Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why western sanctions have failed and become self-defeating

Or are sanctions an end in themselves?

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 15, 2025

I recently participated in a debate in London about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. I argued that they have proven ineffective as a tool of foreign policy, and kept my remarks focussed on Russia, which is the most sanctioned country on the planet, with over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far.

For good or ill, I argued that sanctions were ineffective from a position of having [personally] authorised around half of the UK sanctions against Russia after war broke out in 2022. I take no great pride in that, but that was my job at the time and I eventually left my career as a British diplomat in 2023, largely out of a sense that UK foreign policy was failing in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, it worries me that so few people appear focused on what we in the UK want the sanctions to achieve, to the point where they have become an end in themselves. Yet, look at the legislation, specifically the Russia Sanctions Regulations of 2019, and the [alleged] purpose is quiet clear:

Encourage Russia to cease actions destablising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

More than eleven years since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and not far from four years since war broke out, the UK and its allies have manifestly failed to deliver upon that goal.

We have been through eleven years of gradually ramping up sanctions against Russia only to see Russia increase its resistance, and then to launch its so-called Special Military Operation in 2022.

Sanctions did not prevent that. One might argue that they helped to precipitate it.

Ukraine is bankrupt, its cities broken, its energy infrastructure once again subject to nightly bombardment as the winter approaches and people wonder whether they’ll be able to heat their homes.

Sanctions are not preventing this.

Yet at the debate, my opponents somehow advanced the argument that sanctions remain an effective tool of foreign policy, from the comfort of a grand hall, two thousand miles away from the frontline, even further from responsibility, and completely detached from reality.

In my mind, there are two clear reasons why sanctions policy has failed.

Firstly, because even if people in the west consider them to be justified, the Russian State considers them to be unjust.

Ever since the Minsk II peace deal was subordinated to sanctions in March 2015, President Putin has become increasingly convinced that western nations would sanction Russia come what May.

And that has proved to be the case.

Every time an inevitable new package of sanctions is imposed by the UK, Europe or others, it also convinces ordinary Russian people that this is true.

People in the west might hate Putin, but he is far more popular in Russia than Keir Starmer is in Britain, or than Friedrich Merz is in Berlin, or than Emmanuel Macron is in France.

So the idea that sanctions undermine support in Russia for President Putin is deeply misguided.

Likewise, sanctioning British-based Russian billionaires who took their assets out of Russia might play well in the Financial Times but is a meaningless gesture; these figures have no real power in Russia.

The idea that if we sanction Roman Abramovich he might some how rise up and try to unseat Putin together with other oligarchs is a fantasy.

The Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkoff who took to Instagram after the war started to criticise the Russian army, was forced to sell his eponymous bank and yet the UK still sanctioned him.

Why would any wealthy Russian on that basis stand up against President Putin on the west’s behalf only to get sanctioned by us anyway?

Yet, we have sanctioned 2000 individuals and entities, banning them from travel to the UK, even though 92% of them never had [visited] before the war started. These, I’m afraid, are empty gestures.

Sanctions will not stop the war.

And the longer they go on, more Ukrainians will die.

Despite Russia having done everything to adjust to sanctions since 2014, commentators in the west nevertheless try to tell you that, well, maybe we should have imposed more sanctions at the start for a bigger effect.

But on my second point, that denies the political reality of how sanctions are imposed.

While the combined economies of NATO are 27 times bigger than Russia, 32 states cannot coordinate policy quickly enough to take decisive action.

This results in waging war by committee.

Imagine, if you will, a chessboard with President Putin staring across at a team of thirty-two people on the other side, squabbling loudly among themselves for months on end before deciding not to make the best move.

If you believe that Europe is about to become a rapid decision-making body now at a time when its member states are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties who resent the war policy in Brussels, then my message to you is, good luck waiting for that.

Europe has now been debating for over a year whether to expropriate 200 billion in Russian assets housed in Belgium.

Yet that has not been agreed precisely because the Belgian government has blocked it consistently out of a not illegitimate fear that it will shred that’s country’s reputation among international investors at a time when new financial architecture is being constructed in the developing world.

Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have continued to grow and now stand at over $700 billion for the first time. So even at this late stage if Europe chose to expropriate the assets, Russia could live without them.

Rather than being forced to the negotiating table – the complete fantasy that proponents of this hair-brained idea would tell you – Russia would be so enraged by what it sees as theft that it would keep on fighting.

And more Ukrainians would die.

President Putin is not hemmed in by the need to consult, and western indecision gives him time to adapt.

Since 2014, Russia’s economy has reoriented away from its dependence on the west, precisely to limit the impact of sanctions.

When war broke out in 2022, Russia had been adapting to sanctions for 8 years already.

Even though the scale was unprecedented, Russia had already prepared itself for the onslaught when it happened and has adapted better.

In 2022, with everyone crowing about the crashing rouble, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of over $230 billion which, by the way, is bigger than Ukraine’s whole economy.

Despite cutting off gas supplies and bearing down on shadow tankers, Russia to this day continues to pull in hefty trade surpluses each year. It has not been in deficit since 1998.

Lots of people argued that if we had gone all in 2014, then that might have made a difference. But believe we, that was debated in Europe, and no one could agree to it.

And I wonder whether, had it been agreed, Europe would simply have faced the political and economic turmoil which is currently going on now, ten years earlier.

So let’s stop talking about what ifs.

The ugly truth is that sanctions have become an end in themselves. They are not a strategy, but a fig leaf covering the embarrassing fact that the west does not have a strategy.

They are a weak alternative to war or peace that serve no purpose other than to prolong the war in Ukraine.

Western nations have shown themselves unwilling to contemplate diplomacy. Talking to Putin is dismissed as a prize that will take him out of international isolation; even though he only appears isolated by western nations. Yet diplomacy isn’t about talking to your friends, despite the never ending round of backslapping summits our leaders attend. Diplomacy is about talking to the people with whom you most disagree. We have refused to talk to Russia and continue to avoid diplomacy at all costs to this day.

Neither do we want war, Britain’s army today has 73,000 soldiers, 2,000 fewer than 2 years ago. Russia has 600,000 troops in Ukraine, apparently. We couldn’t even agree to send 10,000 troops as part of a so-called reassurance force although, to be honest, that idea didn’t reassure me at all.

Russia is outstripping us in the production of munitions, tanks and naval warships. And it has 6,000 nuclear warheads.

So I’m glad we don’t want war either.

But as we continue to pursue ever diminishing packages of sanctions, Ukraine will remain stuck in the middle, devastated and depopulated, as Europe deindustrialises and falls into the embrace of nationalism at an accelerating rate.

Meanwhile, despite obvious headwinds, Russia’s economy appears in better shape than ours. It would be impossible to claim that there had been no economic impacts on the Russian economy from sanctions. Yet with economic links to the West now all but destroyed, sanctions relief is less important to Russia than it is to Europe.

In Budapest recently I got talking to a member of the House of Lords and former Diplomatic Service colleague who is a close friend of Boris Johnson. During his speech he remarked that sanctions on Russia have had no impact at all.

Later over drinks we discussed this and he agreed with the arguments that I have put forward today. But then he paused, and said ‘ah, but you just can’t say that in Britain though’.

It’s time to wake up and realise the terrible mess we have got ourselves into through sanctions. Sanctions have failed to the great detriment of Ukraine. It’s time, finally, to get back to diplomacy.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Hungary cannot meet energy demands without Russia – FM

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. © Getty Images / Sefa Karacan; Anadolu
RT | October 15, 2025

Hungary cannot meet its energy needs without Russian oil and gas and has no intention of abandoning supplies, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. Speaking at the Russian Energy Week forum in Moscow, Szijjarto stressed that Hungary’s energy security depends on existing supply routes and long-term contracts with Russian companies.

Brussels has repeatedly demanded that all EU members cut off ties with Moscow and stop purchasing Russian energy. Szijjarto said Hungary has been pressured to refuse Russian deliveries in the name of “diversifying” its imports, but dismissed the argument as “insane” and “completely illogical.” He questioned how abandoning one source of energy could possibly be described as diversification.

The minister warned that if Hungary were cut off from Russian gas supplies, it “will not be able to ensure the necessary fuel supplies.” He said the same applies to Russian crude oil delivered via the southern branch of the Druzhba pipeline. According to Szijjarto, other hydrocarbon routes cannot currently replace the volumes provided through the TurkStream gas pipeline and the Druzhba network.

Szijjarto praised Hungary’s cooperation with Russian energy companies, noting that they have never failed to meet contractual obligations. “If we needed more, they provided more; if we needed less, they provided less. Contract terms have always been honored, so why should we suddenly sever these relations?” he said. The minister added that thanks to its partnership with Russia, Hungary remains in a secure position regarding energy supplies.

The EU has called for a complete phase-out of Russian energy imports by 2027, though several member states, including Hungary and Slovakia, continue to rely on Russian crude delivered via Druzhba. In recent months, Ukrainian attacks on energy infrastructure connected to the pipeline have intensified, worsening tensions between Kiev and Budapest.

Szijjarto has said the strikes on Druzhba amount to an attack on Hungary’s sovereignty and urged the EU to ensure the security of the bloc’s energy supplies.

Moscow has described Brussels’ efforts to abandon Russian energy in favor of more expensive US alternatives as “suicidal.”

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

NATO must buy more US arms for Ukraine – Pentagon chief

RT | October 15, 2025

European NATO members should purchase more American-made weapons to sustain Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s defense ministers.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western arms shipments cannot change the balance of power on the battlefield, arguing that Ukraine’s chronic manpower shortage, fueled by mass draft avoidance and desertion, undermines any material advantage.

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Hegseth praised the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative and said the European members must spend more funds through it.

“Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine,” Hegseth said. Rutte noted there was “firepower coming out of our defense industry” to bolster Ukrainian forces.

US President Donald Trump recently claimed that with European funding for American weapons, Ukraine could still achieve its territorial goals – a reversal of his earlier assessment that the county had “no cards” to play. Trump is expected to soon announce whether the US will approve deliveries of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev, a move Moscow has warned would mark a serious escalation but would not significantly alter the frontline situation.

The Russian government has accused European backers of Kiev of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, arguing that the former are unwilling to admit the failure of their strategy.

Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic fallout of their sanctions policy against Russia. Having rejected affordable Russian energy, many EU economies have faced surging production costs and widespread industrial bankruptcies, while the US has benefited from increased investment inflows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Warsaw demands halt to Nord Stream sabotage probe – FT

RT | October 14, 2025

Germany is acting against NATO’s interests by continuing a criminal investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, Poland’s national security chief, Slawomir Cenckiewicz, has claimed, urging Berlin to shut down the probe.

The Nord Stream pipelines, which carried Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were severely damaged by underwater explosions in September 2022. Russia, which led the pipeline project, called the incident an act of state terrorism, while Western states including Poland applauded the bombings.

German prosecutors have attributed the sabotage to a group of seven Ukrainian nationals who allegedly used a small rented yacht to carry out the attack. Moscow has dismissed that version as “ridiculous,” maintaining that the scale and complexity of the operation point to state involvement.

Several suspects have so far been detained across the EU, including one in Poland and another in Italy, for allegedly blowing up the pipelines. However, Warsaw has refused to extradite the suspect held in Poland to Berlin.

