US House speaker rules out more Ukraine aid
RT | December 4, 2024
The US House of Representatives will not consider President Joe Biden’s request to include $24 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in a continuing government funding bill, Speaker Mike Johnson has said.
In the absence of a formal budget, the US government has been funded through “continuing resolutions” that Congress needs to approve periodically. The White House has requested the $24 billion as part of the last such piece of legislation the House would need to adopt before adjourning for Christmas holidays.
“I’m not planning to that,” Johnson said on Wednesday, at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now.”
The Louisiana Republican reminded reporters that he had predicted Donald Trump’s election would change the dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and make further US funding unnecessary, adding that this is precisely what’s been happening in recent weeks.
“We have a newly-elected president and we’re going to wait and take the new commander-in-chief’s direction on all of that,” Johnson said. “So I don’t expect any Ukraine funding to come up now.”
Since February 2022, the US Congress has approved more than $174 billion to prop up Ukraine in its ongoing military conflict with Russia. The latest batch of funding, amounting to $61 billion, was held up for several months amid a battle between Johnson and the White House.
The previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was ousted last October because a group of Republicans was outraged he had secretly negotiated with Democrats to get the Ukraine funding approved. The funding ended up stuck in Congress for almost six months, before it was approved in both the Senate and the House in April, with no concessions to the GOP.
US embassy in Kiev blocking Zelensky interview – Tucker Carlson
RT | December 4, 2024
American journalist Tucker Carlson has said the US government has been blocking his attempts to organize an interview with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for more than a year.
On Wednesday, Carlson published a video on X in which he previewed the upcoming release of an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The journalist said the conversation with Russia’s top diplomat was aimed at providing a perspective on how close Washington and Moscow could be to a direct clash, after the administration of outgoing US President Joe Biden granted Ukraine permission to fire American-made long-range weapons deep into Russian territory.
In the same clip, filmed on Manezhnaya Square in the heart of Moscow, the former Fox News host revealed that “we have also tried for over a year to get an interview with Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.”
According to Carlson, his team “have attacked that from a bunch of different angles. We have spoken to a lot of different people around him, had dinner with them. We have been in talks continuously.”
“And those efforts have been thwarted by the US government. The American Embassy in Kiev, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelensky government: No, you may not do the interview. You can talk to CNN. You cannot talk to us,” Carlson said.
In June, the journalist said he had agreed an interview with the Ukrainian leader. However, Zelensky’s press-secretary, Sergey Nikiforov, swiftly rejected the claim, saying that “Tucker Carlson should check his sources in the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) more carefully.” Zelensky “has a completely different schedule, and Tucker Carlson is not on it,” Nikiforov stressed.
Carlson’s latest trip to Moscow is his second since the escalation between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022. In February, he interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the recording of their two-hour conversation getting 14 million views on YouTube and 185 million views on X in the first three days after its release.
Why Ukrainian Soldiers Are Deserting
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 4, 2024
A November 29 article in the Los Angeles Times stated that the Ukrainian military is facing a big problem with desertions:
Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war against Russia’s invasion, which could put Ukraine at a clear disadvantage in any future cease-fire talks… Tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity, according to soldiers, lawyers and Ukrainian officials. Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers. Some take medical leave and never return, haunted by the traumas of war and demoralized by bleak prospects for victory. Others clash with commanders and refuse to carry out orders, sometimes in the middle of firefights.
The explanation for the desertions turns on what Ukrainian soldiers have been fighting, killing, and dying for ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ever since the start of the war, U.S. officials, the U.S. mainstream press, and Ukrainian officials have steadfastly maintained that the war is about “freedom.” They say that Russia engaged in an “unprovoked” attack on Ukraine with the aim of conquering and subjugating the country and enslaving the Ukrainian people. From there, we’ve been told, Russia’s aim is to head west, conquer Europe, cross the English Channel and take England, cross the Atlantic and conquer South America, Central America, and Mexico, and then, ultimately, invade and conquer the United States.
The scenario is essentially a replay of the old Cold War racket, where Americans were told that there was an international communist conspiracy to take over the world, one that was centered in Moscow, Russia — yes, that Russia — the same one that is now supposedly doing the same thing today except for the communist part.
The big problem is that the official narrative of why Russia invaded Ukraine was a lie from the get-go. The war between Russia and Ukraine has never been about freedom. It was always about NATO, the military alliance that played a central role in the old Cold War racket. Specifically, it was about the Ukrainian government’s wish to join this old Cold War dinosaur at the behest of the U.S. government.
Is joining NATO worth dying for? Not for me — and obviously not for the large number of Ukrainian soldiers who are now deserting.
For a while, the Ukrainian people bought into the lie that was being fed to them by their own government and by U.S. officials. In the early days of the war, Ukrainians were rushing to join the military to fight for their “freedom.” But over time, many Ukrainians have come to the realization that the war never had anything to do with freedom. It was always about the “right” of the Ukrainian government to join NATO, which is something that is very different from freedom.
There is another important aspect to this phenomenon: the central responsibility that the U.S. government has for this massive disaster. It was the U.S. government, especially the Pentagon, that led the way toward the expansion of NATO eastward, with the aim of ultimately absorbing Ukraine, which would enable the Pentagon to install its bases, tanks, troops, and nuclear missiles along Russia’s border. Throughout that move eastward, Russia continued beseeching U.S. officials to stop and instead to comply with their repeated promises to not expand NATO an inch eastward after the ostensible end of the Cold War.
But the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — i.e., the U.S. national-security establishment — insisted on breaking those repeated promises. Ending the Cold War was the last thing they wanted to do. It had been too big a cash cow for them. They were not about to let it go without a fight. They knew that by expanding eastward toward Russia, in violation of their repeated promises they had made to Russia not to do that, they could succeed in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. It was an ingenious — and diabolical — strategy, one that got them what they wanted — a renewed Cold War plus a hot war in which the U.S. government is using the Ukrainian people as its sacrificial puppets — and getting Russia and the United States ever closer to the prospect of all-out nuclear war.
