with Columbia University on January 11, following an investigation into comments she made about Israeli students. This marked the consequence of activism surrounding Gaza on a major university campus amid the ongoing Israeli genocide.

Franke, a tenured professor, had supported pro-Palestine students amid protests at the university last year. She was one of several faculty members investigated for alleged anti-semitism.

She described her departure as “a termination dressed up in more palatable terms,” stating in a Friday statement that she agreed to leave due to Columbia becoming a “toxic and hostile environment.” Columbia University spokesperson Samantha Slater confirmed that a complaint had been filed accusing Franke of discriminatory harassment in violation of university policies, leading to an investigation.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group, condemned the end of Franke’s career at Columbia as an “egregious attack on both academic freedom and Palestinian rights advocacy.”

In a related context, more than a dozen NYU students and faculty distributed flyers and hung banners throughout the Bobst Library, while 13 individuals staged a sit-in on the library’s administrative floor.

The protesters were demanding a meeting with university administrators, who had previously promised to reveal details of the university’s endowment, including investments in weapons manufacturers and companies linked to “Israel” and its occupation of Palestine, during the spring Gaza solidarity encampment movement.

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment