Biden Team Calls For Social Media “Disinformation” Censorship Action After G7 Mishap Goes Viral
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 16, 2024
The Biden administration is grappling with backlash as a video depicting President Joe Biden appearing vacant and wandering off, separating from his G7 peers circulated widely online. The footage, in which Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni directs President Biden back in the right direction for the planned photo opportunity, quickly gained traction and has spurred accusations from the media that conservative outlets are disseminating the clip without adequate context, suggesting a deliberate skewing of Biden’s actions.
In response to the spreading video, Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for Biden’s campaign, labeled the footage “disinformation” and has called on social media platforms to remove or limit its distribution.
“Disinformation is alive and well,” she told MSNBC. “… And, look, we’re gonna see more of this. I mean, this is just the reality of campaigning in 2024. So we have to combat that disinformation. We have to hit it hard when it happens and make it clear that these are dirty tactics that MAGA Republicans are using because they can’t run on the issues.”
Elrod also said, “We’re going to do what we can to combat it but it does take the voices of surrogates across the country. It does take the media to call it out.” Elron also called on social media platforms to do something about it, “It does take social media platforms where a lot of Americans are getting their information to point it out as well.”
This move aligns with previous instances where the Biden team has sought to manage narratives, notably during the October 2020 pre-election period when allegations regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the censorship demands of the COVID era.
With Elon Musk’s platform X refusing to censor the content, the Biden camp’s concern has intensified, facing the challenge of countering the narrative without the aid of content suppression on this major social media outlet.
Critics argue that such attempts to control media narratives through censorship are detrimental to public discourse, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the free exchange of ideas, even if they are unfavorable to those in power.
Full video in context:
Cancelling “Controversial” Scholars
BY GLENN DIESEN | JUNE 16, 2024
In response to an article in Khrono, I want to challenge the label “controversial” that was used to describe me. Controversial means that there are strong and conflicting opinions to what I am arguing.
But academics should use scientific methods to challenge established truths. This is particularly important in international conflicts where consensus in society is to a large extent shaped by the human instinct to respond to threats with conformity and solidarity.
Every time there are attempts to censor and cancel me, it is based on the fact that I have “controversial” arguments about Russia and the war in Ukraine. If my arguments are based on hard facts that are important for understanding the war in Ukraine, then it can still be labeled as “controversial” if it contains information that has been left out of the public debate.
Let me give one example of how reality can become “controversial”. There is now a strong consensus in Norwegian society that Russia’s invasion was not a reaction to NATO expansionism, but motivated by territorial expansion. Was this established truth shaped through the scientific method where freedom of speech allowed us to present all the facts? Or has society been under enormous pressure to present this conflict as a battle between good and evil forces, where even explaining is condemned as defending? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia invaded to prevent NATO expansion, yet it is never reported in the media. How is it possible that none of our journalists report on facts that can be proven and are of the highest relevance to the public to understand this conflict?
In war, the human instinct to seek safety in the group is strengthened. We only discover in retrospect that the war narratives were full of errors, and that the poor analysis led to a bad policy that harmed our own security interests. Since the demand for conformity is great and we punish dissent and deviation from the group, academia is an important balance as ignoring reality undermines the possibilities for peace.
If we believe that Russia will continue to invade new countries, then it supports the argument that “weapons are the path to peace” – even if it could result in a major war. But if Russia wants limitations on NATO’s presence along their borders, then there are possibilities for peaceful solutions.
When the word “controversial” is combined with “pro-Russian”, it becomes impossible to discuss arguments. Suspicion of the person becomes the main focus. The term “pro-Russian” is a charged and tendentious term as it suggests that the person concerned has chosen a side against our country, that there is loyalty with the out-group against the in-group.
I argue that the West’s policy towards Russia over the past 30 years has put us on a collision course and undermined our own security. Should this be labeled as “pro-Russian” and “anti-Western” arguments? The point of departure for conflict resolution is understanding the other party’s security concerns. Is it possible to analyze international security with such restrictions on freedom of expression?
It is possible that I am wrong in my analysis of Russian intentions and there are obviously counter-arguments, but in academia and in an open society, arguments must be allowed to compete in order to get the best possible understanding of reality.
Labeling dissenters as “controversial” is a method of legitimizing censorship and cancellation. This is particularly problematic as the strong consensus in society was formed by leaving out very basic information.
Russian news photographer killed in Ukrainian drone strike
RT | June 16, 2024
Russian news photographer Nikita Tsitsagi has died from injuries sustained in a drone strike in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the portal News.ru reported on Sunday. According to the publication, the correspondent was killed in an attack by Ukrainian drones in the area of the Nikolsky Monastery near the Donbass city of Ugledar, where he was filming a report.
The tragedy was confirmed by Tsitsagi’s colleagues working in the area and local operational services. The details of the incident are unclear so far.
Tsitsagi collaborated with several Russian media outlets, including TASS and Lenta.ru. In June last year, he received the ‘Editorial Board’ journalistic award for a report he did on the Ukraine conflict and its repercussions in the Russian border town of Shebekino in Belgorod Region.
Earlier this week, another photojournalist, NTV crew member Valery Kozhin, died from wounds he suffered in a Ukrainian drone attack on Gorlovka, also in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Kozhin was filming in the area when a mortar round exploded on top of his crew. Journalist Aleksey Ivliev and an accompanying Russian military officer were also injured.
At least 30 Russian journalists have lost their lives in the Ukraine conflict since it began in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a press briefing during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) earlier this month. Among them are Boris Maksudov, who worked for Russia 24 TV, RIA Novosti’s Rostislav Zhuravlev, Tavria TV’s Oleg Klokov, and RuBaltic’s Aleksey Ilyashevich.
Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukrainian forces of deliberately targeting members of the Russian press who are reporting from the frontline. Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova lashed out at international human rights organizations, including the UN, for remaining silent in the face of Ukrainian attacks. She accused them of becoming Kiev’s accomplices in “this monstrous hunt for our correspondents” and encouraging further atrocities.
BRICS Members Reject Joint Declaration at Swiss Ukraine Conference
Sputnik – 16.06.2024
The BRICS countries, as well as several other states that attended the Swiss-hosted summit on Ukraine did not sign a joint declaration on the results of the talks on Sunday, according to the signatory list.
Earlier in the day, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said that the text of the declaration had been finalized and that Kiev’s positions had been taken into account.
The list of countries that signed the final declaration was displayed by the organizers on the screens of the press center at the Buergenstock resort where the summit was held. The document was signed by 80 countries out of 92 present, but Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, the Holy See, India, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates did not sign it.
The Ukraine conference is taking place this weekend at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucerne. It includes 92 countries and 55 heads of state, as well as eight organizations, including the EU, the Council of Europe, and the UN. However, US President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and leaders of many other countries did not attend. Some participants, such as US Vice President Kamala Harris and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, left early.
Russia was not invited to the summit. The Kremlin commented that trying to find solutions to the Ukrainian conflict without Moscow’s involvement is completely illogical and unpromising.
War on Gaza failed, war with Hezbollah ‘catastrophic’: Ex-Israeli Gen
Al Mayadeen | June 16, 2024
The war on Gaza has “lost its purpose” and its continuation for the past months has caused “Israel” losses on multiple fronts, Reserve Major General Yitzhak Brik underlined.
Brik has become a prominent critic of both the Israeli government and the military command’s performances, pointing to their failure in several sectors.
During an interview for 103 FM Radio, an affiliate of Israeli news outlet Maariv, Brik emphasized that the war on Gaza continues solely for the benefit of the occupation’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
As for the ongoing operation in the southernmost city of the Gaza Strip, Rafah, the former commander said that “Israeli objectives have not been achieved in the city, as in all of Gaza.”
He noted that the Israeli military is yet to reach or discover many of the Palestinian Resistance’s strategic tunnels. Moreover, Brik described the current proceedings in Rafah as “shameful”, explaining that Israeli occupation forces are not actually fighting Palestinian Resistance fighters, rather “they [Resistance fighters] are booby-trapping the roads and we [Israeli occupation forces] are being killed.”
“We have reduced the army’s capability over 20 years to the point where it cannot defeat Hamas,” he said in reference to the Palestinian Resistance.
War with Hezbollah to be catastrophic
As for the northern front with Lebanon, Brik stressed that any decision by the current Israeli government under the leadership of Netanyahu “will bring catastrophe to Israel.”
He said that the Israeli military cannot currently intercept Hezbollah’s missiles and drones. He then went on to question what would happen in occupied territories if thousands rather than dozens of rockets, drones, and missiles were fired at Israeli positions.
The Israeli occupation is currently suffering the ails of losses on multiple fronts, as its Brigades fail to contain Hezbollah’s responses and attacks in support of Palestine. At the same time, the Israeli occupation continues to admit to increasing losses across the Gaza Strip, where it was revealed that 10 officers and soldiers were killed in the Strip on Saturday.
With no plans for the day after the war being discussed within the coalition government, Israeli military defeat, inept attempts to replace the Resistance in the Gaza Strip, and the uncertainty of success on the Northern Front Israelis have once again slipped into anti-government protests.
On the other hand, the Palestinian Resistance and supporting factions across West Asia seem more united than ever in their fight against the Israeli occupiers.
How Hamas Defeated Israel
By Ted Rall – Sputnik – 16.06.2024
When residents of the Middle East woke up on the morning of October 7, 2023, the Palestinian cause was in a sorry state.
700,000 radical Israeli settler-colonists and sealed-off “military zones” occupied 60% of the occupied West Bank, which was blockaded by a Berlin-style border wall, so much that the United Nations human rights chief no longer believed that Palestinian sovereignty was even theoretically possible. The occupied Gaza Strip was subject to an Israeli blockade that destroyed the economy and drove the unemployment rate to 80%. President Donald Trump had moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem—a strong signal to Palestinians that the world would never allow them their own State—and Joe Biden had let it stay there. Muslim nations that had previously supported the Palestinian struggle (Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco and Sudan) normalized diplomatic relations with the hard-right government of Israel; Oman, Indonesia, Somalia and Saudi Arabia were expected to follow.
The world, including numerous Arab governments, had forgotten the Palestinians.
By the end of the day, everyone remembered them.
It had been necessary, Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s top leadership told The New York Times two weeks after the attack, to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash. We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.”
Whether you call it terrorism, asymmetric warfare, guerrilla warfare or resistance, an action like the October 7th raid on an Israeli music festival and nearby kibbutzim is a disadvantaged, underarmed and poorly-situated group’s attempt to flip the game table, catch an adversary by surprise and scramble the positions of the players in order to create a different situation.
It’s also a test of their adversary. More about that below.
Hamas has accomplished its objectives. Israel’s saturation bombing and starvation campaign launched after October 7th, which military analysts call the most brutal and systemic assault against a civilian population since World War II, shocked Muslims (and many other people) around the world. Under pressure from their subjects, the Saudis now say they will only consider a normalization deal that explicitly guarantees Palestinian statehood—something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to consider. Biden, a self-declared Zionist and faithful supporter of the Jewish state throughout his career, now says he wants a two-state solution. He has also threatened to withhold arms, though using weasel words to justify redefining his “red line.” 61% of voters in the United States, to which Israel owes its creation and its closest military ally by far, now say the U.S. should stop supplying all weapons to Israel.
The long-ignored Palestinian issue is so “back on the table” that Democrats worry that they might lose the battleground state of Michigan and the presidency due to the state’s substantial Arab population.
Many Israelis and their supporters fail to grasp the reality of the current situation. How can Hamas be winning? they ask. Israelis support the war effort and the IDF has only lost a few hundred troops, a fifth of them to friendly fire and accidents. Gaza, on the other hand, has been flattened. The IDF has killed at least 37,000 Palestinians, though Ralph Nader is surely closer to the truth when he estimates the total number, including the bodies buried under tens of millions of tons of rubble, at 200,000. Israel’s obvious objective, the expulsion of the surviving population and annexation of Gaza into Israel, appears tantalizingly close.
Yet, the Hamas leader Yehiya Sinwar was right when he told his close associates recently: “We have the Israelis right where we want them.”
The Israelis have committed the cardinal error of warfare: underestimating the intelligence of your enemy. Of course Hamas’ leaders knew exactly what Israel would do in response to October 7th. They have studied Israel’s behavior repeatedly over decades: when attacked, Israel always responds with overpowering force, much of it directed against civilians. And they don’t care how it looks. “Hamas knew Israel would strike back hard. That was the point,” Rita Katz of the SITE Intelligence Group told The Washington Post. “To Hamas, Palestinian suffering is a critical component in bringing about the instability and global outrage it seeks to exploit.”
The IDF always tortures civilians and demolishes homes and other infrastructure at an extravagant scale. So, like a chess player, Hamas goaded its aggressive adversary into a fierce attack because it was willing to make sacrifices—Hamas fighters, Palestinian civilians, Gazan infrastructure—in order to obtain something even more valuable.
As we’ve seen recently in northern Gaza, Hamas remains a potent military force able to engage the IDF in street combat. But survival isn’t Hamas’ primary objective. Making Israel look evil is—and Israel has fallen into their trap.
The test Israel faced on October 7th was: can we exercise restraint? Like the United States, which faced a similar test on 9/11, Israel failed miserably. Israel’s over-the-top craziness has fulfilled Hamas’ main goal, which was to expose the Israeli government as bloodthirsty, oppressive monsters unworthy of the support of the world upon which it depends.
As a result, most of the world now recognizes Palestinian sovereignty. The International Criminal Court has ordered Israel to stop its military actions in southern Gaza. The International Court of Justice is preparing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. And the United Nations expressly states that Israel is morally and ethically the same as Hamas, a terrorist organization guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Never mind the two-state solution — it’s dead, and not only because of Netanyahu. The globe is moving toward a new consensus: an end to the Israeli ethnostate from a bygone colonial era, replaced by a one person-one vote post-apartheid democracy.
Looking back to October, the only way Israel could have won at war with Hamas was to learn the lesson of the classic 1980s movie “War Games”: don’t play. Imagine, if you can, how Hamas’ leadership would have felt had Israel refused to take the bait on October 7th, responding only with pinpoint raids to try to rescue hostages, or negotiating for them, while playing the weeping victim for the cameras. It would have been a devastating moral and political defeat and the beginning of the end for the cause of Palestinian liberation.
Israel wanted Gaza. They may not even keep Israel.
Palestinian Resistance’s response to ‘Israel’s’ ceasefire proposal
Al Mayadeen | June 14, 2024
Al Mayadeen obtains a document outlining the fundamental principles of the Palestinian Resistance’s response to the Israeli proposal, as presented by US President Joe Biden, regarding the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip.
After the Palestinian Resistance in the Gaza Strip recently submitted its response to the American proposal for a ceasefire, including comments and amendments reflecting its conditions, Al Mayadeen acquired a document outlining the basic principles of the response document.
Here is the text of the Resistance’s response:
Here are the foundational principles for an agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian sides in Gaza concerning the exchange of detainees and prisoners, as well as achieving sustainable calm.
This text outlines the fundamental principles for an agreement, referencing the Palestinian response to the Israeli proposal dated May 6, 2024.
The framework aims to release all Israeli captives in the Gaza Strip, including civilians and soldiers, regardless of their status (alive or deceased) or the duration of their detention. In exchange, there would be a reciprocal release of an agreed-upon number of prisoners held in Israeli prisons, to achieve a state of calm.
To achieve a permanent ceasefire, the following steps are proposed: the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the reconstruction of Gaza, and the lifting of the blockade. This includes opening all border crossings to facilitate the movement of residents and unrestricted transport of goods.
The framework agreement consists of three related and interconnected stages as follows:
The first phase (42 days)
1. Both parties agree to temporarily cease military operations, with Israeli forces withdrawing eastward and away from densely populated areas to position themselves along the border throughout the Gaza Strip. This includes the Philadelphi Axis and the Gaza Valley (Netzarim Axis and the Kuwait roundabout), as outlined below.
2. Temporary cessation of flights (both military and reconnaissance) over the Gaza Strip daily, to be restricted to 10 hours, extended to 12 hours on days designated for the exchange of captives and prisoners.
3. The agreement includes provisions for returning displaced individuals to their respective areas of residence, along with the withdrawal of forces from the Philadelphi axis and Gaza Valley (specifically the Netzarim axis and the Kuwait roundabout).
- On the third day (following the release of three detainees), Israeli forces will fully withdraw from the Rafah crossing, the entire Philadelphi Axis, and eastward from al-Rashid Street to Salah al-Din Street. All military sites and installations in the area will be dismantled by no later than the seventh day. From the first day, displaced individuals will begin returning to their residences (without carrying weapons), and residents will enjoy unrestricted movement throughout the Gaza Strip. Additionally, humanitarian aid will enter via al-Rashid Street from the outset without restrictions.
- By the 22nd day, Israeli forces will withdraw from the central areas of the Gaza Strip, specifically the Netzarim Axis and the Kuwait Roundabout axis, to a nearby border area. All military sites and installations in this zone will be dismantled. Displaced individuals will continue returning to their residences throughout the Gaza Strip, without carrying weapons, with a focus on facilitating their return from the South to the North. The agreement ensures unrestricted freedom of movement for the population across all areas of the Gaza Strip.
- From the first day onwards, a substantial amount of humanitarian aid, relief materials, and fuel will be delivered, totaling 600 trucks daily. This includes 50 fuel trucks, with 300 allocated for the northern regions. The aid will support the operation of power stations and trade activities, and provide equipment for rubble removal, hospital rehabilitation, and operational needs across Gaza’s health services and bakeries. This humanitarian assistance will be sustained throughout all phases of the agreement.
4. Prisoner-captive exchange between both sides:
During this initial phase, Hamas will release 32 Israeli captives, including both living individuals and the remains of the deceased. This group includes women (both civilians and female soldiers), children (under 19 years who are not conscripts), elderly individuals (over 50 years old), and civilians who are sick or wounded. In exchange, an agreed number of prisoners held in Israeli prisons and detention centers will be released.
- Hamas would release all living Israeli captives, which includes civilian women and children (under 19 years old who are not conscripts). In return, “Israel” agrees to release 30 women and children for each Israeli captive released, based on lists provided by Hamas, according to their date of capture.
- Hamas would release all living Israeli detainees, including elderly individuals (over 50 years old) and sick or wounded civilians. In exchange, “Israel” agrees to release 30 elderly individuals (over 50 years old) and any sick or wounded civilian detainees for every Israeli captive, based on lists provided by Hamas sorted by the oldest arrests.
- Hamas would release all living Israeli female captives and recruits, in exchange for “Israel” releasing 50 detainees from its prisons for every Israeli female captive released (30 sentenced to life, 20 to other sentences) based on lists provided by Hamas.
5. Mechanism for exchanging detainees and prisoners between the two parties during the first phase:
- By the third day, Hamas will release three Israeli captives, prioritizing civilians. By the seventh day, Hamas will release three Israeli captives, prioritizing civilians.
- Afterward, Hamas will release three Israeli detainees every seven days, beginning with women (both civilians and soldiers, if possible), and prioritizing all living detainees for release before addressing the transfer of body parts and remains of the deceased.
- In return, “Israel” will release the agreed-upon number of detainees in Israeli prisons for every Israeli captive who is released, provided that this happens simultaneously and on the same day according to the lists that Hamas will provide.
- During the sixth week, Hamas will release the remaining detainees included in this stage. In exchange, the agreed-upon number of detainees will be released from Israeli prisons simultaneously and on the same day, based on lists provided by Hamas.
- By the seventh day, Hamas will disclose the available information regarding the number of Israeli detainees to be released in this phase, contingent upon “Israel” providing adequate information to Hamas and relevant international authorities regarding Palestinian prisoners and detainees from the Gaza Strip, particularly those arrested after October 7, 2023.
- On the 22nd day, “Israel” will release all detainees who were re-detained following the Gilad Shalit deal.
- If the number of Israeli detainees to be released in this stage does not reach 32, Hamas will supplement the release with body parts or remains of the deceased from the same categories outlined for this stage. In exchange, “Israel” will release all women, children (under 19 years old), patients, and elderly individuals (over 50 years old) who were arrested from the Gaza Strip after October 7, 2023.
This exchange is expected to occur during the fifth week of this phase.
- The standards and criteria for a prisoner-captive exchange in this stage will apply to the two individuals, Hisham al-Sayyed and Avera Mengistu if they are confirmed to be alive.
- The exchange process is contingent upon adherence to the terms of the agreement, which include halting military operations by both parties, withdrawing Israeli forces along the border including the Philadelphi Axis and Rafah crossing, facilitating the return of displaced persons to their homes, and ensuring the unrestricted entry of humanitarian aid.
6. The Palestinian detainees who are liberated will not be re-detained on the same charges for which they were initially detained. “Israel” will not reincarcerate these prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentences, nor will they require them to sign any documents as a condition for their release. These measures will be accompanied by necessary legal procedures to ensure compliance with these terms.
- Restoring the conditions of prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention camps to what they were before October 7, 2023, including those who were arrested after this date.
7. The principles and criteria for exchanging detainees and prisoners in the first phase mentioned above do not serve as the basis for negotiating the exchange criteria in the second phase.
8. By the 16th day at the latest, indirect discussions will commence between the two parties to finalize the criteria for exchanging detainees, including conscripts and remaining individuals, for the second phase. This process must be completed and agreed upon before the end of the fifth week of this phase.
9. The United Nations, its agencies (including UNRWA), and other organizations will actively engage in providing humanitarian services across all areas of the Gaza Strip, a commitment that will be sustained throughout all stages of the agreement.
10. Infrastructure rehabilitation (including electricity, water, sewage, communications, and roads) across all areas of the Gaza Strip will commence immediately from day one. Necessary equipment for civil defense, public works, and municipal services will be deployed for debris removal and reconstruction, a process that will persist throughout all phases of the agreement.
11. The necessary supplies and resources will be provided to accommodate displaced persons who lost their homes during the war, ensuring a minimum of 60,000 temporary homes and 200,000 tents.
12. An agreed-upon number of wounded soldiers will be permitted to travel (at least 50 per day) through the Rafah crossing. Restrictions on travel will be lifted, and the movement of goods and trade will resume from the first day of this phase.
13. Arrangements and plans are underway for the reconstruction of homes, civilian facilities, and infrastructure destroyed during the war. Those affected will receive support and compensation under the supervision of several countries and organizations, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.
14. All procedures from this stage will carry over into the second stage, encompassing temporary cessation of military operations by both parties, relief efforts, shelter provisions, withdrawal of Israeli forces, cessation of flights, and more, until a sustainable calm is declared, marking a permanent cessation of military and hostile operations that comes into effect.
Negotiations will persist under the guarantee of mediators until both parties agree on the criteria for exchanging captives and detainees during the second phase.
The second phase (42 days):
15. Announcing the restoration of sustainable calm, which signifies a permanent cessation of military and hostile operations, will take effect before the captive-prisoner exchange between the two parties.
This exchange will involve all remaining Israeli male captives who are alive (both civilians and soldiers), in exchange for an agreed-upon number of detainees from Israeli prisons and detainees from Israeli detention centers. Additionally, it includes the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.
The third phase (42 days):
16. Both parties will exchange all body parts or remains of the deceased after their arrival and identification.
17. Initiate the Gaza Strip reconstruction plan, scheduled to span three to five years, encompassing the rebuilding of homes, civilian facilities, and infrastructure to support and compensate all affected groups. This effort will be overseen by several countries and organizations, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.
18. Ending the complete siege of the Gaza Strip entails opening all border crossings, notably the Rafah crossing, to facilitate the movement of residents and goods. Additionally, ensuring uninterrupted electricity supply throughout all areas of the Gaza Strip is paramount.
Guarantors of this agreement:
Qatar, Egypt, the United States, the United Nations, Turkey, Russia, and China
NYT Claims to Reveal 2022 Russia-Ukraine Peace Drafts: Key Details and Missed Opportunities
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 15.06.2024
Russia and Ukraine were close to concluding a peace treaty in April 2022, but the Kiev regime tore the deal up at the last minutes after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pressured Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign.
The New York Times has published what it claims is the full text of then 2022 draft peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.
The never-signed documents — treaty drafts dated March 17 and April 15, 2022 — were purportedly leaked to the newspaper by Ukrainian, Russian and European sources.
Kiev ultimately pulled out of the deal, brokered by Turkey over several weeks of talks in Istanbul between Russian and Ukrainian negotiating teams from February to April of 2022, after then-British prime minister Boris Johnson promised huge arms supplies from NATO countries.