We also mustn’t ignore the role of the U.S. mainstream press has played in this deadly, destructive, or sordid affair. Whenever critics point out the U.S. scheme that successfully provoked Russia into invading Ukraine, the U.S. mainstream press dutifully describes the criticism as repeating “Russian talking points,” implying that the criticisms cannot possibly be true.
While Ukrainians are now deserting the military, U.S. officials are exhorting their Ukrainian counterparts to crack down on their people. According to that L.A. Times article, “The U.S. urges Ukraine to draft more troops, and allow for conscription of those as young as 18.” Undoubtedly, U.S. officials are advocating the adoption of such coercive measures in the name of “freedom.”
Western plans to damage Russian economy have failed – Putin
RT | December 4, 2024
Western attempts to defeat Russia on all fronts, including inflicting damage to the country’s economy, have clearly failed, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The elites of “certain nations” have proven to be unreliable trade partners as they have tried to damage Russian interests in recent years, Putin said in his opening speech at the Russia Calling! investment forum.
“We often hear that those nations set the goal to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia in political, military and economic spheres. Including in terms of economics and technology,” he stated.
“They sought to drastically weaken our industry, finances, the service industry in our country, to create an insurmountable deficit of goods in our market, to destabilize the labor market, to degrade living standards for our citizens.”
The Russian economy has not only recovered from the initial damage caused by the attacks on it, but has also undergone a structural transformation beneficial to it, Putin added. The government has worked hard to improve the logistics of international trade used by Russian businesses and strengthen ties with friendly partners, which has helped the national economy to grow, he stressed.
The Russian government and businesses are working on improving the national financial infrastructure by introducing novel mechanisms, such as remote identification of clients by banks, Putin said. Such changes require a legal framework, and they make the national currency more convenient for international trade.
The expression “strategic defeat” was used by the administration of US President Joe Biden to describe the consequences that the Ukraine conflict would supposedly have for Russia. Washington and its allies have seized Russian state assets and imposed unilateral economic restrictions, as well as threatening third parties with punishment should they trade with Russia in a way not sanctioned by the West.
Despite Western efforts, Russia remains strongly active in international trade. Some nations in the EU continue buying Russian-sourced energy, openly defying Brussels’ calls to divest, while others do so through intermediaries, according to researchers monitoring supplies. Last month, Bloomberg warned that the latest round of US sanctions, which targeted Russia’s Gazprombank, threaten to cause an energy crisis in Western Europe.
The Pardoning of Hunter Biden’s Crimes in Ukraine
By Professor Glenn Diesen | December 3, 2024
Joe Biden promised not to pardon his son Hunter Biden, and was subsequently celebrated by the media for being principled and standing up for the rule of law. However, in a not-so-surprising move, Joe Biden reversed his position and issued a sweeping pardon with an incredible legal breadth. The pardon protects Hunter Biden from any crimes he may have committed over the past decade, since January 2014. This date is no accident, as it marks the beginning of the Biden family’s seedy and likely criminal activities in Ukraine.
Joe Biden was the Vice President when the West backed a coup in Ukraine in February 2014. The US sought to cement its control over Ukrainian resources for economic interests and as an instrument for political influence. Joe Biden involved his son to personally enrich himself and his family.
Three months after the coup, Hunter Biden and a close family friend of US Secretary of State, John Kerry, became board members of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The job paid $50.000 a month despite Hunter Biden having no experience or competencies in the gas industry or Ukraine. In 2017, the NATO think tank Atlantic Council and Burisma signed a cooperative agreement, with a focus on “energy security”.
Ukrainian General Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, opened a corruption case against the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Joe Biden subsequently intervened by having Ukraine’s General Prosecutor fired with the threat of withholding a $1 billion US loan guarantee. Shokin, complained that since 2014, “the most shocking thing is that all the [government] appointments were made in agreement with the United States”. Washington’s behaviour, according to Shokin, indicated that they “believed that Ukraine was their fiefdom”.
Vice President Joe Biden insisted that the decision was not related to Burisma or his son, as he falsely alleged that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealing”. However, Hunter Biden’s business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, confirmed in July 2023 that Joe Biden was deeply involved in Hunter Biden’s business.
Scandals threatened Joe Biden’s campaign during the 2020 presidential election as the content of Hunter Biden’s communications was leaked. The criminal activities of Hunter Biden, which seemingly could implicate his father, could likely result in Trump winning the election.
The intelligence community intervened in the election as more than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter, published in Politico, supporting the narrative that the Biden laptop scandal was a Russian disinformation campaign and did not prove the crime of the Biden family. Twitter and Facebook immediately censured the story, while tensions with Russia escalated.
One year later, in September 2021, Politico acknowledged the authenticity of the Hunter Biden emails and that Russia was not involved in any way. Mark Zuckerberg also admitted that Facebook had been pressured to censor Hunter Biden laptop story, which was direct election interference in favour of Joe Biden.
Joe Biden’s pardon of his son’s decade-long involvement in Ukraine implicitly entails pardoning Joe Biden himself. It is very unlikely that anyone will be held accountable for the Biden crimes in Ukraine, and there will be continued loss of trust in both the legal system and the media.
War and peace, NATO troops, sanctions & more | Hungarian FM’s interview
Sanctioning RT is ‘double standards and hypocrisy’
RT | December 3, 2024
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto gave an exclusive interview to RT on Monday. Here’s the full text of the conversation:
Host Saskia Taylor:
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary – it is a great honor to be able to sit down with you. Thank you so much for your time. I know that you are a very, very busy man. The first thing, let’s jump right in. I mean, in a recent interview, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, he said that Russia’s deployment of the missile Oreshnik, should be quote, “something to make us all think.” What was Budapest thinking that night, and do you think it will indeed compel your European counterparts to reassess their strategies when it comes to the war in Ukraine?
Hungarian FM Peter Szijjarto:
There has been a feeling with us for more than 1000 days now. And this feeling of ours becomes stronger and stronger every day. Especially when we experience such kind of events like launching that missile or when we experience decisions from others, which decisions should be considered as irresponsible. So day by day, our feeling that peace must be made is getting stronger and stronger. We understand that with every other day spent in this war, there are more people dying, more destruction taking place and more serious threat of escalation comes forward. So all these events show to us that the peace mission of ours must be strengthened, must be more and more active, and we have to do our best in order to help peace to come as soon as possible. Most likely starting with a ceasefire, which would give the chance to those who are involved to sit around the negotiating table and discuss about an agreement leading towards sustainable peace in our region.
Host:
I mean, one other soon-to-be leader, again, who has campaigned for peace in the way that the Hungarian prime minister has, is of course incoming US President Donald Trump. He’s beginning to pick his team, and Keith Kellogg has been tapped to be special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
Now, I wonder, do you think that his appointment and his mediation could help bring a resolution to the conflict closer? And do you think that there will be sensitivity under a Trump administration to Moscow’s position? I only ask that because Keith Kellogg specifically has said on a number of occasions we need to, quote, “help Ukraine win.”
Szijjarto:
First of all, I think that it has to be put into consideration that a democracy must be built on the will of the people. And what happened on the presidential elections in the United States? There were two candidates with totally differing positions on many issues. But if I have to name the issue where the opinion of the two have totally been different, then I would name, of course, migration, but then the issue of the war in Ukraine. Donald Trump had a totally different vision compared to this war than Kamala Harris, because Kamala Harris was speaking about the continuation of the strategy of the American administration, impacts of which we are quite aware of, unfortunately. But President Trump represented a different approach, because he was speaking about making peace. And at the end of the day, the American citizens have made a very clear decision. So, to make peace in Ukraine, is basically a will of the American people as well. So what we have seen so far since the elections in the form of decisions of the still incumbent American administration is basically neglecting the will of the people, going against the will of the people. So in order to give the respect to the American citizens who made a clear decision in order to ensure safety, stability, and security in the central or eastern part of Europe, the only way to move forward is making peace. In this regard, the fact that the incoming president nominates a person, an experienced one, a respected one, with the aim of resolving the conflict, the war – I think it’s a good news on its own.
On the other hand, I have had the honor to accompany my prime minister on a number of meetings with President Trump, even after the war has broken out. And what I experienced during these meetings is that President Trump really believes in the necessity of making peace. And knowing him, because politics is a job of experience, so knowing him from his first term, whatever he would like to do, he makes his best in order to deliver.
I think that since the presidential election of the United States has taken place, we have the best hope for this war to come to an end since it had broken up. I would say that now we are faced with the most serious risk of escalation ever since this war has broken out, because the decisions made by the incumbent American administration and some Western European administrations since the US elections are very dangerous. We are living in the neighborhood, I don’t have the luxury to speak on behalf of a country an ocean away. I’m speaking on behalf of a country which is next door, and those measures which are bringing the danger of escalation are putting danger on us as well. We don’t want others to put danger on us. Therefore, we have now been strengthening our efforts when it comes to the peace mission. That’s why I came to Moscow today and I hope that my visit, my discussions today will contribute to peace to come as soon as possible.
Host:
Very interesting. You mentioned, of course, I don’t want someone else to put me at risk. But of course, when you’re part of a bloc like the European Union, it is a bit all for one and one for all – at least that’s the view from Brussels.
And I do want to get your take on something because President Putin believes, and actually, you know, I hear this from a number of guests on our programs – and what I am struck by is that they’re mainly actually from Germany – is that they say that Europe has lost its independence and has ceased to be a politically sovereign entity when it comes to international affairs specifically. And I just wondered, do you think that’s a reasonable assessment? And kind of just on a personal level, not just as a minister, but as an EU citizen, how that makes you feel?
Szijjarto:
Since this war has broken out it is obvious that most of the European leaders have lost their own voice in this regard. On many occasions I hear European leaders including my colleagues, foreign ministers or the high representative, speaking about speaking in a way that we always compare our contribution to the American one. I think it’s a very, very bad and harmful approach from the European perspective. Why? Because the war does take place here in Europe. There are European people dying, there is destruction taking place in Europe, and the European economy is faced with the impacts and the consequences of this war. Therefore, following the US policies without any kind of criticism, that’s a big mistake. I do believe that the strategy the European Union has been following in the recent 1000 days is a failed one, because Europe weakened a lot in the last almost three years.
I do believe that instead of globalizing the conflict, the right strategy would have been to localize it and to do everything in order to resolve it, to make peace, instead of pouring oil on the fire, which has been the case.
We are the only country in Europe or European Union which has not delivered weapons to Ukraine. We are the only country in NATO, almost the only one, which speaks openly about the red lines which must be kept seriously. We are the ones who speak openly about our assessment that NATO is a defense alliance and not an attack alliance.
In the upcoming days, we will have many debates in Europe, because we have OSCE ministerial coming, we have NATO ministerial coming. There will be tough debates and we are praying really hard that until the 20th of January nothing happens which would make things irreversible.
Host:
Well, you obviously talked there about how Budapest has become almost a lone voice in Europe and amongst many Western nations. When it comes to the Ukraine issue, I mean, Viktor Orban, he’s vehemently opposed to pumping Kiev with weapons. He’s also very, very critical of any idea of sending foreign troops to the country either as, quote, peacekeepers or actual combat units.
