Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen Assets, Empty Arsenals, and the Quiet Admission of Defeat
By Gerry Nolan | Ron Paul Institute | December 24, 2025
When a prime minister tells her own staff to rest because next year will be much worse, it is not gallows humor. It is not exhaustion speaking. It is a slip of the mask, the kind of remark leaders make only when the internal forecasts no longer align with the public script.
Giorgia Meloni was not addressing voters. She was addressing the state itself — the bureaucratic core tasked with executing decisions whose consequences can no longer be disguised. Her words were not about a mundane increased workload. They were about constraint. About limits. About a Europe that has crossed from crisis management into managed decline, and knows that 2026 is when the accumulated costs finally collide.
What Meloni let slip is what Europe’s elites already understand: the Western project in Ukraine has run head-first into material reality. Not Russian propaganda. Not disinformation. Not populism. Steel, munitions, energy, labor, and time. And once material reality asserts itself, legitimacy begins to drain.
The War Europe Cannot Supply
Europe can posture for war. It cannot produce for war.
Four years into a high-intensity war of attrition, the United States and Europe are confronting a truth they spent decades unlearning: you do not sustain this kind of conflict with theatrical speeches, sanctions, or abandoning diplomacy. You sustain it with shells, missiles, trained crews, repair cycles, and production rates that exceed losses — month after month, without interruption.
By 2025, the gap is no longer theoretical.
Russia is now producing artillery ammunition at a scale that Western officials themselves concede outpaces the combined output of NATO. Russian industry has shifted to continuous near-wartime production (without even being fully mobilized), with centralized procurement, simplified supply chains, and state-directed throughput. Estimates place annual Russian artillery production at several million rounds — production already flowing, not promised.
Europe, by contrast, has spent 2025 celebrating targets it cannot ever materially meet. The European Union’s flagship pledge remains two million shells per year — a goal dependent on new facilities, new contracts, and new labor that will not fully materialize within the decisive window of the war, if ever. Even the dreamed target if reached, would not put it at parity with Russian output. The United States, after emergency expansion, is projecting roughly one million shells annually once and a big if, full ramp-up is achieved. Even combined on paper, Western production struggles to match Russian output already delivered. Talk about paper tiger.
This is not a gap. It is a major tempo mismatch. Russia is producing at scale now. Europe is dreaming of rebuilding the ability to produce at scale later.
And time is the one variable that cannot be sanctioned.
Nor can the United States simply compensate for Europe’s hollowed-out capacity. Washington faces its own industrial choke points. Production of Patriot air-defense interceptors runs in the low hundreds per year while demand now spans Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and US stockpile replenishment simultaneously — a mismatch senior Pentagon officials have acknowledged cannot be resolved quickly, if ever. US naval shipbuilding tells the same story: submarine and surface-combatant programs are years behind schedule, constrained by labor shortages, aging yards, and cost overruns that push meaningful expansion into the 2030s. The assumption that America can industrially backstop Europe no longer matches reality. This is not a European problem alone; it is a Western one.
War Footing Without Factories
European leaders speak of “war footing” as if it were a political posture. In reality, it is an industrial condition and Europe does not meet it.
New artillery production lines require years to reach stable throughput. Air-defense interceptor manufacturing runs in long cycles measured in batches, not surges. Even basic inputs such as explosives remain bottlenecks, with facilities shuttered decades ago only now being reopened, some not expected to reach capacity until the late 2020s.
That date alone is an admission.
Russia, meanwhile, is already operating inside wartime tempo. Its defense sector has delivered thousands of armored vehicles, hundreds of aircraft and helicopters, and vast quantities of drones annually.
Europe’s problem is not conceptual; it is institutional. Germany’s much-vaunted Zeitenwende exposed this brutally. Tens of billions were authorized, but procurement bottlenecks, fragmented contracting, and an atrophied supplier base meant delivery lagged years behind rhetoric. France, often cited as Europe’s most capable arms producer, can manufacture more sophisticated systems — but only in boutique quantities, measured in dozens where attritional war demands thousands. Even the EU’s own ammunition acceleration initiatives expanded capacity on paper while the front consumed shells in weeks. These are not ideological failures. They are administrative and industrial ones and they compound under pressure.
The difference is structural. Western industry was optimized for shareholder efficiency and peacetime margins. Russia’s has been reorganized for endurance under pressure. NATO announces packages. Russia counts deliveries.
The €210 Billion Fantasy
This industrial reality explains why the frozen-assets saga mattered so much, and why it failed.
Europe’s leadership did not pursue the seizure of Russian sovereign assets out of legal creativity or moral clarity. It pursued it because it needed time. Time to avoid admitting that the war could not be sustained on Western industrial terms. Time to substitute finance for production.
When the attempt to seize roughly €210 billion in Russian assets collapsed on December 20th, blocked by legal risk, market consequences, and resistance led by Belgium, with Italy, Malta, Slovakia and Hungary, aligned against outright confiscation, Europe settled for a degraded substitute: a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for 2026–27, serviced by 3B in annual interest, further mortgaging Europe’s future. This was not strategy. It was triage, and further divided, an already weakened Union.
Outright confiscation would have detonated Europe’s credibility as a financial custodian. Permanent immobilization avoids the blast — but creates a slow bleed. The assets remain frozen indefinitely, a standing act of economic warfare that signals to the world that reserves held in Europe are conditional and not worth the risk. Europe chose reputational erosion over legal rupture. That choice reveals fear, not strength.
Ukraine as a Balance-Sheet War
The deeper truth is that Ukraine is no longer primarily a battlefield problem. It is a solvency problem. Washington understands this. The United States can absorb embarrassment. It cannot absorb open-ended liabilities indefinitely. An offramp is being sought — quietly, unevenly, and with rhetorical cover.
Europe cannot admit it needs one. Europe framed the war as existential, civilizational, moral. It declared compromise appeasement and negotiation surrender. In doing so, it erased its own exit ramps.
Now the costs land where no narrative can deflect them: on European budgets, European energy bills, European industry, and European political cohesion. The €90 billion loan is not solidarity. It is securitization of decline — rolling obligations forward while the productive base required to justify them continues to erode.
Meloni knows this. That is why her tone was not defiant, but weary.
Censorship as Panic Management
As material limits harden, narrative control tightens. The aggressive enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act is not about safety. It is about containment, in its most Orwellian form — constructing an information perimeter around an elite consensus that can no longer withstand open accounting. When citizens begin asking calmly, and then not calmly, relentlessly, what was this for?, the illusion of legitimacy collapses quickly.
This is why regulatory pressure now reaches beyond Europe’s borders, provoking transatlantic friction over jurisdiction and speech. Confident systems do not fear conversation. Fragile ones do. Censorship here is not ideology. It is insurance.
Deindustrialization: The Unspoken Betrayal
Europe did not merely sanction Russia. It sanctioned its own industrial model.
By 2025, European industry continues to pay energy costs far above those of competitors in the United States or Russia. Germany, the engine, has seen sustained contraction in energy-intensive manufacturing. Chemical, steel, fertilizer, and glass production have either shut down or relocated. Small and medium enterprises across Italy and Central Europe are failing quietly, without headlines.
This is why Europe cannot scale ammunition the way it needs to. This is why rearmament remains a promise rather than a condition. Cheap energy was not a luxury. It was the foundation. Remove it via self-sabotage (Nordstream et. al), and the structure hollows out.
China, watching all of this, holds the other half of Europe’s nightmare. It commands the deepest manufacturing base on earth without having entered wartime footing. Russia does not need China’s breadth, only its strategic depth behind it in reserve. Europe has neither.
What Meloni Actually Fears
Not hard work. Not busy schedules. She fears a 2026 in which Europe’s elites lose control of three things at once.
Money — as Ukraine’s funding becomes an EU balance-sheet problem, replacing the fantasy that “Russia will pay.”
Narrative — as censorship tightens and still fails to suppress the question echoing across the continent: what was this all for?
Alliance discipline — as Washington maneuvers for exit while Europe absorbs the cost, the risk, and the humiliation.
That is the panic. Not losing the war overnight, but losing legitimacy slowly, as reality leaks out through energy bills, shuttered factories, empty arsenals, and mortgaged futures.
Humanity at the Abyss
This is not just Europe’s crisis. It is civilizational. A system that cannot produce, cannot replenish, cannot tell the truth, and cannot retreat without collapsing credibility has reached its limits. When leaders begin preparing their own institutions for worse years ahead, they are not forecasting inconvenience. They are conceding structure.
Meloni’s remark mattered because it pierced the performance. Empires announce triumph loudly. Systems in decline lower expectations quietly, or loudly in Meloni’s case.
Europe’s leadership is lowering expectations now because it knows what the warehouses contain, what the factories cannot yet deliver, what the debt curves look like — and what the public has already begun to understand.
For most Europeans, this reckoning will not arrive as an abstract debate about strategy or supply chains. It will arrive as a far simpler realization: this was never a war they consented to. It was not fought to defend their homes, their prosperity, or their future. It was fought for greed for Empire, and paid for with their living standards, their industry, and their children’s future.
They were told it was existential. They were told there was no alternative. They were told sacrifice was virtue.
Yet what Europeans want is not endless mobilization or permanent austerity. They want peace. They want stability. They want the quiet dignity of prosperity — affordable energy, functioning industry, and a future that is not mortgaged to conflicts they did not consent to.
And when that truth settles, when the fear recedes and the spell breaks, the question Europeans will ask will not be technical, ideological, or rhetorical.
It will be human. Why were we forced to sacrifice everything for a war we never agreed to and told there was no peace worth pursuing? And this is what keeps Meloni up at night.
Gerry Nolan is a political analyst, writer, and strategist focused on geopolitics, security affairs, and the structural dynamics of global power. He is the founder and editor of The Islander, an independent media platform examining war, diplomacy, economic statecraft, and the accelerating shift toward a multipolar world.
How reporting facts can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist
By Jonathan Cook – December 22, 2025
Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it.
The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.
And lo behold, here we are.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.
Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.
But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.
It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.
When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.
The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.
But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.
Now journalists, human rights activists and lawyers face a legal minefield every time they try to talk about the Gaza genocide, the trials of people accused of belonging to Palestine Action, or the hunger strikes of those on remand over attacks on weapons factories supplying killer drones to Israel.
Why? Because saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence. Any journalist, human rights activist or lawyer making factual observations risks 14 years behind bars.
Few seem to have understood quite what impact this is having on public coverage of these major issues.
A month and a half into the hunger strike by eight members of Palestine Action – the point at which people are likely to start dying – the BBC News at Ten finally broke its silence on the matter. That was despite the hunger strike being the largest in UK history in nearly half a century.
There are clear political reasons why the BBC had avoided this topic for so long. It prefers not to deal with matters that directly confront the legitimacy of the government, which funds it. The BBC is effectively the British state broadcaster.
But in a naturally spineless organisation like the BBC, the legal consequences have clearly weighed heavily too. In a recent short segment on the hunger strike, BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani carefully hedged his words and admitted to facing legal difficulties reporting on the strike.
In these circumstances, news organisations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.
The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.
The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful pushback.
Take just one example. The government has proscribed Palestine Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation. It has justified its decision by implying, without producing a shred of evidence, that the group is funded by Iran, and that its real agenda is not just criminal damage against arms factories but against individuals.
Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment.
Were I to conduct an investigation, for example, definitively showing that Palestine Action was not funded by Iran – proving that the government was lying – it would be a terror offence to publish that truthful information. Why? Because it would almost certainly “encourage support” for Palestine Action. There is no fact or truth exemption in the legislation.
Similarly, the government has suggested that the current “Filton Trial” – which includes discussions of events in which a police officer was injured during a struggle over the sledgehammers being used to destroy the Elbit factory’s weapons-producing machinery – demonstrates that Palestine Action was not just targeting property but individuals too.
Were I to try to make the case that the alleged actions of one individual – only one person is charged with assault – prove nothing about the aims of the organisation as a whole, I would be risking a terrorism conviction and 14 years’ imprisonment. Which is one, very strong reason not to make such an argument.
But in the absence of such arguments, the reality is that social media is awash with posts from people echoing outrageous official disinformation. This spreads unchallenged because to challenge it is now cast as a terrorism offence.
In truth, since proscription, any statements about the political aims of a deeply political organisation like Palestine Action occupy a grey area of the law.
Is it a terrorism offence to point out the fact, as I have done above, that Palestine Action targeted Elbit factories that send killer drones to Israel for use in Gaza. In doing so, may I have “recklessly” encouraged you to support Palestine Action?
Can I express any kind of positive view about the hunger strikers or their actions without violating the law?
The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers.
It allows the government – through compliant police forces – to selectively pick off those dissenting individuals it doesn’t like, those without institutional backing, to make examples of them. This is not conjecture. It is already happening.
The abuse of the Terrorism Act discourages research, analysis and critical thinking. It forces all journalists, human rights activists and lawyers to become lapdogs of the government. It creates a void into which the government can spin events to its own advantage, in which it can avoid accountability and in which it can punish those who dissent. It is the very antithesis of democratic behaviour.
This ought to appall anyone who cares about the truth, about public debate, about scrutiny. Because they have all been thrown out of the window.
And in proscribing Palestine Action, the government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation and thereby make it impossible to defend that group.
That is what authoritarian governments do. That is exactly where Britain is now.
US Department of State Discloses Names of 5 Europeans Sanctioned for Censorship Against US
Sputnik – 24.12.2025
US Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers has disclosed the list of five Europeans who have been sanctioned by Washington for the extraterritorial censorship of Americans.
The list includes Thierry Breton, who is described as a mastermind of the Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed, who headed the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that called for deplatforming US anti-vaxxers, including now Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy; Clare Melford, who leads the Global Disinformation Index (GDI); Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, the founder of German organization HateAid that was allegedly created to “counter conservative groups” and is an official censor under the DSA; and Josephine Ballon, the co-leader of HateAid.
“These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil,” Rogers wrote on X.
The introduction of sanctions against five Europeans was announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The secretary said that “these radical activists and weaponized NGOs” had aided censorship crackdowns by foreign states, targeting American speakers and American companies.
Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”
Victoria’s push to unmask online users marks a turning point where the rhetoric of safety begins to eclipse the right to speak without fear
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 23, 2025
Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack.
Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot.
Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent.
During her announcement, Premier Allan said:
“That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.”
Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk.
The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026.
The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.
This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm.
Weakening Oversight of Speech Prosecutions
Premier Allan also intends to remove a major procedural safeguard from Victoria’s criminal vilification laws: the requirement that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) consent to police prosecutions. Without that check, police could independently pursue speech-based offenses, bypassing higher legal oversight.
This change would hand significant discretion to law enforcement in determining which speech crosses into criminality. Once enacted, it would mean that a person’s online comments could be prosecuted directly, without review from the state’s top legal office.
The “anti-hate” package extends beyond censorship. It proposes new powers for police to shut down protests in the aftermath of “designated terrorist events” and establishes a Commissioner for Preventing and Countering Violent Political Extremism to coordinate programs across schools, clubs, and religious institutions.
These measures, combined with the online anonymity restrictions, represent a substantial consolidation of state power over communication, movement, and association, all justified in the name of combating hate and maintaining safety.
Requiring companies to unmask users fundamentally undermines the principle of anonymous participation, a cornerstone of free expression, whistleblowing, and political organizing. Anonymity has historically protected vulnerable groups, dissidents, and small voices from retaliation.
Under Victoria’s proposal, those protections could erode rapidly as platforms are pressured to reveal identities or face litigation.
Laws targeting “hate speech” often extend far beyond their original purpose, evolving into broad speech controls that deter public criticism, satire, and unpopular opinions. Once enacted, such powers rarely contract.
More: Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
Who is the Pro-Israel Clique behind TikTok’s US Takeover?
By Romana Rubeo – The Palestine Chronicle – December 20, 2025
The short-form video social media platform TikTok, which has more than 170 million users in the United States and has become a central space for political discourse, journalism, and youth activism, finalized an agreement on Thursday to transfer control of its US operations to a newly created joint venture dominated by American and allied investors.
The deal, reported by multiple US media outlets including CNBC, Reuters, and the Associated Press, follows years of bipartisan efforts to force ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to divest from the app or face an outright ban under US national security legislation. The agreement is expected to close in January 2026.
Under the terms of the deal, TikTok’s US business will be placed under a new entity, commonly referred to as TikTok USDS, with majority ownership held by a consortium led by Oracle Corporation and the private equity firm Silver Lake, alongside MGX, an investment vehicle based in Abu Dhabi. ByteDance will retain a minority stake of just under 20 percent, the maximum allowed under US law, while existing ByteDance-linked investors will collectively hold a further share of the company.
Oracle will play a central role not only as an investor but also as TikTok’s so-called “trusted technology partner.” US officials have stated that Oracle will be responsible for hosting American user data and overseeing key aspects of the platform’s algorithm, an arrangement presented by the administration as a safeguard against foreign influence.
Is Israel Involved?
While no Israeli company or state-linked entity is formally involved in the ownership structure of the new TikTok US venture, the deal has sparked debate over the political affiliations and ideological positions of some of the corporate figures associated with the transaction.
Oracle, one of the principal investors, has long-standing ties to Israel through its leadership. The company’s chief executive, Safra Catz, is Israeli-American and has previously made public statements expressing strong support for Israel.
According to TRT, an email sent by former Oracle CEO Safra Catz to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was disclosed following a hack of Barak’s email account.
“We have all been horrified by the growth of the BDS movement in college campuses and have concluded that we have to fight this battle before the kids even get to college. We believe that we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture. That means getting the message to the American people in a way they can consume it,” Catz reportedly wrote in February 2015.
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has also been widely reported to have close political and personal relationships with Israeli leaders and to have donated to pro-Israel causes over many years.
According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ellison is among the largest private donors to the Israeli army. Reporting on a Beverly Hills gala organized by The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces in 2017, the JTA wrote: “Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle and its executive chairman, gave $16.6 million — the largest single gift in FIDF history.”
Ellison has also publicly described Israel as his own state.
According to Responsible Statecraft, the online magazine of the Quincy Institute, Ellison holds extensive interests across major news, television, and Hollywood media companies, largely through the recent takeover of Paramount by Skydance Media, a group now led by his son, David Ellison. The report also noted that David Ellison is considering appointing openly pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss to a senior executive role at the newly acquired CBS network.
The report also mentioned that David Ellison is considering appointing openly pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss to a senior executive role at the newly acquired CBS network.
Limitations on Freedom of Expression
Civil liberties groups and pro-Palestinian advocates have repeatedly warned that the restructuring of TikTok’s ownership could have consequences for freedom of expression, particularly regarding content related to Palestine and Israel.
These concerns come against the backdrop of repeated complaints from activists and journalists about the suppression or downranking of pro-Palestinian content across major social media platforms since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza.
Pro-Israel Organizations Welcome the Deal
At the same time, pro-Israel organizations in the US have publicly welcomed the sale, framing it as an opportunity to address what they describe as antisemitism and hostile narratives on TikTok.
For example, leaders of the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), one of the largest umbrella groups representing Jewish communities in the US, issued a public statement framing the proposed TikTok deal as an opportunity to tackle what they described as the “antisemitism” on the platform.
Israeli officials and commentators have also emphasized the strategic importance of social media platforms in shaping public opinion, particularly among younger audiences.
Even former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently claimed that young Americans, including young Jewish Americans, hold increasingly critical views of Israel because they are being misled by “pure propaganda” and “totally made up” videos on TikTok and other social media platforms.
Speaking at a summit in New York hosted by Israel Hayom on December 2, Clinton repeatedly suggested that widely documented information circulating online about Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza is fabricated, and expressed concern that students “don’t know the history and don’t understand.”
Clinton described it as “a serious problem” that young people rely heavily on social media for their information, despite the fact that the videos, documentation, and reporting she dismissed have been independently verified by journalists, human rights organizations, UN bodies, and legal experts investigating Israeli war crimes and genocide.
Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals.
Ukraine: Does Europe Work for a Stalled Conflict?
Why negotiations are blocked and why a long, managed conflict is becoming the default outcome.
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – December 23, 2025
Negotiations to end the conflict in Ukraine appear stalled not because of a lack of diplomatic encounters, but because there is no shared understanding of what the proxy war is about, nor of what a settlement should address. The Berlin meeting illustrated this structural deadlock.
Russia continues to restate a limited and stable set of core demands, above all, Ukrainian neutrality and the rollback of NATO’s military footprint, while Europeans and Ukrainians advance proposals that explicitly negate these demands. This is not a negotiation gap; it is a conceptual incompatibility.
The American role exacerbates this problem. The United States oscillates between mediator and belligerent, without committing to a coherent diplomatic line. Instead of deploying professional diplomatic teams with a clear mandate, Washington relies on ad hoc envoys and transactional approaches. Trump’s inclination towards deal-making, inspired by business logic rather than diplomatic craft, leads to contradictory signaling: reassurance to Moscow followed by alignment with European and Ukrainian maximalist positions. This reinforces Russian perceptions that talks are performative rather than substantive.
From a European perspective, the refusal to listen to Russia’s security concerns is justified through a normative framing of the conflict: Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor, and therefore only Ukrainian security deserves guarantees. This position, articulated explicitly by EU figures such as Kaja Kallas, forecloses any bargaining space.
Russia is delegitimised as a security actor, and empathy, understood here not as moral approval but as analytical capacity to understand the other side’s threat perception, is absent. The result is a strategy that implicitly accepts the continuation of the conflict until Ukraine collapses militarily or Russia concedes its defeat, a scenario that seems unrealistic.
Meanwhile, Russia senses that time is on its side. Battlefield dynamics, industrial mobilisation, and political cohesion reinforce Moscow’s assessment that it can achieve its objectives through attrition. In this context, concessions would be irrational from a realist standpoint.
As negotiations fail, Europe and Ukraine increasingly rely on asymmetric strategies, such as sabotage, attacks on Russian assets, and irregular warfare, openly endorsed by Western intelligence discourse, including references by the head of MI6 to Second World War–style special operations. This marks a shift from conflict resolution to conflict management.
Financing Ukraine: strategic risk without political consent
Europe’s approach to financing Ukraine reveals a second layer of contradiction. The decision not to confiscate Russian frozen assets, but instead to fund Ukraine through EU borrowing (€90 billion for 2026–2027) acknowledges the legal, financial, and systemic risks involved. Belgium’s concerns over Euroclear, the threat of credit downgrades by rating agencies such as Fitch, and the exposure of European pension funds and financial institutions underline the fragility of this strategy.
Yet this choice was made without a social pact with European citizens. There has been no democratic debate proportionate to the scale of financial commitment. At a time when European societies face mounting pressures on housing, welfare, pensions, and infrastructure, war financing is normalised as a moral and face-saving necessity rather than a political choice. This fuels domestic resentment and strengthens nationalist and far-right parties across the continent.
Strategically, European financing does not resolve the conflict. Money cannot substitute for manpower nor reverse battlefield dynamics. Ukraine’s primary constraint is not just liquidity but, above all, soldiers. Moreover, persistent concerns about corruption and weak accountability mechanisms undermine public support for continued transfers. Rather than bringing peace closer, European funding functions as a holding mechanism: prolonging the conflict to weaken Russia, buying time to rearm European militaries, and delaying political reckoning of the defeat.
In this sense, Ukraine increasingly functions as a proxy, absorbing the human cost of a broader confrontation while Europe avoids direct military engagement. This is a morally uncomfortable but analytically coherent reading of current policy.
The fear of a Russian “victory” and the erosion of Europe’s political core
The prospect of Russia being perceived as the winner is existentially threatening for European elites. It would symbolise not only Ukrainian defeat but also NATO’s limits and Europe’s strategic weakness. More profoundly, it would undermine the EU’s self-image as a political peace project and a normative power.
To prevent this outcome, European leaders and media have invested heavily in a simplified narrative: Russia as sole aggressor, Ukraine as pure victim, and Europe as moral defender. Yet two facts disrupt this narrative. First, the EU has not presented a concrete peace proposal of its own.
Second, dissenting voices are increasingly marginalised or silenced, contradicting Europe’s professed commitment to pluralism and freedom of expression. In several European countries, journalists, analysts, and former officials who question NATO strategy, the feasibility of a military victory, or the costs of prolonged war – such as George Galloway in the United Kingdom, former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, French analysts like Xavier Moreau or the online platform Euroactiv – have been systematically delegitimised, deplatformed, or labelled as disinformation vectors rather than engaged on the substance of their arguments. The closure of debate, whether through media pressure or formal and informal censorship, erodes Europe’s intellectual resilience.
As nuance becomes suspect and contradiction is framed as betrayal, Europe loses its capacity to think strategically. Political realism, understood as the ability to engage with power politics without moral illusion, has largely disappeared from mainstream European discourse. NATO expansion is no longer discussed as a variable in Russian threat perception but as an unquestionable good. The assumption persists that Russia will eventually weaken, accept European terms, and even relinquish frozen assets. There is no empirical basis for this belief.
Is there a way out?
A negotiated settlement remains theoretically possible but politically unlikely. European leaders seek a face-saving exit that preserves moral superiority while avoiding military escalation. Yet they are unwilling to make the concessions such an exit would require.
Europe will not send troops to fight Russia, but it will also not accept defeat. The most probable outcome is therefore a long, tense cold peace, akin to the Korean model: frozen frontlines, unresolved status, and continuous low-level confrontation.
This outcome will shape European–Russian relations for decades. It will also accelerate Europe’s internal fragmentation, as member states increasingly diverge in their strategic orientations, weaken its social model, and normalise permanent rearmament. Europe pays the bill, calls it principle, and postpones the hardest decisions at the cost of Ukrainian lives and its own political coherence.
Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
Ukrainian investigative journalist ‘kidnapped’ by draft officers
RT | December 23, 2025
A Ukrainian investigative journalist is reportedly missing after being seized by conscription officials days after filing a criminal complaint against his local city administration.
A video shared on the Facebook account of Aleksey Brovchenko, which went viral this week, was purportedly filmed by CCTV cameras at his home in Podgorodnoye in Dnepropetrovsk Region on Monday morning. It showed people in military and police uniforms apprehending a man and forcing him into a van despite a woman’s vocal objections – which the description called a “kidnapping.”
Brovchenko’s family said he was beaten earlier in the day and called police to file a complaint, but was instead taken away and has since been out of touch with them.
Last week, the journalist reported an “interesting situation” at a police station where he went to file a complaint against the town mayor for alleged fraud. He said officers accused him of being a draft dodger but let him go instead of transferring him to military officials – a move he described as a sign that “the police will soon switch to the side of the people.” Brovchenko’s reporting often highlights suspected abuses by conscription centers.
City head Andrey Gorb, whom the journalist had accused of wrongdoing, claimed on Tuesday that Brovchenko is a “fake journalist” who “did everything to derail the mobilization.” He thanked police and military officers “for doing their job.”
Military mobilization is a contentious issue in Ukraine, viewed by many as unfair due to corruption that allows the wealthy and powerful to evade mandatory service. Videos of what critics call abductions regularly go viral, even as officials downplay the so-called “busification” as not a serious problem.
Public resistance to recruiting also exacerbates existing issues with Ukrainian troop desertion. The Prosecutor General’s Office recently stopped reporting the number of cases against soldiers who have left their posts, a move critics say is an attempt to conceal the scale of the manpower drain.
Trump Administration Moves to Overhaul Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Embrace Informed Consent Model
By Sayer Ji | December 20, 2025
In what may prove to be the most significant transformation of U.S. vaccine policy in decades, the Trump administration is preparing to fundamentally restructure how childhood vaccines are recommended—shifting away from blanket federal endorsements toward a model that empowers parents and physicians to make individualized decisions.
According to a December 19th report in The Washington Post, federal health officials are developing guidance that would encourage parents to consult directly with their doctors about vaccination decisions, rather than simply following a standardized federal schedule. This “shared clinical decision-making” approach represents a profound departure from the paternalistic model that has defined American vaccine policy for generations.
The Denmark Model: Less Is More
Central to the administration’s emerging framework is Denmark’s approach to childhood vaccinations. While the current U.S. schedule calls for vaccinations against 18 infectious diseases, Denmark recommends the injections against 10—yet maintains excellent health outcomes.
Tracy Beth Hoeg, a top FDA official, presented the Danish model to the CDC’s federal vaccine advisory committee earlier this month. Her presentation highlighted what she characterized as the “Danish Vaccination Schedule Benefits,” including making “more time for overall health at doctors’ appointments” and decreasing the “medicalization of childhood.”
The policy shift “kicked into high gear” immediately following President Trump’s directive earlier this month to consider recommending fewer shots. In his announcement, Trump noted that the United States is an “outlier” among developed countries and emphasized that “many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule.’”
Informed Consent Takes Center Stage
Perhaps most significantly, the administration is moving toward what health freedom advocates have long championed: genuine informed consent.
Under the emerging framework, vaccines would shift to “shared clinical decision-making”—meaning parents would consult with medical professionals about the risks and benefits before proceeding. Critically, insurance coverage would remain intact, preserving access while restoring choice.
The CDC has already begun implementing this approach for covid vaccines and the hepatitis B vaccine for children. This marks a fundamental acknowledgment that vaccination decisions are not merely technical matters to be dictated by government committees, but personal medical choices that belong in the hands of families and their trusted physicians.
A Vindication Decades in the Making
For those of us who have spent years (even decades) advocating for medical freedom, parental rights, and genuine informed consent, this moment represents a profound vindication.
Those like Secretary Kennedy, part of the “disinformation dozen,” viciously targeted during the Covid-19 era, have long argued that the U.S. vaccine schedule—which has expanded dramatically over the past four decades—deserves rigorous scrutiny rather than reflexive acceptance. We have insisted that parents are capable of making informed decisions about their children’s health when given accurate information about both risks and benefits. We have maintained that comparing health outcomes across nations reveals that more vaccines do not automatically equal better health.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has called for additional scrutiny of the childhood vaccine schedule throughout his career, now sits at the helm of HHS. Martin Kulldorff, a renowned epidemiologist and biostatistician, has been named a chief science officer at the department. The voices that were systematically marginalized and deplatformed are now shaping policy.
Del Bigtree, founder of the Informed Consent Action Network, told the Post he supports the shift: “Our belief is there are just too many vaccines. It’s very exciting.”
What This Means Going Forward
The policy remains in development, and specific details—including which vaccines would move to the shared decision-making model—have not been finalized. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon cautioned that until official announcements are made, reports remain “pure speculation.”
However, the direction is unmistakable. The era of unquestioning deference to an ever-expanding federal vaccine schedule is drawing to a close. In its place is emerging a model that:
- Respects parental rights as the foundation of children’s healthcare decisions
- Restores the physician-patient relationship to its proper central role
- Acknowledges uncertainty rather than projecting false consensus
- Aligns with international norms rather than treating American exceptionalism as an excuse for over-medicalization
- Preserves access while eliminating coercion
The Resistance Has Already Begun
Predictably, the public health establishment is sounding alarms. Former CDC official Demetre Daskalakis called the Denmark comparison “not gold standard science.” The recently defunded American Academy of Pediatrics rejected what it termed the “one-size-fits-all approach” while simultaneously opposing any departure from the current one-size-fits-all schedule.
Even a Danish health official questioned the shift—though notably, his objection was that “public health is not one size fits all” and is “population specific,” which is precisely the point advocates have been making for years. If public health is population-specific, then surely it should also be individual-specific, with families empowered to make decisions appropriate to their unique circumstances.
A New Chapter for Health Freedom
We are witnessing what may be the most consequential health policy transformation of our lifetimes. After years of censorship, deplatforming, and marginalization, the health freedom movement’s core principles are being integrated into federal policy.
This is not about being “anti-vaccine.” It is about being pro-informed consent, pro-parental rights, and pro-science that welcomes questions rather than demanding compliance.
The battle is far from over. State mandates remain in place. Institutional resistance is fierce. The entrenched interests that have profited from the expanding schedule will not yield quietly.
But the tide has turned. And for parents who have long demanded the right to make informed medical decisions for their children, this moment represents nothing less than the restoration of a fundamental freedom.
UK doctor arrested under pressure from Israel lobby over ‘anti-genocide posts’
Press TV – December 21, 2025
British police have arrested a senior doctor under pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups over social media posts condemning the regime’s genocide against Palestinians.
Ellen Kriesels, a consultant paediatrician with more than 15 years of service at London’s Whittington Hospital, was arrested at her home on Saturday by officers from the Metropolitan Police.
According to a colleague of Kriesels, she was arrested in front of her children.
“The Israeli lobby began hunting her in September because of her sign at a national Palestine demonstration,” Doctor Rahmeh Aladwan wrote in a post on X.
“Britain is doing this to our NHS doctors for Israel. Britain is occupied,” she added.
Kriesels was first targeted after appearing at a pro-Palestine protest holding a placard opposing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Within days, she was suspended from Whittington Hospital.
She was subsequently reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) and later to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which suspended her medical license for nine months.
Healthcare workers’ group HCWs Against Censorship also condemned Kriesels’ arrest, which it said was followed by a coordinated campaign against her after she participated in a national pro-Palestine demonstration in September.
“The Israeli lobby strikes again,” the group said, adding that police acted following complaints from pro-Israel lobbying organisations, including UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).
The arrest was carried out “on behalf of a foreign-aligned lobby,” the group said, describing it as “an absolute outrage.”
“This is what Britain now does to NHS doctors for speaking about Palestine,” one supporter said. “It is repression, plain and simple.”
No formal charges have been publicly confirmed yet. The Metropolitan Police have not released details of the specific offences under investigation.
In a post on X dated September 17, Kriesels criticized the NHS for reporting her to the police over her “anti-genocide posts and placards.”
“Leaving the front door ajar so the police don’t have to use force when they come and get me,” she wrote at the time.
Her arrest comes as British police have threatened a renewed crackdown on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, warning they will arrest anyone chanting the phrase “globalize the intifada” or displaying it on placards.
Intifada, an Arabic word meaning uprising, is used by Palestinians to describe resistance to Israel’s occupation of their land.
The Metropolitan Police made their first arrests linked to the chant at a pro-Palestine demonstration in London on Sunday, claiming the slogan constitutes “a call for violence against Jewish people.”
Pro-Israel lobby groups are pressing for a harsher crackdown on demonstrations and have even suggested that chants such as “Free, free Palestine” inherently incite violence.
Pro-Palestinian protests have surged across London over the past two years, amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and in response to the UK government’s military and diplomatic support for Israel.
The Empire of Lies: How the BBC Strangles Free Speech Under the Mask of Objectivity and Why Trump is Right to Sue
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – December 21, 2025
Against the backdrop of hysteria over “repressions in Russia,” Great Britain itself has long since transformed into a police state, where dissent is stigmatized and truth is replaced by propaganda. Putin’s response has exposed the double standards of Western media.
The Smokescreen of the “Free Press”
On December 19, 2025, Vladimir Putin gave comprehensive and calm answers in a live broadcast to provocative questions from BBC journalist Stephen Rosenberg. Instead of honestly analyzing his arguments about foreign agents, security, and sovereignty, Western media, and the BBC itself first and foremost, prepared another portion of distortions under headlines like “Putin Denies the Obvious.” This moment is the perfect prism through which to discern the essence of the phenomenon. While the missionaries from Northgold Street teach the whole world about “democracy” and “free journalism,” the British Isles themselves are rapidly sinking into the quagmire of ideological conformity and censorship. The BBC Corporation, once a symbol of respectability, has become the epitome of systemic bias and an industry for manufacturing narratives. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, whom this media machine has vilified for years, has filed a lawsuit against it—this is a logical act of self-defense against organized lies.
Hypocrisy as Editorial Policy. “Repressions” There and Censorship Here
Putin’s answer on the issue of “foreign agents” was crystal clear: the law is a copy of the American FARA, requiring only transparency of foreign funding, not criminal prosecution for opinion. This thesis reveals a monstrous contrast with the realities of Great Britain itself, where freedom of speech has become a fiction, covered by bureaucratic and ideological terror.
Thought Police in Action: From Tweets to Kitchen Conversations. In Russia, it’s registration for NGOs; in Britain, it’s a criminal charge for an ordinary citizen. The Online Safety Bill is nothing other than an architecture of preemptive censorship. UK police regularly detain people for “offensive” or “alarming” posts on social media. There are known cases of a man being interrogated for a sarcastic tweet about transgender people, and a pensioner for a “racist” comment about migration on Facebook. These are not isolated excesses; this is the system. Where is the freedom of speech that the BBC so fiercely defends in its reports about Russia?
De Facto “Foreign Agents”: Stigmatization Instead of Discussion. The BBC has appropriated for itself the right to define the boundaries of permissible discourse. Any criticism that goes beyond these boundaries, be it doubts about the radical environmental agenda, questions about transhumanism, or analysis of the problems of mass migration, is instantly branded by the corporation as “marginal,” “extremist,” or “propagandistic.” Independent analysts, scientists, and journalists who disagree with the general line are systematically pushed out of the airwaves and public sphere under the convenient pretext of “fighting disinformation.” That is, the BBC itself creates “disinformation,” defines it, and fights it, eliminating competitors. This is a classic monopoly on truth.
Trump’s Lawsuit is an Anatomy of the BBC’s Lies. From the “Steele Dossier” to the Myths of “Russiagate”
Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is not the gesture of an offended politician, but a legal exposure of the festering wound of systemic malfeasance. Trump accuses the corporation of “deliberate and malicious defamation,” and history provides him with ample evidence.
The “Steele Dossier” — A Fake as a Journalistic Standard. In 2016-2017, the BBC, like many Western media outlets, zealously circulated sensational allegations from an unverified dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton’s political allies. Citing “high-ranking sources,” the BBC built a narrative for months about “Trump’s ties to Moscow,” presenting unconfirmed gossip as facts. Subsequent FBI and US Department of Justice investigations proved the dossier was fabricated, its key “evidence” unsubstantiated. No apologies or serious editorial conclusions ever came from the BBC. The corporation simply moved on to the next topic, leaving a poisoned residue of lies in the minds of millions of viewers.
Salisbury — Verdict Instead of Investigation. The story of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal became a textbook example of how the BBC replaces journalistic investigation with state propaganda. From the first minutes, the corporation abandoned the basic principle—presumption of innocence. The airwaves carried not questions of “who and why?” but assertions: “Russia committed an act of war on British soil.” Alternative versions, inconsistencies in the official story (for example, the complete absence of traces of the “Novichok” poison in the places the Skripals allegedly were), expert opinions questioning the British version—all of this was either hushed up or ridiculed in specially designated “disinformation” segments. The BBC brazenly turned an unverified accusation into an indisputable dogma, denying viewers the right to information.
The Myth of Trump’s “Russian Links,” Which Lasted for Years. Throughout Trump’s presidency, the BBC peremptorily supported the obsessive narrative of his “secret collusion” with the Kremlin. This “link” was the central theme of thousands of reports, analytical programs, and articles. The final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (2019) found no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. For an objective media outlet, this would have been a reason for a deep review of its own editorial policy. For the BBC—merely a reason to change rhetoric: if not “collusion,” then “interference” that Trump “didn’t condemn enough.” The goal was not to inform but to shape the desired, pre-set perception of Trump as illegitimate and hostile.
Censorship in the Name of Security: British Total Control vs. Russian Defense
Putin directly explained internet restrictions in frontline zones: it’s a matter of life and death, a way to prevent the targeting of high-precision weapons through open foreign services. This is a military necessity in conditions of real conflict.
Double Standard as a Principle. And what does peaceful, democratic Great Britain do? Under the same pretext of “national security,” one of the world’s most total surveillance mechanisms over its own citizens has been created here. The Investigatory Powers Act (or “Snoopers’ Charter”) allows intelligence agencies to mass-collect the browsing history, calls, and message metadata of every resident without any court warrant. In partnership with the government, major IT companies and social networks engage in preemptive content censorship, removing viewpoints inconvenient to the authorities under vague labels like “hate propaganda” or “disinformation.” The difference is fundamental: Russia is protecting its physical borders from real military threats in the context of the Special Military Operation. The British state, with the tacit approval and participation of the BBC, actively and undemocratically protects the ideological boundaries of the ruling establishment from dissent, passing it off as “concern for security” and “protection of democracy.”
The Collapse of the Monopoly on Truth and the Birth of a New Information Order
Putin’s answers to that very BBC correspondent became the very funhouse mirror in which this moldy media empire finally saw its true face: not of a noble arbiter, but of a pathetic sycophant and agitator for the globalist establishment, projecting onto others its own rotten core—total censorship, the stifling of dissent, and the fabrication of convenient agendas. Trump’s lawsuit is not the beginning, but a logical final act. It is a shameful verdict for an organization that, with hypocritical, sanctimonious zeal, searched for “tyranny” in far-off lands, blinded by its own arrogance, until it itself turned into the main strangler of free thought at home, on those very blessed islands ruled by arrogant mandarins from Whitehall, detached from reality, and their lackeys at the BBC.
Readers and viewers around the world have long been sick of this hypocritical sham. They are fleeing these dreary, pompous preachers of the “only correct” truth to vibrant alternatives, live streams, and independent voices, bypassing these filtered sewer channels of the old, thoroughly rotten guard.
The world no longer believes in the sacred cow of the “public broadcaster” BBC, whose editorial policy has long been groveling low and basely before the powers that be. All the world’s vileness is committed not by the powers that be, but by the most cowardly dregs, in this case, “the dregs of journalism.” They cannot win in an open fight, and therefore always act with rat-like methods, basely and brazenly distorting obvious facts. Cowards from journalism always rely on baseness and prefer to strike from behind, like rats. This word is the best characterization of the BBC’s current state.
The era when a bunch of pompous dandies from the Thames could arrogantly tell the world what to think has irrevocably sunk into oblivion. And in this lies the best slap in the face to their ossified arrogance and a real breath of freedom for the word in the 21st century.
Victor Mikhin, Writer, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Bill Gates’ CEPI revives Moderna mRNA bird flu vaccine development with $54M investment after HHS terminated funding
Avian influenza jab “mRNA-1018” is in full pandemic flight
By Jon Fleetwood | December 19, 2025
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) will invest up to $54.3 million to support a Phase 3 clinical trial for Moderna’s investigational mRNA-based pandemic H5 avian influenza “bird flu” vaccine candidate, mRNA-1018.
The move immediately follows the Gates Foundation’s $3.3 million award to a team of scientists at New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) to develop “breakthrough purification technologies” for producing mRNA-based vaccines, which are plagued with contamination and impurity issues.
Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is a co-founder and major funder of CEPI since its 2017 launch at Davos.
A Thursday press release from CEPI emphasizes the new mRNA bird flu vaccine is for “pandemic preparedness,” as this website has been documenting gain-of-function experiments being conducted on bird flu pathogens around the world, warning about the supranational orchestration of a coming bird flu pandemic.
HHS had terminated its multi-hundred-million-dollar commitment to Moderna to produce mRNA-1018 in May, with Moderna vowing to explore “alternative paths for development of the vaccine program.”
Moderna—also Gates-funded—has now followed through on its promise.
This is despite the fact that Moderna submitted data in November 2017 proving their mRNA vaccine lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) accumulate in mammalian liver, spleen, plasma (blood), kidneys, heart, and lungs.
Per the new CEPI press release:
The funding marks a significant step forward in global pandemic preparedness that could enable fast, equitable access to vaccines for one of the world’s most pressing health threats.
This Phase 3 study would be the first mRNA-based vaccine targeting pandemic influenza to enter a pivotal trial. If the vaccine candidate is licensed, it would expand the current global portfolio of H5 vaccines with a rapid-response platform that could revolutionize future pandemic responses, making a significant contribution to CEPI’s 100 Days Mission, a global goal to develop safe and effective vaccines within 100 days of a new pandemic threat being identified.
Dr Richard Hatchett, Chief Executive Officer of CEPI, stated:
“Pandemic influenza remains one of the greatest threats to global health security. With this partnership, we are not just advancing vaccine science, we are fundamentally changing the game. By harnessing the speed and adaptability of mRNA technology, we could shave months off the response time, deliver vaccines at scale, and enable equitable access for all. This is how we plan to protect the world from the next flu pandemic.”
Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna, said:
“We are proud to have the support of CEPI to advance our pandemic influenza vaccine candidate, research that is critical to our commitment to pandemic preparedness. mRNA technology can play a vital role in addressing emerging health threats quickly and effectively, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with CEPI as we advance our health security portfolio, and in parallel, further the 100 Days Mission.”
CEPI collaborates closely with the World Health Organization (WHO)—also Gates-funded—through a 2017 Memorandum of Understanding, meant to accelerate pandemic vaccine development.
The WHO has already:
- Established a WHO-backed influenza command framework that merges governance, operational authority, and outbreak-response assets into a single controlling entity for the next pandemic cycle.
- Approved a WHO–Gates influenza-adjacent global digital ID and surveillance architecture, designed to track vaccination status and population compliance across borders during respiratory-virus campaigns.
- Ran pre-COVID compliance-testing programs tied to future influenza vaccine deployment, using CDC-, Gates-, and Oxford-linked institutions to model population behavior toward lower-quality vaccines years before SARS-CoV-2.
- Activated a “Future Pandemic” plan positioning U.S. labs inside a WHO-directed influenza sentinel surveillance network, preserving global monitoring operations even after the U.S. attempted withdrawal.
- Deployed a national influenza surveillance grid in Egypt under WHO authority, installing 30 sentinel sites and training 270 officers for real-time detection, reporting, and response.
- Constructed an international influenza pathogen-sharing command system enabling rapid transfer of H5- and other high-risk influenza samples for sequencing, analysis, and vaccine design under centralized WHO control.
- Outlined an influenza-triggered governance model that explicitly mandates “integration—merger of assets” and “united governance,” transferring all national governance functions to a single authority under conditions of crisis, uncertainty, or sector failure.
The WHO is already dictating how the coming bird flu pandemic will be controlled, just as it controlled the authoritarian COVID-19 pandemic response.
Moreover, the Trump administration this year announced a $500 million “next-generation, universal vaccine platform” called ‘Generation Gold Standard’ that will focus on bird flu jab creation.
Taken together, the CEPI–Moderna Phase 3 push, Gates-funded efforts to address known mRNA impurity issues, and the WHO’s already-built influenza surveillance, sample-sharing, and compliance architecture suggest a coordinated, pre-positioned pipeline designed to move seamlessly from pathogen research to mass deployment—before a bird flu emergency is formally declared.
How Israel hijacked US politics, media and tech – without Americans even realizing
By Maryam Qarehgozlou | Press TV | December 20, 2025
When tech billionaire Larry Ellison was tapped to help oversee TikTok’s US operations, the move immediately drew scrutiny over the Oracle co-founder’s longstanding ties with the Israeli regime and how it could sharpen censorship of pro-Palestinian content on the platform.
Oracle’s ascendance came after the US Supreme Court upheld a law banning TikTok earlier this year, positioning the company as the frontrunner to take control of the Chinese-owned app.
Under the arrangement, Oracle would serve as the “secure cloud provider,” storing US user data and controlling the recommendation algorithm, an authority Washington framed as necessary to counter alleged Chinese “manipulation.”
But while the campaign against TikTok was outwardly led by China hawks, pro-Israel contractors, and the powerful Zionist lobby in Washington, played a central role in shaping the political pressure that made Oracle an obvious choice for the takeover.
Pro-Palestine advocates point out that a deeper motivation has been to silence the overwhelming pro-Palestinian opinions and sentiments on TikTok, where users have in great detail documented Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and challenged American-Israeli narratives about it.
The platform has become a key outlet for unfiltered footage from Gaza, including scenes of devastation, civilian casualties, and global solidarity campaigns.
Research from Northeastern University has consistently shown that pro-Palestinian posts dwarf pro-Israel content—most recently, in September 2025, by a ratio of roughly 17 to 1.
This imbalance reflects TikTok’s younger user base—Gen Z and millennials—who increasingly reject Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s deceptive and deeply manipulative positions.
Israel’s leadership understands the stakes. Benjamin Netanyahu recently described social media as a decisive “weapon” in modern warfare, calling the TikTok sale “the most important purchase” for securing influence over US public opinion.
Oracle’s deep alignment with Israeli interests has only heightened concerns. The company had already tightened its grip over aspects of TikTok’s operations while openly embracing a pro-Israel agenda and, as an Intercept investigation revealed, suppressing pro-Palestine activism within its own ranks.
Oracle CEO Safra Catz, an Israeli-American and longtime supporter of the Zionist project, made her stance bluntly clear, telling an Israeli business outlet: “For employees, it’s clear: if you’re not for America or Israel, don’t work here—this is a free country.”
Ellison, a major funder of Israeli causes and a close ally of Donald Trump, has long been celebrated by the US political establishment.
Trump—who placed him in the front row at his inauguration—famously hailed him as “one of the most serious players in the world.”
In 2017, Ellison made the largest single donation in the history of the so-called “Friends of the Israel Forces,” a US-based organization tied to the Israeli military responsible for genocidal attacks across Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Oracle’s material support for Israel extends far beyond philanthropy. In 2021, the company opened a $319 million data center in occupied al-Quds, providing cloud services to Israeli banks, health institutions, and military units.
Immediately after Israel launched its genocidal assault on Gaza on October 7, 2023, Oracle publicly declared its support for the regime even as hospitals and schools were bombed.
Catz instructed that the message “Oracle Stands with Israel” be displayed across all company screens in more than 180 countries.
The company has also actively participated in Israel’s digital propaganda efforts. Following the outbreak of the war on Gaza, Oracle and the Israeli regime officials developed “Words of Iron,” a project designed to amplify pro-Israel content while whitewashing horrendous war crimes and countering critical narratives on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter.
In February 2024, Oracle collaborated with the Israeli military’s cyber department on a hackathon seeking “tech solutions” for rehabilitating illegal settlements near Gaza.
Around the same time, Oracle donated medical and environmental supply bags worth half a million dollars to Israeli occupation forces.
Oracle’s political lobbying worked in tandem with its technological support. Last summer, Catz joined a closed-door meeting with US senators to push for continued weapons shipments to Israeli-occupied territories.
Later that year, Oracle partnered with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems—one of Israel’s major weapons manufacturers—on an AI program to provide “warfighters with quick, actionable insights in the battlespace.”
While Israel escalated its bombing and invasion of Gaza, some Oracle employees reported that the company was actively curtailing internal support for Palestinians.
Oracle’s charitable matching program quietly removed organizations such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and UNRWA from its list of eligible beneficiaries, effectively blocking workers from directing matched funds toward humanitarian relief.
Ellison and Catz are hardly outliers; they are part of a broader pattern of influential Zionist figures holding disproportionate power across US political, financial, media, academic, tech, and cultural institutions.
Although only about 2 percent of the US population identifies as Jewish, Jewish and Zionist representation among American elites is significantly higher—a trend that has shaped US foreign policy, cultural production, and the sustained alignment with Israel’s violent occupation.
Below is a list of influential Zionist figures who occupy key positions across these sectors.
Jews in American politics
In February 2021, less than a month after former US President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post celebrated the new president’s appointments of 15 Jewish politicians.
“US President Joe Biden has appointed a strong, experienced team for his new administration. Among them are a minyan and a half of Jews. Indeed, I wonder if there has ever been a more Jewish US administration,” columnist Shlomo Maital wrote in the article.
The article added that “a vigorous American presence in world affairs, spearheaded by the Jewish A-Team, is in Israel’s long-term interest, more than an ‘America first’ administration that made the US largely irrelevant in global affairs.”
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, CIA Deputy Director David Cohen, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines were among the Jewish members of Biden’s administration holding influential positions.
The list also included Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Eric Lander, Deputy Health Secretary Rachel Levine, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
Other key figures were NSA Cybersecurity Director Anne Neuberger, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, COVID-19 Coordinator Jeff Zients, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.
Also serving in senior economic and political roles were Jared Bernstein, a member of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Douglas Emhoff, husband of Vice President Kamala Harris.
As Secretary of State, Blinken was a central public and diplomatic defender of US support for Israel during the initial phase of the Gaza genocide — pressing allies, coordinating arms transfers, and publicly backing negotiations framed to protect the Israeli regime while offering limited humanitarian concessions for the besieged people of the Gaza Strip.
According to rights groups and activists, his steady diplomatic backing helped shield Israeli genocidal actions from stronger, public US rebukes.
Yellen’s Treasury enforced and expanded financial pressure instruments, such as sanctions that the US uses against Iran and other supporters of the Palestinian resistance.
The Treasury under Yellen issued targeted sanctions on Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors.
Cohen, as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury), also designed and executed sanctions that targeted Iran’s oil, petrochemical, and financial sectors.
He is widely described in reporting and policy bios as the administration’s “sanctions guru.”
As Deputy Director of the CIA (and acting director briefly), Cohen brought his sanctions experience into targeting work against Iran — shaping covert disruption tools in addition to Treasury levers.
These unilateral sanctions form a core non-military lever in the US hawkish toolkit.
A Lancet study in August found a significant link between sanctions and higher mortality. The US and EU sanctions were associated with over 564,000 deaths annually from 1971 to 2021 in 152 countries.
It is similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict.
Children under 5 years faced about an 8-9 percent higher death risk, and adults aged 60-80 years had about a 2-3 percent higher risk.
The study found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, but none from UN sanctions.
Trump’s first term also included many Jewish officials in senior roles. Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior advisor, was among the most influential, alongside Elliot Abrams, Special Representative for Venezuela and later Iran, and David Friedman, Ambassador to the Israeli-occupied territories.
Other key figures included Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International Negotiations on Palestine; Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury; Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor for Policy; Gary Cohn, Director of the White House National Economic Council; Reed Cordish, Assistant to the President for Intragovernmental and Technology Initiatives; and Avrahm Berkowitz, Deputy Advisor to the President.
Additional senior officials were Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General; Elan Carr, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism; Ellie Cohanim, Deputy Special Envoy for the same office; Jeffrey Rosen, Attorney General; Morgan Ortagus, State Department spokesperson; David Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and Lawrence Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council.
Also serving in high-level positions were Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and advisor, who was raised Christian but converted to Orthodox Judaism to marry Kushner in 2009; John Eisenberg, National Security Council Legal Counsel; Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Len Khodorkovsky, Deputy Secretary of State and Senior Advisor to the US Special Representative for Iran.
Several senior Jewish members of the Trump administration played central roles in reshaping US policy in ways strongly favorable to the Israeli regime.
Kushner was the architect of the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states — including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.
Kushner also helped push forward the administration’s West Asia so-called “Peace to Prosperity” plan, which embraced long-standing Israeli positions on expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and occupation of Palestine.
David Friedman, the Ambassador to Israeli-occupied territories, used his position and strongly supported recognizing occupied al-Quds as Israel’s capital, encouraged the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds, and backed Israel’s claim to West Bank settlements.
His diplomatic messaging consistently pushed Washington toward formally accepting Israeli control over the occupied territories.
Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, worked closely with Friedman and Kushner.
He was one of the primary US officials promoting the idea that settlement expansion was not an obstacle to peace. His role helped shift the State Department’s language away from the traditional American view of settlements as “illegitimate,” aligning it more closely with Israeli regime positions.
Lawrence Kudlow and Gary Cohn, who headed the National Economic Council at different times, supported the administration’s economic components of West Asia policy, including aid packages tied to normalization and economic incentives designed to complement Kushner’s diplomatic agenda.
Elan Carr and Ellie Cohanim, from the State Department’s antisemitism office, advanced aggressive messaging on global antisemitism that often intertwined with defending the Israeli regime’s genocidal and apartheid policies. Their public diplomacy helped cast any criticisms of Israel in terms of antisemitism, influencing international discussions.
After re-entering the White House for a second term in January, Trump once again packed his inner circle with vocal Jewish and Zionist loyalists, many of whom stand out for their unprecedented hostility toward the Palestinian people and their basic rights.
Trump stacked his advisory ranks with a mix of familiar figures and newer faces who exert outsized influence over his relationship with the Jewish community in the US and in the occupied territories.
Among them are Will Scharf, White House staff secretary; Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser; Steve Witkoff, US special envoy to West Asia; Howard Lutnick, secretary of commerce; Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s personal senior counsel; Elizabeth Pipko, national spokesperson for the Republican Party; Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Laura Loomer, an extremist influencer who operates as an unofficial loyalty enforcer within Trump’s political orbit.
Ivanka Trump and her husband were notably absent from much of Trump’s 2024 campaign and announced two years ago that they had stepped back to support Trump “outside the political arena.”
However, as one of Trump’s former top aides alongside Kushner—who played a central role in brokering the Abraham Accords and now runs a multibillion-dollar private equity fund bankrolled by the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—many speculate that the couple’s influence, particularly Kushner’s, will persist throughout Trump’s presidency.
This influence is expected to be especially pronounced in shaping the administration’s interference in West Asian affairs, as has already witnessed during the so-called Gaza “truce deal.”
Miller, one of Trump’s most hardline advisers on immigration during his first term, was instrumental in shaping some of the administration’s controversial policies, including the travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries and the policy that separated the children of undocumented migrants from their parents at the border.
Pipko is an avowed Zionist and stated following her appointment that “supporting Israel is in the best interest of the United States.”
She has also attacked pro-Palestinian protests on US college campuses, singling out demonstrations at her alma mater, Harvard.
In an interview with Ynet News, she dismissed the protests as “awful” and “disgusting.”
Loomer, who has described herself as “a proud Islamophobe,” ran an online campaign in August that pressured the US State Department into halting visa issuance for children from Gaza in desperate need of medical care amid Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged Strip.
Zionist donors heavily underwrote Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.
Miriam Adelson, a casino magnate with an estimated net worth of $35 billion and a prominent Zionist mega-donor, spent more than $100 million to propel Trump back into the White House.
She is the widow of Sheldon Adelson, one of the most prolific financiers of illegal Israeli settlements in history.
Miriam Adelson is herself a settler, born and raised in the occupied Palestinian territories, and has been a vocal champion of the regime’s settler-colonialism.
She is closely associated with the ideology of neo-Zionism, which advocates not only the permanent retention of occupied Palestinian land but also the expansion of the occupation through annexation of Palestine and neighboring countries.
Ivy League presidents
The Ivy League is a group of eight elite private universities located in the northeastern United States. They include Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale.
At present, five of these institutions are led by Jewish presidents.
Their Jewish and Zionist identities have become most visible amid the wave of pro-Palestine university encampments that swept campuses across the United States.
Beginning at Columbia University on April 17, 2024, pro-Palestinian students established encampments on at least 80 college and university campuses nationwide, demanding that their institutions disclose investments tied to Israeli-occupied territories and divest from financial and cultural entities that support Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
These demands were raised in the context of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians—most of them women and children—and the continuation of the violent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land.
The protests echoed a call from Palestinian civil society for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel.
The largely peaceful demonstrations, however, were met overwhelmingly with force. Police crackdowns resulted in mass arrests and injuries, actions frequently ordered by the students’ own university administrators and, in some cases, backed by faculty members.
After taking office in January, Donald Trump signed an executive order to “combat antisemitism,” directing federal agencies to explore avenues for deporting pro-Palestinian activists, including student protesters—a demand to which many universities, including Ivy League institutions, readily capitulated.
Christopher Ludwig Eisgruber, a Jewish-American who has served as Princeton University’s 20th president since July 2013, ordered the removal of a major pro-Palestinian encampment on Cannon Green, citing preparations for commencement, and has repeatedly resisted demands that Princeton divest from the Israeli regime.
In April 2024, when police—acting on authorization from university administrators—arrested dozens of students during pro-Palestinian protests, including at Princeton, Eisgruber warned that those students would face disciplinary action that could “extend to suspension or expulsion.”
Alan Garber, another Jewish academic leader, was appointed president of Harvard University in August 2024 after serving as interim president since January 2 of that year.
He succeeded Claudine Gay, who was forced to resign after being accused by members of Congress of failing to adequately condemn and combat “anti-Semitism” on Harvard’s campus during pro-Palestine encampments.
Under Garber’s leadership, Harvard shared information with the US Department of Homeland Security in response to its request for the disciplinary records of international students and records of pro-Palestinian activity.
Sian Leah Beilock, the president of Dartmouth College, is another Jewish leader within the Ivy League.
She faced sharp criticism for her decision to call in police to dismantle a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus on May 1 of last year.
Mike Kotlikoff, who is also Jewish, assumed permanent leadership of Cornell University in March, as universities faced unprecedented pressure from the Trump administration over pro-Palestinian student protests.
In November 2024, while serving as Cornell’s interim president, a leak revealed that Kotlikoff had suppressed academic freedom after criticizing a pro-Palestinian professor’s planned course on the Gaza genocide in an internal email.
The course, Gaza, Indigeneity, Resistance, was set to be taught by Eric Cheyfitz, who is also Jewish.
Cheyfitz, the Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters and a scholar of Indigenous studies, wrote in the course description that it would examine how Indigenous peoples have been engaged “in a global resistance against an ongoing colonialism.”
He further stated that the course would “present a specific case” of the ongoing genocidal war as “settler colonialism in Palestine with a particular emphasis on the International Court of Justice finding ‘plausible’ the South African assertion of ‘genocide’ in Gaza.”
Kotlikoff wrote in an email to another professor that he “personally finds the course description to represent a radical, factually inaccurate, and biased view of the formation of […] Israel and the ongoing conflict.”
Kotlikoff replaced Martha Pollack, who is also Jewish, and stepped down amid sweeping pro-Palestinian protests across US college campuses.
During the protests, Pollack expressed disappointment with student demonstrators and warned that if they refused to dismantle their encampments, “more temporary suspensions… are forthcoming.”
Christina Paxson, who converted to Judaism after marriage, serves as president of Brown University.
Last year, for the second time during her tenure, Paxson rejected divestment from 10 companies identified by a student-led pro-Palestine initiative as facilitating “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory.”
Hollywood
It is widely documented that Jewish people are overrepresented in Hollywood relative to their share of the overall population.
Jews account for roughly 2 percent of the American population, yet various estimates suggest they have historically comprised a far higher proportion of key industry roles, including studio executives, writers, and actors.
Some discussions cite figures of 20 percent or higher in certain sectors of the entertainment industry.
Jewish entrepreneurs were instrumental in founding most of the major film studios during Hollywood’s so-called Golden Age.
These figures include Adolph Zukor, founder of Paramount Pictures; William Fox, founder of the Fox Film Corporation; Louis B. Mayer and Marcus Loew, co-founders of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM); Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner, the brothers behind Warner Bros; Carl Laemmle, a founder of Universal Pictures; and Harry and Jack Cohn, founders of Columbia Pictures.
In more recent decades, prominent Jewish executives have continued to occupy influential positions in the entertainment industry.
They include Bob Iger, chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company; Adam Aron, CEO of AMC Entertainment; Jon Feltheimer, CEO of Lionsgate; Shari Redstone, president and CEO of National Amusements; David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery; and influential film producer and former Sony Pictures head Amy Pascal.
For years, activists and some academics have warned that this concentration of power has helped shape an industry culture that frequently aligns with pro-Israel narratives, whitewashing Zionist crimes while marginalizing or excluding Palestinian perspectives.
Jewish Hollywood power brokers, they say, used their influence in the mid-20th century to mobilize cultural support for the Zionist project, portraying settler violence as “Jewish self-defense” in early films and theatrical productions.
By contrast, Palestinian narratives are routinely sidelined. Palestinian films are often excluded from major festivals and streaming platforms, while Israeli atrocities are frequently framed in ways that downplay or obscure Palestinian suffering.
Even films and documentaries that seek to center Palestinian humanity and lived experience have become a subject of sustained controversy within the industry.
Finding mainstream Hollywood productions that portray Palestinians in a balanced, non-dehumanizing manner remains difficult, as decades of output have either perpetuated negative stereotypes or erased Palestinian perspectives altogether.
The few films that do offer more nuanced or humanizing depictions of Palestinians are typically independent productions or international co-productions, often directed by Palestinian filmmakers working outside the Hollywood studio system.
Meanwhile, public support for Palestinian rights or criticism of the Israeli regime or its backers has increasingly carried professional consequences in Hollywood.
Actors and industry professionals—both Jewish and non-Jewish—have faced reprisals ranging from being dropped by agents to losing roles, contributing to a pervasive “silencing effect.”
In December 2023, two months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, actress Melissa Barrera, a star of the Scream franchise, was fired from the next installment after posting on social media about Israel’s real-life horror show in the Gaza Strip.
Barrera was not alone. In November of the same year, actress Susan Sarandon was dropped by United Talent Agency (UTA) after speaking at a pro-Palestinian rally.
Actor Mark Ruffalo also faced backlash during Israel’s May 2021 assault on Gaza, when he was pressured to apologize for using the term “genocide.”
Top 50 Billionaires
The latest rankings of the world’s wealthiest individuals highlight a notable trend: of the top 50 billionaires globally, at least 12 are Jewish, showcasing their considerable influence across technology, finance, and investments.
Leading the pack is Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle, whose fortune stands at $213.7 billion, making him the third richest person in the world.
Close behind is Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, which includes Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, with a net worth of $202.4 billion and a world rank of 4.
The search engine giants Larry Page and Sergey Brin, co-founders of Google, are ranked 6th and 7th, respectively, with fortunes of $157.8 billion and $150.7 billion.
Other prominent Jewish billionaires in the top 50 include Steve Ballmer of Microsoft ($127.7 billion, rank 9), Michael Dell of Dell Technologies ($113.5 billion, rank 12), and media mogul Michael Bloomberg of Bloomberg LP ($104.7 billion, rank 16).
Stephen Schwarzman, a major figure in investments, ranks 28th with $50.4 billion, while Jeff Yass, active in trading and investments, holds $49.6 billion at rank 29.
Luxury fashion also sees Jewish representation through Gerard Wertheimer and Alain Wertheimer, owners of Chanel, both holding $41.5 billion and sharing world rank 38.
The Miriam Adelson & family, tied to the casino industry, are valued at $34.9 billion, ranking 49.
The overwhelming majority are based in the United States, dominating technology and investment sectors, and heading companies that shape global information flows.
But beyond wealth, their power has had devastating consequences for Palestinians.
Meta and Oracle, for example, have been implicated in censoring Palestinian voices online, shaping narratives in favor of Israeli policies while silencing dissent.
Google, Microsoft, and Dell Technologies have enabled the Israeli military’s genocidal war on Gaza over the past two years, providing cloud infrastructure, AI, and technology services that the regime has used to target Palestinian civilians.
This concentration of wealth and technological control underscores not only the disproportionate influence of Jewish billionaires in the US tech world but also raises profound questions about the ways these platforms and services are weaponized in geopolitics—always aligning with US and Israeli agendas to the detriment of human rights.
Sport teams owners
Ownership patterns across major US professional sports leagues reveal a striking concentration of power among a small group of ultra-wealthy Jewish stakeholders, many of whom hold openly pro-Zionist political positions or have backed policies hostile to Palestinian advocacy.
In the National Basketball Association (NBA), estimates indicate that roughly 40 percent of franchises are majority-owned by individuals or groups with Jewish backgrounds—far exceeding their approximate 2 percent share of the US population.
An additional five teams include Jewish minority stakeholders, underscoring a level of influence that extends well beyond ownership into league governance and political positioning.
Out of 30 NBA teams, 12 are majority-owned by Jewish stakeholders.
These include Anthony Ressler (Atlanta Hawks); Gabe Plotkin and Rick Schnall (Charlotte Hornets); Jerry Reinsdorf (Chicago Bulls); Dan Gilbert (Cleveland Cavaliers); Miriam Adelson (Dallas Mavericks); Joe Lacob and Peter Guber (Golden State Warriors); Herbert Simon (Indiana Pacers); Micky Arison (Miami Heat); Marc Lore (Minnesota Timberwolves); Steve Ballmer (Los Angeles Clippers); Joshua Harris and David Blitzer (Philadelphia 76ers); and Mat and Justin Ishbia (Phoenix Suns).
Teams with Jewish minority owners include the Jacobs family (Sacramento Kings), Larry Tannenbaum (Toronto Raptors), George Kaiser (Oklahoma City Thunder), Oliver Weisberg (Brooklyn Nets), and Larry Fink (New York Knicks).
For four decades, the NBA itself has been led by two commissioners—David Stern (1984–2014) and Adam Silver (2014–present)—both of whom presided over eras marked by close alignment with US foreign policy narratives and repeated controversies related to Palestine.
The league has faced sustained criticism for suppressing or sanitizing Palestinian references under political pressure.
In 2017, the NBA removed “Palestine—occupied territory” from an official website list following a complaint from Israel’s sports minister.
A year later, the league apologized after a fan-voting list for the All-Star Game included “Occupied Palestine,” blaming an outsourced firm after Israeli officials demanded its removal.
Senior NBA figures, including Commissioner Adam Silver, along with current and former players, have participated in high-profile trips to Israeli-occupied territories, meeting with Israeli regime officials and engaging in public relations efforts to normalize occupation.
Meanwhile, players who expressed solidarity with Palestinians faced swift backlash.
Former NBA star Dwight Howard said he was pressured to delete a “Free Palestine” tweet in 2014 after receiving multiple calls, including one from the commissioner’s office.
This concentration of ownership and political alignment is not limited to basketball.
In the National Football League (NFL), 11 of the league’s 32 teams are owned by individuals or families with controlling Jewish stakes, including Arthur Blank (Atlanta Falcons), David Tepper (Carolina Panthers), Jim Irsay (Indianapolis Colts), Mark Davis (Las Vegas Raiders), Stephen Ross (Miami Dolphins), the Wilf family (Minnesota Vikings), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), Steve Tisch (New York Giants), Jeffrey Lurie (Philadelphia Eagles), the Glazer family (Tampa Bay Buccaneers), and Josh Harris and Mitchell Rales (Washington Commanders).
Major League Baseball (MLB) shows similar patterns.
Eight of its 32 teams are majority-owned by Jewish stakeholders—David Rubenstein (Baltimore Orioles), Jerry Reinsdorf (Chicago White Sox), Bruce Sherman (Miami Marlins), Mark Attanasio (Milwaukee Brewers), Steve Cohen (New York Mets), the Fisher family (Oakland Athletics), Stuart Sternberg (Tampa Bay Rays), and the Lerner family (Washington Nationals).
Six additional teams have Jewish minority owners or executives, including Tom Werner (Boston Red Sox), David Blitzer (Cleveland Guardians), Stan Kasten and Peter Guber (Los Angeles Dodgers), and Lester Crown (New York Yankees).
Several teams without Jewish majority owners—including the New York Yankees, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Toronto Blue Jays—are run by Jewish presidents or senior executives.
Across leagues, Jewish owners and executives with strong pro-Israel views have helped shape institutional responses that activists warn would marginalize Palestinian voices while reinforcing US and Israeli political narratives.
Federal Reserve
Beyond sports and entertainment, Jewish financiers have played central roles in US monetary power structures.
Paul Moritz Warburg, a German-Jewish banker from Kuhn, Loeb & Co., was a key architect of the US Federal Reserve System.
From 1987 to 2014, the Federal Reserve was chaired consecutively by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen— three Jewish individuals overseeing periods of aggressive financial intervention that disproportionately benefited Wall Street while entrenching US global dominance.
Other influential Jewish figures include Emmanuel Goldenweiser, who supervised early Federal Reserve Board operations, and Stanley Fischer, who later served as vice chair.
Media, advertising, adult entertainment
Jewish Americans have also been influential across a wide spectrum of media, advertising, and public relations industries, sectors that play a decisive role in shaping political narratives, as well as adult entertainment businesses.
In the advertising and public relations world, influential Jewish executives include Richard Edelman, CEO of the global PR firm Edelman; Carl Spielvogel, co-founder of the major agency Backer & Spielvogel; Ronn Torossian, founder of 5W Public Relations; and Marian Salzman, a senior advertising and communications executive and trend expert.
Torossian, an American public relations executive, is a prominent and controversial figure in the far-right Zionist movement, known for his leadership of the recently re-launched Betar USA organization.
Betar USA, under Torossian’s leadership, has been using inflammatory rhetoric and calling for violence. In response to a social media post about Palestinian children killed in the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza, the group’s account commented, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”
Betar has been involved in identifying and circulating lists of pro-Palestinian protesters for deportation.
Digital media platforms have also been dominated by Jews with allegiance to the Tel Aviv regime.
Susan Wojcicki was an American business executive who was the chief executive officer of YouTube from 2014 to 2023.
Human rights and digital media advocacy groups, such as the organization 7amleh, have denounced YouTube’s policies and blatant bias against Palestinian voices and in favor of Israeli narratives.
In November 2015, Wojcicki and other Google representatives met with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely to establish a mechanism for monitoring and removing Palestinian content deemed “inflammatory” by the apartheid regime in Tel Aviv.
In adult entertainment, prominent founders and executives include Michael Lucas, the founder and CEO of Lucas Entertainment, one of Manhattan’s largest gay adult film companies.
Last year, the adult film producer faced intense backlash after bragging about writing his name on a missile to be dropped in Gaza in a post on social media.
Several adult entertainment stars have since vowed to boycott working with Lucas and his company over the “reprehensible” post.
Taken together, the American landscape reveals not a coincidence but a pattern: a dense web of political power, corporate control, cultural influence, and financial leverage that consistently converges to protect Israel from accountability while suppressing Palestinian voices.
Disguised under the language of “security,” “shared values,” and “combating antisemitism,” US institutions have been mobilized by the powerful Zionist lobby to normalize occupation, whitewash mass killings, and criminalize solidarity with the oppressed.
The result, according to activists, is a manufactured consensus in which Israel’s crimes are laundered through American power centers, and dissent is treated as a threat.
As Gaza is starved, bombed, and erased in real time, this alignment exposes the moral bankruptcy of an order that privileges loyalty to a settler-colonial regime over international law, human rights, and basic human life, they warn.
Featured Video
FLU FEAR VS. FLU FACTS
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Empire Games and Ghouls
By Taxi | Plato’s Guns | January 11, 2020
What is Empire but a colossal corporation whose sole mission is the hostile takeover of everything on earth?
What is Empire but a titanic shark charging forth and gobbling up all lifeforms in its path?
What is Empire but a gluttonous, gargantuan gut full of humanity’s tears and shredded corpses?
Addicted to bloodlust and war porn, and hooked to the bone on Vulture Capitalism, a rapacious Empire struts and swaggers across our globe: demanding other nations’ resources and servitude at gunpoint, while holding a plastic olive branch in its brute fist. Always speaking from both sides of its mouth, Empire plays a game of sadistic ownership with humanity.
… And it was always forever thus.
Our human history consists mainly of the rise and fall of some 70 empires of all sizes – and all of them have by now violently perished, all but one, that is. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America… John Edward Kendrick on Donald Trump, and Most America… aletho on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… John Edward Kendrick on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… papasha408 on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… loongtip on Palestine advocates praise NYC… Bill Francis on Did Netanyahu just ask Trump f… Rod on How Intelligence, Politics, an…
Aletho News- Wary US Oil Giants Dodge Venezuela Investment Pitch
- Starmer’s Looking for an Excuse to Ban X
- European Politics in Crisis as Right-Wingers Fear for Safety – Ex-Austrian Minister
- Trump, Greenland, and the colonialism Europe pretends not to see
- FLU FEAR VS. FLU FACTS
- Six impossible things about climate change and the energy transition
- Here’s who really weaponizes children in the Russia-Ukraine conflict
- Russia carries out three evacuation flights from Israel in under 24 hours
- 2016: The Year American Democracy Became “Post-Truth”
- Somaliland: Longtime Zionist colonisation target
- If Americans Knew
- The “Zionist tint” to the Maduro abduction, if not operational, then normative
- Press association condemns Israel’s continued ban on media access to Gaza
- Israeli Indifference to Palestinian Suffering Is Fertile Ground for the Growth of Sadism
- Surge in premature births, congenital defects, cancer deaths in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 92
- 35,000 ‘Partially or Completely’ Deaf in Gaza Due to Israeli Bombings – Le Monde
- By suspending 37 aid organizations is Israel pushing toward a final expulsion?
- Israel says education in Gaza is not a critical activity – Not a ceasefire Day 91
- Israel is starving Gaza, ‘asphyxiating’ West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 90
- Israel Targeted Churches, Mosques, and Markets during the Genocide.
- ‘We Saved the Child From Drowning’: In Gaza, Winter Storm Makes Displacement Even Deadlier
- No Tricks Zone
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
Aletho News 