Orban blasts conviction of Bosnian Serb leader
RT | February 26, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has condemned the conviction of Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik by a court in Sarajevo, describing it as a “political witch hunt” and a misuse of the legal system against a democratically elected official. Such moves are detrimental to the stability of the Western Balkans, he warned.
A Bosnian court sentenced Dodik, the president of Republika Srpska, to one year in prison on Wednesday for obstructing decisions made by Bosnia’s constitutional court and defying the authority of international envoy Christian Schmidt, who oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement that concluded the Bosnian war. The court also barred Dodik from holding political office for six years.
“The political witch hunt against President @MiloradDodik is a sad example of the weaponization of the legal system aimed at a democratically elected leader,” Orban wrote on X in response to the court’s ruling.
“If we want to safeguard stability in the Western Balkans, this is not the way forward!”
Dodik did not attend the sentencing but addressed supporters in Banja Luka afterward, denouncing the ruling as politically motivated and pledging to implement “radical measures.” He warned that the conviction could deal a “death blow to Bosnia and Herzegovina” and suggested the possibility of Republika Srpska’s secession.
In a post on his official X account, Dodik announced plans for the Republika Srpska National Assembly to reject the court’s decision and prohibit the enforcement of any rulings from Bosnia’s state judiciary within its territory. Republika Srpska would obstruct the operations of Bosnia’s central government and police within its jurisdiction, he declared.
Dodik has two weeks to appeal the verdict. Legal experts indicate that the sentence will become final once the appeals process is exhausted.
Following the verdict, Dodik communicated with Orban and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, expressing gratitude for their support. Vucic has convened an emergency meeting of Serbia’s National Security Council to discuss the implications of Dodik’s sentence and is expected to visit Republika Srpska within the next 24 hours.
Dodik is known for his opposition to NATO and has resisted Bosnia’s accession to the US-led military bloc. He has also opposed Western sanctions against Russia related to the Ukraine conflict.
Zelensky now with only the dictatorship in London to support him
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
What is the definition of a ‘dictator’? In the days that followed Trump’s social media post calling President Zelensky one, British media seized upon the subject and ran with it for days. Various public figures were asked whether Trump was right to use the word and whether they believed Zelensky was actually one. Two figures from the right, Nigel Farage and Liz Truss both said they thought Trump was both wrong to call him one and that in fact he wasn’t one.
This remarkable endearment for Zelensky is really the core of the problem in the west in particular the UK, where its leader Sir Keir Starmer declared that he would be ready to send British troops to Ukraine – a suggestion which was quickly shot down by the elites of Germany and France as preposterous.
It’s rare that the giants of the EU put the British government in its place on world affairs but we are living in unprecedented times of sensational stupidity and perhaps ignorance from politicians which we have never seen before.
Farage’s views on the Middle East tell us he is both ignorant of what is happening there and doesn’t have any advisors covering the region. But his views on Ukraine are even more shockingly deranged. Zelensky is a leader who has shut down anything which resembles an ‘opposition’ both politically and media, he has conglomerated all TV stations into one state-owned entity so as to shut down even the slightest criticism or accountability of his own actions, he has had the few dissident voices arrested and thrown into prison, with some predicting that there are thousands of journalists and media workers. Add to that it is rapidly emerging that the level of corruption and embezzlement linked directly to Zelensky is on a scale that even hard line critics in the West could not have even imagined.
In my own investigation in October 2023, where a very angry Ben Wallace insulted me in a WhatsApp interview before blocking me, I outline how the original, more sensational claim that only about a third of all military equipment sent to Ukraine was actually making it to the battlefield was in fact realistic. This analogy was bandied about for some time and was dismissed by Wallace and others like Alecia Kearns MP as nonsense and yet turned out to be more than just realistic but likely. That is to say that 66 percent of what was being sent to Ukraine was being sold on the black market in Libya making Zelensky and his close circle billionaires.
In recent weeks now mainstream journalists and politicians are talking about the arms scandal and it is only a matter of time before we shall see the realities of this. The British government have always turned a blind eye to it, both in Ukraine and further afield. It would cost them nothing to do a study in the Sahel to evaluate how much of the equipment there funding terrorism is coming from the arms bazaars of Tripoli where all of this kit is ending up. I suggested to Wallace that his own government at the time should send some investigators there (Libya) to look at what’s available. I was more or less told to go there myself and do the job for them.
But Zelenksy support structure for so long has been that of a dictator, in particular media. The hundreds of media outlets in Ukraine which were receiving USAID funding is extensive, not to mention the hundreds of civil servants which support him being on the same payroll. If that doesn’t shock Farage and Truss, then consider the same slush fund which paid out around a 100 million dollars to movie stars to go and visit him and fake their adulation, all for the purposes of cheating the humble U.S. taxpayer by raising his profile.
Who could forget Sean Penn giving him his own Oscar, or Ben Stiller chilling with the Ukrainian leader and making small talk? Angelina Jolie is even reported to have been paid 20 million dollars to meet with him but didn’t even manage that and simply mooched about a bit in the country before jetting back to the U.S. Of course, the celebrities all dismiss these claims, through the same left-wing woke press which is part of their extended political family. But the question we should be asking ourselves is simply this: if they were not paid, then why won’t they show up now and show support at the precise moment when Zelensky needs it the most? Given that these celebrities supported Biden and are Democrats, this would be the most logical thing for them to do. In reality, the wall of silence is what we see.
Dictators don’t stand over their hired killers and watch their victims in their final moments like Idi Amin did. In reality, they only indicate and hint to the thugs on their payroll what she should do to fix problems. Do Farage and Truss actually believe that dissidents are not rounded up and thrown into jail where they are tortured and in some cases murdered? Now that the vultures are circling over Zelensky and many are wondering how many days in office he has left, more reports are emerging with details of such cases. The story of Gonzalo Lira, the American Chilean blogger whose vlogs were often well-informed and threw a very poor spotlight on Zelensky is a very sad one as he was brutally tortured while in prison and finally died. If the Zelensky cabal can do this to an American citizen, perhaps Farage and Truss will not be too surprised when in the coming weeks we will have the same Damascus prison media moment where it transpires that there are certainly hundreds, possibly thousands of journalists, commentators and political rivals in Ukraine’s prisons.
The debate, if we can call it that in the UK, over whether Zelensky is a dictator or not is a remedial one at best as it misses the point. In Britain, during the same period a man was imprisoned for posting a social media comment about a Labour official while a granny was visited by two plain clothes cops about her mere criticism of a Labour councilor’s conduct. Plain clothed detectives!
Britain has descended rapidly into a police state with Starmer as its dictator. The high ground we once had where we scolded China for arresting protestors has now been kicked away from under our feet. We have become China. Britain’s police now cannot deal with crime but prefer being the ‘Thought Police’ and threatening old biddies.
And so the talk about what is a dictator is rather fatuous if not incongruent given that those doing it are part of an elite which only claim to cherish free speech but in fact loath it. Farage cannot be taken seriously on Ukraine but his comments do steer the bumble hack towards darker questions. Who is funding him? And is his own dream of being a PM in the UK going to merely continue the present dictatorship which silences anyone who questions him? His reputation of being thin-skinned and kicking out of his party anyone who questions his ideas is already established. His own repugnance of British media also is well known. Previously in Brussels, his decision led to the closure of the only free speech, anti corruption magazine going, which he was always fearful of exposing his own infidelity while an MEP. And as for Truss, the most inept prime minister Britain has ever had in its long history, whose dictator-like style while in office crashed the economy? How should we interpret her support for Zelenksy? Do both Farage and Truss admire this dictator? The problem is not with the word ‘dictator’, it is more about the people who use it for their own purposes. It is not important whether Zelensky is one or not, rather than he is not a dictator who is servile to Trump and his cabal. Unlike Farage, Zelensky is not our kind of dictator.
NATO-skeptic Romanian presidential candidate arrested
RT | February 26, 2025
Romanian police have arrested Calin Georgescu, the front-runner in last year’s annulled presidential election, and conducted dozens of raids on his supporters and people tied to his campaign, local media reported on Wednesday.
A critic of NATO and the EU and an opponent of sending aid to Ukraine, Georgescu made headlines in November last year when he unexpectedly garnered 23% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election in Romania. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the results shortly before the second round, citing intelligence documents alleging ‘irregularities’ in his campaign.
Georgescu’s communications team has said on Facebook that he was arrested just as he was about to submit his new candidacy for the presidency.
”The system stopped him in traffic and he was pulled over for questioning at the Prosecutor General’s Office! Where is democracy, where are the partners who must defend democracy,” his team wrote.
Prior to his arrest, Georgescu condemned the raids on his supporters in a post on Facebook.
“The communist-Bolshevik system continues its odious abuses,” he wrote, accusing the Romanian authorities of trying to “invent evidence to justify the theft of the elections and to do anything to block my new candidacy for the presidency.”
The Romanian Prosecutor General’s Office is reportedly investigating Georgescu over allegations of involvement “in a fascist organization and the promotion of controversial ideologies and historical figures in the public space,” G4Media outlet reported, citing sources close to the investigation.
According to media reports, police found “weapons, live ammunition, and more than a million dollars hidden in a safe” during the raids.
America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.
Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.
Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.
Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?
The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.
Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.
It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?
Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.
That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.
Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.
It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.
Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.
What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.
Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.
The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.
Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.
Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.
How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.
In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.
The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.
It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.
So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.
Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.
Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.
If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.
It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.
The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.
Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.
Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.
Utah Set to Become First State to End Water Fluoridation for All Residents
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 24, 2025
Utah lawmakers last week voted to pass the first U.S. statewide ban on adding fluoride to public water systems. The Utah Senate voted 18-8 in favor of the measure after it passed in the House.
If Gov. Spencer Cox signs the bill into law, it will end community water fluoridation. The new law also will give pharmacists new authority to prescribe fluoride supplement pills. Typically, such pills can be prescribed only by a dentist or physician.
Rep. Stephanie Gricius, who sponsored the bill, told The Defender she was thrilled the legislature voted to pass the bill. “Utah leads the nation in so many things and this is just one more example.”
Gricius emphasized that the law allows people to make their own decisions about whether and how to take supplemental fluoride.
“I am a firm believer that the proper role of government is to provide safe, clean drinking water, not medicate the public on a mass scale,” Gricius said. “Because I also believe in medical freedom, I wanted fluoride to remain available to anyone who wanted it for either themselves or their children — which is why we made the prescription easier to obtain through a pharmacy.”
The bill’s Senate sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, said during his presentation on the Senate floor that the bill is “about protecting our water, reducing unnecessary costs, and ensuring people have the right to decide what they consume.”
Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs who last year won a landmark lawsuit over water fluoridation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said, “Utah’s fluoridation ban bill enjoyed wide support in both the House and Senate, reflecting both concerns over health risks and the firm opposition to adding any drug to drinking water, taking away people’s right to informed consent.”
North added, “If the governor signs the bill, it would be historic, and could be a catalyst for other states and cities doing the same.”
Opposition to water fluoridation has been growing across the country, particularly since a California federal judge ruled in the case brought by FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation and others against the EPA that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and that the agency must regulate it.
Judge Edward Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the overwhelming scientific evidence that exposure to fluoride is linked to reduced IQ in children. The EPA recently announced it plans to appeal the ruling.
Chen’s ruling followed the publication in August of a key report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) that concluded higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in kids.
Other studies making similar findings have also been published in major scientific journals this year.
Fluoride a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production
Gricius started working on the issue last year after a resident approached her about “having individual choice when it comes to what prescriptions she and her children took.”
Local water conservancy districts also reached out to Cullimore to ask the state to ban water fluoridation citing claims of employee safety and the decision in the landmark case against the EPA, Gricius said.
Proponents of water fluoridation argue it protects children’s oral health. However, in October, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Proponents also underscore that fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in water, earth and rocks. It can occur naturally in drinking water supplies, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions.
But most surface water contains very low levels of fluoride and roughly three-quarters of Americans have fluoride added to their drinking water. The fluoride added to water systems, typically in the form of fluorosilicic acid, is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production — as documents from the fluoride lawsuit confirmed.
Cullimore also emphasized that many Utah citizens don’t want the chemical added to their water. “This bill does not prohibit anybody from taking fluoride in whatever fashion they want,” he said. It just disallows people who do not want fluoride from having to consume fluoride in their water.”
Cullimore’s district includes the city of Sandy, where a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.
An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.
The 18-8 vote to pass the bill in the Republican-dominated Utah Senate on Friday was largely along party lines, with two Republican senators voting against it and one Democratic senator voting for it.
If signed, the bill is set to take effect on May 7. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Cox plans to sign it.
‘We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time’
Since the September court ruling, many U.S. cities and towns have moved to pause or stop fluoridating their water, signaling that the long-term and largely unquestioned practice in the U.S. is facing heightened scrutiny by the public.
FAN Executive Director Stuart Cooper said the Utah vote is a marker of how significantly public opinion is shifting.
Cooper said:
“This is another significant victory for the public, who didn’t sign up to have a developmental neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor to their drinking water. The NIH-funded science showing neurotoxicity, the NTP report confirming that neurotoxicity and the federal ruling that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health have all pushed this topic over the tipping point. We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time.”
Cooper pointed out that 95% of the world and 98% of Europe do not fluoridate, and many countries passed resolutions banning the practice decades ago.
He said states and towns that continue to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supply “are the extreme outliers and radicals in this situation.”
Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo in December advised governments across the state to stop adding fluoride to their water. Ladapo cited the neuropsychiatric risks — particularly for pregnant women and children — associated with the practice.
Lawmakers in at least three other states have also introduced legislation that would outlaw adding fluoride to community water systems, and four other states are considering bills to make fluoride optional or limit its concentration.
In addition to Utah, lawmakers in North Dakota, New Hampshire and Tennessee are seeking a ban on the practice. Bills in Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Dakota would either repeal statewide fluoridation programs or set limits on the amount of fluoride added to water, Bloomberg Law reported.
Last week, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller also called on Gov. Greg Abbott and the state lawmakers to institute a statewide ban on water fluoridation.
Hawaii is the only state that does not offer water fluoridation for most residents. However, the military bases there are mandated by the federal government to fluoridate their water.
Bucking national trends, Democratic senators in Connecticut are introducing legislation to make the current levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter, recommended by the public health agencies, state law. They are drafting a bill, Senate Bill No. 7, that would continue water fluoridation at current levels in the state even if federal policy were to change.
The state senate democratic webpage reports they are drafting the bill out of concerns that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recently confirmed as secretary of Health and Human Services, suggested on social media that the Trump administration would advise all American water systems to remove it from drinking water.
Related stories in The Defender
- Breaking: New Study Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Sparks Renewed Calls to End Water Fluoridation
- Florida Surgeon General Urges End to Water Fluoridation
- Children Whose Mothers Were Exposed During Pregnancy to Fluoridated Tap Water at Higher Risk of Neurobehavioral Problems
- ‘House of Cards’: Some Cities Hit Pause on Water Fluoridation in Wake of Historic Federal Ruling
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Three years of a cruel and destructive NATO proxy war in Ukraine
By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | February 25, 2025
The end of February marks three years since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and 11 years since the ‘Euromaidan’ coup of February 2014. The coup was the main cause of the current military conflict.
The war in the now-former eastern territories of Ukraine could have been avoided had two successive presidencies in Kiev (Petro Poroshenko, 2014-2019 and Volodomyr Zelensky since 2019) complied with the Minsk 2 peace agreement of February 2015. Minsk 2 (text here), was agreed by Kiev and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region on February 12, 2015. France, Germany, and Russia co-signed the agreement as guarantors. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council on February 17, 2015.
Minsk 2 envisioned the return of Lugansk and Donetsk (the two rebellious ‘peoples republics’ of the industrialized Donbass region) to the fold of the Ukrainian constitution, this time as semi-autonomous oblasts (provinces). Kiev also agreed to a neutral status for Ukraine. It could apply for membership in the European Union if it chose, but membership in the NATO military alliance was for Russia a non-starter.
EU membership increasingly became a goal of Western-oriented business interests in Ukraine during the decade of the 2000s. That decade followed 10 years of sharp economic decline following the dissolution in 1989-90 of Soviet Ukraine and of the Soviet Union (USSR, of which Soviet Ukraine was a key constituent).
Tragically for the people of post-Soviet Ukraine, the Western countries, particularly the leading powers of NATO, quietly and deceptively opposed Minsk 2. They worked quietly from the get-go to sabotage the agreement.
Deception of Ukrainians by the West
On February 12, 2025, the deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, Aleksey Shevtsov, spoke on the ninth anniversary of the signing of Minsk 2, explaining once again to those who would listen that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine would never have happened had the West honored the agreement. He stressed that the people of Ukraine today have every right to demand an accounting for the deceptions that took place in 2015 and after.
On the same day, the Ukrainian online publication Strana published a lengthy commentary in its Telegram messaging service headlined, ‘Why did the Minsk agreement fail?’ Strana wrote, “Russia says that Kiev deliberately refused to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk 2 agreement and instead proceeded to rearm its army and restart armed attacks against the people of Donbass. The Russian government says it can no longer trust the government in Kiev and so there is no possibility of a ‘Minsk 3’.” (‘Minsk 1’ was a first attempt, in September 2014, by the pro-autonomy forces of Donbass to reach a peace agreement with the new administration in Kiev.)
Strana wrote further, “Russia did not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or 2015. Perhaps it wanted to, who knows, but it could not do so because it would have been hit with harsh economic sanctions similar to those levied against it by the Western powers beginning in February 2022. It would have faced economic sanctions worse than those initially levied against it following the Crimea referendum of March 2014. The Russian economy was in no shape to easily withstand such sanctions, in contrast to the situation in 2022.
“Additionally, although the Ukrainian army back then was much weaker compared to 2022, this was also the case for the Russian army.”
In their recollections of the events of those years, leaders of today’s Donetsk Peoples Republic (today a constituent of the Russian Federation) say that the main opponent of a major military response to Kiev’s continued military provocations and sabotage of Minsk 2 was the Russian military. Russian military leaders said at the time that the Russian Federation did not have enough combat-ready troops to take on such a large and industrial country as Ukraine.
“From a purely military point of view, the rapid success of Russia in Crimea in the spring of 2014 was due to the fact that Russian troops were already present on the Crimean peninsula [by virtue of a 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine; see Wikipedia on the subject]. They needed no time to deploy, and they prevented armed attacks being threatened by the paramilitaries of the new administration in Kiev. At the time, there were no large military formations of the Russian Federation along the lengthy Russian-Ukrainian border. Donbass’s self-defense forces only began to form in the late spring of 2014 and it was several years before they were integrated as auxiliaries of the Russian armed forces.”
As Russian sources stated at the time, the initial military defense that arose in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine against the paramilitaries of the 2014 coup bore the markings of a military adventure and were not at all coordinated with the political leadership of the Russian Federation. The self-defense forces hoped to convince or pressure Russia to join a war of defense for which Russia was not ready, not politically, economically nor militarily.
What the Western-incited war in Ukraine has wrought
In the lead-up to and since the 2014 coup, western and central Ukraine has been living the fate of a battering ram to be used by the Western imperialist powers to weaken Russia, regardless of the tragic human consequences and of the prospect of Ukraine being cast off once it is no longer needed for such a role. The results of this cruel and heinous policy are increasingly evident as graveyards continue to spread on Ukraine’s territory with each passing day.
The Politnavigator media outlet explained (as reported on Telegram on February 1) the consequences of such policy for the mortals conscripted into war, many against their will. The report cites Anton Cherny, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He explains, “We are being lied to about the value of our soldiers’ lives. I watched the speech of our commander-in-chief that every soldier is valuable to Ukraine and worth his weight in gold. That’s what they tell the people, but it’s not true.”
Cherny says that 90% of the soldiers who die or succumb to injuries on the battlefields are simply buried there and then officially listed as missing. “Everyone there knows perfectly well what is happening.” And the indignities do not end there. The families of those reported as ‘missing’ do not receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.
Cherny also explains that it is extremely difficult for surviving fighters to exit the grim fighting along the front lines. “It’s hard to get out of there by yourself, it’s unrealistic. How lucky it would be if there were fog, very big snow or some other bad weather.” He explains that Ukrainian lines are under constant surveillance from drones flying overhead. As soon as evacuation vehicles approach from the Ukraine side, the drones threaten to strike them, making it very difficult to evacuate the injured or the dead from the various battlefields.
Politnavigator continues its report:
‘The army doesn’t provide guidelines or instructions for soldiers to somehow make their tasks easier. Its words to this effect are just talk. Soldiers are told to go here or there and ‘do’ something, but as to what, where and why, you have to be some kind of superman to figure it out. It’s unreal,’ Cherny says indignantly.
Provoking the sleeping bear of Russia
Radical nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitaries operating under the control of Kiev’s police and special services waged nine years of military conflict and terrorist attacks against civilians in Donbass from 2014 to 2021. This was bound to provoke a reaction from the Russian Federation sooner rather than later, as any serious commentator knew and reported.
Ukrainian commentators were writing more than three years ago that Kiev’s deployments of paramilitaries in Donbass and its turning a blind eye to their crimes, backed by promises of weapons by belligerent Western governments, would inevitably provoke Russia into responding, as though provoking a bear with a stick. The weapons of Ukraine, many provided by the West, did indeed, predictably, awaken the bear, and angrily.
In early February 2025, the prime minister of neighboring Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, told journalists that back in 2022, his country’s then-government was being encouraged by the West to open a ‘second front’ against Russia. The country was to be used just as Ukraine was being used. According to the Kobakhidze, Georgian officials of the day were told a fable by the Western powers to convince them to act. “They said Ukraine is winning the war; you should not miss this chance to strike against Russia.”
Kobakhidze believes it will now take Ukraine 100 years to return to a state of development comparable where it was prior to the 2014. He asks, “Why was all this done? No one is offering a clear answer to this question. However, there is an answer: some global interests, evil interests, have sacrificed our friendly country Ukraine.”
Full-fledged dictatorship
The eleven years that have elapsed since the Euromaidan coup of 2014 have been years of Ukraine sliding inexorably towards dictatorship, all the while accompanied by rosy phrases from EU leaders claiming that a ‘triumph of democracy’ was taking place. The ideology of Nazism from the World War II era has been officially rehabilitated, while opponents of this course have been targeted by armed, ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis.
All left-wing parties in Ukraine have been banned. Some of their members and leaders have been killed, while many more have been forced into exile. Protests against, and critics of, the ‘pro-European’ dictatorship in Kiev have been targeted for repression. The Western powers have turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed, while United Nations officials have occasionally issued toothless resolutions expressing ‘concern’ about the civil rights being violated.
In 2021, Zelensky banned more political parties critical of his government, and he closed all television channels deemed non-compliant with his policies. No court or other legal reviews of these decisions have taken place.
With the outbreak of war in February 2022, Zelensky imposed martial law and then canceled national elections for the presidency and the legislature (Rada). These were to take place no later than April 2024, according to the Ukraine constitution. Zelensky has said that Ukraine cannot hold elections until it has fully regained control over its former territories. Since this would be impossible to achieve, his statements on the matter mean that for all intents and purposes, elections will not take place in the remaining territories held by Kiev. Period.
Alexander Dubinsky, a former associate of Zelensky jailed by his administration, writes that the war became for Zelensky an escape from the social explosion building up inside the country and appearing inevitable by the end of 2021. “I think this largely determined why Zelensky promoted military rhetoric in every possible way, and why in March 2022 he ceded to Western government pressures to draw back from a political settlement with the Russian Federation.”
For Dubinsky, the end of the war would mean a loss of political power by Zelensky and his cohorts, and this, in turn, would expose them to direct conflict with all the enemies he has managed to make. He may be able to protect himself from the widows and mothers of the deceased, reasons Dubinsky, but not from the violent, ‘serious men’ who have proliferated under his government.
Detention camps using torture methods under Zelensky
Every day, more and more facts are emerging in Ukraine about the detention camps that Zelensky has created in order to sustain its power and continue the NATO proxy war.
In January, legislator Oleksandr Dubinskyy urged Ukrainians to report to U.S. authorities about the detention camps that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has organized, notably for the purpose of forcing accused conscription evaders to confess to accusations of state treason. According to him, the SBU detention camps are prototypes of what Ukraine as a whole has become under Zelensky.
Dubinskyy has been detained since November 2023 under accusations of financial crimes and treason. He has recently announced from detention his intention to run for president of Ukraine if and when a national election takes place.
Another former associate of Zelensky, legislator Artem Dmytruk, wrote on Telegram on January 30 that the entire special corps of the Lukyanivske pre-trial detention center in Kiev should be called a concentration camp and named ‘Zelensky’s Factory’. Legislators Oleksandr Dubinsky and Yevhen Shevchenko are among those imprisoned there. “90|% of detainees in this center face charges by the office of the expired president Zelensky.”
Dmytruk fled to Britain in August 2024 shortly after he was the only deputy in the Rada to speak and vote against a new law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a subdeacon.
The Ukrainian magazine Liberal published a lengthy report in February saying that individuals and political formations connected to the Zelensky administration are the only ones in Ukraine not talking about political repression prevailing today in the country.
The authors claim that extensive political repression was being prepared and carried out well before the start of the Russian military intervention in February 2022. According to the publication, thousands of SBU employees were sent to border regions on the eve of the Russian intervention to monitor troop morale and other measures of the military situation.
At the same time, Kiev began to address its shortages of police and prison personnel in Kiev and other regions by recruiting ‘trained athletes’ into the ranks of the SBU after completing three-month courses in western Ukraine. ‘Trained athletes’ is a euphemism in Ukraine for members of criminal gangs.
“Thousands of bone-crackers performing police functions inside the country spread out without the slightest remorse to beat testimony out of Ukrainians using the most brutal forms of violence and creating torture institutions such as the famous ‘Sports Hall’ on Volodymyrska Street [in the center of Kiev],” writes Liberal.
“People were lying on floors, deprived of the right to move and subjected to constant beatings and humiliation. The Ukrainian anthem and nationalist songs were played continuously from loudspeakers. The eyes of the prisoners would be taped shut with duct tape or tied with rags, and they were taken to the toilet only once a day. They were also fed very sparingly, once per day.”
The authors note that political prisoners now account for about half of the prisoners in Ukraine. The main motives for many SBU officers, Liberal notes, have not been security concerns but the robbery of suspects. Detainees have been forced to surrender their personal wealth upon arrest and detention.
Two reports in English on prison conditions in Ukraine were published in 2024, one by a Danish government agency (110 pages) and one by an agency of the Council of Europe (46 pages). Both reports skirt incendiary accusations such as the one published by Liberal and the many ones appearing widely on social media.
On February 12, a German court for the first time approved the extradition of a conscientious objector to military service who had fled Ukraine. Ukraine prohibits men of military age (age 25 to 55, 60 for officers) from leaving the country. Many of the fugitives from Ukraine’s compulsory conscription have chosen to flee to Germany, attracted by Germany’s claimed liberal values. This court decision is the first warning sign that the authorities of European Union countries may begin to conduct forced deportations of the Ukrainian men who have managed by hook or by crook to escape from their homeland’s military conscription. It is reported that in 2024, there are some 200,000 Ukrainian men residing in Germany alone.
They Think We Are Stupid, Volume 14
Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you. As always, these headlines are presented without commentary.
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | February 24, 2025
UK’s iCloud Encryption Crackdown Explained: Your Questions Answered on Apple’s Decision
How does Apple’s UK encryption move affect your iCloud data? Even for those not in the UK, we break down security risks, government access, and privacy options.
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | February 24, 2025
The UK government’s latest demand from Apple has caused a major conversation about digital privacy, encryption, and government surveillance. With Apple withdrawing its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature in the UK rather than complying with the government’s order, many users are left with questions.
- How does this affect your iCloud data, whether you’re in the UK or not?
- Can the government now access your photos, backups, and messages?
- Are alternative services like Google, Android, or Samsung any better?
- What are the risks, and what are your options for securing your data?
With this Q&A feature, we break down the key details, security implications, and next steps for UK users—and why this could be a turning point for global encryption policy.
What exactly did the UK government demand from Apple?
The specific details of the Technical Capability Notice (TCN) issued to Apple are not public due to the secretive nature of the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), which was amended in 2023 to expand government access to encrypted data. Reports from the Washington Post suggest the UK Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer demanded compliance with the order by creating a backdoor into their encryption.
Why did Apple choose to withdraw ADP instead of complying?
Apple has consistently opposed government backdoors, arguing that any compromise in encryption, even for one government, creates a security risk for all users globally. If Apple built a decryption tool, it could be exploited by hackers or demanded by authoritarian regimes. By withdrawing ADP in the UK, Apple likely aims to avoid setting a precedent and to pressure the UK government while reinforcing its brand as a privacy-focused company. It’s also possible that Apple privately negotiated with the UK government but couldn’t reach a compromise.
What happens to UK users who already enabled ADP?
Existing UK users with ADP won’t lose encryption immediately, but Apple has confirmed they will eventually need to disable the feature. The exact timeline remains unclear — Apple’s February 21 announcement did not specify specific dates, suggesting a phased approach. Users might receive notifications asking them to opt out voluntarily or could face automatic disabling via a future software update. Until then, their data remains end-to-end encrypted.
What data can governments access without ADP?
Without ADP, most iCloud data reverts to Apple’s standard encryption, meaning Apple can decrypt and provide access if compelled by a legal order. This includes:
- Photos, videos, documents, notes, and device backups
- Email content (if using iCloud Mail or a different provider but the account is backed up to iCloud)
- iMessage chats (if iCloud backups are turned on)
Some data, like real-time iMessages and Health data, may still retain end-to-end encryption depending on user settings.
Losing ADP increases UK users’ vulnerability to data breaches because their iCloud data, once decrypted by Apple, could be exposed if Apple’s systems are hacked. Standard iCloud encryption is robust against external threats, but high-profile breaches (e.g., past celebrity iCloud leaks) show it’s not infallible. Foreign entities could also target this data if they penetrate Apple’s infrastructure, though there’s no evidence of state-sponsored hacks yet. The risk isn’t immediate for most users but grows over time as cybercriminals adapt, making UK users a softer target compared to those with ADP elsewhere.
What are the Security Risks for UK Users?
Losing ADP increases UK users’ vulnerability to data breaches because their iCloud data, once decrypted by Apple, could be exposed if Apple’s systems are hacked. Standard iCloud encryption is robust against external threats, but high-profile breaches (e.g., past celebrity iCloud leaks) show it’s not infallible. Foreign entities could also target this data if they penetrate Apple’s infrastructure, though there’s no evidence of state-sponsored hacks yet. The risk isn’t immediate for most users but grows over time as cybercriminals adapt, making UK users a softer target compared to those with ADP elsewhere.
Governments aside, what are the UK government’s next steps?
The UK government could escalate by fining Apple for non-compliance, though Apple’s removal of ADP might technically satisfy the notice by removing the contested capability. The government may also target other encrypted services like WhatsApp, Signal, or ProtonMail with similar demands. The 2023 amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act allow the UK to issue preemptive decryption demands on tech firms, meaning broader enforcement is possible. However, political backlash and pushback from the tech industry might slow down aggressive enforcement. That’s why challenging the UK government is important.
What legal basis does the UK have for this demand?
The Investigatory Powers Act (2016)—sometimes called the Snooper’s Charter—was updated in 2023 to expand government power to issue Technical Capability Notices. These notices require companies to remove encryption or other security measures if deemed necessary for national security and proportionate. This appears to be the first major use of the amended law against a tech giant like Apple, setting a precedent that could encourage other countries, such as EU nations or Australia, to follow suit. This is a test case for global encryption policy, though secrecy limits transparency.
Why hasn’t Apple explicitly confirmed the UK order?
Apple has not officially confirmed receiving a Technical Capability Notice, likely due to a gag order under the Investigatory Powers Act. This law prohibits companies from disclosing such requests to avoid tipping off targets or causing public backlash. However, Apple’s decision to withdraw ADP and its statement expressing disappointment strongly imply that it received a legally binding order. Silence could also be a strategic choice, keeping the focus on the impact of withdrawal rather than escalating a legal battle it cannot win.
What does this mean for US-UK relations?
This could strain US-UK tech relations, particularly given comments from figures like JD Vance criticizing European overreach on American firms. The US and UK share intelligence via the Five Eyes alliance, but this dispute (at least, as far as it looks) highlights divergent views on privacy versus security. Apple might lobby the US government to pressure the UK, especially if it sees this as a threat to America’s tech dominance. Diplomatic fallout seems unlikely to escalate significantly, but it could complicate future transatlantic tech policy talks, especially if other EU nations follow suit.
Do any lawmakers in the US want to ban this type of encryption?
Yes, some US lawmakers have pushed to limit or effectively end strong encryption, particularly end-to-end encryption, by requiring tech companies to provide law enforcement access to encrypted data. While they don’t always frame it as “ending encryption” outright, their proposals would undermine its effectiveness by mandating backdoors or weaker standards, which many experts argue amounts to the same thing. This has been a recurring theme in Congress over the years.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Graham has been a key figure, co-sponsoring the EARN IT Act (2020) with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and introducing the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act (LAED Act) in 2020 with Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Both bills aimed to force tech companies to unlock encrypted data under court orders, effectively targeting E2EE.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Co-sponsor of the EARN IT Act, which critics say indirectly threatens encryption by tying legal protections to government-approved “best practices” that could ban E2EE.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Co-sponsors of the LAED Act, which explicitly sought to outlaw “warrant-proof” encryption—systems where only users hold the keys. These efforts often have bipartisan support, driven by concerns over crime and national security.
Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) have also recently called for a crackdown on end-to-end encryption, using the fight against fentanyl as a justification.
Should global Apple users be concerned about the UK’s move against encryption?
Yes, global users should be concerned because the UK’s action sets a dangerous precedent that could inspire other governments to demand similar backdoors, weakening digital privacy worldwide. If Apple complies with one government’s demand to weaken encryption, it may face pressure from other nations, including the EU, Australia, India, or China, to do the same. This risks creating a domino effect where end-to-end encryption is gradually eroded across multiple jurisdictions.
Moreover, any security loophole introduced for the UK could be exploited by hackers or authoritarian regimes, endangering global Apple users. Apple’s current refusal to comply suggests it is drawing a line to protect its security model worldwide, but if the UK succeeds in enforcing its demands, Apple and other tech companies may struggle to resist similar pressures elsewhere.
For now, users outside the UK still benefit from full encryption protections, but privacy advocates worry that if this case goes unchallenged, governments may target other encrypted services, such as WhatsApp, Signal, or Google Drive, making digital privacy harder to maintain globally.
What about those iCloud users that didn’t have Advanced Data Protection (ADP) turned on?
For most users, this change doesn’t affect them because the majority of iCloud users never had ADP enabled in the first place. Apple’s standard iCloud encryption, which was always the default, means Apple already holds the keys to decrypt most stored data and can provide access when legally required. This means that users who never switched on ADP were always using the less secure version of iCloud storage, and their data was already accessible to Apple and, by extension, law enforcement with a legal order.
However, for privacy-conscious users in the UK who did enable ADP, this decision does impact their security. Without ADP, their iCloud data will eventually revert to standard encryption, meaning Apple can access it again if compelled. While this is currently a UK-specific change, privacy advocates worry that it could set a precedent for other governments to demand similar access, potentially eroding encryption protections worldwide over time.
If ADP is available in your region, you should turn it on.
Even WITH Apple’s Advanced Data Protection turned on, what data could Apple and the government potentially see?
Quite a lot.
Here are the parts that were never end-to-end encrypted:
- iCloud Mail
- Contacts
- Calendars
- iCloud Data on the Web (Apple says, “You have the option to turn on data access on iCloud.com, which allows the web browser that you’re using and Apple to have temporary access to data-specific encryption keys provided by your device to decrypt and view your information.
- Metadata and usage information, including “dates and times when a file or object was modified are used to sort your information, and checksums of file and photo data” (which “are used to help Apple de-duplicate and optimize your iCloud and device storage — all without having access to the files and photos themselves.”). Specific examples of the app specific metadata and usage information that was never end-to-end encrypted includes:
- iCloud Backup:
- Name, model, color, and serial number of the device associated with each backup
- List of apps and file formats that are included in the backup
- Date, time, and size of each backup snapshot
- iCloud Drive:
- The raw byte checksums of the file content and the file name
- Type of file, when it was created, last modified, or last opened
- Whether the file has been marked as a favorite
- Size of the file
- Signature of any app installers (.pkg signature) and bundle signature
- Whether a synced file is an executable
- Photos:
- The raw byte checksum of the photo or video
- Whether an item has been marked as a favorite, hidden, or marked as deleted
- When the item was originally created on the device
- When the item was originally imported and modified
- How many times an item has been viewed
- Notes:
- Date and time when the note was created, last modified, or last viewed
- Whether the note has been pinned or marked as deleted
- Whether the note contains a drawing or handwriting
- The raw byte checksum of content from an imported or migrated note
- Safari Bookmarks:
- Whether the bookmark resides in the favorites folder
- When the bookmark was last modified
- Whether the bookmark has been marked as deleted
- Messages in iCloud:
- When the last sync was completed and whether syncing has been disabled
- Date when content was last modified
- Error codes
- Type of message, such as a normal iMessage, SMS, or tapback
- iCloud Backup:
- iWork collaboration
- The Shared Albums feature in Photos
- Content shared via the “anyone with the link” feature
- Any data that was shared with an Apple user that doesn’t have end-to-end encryption enabled e.g. Messages sent to someone that has iCloud Backup enabled but not Advanced Data Protection, Notes shared with someone that has iCloud Backup enabled but not Advanced Data Protection.
I’m thinking of switching to Google or Android because of the UK’s encryption dispute with Apple. Is that a better move for privacy?
Not necessarily. Google or Android isn’t a monolith — Google’s services (like Drive and Photos) and Android’s open ecosystem differ from what Samsung or other manufacturers layer on top.
Privacy-wise, none of these options universally outshine Apple, especially if end-to-end encryption (E2EE) is your priority. Google’s core services don’t use E2EE by default for Drive, Photos, or backups, meaning Google can access your data and comply with law enforcement requests.
Android’s encryption varies by implementation, and Samsung adds its own features, but they don’t fully match Apple’s default E2EE across key services (like iMessage or Health data) that remain intact even without Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in the UK.
What about Samsung?
Samsung, as a major Android manufacturer, uses Google’s ecosystem for services like Google Drive, Google Photos, and phone backups, but it also layers its own features on top. Like other Android devices, Samsung phones don’t get end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for Google Drive or Google Photos—those services encrypt data in transit and at rest, but Google holds the keys, making them accessible to Google or law enforcement. For phone backups, Samsung relies on Google’s E2EE system (since Android 9 Pie), which encrypts app data and settings using your credentials, not Google’s. However, Samsung offers Samsung Cloud, which provides an optional E2EE feature called Enhanced Data Protection (introduced with One UI 5.1.1 in 2023). If you enable it, your backups to Samsung Cloud—like contacts or calendar data—can be E2EE, unlike Google’s broader cloud services. So, Samsung gives you somewhat of an extra encrypted option, but it’s not default and doesn’t cover everything (e.g., photos synced to Google Photos).
Does Google Drive use end-to-end encryption?
No, Google Drive does not offer true end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Files are encrypted in transit (using TLS) and at rest (with AES-256), but Google holds the encryption keys. This means Google can decrypt your files if required—say, for a legal warrant—or if their systems are breached, a hacker could potentially access unencrypted data after compromising Google’s infrastructure. You can add client-side encryption via third-party tools (like Cryptomator) or Google Workspace’s enterprise option, but that’s not standard for personal users. Compared to Apple’s iCloud with ADP (now unavailable in the UK), where users control the keys, Google Drive is less private by design.
What about Huawei or other major Android smartphones? Do they change the encryption picture?
Huawei, a Chinese Android player, doesn’t rely on Google services due to US sanctions (post-2019), so it skips Google Drive, Photos, and Google backups entirely. Instead, Huawei uses its own Huawei Mobile Cloud, which offers encrypted backups for photos, contacts, and more, but it’s not E2EE by default—Huawei holds the keys unless you use specific encryption settings. Huawei’s HiSuite software for PC backups also encrypts data, sometimes with user-set passwords, but research shows these can be decrypted with effort, suggesting weaker protection. Unlike Samsung, Huawei lacks Google’s E2EE phone backup system and faces scrutiny over potential Chinese government access, though no hard evidence confirms backdoors. End-to-end encryption is banned in China anyway so using Chinese services is inherently less secure in terms of privacy.
I keep hearing about Google Drive, Google Photos, and phone backups. Are they all the same thing?
No, they’re distinct services with different purposes, even though they’re all tied to your Google account. Google Drive is a cloud storage platform for files—like documents, videos, or anything you manually upload. Google Photos is a specialized service for storing and organizing your pictures and videos, often syncing automatically from your phone. Phone backups, on the other hand, are a feature of Android that saves device-specific data—like settings, app data, and call logs—to Google’s servers. Think of Drive as a general file locker, Photos as your photo album, and backups as a snapshot of your phone’s configuration and data.
Regarding Google, what kind of stuff gets stored in each one?
Here’s the breakdown:
Google Drive: Anything you choose to upload—PDFs, Word docs, spreadsheets, random videos, or even folders. It’s manual unless you set up syncing from your device or apps.
Google Photos: Primarily photos and videos from your phone’s camera roll, synced automatically if you enable it (via the Google Photos app). You can also upload other images manually, but it’s built for media.
Phone Backups: Device-specific data like app settings, Wi-Fi passwords, call history, SMS (if enabled), and some app data (if developers opt in). It doesn’t include your full photo library or random files unless they’re part of an app’s backup scope.
They overlap a bit—e.g., a photo could be in Photos and Drive if you upload it twice—but they’re designed for different needs.
Is everything encrypted the same way across these services?
No, encryption differs:
Google Drive: Encrypted in transit (TLS) and at rest (AES-256), but Google holds the keys. They can decrypt your files if needed (e.g., for law enforcement). No end-to-end encryption (E2EE) unless you add it manually with tools.
Google Photos: Same deal—encrypted in transit and at rest, but Google has the keys. No E2EE, so your photos aren’t fully private from Google or legal requests.
Phone Backups: Encrypted end-to-end since Android 9 Pie (2018). The key is tied to your Google account password and device lock screen credentials, stored in Google’s Titan Security Module. Google can’t decrypt this without your input, unlike Drive or Photos.
So, if I switch from Apple’s Advanced Protection version of iCloud to Google’s suite of products, I would be less protected?
Yes.
If I switch to Android and use these, am I safer from the UK government than with Apple?
Not really. The UK’s issue with Apple was about iCloud’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which offered E2EE. Without ADP, iCloud’s standard encryption (Apple holds the keys) is like Google Drive and Photos—accessible to the company and thus to governments with warrants. Android phone backups are E2EE, which is safer from Google or the UK snooping without your credentials, but Drive and Photos aren’t, leaving most of your cloud data as vulnerable as non-ADP iCloud. You’re not dodging the problem—just shifting where it applies.
Do de-googled phones come with their own encrypted cloud backups?
No, de-googled phones—like those running GrapheneOS or LineageOS—don’t include built-in cloud services with encryption. Unlike Samsung (with Samsung Cloud’s optional E2EE) or Google (with non-E2EE Drive), they strip out Google’s ecosystem entirely and don’t replace it with a default cloud. You’re left to back up locally (e.g., to a computer with manual encryption) or pick your own cloud service. There’s no out-of-the-box E2EE cloud solution baked in.
Does switching to a de-googled phone help if I use cloud services anyway?
Not much, if you pick non-E2EE clouds like Google Drive or Dropbox. De-googled phones avoid Google’s data harvesting, but they don’t fix the encryption gap—Drive, Photos, or Huawei’s Mobile Cloud (non-E2EE by default) still let the provider decrypt your data. Switching from, say, a Samsung phone with Google’s non-E2EE services to a de-googled one is useless for privacy if you just plug in the same unencrypted clouds. You’re back to square one, with your backups exposed to companies or governments.
Do you have any recommendations for keeping my documents and photos securely backed up?
Yes, check out our recommendations here.
We also have a members post with recommendations for specific photos apps.
This battle is far from over—whether Apple will face further pressure, how other tech companies will respond, and whether legal challenges arise remain key questions in the fight for encryption.
For users concerned about privacy, this situation underscores the need to take control of their own data security. Whether that means using end-to-end encrypted services, backing up data locally, or switching to alternative platforms, individuals must weigh the risks and make informed choices. As governments push for more access and tech giants weigh their responses, one thing is clear: the future of digital privacy is at a crossroads, and what happens next in the UK could shape encryption policies worldwide.
‘We are rebelling and we are inciting others to revolt’ – Hungarian PM Orbán says 2025 will be a ‘breakthrough year’
By Liz Heflin | Remix News | February 24, 2025
In a lengthy “annual review” this past Saturday, Hungary’s prime minister ran through what will make the coming year a “breakthrough” success for the country, touching on Trump, pro-family policy, and even a promise to guarantee the right to cash.
One major area of importance for Fidesz has been protecting an extra pension allocation for retirees. Brussels has been keen to attack the 13th-month pension, and Orbán assured Hungarians that this extra allowance will remain, as will the reduction in utility bills, which the EU has also sought to end.
Pensioners will also be refunded the VAT on vegetables, fruits, and dairy products up to a certain monthly amount, the prime minister promised, before taking aim at retailers and supermarket chains.
Orbán called inflation in stores, specifically higher prices for basic food items, “unacceptable.”
“Inflation makes people’s lives miserable, which is why we need an inflation prevention program. High wages can be used to protect against high prices, but this is not enough here,” he said, adding that he had instructed Minister of National Economy Márton Nagy to reach an agreement with retail chains to stop the price hikes.
“With nice words. But if nice words don’t work, then it will work with official price (caps),” he said.
“Nobody likes price regulation, but in such cases, there is no other choice. If there is no agreement, the official price will come. If that is not enough, then we will also limit the extent of commercial profit.”
The prime minister also announced “Europe’s largest tax reduction program,” focused on families with children.
A two-step program starting in July will allow parents to deduct HUF 20,000 for one child, HUF 80,000 for two children, and HUF 200,000 for three or more kids from their taxes and contributions.
Orbán also introduced a planned extension of the lifetime income tax exemption for mothers from those with four children to those with even two.
The prime minister assured listeners that despite this “huge expense,” they will be able to handle it while also lowering Hungary’s budget deficit and national debt.
“More children are born when mothers feel financially secure,” said Orbán, who then said that without Fidesz’s family subsidies, 200,000 fewer children would have been born since 2010.
Hungary is also countering the policy in other countries to ban the use of cash, calling it a constitutional right.
“The right to cash is guaranteed in the constitution. Using cash is not a custom, but a right,” he said, adding that despite the trend towards digital money, “we don’t want to be slaves to the banks.”
“The bank card belongs to the bank, the cash is yours,” he said.
Turning to the growth of AI and the use of automation in manufacturing, Orbán said that “in Germany, a lot of people will be laid off in the automotive industry. This will not happen in Hungary.”
He also introduced the “100 new factories program,” asserting that only a work-based economy will drive Hungary forward.
“Our goal is for industrial companies in Hungary to develop and hire new people,” he said.
On Ukraine, the Hungarian prime minister reiterated that Hungary will never support the country becoming a member of NATO.
“Ukraine, or what’s left of it, will once again become a buffer zone and will not be a NATO member,” he said, adding that as to EU membership, Hungary can only allow this if it does not harm Hungarian interests, namely, farmers and businesses in Hungary.
Reiterating Hungary’s pro-peace and anti-migration stance, he said his country “will never swalow the migration pact.” Orbán also told LGBT Pride organizers that they shouldn’t bother planning for this year’s parade, indicating that such an event will no longer be welcome in Hungary, prompting a long round of applause from the audience:
“We are rebelling and we are inciting others to revolt. The Poles and the Dutch have already stood up, the Italians are almost there, and the Germans are pretending to be. And of course we cannot give in, we cannot give up on protecting our children. They are dragging us to court in Luxembourg in vain. In fact, I suggest we go on the counterattack here. Let’s write it into the constitution that a person is either a man or a woman. And that’s it. In fact, I advise the Pride organizers not to bother with preparing this year’s parade. It’s a waste of money and time. No matter what District Commander Weber and his Hungarian agents say,” the prime minister stated.
On the civil society organizations that operated on the ground in Hungary, Orbán said they had used American taxpayer money to break down the barriers to freedom and national sovereignty.
“They were created so that the empire could survive. (…) They would squeeze the life out of us,” Orbán said, adding that U.S. President Trump is now putting an end to this.
“We will send a government representative to the USA and collect all the data related to Hungary. We will create the constitutional and legal conditions so that we no longer have to look for pseudo-civilian organizations here in Hungary,” he said.
Despite his admiration for Trump and enthusiasm for his return to office and what it portends for Hungary, Orbán told listeners that they cannot rely on outside parties to achieve success.
“After Hungary, the United States also rebelled. But let’s not believe that this will bring victory to Hungary. They can’t win for us, they can only improve our chances. Trump is not our savior, but our fellow warrior,” Viktor Orbán warned.
The prime minister confidently stated that Hungary has only 14 months to wait for the next Fidesz victory, but he warned against becoming complacent.
“Let us not fall in love with our successes of last year. Although our opponents have been seriously wounded, and for the first time I see fear in their eyes, and for the first time they have to retreat, it would be a mistake to underestimate them.”
Wales Becomes First UK Testbed for Citywide AI-Powered Facial Recognition Surveillance
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 22, 2025
Wales is that part of the UK the authorities have picked as the testbed for the first citywide deployment of what some consider to currently be the most radical form of mass biometric surveillance in public places – “AI”-powered live facial recognition.
What is likely to be the reason behind the “trial,” privacy campaigners are warning, is the eventual permanent deployment of this type of biometric surveillance throughout the country.
South Wales Police said that Cardiff will be covered by a network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition tech embedded in them, while the excuse is providing security during the international Six Nations rugby event. But the police also characterized the move as “semi-permanent.”
This appears to be a distinction between what the police in the UK have used thus far to carry out surveillance based on live facial recognition: vans with one camera.
The decision to move to position a host of cameras in the central zone of Cardiff makes this a significant expansion of the technique.
And while the police are reassuring citizens that expanding live facial recognition “really enhances” law enforcement’s ability to do their job – the Big Brother Watch privacy group slammed the move as a “shocking” development and the creation of an “Orwellian biometric surveillance zone.”
And while capturing everyone’s biometric data, and in that way, according to Big Brother Watch’s Senior Advocacy Officer Madeleine Stone, turning Brits into “walking barcodes” and “a nation of suspects” – in terms of solving crime, this is proving to be a waste of public money.
“This network of facial recognition cameras will make it impossible for Cardiff residents and visitors to opt out of a biometric police identity check,” Stone underlined.
And yet, over the three years that live facial recognition has been in use at sporting venues (only) – the use of the technology has not led to any arrests.
“No other democracy in the world spies on its population with live facial recognition in this cavalier and chilling way,” Stone warned, adding, “South Wales Police must immediately stop this dystopian trial.”
The technology works by capturing the faces of every person passing through an area covered, in real time, to then compare them to a database of those described in reports as “wanted criminals.”
However, when South Wales Police spoke about who is on their “watchlist,” it also included people “banned from the area” and those “who pose a risk to the public.”
More: UK Government Fast-Tracking Bill to Monitor Bank Accounts, Revoke Licenses, and Search Homes
Britain’s working class will never fight Starmer’s war for Ukraine
By Dr Lisa McKenzie | RT | February 23, 2025
Following the Munich Security Conference last week, European Union leaders appeared shell-shocked by US Vice President J.D. Vance’s scathing attack on Europe.
He criticized the continent for multiple reasons, including the lack of free speech, arrests of European citizens for inflammatory social media posts, insufficient commitment to security, and destabilization due to both legal and illegal migration. Although Vance seemed to address Western European politicians and officials, it is likely he was speaking over their heads, directly to the public. His words resonated with widespread discontent about politics and politicians across the region, aligning with the prevailing sense of unfairness felt by many ordinary citizens.
Western European leaders, including British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, appeared agitated and uncomfortable with Washington’s tone. Perhaps the hard truths Vance presented have forced them to reconsider their consistently underfunded armed forces. Vance’s warnings made it clear that they cannot indefinitely rely on the US for military power and financial aid, particularly regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky also heard that signal and immediately called for a ‘European Armed Force’. Western European leaders arranged an emergency meeting in Paris hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and, astonishingly, Starmer indicated British soldiers could be sent to the Ukraine to enforce any peace deal.
The British public and Parliament were caught off guard by what many see as a reckless proposal from their PM. He announced the possibility of “British boots on the ground” just hours after the Munich meeting ended. This decision, or threat, appears to be a unilateral move by Starmer. It is unlikely to gain widespread support across the country and is already sparking outrage, particularly in the “Red Wall” – Britain’s former industrial heartlands. A poll in The Times just last week showed that only 11% of young people in the UK would consider fighting for their country, showing what we all know: that the UK is deeply divided over class, race, and region.
This is a problem for Starmer and the British liberals who have yet again found their war drums that were put away following the disastrous follies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was once the Labour heartlands, the de-industrialized parts of the country, have also been the typical recruiting fields for the British Soldier – the white working class. These communities have been badly let down by all politicians have become deeply resentful and detached from what is happening within the politics, media and chattering classes of London.
It is no coincidence that those beating the war drums in London are the same individuals who supported the Iraq invasion and opposed the outcome of the EU referendum that led to Brexit. There has been a distinct division throughout the country since Brexit and I suspect Starmer’s reckless offering up of our military to “peacekeep” for the EU is a signal that he wants a closer relationship with the bloc. Unfortunately for Starmer, his brand of Labour – middle-class metropolitan liberals – will never offer up their own children for military service and will look north towards the very people they have spent the nine years since the Brexit referendum accusing of being racists, bigots, and xenophobes.
Starmer and Macron are deeply unpopular in their own countries. Perhaps they think they can paint over the damage done in their countries by successive neo-liberal governments by pulling the patriotic chord through the threat of war. But Starmer must realise that this will never be his Falklands War moment – when an unpopular Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government turned around their unpopularity by going to war with Argentina in 1982. Working-class populations outside the big metropolitan cities, in places like Blyth, Sunderland, Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent, have traditionally been patriotic and supported the British military, but they will not follow Starmer and the failed EU leaders into a battle they see as ‘not theirs’.
The lesson here for the Western European political leaders is that ignoring sections of the population, allowing deep divisions and inequalities to fester, and then banging the war drums and expecting the working class to go and fight a war for you is not going to work. They can see right through this, and Vance’s words spoke to them more directly than a despised European elite class ever could.
Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners’ strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie is the author of ‘Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.’ She’s a political activist, writer and thinker.
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?
The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2) by Whitney Webb
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Europe creates a ‘Russian government-in-exile’, consisting of a bunch of losers
- Munich, 2007: The Day the West Was Told No
- At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy
- Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing – Orban
- Russia and China Are Expanding Their Cooperation to Counter US Efforts to Bully Iran and Cuba
- NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow
- Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 