But then, like you all said, on the other hand, we do have players – and you didn’t say that, but I’ll say it – Baltic states, for example, or the UK, which they’ve gone down a different path.
They seem to be beating the drums of war, and they’ve even advocated for sending NATO troops there. When you’re in these meetings, what do you make of their arguments? And as we speak now, how great do you think the danger is of Europe being dragged into a full war with Russia? And I say full quite specifically because obviously many would argue that Russia is already at war with the West. I mean, Boris Johnson admitted it himself just a few days ago.
Szijjarto:
You might remember when our prime minister has visited Moscow during the summer, I was honored to accompany him on his meeting with President Putin and you might remember that huge attack on him. Huge attack on him, on his government, on our country for visiting Moscow and completing or trying to complete a peace mission. You see that there are many pro-war politicians in Europe. When I sit on the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council with other foreign ministers and listen to some, I’m so sad that such kind of extreme pro-war positions are present that’s why we paid a lot of attention on what would be happening in the United States, because if President Trump had not won, now we might be involved in something which we would never want to be involved in. But with President Trump entering office, I think we have a good hope that peace will come instead of Europe would be dragged into a full-scale war. I think that even speaking about sending troops is extremely dangerous, because we have seen in the recent days, weeks and months, that even a piece of miscommunication or misunderstanding can be extremely dangerous. Therefore, the words of politicians have a weight even under peaceful circumstances, but in case of a war, it’s not just to wait, but it’s a risk as well. Everybody should be aware of that, and sometimes I have the feeling that it is not everybody who is aware of that, or even worse, they are aware, but they say this deliberately. That’s why I think that now everybody who is in favor of peace must increase the volume.
Host:
I mean, Hungary has become a bit of a rogue actor in Brussels, if you don’t mind me saying that.
Szijjarto:
Black sheep!
Host:
Black sheep. No, well, we love black sheep here, so we’re very happy about that. But advocating for economic neutrality, like you’re coming here, business is business, but also against bloc confrontation, whether that’s against Russia, whether that’s against China, for example, as well.
How difficult has it been to resist the pressure? And just from an insider’s perspective, I understand you can’t give us all the secrets of what goes on, but just a sense of really how much people demand that one toes the line?
Szijjarto:
It’s a huge hypocrisy there, because those who are advocating against us with those who usually compete for those investments which are coming from China to Europe. Currently, 44% of all Chinese investments targeting Europe are now targeting Hungary, and that makes a lot of other countries very, very jealous. Why? Because these investments are very modern ones, these investments are investments into the future, these are state-of-the-art, creating thousands of new jobs, offering good salaries. Other countries want that as well, so while the German foreign minister speaks about decoupling, de-risking, of Western and Eastern economies. If you come to Hungary, you see the Chinese and the German factories being constructed next to each other. You see the Chinese companies supplying the Germans, making them successful, vice versa, this is how it works normally on the field of everyday life. For us, economy and energy must not be a matter of political ideology, this is physical and mathematical reality. We don’t let ourselves to be dragged into a debate on philosophical basis, because, for example, energy.
I mean whether you can heat your house or flat, whether you can run your economy with a press conference, with a philosophical debate, with a press statement? It’s impossible. With gas, with oil, with nuclear fuel? Well, that’s the way. Therefore, for us, economic neutrality is common sense. Don’t confuse things which have nothing to do with ideology and political approach.
Host:
And of course, it’s usually the average person who pays the price of ideology. Look at Germany’s industrial…
Szijjarto:
Look at the sanctions, look at the sanction regimes. The sanction regimes of the European Union ended up in extremely high inflation, extremely high energy prices, food prices, and these are all paid by the citizens, by the people.
Host:
…Volkswagen shuttering three factories, laying off potentially tens of thousands, Ford moving some of its production facilities outside of the EU…
Szijjarto:
While Mercedes is building its second factory in Hungary, while BMW is constructing its new factory in Hungary, while the biggest electric battery manufacturers are constructing their factories in Hungary. It might make sense to think about why.
Host:
I’m sold on Hungary – I’m moving to Hungary. Turning now to another big story that I think I really would like to touch upon. Quite a violent one too, the events that are unfolding in Georgia, in Tbilisi. Four nights, four or five nights of terrible protests. What’s the view from Budapest on all of that?
Szijjarto:
Very simple. If it had been the opposition to win that election, there would be no protests, there would be no external pressure, and everybody would praise the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. But it’s not Brussels, it’s not Washington, it’s not Berlin, it’s not Paris to decide, but the Georgian people. The Georgian people made a very clear decision. High turnout, more than 50% support to the ruling party, that should be respected.
My problem is, that this is very general in Europe. In the case it is not the liberals to win an election, the democratic nature of the whole country and the whole political system is being questioned immediately. If it is liberals to win, everything’s fine. If it’s patriots to win, if it is conservatives to win, if it is right-wing to win, the nature of democracy is immediately questioned, and this is totally unacceptable. Look at our case, we have been under attack for the last 15 years in the European Union, we have been under financial sanctions. Why? Because we are not ready to speak according to the liberal mainstream, to act according to the liberal mainstream. We are conservative, patriotic, for us national interest is number one. For us, family consists of a mother and the father and the children, where father is a man, mother is a woman.
Host:
And now you’re in EU court because of it.
Szijjarto:
We protect our children, we protect our country, we protect our border, and we are under financial sanctions. If the opposition had won in Georgia, everybody would be so happy with the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. That’s the case.
Host:
And of course, with your eastern neighbor, Romania, an interesting situation there is also developing. It’s kind of election season. Parliamentary elections seem to have gone to the pro-EU, pro-Atlantic direction party, but the presidential vote is already a bit scandalous, the first round, because an anti-war NATO critic won and immediately we heard calls, “foreign interference, he’s pro-Russia,” a vote recount was ordered and we’re expecting a decision from the top Romanian court about whether the vote should be annulled at all.
I mean, what does that say about the state of democracy, but also, of course, the mood amongst Romanians?
Szijjarto:
First of all, for us Hungarians, the parliamentary elections were more important in this regard, and the party of the Hungarians has achieved fantastic results, above 6% of the votes, making a very strong representation and a strong voice of the Hungarians in the Bucharest parliament. That’s very, very important. I think we should leave it to the Romanians to decide in the second round whom they want. I think that mutual respect should come back to international political life, and I usually refrain from making comments on domestic issues of other countries because, they are their citizens. They have to make decisions, as there are Hungarian citizens making decisions about the future of Hungary, which should not be questioned and challenged by anyone. For us, the great news is that the Hungarians made a good performance on the parliament elections and the Romanians will decide soon on the second round of the presidential election.
Host:
And closer to home for you, something that’s kind of developing at the moment. Hungarian media citing intelligence services, they’ve reported that they’re in touch with their Slovak counterparts discussing possible threats of attacks to energy infrastructure. Of course, we saw on Sunday that a part of the Druzhba pipeline – very important of course for Hungarian energy security – but a part in Poland was damaged. I mean, who… I mean I know, I understand you don’t want to hypothesize, but fine, then I’ll ask you, what could possibly be the goal behind actors who are concocting these kinds of plots?
EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Read more EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Szijjarto:
Since the Nord Stream was blown up, we have to take the issue of protection of critical energy infrastructure extremely seriously, and it’s really outrageous, that even until the very day it was not investigated seriously who has committed a terrorist attack against critical European infrastructure.
Since then, we have to be aware of the risk being put on the energy infrastructure in our neighborhood, we have to be attentive, we have to be aware, we have to take care of this. And yes, Druzhba pipeline is vital from our perspective, no question. And I do hope that all countries where this pipeline runs through, do their best in order to prevent any such attacks.
Host:
And finally, I’m sure many would consider you a very brave man, Mr. Szijjarto, because here you are in Russia, the most sanctioned country on Earth, not just in the winter, which is always a brave move, but also of course at a time of war. And you’re talking to me, you’re talking to RT, which apparently is the global media pariah, so much so that the British Ministry of Defence apparently has got a special unit dedicated to trying to silence us. We’ve been banned, we’ve been blocked, we’ve been smeared. What was your reaction when Europe took RT off of the airwaves? And how did it tally with, of course, the principles of free speech, which Brussels claims at least to champion?
Szijjarto:
Of course, this is double standards and hypocrisy because those Europeans who love to teach everyone. They love to refer certain values, among them freedom of speech and freedom of media. And they usually attack others based on those principles. But when they look at themselves, they cannot be too self-confident either.
So for us sanctioning church, sports, media, energy always raises serious question marks. And I do hope that soon we will get rid of all these sanction measures because they have caused more harm to the European Union than to Russia, I guess.
Syrian Army foils US-backed SDF offensive in Deir Ezzor: Sources
Al Mayadeen | December 3, 2024
The clashes initiated today by militants belonging to the Deir Ezzor Military Council, affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), toward the seven peaceful villages in Deir Ezzor, have ended, and the militants have withdrawn to the positions from which they launched their attack in northern Deir Ezzor, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported on Tuesday.
The Deir Ezzor Military Council stands for armed groups supported by US occupation forces, operating under the SDF and controlling areas north of the Euphrates River, where several US military bases are located.
Our correspondent further reported the complete withdrawal of the SDF militants after their failed attempt to advance toward the seven peaceful villages in northern Deir Ezzor, after American artillery at the Conoco field provided heavy fire cover for their assault.
Earlier, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent confirmed that US occupation forces had instructed Deir Ezzor Military Council militants to launch an attack on Syrian Army positions in the seven villages in the Deir Ezzor countryside, coinciding with an offensive by the terrorist Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group and other opposition factions on Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama countrysides.
The seven villages are located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, in the northern Deir Ezzor countryside. They are: al-Hussainiya, al-Salihiya, Hatla, Marrat, Mazloum, Khasham, and al-Tabiya, all of which are under the control of the Syrian Army.
Our correspondent added that Deir Ezzor Military Council militants had brought in mine-clearance vehicles and began removing the earthen berm on the Khasham front, northern Deir Ezzor.
Intense clashes were reported between Deir Ezzor Military Council militants and the Syrian Army on the outskirts of the towns of al-Salihiya, Marrat, and al-Tabiya in northern Deir Ezzor, where the US-backed militants shelled Khasham village in Deir Ezzor countryside with 12 mortar rounds.
Violent clashes were also reported between the militants and the Syrian Army on the al-Salihiya front in northern Deir Ezzor.
The Syrian Army units also captured 14 members of the SDF-affiliated Deir Ezzor Military Council during the attack that targeted the northeastern countryside of Deir Ezzor, Sputnik reported.
Moreover, SANA reported that the Syrian army is engaged in violent clashes with armed groups north and west of the town of Khattab in the northwestern countryside of Hama, with dozens of terrorists killed and wounded in the vicinity of the towns of Deir Ezzor and the northern countryside of Hama.
SDF attack aims to stop Resistance attacks on US occupation base
Sources told Al Mayadeen that the Americans’ goal in supporting the SDF’s attack is to stop the Resistance attacks on the Conoco base due to its proximity to these villages.
The attack was carried out under American cover and was thwarted by the army, allied forces, and locals, the sources confirmed.
According to the sources, the SDF initiated the attack by firing rockets and shells, which inflicted damage on the residents’ property.