Cenckiewicz told Financial Times it was in Poland’s interest to protect anyone connected to the operation, calling the German probe “a clear contradiction in interests between Poland and Germany.” He said the investigation “doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [NATO] alliance.”

Cenckiewicz argued that pursuing the cases “serves Russian injustice” and demanded an end to the probe, adding that Poland will not extradite the detained Ukrainian suspects.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also opposed extradition, saying “the problem with Nord Stream 2 is not that it was blown up, the problem is that it was built.”

Meanwhile, Russian officials have insisted that a state actor was likely behind the sabotage and have accused Germany of concealing evidence and excluding Moscow from the inquiry.

In 2023, veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh published a report alleging that the US, under then President Joe Biden’s orders, orchestrated the sabotage using Navy divers with Norwegian support during the NATO exercise BALTOPS 22. Washington and Oslo have denied the claim.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Farming in Russia vs the West

RealReporter | September 22, 2025

In this collab with ‪@countrysideacreshomestead2008‬ I visit a Canadian family who moved to rural Russia to start a homestead from scratch.

Why they came to Russia –    • Family of 10 Leaves Canada for ‘Economic O…  

Follow me on: 

Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/RealReporter 👉

X – https://x.com/Real_ReporterX 👉

Instagram –   / konstantinreporter   👉

Telegram – https://t.me/RealReporter_tg 👉

TikTok –   / konstantinreporter  

If you’d like to support my project:

Patreon –  / realreporter  

PayPal – https://paypal.me/RealReporter

Boosty – https://boosty.to/realreporter/donate

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | , | Leave a comment

Iranian strike hit secret Israeli-US military bunker beneath Tel Aviv tower: Report

Press TV | October 14, 2025

An investigation by The Grayzone has revealed that Iran’s June 13 missile strike on Tel Aviv directly hit a secret underground military command center jointly operated by Israel and the United States, buried beneath a luxury apartment complex in the heart of the city.

According to geolocation analysis, leaked emails, and public records, the bunker, known as “Site 81”, is located underneath the Da Vinci Towers, a high-end residential and office complex built over what was once a ministry compound.

The facility reportedly serves as a command and control node for Israeli military intelligence, with US Army engineers having overseen its construction over a decade ago.

When Iranian missiles struck multiple locations across north Tel Aviv in June, Israeli authorities immediately sealed off the impact zone and prevented journalists from filming.

Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst was among those forced away by police near the HaKirya compound and the Azrieli Center.

Hours later, Iranian state media announced that military and intelligence targets had been precisely hit in retaliation for earlier Israeli strikes on Iranian soil.

The Grayzone report links the Da Vinci complex to a 2013 US Army Corps of Engineers project that expanded “Site 81” into a 6,000-square-meter electromagnetically shielded intelligence facility.

A photo from the US Army study was geolocated to the site using surrounding landmarks such as the Kannarit (Canarit) Air Force towers, located just meters away.

The site is less than 100 meters from a children’s playground and a community center, raising concerns that Israel embedded a sensitive military installation within a densely populated area, effectively using civilians as human shields, a practice Israel has long accused Palestinians of engaging in.

Satellite imagery of the area remains blurred on Google and Yandex Maps, with no street-view access, suggesting ongoing censorship of strategic sites inside Tel Aviv.

Leaked correspondence obtained by The Grayzone between former NATO Commander James Stavridis and former Israeli military chief Gabi Ashkenazi confirms that the bunker served as a command and control hub for Israel’s military network.

In the 2015 exchange, Stavridis mentioned a US company, ThinkLogical, which had “won a big contract out at Site 81 with the IDF.”

The Da Vinci complex and its surrounding towers were financed by a web of Israeli-American investors and firms with close ties to the Israeli security establishment, including Check Point Technologies and AI21 Labs, the latter founded by veterans of Israel’s Unit 8200, the military’s elite signals intelligence corps.

France 24’s analysis of post-strike coverage highlighted Israeli censorship, with Haaretz delaying reports on the Da Vinci hit by two weeks despite circulating images.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

UK antisemitism training body under fire for links to Israeli military

Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025

The Union of Jewish Students (UJS),  the organization contracted to deliver hundreds of “antisemitism awareness sessions” for university staff across the United Kingdom, is facing renewed scrutiny following the resurfacing of a video in which its former president praised the group’s alumni serving “in senior positions in the Israeli government, the IDF, and even the President’s office.”

The footage, filmed during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, shows then-UJS President Nina Freedman telling him that former members occupy high-ranking roles across Israeli entity institutions. The clip has sparked widespread concern over the impartiality of UJS’ government-funded training, particularly amid the International Court of Justice’s ongoing genocide case against “Israel” over its atrocities in Gaza.

Under a program led by the UK Department for Education (DfE) to address antisemitism in schools and universities, UJS was awarded a £998,691 ($1.27 million) contract to deliver antisemitism training across British higher education institutions.

According to the contract published on the government’s Contracts Finder portal, the organization is responsible for helping staff “recognise and respond to incidents of antisemitic abuse” and for leading discussions on “antisemitism, including related topics such as the Israel/Palestine conflict.”

Wider context 

The award forms part of the DfE’s Tackling Antisemitism in Education initiative, funded through a £7 million ($8.9 million) government scheme announced in 2024 to combat what it designates as antisemitism in the education sector.

However, critics have long questioned UJS’ political neutrality, given its constitutional commitment to “inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to Israel” and its longstanding ties with the Israeli Embassy in London. The union has previously hosted Israeli emissaries with military backgrounds on its executive team and facilitated pro-“Israel” campus initiatives, including “birthright trips” and visits by Israeli diplomats.