According to the key points from the document:
- Ukraine had to maintain permanent neutrality and not engage in wars on the side of a guarantor state or any third country
- The guarantors of Ukraine’s security and neutrality would be Great Britain, China, Russia, the US and France, with Belarus and Turkiye also mentioned
- Ukraine would not be allowed to conduct military exercises involving foreign armed forces without the consent of the guarantors
- The guarantors pledged not to form military alliances with Ukraine, not to interfere in its internal affairs and not to deploy troops on its territory
- All mutual sanctions and bans between Russia and Ukraine were to be lifted, but certain provisions of the agreement did not apply to Crimea, Sevastopol and territories marked on a map in the appendices — which the NYT did not provide
- Pages 11 and 12 specified personnel, weaponry and equipment limits for the Ukrainian Armed Forces during peacetime: no more than 342 tanks, 1,029 armoured vehicles and 96 multiple rocket launchers, based on Russia’s demands
- The maximum firing range for multiple rocket launchers and missiles was set at under 280 km. Ukraine also pledged not to produce or domestically purchase weaponry of greater range
After Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russian and Ukrainian delegations engaged in several rounds of peace talks. Talks in Turkiye took place in March 2022 but ended without signing any documents. In November 2023, Ukraine’s former chief negotiator with Russia, David Arakhamia, said then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked Kiev out of signing an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict. In October 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky signed a decree stating that Kiev could not hold peace talks as long as President Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia.
German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag claimed in April it had obtained the 17-page draft peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.
It stated that while the sides had come close to sealing a peace treaty, The Zelensky regime objected to terms restoring Russian as an official language and Kiev’s repudiation of Nazism.
Efforts to strike a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine were thwarted by Johnson at the behest of the US, Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin said in February.
“He blocked the peace efforts with Washington’s blessing, obviously, because he could not do it on his own accord,” Kelin told Turkish broadcaster TRT World.
After Johnson arrived in Kiev, “the document, which had already been initialled by the head of the Ukrainian delegation, [David] Arakhamia, was thrown into the wastebasket, and Ukraine started fighting,” he added. “These are the consequences of what the prime minister of the United Kingdom did.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his February interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson that talks with Ukraine in 2022 were close to agreement, but Ukraine broke the deal after Russia pulled its troops back from Kiev as a good-will gesture requested by western European leaders.
Pentagon blows $1bn in ‘unsustainable’ naval campaign against Yemen
The Cradle | June 15, 2024
The US military says it has spent about $1 billion in an unsustainable campaign to fight the Ansarallah-led Yemeni armed forces in the Red Sea, the Wall Street Journal reported on 15 June.
Since November, Yemeni forces have attacked Israeli-linked commercial ships traveling through the Red Sea, the world’s most important commercial sea route, in response to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
After US and UK naval warships began carrying out attacks on the Yemeni navy and sites in the capital, Sanaa, Yemeni forces began attacking the warships as well.
To defend against Yemeni attacks, the US Navy has conducted more than 450 strikes and intercepted 200 drones and missiles in a campaign that US officials worry is not sustainable.
“Their supply of weapons from Iran is cheap and highly sustainable, but ours is expensive, our supply chains are crunched, and our logistics tails are long,” said Emily Harding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “We are playing whack-a-mole, and they are playing a long game.”
The Wall Street Journal provided details of a Yemeni attack on a US naval destroyer on 9 January, one of 80 attacks overall, which illustrated the difficulties US personnel face.
“It was just after 9 p.m. when radar operators aboard this U.S. Navy destroyer in the Red Sea spotted a tiny arrow on their screens: a missile hurtling toward them at five times the speed of sound,” The Journal reported.
“The crew of the warship with 300 sailors aboard had just seconds to shoot it down. As the projectile closed in, the Laboon launched an interceptor from silos beneath its deck, destroying the incoming missile in flight.”
Yemeni forces launched 18 drones and cruise missiles, along with the ballistic missile, at four American destroyers, a US aircraft carrier, and a UK warship throughout the 12-hour battle that day.
“These things are telephone pole-sized, you get three minutes of flight time, you detect it for 45 seconds, you get like 10 seconds to determine whether you’re going to shoot at it or not,” said Capt. David Wroe of the US carrier strike group in the Red Sea.
The longer the Yemeni attacks continue, the more likely it is that a US warship could be hit, Frank McKenzie, a retired Marine general, told The Journal. “There’s always a chance that something happens and one of our ships could be struck, and that chance only increases the longer we allow the situation to continue,” he added.
Collapsing Empire: Georgia and Russia restore diplomatic relations
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | June 15, 2024
It’s been reported by Georgian media that Tbilisi is now “actively working” to restore the country’s diplomatic relations with Moscow, severed by the then regime in August 2008, following its trouncing in a calamitous five-day war with Russia. While this may seem mundane to outside observers, it is a seismic development, amply testifying to the extraordinary pace and scale of the US Empire’s self-inflicted collapse.
Over decades, Washington has invested enormous energy and money into turning Georgia against Russia. Tbilisi has deep and cohering cultural, economic, and historic ties with its huge neighbor. Today, nostalgia for the Soviet Union is widespread, and Joseph Stalin remains a local hero for a significant majority of citizens. While public support for Euro-Atlantic integration and EU and NATO membership is strong, recent developments have prompted many Georgians to reconsider their country’s relationship with the West.
Since taking office in 2012, the ruling Georgian Dream has struck a delicate balance between strengthening Western ties and maintaining civil coexistence with Moscow. This has become an ever-fraught dance since the outbreak of the Ukraine proxy conflict, with external pressure to impose sanctions on Russia and send arms to Kiev perpetually rising. Against this backdrop, there have been multiple apparent plots to overthrow the government and install a more belligerent administration.
In order to neutralize the threat of a coup by Georgian Dream’s domestic and international adversaries, legislation compelling foreign-funded NGOs – of which there are over 25,000 in Tbilisi – has been passed. Its gestation produced a bitter showdown with the EU and US, ending with lawmakers who voted for the law being sanctioned by Washington and the threat of further action to come. Along the way, Georgian citizens were confronted with the poisonous reality of their relationship with the West. And they didn’t like it.
‘Foreign assistance’
Contemporary media reports on Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan “revolution” either ignored the unambiguous Western role in fomenting it or dismissed the proposition as Russian “disinformation” or “conspiracy theory”. Ever since the proxy conflict began, Western journalists have become even more aggressive in rejecting any and all suggestions that the insurrectionary upheaval in Kiev was anything other than an overwhelmingly – if not universally – popular grassroots public revolt.
Yet, it was not long ago that the Empire unabashedly advertised its role in orchestrating “color revolutions” throughout the former Soviet sphere, of which Maidan will surely in future be considered the final installment. In 2005, intelligence cutout USAID published a slick magazine, Democracy Rising, documenting in detail how Washington was behind a wave of rebellious unrest in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere during the first years of the 21st century.
Two years prior, the Washington-sponsored “Rose Revolution” unseated longtime Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze, replacing him with handpicked, US-educated Mikheil Saakashvili, a close associate of George Soros. Shevardnadze had since Tbilisi’s 1991 independence from the Soviet Union eagerly served as a committed agent of Empire, opening up his country to far-reaching privatization for the benefit of Western investors and extensive societal and political infiltration by US and European-funded organizations.
In a bitter irony, such subservience was Shevardnadze’s ultimate undoing. Brussels and Washington exploited this space to lay the foundations of his overthrow, financing individuals and organizations who would serve as shock troops in the “Rose Revolution”. For instance, Democracy Rising reveals that in 1999, US funding “helped Georgians draw up and build support for a Freedom of Information Law, which the government adopted.” This allowed Western-funded media and NGO assets “to investigate government budgets, [and] force the firing of a corrupt minister.”
The US, moreover, bankrolled the training of “lawyers, judges, journalists, members of parliament, NGOs, political party leaders, and others” to wage war against their government. The official purpose of this largesse was to “give people a sense that they should regulate the government.” As per Democracy Rising, “the Rose Revolution was the climax of these efforts.” Following Tbilisi’s November 2003 election, US-financed exit polling suggested the official result – pointing to the victory of a coalition of pro-Shevardnadze parties – was fraudulent.
Scores of anti-government activists from across the country then descended upon Tbilisi’s parliament building, ferried on buses paid for by Washington. Nationwide demonstrations led by US-bankrolled NGOs and activist groups raged for weeks, culminating on November 23 with activists storming parliament brandishing roses. The very next day, Shevardnadze resigned. One recipient of Western support remarked in Democracy Rising, “Without foreign assistance, I’m not sure we would have been able to achieve what we did without bloodshed.”
As the USAID pamphlet noted, many US-financed and trained assets in Georgia central to the “Rose Revolution” went on to become officials within Saakashvili’s government. One, Zurab Chiaberashvili, was appointed as chair of Tbilisi’s Central Election Commission from 2003 to 2004, before becoming mayor of Tbilisi. He was quoted in Democracy Rising as saying:
“Under US assistance, new leaders were born… [the US] helped good people get rid of a bad and corrupted government… [this assistance] made civil actors alive, and when the critical moment came, we understood each other like a well-prepared soccer team.”
‘Demonstrations of will’
The Empire’s in-house journal Foreign Policy has conceded the results of the “Rose Revolution” were “terribly disappointing”. Far-reaching change “never really materialized,” and “elite corruption still continued apace.” Saakashvili was no more democratic or less authoritarian than his predecessor – in fact, his rule was brutal and dictatorial in many ways Shevardnadze’s was not. Questions abound about his involvement in several suspicious deaths, he directed security services to assassinate rivals, and at his personal behest, prisons became politicized hotbeds of torture and rape.
The Empire could forgive Saakashvili all this though, for further facilitating his country’s economic rape and pillage, and even more crucially, intensifying Tbilisi’s anti-Russian agitation locally and internationally. This crusade came to a bloody head in August 2008, when Georgian forces, with US encouragement, began shelling civilian positions in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow intervened to decisively defend the pair. As many as 200,000 locals were displaced in subsequent battles, with hundreds killed.
Dissident journalist Mark Ames visited sites of the fighting in December of that year and witnessed “an epic historical shift” – “the first ruins of America’s imperial decline.” The Georgian army had been trained, armed, and even clothed by the US over many years, only to be comprehensively crushed by Russia’s military – and there was “no American cavalry on the way.” His first-hand insights led Ames to dub the outbreak of war that year, “the day America’s empire died.”
Ames had previously visited Georgia in 2002 to report on the arrival of US military advisors to the country. As the journalist records, “At the time, the American empire was riding high.” TIME magazine had recently celebrated George W. Bush’s inauguration with a column declaring that Washington was “the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome,” and thus positioned “to re-shape norms, alter expectations and create new realities,” via “unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.”
US military expansion into Georgia was one such bold “demonstration of will.” Military advisors were dispatched ostensibly to train Tbilisi’s soldiers to combat “terrorism”. In reality, as Ames wrote, the purpose was to tutor them “for key imperial outsourcing duties.” It was expected that “Georgia would do for the American Empire what Mumbai call centers did for Delta Airlines: deliver greater returns at a fraction of the cost.” The move would also secure Washington’s “strategic control of the untapped oil in the region.”
The benefit for Georgia? “[Moscow] wouldn’t f*** with them, because f***ing with them would be f***ing with us – and nobody would dare to do that.” In the event, however, Saakashvili’s intimate bromance with the West was no deterrent at all. The blitzkrieg’s success, moreover, left Russia “drunk on its victory and the possibilities that it might imply”:
“Now it’s over for us. That’s clear on the ground. But it will be years before America’s political elite even begins to grasp this fact… We have entered a dangerous moment in history – America in decline is reacting hysterically, woofing and screeching and throwing a tantrum, desperate to prove that it still has teeth. Russia, meanwhile, is as high as a Hollywood speedballer from its victory… If we’re lucky, we’ll survive the humiliating decline… without causing too much damage to ourselves or the rest of the world.”
The Maidan coup starkly showed the Empire failed to learn lessons from the 2008 war, and Ames’ hope that Washington’s “humiliating decline” could be endured by US citizens and politicians alike “without causing too much damage to ourselves or the rest of the world” was futile. The West is now struggling to confront its undeniable defeat on Ukraine’s eastern steppe and accept the unraveling of its long-running efforts to absorb Moscow’s “near abroad”, openly mulling direct intervention in the proxy conflict. God help us all.
Featured Video
Matt Bracken: US Plans Massive MOAB Strike on Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
The silver that medicine dropped — four thousand years of clinical use, four decades to erase.
Colloidal Silver — First Edition, 2026, Paperback
Lies are Unbekoming | October 16, 2026
Silver was medicine. Not alternative medicine. Not folk medicine. Medicine. In surgery. In obstetrics. In the burn ward. In water treatment. In the household medicine chest. Every physician before 1938 knew this.
By the 1870s, silver nitrate was standard in surgical wound care across the leading hospitals of Britain, Germany, and the United States. Colloidal silver preparations — Collargol, Argyrol, Protargol — entered European and American practice through the 1890s and early 1900s and became standard antiseptics in military field medicine. By the time Fleming grew his first penicillin mould in 1928, silver was the first-line antimicrobial of the Western pharmacopoeia. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal carried the clinical reports in volume. The practice ran continuously through the Victorian era, the Edwardian era, the First World War, the interwar period. By 1980, almost all of it was gone.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a four-thousand-year clinical record disappeared from mainstream medicine within four decades of the Flexner Report — and what the honest account of silver looks like once that record is reassembled.
Colloidal Silver reconstructs the pre-1938 record from The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, and the primary literature of the era; recovers Robert Becker’s bioelectric framework from the regeneration research the pharmaceutical model buried; and places silver inside a practical terrain-paradigm guide to its current place — in water, on the body, inside the body, and in the chronic conditions where antibiotics have failed. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Spanish firm sells Latvia vehicles equipped with Israeli tech despite arms embargo
- Saudi Arabia under fire… Yemen is burning down the House of Saud
- Israeli Spy Pollard stole the files, today’s it’s delivered through official channels
- Why Iran Didn’t Walk Away
- US arms supplied to Ukraine found in war-torn Sudan – Moscow
- The silver that medicine dropped — four thousand years of clinical use, four decades to erase.
- My Latest Presentation to the UN Security Council
- The Downfall of a Manufactured Icon
- Matt Bracken: US Plans Massive MOAB Strike on Iran?
- Russia accuses France of ‘piracy’ over tanker seizure
- If Americans Knew
- Tucker Carlson exposes Israeli Lies about the Oct 7th attack, Charlie Kirk, and the U.S.
- Israel has detained thousands of Palestinian children since Oct 7th – over half spent time in solitary, many uncharged
- Israeli Analysis: Is Netanyahu Planning an ‘October Surprise’ Attack Before Israel’s Election?
- Israeli settlers brutally attack Palestinians and Washington Post female photographer, 65
- Words Have Changed, Occupation Continues: The Reality of the Gaza Ceasefire
- Gaza’s child amputees are growing faster than their prosthetics allow
- Israel keeps Palestinians struggling just to survive–Daily Update
- Israeli firm used online ads to run vast spy operation, researchers say
- No, the world zionist movement is not an antisemitic conspiracy theory
- Hundreds of IDF investigations into killings still have no public outcome, BBC Verify finds
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