The sources mentioned that the Syrian Army and allied forces repelled an attack by the SDF on the seven villages, north of Deir Ezzor, and forced them to withdraw.
Syrian Army repelling attack on liberated villages
Meanwhile, Syrian state TV said earlier the army and its allied forces were repelling an attack by the Deir Ezzor Military Council on the liberated villages in the al-Jazira region.
The Syrian army, along with allied forces, is also repelling an attack launched by SDF forces in the Deir Ezzor countryside, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.
On its part, the Syrian Ministry of Defense confirmed that Syrian and Russian airstrikes and missile strikes have targeted militant positions in the southern Idlib countryside and northern Hama, pointing out that the strikes resulted in dozens of fatalities and injuries among the militants, as well as the destruction of their vehicles and weapons.
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent later reported that the Syrian-Russian air forces destroyed a command center belonging to armed groups in the Khan Sheikhoun area in the southern Idlib countryside.
HTS militants launched a wide-scale offensive last Wednesday on areas in the countryside of Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama, managing to enter the city of Aleppo.
The Syrian Army subsequently established a defensive line in the northern Hama countryside and launched a counteroffensive against the militants, regaining control of villages and towns in the northern part of the province.
Qatar seeking solution
Commenting on the events, Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari confirmed that “Doha is working with its partners in the region to find solutions to end the fighting in Syria.”
Qatari media quoted Al-Ansari as saying, “We emphasize that there should be a comprehensive solution in Syria based on international resolutions.”
Ensuing disagreements
In a related context, the sources told Al Mayadeen that disagreements erupted after HTS demanded that the so-called “National Army” militants evacuate the sites they had taken control of north of Aleppo.
The sources said that disagreements emerged between the HTS operations room and the “National Army’s” operations room over control positions in Aleppo and its countryside.
Iran says it’s ready to send troops to Syria
RT | December 3, 2024
Tehran would consider a full military deployment to aid Syria if the government in Damascus requests it, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said.
The comments came during an inteview that Araghchi gave to the Qatar-based outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on his way back from Türkiye on Monday evening.
“If the Syrian government asks Iran to send troops to Syria, we will consider the request,” Araghchi was quoted as saying.
Tehran is preparing “a series of steps to calm the situation in Syria and find an opportunity to present an initiative for a permanent solution,” he added.
Militants of al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS) and other Islamist groups launched a large-scale offensive from Idlib province towards Aleppo, Hama and Homs last week. Idlib has been under Turkish protection since a ceasefire negotiated with Russia in 2020.
The expansion of these terrorist groups “may harm Syria’s neighboring countries such as Iraq, Jordan, and Türkiye more than Iran,” Araghchi told the Qatari outlet.
Tehran is willing to “consult and dialogue” with Ankara to bridge their differences, Araghchi noted, but said that Iran demands a withdrawal of Turkish troops from Syria before any meeting between their presidents can take place. According to the Iranian foreign minister, this is a “reasonable” request.
Iran is “concerned about the collapse of the Astana process in Syria, because there is no easy alternative to it,” according to Araghchi. This was a reference to the deal signed in 2017 in the capital of Kazakhstan, in which the governments in Damascus, Ankara, Tehran, and Moscow pledged to work on resolving the Syrian conflict peacefully.
Araghchi also said he intended to visit Moscow to discuss the situation in Syria.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Ankara supports “Syria’s territorial integrity and national unity” but that ending the conflict required a “consensus in line with the legitimate demands of the Syrian people.” His foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, said on Monday that the hostilities resumed because Damascus ignored the “legitimate demands of the opposition.”
Meanwhile, Russia has reiterated its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and the government in Damascus.
The Russian expeditionary force, deployed to Syria in 2015 to help Damascus fight against Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS) terrorists, has carried out a series of airstrikes against the attacking jihadists in support of the Syrian army.
Intercept exposes contradictions in Google’s Project Nimbus claims
Al Mayadeen | December 3, 2024
According to The Intercept, Google has defended its controversial cloud computing contract with the Israeli government, Project Nimbus, by stating it follows the company’s standard cloud computing terms of service, though internal documents reveal the agreement operates under an “adjusted” policy tailored by Google and “Israel,” the specifics of which remain unclear.
Despite widespread criticism, Google’s Project Nimbus—a $1.2 billion deal—provides the Israeli government and military with access to advanced cloud and AI technologies, and while Amazon has largely remained silent, Google continues to downplay the project’s military implications, despite Israeli statements highlighting its benefit to the “defense establishment.”
Google has sought to reassure critics concerned about its partnership with the Israeli government, which is under investigation by the International Criminal Court, by stating that the Project Nimbus contract adheres to the company’s standard cloud terms and regulations, which prohibit uses that violate legal rights or cause harm.
The Google Cloud terms of service, among other things, ban uses that “violate, or encourage the violation of, the legal rights of others,” any “invasive” purpose, or anything “that can cause death, serious harm, or injury to individuals or groups of individuals.”
However, critics argue that the terms of the contract remain non-negotiable and heavily favor the Israeli government.
A previously unpublished email from Google lawyer Edward du Boulay reveals concerns about the terms of the Project Nimbus contract, stating during the submission of Google’s bid that if the company wins the contract, it would have to accept a non-negotiable agreement with terms favorable to the Israeli government, including limited ability to sue “Israel” for breaches and unilateral rights for “Israel” to impose changes to the contract.
The Intercept’s analysis of Israeli government contract records reveals that the standard terms of service do not apply to Project Nimbus; instead, a modified set of terms has been implemented. The documents show that the Israeli occupation government has the authority to use the cloud services for any purpose, contradicting Google’s claims that Nimbus is not intended for sensitive or military uses.
UNESCO’s New Mission: Train Influencers About Combatting Online “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 2, 2024
The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is now incorporating teaching influencers how to “fact check” into its activities.
UNESCO claims that influencers have become “primary sources of news and cultural information” around the world – which prompted it to carry out a survey into how these online personalities verify the “news” they present.
Citizens in UN member-countries may or may not be happy that this is how their taxpayer money funding the world organization is being spent these days. But UNESCO is not only conducting surveys; it is also developing a training course for said influencers (which are also interchangeably referred to as content creators in press releases).
It’s meant to teach them not only to “report misinformation, disinformation and hate speech” but also to collaborate with legacy media and these outlets’ journalists, in order to “amplify fact-based information.”
The survey, “Behind the screens,” was done together with researchers from the US Bowling Green State University. 500 influencers from 45 countries took part, and the key findings, UNESCO said, are that 63 percent of them “lack rigorous and systematic fact-checking protocols” – but also, that 73% said they “want to be trained.”
This UN agency also frames the results as showing that respondents are “struggling” with disinformation and hate speech and are “calling for more training.”
UNESCO is justifying its effort to teach influencers to “rigorously” check facts by referring to its media and information literacy mandate. The report laments that mainstream media has become “only the third most common source (36.9%) for content creators, after their own experience and their own research and interviews.”
It would seem content creators/influencers are driven by common sense, but UNESCO wants them to forge closer ties with journalists (specifically those from legacy, i.e., traditional media – UNESCO appears very eager to stress that multiple times.)
Under the guise of concern, the agency also essentially warns creators/influencers that they should be better aware of regulations and “international standards” that pertain to digital media – in order to avoid “legal uncertainty” that exposes them to “prosecution and conviction in some countries.”
And now, UNESCO and US-based Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a one-month course which is currently involving 9,000 people from 160 countries. The goal is to train them to “address disinformation and hate speech and provide them with a solid grounding in global human rights standards.”
The initiative looks like an attempt to get “traditional” journalists to influence the influencers, and try to prop up their outlets, that are experiencing an erosion in trust among their audiences.
Soros, sanctions and propaganda: How the US secretly controls the ‘world’s largest investigative journalism organization’
RT | December 3, 2024
An investigation published on Monday by France’s Mediapart and its partners, including Drop Site News (US), Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy), and Reporters United (Greece), has uncovered that the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the world’s largest investigative journalism network, is secretly controlled by the US government.
The report reveals that Washington has provided around half of the organization’s funding and has significant sway over its leadership and editorial direction, raising questions about the independence of the network’s reporting.
US govt funds more than half of OCCRP budget
Since its founding in 2008, the OCCRP has received at least $47 million from American government sources. This accounts for approximately half of the organization’s overall funding, making the US state the largest donor by far.
The OCCRP’s financial dependence on the US government has led to concerns about the potential influence of Washington on the organization’s editorial stance, particularly given the US government’s strategic interests.
According to Drew Sullivan, the OCCRP’s co-founder and publisher, the US government remains the organization’s largest donor, providing crucial financial support for its operations. In an interview with German state broadcaster NDR, Sullivan acknowledged, “I’m very grateful to the US government” for its support.
While OCCRP officials insist that government grants come with “impenetrable guardrails” to protect journalistic integrity, critics will argue that such substantial funding creates a structural dependence that could affect editorial independence.
Washington has veto power over OCCRP leadership
In addition to providing substantial funding, the US government also wields significant influence over the OCCRP’s leadership. Washington has the right to veto key personnel appointments within the organization, including the nomination of its publisher, Sullivan. Under agreements with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other government bodies, the OCCRP must submit resumes of potential hires for senior roles to the American government for approval.
USAID’s Shannon Maguire confirmed this in a statement, saying the agency has the “right to have its say” on personnel decisions. Sullivan himself admitted in an interview that the US can use this veto power, although he maintained that it has never been exercised. “If they veto somebody, we can say we don’t take the money,” he said. The power to dictate appointments, however, underscores the US government’s influence over the OCCRP’s leadership.
Soros provides significant funding
In addition to the US government, the OCCRP has also relied on funding from private donors, including the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the pressure group founded by Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros. While OSF’s contributions are significant, they have not raised the same concerns about influence as the US government’s donations, as far as the authors of the investigation are concerned.
Still, OSF’s role adds to the complex web of financial support that the OCCRP has received over the years.
OCCRP founded based on secret US govt grant
The OCCRP’s origins are tied directly to US government funding. In 2007, the US State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) provided the initial $1.7 million to establish the network. This secret funding, funneled through the Journalism Development Group (JDG) controlled by Sullivan, was key to the creation of the OCCRP.
Sullivan’s relationship with USAID and the US government dates back to the early 2000s, when he worked on a USAID-funded initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina to train local journalists. He later used his connections to secure funding from the US government to establish the OCCRP. The fact that such an influential journalistic network was born out of a covert US government grant raises concerns about the independence of its operations.
US govt funds investigations aimed at opponents such as Russia
One of the most striking revelations of the investigation is that the US government has directed the OCCRP to focus its investigations on specific countries, including Russia and Venezuela. The OCCRP received $2.2 million from the US to investigate Russian media in an effort dubbed ‘Balancing the Russian media sphere’.
Similarly, the organization was granted $2.3 million to investigate corruption in Cyprus and Malta, two locations where Russian business people have significant financial interests.
By funding investigations that target certain countries, the US government has influenced the scope of the OCCRP’s reporting, ensuring that its investigations align with American geopolitical interests. The OCCRP has worked on several high-profile international investigations, including ‘Cyprus Confidential’, which exposed Russian citizens allegedly using the island as a tax haven to bypass sanctions. These investigations are clearly in line with US foreign policy priorities.
OCCRP reports weaponized to justify US sanctions policy
The OCCRP’s investigative reports have also been used by the US government to justify its foreign policy, particularly sanctions. Through the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC), a program co-financed by the US State Department, OCCRP investigations have been directly linked to judicial actions and sanctions procedures.
The US government uses the OCCRP’s findings to push for greater sanctions on individuals and entities it frames as being associated with corruption, often targeting countries such as Russia and Venezuela.
Sullivan confirmed that the OCCRP works closely with governments, including the US, to apply the findings of its investigations in ways that support broader international policy goals. “We believe the GACC has proven to be highly successful,” Sullivan said. This program has been instrumental in lobbying for tougher anti-corruption and anti-money laundering legislation, he adds, often in countries that the US government sees as adversaries.
Propaganda tool designed to advise US foreign policy interests
The revelations of the OCCRP’s close ties to the US government will fuel criticism that the organization is not simply an independent journalistic entity, but rather a tool used by the US to promote its foreign policy interests. While the OCCRP maintains that it operates independently, its reliance on US funding and its role in advancing US political goals suggests that its reporting may be subject to external influence, particularly when it comes to issues that affect US geopolitical priorities.
As one director of a South American media outlet put it, “The OCCRP makes the US seem virtuous and allows them to set the agenda of what is defined as corruption.” While the OCCRP continues to investigate corruption in many parts of the world, its close financial relationship with the US government raises significant questions about the organization’s independence and the potential for its work to be used as a tool of American foreign policy.
In conclusion, the findings from Mediapart and its partners highlight the complex and often hidden relationship between the OCCRP and the US government. Despite its protestations, the scale of its financial dependence on the US government and the influence that Washington has over its operations will hardly be ignored.
Return Funding for Reliable Energy to the World’s Poorest
By Brenda Shaffer | Real Clear Energy | November 25, 2024
A centerpiece of President Biden’s agenda was a government led effort to greatly reduce production and consumption of fossil fuels. One of the key policies Biden enacted to pursue this goal was ending of public finance for fossil fuel projects. This policy attracted little public attention or scrutiny, since it had little impact on Americans. The policy mainly impacted the global poor, especially in Africa, which lost access to funding to develop electricity capacity. While ending public finance for fossil fuels provided a feel good moment for the Biden administration and governing elites in other wealthy countries, it hurt the world’s poorest, did not impact climate change and created an opportunity for China to increase its geopolitical influence in Africa and beyond. Cancellation of these restrictions on public finance for fossil fuels should be on the day one list of the incoming Trump administration.
States in the developing world have difficulty attracting commercial investments in their domestic energy sectors, especially for electricity provision. While rich countries that pay high prices for electricity can rely on the private market to develop power capacity, developing countries rely on loans and grants from public finance institutions, like the World Bank and regional development banks, and foreign aid to develop electricity for their populations.
In 2021, the United States together with the G-7, ended finance and loans for fossil fuel based energy projects, leaving the developing world with few finance options for electricity development, which is key to economic growth and poverty reduction. As part of Washington’s climate policies, in August 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced guidelines to Multilateral Development Banks stating that the “United States will promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy.” The U.S. has top influence at the multilateral banks, as the main donor thus frequently the World Bank adopts U.S. led policies. In 2019, the World Bank had already stopped funding for fossil fuel production. In December 2021, the G-7 member countries formally ended public finance for fossil fuel projects, including natural gas. At the UK sponsored COP26 in Glasgow, the signatories declared: “we will end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector within one year of signing this statement.
Through cutting finance to fossil fuels, the Biden administration and the G-7 states believed they could force the developing world to establish renewable projects instead of fossil fuel based electricity. However, most countries rejected this offer. Their energy professionals understood better than the bureaucrats sitting in Washington or Brussels, that today’s renewable energy cannot provide the stable and affordable power that will allow their publics to move up out of poverty. Moreover, wind and solar require baseload power from fossil fuels to provide constant power. Thus, even renewable projects require funding for fossil fuels.
Reducing access to fossil fuels does not mean that pollution and emissions will decrease. In fact, lack of access to stable and affordable electricity produced from fossil fuels, will likely lead to an increase in pollution, emissions and threats to public health. Humans need energy for basic functions, such as heating, cooking and purifying water. If energy is not available, humans will burn dung, lump coal, wood and other biomass. This generates greater pollution, carbon emissions and health threats, than production of electricity from fossil fuels, especially natural gas.
There are several geopolitical implications of the West’s halting of public finance. One, China can reap geopolitical influence through its role as the main funder for energy projects in the developing world. Second, the West’s retreat from finance for fossil fuel projects can generate antagonism in the developing world against the West, as indifferent to the suffering caused by energy poverty. Third, lack of reliable power in the developing world contributes to increased instability in many affected parts of the globe. Fourth, the cessation of public finance for fossil fuels can lead to a slowdown in expanding electricity access in the developing world. For the first time in close to a century, global electricity access declined in 2022 and in 2023 it remained close to flat. Today, one in ten people on the globe do not have access to regular electricity.
The new administration should overturn this prohibition and encourage the G-7 to do the same. The new administration should clarify to the World Bank its support for funding for natural gas and other fossil fuel projects that would benefit the world’s poor. Luckily, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright is passionate about extending energy access to the world’s poor and has been involved in philanthropy that enables clean cooking for many years.
Reversing this policy and many other Biden era energy policies will not be simple. While some energy policies can be eliminated through Congressional legislation and executive orders, the ban on public finance for fossil fuels was adopted by multi-lateral frameworks, including the G-7, and international agencies, such as the World Bank. The Trump administration will encounter headwinds in attempting to change the policies. It is important to clarify widely that these policies have hurt the world’s poor and need to be reversed. Washington should consider withholding funding to agencies it funds that deny the world’s poor access to funding for electricity.
