More on this topic
Did Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Just Leak?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025
A leaked document has given us a first glimpse at President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian online newspaper Strana, U.S. officials handed the plan to European diplomats who then passed it on to Ukraine.
The existence of the plan has not been verified, and Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has said “no ‘100-day peace plan’ as reported by the media exists in reality.”
If the plan is real, and if it is being put on the table by the Trump administration as a finished product that, if rejected, will lead to more sanctions on Russia and more weapons for Ukraine (as Trump has threatened), then the war will go on, and Trump’s promise to quickly end the war will vanish in a puff of delusion. But if the plan is real, and if it is put on the table as a starting point for negotiations, then there is hope. And there is suggestion that it is a starting point.
Here is an item by item analysis of what each side may consider acceptable in the supposed plan and what each side may insist on negotiating further.
The process begins with an immediate phone call between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed by discussions between Washington and Kiev. That the plan may be intended as a starting point for negotiations is suggested by the fork in the schedule that negotiations will continue if common ground is found or pause if it is not. Further negotiations would lead to an Easter truce along the front line, an end of April peace conference, and a May 9 declaration of an agreement.
Russia has said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” In June 2024, Vladimir Putin set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for current territorial realities. Putin’s proposal had four points: Ukraine must abandon plans to join NATO, they must withdraw from the four annexed territories, they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and they must ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
The alleged Trump plan can be evaluated by comparison to Putin’s proposal and to recent statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Kursk at the time of the April Truce. This would be acceptable to Russia, who would insist on Ukrainian troops leaving its territory. But for Ukraine, this would be a difficult concession; not because of the withdrawal but because of the timing. Aside from the strategically catastrophic hope that the Kursk invasion would divert Russian troops away from the Donbas, the point of taking Russian territory was to use it to barter for the return of Ukrainian territory. Giving up the bargaining chip before the negotiations begin would nullify Ukraine’s hope of using it to force the return of more of its land.
- Ukraine must end martial law and hold presidential elections by the end of August and parliamentary elections by the end of October. This could be a bitter pill for Zelensky. Recent polling has shown that he could well lose that election. Elections would be welcomed by Russia, who see Zelensky’s government as intransigently hostile and anti-Russia. This would legally transfer hope for regime change to Ukrainians.
- Ukraine must declare neutrality and promise not to join NATO; NATO must promise not to expand into Ukraine. Ukraine was willing to abandon its NATO hopes in Istanbul. Though accepted by Kiev as inevitable, it would now be a painful concession. In the absence of NATO membership. It would be a hard sell to Ukrainians that the war after the Istanbul talks was worth the devastation. For Russia, this point is key, and there can be no negotiations without it. It would be the key accomplishment to get the two-sided promise that Ukraine will not ask for membership and NATO will not offer it.
- Ukraine will become a member of the European Union by 2030. This item is acceptable to both. EU membership will be necessary for Zelensky to present to Ukrainians as something that was worth fighting for. Ukraine is now free to pursue its ambitions to turn west and join Europe. Though Russia had concerns in 2014 with the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine because of its implied integration of Ukraine into the European security and military architecture, Putin has long left EU membership on the table for a postwar Ukraine, and that was specifically agreed to in the Istanbul agreement.
- Ukraine will not reduce the size of its armed forces and the United States will continue modernizing the Ukrainian military. While Ukraine will welcome this, it may not be enough. Russia will have a hard time with this one. This is like “the Israeli model” that then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Putin and Zelensky were both open to in the early days of the war. But, in the absence of NATO, Zelensky has been adamant about American supported security guarantees. And, already by Istanbul, Russia was demanding limits on Ukraine’s armed forces. At the very least, modernized Ukrainian weaponry would have to be defensive and with a cap on firing into Russian territory.
- Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories, but does not officially recognize Russian sovereignty. This item does not go far enough for Russia and too far for Ukraine. Zelensky has accepted that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.” So, he will accept not attempting to return the occupied territories militarily. He has also insisted that Ukraine would never officially recognize Russian sovereignty over those lands. But the added clause, that he will not attempt to return them diplomatically, may be going further than Zelensky has been willing to go. In the case of Crimea, he has reserved the right to try to bring territory back diplomatically. For Russia, the de facto recognition of the territory it occupies will likely be enough. In his proposal, Putin insisted on the complete withdrawal from the territories while saying nothing about Ukraine officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over them. However, though Russia may be willing to negotiate over Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less likely to accept only the lands east of the current front without it including all of the Donbas.
- Some sanctions on Russia will be lifted, including European Union bans on Russian oil. This item will likely be acceptable to Ukraine, especially since temporary duty on sales of oil will be used to restore Ukraine. It will likely be acceptable, at least as a starting point, for Russia.
- Parties that support Russian language and peaceful relations with Russia can participate in Ukraine’s elections. State actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Russian language must cease. Though difficult for Zelensky and some forces in Ukraine to accept, protection of language, religious and cultural rights is the second key Russian demand along with NATO.
- The idea of a European peacekeeping force is to be discussed separately. The recognition that security guarantees are both key and difficult for both parties is realistic. Neither side will agree to a European security force: Russia because it goes too far, Ukraine because it goes not far enough.
If this possible plan is a final draft whose rejection means negotiations end, then the war will not end. But if Donald Trump’s plan is intended as a starting point to negotiations—the most difficult of which may be the security guarantees — then there is hope.
Russian media reach soars as NATO eyes countermeasures – report
RT | January 30, 2025
A fresh NATO report highlights a sharp increase in the reach of Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, where the news outlets have gained millions of new followers.
The report, published on Tuesday by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE), examines how Russian media operations have expanded their influence after the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict in early 2022. With Russian state-backed media subjected to blanket bans in the West, the outlets diverted their resources elsewhere.
According to the report, RT Arabic saw its audience grow by ten million users since the breakout of fighting between Ukraine and Russia. Sputnik Arabic also significantly increased its content output, posting 30–35% more frequently, while the news agency’s engagement on social media surged by 80%. Russian embassies in Africa also saw a 41% rise in social media followers, reflecting a broader trend of growing Russian media influence in non-Western regions, the report notes.
It also claims the outlets have been capitalizing on “anti-colonial narratives” and overall frustration with Western policies, particularly in Africa, and blames this on historical ties to the Soviet Union that still shape public perceptions there. In some cases, the narratives have resonated strongly with audiences already skeptical of Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the International Criminal Court, the report notes.
While StratCom COE projected its findings to the entirety of the Global South, the report actually examined the work of Russian media – as well as social media activities it had linked to Russia without any solid evidence – in Egypt, Mali, Kenya, South Africa and the UAE.
The authors of the report appeared to struggle with terminology, rejecting the ‘Global South’ over an “increasing pushback” against the name, and shot down the term ‘majority countries,’ claiming it has been promoted by assorted “malign actors” to push their agenda. Instead, the report uses the term ‘Multi-aligned Community,’ vaguely defining it as “states existing outside of the Western environment who have exhibited a preference for aligning or partnering with chosen states depending on specific spheres or issues.”
In response to the expanding reach of Russian media, the NATO report proposes new countermeasures aimed at reducing Moscow’s ever-growing influence. One recommendation is to establish a NATO-led initiative to engage with audiences in Africa and the Middle East, improving direct communication and addressing concerns about Western policies.
The report also suggests that NATO should work with local media outlets to “counter disinformation” and to bankroll local “independent journalism.” It also calls for stronger partnerships with civil society organizations to promote diverse viewpoints and counter what it describes as “one-sided narratives” from Russian state media.
India: The “Water Issue” (and Beyond) in Relations with Neighbors
By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – January 29, 2025
All participants in the current phase of the “Great Global Game”, especially the major players, face certain challenges in their relationships with neighboring countries. However, our focus is on India, which has recently found new reasons to pay closer attention to developments in the territories of its neighbors: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and others.
China Announces Construction of a Hydropower Plant in Tibet
At the end of last year, Xinhua reported that the Chinese government had approved the construction of a hydropower plant on the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River. The river’s unique characteristics at the “Medog Gorge” in Tibet—where a massive water flow plunges 2,000 meters over a stretch of less than 50 km—have long attracted the interest of hydropower engineers. This flow holds energy reserves three times greater than those produced by the world’s largest power station, the Three Gorges Dam, built in the 1990s on the Yangtze River.
Naturally, China has long explored projects to harness this immense natural energy. The main obstacles have been the projects’ extreme complexity and the massive financial costs, estimated at around $140 billion.
But why should this internal Chinese matter concern India? Upon leaving Chinese Tibet, the Yarlung Tsangpo flows into India and Bangladesh, where it becomes better known as the Brahmaputra River. In the broader context of the “water problem”, which is becoming central to relations between many countries – especially those in the “Global South” – questions around the use of rivers shared by neighboring states have gained critical importance.
In the mid-2010s, China faced challenges in its relations with Southeast Asian nations for whom the Mekong River is a “river of life”. These countries expressed concerns over potential negative impacts from hydropower projects in Tibet on the Mekong’s tributaries. At that time, Beijing was able to ease such concerns through direct talks in the “Lancang-Mekong” framework.
Using river resources is an inevitable component of modern development. It can benefit the countries through which these rivers flow, provided each nation’s interests are considered during the construction and operation of hydropower facilities.
It all comes down to the overall state of relations between neighbors. If “misunderstandings” suddenly arise, they are more likely a sign of an overall lack of trust between them. Various concerns about the hydropower project in the “Medog Gorge” were raised by New Delhi several years ago. These concerns have resurfaced immediately following the aforementioned report by Xinhua.
Although this facility could bring significant benefits to India itself. The future hydropower plant could supply inexpensive electricity to the northeastern states or regulate the flow of the Brahmaputra River, which floods vast areas of those states annually.
Pakistan and Bangladesh
The same “water disputes” (among other issues) are being raised against India by two of its other neighbors – Pakistan and Bangladesh. This also reflects the poor state of India’s relations with Pakistan. Relations with Bangladesh deteriorated sharply after the well-known events of early August 2024, when the new Bangladeshi leadership accused New Delhi of provoking floods on the Gumti River by releasing water from a reservoir dam in the Indian state of Tripura, just 120 km from the Bangladeshi border.
As for Pakistan, relations in the mid-2010s reached the point of nuclear threats after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hinted at the possibility of blocking the upper reaches of the Indus River in response to a series of violent incidents in the then-state of Jammu and Kashmir. Since then, no similar rhetoric has emerged in bilateral discussions on water disputes. However, the issue remains embedded in the framework of Indo-Pakistani relations and has been repeatedly emphasized in recent months by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
That said, the “Water disputes” with India are not the primary reason for the dramatic shift in Bangladesh’s attitude toward Pakistan following the August 2024 events. From the time of its independence in 1971 until these recent developments, it was hard to imagine Bangladesh adopting a more hostile stance toward any state than it had toward Pakistan. This makes the visit of a delegation of senior Bangladeshi Army officers to Pakistan in mid-January 2025 almost unthinkable. For India, this is a deeply concerning and alarming signal.
Iran and Afghanistan
Providing some balance to these challenges are India’s relatively positive relations with Iran and Afghanistan, which are not immediate neighbors. Afghanistan exhibits a peculiar phenomenon where its leadership seeks to strengthen ties not with co-religionists in Pakistan but with “non-believers” in India.
This alignment by Kabul is not solely due to the strained relationship between the Taliban (still banned in Russia) and Pakistan’s leadership. Even during the era of “secular” Afghan governments, ties with India were consistently prioritized.
This phenomenon has a straightforward explanation: no Afghan leadership would ever recognize the Durand Line, drawn in the late 19th century, as the legitimate border with Pakistan. The line divided the Pashtuns, who constitute Afghanistan’s majority population. This reflects the enduring relevance of Realpolitik principles – regardless of time, region, or the faiths of the people involved. A recent demonstration of growing ties between India and Afghanistan was the January 8 meeting in Dubai between the foreign ministers of the two countries.
Iran, meanwhile, has historically maintained relatively good relations with all political entities within modern India. Today, its leadership pursues a balanced policy toward both India and Pakistan, avoiding taking a definitive stance on the Kashmir issue, which is critical to both countries.
A landmark moment in Iran-India relations was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in May 2016 during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Tehran. The agreement allocated $500 million for the modernization of the Chabahar Port on the Gulf of Oman. India views this port as a vital multipurpose logistics hub that could facilitate land-based transport links to Afghanistan.
These agreements were reaffirmed during Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to New Delhi in February 2018. In May 2024, the agreements were extended for another 10 years. A wide range of bilateral issues was discussed during the January 2025 visit of Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi to New Delhi.
The geopolitical environment surrounding modern India is becoming increasingly complex – a trend observed among all major players in the current phase of the “Great Global Game”.
But then again, who in today’s world has it easy?
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region
Israel Considers Sending Weapons Seized in Lebanon to Ukraine
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 26, 2025
Tel Aviv may be transferring Russian-made weapons that Israeli forces seized in southern Lebanon to Ukraine to be used in the fight against Russia. The potential arms shipments come following high-level meetings between Israeli and Ukrainian officials.
The potential arms shipments to Ukraine were first discussed by the Ukrainian Embassy in Israel, as was revealed on Facebook Tuesday. “During the meeting, the Ambassador thanked the interlocutor for a previously submitted proposal in the Knesset – to hand over weapons of Russian production to Ukraine seized by the IDF in Lebanon,” the post explained. “It is noted that this initiative would be an important step in recognizing the common threats facing both countries.”
On Wednesday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “Among the main topics of our discussion were shared challenges, collaboration – particularly in the security sphere – and ways to achieve a just peace for Ukraine,” the Ukrainian leader posted on X.
Last year, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon and have been occupying much of the territory and preventing civilians from returning to their homes. During the operations against Hezbollah, Israeli forces are reported to have captured Russian-made weapons, including the Draganov sniper rifles, SPG-9 launchers, Kornet antitank missile, as well as Metis, Konkurs, Fagot, and Sagger missiles.
The Ukrainian Embassy said the increased ties between Russia and Iran are driving the potential arms shipments from Israel to Ukraine. “The sides also discussed the current joint challenges for both countries, in particular the military cooperation between Iran and Russia, which poses a threat to the national security of both Ukraine and Israel,” the Facebook post noted.
It’s unclear how large of a weapons cache Israeli forces have seized from Hezbollah. The Telegraph reports as many as 60% of the weapons were manufactured in Russia or the former USSR. The outlet also cited multiple Russian bloggers who reported that the weapons shipments from Israel to Ukraine are already underway.
Alex Soros talks the tragedy of Trump, takes shots at Orbán, Musk
By Liz Heflin | Remix News | January 24, 2025
A Financial Times interview with Alex Soros, now the head of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, revealed some interesting takes.
FT editor Roula Khalaf was all praise for the younger Soros, stating, as quoted by a review of the article in Mandiner, “History matters to him” and lauding the $32 billion given by his family to “promote democracy and human rights in Central and Eastern Europe.”
Khalaf also lamented that Soros senior has been “demonized by the right as the head of a global conspiracy, a characterization that is laced with anti-Semitic overtones.”
The paper noted that the Soroses were huge supporters of Kamala Harris, spending more than $85 million on the 2024 elections. On this front, Alex surprisingly told the paper the U.S. should regulate campaign funding as they do in Europe: “I would be happy if money didn’t play a role in politics, let’s do it, let’s do it tomorrow!”
Alex Soros also spoke about what he believes to be Trump’s fixation on his father. His current treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, and his former treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, both previously worked for Soros’ fund manager, and Alex says Trump hires these people “because he always wanted to get into this club” or “maybe destroy it.”
Touching on OSF making massive cuts back in 2017, shrinking staff from 1,700 to 500, Alex said this was to eliminate excessive bureaucracy. Regarding rumors that OSF is turning away from Europe, he said this is not true at all and that the foundation is actually expanding in Ukraine.
He then predicted that Trump’s administration “will be very bad and tragic for a lot of people,” lamenting what he says is the new reality under the new president.
“I remember walking down the street in Rome and seeing the American embassy with the rainbow flag on it, and thinking how proud I am of my country,” he said, calling those now in charge “tyrants” and stating, “I hope Marx was right that tragedy comes first, and then farce. But I fear it will be the other way around.”
Although a jab was taken at Orbán in the article, noting Trump’s admiration for his campaign against the Soros network of NGOs, it was Musk who took a real hit. Referencing a meeting that was supposed to take place between Musk and Soros in November, Alex blamed the X CEO for missing it, saying, “I think he’s much more interested in trolling than meeting.”
Foreign ‘experts’ plotting coup – Slovakia’s Fico
RT | January 22, 2025
A group of foreign coup “experts” has been discovered in Slovakia, the country’s prime minister, Robert Fico, has claimed. He added that Bratislava will take unspecified precautionary measures against any Ukraine-style political unrest allegedly being fomented in the country.
Citing a confidential report compiled by the Slovak Information Service (SIS) intelligence agency, Fico made the remarks in the capital on Tuesday during a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime minister Viktor Orban.
“There is a group of experts on the territory of the Slovak Republic that had actively operated in Georgia and during the Maidan in Ukraine,” Fico said, referring to the 2014 violent Western-backed coup in Kiev that toppled Ukraine’s democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovich.
It was not immediately clear, with regard to Georgia, whether the PM was referring to the most recent pro-Western protest that unfolded in the country late last year in the wake of a contested general election or to earlier political turmoil such as the so-called Rose Revolution of 2003.
The group of foreign operatives is being “strictly monitored,” Fico revealed, pledging to address the issue with Slovakia’s Security Council on Thursday and to take unspecified yet significant precautionary measures.
The PM, who survived being shot multiple times at close range by a pro-Ukraine activist, accused the country’s opposition and “foreign actors” of seeking to overthrow the government.
“I cannot disclose the content of the report, but I can say in all seriousness that the opposition is preparing a ‘Maidan.’ It is gearing up to thwart the government from exercising its powers and it will do this in cooperation with foreign actors,” he told the press conference.
Fico unveiled the SIS report earlier on Tuesday ahead of a no-confidence vote staged by the opposition. However, the PM said the document could be only discussed behind closed doors due to its sensitive nature. In protest, the opposition called off the no-confidence motion, promising to launch another.
The opposition has dismissed the report as a compilation of “conspiracy theories,” with MPs claiming there was nothing confidential about it as it contained only information “anyone can find on Google.”
A lawmaker with the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) Frantisek Miklosko claimed the whole affair was a preparation for a false-flag incident hatched by the government itself.
“It would not be difficult for someone to stage a provocation at an otherwise peaceful demonstration, providing an excuse to claim they’re protecting the state… while beginning to detain individuals based on some list,” the MP reasoned.
‘YOU’RE FIRED!’ Trump Dismisses Brian Hook in Truth Social Post
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 22, 2025
President Donald Trump fired four presidential appointees that he said did not share his vision for America. Among those dismissed were Brian Hook, who served on the Trump transition team.
“My Presidential Personnel Office is actively in the process of identifying and removing over a thousand Presidential Appointees from the previous Administration, who are not aligned with our vision to Make America Great Again,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday.
“Let this serve as Official Notice of Dismissal for these 4 individuals, with many more, coming soon.” He continued, “Jose Andres from the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, Mark Milley from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Brian Hook from the Wilson Center for Scholars, and Keisha Lance Bottoms from the President’s Export Council—YOU’RE FIRED!”
In 2018, Hook joined the administration shortly before Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Hook was tasked with implementing a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Tehran and overthrowing the Iranian government.
In 2020, Hook resigned from his post, after he was unable to achieve either objective.
Hook was a key official in helping to staff the incoming State Department on the transition team following Trump’s second election victory. In November, Hook said the second Trump administration “would isolate Iran diplomatically and weaken them economically.”
Hook also attacked the Biden administration’s “policy of appeasement and accommodation with Iran,” leading to a “failure of deterrence,” because “no one believes you have a credible threat of military force.”
However, Biden increased sanctions on Iran, refused to enter into serious negotiations with Tehran, and aided Israel in tit-for-tat strikes between Tel Aviv and Tehran.
Along with Hook, chef Jose Andres was fired from the President’s Council. Andres heads the World Food Kitchen (WFK), an international aid organization that often works with Washington.
Last year, seven WFK workers were killed by a series of Israeli strikes on their aid convoy in Gaza. While the White House did not punish or hold Tel Aviv to account for the murders, Andres accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Biden earlier this year.
Supporters of South Korean President Cause Mayhem in Court That Detained Him
Sputnik – 19.01.2025
SEOUL – Supporters of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, who is accused of attempting to violently seize power, caused mayhem in the court that decided to detain the president, the Yonhap news agency reported.
After Yoon was put in custody early in the morning of January 19 (around 18:00 GMT Saturday) on charges of leading a rebellion, his supporters entered the Seoul Western District Court and caused mayhem there, the agency said.
According to the agency, the angry crowd overcame police resistance and broke into the courthouse through the gate behind the building, and some of the president’s supporters climbed over the fence. They began to break windows and managed to get inside the building, where they also smashed glass and furniture with fire extinguishers and other improvised means, shouting “President Yoon Suk-yeol.”
Some also tried to find the judges who ordered his detention, threw plastic chairs at police officers, took away their shields and rubber batons and used them against the police officers themselves. Other supporters of Yoon Seok-yeol tried to calm their comrades, convincing them that this was “not what the president wanted.”
Law enforcement reinforcements that soon arrived began detaining rioters, calling on those remaining in the building to immediately leave it, and everyone in front of the court to disperse, stop the unauthorized rally and other illegal actions.
Earlier on Saturday, the court granted the request of the Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) to detain the country’s president Yoon, suspected of attempting to violently seize power. The court supported the investigators’ opinion that if released, the president might try to destroy evidence pointing to his guilt.
The maximum period of detention requested by the investigators is 20 days, including the two days that Yoon has already spent in a pretrial detention center after his arrest on December 15 for repeatedly ignoring requests to appear for questioning. However, the CIO plans to soon hand over the results of the investigation to the prosecutor’s office, which will forward the president’s case to the court in early February. The court has the right to order the suspect’s detention for two months, with a subsequent extension of up to six months on each count. In this regard, it is expected that the court of first instance will make a decision on the rebellion charges as early as August.
What legitimacy is the PA talking about?
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | January 16, 2025
“While we are waiting for the ceasefire, it is important to stress that it won’t be acceptable for any other entity to govern the Gaza Strip but the legitimate Palestinian leadership and the government of the state of Palestine,” the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa, stated during a meeting of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.
The PA is not a legitimate leadership. In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections, disturbing the Western world’s preferred outcome. Democracy, according to the West, can only conform with Western expectations; therefore Palestinians got a taste of what the US does when democracy crashes imperialist expectations. Instead of respecting the electoral result, the US and Fatah embarked upon a series of destabilisation and coercion tactics, aimed at marginalising Hamas further and ultimately destroying the legitimate representation of Palestinians according to the 2006 electoral result.
While Hamas was shunned and its diplomatic efforts rebuffed, even though it combined resistance and political pragmatism, the PA intensified its efforts at forcing Hamas to relinquish power, enforcing sanctions on an enclave repeatedly bombarded by Israel. When Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank protested against such authoritarianism and cruelty, the PA unleashed its security services on civilians, and continues to do so. As the US and the EU continued funnelling funds to enhance the PA’s brutality under the guise of state-building, the PA continued harming Palestinians in the name of security, to the point of detaining, torturing and, at times, killing their critics.
All this was orchestrated because the international community sided with an illegitimate political representation under the auspices of democracy. Are we to assume that legitimacy and democracy change meaning according to colonial and imperialist interests? What of the importance of language, which is of equal importance in the anti-colonial struggle against Israel and the PA?
Back to the present. Since Israel started its genocide in Gaza, the PA has consistently sought to navigate the corridors of power by presenting itself as an alternative to Hamas. Yet, in doing so, it completely neglected the fact that its silence on the genocide is tantamount to tacit support. The PA merely reiterated the importance of the two-state paradigm as it has for decades, with no acknowledgement of the fact that not even the hypothesis can sustain itself, let alone implementation. Meanwhile, to garner favour with Israel and the international community, and possibly prove how relevant it is to post-genocide Gaza governance, the PA started its own attack against the Palestinian Resistance.
The question is, since legitimacy does not hold the same meaning for the PA and its accomplices, what does legitimacy mean in the context of its Prime Minister citing legitimacy as the reason why the PA should return to Gaza? There is no other acceptable entity, according to the PA – based on what parameters? Just as genocide became synonymous with human rights in the Israeli and international narrative, is the PA’s illegitimate rule becoming synonymous with democracy? Why hasn’t the PA suggested elections and why has the international community not voiced any concern over Ramallah wanting to extend its power to Gaza?
The PA’s attempts to prove itself purportedly worthy of governing Gaza are precisely the reason why it should not. The PA’s only foundations are foreign funding and Israeli colonialism. Having sold itself to the two highest bidders (not forgetting the tangible illegitimacy since 2006), what Palestinian leadership and legitimacy is the PA really talking about?
Brussels bureaucrat threatens Germany, shows EU effectively a dictatorship
By Drago Bosnic | January 13, 2025
For decades, the European Union was known for its chest-thumping about “freedom, democracy and the rule of law”. The troubled bloc also claimed that it was purely an “economic project” and that it “had nothing to do” with NATO, geopolitics, military, etc. However, in the last two years, all those masks have fallen, showing that the EU is nothing more than a geopolitical pendant of the world’s most vile racketeering cartel.
The troubled bloc’s close coordination with NATO shows that there’s virtually no difference between the two. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “enforcement of democracy” in various member states (and not just member states, as evidenced by Western meddling in Georgia), extremely reminiscent of the way the United States and later NATO did in the immediate aftermath of WWII and later years.
The latest in the long line of these “democratic interventions” happened in Romania, when its election results were annulled after the “wrong” candidate won. In that specific case, sovereigntist Calin Georgescu “made the mistake” of not wanting his country and people to be used as cannon fodder in NATO’s crawling aggression on Russia, so the Romanian Constitutional Court, supposedly “unbiased and independent”, ruled out that his victory was “unconstitutional”. The explanation for this was “vague”, to put it mildly, as the “democratic” enforcers simply used the good old “evil Russian election meddling” mantra. All of us “conspiracy theorists” pointed out that this was ridiculous, but we still had no irrefutable evidence. Luckily, the arrogance of the bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels never fails, as they actually said it openly.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental element in Europe. If they don’t, there are fines and the possibility of a ban. Now we are equipped, and we have to enforce this law to protect our democracies in Europe. For now, let’s keep calm and enforce our laws in Europe, when there is a risk that they will be bypassed and if they are not enforced, they can lead to interference. We did it in Romania, and if necessary, we will have to do it in Germany as well,” former French EU Commissioner Thierry Breton stated on live TV, threatening to “enforce democracy” in Germany just like the bloc did in Romania.
Breton’s admission may sound shocking to those who don’t understand how the EU and NATO function. However, this is nothing strange to anyone remotely aware of the state of Western “democracies”. Considering the Nazi origins of both organizations, this is hardly surprising. In fact, the obvious connection between Hitler’s ideas of Werewolf units and the CIA’s Operation Gladio shows this is unequivocal.
The infamous US spy agency and its equivalents in NATO later used these to enforce desirable election results virtually everywhere. Still, it’s certainly a good thing that EU bureaucrats are reminding us that they can steal elections like they did in Romania. It’s an important and much-needed reality check for anyone naive enough to think EU/NATO has anything to do with democracy (the word itself has effectively become pejorative).
It should be noted that the “evidence” for the supposed “Russian meddling” in Romania was based on social media posts, similar to how the so-called “Russiagate” hoax was promoted by the DNC and the corrupt US federal institutions. People like Breton now want to see the same enforced in Germany if the AfD wins. Ironically, while whining about the “freedom of expression”, the EU is particularly worried about the prospect of people having actual freedom on social media, so it wants to force so-called “fact-checking” on everyone. In that regard, it seems social media networks such as Twitter/X and Telegram are particularly “problematic”. Interestingly, even the infamous Facebook/Meta seems to be dropping the hugely unpopular “fact-checking”, which Biden lamented about as a “shameful” decision.
Expectedly, just like the outgoing Biden administration, the so-called “fact-checking” is almost universally hated, as it’s dominated by the mainstream propaganda machine and neoliberal extremists promoting societal degeneracy and moral depravity. Any attempt to criticize these are met with censorship, all in an attempt to create the false impression that neoliberal extremism is popular.
Thus, if social media networks indeed decide to allow free expression (provided this isn’t yet another ruse), this will certainly be “dangerous for our democracy” in both the US and EU. Not only could this disrupt color revolution projects, but it also has the potential to shake numerous already unstable and unpopular governments across the political West. Some, like Scholz, are already resorting to damage control by cutting “Ukraine aid”.
Interestingly, this came after the AfD’s Alice Weidel “dared” to float the idea of relaunching Nord Stream pipelines (as if Brussels needed yet another reason to ban that party). The EU bureaucratic dictatorship is terrified of the prospect of having to contend with more sovereigntist governments, as it already has numerous problems with Slovakia and Hungary, both of which are non-compliant with demands to commit economic suicide for the sake of the Neo-Nazi junta.
Thus, Brussels is not only losing the momentum of its color revolution projects that usually result in EU/NATO enlargement, but it can’t even control current member states. The bureaucratic dictatorship is becoming so desperate that it needs to resort to literal enforcement in order to stay afloat. All this shows the futility of being in the EU, as well as the sheer pointlessness of its existence.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Non-violent revolution in Serbia gains traction and raises questions
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2025
New Year’s came and went, but as we had surmised Serbia’s Batista did not make his country a wonderful holiday gift by fleeing. Not just yet. The pressure from below however continues to build relentlessly, clouding his political future. The most that the stubbornness of the regime, which has managed to annoy almost everyone, can now hope to accomplish is to merely postpone the inevitable.
The latest round of social unrest in Serbia began on 1 November when in the northern city of Novi Sad a recently “reconstructed” roof overhang weighing over 20 tonnes collapsed, squashing seventeen passers-by, of whom fourteen died on the spot, one succumbed later on, and two are still fighting for their life.
But what elsewhere might have been written off as an unfortunate accident (or an “Act of God,” as it is awkwardly known in common law terminology) has triggered in Serbia an unprecedented tsunami of popular fury directed at the presumed malfeasance of the authorities, which are seen as having made it possible for the tragedy to occur.
The broad based protest movement is spearheaded by university and secondary school students, but its ranks are being swelled by farmers, teachers, members of other professions, and ordinary citizens. The position of the protesters is that the direct cause of the killing was endemic corruption which pervades all echelons of Serbian society, with a disproportionate concentration at the political top. They argue that the railway station reconstruction was a sweetheart deal at a grossly inflated price awarding the job to contractors close to top officials, with whom they were more than willing to share the loot. As a result, the authorities deliberately turned a blind eye to egregious violations of quality standards and the shabby workmanship of their minions.
The principal demands of the student movement are that all technical and financial data pertaining to the defective reconstruction be made public and that culprits responsible for the appalling loss of life be punished, irrespective of rank. That sounds reasonable enough, although other issues vital to the Serbian nation, such as the regime’s betrayal of Kosovo, are conspicuously missing from their list of grievances. Even these rather modest demands however have been rebuffed contemptuously by the authorities, fuelling more discontentment and swelling the mass of the protesters.
To prevent the regime from hunting down or suborning their leaders, the students are operating on the principle of leaderless resistance, following the pattern previously set by the Tupamaros in Uruguay. That raises the puzzling question of how they take their decisions and do their strategic planning. The students’ somewhat disingenuous response is that they decide on matters collectively in an institutional setting they call the plenum, where all participants deliberate transparently and as equals. Many are bewildered by the suitability of such a loose mechanism for coordinating large-scale political activities. Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was openly sceptical, claiming to detect the aroma of a Western-inspired colour revolution in these proceedings.
The commotion currently taking place in Serbia could plausibly be interpreted within such a framework. Overlooking its own complete subservience to the collective West and in an effort to delegitimise the protesters, the regime has been making that point forcefully.
The “plenum” mechanism that Serbian students claim is their collective decision-making tool does raise some critical questions if we postulate the possibility that the student movement is externally directed or manipulated. The most obvious question is how young people in their twenties who did not personally experience the socialist system, where expressions such as “Party plenum” and the like were common, had settled on such odd terminology. Suspicions of a nefarious external link are reinforced by the fact that the same concept was used in 2014 during the failed “colour revolution” attempt in the Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and a year later in the partially successful regime change operation executed in Macedonia.
It turns out that in both those cases the concept of plenum was presented to the public as the collective decision-making device behind the upheavals in those two countries. In reality, it was a notion designed to create the appearance of spontaneity for a managed process and even more importantly to disguise the behind the scenes influence of the external string-pullers. This methodology for creating the illusion that the actors on the colour revolution stage are making autonomous decisions originally was pioneered by the infamous think tank, the Rand Corporation. Insights into its practical application were offered in 2007 in an article entitled “The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus,” authored by C. Hsu and B. Sandford, and published in the scholarly journal Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, no. 10, August 2007.
The authors state that the Delphi technique “is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue.” They add that the technique, which relies on the use of trained “facilitators” tasked with discretely supervising the decision-making process, is “well suited as a method for consensus-building.”
In the practical application of the Delphi strategy, the “change agent,” or “facilitator,” plays the principal role and is the driver of the entire process. He is trained to initially act as a neutral discussion moderator in an interaction that the participants believe is entirely controlled by them. The facilitator feigns sympathetic attention to the participants’ statements regarding their respective concerns. Whilst the participants in the “plenum” session take their turns speaking out, the facilitator categorises them as individuals with leadership potential, “barkers,” and undecided who lack a stable point of view and are apt to change their posture under group pressure.
The “facilitator” is trained in the methodology of psychological manipulation and based on previous observation he can predict the probable reactions of most participants. Individuals who take a critical stance toward the agenda the facilitator is promoting are marginalised and group members are thereby sent a message that should they identify with openly dissenting positions they too may be shunned.
Participants are rarely aware that they have been subjected to manipulation. Even should they suspect it, they have no idea how to resist. The desired effect is polarisation within the group, generating the impression of lively, democratic discussion, whilst the facilitator gradually ceases to act as an unbiased moderator and increasingly takes on the role of a full-fledged participant in the group dynamic. He or she selects the right moment to table a proposal, policy, or course of action that is slated in advance to be adopted. Those present gradually line up behind the proposal and vote in favour of it as if it originally had been their own idea, whilst pressuring uncommitted and wavering colleagues to follow suit and also give their consent.
Like everything to do with “colour revolutions,” this technique of consensus engineering is phony and contrived, designed to assure useful idiots that they are in charge of the process and to conceal the presence of the background manipulators. It is a cynical example of directed group dynamics without the participants’ knowledge. The successful employment of the Delphi method is based on the concealed presence of trained professionals to create the pretence of robust “discussion” but in reality their role is to channel group energy toward the adoption of preordained conclusions. Many of those present would perhaps have not gone along if they had been granted the possibility of unpressured reflection and informed decision-making.
There is no direct and conclusive evidence that external forces are exerting a significant influence over the Serbian student movement in the manner described above. An equally or even more plausible case could be made that the students and other citizens are indeed acting on their own, motivated by the catastrophic collapse not just of a railway station roof but of the entire legal and political system in their country. They have plenty of credible reasons for rage. But unless convincing evidence of foreign interference emerges coincidental similarities with classical colour revolution methods should not be given excessive credence. They should always however be prudently kept in the back of one’s mind.
Pro-Western Georgian ex-president appointed to US fellowship
RT | January 9, 2025
Former Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili has become a fellow at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, the US academic institution has said. Georgia’s parliament speaker has slammed the appointment, asserting she is going back to “the entity that employed her.”
Zourabichvili, who was born in France and maintained a pro-Western stance during her term, has been chosen for the 2025 Kissinger Fellowship, named after former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the McCain Institute announced in a statement on Monday.
Commenting on the offer earlier this week, the speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Shalva Papuashvili, drew parallels between Zourabichvili’s appointment and former President Mikhail Saakashvili’s past academic tenure abroad.
“Almost 12 years ago, a similar gesture was extended to … Saakashvili, at Tufts University,” he wrote on X on Tuesday. “Despite having pledged allegiance to Georgia alone, Saakashvili later became a Ukrainian citizen and Zourabishvili too, eventually, is likely to return to her native France.”
Papuashvili concluded that neither had truly served Georgia, returning instead “to the entity that employed them.”
In December, Georgian MPs elected as president former Manchester City football player Mikhail Kavelashvili from the People’s Party, which together with the Georgian Dream form the ruling coalition.
However, Zourabichvili refused to recognize Kavelashvili as her successor, claiming that the parliamentary election in October that brought a convincing victory for Georgian Dream had been rigged.
Despite failing to provide any proof of fraud, the pro-Western opposition protested for weeks after the vote, demanding a rerun of the election. They were fully backed by Zourabichvili, who herself appeared among the demonstrators. The 72-year-old also threatened to not leave the presidential palace in Tbilisi, but eventually departed in late December.
Georgia is a parliamentary republic in which the prime minister and government wield executive power, while the president’s position is ceremonial.
The McCain Institute said that during her presidency between 2018 and 2024 Zourabichvili “forcefully defended Georgia’s path to EU and NATO integration and supported democratic reform, famously vetoing the Georgian Dream government’s Kremlin-modeled ‘foreign agent law’ and standing against the party’s autocratic turn.”
In her new role, the former Georgian president “will use her vast diplomatic, leadership, and policymaking experience to push for new elections and a democratic path forward in her country,” it said.
In May, the parliament in Tbilisi overturned Zourabichvili’s veto and adopted legislation that required NGOs, media outlets and individuals that get more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as foreign agents and disclose their donors.
The Georgian political opposition strongly criticized the bill, labeling it a “Russian law” and accusing the ruling party of basing it on legislation enacted in Russia in 2012. The ruling party, meanwhile, maintained that the law was inspired by the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, emphasizing that the Georgian version is actually far more lenient than its American counterpart.
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said last month that the law had helped to avert a coup that had been planned in Georgia with the use of “foreign funding.”
Featured Video
German POWs Were Starved by the US Army
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
HOW THE UK AND US MEDIA DEHUMANISE PALESTINIANS
BY CLAIRE LAUTERBACH AND NAMIR SHABIBI | DECLASSIFIED UK | NOVEMBER 22, 2023
Nazis. Beneath animals.
This is a small sample of what Palestinians have been called by commentators speaking to Western media outlets in the last month of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – examples of the bestiary of zoological terms natural to a coloniser’s view of the colonised.
Political philosopher Frantz Fanon wrote during France’s colonial war in Algeria of “hordes of vital statistics”, “hysterical masses”, “faces bereft of all humanity”, and “children who seem to belong to nobody”.
These are all terms that could describe how western media covers the suffering of Palestinians — “a tide of humanity… a teeming mass of Gazans”, as the BBC put it (15 October). This is all sharply in focus since Hamas’ October offensive, and Israel’s genocidal razing of the Gaza strip.
We analysed the front page coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza by five major US and UK news media — the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Times, and the BBC (the news landing page at 7am daily) between 7-26 October.
Over these three weeks following Hamas’ offensive, the mechanics of the Western press’ dehumanisation of Palestinians in death and life are revealed as clinical and routine. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow
- Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
- Taking Iran’s lead, a global resistance front is needed against US-backed Israeli war machine
- Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal
- Iran to US: Three unresolved issues must be settled before talks begin
- Over 50 countries continued to arm Israel during genocide of Palestinians in Gaza: Report
- British bases in Cyprus face renewed scrutiny amid war on Iran
- Germany’s allegations over attacks on Jewish targets follow ‘worn-out cliches’: Iran embassy
- NATO must ‘show its teeth’ to Russia – Czech president
- German POWs Were Starved by the US Army
- If Americans Knew
- Flotilla activists’ allegations of rape, sexual assault multiply – Daily Update
- Israel’s long record of using banned incendiary weapons on civilians
- How Jeffrey Goldberg weaponized Jewish trauma to pave the way for war with Iran
- ISRAELI MEDIA: They Were Children During the Nakba. This Is What They Remember 78 Years Later
- Pro-Israel commentator warns critics face ‘buzzsaw’ of ‘Jewish money’ after Massie defeat
- How Dumb Does Ted Cruz Think Americans Are?
- Amid global outrage at treatment of flotilla activists, Israeli Prison Service says abuse is standard procedure: Daily Update
- Autopsies of Gaza Medics Killed by Israeli Troops Show Some Were Shot in the Head
- U.S.: New Data Highlights AIPAC Ties to the U.S., Israeli Governments
- Joe Kent: Trump can’t end war until Israel taken out of the loop
- No Tricks Zone
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
Aletho News 