During her address to Herzog, Freedman described UJS as being “on the frontline of the fight against antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israel bias,” adding that the group seeks to “shine a positive light on Israel’s successes” and encourage students to defend the entity through advocacy and online engagement.

“I feel so lucky to have gone through the UJS machine,” she said, referring to it as an incubator for “young Jewish activists.”

The remarks have amplified growing concerns about conflicts of interest in the UK government’s decision to outsource “anti-Semitism education” to an organization so closely linked with the Israeli entity.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Talk of Sending Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine is Calculated Psy-Op to Pressure Russia

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.10.2025

The US won’t allow strikes on Russian refineries, says Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis.

Psy-op in the Making

“I don’t see any military prospects for using Tomahawks against Russia, except for attempts at informational blackmail and political pressure,” Mikhailov tells Sputnik.

No Tomahawks have been sent or launched, yet Western media frenzy suggests a pressure tactic.

It’s all connected:

  • Washington raises the stakes by hinting at sending Tomahawks to Russia
  • Western media, aligned with Washington, hype the story — discussing targets, launches, and control
  • The impression is the missiles are already on their way

A Tomahawk launcher might even be rolled out at a test range somewhere simply for PR videos, Mikhailov suggests. But it would be similar to the Taurus missiles Germany promised: hyped by the media – yet still absent from Ukraine.

Washington Isn’t Suicidal

The Kremlin has repeatedly said Ukraine cannot launch Tomahawks on its own.

“Every Tomahawk fired at Russia from a US-made system by American crews would mark the start of a war between the US and Russia,” Mikhailov says.

  • The idea of US-made Tomahawks striking energy infrastructure inside Russia is a fantasy
  • Such an act would cross a red line that would trigger a response the US is 100% not ready for
  • Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine explicitly states that a massive cruise missile attack (like a volley of Tomahawks) can be met with a NUCLEAR response
  • Are the Americans ready to “collectively die” for this? The expert is clear: “I am absolutely sure, no.”

What Does the West Want?

The real target would be the “shadow fleet” moving Russian oil, according to the pundit. To that end, NATO holds provocative Baltic drills and tries to seize Russian ships.
The Nord Stream sabotage exemplifies economic attacks to choke Russia’s energy exports abroad.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

West weaponizing laws to silence pro-Palestine activism: Study

Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025

The right to protest is facing increasing restrictions across the West, The Guardian reported on Monday, citing a new study by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which accuses governments of criminalizing pro-Palestine activism and using counter-terrorism and antisemitism laws to stifle dissent.

The report focuses on the UK, US, France, and Germany, accusing authorities in these countries of “weaponizing” national security and anti-hate legislation to silence criticism of “Israel” and suppress demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

“This trend reflects a worrying shift towards the normalization of exceptional measures in dealing with dissenting voices,” Yosra Frawes, head of FIDH’s Maghreb and Middle East desk, told The Guardian.

Compiled from open-source data, witness accounts, and institutional reports gathered between October 2023 and September 2025, the study was released just one day after a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire that secured the release of all living Israeli captives and around 2,000 Palestinian detainees.

According to FIDH, restrictions on speech and assembly have extended beyond protests, impacting journalists, academics, and public officials who express solidarity with Palestinians.

In the United Kingdom, the organization found that protest rights have eroded under both Conservative and Labour administrations. The report points to the 2024 anti-protest law introduced by the Conservatives, later deemed unlawful, and to what it calls the Labour government’s continuation of “official narratives” justifying support for “Israel”.

It highlights former Home Secretary Suella Braverman‘s branding of pro-Palestine rallies as “hate marches”, arguing that this rhetoric “stigmatized support for Palestine and Palestinian resistance movements” and “worked to discriminate against Muslims and other racialized groups in the UK.”

FIDH says the change in government in July 2024 “did little to change official government narratives,” claiming Labour has linked criticism of “Israel” with “violent antisemitism” while continuing to target Muslim and racialized communities.

The tensions have been further inflamed by the Labour government’s ban on the activist network Palestine Action and its proposal to expand police powers at protests.

FIDH draws parallels across the Atlantic, where US authorities have detained demonstrators and pursued legal actions against individuals expressing solidarity with Palestine. In France, the government has faced criticism for banning pro-Palestine demonstrations in several cities and for dissolving the rights group Urgence Palestine.

Meanwhile, in Germany, protests have drawn thousands, but police tactics and restrictions on slogans deemed antisemitic, for the mere criticism of “Israel”, have been widely condemned as excessive. The report argues that Germany’s actions reflect a “collective discomfort” in balancing free expression with its postwar responsibility to combat what it classifies as “antisemitism”.

Freedom crisis

The federation recommends that the UK establish an independent oversight body for policing demonstrations and amend key legislation, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, to protect political speech and prevent arbitrary searches.

“Ultimately, the crackdown on solidarity with Palestinians reveals a profound crisis, not only of human rights in the occupied territories but of freedom itself, in societies that claim to be democratic,” the report concludes.

FIDH says that while legal frameworks vary among the UK, US, France, and Germany, the trend toward restricting Palestinian solidarity movements represents a global pattern of shrinking civic space, one that calls into question the credibility of Western nations as defenders of democratic freedoms.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The EU isn’t at war with Russia – it’s at war with the minds of its own citizens

European leaders are trying to gaslight their populations into believing that it’s Moscow that wants a fight, not them

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 14, 2025

Among other things, this particular moment in history will be remembered – whether in whole books, mere chapters, or (if we are lucky) forgotten footnotes – as the Great European Drone Scare. For weeks now, the populations of NATO-EU Europe have been subjected to a barrage of vague but scary reports about drone sightings. The drones have appeared – seemingly – over various places and installations, prominently including airports in Denmark and Germany.

They are of unknown origin and unknown purpose. And, quite often, it is actually also unknown whether they are even real. Indeed, there is no proof of Russia being responsible for any of these incidents, as even Western media admit. We are once again asked to simply trust our politicians and “experts.”

That is, the same ones who took months to stop pretending that Russia – absurdly – blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. As late as spring 2023, Germany’s Carlo Masala, for instance, who also believes “Girkin” and “Strelkov” are two different individuals (just like “Santa” and “Claus”), was still spreading groundless speculation – really, a conspiracy theory – about a “false flag attack” on Nord Stream, that is: Russia, Russia, Russia.

And – oh, coincidence! – also recently, Moscow, we are told, has had nothing better to do than oblige Western information warriors with three further sort-of incidents: a purported electronic-warfare attack on the plane of EU despot and de facto US proconsul Ursula von der Leyen over the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, an alleged incursion into Estonian airspace, and low fly-overs over the German frigate Hamburg during a recent NATO exercise.

In reality, those three stories share only one thing with the great drone saga: They don’t hold up to scrutiny. The case of the alleged Plovdiv GPS attack is so shoddy and cratered so badly so quickly that it’s been consigned to oblivion. The incursion into Estonian airspace did not happen either. Due to an agreement that Estonia itself signed in 1994, it cannot claim a 12-mile but only a 3-mile zone in the relevant area. Estonia’s case is hysterical to begin with; the 1994 agreement deprives it of even the flimsiest pretext of legality. Regarding the so-called buzzing of the Hamburg, finally, even Western military officials admit that it was not “imminently dangerous.” Instead, they complain, it was “unfriendly and provocative.” Frankly: Boohoo. What do you expect holding exercises on Russia’s doorstep while fighting an indirect war against it in Ukraine? A friendly chat among sailors over a stiff grog?

And yet everyone in NATO-EU establishment politics and its mainstream media has been singing the same old tired song, once again, sotto voce: Russia is coming, Russia is already here, Russia is everywhere. The new head of Germany’s spy agency – the Bundesnachrichtendienst – seems to believe that his job is not to do secret things quietly but to join the chorus of the panic-mongers: He also has sleepless visions of the Russians attacking just any day now. Maybe from right under his bed or out of his cupboard, one must suppose.

It is almost as if they were all reading from the same hymn sheet, that is, memo. And, of course, the new wave of self-induced hyper-ventilation has been milked for all it’s worth – a lot, as in billions of Euros – for yet more money to be spent on armaments, including but not limited to a “drone wall,” while ordinary people are subjected to ever more brutal austerity. Even more disturbingly, there is a clear drive to concentrate ever more powers with those same political establishments that can’t stop ruling by frightening and confusing their own citizens.

That the drone stories are already crumbling makes no difference: A dramatic French attempt – special forces and all – to pin nefarious drone activity on a tanker, for instance, has failed miserably. In Germany, a recent sighting has actually been cleared up quickly. The culprit? A hapless German drone amateur who must be living under a rock.

And perish the thought that Ukraine itself might have anything to do with those mystery drones! Its regime has plenty of motive, and, by now, even the West has been compelled to acknowledge that it is perfectly capable of massive sabotage operations and lies to manipulate its European backers. Because that is now even the official story of the Nord Stream terror attack. But: thinking logically – verboten!

Instead, let’s pretend that we know what we don’t know (Russia, Russia, Russia!) and start overreacting, again, based on our ignorance and panic at best, on a malevolent, deliberate strategy of cognitive warfare against our own countries at worst. In Germany, for instance, both Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius have made the bizarre claim that while the country is not (yet?) at war, it is also no longer at peace. And the-Russians-are-coming head of the BND? He feels the current peace is “icy” at best and – drum roll – “could turn into heated confrontation at any moment.”

What is that even supposed to mean? Is there a backhanded admission, finally, that Germany has made a deliberate and awfully self-harming choice to fight Russia through Ukraine? If so, thank you, Hauptmann Obvious: during last year’s Ukrainian Kamikaze offensive, German tanks got shredded once again in the vicinity of Kursk – at the 1943 site of the largest tank battle in history. (And guess who lost?) We have noticed that much. How about you, our supposed leaders, stop playing with fire?

Or are these fear-mongering statements meant to prepare the ground for a concrete power grab? That is what Roderich Kiesewetter, an ultra-Russophobe and war fantasist from Merz’s own center-right CDU party has already suggested explicitly: he wants the German parliament to declare the so-called “Spannungsfall,” literally “situation of tension.” In the mainstream media, for instance the important newspaper Welt, the usual information warriors are already amplifying Kiesewetter’s message. And – yet another striking coincidence – a recent military exercise called “Red Storm Bravo,” in Hamburg, one of Germany’s biggest cities, was dedicated to cosplaying the “Spannungsfall” – with maximum publicity.

The consequences of initiating a “Spannungsfall” – a kind of official pre-war – are complex and severe: Open-ended, compulsory, and universal military service is only one of them; the army can be used domestically; citizens can be drafted for work; civil rights are painfully restricted; those critical of government policy, NATO, or the “Spannungsfall” itself can be cajoled even worse than usual.

Last but not least, the “Spannungsfall” allows the government to postpone or otherwise influence elections. In Germany, it would be an ideal vehicle for the traditional parties to at least stall the consequences of their own failure, unpopularity and decline, on one side, and the rise of challengers on the so-called “populist” new right and left, on the other.

Carl Schmitt, Germany’s 20th-century version of Niccolo Machiavelli – brilliantly smart, ruthlessly realistic, and morally badly questionable – defined ultimate political power as the ability to declare a state of exception. In essence, Schmitt’s logic was simple: we live together by having rules; hence, the power that trumps all others is to decide when those rules do not apply.

Schmitt explained extremes. In reality, governments don’t raze all rules in one fell swoop. Why should they? To unshackle themselves and become even less accountable than usual they proceed stealthily and gradually. No need to trumpet a state of exception in its pure, all-or-nothing form. Why needlessly scare the subjects and, perhaps, provoke resistance?

Instead, what usually happens is the invocation of an emergency – either simply made-up or greatly exaggerated – to justify chipping away at citizens’ rights, first a little then a lot, while boosting the unchecked powers of the rulers and their bureaucrats. Call it the salami-slicing tactics of Western liberalism.

Dialing up the state of exception in handy instalments – that is also the most plausible explanation of the recent great drone scare in NATO-EU Europe. Yet another phase in the years-long Putin-is-gonna-get-you cognitive warfare campaign that Western establishments and mainstream media have been waging on their own fellow citizens, the great drone scare serves the general purpose to promote even more panic over an allegedly impending Russian attack on NATO states.

The techniques for escalating the war scare are dishonest and repetitive, but highly developed. As a high-ranking NATO general has told us, their aim is not simply to manipulate “what people think.” That, in NATO-speak, would be mere propaganda and just so old-hat. Rather, the state-of-the-art approach is to “exploit vulnerabilities of the human mind” to influence “the way” people think. Targeting “human capital” – yes, that’s us, all of us – “from the individual to states, to multinational organizations, across everyday life.”

Of course, the official pretense is that all of the above is what the enemy – read: Russia (and China) – does or, at worst, what NATO will do to that enemy. But is in the nature of the cognitive warfare shtick that it easily allows for turning the psychological disruption guns on the West’s own populations. Because – so the pretext – those populations are already under cognitive attack by the enemy. So what can you do, except fight back on the battlefield you claim is under attack: their minds? We have seen and experienced the results of this nifty little sleight of hand for years already.

But there also is something special. In the words of Jonas Togel, one of the few Western experts daring to notice Western information warfare, “it is worse than it has ever been.” Indeed, but there is no guarantee that things won’t get even worse again. The real question is how much longer our cognitive warriors-in-chief will have a free hand to drive us all mad with fear.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

How Zionist Influence in New York Gave Rise to Zohran Mamdani

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | October 14, 2025

Coverage of Zohran Mamdani’s run for New York City mayor is focused on the outsized politics at play in the race: democratic socialism, Islam, state-owned grocers, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, until recently incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, and President Donald Trump. But this risks missing the real story in New York, which is the decades-long creation and maintenance of a financialized, factionalized city of free market distortions and middle class displacement at the hands of powerful Zionists and their allies that led to backlash and Mamdani’s rise. Rewinding Mamdani’s catapault to politcal stardom reveals that New York’s current situation—its transition from a city hospitable to the working and middle classes and genuine free exchange of goods and services to a feudal one of government-backed financiers and service workers—is in many ways the work of a little more than a dozen Zionist financiers who twisted government to their ends.

Zionism in New York was part of a shift in the city begun by establishment-connected WASPs away from government by wards and organizers and toward rule by government-connected finance. The originator was Nelson Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller’s grandson and the governor of New York from 1959 to 1973, who floated New York City’s bills by arranging for banks like Chase Manhattan (run by his brother David) to buy bonds. These new bonds covered the old bills even though the bonds were not backed by actual assets of the city’s but by anticipated returns; e.g. “tax anticipation bonds,” “bond anticipation notes,” and “moral obligation bonds.” This meant the city borrowed from the bankers, paid a portion of the interest, and borrowed again, while having no long-term way to pay back the full amount of ever-increasing debt.

The fix to this problem created by financiers came from financiers: a consortium set up in 1975 by Nelson Rockefeller, now vice president, to “solve” the city’s $6 billion debt. The consortium operated through various vehicles with names like the Municipal Assistance Corporation and the Emergency Financial Control Board and it achieved this “fixing” in a predictably self-interested way. It cut out of influence the city’s old political power brokers—Jewish, Irish, Italian, Puerto Rican, and black politicians with connections to their communities. It then executed a bait-and-switch. It cut city funds from supporting welfare and unions in the name of small government while actually redirecting those funds to support financial development via investing in a real estate boom driven by a handful of connected players that attracted new “talent” to the city.

The main beneficiaries were rising Wall Street power brokers, the most notable ones Zionist, for whom the 1980s was a kind of heyday. The roster included Laurence and Robert Tisch, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, Michael Steinhardt, the Bronfmans, Michael Milken, Stephen Schwarzman, and high-end retailers like Victoria Secret’s Leslie Wexner and Leonard and Ronald Lauder, the sons of Estee Lauder and heirs to her fortune. One difficulty of critiquing a cohort like this is that the conflation of “Jewish power” and New York is an old trope, in part because New York has been, since the early twentieth century, a Jewish city. So it should be emphasized that this cohort was small and highly specific. It was distinct from older generations of New York Jews—not just Jewish ward players like Abraham Beame, New York’s last mayor under its old power dispensation, but Jewish financiers like Felix Rohatyn, who played a major role in stabilizing the city’s debt in the 1970s.

Players like Beame and Rohatyn had planted their stakes firmly in America and nowhere else. Having experienced the rise of the Nazi Party in an economically cratered Germany as a childhood reality, they were committed to creating the conditions for what they hoped would be lasting social peace. Zionists, by contrast, had their eye on the military-corporate apparatus and its ties to Israel, and they were not especially concerned with the effects of their actions on the ground. They also rejected what would become the mores of the majority of Jews and especially Jews of a later generation: intermarriage, mixing, diverse assimilation. Their style was self-consciously distinctive and gloves off, and beginning in the 1980s they executed an aggressive reinvention not just of the financial markets but of New York.

Part of this reinvention was done, much as the Rockefellers’ rise to influence in New York had been done, through philanthropy, but at a much greater scale. Among these Zionist players’ direct bequests were the Steinhardt Conservatory at the Bronx Botanic Gardens, the NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, the NYU Tisch School of the Arts, NYU Langone’s Tisch Hospital, the Tisch Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum, the Tisch Children’s Zoo in Central Park, the Leonard Lauder Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of Modern Art, Ronald S. Lauder’s Neue Museum, and the NYU Bronfman Center.

Another part of this reinvention was done through real estate, which, like Wall Street, was increasingly dominated by Zionists. Perhaps most notable among them was Lawrence D. Ackman of Ackman-Ziff, the firm which redeveloped West 34th Street, West 42nd Street, and Madison Avenue on the Upper East Side in the 1970s and 1980s and turned portions of 9th Avenue into the high-end Chelsea market in the 1990s.

So far, government had been indirectly incentivizing development; then, in the 2000s, government got directly involved. Philanthropy and real estate became direct tools of government with the mayoralty from 2002 to 2014 of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire financial services provider and the man most connected to this class by Zionism and finance. Bloomberg’s projects pushed in one direction: using government policy and finance capital to redevelop the city to create a tourist and tech mecca. His opening gambit was re-zoning 40% of the city. He then filled those rezoned spaces with public-private projects—parks, high-rises, high-end department stores—displacing middle and working class New Yorkers and driving up rents for everyone else.

This was not a free market experiment, where the best contractor gets the development job or the philanthropic bequest. This was explicitly a project of wealthy and connected Zionists with ties to the mayor. As Leonard Lauder told it to The New York Times some years later, “When Mike Bloomberg was the mayor, he was the ultimate power broker. He would call me up on the phone and say, ‘I need this and this and this, OK?’” Hollywood Zionists who came East were mobilized too, notably the media executive Barry Diller and his wife, the designer Diane von Furstenburg, and the music producer David Geffen. So was a new generation of real estate Zionists like Steven M. Ross of Related Companies, the developer of Columbus Circle, and Gary Barnett of Extell Development Company, the son of a rabbi and former diamond trader with significant holdings in Israel. So, finally, was a new generation of Zionist financiers like the hedge fund operators Daniel Loeb and Bill Ackman, Lawrence Ackman’s son.

Development proceeded from there. Bill Ackman’s first wife Karen Herskovitz and Laurence Tisch’s niece Laurie Tisch were major backers of the public park The High Line and the High Line’s anchor building, the relocated Whitney Museum of American Art. This was Bloomberg’s pioneer re-development project: a park built on former railway lines that cut through the Lower West Side to Midtown West, from 4th to 34th Street. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg provided the funds for Little Island off West 13th Street west of the High Line, which “replace[d] the dilapidated Pier 54, envisioning an extraordinary new pier combining public Park and performance space.” Stephen M. Ross, facilitated by Bloomberg and later backed by an infusion from the Saudi Public Investment Fund, developed Bloomberg’s culminating project: the mega-mall Hudson Yards on West 34th Street at the top of the High Line. Stephen Schwarzman donated $100 million to the New York Public Library. David Geffen donated $100 million to refurbish the New York Philharmonic, with the help of Leonard Lauder and Bloomberg confidante (and Zionist) Barbara Walters.

Then there was real estate. A bevy of “supertall” skyscrapers which cast shadows over the surrounding buildings and streets were developed by Gary Barnett’s Extell, among the most prolific developers in Manhattan. (The occupants of Extell’s and other supertall developments were mostly financial workers and Saudi princes, who complained when the buildings leaked from the inside and swayed in the wind.) Smaller versions of Extell’s developments appeared in Brooklyn neighborhoods, built with cheap materials and generally agreed by locals to be eyesores meant for purchase by out-of-towners. Imitators of these projects abounded, thanks to Bloomberg’s largesse via not just re-zoning but also his provision of incentives to developers and his personnel intercession to make some projects happen. During his mayoralty, seven of the twenty tallest buildings in the city were built, along with smaller towers in areas ranging from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn to Harlem.

In all of these spaces, the natural circulation of neighborhoods, which depends on small businesses and schools and places of worship, was replaced by “excursion destinations” constructed with enormous capital investment from powerful financiers with access to government. These high rises, parks, and cultural centers and the luxury apartments surrounding them also functioned as surveillance spaces, with manicured lawns for “relaxation” flanked by buildings which were easy to watch and patrol. And they functioned as class filters, siphoning from Manhattan the middle income earners priced out by rising rents and replacing them with finance workers or wealthy foreign nationals looking for second apartment homes. These new arrivals, in turn, relied for their needs on a growing number of service workers working low-wage shifts in restaurants or at Doordash—many of them undocumented.

This finance-and-philanthropy-based surveillance-and-extraction model is quite similar to the fundamentals of the “Raze-and-Rebuild” program being pushed by prominent Zionists for Gaza: a space meant to be serviced by undocumenteds and inhabited by financiers and tourists once the “locals” are “relocated.” It is also quite similar to the cities of authoritarian regimes in West Asia and the Gulf States that rose in the 2010s. And there is past precedent for it in the developments of Paris and Berlin at the hands of authoritarian regimes of the nineteenth century—developments which immiserated the working and middle class of these cities and seeded the ground for the cycle of revolt and reaction that created fascism.

But these explicitly feudal parallels have gone almost completely unremarked on in New York, probably because Zionist financiers have also assumed positions at the helms of the city’s education system and media nexus.

At the hands of Laurence Tisch’s daughter-in-law Merryl Tisch, as Chair of the Board of Regents (in charge of education in New York state) she and her allies Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg put a focus on standardized testing in the name of “merit.” This functioned to place “high achieving” outer borough students into private or “special” schools in Manhattan rather than giving outer borough schools the resources to help these students represent their communities. At the hands of the longtime presidents of New York University and Columbia, the city’s two most powerful universities have expanded their footprints off the real estate boom and muted critiques of the crony corporatism behind it. Successive Zionist executives and op-ed editors of The New York Times and Conde Nast, which is owned since the 1980s by the Zionist Newhouse Family and publishes Vogue and Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, media coverage of New York has celebrated expansion, “modernization,” modernizers, and the celebrities and fashion innovations these shifts bring to the city. So has CBS News, owned by first the Tisches in the 1980s and 1990s and then the Redstones, another Zionist family, from the 1990s to the 2020s. Despite the quiet admonitions of older players like Felix Rohaytn against the dangers of this insularity, the fantasy of empire management has turned New York into something closer to nineteenth century Europe than anything Americans might recognize.

This project only continues faster today. Zionists like New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Ezra Klein are backing the “Abundance Agenda,” a spate of policies to fast-track building permits in urban areas across the nation to combat housing scarcity, which will accrue to the benefit of governmentally connected developers and financiers able to manage large-scale projects. Academics from MIT, the site of lavish donations from New York Zionist financiers like Jeffrey Epstein and Stephen Schwarzmanhave been calling for New York to become a “leisure city” catering to tourists and younger workers in the finance industry.

Of course, just as there is backlash to colonization abroad, there is backlash to it at home. In the 1980s and 1990s, the backlash came in the form of crimeboycotts, and riots, and protests from leftwing activists and the leadership of black and Hispanic communities whose influence had waned after the 1970s. In the 2010s, these marginalized figures received a new infusion of outside energy from political progressives who had built up their power in universities and the arts using state grants, in effect commandeering parts of the institutions Zionists had funded to enhance their own control. These players brought media sophistication and an ideological agenda to the on-the-ground communal left which had been rudderless. Meantime, the on-the-ground left brought to the table a close connection to the communities at the stick end of Zionists’ policies. The realization of the success of this synthesis was the mayoralty of the progressive Bill De Blasio, who within three months of beginning his first term was publicly criticized by allies of Zionist philanthropists for failing to give them the attention they felt they were due.

Then, in the 2020s, came De Blasio’s successor, Zohran Mamdani, a more effective progressive (as De Blasio freely admits) on every level. Where De Blasio talked about a “tale of two cities” and universal Pre-K, Mamdani talked, over and over and in original ways, about affordability, and took direct aim at the enemies of affordability in New York, finance, and Zionism. Historically, as I have reported elsewhere, socialism and its ideological cousin redistributionism have occurred in America after long periods when finance twisted around the state and distorted its functions. At a certain point in these processes, Americans respond to a program pushing for government money to flow not toward financial firms or weapons contractors but directly to them. Indeed, Mamdani’s victory speech when he won the primary, which emphasized returning the city to serve the interests of the working people who make New York run, was an emblem of exactly what New Yorkers appear to be looking for.

Bill Ackman, Dan Loeb, and other members of the club of Zionist financial elites have sounded the alarm of creeping socialism since Mamdani’s victory, but they have not blamed themselves for creating the distortive conditions that led to it. In fact, they’ve done the opposite. They’ve turned to a characteristically Zionist—which is to say colonialist—solution to rising discontent. This is a solution which they’ve slowly been developing since the 1990s and which had its antecedents or parallels in nineteenth century Europe and the twenty-first century Middle East: techno-military law enforcement to control “restive populations.” As I will show in a coming report, if Andrew Cuomo wins on November 4, the militarist play being run by Zionists will continue without any meaningful check, since Cuomo is both a close Zionist ally and not known for his concern for civil liberties. If Mamdani wins, there may be checks on this militarism, but these checks will not be absolute. Instead, some measure of militarized law enforcement will coexist with socialist government expansion. Together, these could lead New York on a path toward government control across sectors: security, economy, politics, society.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

First Minister says Scotland must seek independence amid UK decline

Al Mayadeen | October 13, 2025

Scottish First Minister John Swinney declared on Monday that “now is the time” for Scotland to become independent, arguing that Westminster’s decades of failed policies have led to national decline and stagnation.

Speaking at the Scottish National Party (SNP) annual conference, Swinney described independence as a “fresh start” for Scotland, offering hope and ambition in contrast to what he called “decline, decay, and despair” under the UK government.

“Independence offers Scotland a fresh start. This is a moment of decision. We all face a choice: decline, decay, and despair with a Westminster government or hope, optimism and ambition with a Scottish self-government,” Swinney said. “Now is the time for Scotland to become independent.”

10 Downing Street ‘working against Scotland’

The SNP leader accused the government in London of “working against Scotland,” pointing to high inflation, declining living standards, and long-term economic stagnation as “the culmination of decades of failed Thatcherite policies.”

Swinney also pledged to block any attempt by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to introduce a digital ID system in Scotland, adding that his government would redirect energy revenues to combat poverty and support social welfare programs.

The remarks come amid renewed debate over Scotland’s constitutional future. In June, Prime Minister Starmer reiterated that he would not permit another Scottish independence referendum during his premiership.

Scotland last voted on independence in 2014, when 55% of voters chose to remain in the United Kingdom. However, Swinney and the SNP argue that shifting political dynamics, economic challenges, and a desire for self-determination have made independence once again a central issue in Scottish politics.

October 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment