Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Europe ‘removed itself’ from Ukraine negotiations – Lavrov

RT | November 30, 2025

Europe has long lost its right to have a say in the Ukraine crisis and effectively “removed itself” from the negotiations process through its own actions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

The top diplomat made the remarks on Sunday to Russian journalist Pavel Zerubin, who asked the minister whether Europe was in its right to “outrageously” push for some role in the negotiations to settle the Ukraine conflict.

“We proceed from the premise… – which I believe is obvious to everybody – that Europe has already removed itself from the talks,” Lavrov said.

Europe has long “used up its chances” to have a say in the settlement process, the top diplomat said, pointing out that it repeatedly derailed efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis since its very beginning, the 2014 Maidan turmoil that resulted culminated with a coup and overthrowal of the democratically elected president.

“Europe spoiled the initial deal of February 2014, when it acted as guarantor for the formal agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. It did nothing when the opposition seized all government agencies the morning after the agreement was signed,” Lavrov said.

The top diplomat also pointed at the admissions made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande, who said “that nobody had intended to fulfill” the Minsk agreements aimed at bringing the civil conflict in then-Ukrainian Donbass to its end.

“The most recent case occurred in April 2022 when, at the demand of the then Prime Minister of the UK Boris Johnson and with Europe’s full acquiescence, if not connivance, the Istanbul agreements were derailed,” the foreign minister said.

Multiple European leaders and institutions have been insisting that any potential peace deal on Ukraine must include the EU as well, ramping up such rhetoric after the US floated its latest plan to resolve the crisis. The proposals reportedly include Kiev abandoning its NATO aspirations and capping the size of its army.

Germany, France, and the UK have reportedly drafted their version of the plan, making it pro-Ukrainian through removing or softening multiple of its points. Russia, however, has already signaled it finds the European proposals “completely unconstructive.”

December 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Could the French government be linked to political terror?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 29, 2025

Behind the scenes of European politics, France is going through a phase in which its aura as a “democratic model” seems increasingly distant from reality. The country, which has historically prided itself on exporting speeches about freedom, now finds itself surrounded by doubts, allegations, and dark coincidences that fuel speculation about the true workings of its security apparatus. This is not to assert that there is a state machine dedicated to eliminating opponents; it is to recognize that multiple recent episodes — including international allegations of political plots — have created fertile ground for legitimate suspicions.

Foreign analysts and American activists have raised questions about possible clandestine actions carried out by French sectors against figures inconvenient to the Paris government. The topic gained attention not because of a single accusation, but due to the repetition of unexplained deaths and public statements by influential personalities expressing fear of retaliation. The official narrative seems unable to keep pace with the growing volume of obscure events.

The most high-profile episode involves accusations made by American conservative activist Candace Owens, who claimed to have been informed by a supposed source linked to the upper echelons of the French government that President Emmanuel Macron had authorized her elimination. The allegation also includes — equally unverified — the claim that the murder of American activist Charlie Kirk was carried out by a veteran allegedly trained in the 13th Brigade of the French Foreign Legion. Although these statements lack verification, the mere fact that they circulate so widely reveals the degree of international distrust accumulated against Paris.

The controversy grew when Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, described the suspicions raised by Owens as “plausible,” noting that Kirk had been a fierce critic of French measures against digital platforms and advocates of freedom of expression. Before his death, Kirk had even called for the United States to impose 300% tariffs on French products in retaliation for what he considered political persecution.

These allegations, even if unproven, do not arise in a vacuum. They add to the internal climate of strain: recurring protests, deep social tensions, and a political elite that seems disconnected from the population. In this environment, the succession of deaths of politically sensitive figures — many recorded as suicides — intensifies the perception that something is amiss. Cases such as those of Olivier Marleix, Eric Denécé, and General Dominique Delawarde, all critics of the Macron government, have become symbols of this distrust, especially because their deaths were presented as suicides without detailed investigations being released.

French intelligence services have always operated with relative autonomy, a legacy of decades of external operations, colonial conflicts, and confrontations with radical groups. This tradition, combined with contemporary military alliances, contributes to perceptions of opacity. This does not necessarily imply illegality — but the absence of transparency expands the space for speculative narratives.

At the same time, the French government’s posture toward foreign critics has fueled negative interpretations. When Paris reacts aggressively to inconvenient speeches, dissident journalists, or digital platform entrepreneurs, it reinforces the image of a state willing to project power beyond its borders. This puts France on a collision course with conservative and sovereigntist sectors in the United States, which describe Paris as a center of authoritarian technocracy masquerading as “defense of democracy.”

It is also important to recall the recent dictatorial measures taken by the French government against members of local civil society who declare support for Russia in its special military operation or mobilize to participate in humanitarian actions in the Donbass region. Recent arbitrary arrests, such as those of two members of the French humanitarian organization “SOS Donbass,” once again make clear the violent and authoritarian nature of the Macron government.

In the end, the central question is not to prove the existence of clandestine operations — something that would require independent investigations and broad transparency, which are currently absent. The crucial point is that France faces a credibility crisis. When a government loses the ability to persuade, any coincidence becomes suspicious, any death becomes scandal, any accusation finds an audience. Moreover, internal dictatorial measures against dissidents further reinforce distrust regarding the government’s actions.

