Spring is in the air in US-Russia ties as Trump’s revolution gains momentum
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | February 16, 2025
What emerges from the dramatic happenings of the past week is that the 3-year chronicle of US-Russia rivalry and the NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine was a crisis engineered with great deliberation by the Anglo-American nexus per a pernicious agenda conceived by the neocon liberals wedded to globalism ensconced in the Washington and London establishment to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
In less than a month since President Donald Trump returned to Oval Office, in a series of bold moves, he began dismantling the Iron Wall that descended on Central Europe. Its impact is already visible, as communication channels with Moscow have been flung open, as evident in the new US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s call to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on Saturday and their agreement to meet at delegation level in Saudi Arabia next week.
The Trump administration will allow the resumption of normal diplomatic work as well as discuss the early return of diplomatic properties unilaterally seized by the Obama – Biden administrations in wanton acts of motiveless malignity and hubris, in violation of Vienna accords. Trust Russia to reciprocate!
The downstream salience of the readouts in Moscow and Washington, here and here, on the Rubio-Lavrov phone conversation is the mutual agreement between the two leaderships — Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin — for US-Russian interactive exchanges at various levels is being followed through with a view to improve bilateral relations as well as “on key international issues, including the situation in Ukraine, developments in Palestine and the broader Middle East, as well as other regional matters.”
Furthermore, a team designated by the White House comprising apart from Rubio, the US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and the president’s Middle East envoy (who also works on Ukraine-Russia issues) Steve Witkoff will meet a Russian team led by Lavrov as early as this week ahead. The inclusion of Witkoff, a ‘result-oriented’, pushy negotiator and old friend of Trump is particularly interesting. Witkoff flew into Moscow for an unpublicised solo visit last week, which appears to have been productive.
Clearly, Trump has drawn lessons from his first term and is determined not to get emasculated again in the Washington ‘swamp’. This is where Witkoff comes in.
Trump’s approach and political style is utterly fascinating. Trump began shifting gear no sooner than he managed to put together a team of like-minded people who are “loyalists” to head the Justice Department, Pentagon, the Treasury, etc. — and, importantly, to forcefully regenerate the authority of the attorney general and the national intelligence agency to serve his agenda.
Thus, in the final analysis, it is immaterial that his administration is packed with pro-Israel figures or has a sprinkling of hardliners on China. For, it is Trump who will call the shots. Surprises could be in store in policy twists and turns.
This should already give sleepless nights to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whom Trump has sensitised apropos his intention to improve relations with Iran. To my mind, Trump may not even follow through his dramatic announcement of “taking over” Gaza, et al.
The pattern appearing with regard to relations with Russia is that Trump levels with Putin first and passes down decisions to the state department and other agencies to follow through. Equally, the mechanism of summitry is being revived as the locomotive of big power relations. There is already talk of Trump holding summit meetings with Putin in Saudi Arabia and with Xi Jinping. Trump will likely look for a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping at some point.
Such an approach necessitates cutting down the role and influence of the Deep State which had throttled Trump’s presidency through the 2016-2020 period. The challenge facing Trump is formidable, given the nexus between the Democratic Party and the Deep State, and the mischief potential of mainstream media which is largely under their control and hostile towards Trump.
In a glaring instance this week, the Wall Street Journal deliberately misrepresented certain remarks by Vice-President JD Vance to vitiate the air in the nascent US-Russia tango. According to the story, Vance allegedly stated that the US might use economic and military leverage against Russia, and the option of sending the US military to Ukraine “remains under consideration” in case Moscow refuses to resolve the conflict in good faith. Moscow immediately sought clarification and a rebuttal had to be issued by Vance himself to set the record straight.
Vance wrote on X: “The fact that the WSJ twisted my words in the way they did for this story is absurd, but not surprising considering they have spent years pushing for more American sons and daughters in uniform to be unnecessarily deployed overseas.”
Trump has repeatedly expressed distrust of US intelligence agencies. According to CNN, all employees (approx. 22,000 people) at the CIA have received letters whereby they are given two options: to continue his/her service without guarantees of job retention in the future or to leave under the so-called deferred dismissal program at own request, while retaining salary and additional preferences until end-September.
Interestingly, a code was sewn inside these letters that tracks the re-sending of the letter by the recipient, as a guarantee against leaks which was the practice used when dismissing employees of the former Twitter after its acquisition by billionaire Elon Musk, who is now considered one of Trump’s closest advisers and heads the quasi-Department of Government Efficiency overseeing the reduction of federal government!
Again, the disbandment of USAID, which traditionally worked as the “B Team” of the CIA to promote colour revolutions and regime changes, etc. can also be seen in the light. According to Vladimir Vasiliev, chief researcher at the Institute of USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who closely studies this topic, Trump has declared war on the CIA, which he blames for his electoral defeat in 2020.
Vasiliev estimates that so far, the fight against the deep state in foreign and domestic intelligence is proceeding steadily, but will now “accelerate” with the confirmation of former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for the post of head of national intelligence, and Kash Patel for the post of FBI director.
On the other hand, the Delhi grapevine, which is dominated by fellow travellers of the defunct Biden regime is that the Deep State will ultimately have the last laugh and Trump may not even be allowed to complete his 4-year term. But to my mind, that is wishful thinking.
Trump’s grit should not be underestimated. Nor the seamless resources and tools at his command to queer the pitch of the disarray within the Democratic Party, which traditionally provided the requisite political cover for the Deep State.
There is, conceivably, a method in Trump’s provocative moves, with some able help from Elon Musk and Steve Bannon, to stir up the pot in European politics, including Germany and Britain, who constitute the high ground of Euro-Atlanticism in the continent, which serves to prevent a coalescing of liberal-globalist cliques within the transatlantic system.
Patel has hinted that sufficient incriminating evidence of misuse of power is available to damn the Old Guard all the way up to Biden himself. Trump cannot be unaware of the high importance of pre-empting a Democratic backlash. The federal judges in Democrat-ruled states are openly challenging Trump’s methods. Suffice to say, Trump’s credibility to entrap the Old Guard in a cobweb of protracted litigation will be a game changer.
The latest poll shows that Trump enjoys a soaring 77% support for cleaning up the swamp. The optic of this crusade is going to be hugely consequential to Trump’s ability to push both his domestic and foreign policy programme.
Kremlin responds to Vance’s comment on troops for Ukraine statement
RT | February 15, 2025
The Kremlin has acknowledged that US Vice President J.D. Vance did not threaten the deployment of US troops to Ukraine during his interview with The Wall Street Journal. He has accused the newspaper of misrepresenting his words about what leverage Washington can use in peace talks with Moscow.
“Yes, we have taken note,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Saturday.
In a summary of an article on Thursday titled “Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal” the paper stated that the vice president had pledged to impose sanctions and possibly intervene with troops if Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a peace deal guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence.
Vance’s communications director, William Martin, criticized the article, calling it “pure fake news,” posting a transcript of the vice president’s interview with the newspaper and argued that he had not made any threats. In the transcript, Vance had said that Trump would consider a wide range of options in discussions with Russia and Ukraine. He mentioned that “economic tools of leverage” and “military tools of leverage” exist but did not specify any actions.
“There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Vladimir] Zelensky,” the transcript read.
“As we’ve always said, American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security,” Vance wrote on X. “The fact that the WSJ twisted my words in the way they did for this story is absurd, but not surprising,” he added.
The Kremlin sought clarification regarding Vance’s comments following the initial report. Peskov told reporters on Friday that the remarks were new to Moscow. “We have not heard such statements before,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal’s report has since received a community note on X, which states: “JD Vance made no explicit pledge to either sanctions or military actions.” The note links to Martin’s post containing the transcript.
US government’s deep involvement in European journalism
By Anne-Laure Dufeal | Brussels Signal | February 10, 2025
The US government, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has been funnelling millions of dollars into student and professional media outlets across Europe mainly in Eastern and Central Europe, data from US government spending has shown.
This long-term financial support has been framed as part of Washington’s “commitment to supporting democratic values and civil society in the [European] region” under the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia/Economic Support Fund (AEECA/ESF PD) programmes.
The scale and scope of the funding have raised questions about the extent of US influence in shaping media narratives and civil society in these regions.
Democracy or Influence? Moldova case study
In the heart of Eastern Europe, in Moldova, a former Soviet Union country strategically located between Ukraine and Romania, the US has quietly poured millions of dollars into the nation’s media sector.
The funding, directed toward media organisations such as Internews Network Moldova, the journalist association Asociația Presei Independente (API), the Media Alternativa Association and investigative outlet Rise Moldova, has played a pivotal role in transforming Moldova’s media landscape. It has undone, little by little, the deep-rooted influence of Russia in the country television networks replacing that with its own Biden administration American influence.
Between 2019 and 2024, the Media Alternativa Association — owner of TV8, the fourth most-watched television channel in Moldova —received $1.85 million (€1.7 million) from Washington.
Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, Western sanctions resulted in the suspension and cancellation of licences for several Russian-owned TV stations in Moldova, creating a vacuum.
US-funded media outlets quickly moved in, filling the space once occupied by Kremlin-aligned broadcasters.
According to the Media Alternativa Association, until 2022 Moldova’s broadcast landscape remained heavily influenced by Russian networks, with political parties leveraging media holdings to shape public opinion.
That influence is now waning — replaced by institutions receiving direct financial backing from the US.
US-funded investigative outlet Rise Moldova has exclusively focused on exposing Russian influence within Moldova.
It is also a member of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an international investigative network with close ties to US agencies.
Critics have argued this funding has fostered a media environment more aligned with Washington’s strategic goals rather than true editorial independence.
A key architect of Moldova’s evolving media landscape is Internews Network Moldova, a US-backed organisation which has played a similar role in reshaping media environments in other Eastern European nations such as Ukraine.
Members of Internews Network Moldova – Ziarul de Gardă and NewsMaker – two of Moldova’s leading investigative media outlets, have frequently published reports linking Moldovan corruption to Russian interests.
In 2017, Internews launched a new initiative in Moldova titled “Media Enabling Democracy, Inclusion, and Accountability in Moldova” (MEDIA-M) — a project bankrolled by USAID and the UK government.
Officially, MEDIA-M sought to develop an independent, professional press sector resilient to political and financial pressures.
Its impact has been unmistakable: a media environment increasingly aligned with Western narratives and a weakened Russian presence in Moldova’s information space.
The US has also funded democratic programmes fostering the Western identity of Moldovans.
Washington’s $20 million (€19.4 million) “Moldova Resilience Initiative,” initially planned to run from 2022 to 2023 but extended to 2026, was designed to “strengthen popular support for a democratic, European Moldova” by “uniting Moldovans around a shared European identity.”
In 2024, the US government gave $83,602 to the US billionaire George Soros Moldova Foundation.
According to the website, the Soros Moldova Foundation has been supporting the European integration process of the Republic of Moldova for almost fifteen years.
These developments seemed to bear fruit when, in October 2024, Moldova held a decisive presidential election and a referendum on European Union accession.
With voters asked to choose between a pro-European future or maintaining ties with Russia, the election outcome — narrowly favouring EU integration — was attributed by some analysts, at least in part, to sustained US influence.
The monitoring of the election was entrusted to Promo-LEX, a think-tank heavily funded by the US government. In 2024 alone, Promo-LEX secured $1.7 million (€1.6 million) in US grants.
The scale of US financial involvement in Moldova’s political and media ecosystem has been significant.
According to USAID records — some of which are no longer publicly accessible —the US has invested over $640 million (€620.6 million) in Moldova since 1992.
The actual financial commitment through grants and indirect funding mechanisms has probably hit the several billions in payments for the whole country.
USAID “backbone” of the Ukrainian media landscape
Across the Moldovan border in Ukraine, USAID’s influence is, perhaps, even more pronounced.
Via Internews Network Ukraine, USAID funded a network of social media-driven news platforms in Ukraine, including New Voice of Ukraine, VoxUkraine, Detector Media and the Institute of Mass Information.
These outlets have published reports targeting figures including US economist Jeffrey Sachs, Republican commentator Tucker Carlson and journalist Glenn Greenwald, portraying them as part of a “Russian propaganda network”.
According to Wikileaks, Internews Network globally has ties with the Democratic Party in the US.
Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information in Ukraine, said an estimated 80 per cent of Ukrainian media outlets have collaborated with USAID in some capacity.
While this support has been instrumental in sustaining independent journalism during the ongoing conflict with Russia, it has also raised questions about the extent of US influence over Ukraine’s media environment
A report by the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), titled US Aid Freeze Numbs Ukraine, revealed that USAID was “reaching deep into areas of the state and civil society” in Ukraine.
Funding for independent media has been drawn from a $290 million (€281 million) pool allocated for democracy, human rights and governance initiatives.
These efforts, framed as support for democratic values, have also underscored the significant leverage the US holds over Ukraine’s media and civil society sectors.
USAID’s involvement in the media landscape has intensified following the outbreak of the war with Russia in 2022.
Since 2021, the organisation has provided technical support to 66 local media outlets in Ukraine, aiming to bolster independent journalism in the face of Russian disinformation and propaganda.
In the UK, the publicly-owned BBC acknowledged that USAID contributed to 8 per cent of its BBC Media Action charity funding in 2023-24.
“Like many international development organisations, BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8 per cent of our income in 2023-24. We’re doing everything we can to minimise the impact on our partners and the people we serve,” the charity stated on its website.
While it is not directly linked to the BBC’s core news operations, that has raised questions about foreign funding in public media-led enterprises.
Similarly, it was revealed that US-owned international news outlet Politico received money via subscription to its Politico Pro platform from the US government.
Although this funding is not directly allocated to Politico’s journalism activities, subscriptions to Politico Pro — used by policymakers and industry leaders — are a source of revenue for the media organisation.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media giant that also publishes the German Bild, Bild am Sonntag, Welt, Welt am Sonntag, as well as the TV channel Welt, Business Insider and the US newsletter Morning Brew.
Washington’s involvement in European media has extended beyond direct funding to local outlets.
Perhaps the most explosive revelation came in December 2024, when French investigative outlet Mediapart exposed the extent of US control over the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
According to Mediapart, Washington has supplied half of OCCRP’s budget, retained veto power over senior staff appointments, and directed investigations targeting political regimes opposed by the US, such as those in Russia and Venezuela.
OCCRP’s 2023 audit report confirmed $11 million (€10.6 million) in funding from US agencies.
This revelation has sparked concerns about the independence of OCCRP and the potential for US influence to shape its investigative priorities.
The White House’s involvement in European media and civil society appeared to be part of a broader strategy.
A paper from the US Congressional Research Services published in 2022 argued that US foreign assistance was an essential instrument of the country’s foreign policy.
“Foreign assistance is the largest component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many Members of Congress as an essential instrument of US foreign policy,” the document stated.
It revealed that in the 2019 financial year, US foreign assistance totalled an estimated $48.18 billion (€46.7 million) of the federal budget authority.
The report said that meant US foreign assistance served the United States’ soft power and sharp power ambitions around the globe. It likened it to the Marshall Plan after the Second World War that was designed to rebuild European economies so they could resume trade with the US, benefiting US industries.
In Albania, for instance, the US has recently committed $20,000 to initiatives aimed at preventing hate speech and discrimination.
While modest compared to other regions, the funding reflected a broader pattern: Washington’s use of financial support to advance its foreign policy interests or liberal ideals.
Observers ask, where does support for democracy end and influence begin?
The US government’s funding of media and civil society organisations has reshaped narratives and counteracted Russian influence in Eastern and Central Europe.
But at what cost? Critics have argued this financial involvement risked undermining the very independence it was designed to protect.
On February 3, USAID worldwide funding was officially halted for 90 days.
BBC Rides to the Rescue as Scientists Inconveniently Find the Gulf Stream Isn’t Getting Weaker
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 6, 2025
Last month a group of scientists published a paper in Nature stating that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s. Helped by publicity in the Daily Sceptic, the story went viral on social media, although it was largely ignored in narrative-driven mainstream publications. The collapse of the Gulf Stream, a key component of the AMOC, is an important ‘tipping point’ story used to induce mass climate psychosis and make it easier to impose the Net Zero fantasy on increasingly resentful and questioning populations. Obviously, reinforcements to back up such an important weaponised scare needed to be rushed to the front and the BBC has risen to the challenge. The AMOC “appears to be getting weaker” state BBC activists Simon King and Mark Poynting. Their long article is a classic of its kind in trying to deflect scientific findings that blow holes in the ‘settled’ narrative.
In the Nature paper, three scientists working out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution stated that they came to their conclusion showing the stability of the AMOC after examining heat transfers between the sea and the atmosphere. It was noted that the AMOC had not weakened from 1963 to 2017, “although substantial variability exists at all latitudes”. This variability is the basis for much of the Gulf Stream fear-mongering. The BBC notes that the presence of larger grains of sediment on the ocean floor suggests the existence of stronger currents, pointing to a “cold blob” in the Atlantic that appears to have cooled of late. Thin pickings, it might be thought, to run an article titled ‘Could the UK actually get colder with global warming?’ The Woods Hole scientists note that records “are not long enough to differentiate between low frequency variability and long-term trends”.
The Nature story is not the only recent scientific finding that suggests the Day After Tomorrow alarm about the AMOC is a tad overdone. In 2023, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025. There was no later reporting, needless to say, of subsequent work from a group of scientists at the US weather service NOAA that discovered the huge flow of Gulf Stream tropical water through the Florida Straits had remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
Of course the BBC, along with most of the legacy media, has form as long as your arm when it comes to producing deflective copy seemingly designed to head off inconvenient scientific findings. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest and best observed collection of tropical coral in the world. Any sign of ill health is a boon for green propogandists who argue that warming measured in tenths of a degree centigrade will destroy an organism that has survived for millions of years in temperatures between 24-32°C. For the last three years, coral on the GBR has hit recent record levels with scarcely a mention in mainstream media. Days before last year’s record was announced, the places where journalism goes to die were full of stories from a paper that conveniently noted climate change posed an “existential threat” to the reef. “The science tells us that the GBR is in danger and we should be guided by the science,” Professor Helen McGregor from the University of Wollongong told Victoria Gill of BBC News. Professor McGregor’s statement was an opinion readily broadcast by the BBC, a courtesy that does not appear to have been extended to the fact that coral on the GBR was at its highest level since detailed observations began.
It beggars belief that the BBC and all its fellow alarmists can run this stuff with a straight face knowing that crucial scientific information is missing from their reports. Important findings from reputable sources emerge about the current stability of the Gulf Stream and the response is to blow more smoke around that raises wholly unnecessary fears.
The main concern is that the AMOC “could suddenly switch off”, state King and Poynting. To back up their statement and provide the inevitable political message they note the comment of Matthew England, Professor of Oceanography at the University of South Wales: “We’re playing a bit of a Russian roulette game. The more we stack up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more we warm the system, the more chance we have of an AMOC slowdown and collapse.” Now look what you plebs have done with your steak chomping, gas-guzzling central heating and naff holidays in Benidorm, is an unpleasant subtext here.
Of course, keen and dedicated followers of climate alarmists will note a master craftsman at work. In 2023, aided by 35 million computer hours and using an improbable rise in temperature of up to 4°C in less than 80 years, Professor Matthews suggested that there was a dramatic slowdown in deep Antarctica ocean currents. Melting Antarctica ice could lead to a 40% slowdown in just 30 years. The fact that Antarctica has barely warmed in 70 years is ignored.
Who needs Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters when we have the BBC.
BBC’s Fake Wildfire Claims
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 30, 2025
The climate establishment are going to great lengths to blame the Los Angeles fires on global warming.
One attempt has already bitten the dust, with claims of increasing winter droughts contradicted by the real world data.
So another team of so-called scientists have come up with an even more ridiculous idea – that it is now both to wet and too dry in California.
The BBC report:
Climate change has made the grasses and shrubs that are fuelling the Los Angeles fires more vulnerable to burning, scientists say.
Rapid swings between dry and wet conditions in the region in recent years have created a massive amount of tinder-dry vegetation that is ready to ignite.
Decades of drought in California were followed by extremely heavy rainfall for two years in 2022 and 2023, but that then flipped again to very dry conditions in the autumn and winter of 2024.
“Scientists” say in a new study, external that climate change has boosted what they call these “whiplash” conditions globally by 31-66% since the middle of the 20th Century.
“This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold,” said lead author Daniel Swain from UCLA.
“First, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed.”
Once again though the actual data shows the new study to be just as fake as the previous one. Most of California’s rain comes in the winter half, October to March; the last two years have been wetter than average, but no more so than many other years on record:
The same applies to the South Coast Drainage Division, which includes Los Angeles:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series
Neither is there any evidence of bigger swings from year to year.
Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written a full scientific rebuttal here, which demolishes this latest fake science.
This is his summary:
Summary
So, let’s recap. At the annual timescale that is most relevant to the Los Angeles fires…
-
- Figure 1: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence in Los Angeles in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 2: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence over southern California in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 3: There is a long-term decrease in whiplash events globally over land (where it matters) in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 5: There is no increase in the variability (standard deviation) of annual SPEI either for all months or centered on January) in the Los Angeles grid point using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
- Figure 6: There has been a decrease in the variability (standard deviation) of SPEI over global land since the 1980s using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
- Figure 7: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) over the Los Angeles area across eight different precipitation datasets.
- Figures 8 and 9: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) globally across eight different precipitation datasets.
While “climate whiplash events” may be increasing in frequency under most of the very specific, selected definitions used and datasets investigated in Swain et al. (2025), the general idea that annual precipitation (or more generally, the water cycle, which includes evaporation) is becoming dramatically more variable is not supported when a broader set of datasets and definitions are used.
Would a reader of Swain et al. (2025), or especially its coverage, have any idea about the weakness of its broader conclusions or the lack of robustness of its results to different definitions and datasets? Almost certainly not, and I contend that this is a major problem for public understanding and trust in climate science.
Why don’t we see a robust increase in water cycle variability given the strong theory underpinning “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier”? For one thing, the theoretical size of the effect is known to be quite small relative to natural, unforced variability, making it inherently difficult to detect. For example, we see in Figure 7 above that year-to-year rainfall in Los Angeles naturally varies by as much as 300%, yet the signal we are looking for is one to two orders of magnitude less than this. It is also apparently the case that observational uncertainty is larger than the signal (or there would not be such disagreement between datasets). Physically, perhaps increasing mean precipitation is offsetting the increase in calculated evaporation in the SPEI index, reducing its variability. Maybe reduced temperature variability (via arctic amplification) is reducing calculated evaporation variability.
I don’t know the full answer, but these would be great research questions to identify and outline in a Nature review like Swain et al. (2025). Unfortunately, Swain et al. (2025) missed this opportunity because the paper seemed so focused on assembling evidence in favor of increasing water cycle variability that contradictory evidence was never presented or seriously grappled with.
My main discomfort with Swain et al. (2025) and its rollout is that it appears that the primary goal was to create and disseminate the “climate whiplash” meme rather than conduct a truly rigorous evaluation of the evidence, including countervailing evidence. Ultimately, this makes the research a much larger advance in marketing than an advance in science.
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/how-much-did-increasing-climate-whiplash
Of course, studies like Swain’s are not intended to be serious science; they are written to generate headlines.
And the climate industry is now highly organised to ensure that theses fake studies are disseminated worldwide via a corrupt media.
‘This is NPR’: America’s Public Media Faces Reckoning on What it is
By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025
“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.
Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.
Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)
NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.
Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”
The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.
Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.
What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:
Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.
It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.
The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.
There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?
I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.
After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.
It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.
Audit USAID… Then Shut it Down!
By Ron Paul | February 3, 2025
As of this writing, when you attempt to access the US Agency for International Development (USAID) website or social media pages you are informed that, “This site can’t be reached.” The media reports that the new Trump Administration has not only frozen USAID activities but may be planning on bringing it back under control of the US State Department. Other reports, including statements by Elon Musk, suggest that it will be closed completely.
If true, the closing of USAID may be one of the most significant changes President Trump has made among many dramatic actions in his first couple of weeks in office. Many Americans may still have the idea that USAID is a government agency delivering relief at disaster sites overseas. They may still remember the bags of rice or grain with the USAID logo on them. But that is not USAID.
USAID is a key component of the US government’s “regime change” operations worldwide. USAID spends billions of dollars every year propping up “NGOs” overseas that function as shadow governments, eating away at elected governments that the US interventionists want to overthrow. Behind most US foreign policy disasters overseas you will see the fingerprints of USAID. From Ukraine to Georgia and far beyond, USAID is meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries – something that would infuriate Americans if it was happening to us.
When President Trump ordered a 90 day pause in USAID activities, we quickly learned just how pernicious the agency really is. The US media reported that Ukrainian press outlets were scrambling to keep their doors open when the US dollars stopped flowing. It is reported that 90 percent of the media outlets are funded by the US government!
This means that there is virtually no independent media in Ukraine, only fake news outlets willing to toe the US Administration’s propaganda line. Does anyone think these wholly US-funded “news” outlets would ever publish a story that the US government did not want published?
This is plainly immoral, but it is also dangerous. Most US mainstream media stories about Ukraine have their origins in the “reporting” of the local media. From battlefield news to casualties to the state of the Ukrainian military, the “news” from Ukraine is being written by US government-backed media outlets and then picked up by US and other western media. It is a closed propaganda loop that not only propagandizes the US citizen but also feeds false information into US government outlets – such as Congress – that rely on mainstream US media reporting for their news on Ukraine.
No wonder so many in Washington continue to support this hopeless war!
But USAID is not just in the business of disinformation. Elon Musk recently re-posted a New York Post article on X reporting that USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab! Did USAID help fund COVID? Americans have a right to know.
In natural catastrophes overseas Americans have shown themselves to be extremely generous. Private volunteer assistance organizations can more effectively assist victims of disasters worldwide.
USAID needs a full and transparent audit. Americans deserve to know exactly what is being done in their name overseas. Then the agency needs to be shuttered completely, and its employees sent home. That would go a long way toward making America great again.
Here’s How Much Senate’s Loudest RFK Jr Critics Have Been Paid by Big Pharma
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 02.02.2025
The fiery viral exchange between RFK Jr and Senator Bernie Sanders on Big Pharma money in politics has cast a new light on the Trump HHS pick’s uphill confirmation battle.
Among senators grilling Kennedy hardest in this week’s grueling confirmation hearings, here’s who’s gotten the most pharma money via PAC contributions and employee donations between 1990-2024, per calculations by OpenSecrets:
- Bernie Sanders: $1.9 mln
- Ralph Warnock: $1.76 mln
- Patty Murray: $1.6 mln
- Chuck Schumer: $1.55 mln
- Elizabeth Warren: $1.2 mln. Ironic that she’s recently accused Kennedy of “profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies.”
- Ron Wyden: $1.2 mln
- Bill Cassidy: $1.2 mln
- Mark Warner: $654,000
- Maggie Hassan: $467,000
- Catherine Cortez Masto: $537,000
Bipartisan Consensus
And it’s not just Democrats. OpenSecrets records, which have 307 names on file, show former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell got $2 mln, Mitt Romney $3.3 mln, Richard Burr $1.6 mln, the late John McCain $1.4 mln, Bill Cassidy $1.2 mln, and Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Tim Scott $1.1 mln each over the past three-and-a-half decades.
A 2021 STAT study found that over two-thirds of Congress got a pharma check in 2020, with Pfizer alone contributing to 228 federal campaigns and over 1,000 state races. By last August alone, Big Pharma’s 2024 election PAC war chests hit $37 mln, per BioSpace.
OpenSecrets partial list of top Big Pharma donations to current and former US senators.
© Photo : OpenSecrets
Besides lobbying, lawmakers have taken advantage of their jobs to get rich off pharma-related insider trading, with a 2021 Business Insider report finding that 75 made timely investments into the federal Covid response.
Then there’s the combined payouts of healthcare industry, which includes pharma but also insurance, medical device suppliers, etc.
By these accounts, Sanders alone got $23+ mln since 1990, Warnock $14.7 mln, Warren $10.4 mln, Wyden $6.7 mln, Tim Kaine $3.3 mln, Ed Markey $2.3 mln, Patty Murray $5.8 mln, Tammy Baldwin $4.9 mln, etc.
Chart compiled by @MidwesternDoc based on OpenSecrets data on healthcare industry contributions to US lawmakers.
© Photo : X / @MidwesternDoc / OpenSecrets
Media Onboard Too
Major outlets aren’t running anti-RFK hit pieces for free. Dr. Leana Wen, author of a recent WaPo piece trashing Kennedy, received over $1.1 mln from Big Pharma over her career.
In 2021, MintPress News calculated that active Big Pharma cheerleader Bill Gates has given nearly $320 mln to media over the years to ensure favorable coverage of himself and the initiatives he’s pushing, including as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
Did a Trump executive order just cripple the global US regime change network?
By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · January 31, 2025
Among the flurry of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in the first days of his administration, perhaps the most consequential to date is one titled, “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.”
Under this order, a 90-day pause was instantly enforced on all US foreign development assistance across the globe – excepting, of course, the largest recipients of US aid in Israel and Egypt. For now, the order forbids the disbursement of federal funding for any “non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors” charged with delivering US “aid” programs overseas.
Within days, hundreds of “internal contractors” at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were placed on unpaid leave or outright fired, as a direct result of the Executive Order. Washington Post contributor John Hudson has reported organization officials brand Trump’s directives on “foreign development assistance” a “shock and awe approach,” which has left them reeling, uncertain of their futures. One nameless USAID apparatchik told him, “they even removed all the pictures in our offices of aid programs,” as accompanying photographs attested.
While the Trump administration’s purge sent shockwaves through Washington’s international development corps and the Beltway Bandits which feed at its trough, the sudden severing of USAID money has sparked panic overseas. From Latin America to Eastern Europe, the US has pumped billions into NGO’s and media outlets to fuel color revolutions and assorted regime change operations, all in the name of “democracy promotion.”
Now, as the global apparatus of soft American power trumpeted by President George H.W. Bush as “a thousand points of light” goes dark, supposedly independent media outfits from Ukraine to Nicaragua are fretting about their future and panhandling for donations on their websites.
US-backed media and opposition face extinction in Ukraine
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has pumped billions into Ukraine to create and propel a fervently anti-Russian opposition. As former State Department Assistant Secretary for Eastern European Affairs Victoria Nuland remarked to an oil industry-sponsored meeting in Kiev in 2009, “we’ve invested $5 billion to assist Ukraine” to “build democratic skills and institutions” allowing it to “achieve European independence.”
The US flooded Ukrainian civil society with grants on the eve of the 2014 Maidan coup, birthing a network of pro-Western media outlets almost overnight. Among them was Hromadske, a liberal broadcasting entity which pushed for the overthrow of President Victor Yanukovych and rallied for the subsequent war with pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east – including through the glorification of Nazis who fought the Soviet Red Army during World War II.
With Trump’s executive order cutting off USAID programs, Hromadske has suddenly been severed from its financial tube. So too have the top Ukrainian media outlets which emerged in the wake of the Maidan coup, including Ukrinform, Internews, and a signatory of the Poynter-run International Fact Checking Network called VoxUkraine.
The Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications and the Service of the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, both created to propagandize for war against Russia, are also among USAID funding recipients now starving for cash.
Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky took to X to whine that “critically important programs” wholly dependent on “US support” were now “suspended” as a result of Trump’s executive order. He promised that “certain key initiatives” would “be financed through our internal resources,” while begging for donations from Kiev’s “European partners” to be “intensified.”
Given Ukraine’s near-total economic destruction since its proxy war against Russia erupted in February 2022, and complete reliance on USAID to pay the salaries of state employees, it is uncertain how the country’s “internal resources” can possibly be used to even vaguely offset its sudden deficit. Already, major Ukrainian media outlets are pleading for financial support from their readers just to keep their lights on.
According to Kiev’s foreign-funded Institute of Mass Information, around 90% of the country’s media is “dependent on American grants.”
Contra 2.0 gravy train paused in Nicaragua
Similar bleating has emanated from US-financed organizations in Nicaragua, where since the re-election of popular leftist Sandinista Front in 2006, Washington has pumped tens of millions of dollars into right-wing media outlets and opposition groups.
In tandem, these foreign-funded fifth columnists routinely disseminate disinformation, while inciting violence against the government and its supporters, and influencing Western media reporting on the country.
As The Grayzone reported, a USAID-funded Nicaraguan opposition outlet called 100% Noticias led a campaign of violent incitement throughout 2018, when a failed US-backed coup attempt left hundreds dead in the country. While the outlet repeatedly featured calls for the murder of President Daniel Ortega, its director, Miguel Mora, told The Grayone’s Max Blumenthal he wished for a US military intervention of the country to topple the elected government. When the Nicaraguan government finally shuttered the station and prosecuted Mora, Washington responded with accusations of repression and threats of heavy sanctions.
On January 21, an anti-Sandinista “news” operations called Nicaragua Investiga warned that Trump’s order “threatens to deal a severe blow” to the country and its anti-Ortega crusade, “which depends heavily on the financial and technical support provided by agencies” such as USAID. This backing, the outlet declared, was a “fundamental pillar” in the Nicaraguan right-wing’s efforts to undermine and depose the anti-imperialist President.
“Civil society organisations that rely on this assistance would be forced to reduce or cease their activities,” Nicaragua Investiga warned. The outlet further lamented that “uncertainty reigns over how and when assistance will be restored, and whether organizations critical of Daniel Ortega’s regime that still survive outside the country will be able to maintain their operations.”
Not coincidentally, Nicaragua Investiga was among the local outlets which largely depended on US government grants for their existence.
Has the US balked at balkanizing the Balkans?
Across the West Balkans, USAID, self-avowed CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the panoply of NGOs and media outlets have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of public life. Following the 1992 – 1995 civil war, Bosnia and Herzegovina was methodically transformed into a de facto EU and US colony, with all basic functions of the state hijacked by foreign interests.
Some concern about the imperial project found its way into mainstream media at the time. The New York Times warned in 1998 that US domination of Bosnia “raised troubling questions about how the state will work without continued infusions of outside aid and direct international supervision.” A senior foreign government advisor angsted over Washington’s lack of exit strategy in the country, or any plan to end “Bosnia’s culture of dependency.” Today, at least 25,600 Western-funded NGOs are active in Sarajevo.
The pause in “foreign development assistance” has placed countless jobs and beneficiary organizations at risk of permanent erasure across the Balkans. On January 30, Balkan Insight – an outlet exposed by The Grayzone as a tentacle of British intelligence – published an illuminating investigation into how the aid pause “has immediately affected a range of organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.”
From 2020 until the end of 2024, Washington has funnelled a staggering $1.7 billion into the West Balkans, “supporting civil society organisations and state institutions and projects ranging from human rights and media to energy efficiency,” with next to no demonstrable social benefit. Now, “all projects have been halted… until the evaluation period is over.” Expenses up until January 27 will be covered, “while everything after that has to be stopped.” Already, layoffs and huge pay cuts have been enacted at recipient entities.
Nameless NGO workers consulted by Balkan Insight fretted that the US financing freeze would not be temporary. One source speculated the Executive Order could be “just a soft way of cutting these funds permanently.” The outlet noted Washington “has supported thousands of activities” in the region, and “the precise number of affected projects” remains “unknown”. When reporters contacted local USAID offices seeking clarity on the cuts, they were redirected in every instance to the agency’s Washington headquarters.
USAID base camp “responded by sending a link to its press release” on the funding pause. “President Trump stated clearly that the US is no longer going to blindly dole out money with no return for the American people,” it bluntly declared. “Reviewing and realigning foreign assistance on behalf of hardworking taxpayers is not just the right thing to do, it is a moral imperative.” Evidently, the new administration is not remotely concerned that entire sectors of local economies in the Balkans have been effectively shuttered.
Even in Albania – a doggedly pro-US country with an influential DC lobby – 30 Washington-subsidized projects have been suspended, including bankrolling of “courts, prosecutor’s offices and the ministries of Defence, Education and Sports, and Finance.” In Macedonia – where “most” US funding is distributed via USAID and NED – $72 million allocated to 22 projects is “now on hold.” Six wider regional USAID-backed initiatives in the Balkans, which also covers Macedonia, “worth some $140 million”, are likewise mothballed. In local terms, these sums are monumental.
Georgia not on the Trump admin’s mind
The Republic of Georgia has been the site of a series of color revolution efforts since the start of 2023, all in response to the government’s successful push to compel the more than 25,000 foreign-financed organizations in the country to disclose their funding sources. Western-backed NGOs and activist groups have been at the forefront of all these attempted putsches. Unsurprisingly, this shadow army of previously US-funded foot soldiers are furious about the Trump administration’s “foreign development assistance” cutoff.
By contrast, the Georgian government appears delighted. Parliamentary leader Mamuka Mdinaradze has even suggested the highly controversial law on foreign funding transparency “might not be needed at all anymore” after Trump’s executive order. Indeed, with untold foreign-sponsored chaos agents suddenly out of money, the color revolution coast is now clear in Tbilisi.
On January 30, local English language publication Georgia Today published a leader mourning that, “as the future of their funding hangs in the balance, aid organizations are already laying off or furloughing staff,” and “some programs” in Tbilisi “may struggle to restart after this temporary shutdown, with many potentially disappearing permanently.” It went on to note USAID financing “has been a cornerstone of the country’s development since 1992, with over $1.9 billion in assistance provided to date.”
Prior to the funding pause, USAID alone was “investing in 39 programs across the country, with a total value of $373 million and an annual budget exceeding $70 million.” These efforts overwhelmingly focused “on promoting economic reforms” and “fostering private sector investment,” which is to say facilitating foreign financial rape and pillage of Georgia.
While domestic critics of Trump’s Executive Order have lambasted Washington’s resultant loss of expansive “soft power” influence in the Global South, such retreat can only be to the enormous benefit of target countries. As a LeftEast essay noted, foreign-funded NGOs have for decades “eroded Georgian citizens’ agency and the country’s sovereignty and democracy.” Its authors explained, “Activists in Georgia know all too well what is expected of them and which behaviors are punished and rewarded: being critical of the government on Facebook will net you more grants than being out in the community helping people… Donors even monitor activists’ social media profiles, and there can be consequences for posting the wrong things.”
However, the relief could be premature for populations that have suffered decades of US “foreign development assistance,” and the attendant coups and unrest it has paid for. The “pause” on US aid may indeed be a temporary measure, or, spending on soft power could be redirected to harder options with even more grave repercussions across the world.
Why the Mainstream Media Is in Trouble
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 31, 2025
As most everyone knows, the mainstream media is hurting, big time. For many years, subscriptions and advertising revenue have been plummeting. Some of the big papers have been able to survive only by having some multimillionaire bail them out with his own money and be willing to absorb the ongoing financial losses.
Why is this? I submit that one big reason is that most Americans simply do not trust the media. They have come to see the media as just an unofficial mouthpiece for the federal government, especially the national-security branch of the government, the branch that rules the roost.
A good example of this phenomenon relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The official narrative is that the invasion was an unprovoked war of aggression, much like the U.S. government’s unprovoked invasion of and war of aggression against Iraq.
But the undisputed evidence establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever the contrary. The evidence establishes that after the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO remained in existence, which was quite unusual, to say the least. That’s because the ostensible reason that NATO was brought into existence was to supposedly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviets.
Even worse, NATO began moving eastward, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, and moving inexorably in the direction of Russia’s border. And this occurred in violation of promises made by U.S. officials to Russian officials that that would never happen.
Throughout the absorption process, Russian officials continually stated, “Stop it. Stop bringing your missiles, troops, weapons, tanks, and military bases closer to our border.” But U.S. officials, operating through NATO, refused to stop it. They just kept moving eastward until they finally threatened to absorb Ukraine.
As they proceeded with their absorption campaign, U.S. officials knew exactly what Russia’s reaction would be. It would be the same reaction that the U.S. had when the Soviets installed their nuclear weapons in Cuba. If the Soviets had refused to remove those nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have invaded Cuba, just as the Russians invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from being absorbed into NATO.
How in the world can NATO’s absorption campaign not be considered a provocation? If that’s not a provocation, I don’t know what is. And let’s not forget: The U.S. government did much the same thing in 1979, when it provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, with the aim of giving them “their own Vietnam.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confessed that they did that. Thus, when tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were dying on the Afghan battlefield, U.S. officials were exultant, just as they are exultant over the “degrading” of Russia’s army in Ukraine through the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
Yet, in account after account in the mainstream media, one continues to find the official narrative about Russia’s supposed “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. Given such, why would anyone trust any newspaper that continues to repeat that official narrative rather than printing only the truth about what the U.S. government and NATO did to provoke the invasion and, at the same time, condemning the official narrative?
Consider, for example, the New York Times. On January 14, 2025, it published an op-ed by Lloyd J. Austin III, the secretary of defense, and Anthony J. Blinken, secretary of state, stating: “President Vladimir Putin of Russia appalled the world with his full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago. He planned to topple Ukraine’s democratically elected government, install a Kremlin puppet regime and expose the West as weak, divided and diminished…. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen its hand for the negotiations that will someday bring Mr. Putin’s war of aggression to an end.”
Not one word about what the U.S. and NATO did to provoke the invasion with their absorption campaign.
Yesterday, January 30, the Times published this comment by longtime columnist Nicholas Kristof about Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing: “Asked who she blames for the Ukraine war, Gabbard said bluntly, ‘Putin started the war in Ukraine.’ After her past blather about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and in a hearing full of her evasions, that was a reassuring acknowledgment of a reality that should be obvious to all.” [Links in original.]
So, Gabbard’s pointing to Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” regarding having U.S. nuclear weapons, troops, and tanks on its border is nothing more than “blather.” I’m willing to bet that Kristof and the Times would not call the U.S. government’s “legitimate security concerns” during the Cuban Missile Crisis “blather.”
Also yesterday, the Times posted a news story about Gabbard’s confirmation hearing, stating, “Russia experts and intelligence experts have frequently remarked on Ms. Gabbard’s history of taking positions that defend Russian interests or cast the United States as a villain. She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for provoking Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago by failing to respect ‘Russia’s legitimate security concerns.’” [Links in original.]
So, pointing out the truth about the U.S. government’s wrongful conduct equates to “defending Russian interests.” Also, notice how the Times conflates the United States and the U.S. government, as if they were one and the same thing. The fact is that the U.S. government sometimes is a villain. Example: The unprovoked U.S. invasion of and undeclared war of aggression against Iraq. Does pointing out that villainous conduct constitute “defending Russian interests.” Moreover, notice how the reporter implicitly disparages Gabbard for pointing out what NATO did to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Of course, the distrust of the mainstream media didn’t start with its repetition of the official narrative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It goes back much further — for example, to Operation Mockingbird, when much of the mainstream press was willingly and eagerly becoming assets of the CIA in an effort to save America from the Russians and the “godless communists” who were supposedly coming to get us.
And it also stretches back to the Kennedy assassination, when the mainstream media blindly accepted the ludicrous lone-nut official narrative and refused to conduct any serious investigation that would contradict that narrative.
Consider, for example, when the Assassination Records Review Board discovered in the 1990s that there had been two brain examinations as part of the JFK autopsy, the second of which could not possibly have been JFK’s brain. Wouldn’t you think that that would be something that the mainstream press would want to investigate, even if just a little bit? Nope. Nothing here, folks. Let’s move on. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.
Or consider the enlisted men who were released from vows of secrecy during the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s. They stated that they secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap shipping casket more than an hour before the official entry time of the Dallas casket into which the president’s body had been placed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.
Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to investigate that? After all, why would enlisted men make up such a story? Nope. Let’s move on, folks. Nothing to see here. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.
The Internet, obviously, has been the mainstream media’s worst enemy. That’s because people were now able to discover websites, podcasts, videos, and other such things that were willing to tell them the truth about the villainy of their own government. The mainstream media has been having trouble ever since.
‘Conspiracy Theory’ Now Fact: Greater Israel Has Arrived
By Kit Klarenberg | Mint Press News | January 28, 2025
Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab and Muslim lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims this territory was promised to Jews by God. The mainstream media typically dismisses this concept as antisemitic conspiracy theory, or at most the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of extremist Israelis.
In reality, as The Guardian admitted in 2009, the idea of a Greater Israel has long-appealed to “religious and secular right-wing nationalists” alike at a state and public level in Tel Aviv. They have the shared objective of “[seeking] to fulfill divine commandments about the ‘beginning of redemption’, as well as create ‘facts on the ground’ to enhance Israel’s security.” The outlet acknowledged this motivation was a key contemporary driving force in mainstream Zionist entity politics, which “effectively turned the Palestinians into aliens on their own soil.”
The Nation has described the push to establish Greater Israel as “the central ideological goal” of Benjamin Netyahu’s Likud Party, which has dominated Israeli politics in recent decades. In July 2018 too, the Zionist entity passed the “Nation State of the Jewish People” law. It enshrines “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value.” Meanwhile, the state is legally obligated “to encourage and promote” the “establishment and consolidation” of settlements, in illegally occupied territory.
A proposed map of ‘Greater Israel’
This is based on the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right” to territory as far away from present Israel as Saudi Arabia. Old Testament terms such as “Judea and Samaria” are also employed. Markedly, this text is absent from the legislation’s official English translation. Zionist entity chiefs may not have wanted to make their irredentist, settler colonial ambitions quite so obvious at the time. Fast forward to today though, and Zionists at every level are wholly unabashed about their grand expansionist plans in West Asia.
The Syrian government’s fall has raised all manner of questions, concerns, and uncertainties locally and internationally. Can the country survive in its present form? Will Western-backed ‘former’ ultra-extremists be able to run a government? May the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, which inflicted such harm to the Zionist entity and its Western puppet masters throughout 2023/4, be under threat? The list goes on. But one thing is certain – Israel is seeking to profit handsomely from the chaos. If successful, the results will be revolutionary.
‘Defensive Position’
On December 8th, a triumphant, smart-casual-bedecked Benjamin Netanyahu made a public address from an Israeli Occupation Force observation point, in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights. Taking personal credit for Bashar Assad’s ouster, he hailed “a historic day” for the region, which offered “great opportunity.” The Israeli leader bragged that the Zionist entity’s “forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran” had “set off a chain reaction” of upheaval, showing no sign of abating. Nonetheless, he warned of “significant dangers”.
One of those hazards, Netanyahu declared, was “the collapse of the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974.” This largely forgotten accord was signed by Damascus and Tel Aviv following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Both sides agreed not to mount hostile military operations of any kind against one another from their shared Golan Heights border. Perhaps surprisingly, it was scrupulously adhered to for 50 years. Now, though, Assad’s fall has sparked a Syrian military withdrawal from the area, and, in turn, the IDF is moving in.
Netanyahu announced orders had been given to the IOF to push deep into the demilitarized zone created by the Agreement, which is legally and historically Syrian territory. He claimed this was merely a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found.” Yet, ever since, it has become increasingly unambiguous that for the Zionist entity, Assad’s departure not only greenlights the tearing up of longstanding diplomatic agreements, but the entire map of West Asia as we know it.
For the time being, the IOF has captured strategically invaluable Mount Hermon, Syria’s tallest mountain, from which Damascus can be seen just 40 miles away. Concurrently, hundreds of Zionist entity airstrikes have obliterated what remained of Syria’s military infrastructure, leaving the country completely defenseless from any and all incursions by air, land, and sea. The stage is plainly set for a major escalation and attempt by Israel to absorb further territory, at its behest. Who or what could stop them?
IOF militants unfurl an entity flag on Mount Hermon
On December 10th 2024, while testifying at his long-running trial for industrial scale corruption in office, Netanyahu used the occasion to hint strongly at Assad’s defeat heralding a major reshaping of the region afoot. “Something tectonic has happened here, an earthquake that hasn’t happened in the 100 years since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” the Israeli leader said, referencing the 1916 treaty under which Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire.
In an ironic twist, destruction of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided West Asia into artificial boundaries under Western colonial rule, was a regular feature of ISIS propaganda. The group cited the pact as a symbol of Western oppression against Islam, presenting its demise as a religious duty. With figures associated with ISIS now taking charge in Damascus, that vision could now be achieved, a prospect both serving Israel’s long-term goals, and aligning with Netanyahu’s long-standing ambitions.
‘Living Room’
In recent weeks, Israeli media has undergone a significant tonal shift. Historically, even critical Israeli news outlets and journalists have been careful to frame the Zionist entity’s most egregious actions – ranging from military operations against neighboring countries to settlement expansion and land confiscation – in terms of “security” and “defense”. However, in the days leading up to Tel Aviv’s invasion of Lebanon on October 1st 2024, The Jerusalem Post published a strikingly candid explainer guide for its readers, enquiring, “Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?”
The outlet leaned on a Brooklyn-based Rabbi to “graciously” explain in detail how, based on multiple passages in Jewish scripture, “Lebanon is within the borders of Israel,” and Jews are therefore “obligated and commanded to conquer it.” The article was subsequently deleted after mass backlash and condemnation. But lessons from the debacle evidently weren’t learned in some quarters.
On December 4th – four days before the Syrian government’s fall – The Times of Israel published an op-ed on how “Israel’s exploding population” urgently required “Lebensraum”, a notorious German concept meaning “living room”, typically associated with the Nazis. The piece noted the Zionist entity’s population was projected to grow to 15.2 million by 2048, meaning Tel Aviv’s territory rapidly needed to be greatly expanded – perhaps not to the size of Russia, but certainly considerably.
This extremist rant was likewise purged from the web, due to widespread public outcry and mockery. Yet, since Assad’s fall, the term “Greater Israel” abounds readily in Zionist media, and seizure of territory from Tel Aviv’s neighbors is openly and eagerly discussed on primetime entity TV. Geopolitical analyst and founder of The Cradle Sharmine Narwani tells MintPress News that in a sense, the blatant nature of these discussions is a welcome development, as it lays bare Tel Aviv’s most extreme ambitions. However, she warns, attempts to expand the entity’s borders could backfire in catastrophic ways:
“The good news is, Israel has completely dropped all its masks. The bad news is it will go for land grabs everywhere. But this will be done opportunistically, and without much forethought or strategic planning. In the end, which country besides the US will be able to support Israel publicly? Tel Aviv will corner itself because the dominant Western discourse and EU law are still premised on human rights and ‘rules’. Allowing Israel these land grabs will also sink the Western-led global order.”
‘Primary Target’
Academic David Miller concurs the Zionist mask is off once and for all. Gravely, he tells MintPress News, “the fact that the CIA backed regime in Damascus is openly saying it is no threat to Israel is another indication regime change in Syria is a planned attempt to destroy the Axis of Resistance, and finally genocide all Palestinians.” Furthermore, he believes the writings of Zionism’s founder Theodore Herzl make clear seizing Lebanese and Syrian territory was Israel’s plan all along.
This malign objective, Miller adds, was echoed in many statements of countless prominent Zionists over decades, and “even codified and published as the Yinon Plan.” Little-known today, this extraordinary document was published in February 1982 in Hebrew journal Kivunim, under the title “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”. Its title is derived from author Oded Yinon, a shadowy former Israeli Foreign Ministry official and advisor to Zionisty entity leader Ariel Sharon.
Some sources claim the Yinon Plan provided a precise blueprint for major future events in West Asia, such as the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, Syrian dirty war, and rise of ISIS. It may be an exaggeration to suggest the Plan precisely portended all these developments, but nonetheless, much of the document’s contents are eerily prescient. Moreover, while many of its proposals failed to subsequently materialise, we are left to ponder whether they may now do so in future.
For example, the Plan noted there was significant potential for “domestic trouble” to erupt in Syria between “the Sunni majority and the Shiite Alawi ruling minority” – the latter constituting a “mere 12% of the population” – to the extent of “civil war”. While Damascus’ “strong military regime” was considered formidable, Yinon declared “the dissolution of Syria into ethnically or religiously unique areas” and destruction of its military power should be “Israel’s primary target” on its Eastern front, “in the long run”.
The Plan envisaged similar outcomes for other countries in Israel’s immediate vicinity. Lebanon was to be broken up into “five provinces” along religious and ethnic lines, partition “[serving] as a precedent for the entire Arab world.” Yinon wrote, “this state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run,and that aim is already within our reach today.” Four months later, the Zionist entity invaded Beirut, carrying out ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft along the way.
Israel’s June 1982 invasion of Lebanon
Once the Zionist entity’s immediate neighbors were neutralized, Iraq was to be crosshaired “later on”. Baghdad, “rich in oil” while “internally torn” between its Sunni and Shiite population, was “guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets.” Its destruction was “even more important for us than that of Syria,” due to its “power” and strength relative to other regional adversaries. Yinon hoped the then-ongoing Iran-Iraq war would “tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall”, preventing Baghdad from ‘[organizing] a struggle on a wide front against us”:
“Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon… It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.”
‘Permissive Approach’
Yinon also considered it a “political priority” to regain control of the Sinai peninsula, over which the Zionist entity had fought its Arab neighbors since inception, before relinquishing all claims to the region to Egypt under the March 1979 Camp David accords. He slammed these peace agreements, and looked forward to Cairo “[providing] Israel with the excuse [emphasis added] to take the Sinai back into our hands,” due to its vast “strategic, economic and energy” value:
“The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai… for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.”
We are now well-past April 1982. In the intervening time, successive Israeli governments have demanded Egypt allow the IOF to relocate Gaza’s population to the Sinai. Netanyahu is particularly taken with the prospect. In the immediate wake of October 7th 2023, official Israeli government and Zionist think tank policy papers openly advocated driving Palestinians into the neighbouring desert. It has been reported entity officials begged the US to pressure Cairo into allowing this mass displacement.
For the Zionist entity, this strategy’s appeal is self-evident. On top of emptying Gaza for settlement, forcing Palestinians into Sinai would inevitably create mass chaos and tensions there, which could in Yinon’s phrase provide “the excuse” for Tel Aviv to militarily occupy the region, in the manner of the West Bank. Just as a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found” of course, as Netanyahu said of the IOF’s brazen creation of a prospective beachhead on Mount Hermon.
In December 2024, Haaretz observed Netanyahu was “angling for a legacy as the leader who expanded Israel’s borders”, and “wants to be remembered as the one who created Greater Israel.” Simultaneously, neoconservative Brookings Institute vice president Suzanne Maloney wrote for Empire house journal Foreign Affairs that the incoming Trump administration “will surely take a permissive approach to Israeli territorial ambitions.” After all, recent developments showed “a maximalist military approach yields spectacular strategic dividends along with domestic political benefits” for the Zionist entity.
We must hope, as Sharmine Narwani prophesied, Netanyahu’s megalomaniacal reveries of Greater Israel are just that, and come to nothing. Despite understandable mass anti-imperialist mourning over the Assad government’s demise, Tel Aviv faces a panoply of intractable internal problems. Contrary to claims of Tel Aviv’s population “exploding”, tens of thousands of dual-citizenship residents are routinely fleeing due to Resistance attacks, while its economy has perhaps permanently been relegated to the doldrums, the entity entirely dependent on US financial largesse to endure.
Featured Video
US Blockade on Iran Just Triggered Iran’s HARSHEST Response Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | October 3, 2010
Last week’s grotesque revelation about American public health doctors infecting nearly 700 Guatemalans with venereal disease to test penicillin from 1946-48 marked just the start of the U.S. government’s post-World War II abuse of that Central American country.
Indeed, as troubling as the VD experiments were, U.S. administrations from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan would do much worse, treating Guatemala as a test tube for Cold War counterinsurgency experiments that led to the slaughter of some 200,000 people, including genocide against Mayan Indian tribes. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Normalization Talks’: Lebanon No Longer Has A Government
- US Navy Confirms ‘mishap’ to $250 million spy drone downed by Iran
- Students, professors martyred in US-Israeli war of terror targeting universities and research institutes
- We Are the Barbarians
- The Iranian knot needs to be untangled, not cut – Lavrov
- Villains of Judea: Charles Bronfman
- Seyed M. Marandi: US Blockade on Iran Just Triggered Iran’s HARSHEST Response Yet
- The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
- Italy suspends defense deal with ‘Israel’ over war on Iran, Lebanon
- Indonesia Agrees to Receive Oil, Gas Supplies From Russia – Indonesian Energy Ministry
- If Americans Knew
- Declassified Files Expose Jewish Pre-state Underground Militia’s Contacts With Nazi Germany
- No diapers, no relief: Gaza’s infants face growing hygiene crisis because of Israeli restrictions
- More US troops head into harm’s way, as cost of (Israel’s) war climbs – Daily Update
- ‘Not Acceptable’: President of Iran Condemns Trump For His ‘Desecration of Jesus, the Prophet of Peace’
- We Are the Barbarians
- Netanyahu Says the Trump Administration Gives Him Reports on Iran Talks Every Day
- Second Contractor Steps Forward to Blow the Whistle on Israeli Attacks at Gaza Aid Site
- Mighty Israel wants all of its neighbors to be defenseless – Daily Update
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- No Tricks Zone
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 