If Paris intends to regain its legitimacy, it will need to go beyond mere denial of accusations: it must rebuild trust, explain what remains obscure, and abandon the posture of moral superiority that no longer convinces, inside or outside Europe. None of this will be possible as long as Paris remains under the control of representatives of the European liberal elites.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Israeli occupation aided looters attacking Gaza aid convoys: Report

Al Mayadeen | November 29, 2025

A French historian who spent more than a month in the Gaza Strip says he witnessed “utterly convincing” evidence that the Israeli occupation played a role in attacks on aid convoys during the height of the war.

Jean-Pierre Filiu, a professor of Middle East studies at Sciences Po in Paris, entered Gaza in December and was hosted by an international humanitarian organization in the coastal area of al-Mawasi. While foreign media and independent observers were barred from the enclave by the Israeli occupation, Filiu managed to avoid strict vetting procedures and documented what he described as orchestrated chaos around lifesaving aid deliveries.

His eyewitness account, A Historian in Gaza, was published in French in May and released in English this month.

According to Filiu, Israeli occupation forces repeatedly struck security units guarding humanitarian convoys. The attacks, he writes, enabled looters to seize large quantities of food and supplies intended for Palestinians facing famine conditions.

UN agencies at the time warned that law and order in Gaza had collapsed after occupation forces deliberately targeted police officers who escorted aid convoys. The Israeli occupation labels Gaza’s police as part of Hamas, which has run the territory since 2007.

‘Quadcopters supporting the looters’

Filiu recounts an incident near where he was staying in the so-called “humanitarian zone” of al-Mawasi. After weeks of attacks on convoys by desperate civilians, local gangs, and militias, humanitarian officials tested a new route to try to prevent looting.

Sixty-six trucks carrying flour and hygiene kits set out from Karem Abu Salem, before turning north up the main coastal road. Hamas arranged protective escorts with armed members of powerful local families. The convoy then came under attack.

“It was one night, and I was… a few hundred metres away. And it was very clear that Israeli quadcopters were supporting the looters in attacking the local security [teams],” Filiu writes.

He says occupation forces killed “two local notables as they sat in their car, armed and ready to protect the convoy,” and that twenty trucks were subsequently robbed. Aid officials considered the loss of one-third of the convoy a grim improvement compared with earlier raids that looted nearly everything.

Filiu says the occupation’s strategy was to undermine both Hamas and the UN, while enabling allied looters to either redistribute aid to expand their influence or sell it for profit.

Israeli officials rejected his account. A military spokesperson claimed the targeted vehicle carried “armed terrorists” planning to steal aid for Hamas. The spokesperson said the occupation “will continue to act in accordance with international law to enable and facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aid.”

Filiu’s reporting echoes internal UN concerns. A confidential memo from the time described the occupation’s “passive, if not active benevolence” toward gangs involved in looting.

He also alleges that Israeli forces bombed a newly established aid route promoted by the World Food Programme which was attempting to stop looting hotspots. He told The Guardian it was a “deliberate attempt to put it out of action.”

Despite denials, Netanyahu has acknowledged that “Israel” supported the Popular Forces, an anti-Hamas militia that, according to aid officials, included many of the looters.

Gaza “erased, annihilated’

Filiu, who has visited Gaza for decades, said he was stunned at the scale of destruction left by the Israeli occupation’s offensive, launched after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023. That attack killed about 1,200 people and saw 250 taken hostage.

The Israeli regime’s assault killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians and reduced much of Gaza to ruins. “Anything that stood before … has been ‘erased, annihilated, ’” he said.

Filiu warned that the war has set a precedent for a future “post-UN world” devoid of legal and humanitarian limits. “It’s a laboratory of a post-Geneva convention world, of a post-declaration of human rights world … and this world is very scary because it’s not even rational. It’s just ferocious.”

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

How the Covid Inquiry Protected the Establishment

By Trish Dennis | Brownstone Institute | November 28, 2025

After four years, hundreds of witnesses, and nearly £200 million in costs, the UK Covid Inquiry has reached the one conclusion many expected: a carefully footnoted act of self-exoneration. It assiduously avoids asking the only question that truly matters: were lockdowns ever justified, did they even work, and at what overall cost to society?

The Inquiry outlines failure in the abstract but never in the human. It catalogues errors, weak decision-making structures, muddled communications, and damaged trust, but only permits examination of those failings that do not disturb the central orthodoxy.

It repeats the familiar refrain of “Too little, too late,” yet anyone paying attention knows the opposite was true. It was too much, too soon, and with no concern for the collateral damage. The government liked to speak of an “abundance of caution,” but no such caution was exercised to prevent catastrophic societal harm. There was no attempt to undertake even a basic assessment of proportionality or foreseeable impact.

Even those who approached the Inquiry with modest expectations have been startled by how far it fell below them. As former Leader of the UK House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg recently observed, “I never had very high hopes for the Covid Inquiry… but I didn’t think it would be this bad.” Nearly £192 million has already been spent, largely enriching lawyers and consultants, to produce 17 recommendations that amount, in his words, to “statements of the obvious or utter banality.”

Two of those recommendations relate to Northern Ireland: one proposing the appointment of a Chief Medical Officer, the other an amendment to the ministerial code to “ensure confidentiality.” Neither insight required hundreds of witnesses or years of hearings. Another recommendation, that devolved administrations should have a seat at COBRA, reveals, he argues, “a naiveté of the judiciary that doesn’t understand how this country is governed.”

Rees-Mogg’s wider criticism goes to the heart of the Inquiry’s failures, as it confuses activity with accountability. Its hundreds of pages record bureaucratic process while ignoring substance. The same modeling errors that drove early panic are recycled without reflection; the Swedish experience is dismissed, and the Great Barrington Declaration receives a single passing mention, as if it were an eccentric sideshow. The report’s underlying message never wavers: lockdowns were right, dissent was wrong, and next time the government should act faster and with fewer restraints.

He also highlights its constitutional incoherence. It laments the lack of “democratic oversight,” yet condemns political hesitation as weakness. It complains that ministers acted too slowly, while elsewhere chastising them for bowing to public pressure. The result, he says, is “schizophrenic in its approach to accountability.” Behind the legal polish lies an authoritarian instinct, the belief that bureaucrats and scientists know best, and that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with their own judgment.

The conclusions could have been drafted before the first witness entered the room:

  • Lockdowns were necessary.
  • Modelling was solid.
  • Critics misunderstood.
  • The establishment acted wisely.

It is the kind of verdict that only the British establishment could deliver about the British establishment.

The Inquiry treats the question of whether lockdowns worked as if the very question were indecent. It leans heavily on modeling to claim that thousands of deaths could have been avoided with earlier restrictions, modeling that is now widely recognised as inflated, brittle, and detached from real-world outcomes. It repeats that easing restrictions happened “despite high risk,” yet fails to note that infection curves were already bending before the first lockdown began.

Here Baroness Hallett makes her headline claim that “23,000 lives could have been saved” if lockdowns had been imposed earlier. That number does not come from a broad evidence base, but from a single modelling paper written by the same scientist who, days later, broke lockdown to visit his mistress because he did not believe his own advice or modeling figures. Treating Neil Ferguson’s paper as gospel truth is not fact-finding. It is narrative protection.

Even Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s most influential adviser in early 2020, has accused the Inquiry of constructing what he calls a “fake history.” In a detailed post on X, he claimed it suppressed key evidence, ignored junior staff who were present at pivotal meetings, and omitted internal discussions about a proposed “chickenpox-party” infection strategy. He argued that the Inquiry avoided witnesses whose evidence would contradict its preferred story, and he dismissed the “23,000 lives” figure as politically spun rather than empirically credible. Whatever one thinks of Cummings, these are serious allegations from the heart of government, and the Inquiry shows little interest in addressing them.

It quietly concedes that surveillance was limited, urgency lacking, and spread poorly understood. These admissions undermine the very certainty with which it endorses lockdowns. Yet instead of re-examining its assumptions, the Inquiry sidesteps them. To avoid reconsidering lockdowns is to avoid the very heart of the matter, and that is exactly what it does.

During 2020 and 2021, fear was deployed and amplified to secure compliance. Masks were maintained “as a reminder.” Official documents advised that face coverings could serve not only as source control but as a “visible signal” and “reminder of COVID-19 risks,” a behavioural cue of constant danger.

The harms of lockdown are too numerous for a single list, but they include:

  • an explosion in mental health and anxiety disorders, especially in children and young adults
  • a surge in cancers, heart disease, and deaths of despair
  • developmental regressions in children
  • the collapse of small businesses and family livelihoods
  • profound social atomisation and damage to relationships
  • the erosion of trust in public institutions

The Inquiry brushes over these truths. Its recommendations focus on “impact assessments for vulnerable groups” and “clearer communication of rules,” bureaucratic language utterly inadequate to address the scale of the damage.

It also avoids the economic reckoning. Pandemic policy added 20 percent of GDP to the national debt in just two years, a cost already passed to children not yet old enough to read. That debt will impoverish their lives and shorten life expectancy, since wealth and longevity are closely linked.

Whenever Sweden is mentioned, a predictable chorus appears to explain away its success: better healthcare, smaller households, lower population density. Yet it is also true that Sweden resisted panic, trusted its citizens, kept schools open, and achieved outcomes better than or comparable to ours. The Inquiry refers vaguely to “international differences” but avoids the one comparison that most threatens its narrative. If Sweden shows that a lighter-touch approach could work, the entire moral architecture of Britain’s pandemic response collapses, and that is a question the Inquiry dares not ask.

The establishment will never conclude that the establishment failed, so the Inquiry performs a delicate dance:

  • Coordination was poor, but no one is responsible.
  • Communications were confusing, but the policies were sound.
  • Governance was weak, but the decisions were right.
  • Inequalities worsened, but that tells us nothing about strategy.

It acknowledges everything except the possibility that the strategy itself was wrong. Its logic is circular: lockdowns worked because the Inquiry says they worked; modeling was reliable because those who relied on it insist it was; fear was justified because it was used; Sweden must be dismissed because it challenges the story.

At times, reading the report feels like wandering into the Humpty Dumpty chapter of Through the Looking-Glass, where words mean whatever authority decides they mean. Evidence becomes “established” because the establishment declares it so.

A serious, intellectually honest Inquiry would have asked:

  • Did lockdowns save more lives than they harmed?
  • Why was worst-case modeling treated as fact?
  • Why were dissenting voices sidelined?
  • How did fear become a tool of governance?
  • Why did children bear so much of the cost?
  • Why was Sweden’s success dismissed?
  • How will future generations bear the debt?
  • How can trust in institutions be rebuilt?

Instead, the Inquiry offers administrative tweaks, clearer rules, broader committees, and better coordination that studiously avoid the moral and scientific questions. An Inquiry that evades its central task is not an inquiry at all, but an act of institutional self-preservation.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. Institutions rarely indict themselves. But the cost of this evasion will be paid for decades, not by those who designed the strategy, but by those who must live with its consequences: higher debt, diminished trust, educational loss, social fracture, and a political culture that has learned all the wrong lessons.

The Covid Inquiry calls itself a search for truth, but the British establishment will never allow something as inconvenient as truth to interfere with its instinct for self-preservation.

Trish Dennis is a lawyer, writer, and mother of five based in Northern Ireland. Her work explores how lockdowns, institutional failures, and social divides during Covid reshaped her worldview, faith, and understanding of freedom. On her Substack, Trish writes to record the real costs of pandemic policies, honour the courage of those who spoke out, and search for meaning in a changed world. You can find her at trishdennis.substack.com.

November 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

How CIA secretly triggered Sino-Indian war

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | November 26, 2025

From October 20 – November 21, 1962, a little-remembered conflict raged between China and India. The skirmish damaged India’s Non-Aligned Movement affiliation, firmly placing the country in the West’s orbit, while fomenting decades of hostility between the neighbouring countries. Only now are Beijing and New Delhi forging constructive relations, based on shared economic and political interests. A detailed academic investigation, ignored by the mainstream media, exposes how the war was a deliberate product of clandestine CIA meddling, specifically intended to further Anglo-American interests regionally.

In the years preceding the Sino-Indian War, tensions steadily brewed between China and India, in large part due to CIA machinations supporting Tibetan separatist forces. For example, in 1957, Tibetan rebels secretly trained on US soil were parachuted into the territory and inflicted major losses on Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army forces. The next year, these cloak-and-dagger efforts ratcheted significantly, with the agency airdropping weapons and supplies in Tibet to foment violent insurrection. By some estimates, up to 80,000 PLA soldiers were killed.

Mao Zedong was convinced that Tibetan revolutionaries, while ultimately US-sponsored, enjoyed a significant degree of support from India and used the country’s territory as a base of operations. These suspicions were significantly heightened by Tibet’s March 1959 uprising, which saw a vast outflow of refugees from the region to India, and the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama, their CIA-supported leader, by New Delhi. Weeks later, at a Chinese Communist Party politburo meeting, Mao declared a “counteroffensive against India’s anti-China activities.”

He called for official CPC communications to “sharply criticise” India’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru, stating Beijing “should not be afraid of making him feel agitated or of provoking a break with him,” and “we should carry the struggle through to the end.” For example, it was suggested that “Indian expansionists” be formally accused of acting “in collusion” with “British imperialists” to “intervene openly in China’s internal affairs, in the hope of taking over Tibet.” Mao implored, “we… should not avoid or circumvent this issue.”

Ironically, Nehru was then viewed with intense suspicion by the West due to his Non-Aligned commitment and broadly socialist economic policies. Thus, he could not be trusted to support covert Anglo-American initiatives targeting China. Meanwhile, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev considered Nehru an important prospective ally and was keen to maintain positive relations. Simultaneously, the Sino-Soviet Split, which commenced in February 1956 with Khrushchev’s notorious secret speech denouncing the rule of Joseph Stalin, was ever-deepening. Disagreements over India and Tibet only hastened the pair’s acrimonious divorce.

‘A weapon’

After months of official denunciations of Nehru’s policies toward Tibet, Beijing’s information war against India became physical in August 1959, with a series of violent clashes along the countries’ borders. Nehru immediately reached out to Moscow, pleading that they rein in their closest ally. This prompted a tense meeting in October 1959 between Khrushchev, his chief aides, and the CPC’s top leadership, at Mao’s official residence. Khrushchev belligerently asserted to his Chinese counterparts that their confrontations with New Delhi and unrest in Tibet were “your fault”.

The Soviet leader went on to caution about the importance of “preserving good relations” with Nehru and “[helping] him stay in power,” for if he was replaced, “who would be better than him?” Mao countered that India had “acted in Tibet as if it belonged to them,” and while Beijing also supported Nehru, “in the question of Tibet, we should crush him.” Assorted CPC officials then, one by one, forcefully asserted the recent border clashes were initiated by New Delhi. However, Khrushchev was highly dismissive.

“Yes, they began to shoot and they themselves fell dead,” he derisively retorted. A Soviet declaration of neutrality in the Sino-Indian dispute a month prior also provoked anger among the CPC contingent. Mao complained, “[the] announcement made all imperialists happy,” by publicly exposing rifts between Communist countries. Khrushchev et al were again unmoved by the suggestion. Yet, unbeknownst to attendees, they had all unwittingly stepped into a trap laid by the CIA, many years earlier.

In September 1951, a State Department memo declared, “The US should endeavor to use Tibet as a weapon for alerting” India “to the danger of attempting to appease any Communist government and, specially, for maneuvering [India] into a position where it will voluntarily adopt a policy of firmly resisting Chinese Communist pressure in south and east Asia.” In other words, it was believed that supporting Tibetan independence could force a Sino-Indian split. In turn, the Soviets might be compelled to take sides, deepening ruptures with Beijing.

This strategy informed CIA covert action in Tibet over the subsequent decade, which grew turbocharged when Allen Dulles became CIA chief in 1953. A dedicated, top-secret base was constructed for the separatists at Camp Hale, the US military’s World War II-era training facility in the Rocky Mountains. Local terrain – vertiginous, replete with dense forests – was reminiscent of Tibet, providing ample opportunity for insurgency practice. Untold numbers of militants were tutored there over many years.

At any given time, the CIA maintained a secret army of up to 14,000 Tibetan separatists in China. While the guerrillas believed Washington sincerely supported their secessionist crusade, in reality, the agency was solely concerned with creating security problems for Beijing, and resultantly inflicting economic and military costs on their adversary. As the Dalai Lama later lamented, the agency’s assistance was purely “a reflection of their anti-Communist policies rather than genuine support for the restoration of Tibetan independence.”

‘More susceptible’

Come October 1962, the CIA’s Tibetan operations had become such an irritant to China that PLA forces invaded India. Washington was well aware in advance that military action was imminent. A telegram dispatched to Secretary of State Dean Rusk five days prior to the war’s eruption forecast a “serious conflict” and laid out a detailed “line” to take for when the time came. First and foremost, the US would publicly make clear its “sympathy for the Indians and the problems posed by the Chinese intervention.”

However, it was considered vital to “be restrained in our expressions in the matter so as to give the Chinese no pretext for alleging any American involvement.” While New Delhi was already secretly receiving “certain limited purchases” of US military equipment, Washington would not actively “offer assistance” when war broke out. “It is the business of the Indians to ask,” the telegram noted. If such requests were forthcoming, “we will listen sympathetically to requests… [and] move with all promptness and efficiency to supply the items”:

“The US is giving assistance… designed to ease Indian military transport and communications problems. Additionally, the Departments of State and Defense are studying the availability on short notice and on terms acceptable to India of transport, communications and other military equipment in order to be prepared should the government of India request such US equipment.”

As predicted, the Sino-Indian conflict prompted Nehru to urgently reach out to Washington for military aid, a significant policy shift. Much of New Delhi’s political class duly adopted a pro-Western line, with calls for a review of the country’s Non-Aligned stance reverberating widely throughout parliament. Even Communist and Socialist parties that hitherto rejected any alliance with the US eagerly accepted the assistance. The CIA’s Tibetan operations had triumphed.

As a May 1960 Agency National Intelligence Estimate noted, “Chinese aggressiveness” toward New Delhi over Tibet had fostered “a more sympathetic view of US opposition to Communist China” among India’s leaders. This included “greater appreciation of the value of a strong Western – particularly US – position in Asia to counterbalance” Beijing’s influence regionally. However, the CIA noted how, as of writing, “Nehru has no intention of altering India’s basic policy of nonalignment, and the bulk of Indian opinion apparently still shares his attachment to this policy.”

The Sino-Indian War changed all that. A December 1962 Agency analysis of the conflict’s “outlook and implications” hailed New Delhi’s “metamorphosis”, which the CIA forecast would “almost certainly continue to open up new opportunities for the West.” The country was judged “more susceptible than ever before to influence by the US and the UK, particularly in the military field.” Conversely, the War had “seriously complicated the Soviet Union’s relations with India and aggravated its difficulties with China”:

“The USSR will place a high value on a continued close relationship with India. While its opportunity to build up lasting influence in the Indian military has virtually disappeared, it will probably continue to supply some military equipment and to maintain its economic ties with India.”

Subsequently, New Delhi began assisting Anglo-American intelligence gathering on China and became actively involved in CIA wrecking activities in Tibet. The Sino-Indian War’s spectre hung over relations between the two nations for many years thereafter, and border clashes occurred intermittently throughout. Now, though, as Donald Trump bemoaned in September, India appears enduringly “lost” to Beijing and its close partner Russia. Decades of determined US efforts to foment antagonism between the vast neighbours have come spectacularly undone, due to the sheer weight of geopolitical reality.

November 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin aide sees Washington infighting behind leak

RT | November 26, 2025

Someone in Washington could be trying to undermine US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has suggested, commenting on the recent leaks of his conversations with the envoy. At least some of the purported leaks are fake, he added.

Speaking to Kommersant newspaper on Wednesday, Ushakov defended continued contacts between Moscow and Washington, including by phone, and maintained they are needed to build trust between the two nations. He also said that neither side was interested in leaking the contents of the conversations.

According to the presidential aide, the incident might point to infighting in Washington. “Do you remember the case of [former National Security Adviser] Michael Flynn? This case could be the same,” the official said.

Flynn was forced to resign in 2017 after being accused of misleading officials about a phone conversation with then Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. Trump, who was serving his first term as president, stated that the conversation was “illegally leaked” by US intelligence.

Flynn initially pleaded guilty to the false statement charges before reversing his position and calling the case politically motivated. Trump pardoned him in late 2020, bringing the case to a close.

Speaking to journalists on Monday, Ushakov warned that such leaks risk undermining the whole process of normalization of relations between Moscow and Washington. “This is unacceptable… in such relations, when most serious issues are discussed,” he said.

“There can be no cooperation with a partner when information about what was discussed is revealed. Otherwise, there will be no trust.”

On Tuesday, Bloomberg published what it described as a transcript of Witkoff’s conversation with Ushakov from October 14. The US special envoy was then accused of “coaching” the Russians on how to deal with Washington. Trump dismissed the allegations by saying that Witkoff was using a “standard” approach.

Ushakov noted that some of the leaks are fake, adding that he would not comment on the others. “My conversations with Witkoff are confidential. No one should make them public. No one.”

November 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

ICAN FIGHTS GATES-BACKED GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | November 20, 2025

Del and Jefferey expose the accelerated push for solar geoengineering—from Bill Gates–backed sun-dimming plans, to the UK’s secretive ARIA agency now running outdoor experiments hidden from public scrutiny and FOIA oversight. With academics promoting population cuts and private firms already spraying particles into the sky, ICAN is pushing governments and regulators to stop these dangerous atmospheric experiments before they escalate.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Video | | Leave a comment

Fugitive Zelensky-linked extortion suspect kept dossiers on officials – investigators

RT | November 25, 2025

The criminal network allegedly overseen by Ukrainian businessman and long-time ally of Vladimir Zelensky, Timur Mindich, had access to confidential information on dozens of Ukrainian officials, lawmakers, journalists, and security personnel, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has reported.

Mindich fled Ukraine just hours before his home was raided earlier this month amid a sweeping corruption probe that has implicated cabinet-level officials and shaken the Zelensky administration.

Appearing before the parliamentary anti-corruption committee on Tuesday, NABU director Semyon Krivonos and chief detective Aleksandr Abakumov detailed the extent to which the group had infiltrated state institutions.

According to Abakumov, investigators discovered 527 dossiers maintained by the alleged ring, noting that the sensitive personal information they contained could potentially be used as leverage. The records included files on 15 NABU personnel, among them three detectives directly involved in the Mindich case. There were also profiles of 16 members of the Verkhovna Rada, including the head of the anti-corruption committee, 18 serving or former ministers and deputy ministers, ten journalists, and nine officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Abakumov said.

NABU believes the database was compiled with the assistance of compromised officials inside Ukrainian law enforcement bodies.

Krivonos said the investigation is advancing rapidly and that additional disclosures are expected soon. He rejected media claims that NABU is withholding materials for “geopolitical reasons,” amid reports that Washington is pressuring Zelensky to accept a compromise peace plan with Russia.

“We are not releasing only those materials that are being deeply studied to establish all facts,” he insisted.

NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office were established after the 2014 coup in Kiev as Western-designed institutions intended to operate independently of the Ukrainian government. Earlier this year, Zelensky attempted to place both agencies under the Prosecutor General’s Office, but reversed course following outcry from foreign donors.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | | Leave a comment

5 yrs later: The Largest Vaccine Experiment and Weakest Ever Safety Monitoring

By Sharyl Attkisson | November 19, 2025

The largest vaccination campaign in history has been accompanied by the weakest safety monitoring ever attempted.

The world conducted the largest medical intervention in history when billions of people received Covid-19 vaccines beginning in late 2020. Yet, five years later, no comprehensive, mandatory system exists in the U.S. or anywhere else to track down adverse events the vaccine may be causing on a massive scale.

No government health agency, medical association, or hospital system has required doctors, clinics, or hospitals to routinely ask every patient about new symptoms, cross-reference their Covid and vaccination history, and systematically report that information to a central database capable of detecting possible patterns.

Today, untold millions of patients with mysterious or debilitating new conditions are said to be routinely told their symptoms are due to anxiety, depression, unexplained “long Covid,” or simply treated without regard to what could be the cause, without any effort to collect the data that could prove or disprove a vaccine connection.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), co-managed by the CDC and FDA since 1990, remains the primary U.S. tool for identifying previously unknown adverse events from vaccines, and their frequency.

By law, healthcare providers must report certain serious events after any vaccination, including hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, to the VAERS database. But during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, compliance was extremely low, and — shockingly — neither the government nor medical organizations enforced the requirement at perhaps the most critical time in our history in terms of sheer number being exposed to experiments both in terms of the specific vaccines and novel form of delivery.

A major reason for underreporting to VAERS: many physicians believe — incorrectly — that they should only submit a report if they are personally convinced the vaccine caused the problem. This misunderstanding defeats the entire purpose of a passive reporting system, which is to collect reports of all health issues following vaccination, regardless of suspected cause, so that unexpected patterns can emerge over time.

This is exactly how previously unrecognized serious side effects were discovered with other medications. In the late 1990s, as a CBS News investigative correspondent, I reported on Rezulin (troglitazone), a diabetes drug withdrawn in 2000 after reports of liver failure began appearing in the FDA adverse event reporting system.

What started as a small number of reported liver deaths after Rezulin signaled a much larger problem once standard underreporting multipliers are understood: experts say for each adverse event reported, there are likely 10,000 to 100,000 more that don’t get reported. That’s why a handful of fatalities was so alarming and prompted the FDA to pull the drug from the market.

Similarly, as I also broke news on at CBS, the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra was linked to a form of sudden blindness (non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy) years after approval. But it was only because clusters of blindness cases happened to get reported to the FDA’s adverse-event system, and a few intrepid eye doctors noticed a pattern in their patients. The actual doctors prescribing Viagra failed to recognize and report the blindness as a possible adverse event. The side effect was originally denied by the drugmaker, but is now added into warnings on the label.

A third example among many I investigated is cholesterol lowering statins. At first, statin makers denied that potentially fatal muscle problems and brain issues could be related to their medicine. But after enough reports made it into the federal database, it became undeniable— and those adverse events were ultimately added to the label.

VAERS data for Covid vaccines now exceed 1.6 million reports in the U.S. alone, including more than 36,000 deaths and 200,000 hospitalizations reported after vaccination. Experts across the spectrum agree these figures represent massive underreporting because most physicians are not filing reports or even asking their sick patients about their vaccine status, and many adverse events are never recognized as possibly vaccine-related.

What should have happened from day one — and still has not — is a simple, mandatory protocol: at every medical encounter (office visit, ER, hospital admission, or routine checkup), patients should be asked a few standardized questions about new or worsening conditions since their last Covid vaccination or infection, and the answers should be forwarded to a central analytical database. In an era of electronic health records and artificial intelligence, this could be inexpensive and straightforward.

Yet no such program exists.

The National Institutes of Health spent more than $1.15 billion tax dollars on the RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative to study “long Covid.”

RECOVER has collected detailed longitudinal data on tens of thousands of patients. This includes data that could be valuable, if not vital, to the pursuit of finding out about and helping treat Covid vaccine injuries.

Yet the study’s public protocols and publications to date lump all patients together as Covid injuries— even though the majority of studied patients were also vaccinated.

When I contacted RECOVER representatives in 2024 to ask how they distinguished potential vaccine-related injury from post-viral “long Covid,” they refused to answer and then ceased communications with me.

It begins to look like RECOVER is more about finding and promoting money making pharmaceutical treatments for “long Covid” without really getting at the heart of what Covid vaccines might be doing to our population on a massive scale.

Confirmed serious adverse events now acknowledged by the FDA and CDC to be caused by Covid-19 vaccines include myocarditis and pericarditis (especially in young men after mRNA doses), anaphylaxis, and immune thrombocytopenia.

Other conditions under continuing investigation include tinnitus, Guillain-Barré paralysis syndrome, and various serious neurological disorders.

Rates of certain cancers in people under 50 have risen sharply since 2021, as have reports of aggressive “turbo cancers” and unusual neurological diagnoses.

Without systematic, mandatory post-vaccination surveillance that includes everyone — vaccinated or not — it is impossible to determine whether any of these increases are related to the vaccines, to the virus, to both, or to unrelated factors.

Untold millions of patients are suffering mysterious or debilitating new conditions with doctors potentially misunderstanding or misinterpreting causes, which impacts success of treatment plans. Physicians are rarely if ever asking sick patients about Covid vaccine status. Often, patients report doctors are treating them without even bothering to identify potential causes of their maladies at all, let alone collecting data that could prove or disprove a Covid vaccine connection.

The largest vaccination campaign in history was accompanied by the weakest long-term safety monitoring ever attempted. Five years in, that failure has still not been corrected.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

SHOCK POLL: 36% of Americans Believe They Experienced a Covid Shot Side Effect

By Jefferey Jaxen | November 22, 2025

The latest Rasmussen poll speaks volumes. A major flashing warning light for public health officials and political leadership. Are they paying attention? And more importantly, will they act?

Rasmussen polls are pulse checks – real-time snapshots of public sentiment and mood on key topics.

The recent Rasmussen report reveals:

  • 26% say they had minor side effects from the Covid shot
  • 10% reported major side effects from the vaccine
  • 46% believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths

Under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS, once authoritarian Covid shot mandates have been backed off to ‘individual-based decision-making’ but is that enough. It’s clear the current public health apparatus wants out of all aspects of the Biden administration’s Covid train wreck.

Given the mounting data and science pointing to harms, many believe the government should be doing more – namely removing the Covid shot from the market.

At the same time, The Telegraph is reporting the following:

The story was created thanks to the legal action of the independent, non-profit, non-affiliated group UsForThemUK, along with diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, who engaged in a 2-year battle to get public transparency of the general Covid vaccine and mortality data… data that was freely shared with pharmaceutical companies but withheld from the public.

The group lost its legal fight but a key admission was revealed to the public as the Telegraph writes:

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.

Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.

The Telegraph then describes a behind-the-veil moment writing:

UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.

In America, the CDC has just updated its “Vaccine Safety’ page creating massive public buzz showing an evolution in both science and a willingness to be truthful towards the public.

Among the new admissions the CDC website now states:

Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.

Together, both the UKHSA and CDC’s new statements show there has been, and still is, a lockstep coordination to purposely censor information from the public when it comes to injectable pharmaceutical product lines.

Governments are desperate to avoid the Covid vaccine injury conversation eager to avoid full-blown public health revolt on unknown consequences (already happening in large sections of the population)

The American Covid vaccine space is still a dismal public relations nightmare. The PREP Act, keeping the pandemic’s unnecessary actions in effect, blocks any hope of proper compensation for the critical mass of Americans who have experienced injuries from the mandated, failed shot.

Meanwhile, the ‘science is not political’ crowd spawned an East and West Coast Alliance coalition of all blue Democrat-run states representing the high water mark of hypocrisy and groupthink. Banding together for the purpose of ignoring the facts and evidence to push the Covid shot on infants and healthy people sans pandemic emergency.

The bizarre and self-defeatist move refusing to acknowledge any new science since 2020 on the mounting dangers of the Covid shot – the alliances are not only a danger to public health but to the credibility of the very institutional trust they claim to be standing for – perfect inversion.

The harms of the Covid shot are still a real concern of the American public. Ignoring these concerns or attempting to soft-sell solutions bypassing real help for the injured will not make this flashing red light any dimmer.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Hungary: Major opposition news portal funded by USAID, NED as well as Soros foundation to spread disinformation

Remix News | November 21, 2025

Hungary’s Office for the Protection of Sovereignty has revealed new details regarding the Telex news portal and the funding it has received from the United States, including USAID.

Telex has claimed that it does not depend on foreign funding, but year after year, according to an analysis by the Office, it has received money from foreign governments, including the U.S., and Brussels, reports the Mandiner news portal.

Of note is that Telex received $10,000 through the Internews EPIC applications implemented within the framework of USAID’s activities in Hungary.

USAID and its activities have since been terminated by the Trump administration.

According to the office, headed by Tamás Lanczi, the president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, Telex received the money from the machine controlled as a political weapon by the democratic American government through the “Independent Media Center.”

The Office for Sovereignty Protection has already identified the Internews Foundation in previous reports as a key player in the media manipulation machine that the American deep state has been operating for more than four decades.

Among the organization’s funders are: USAID, used by the Biden administration to fund political interventions around the world, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been described in detail in the office’s previous reports.

NED, Mandiner notes, played a major role in the illegal foreign campaign financing of the opposition coalition in the 2022 parliamentary elections.

Internews provides media outlets not only with money, but also with technology and content suitable for spreading narratives, which must represent given values ​​and messages and produce activity on designated topics.

The condition for the support, the Office emphasized, is the creation of narratives that allow the American progressive elite to put pressure on the governments and decision-makers of the given countries, and to influence the citizens of the given country.

The organization is highly active in the Central European region, primarily in Hungary and Poland. Its joint media development programs with USAID have played a role in the operation of certain Hungarian media outlets since 2010 in the form of tenders, professional training, and infrastructure support.

The Office’s investigations revealed that, in exchange for money, Internews expects the media outlets to make the topics it determines part of the public discourse, to frame narratives that are contrary to the interests of the client as disinformation, and to provide the funded editorial offices with mandatory content.

As Tamás Lánczi wrote previously, “Telex.hu journalists received almost HUF 200 million of U.S. government money.”

The president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty announced that documents reviewed by his organization show that the project called Telex Academy was also implemented with a grant of approximately $740,000 from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) of the United States Department of State.

The vast majority of the money was paid to Telex journalists.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Emirati, Israeli disinformation campaign frames Sudan conflict as Christian persecution: Report

Press TV – November 21, 2025

Far-right Emirati and Israeli social media influencers have engaged in a coordinated digital campaign to falsely claim that Christians were being killed by “Islamists” in Sudan, a new report has revealed.

Sudanese investigative platform Beam Reports said that after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group seized control of el-Fasher in Darfur nearly a month ago, misleading content about the nature of events began to surface online in a “synchronised manner.”

Beam found that several accounts took to social media to re-use images of RSF abuses against civilians in el-Fasher and frame them as “Islamist violence against Christians.”

The outlet accused Amjad Taha, an Emirati analyst, of being the architect of the campaign. He reportedly posted several claims about alleged Islamists in Sudan, which were then amplified by other accounts.

For several months, the Emirati figure has led the charge on social media to link Sudan’s armed forces with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic resistance movement Hamas in Gaza.

Amjad Taha claimed that Sudan’s army had “killed 2 million Christians, displaced 8 million, and raped 15,000 women, while leftists stay busy attacking the UAE… a nation where church bells ring freely.”

However, none of the numbers cited were supported by credible sources or verified reports, according to the investigation.

The Emirati influencer also said that a Sudanese army officer had “eaten a man’s heart after killing him and his children.” Again, no evidence was provided, but such claims were amplified by Emirati, Israeli, and far-right accounts.

According to the report published by Beam, the objectives of the coordinated campaign included shifting blame of atrocities away from the RSF, recasting Sudan’s war as a religious conflict to “evoke foreign sympathy,” and flooding the online space with fabricated content to confuse media coverage.

One such example was American influencer Nima Yamini, who shared images from el-Fasher and claimed they showed “Christians slaughtered in Sudan – and no one talks about it,” adding that massacres against Christians were so severe that you can “see blood from space.”

In reality, blood splatters seen from space were from areas of el-Fasher where the RSF were reported to have shot residents.

In a different post, far-right Polish politician Dominik Tarczynski shared a purported image of a mother and child in el-Fasher with the false caption: “Sudan: genocide of Christians by the Islamists.”

In 2023, a conflict broke out between the Sudanese army and the RSF, far from religious lines, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, displaced over 12 million people, and led the International Rescue Committee to characterize it as “the largest humanitarian crisis ever documented.”

Sudanese authorities have repeatedly said the RSF enjoys unconditional support from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with Khartoum taking legal action against the country at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in April.

A report by British daily newspaper The Guardian late last month revealed that British-made weapons and military equipment are being supplied by the UAE to militants from the RSF.

Furthermore, Khartoum-based writer and strategic affairs analyst Makkawi Elmalik also said in October that what is happening in Sudan “is not a regular military battle, but a systematic extermination committed by the RSF, supported by the UAE and Israel.”

He further stated that both the UAE and the Israeli regime have participated in planning the militia’s attacks on civilians in the Sudanese city and provided them with weapons and intelligence.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »