In fascist lockstep, the entire British media, broadcast and print, corporate and state, is leading with a Ministry of Defence press release about a “Russian spy ship” inside “British waters”.
No British media appears to have been able to speak to anybody who knows the first thing about the Law of the Sea.
Here are the facts:
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The Continental Shelf can extend still further, as a fact of geology, not an imposed maximum.
On the Continental Shelf the coastal state is entitled to the mineral resources. In the Exclusive Economic Zone the coastal state is entitled to the fisheries and mineral resources.
For purposes of navigation, both the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone are part of the High Seas. There is freedom of navigation on the High Seas. Foreign ships, including foreign military ships, may come and go as they please. Nor is there any ban on “spying” – exactly as there is no restriction on spying from satellites.
The Territorial Waters of a state extend out to just twelve miles. These are subject to the internal legislation of the coastal state. There is freedom for foreign vessels, including military vessels, to pass through them but only subject to the rule of “innocent passage” – which specifically rules out spying and reconnaissance. In the territorial sea, vessels have to be genuinely just passing through on their way somewhere, otherwise they may need coastal state permission for their activity.
The Exclusive Economic Zone is subject to the rules of the coastal state only in relation to the reserved economic activities to which the state is entitled. Scientific research is specifically free for all states within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
The Russian ship Yantar has been just outside the UK territorial waters. It is therefore under “freedom of navigation” and not under “innocent passage”. It is free to do scientific research.
I don’t doubt it is really gathering intelligence on military, energy and communications facilities. That is what states do. The UK does it to Russia all the time, on the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Not to mention 24/7 satellite surveillance.
It is perfectly legal for the Yantar to do this. Personally I wish the entire world would stop such activity, but to blame the Russians given the massive levels of surveillance and encirclement they suffer from NATO assets is simply ludicrous.
Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy that the UK has been flying intelligence missions over Gaza every single day and feeding targeting information to aid the Gaza genocide.
The UK’s allies blew up Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The UK is now accusing the Yantar precisely of scouting this same kind of attack – which we endorsed when the pipeline was Russian.
For example HMS Sutherland, accompanied by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring, and two other NATO warships penetrated 160 miles into Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and lingered 40 miles from Russia’s Severomorsk naval base. There was no pretence they were doing anything other than gathering intelligence and sounding out defences.
In armed forces media the UK boasted it was an assertion of freedom of navigation. Yet we harass the Russian vessel equally on the High Seas for exercising its freedom of navigation.
That was also perfectly legal. The idea that the same activity is worthy when we do it, but a pretext for war if the Russians do it, is so childish as to be beyond ridicule. But there is not one single mainstream journalist willing to call it out.
As this photo of HMS Somerset illegally threatening the Yantar on the High Seas shows, forcing it into dangerous moves, the aggression is not from the Russians. That British jets illegally buzzing the Yantar have been met with lasers designed to disrupt attacks. That is not the Russian aggression John Healy claims. The nonsense about dazzling pilots’ eyes is sheer invention.
Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away it is a physical impossibility to shine a laser into a pilot’s eyes in a modern warplane, from below in a ship. The pilot won’t be looking at the ship out of the window, but will be looking at his screens and the image from the cameras under the plane. These might be disrupted by the lasers – and a perfectly valid and sensible defensive measure that is too.
This is the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Imagine it in the skies way above you and look at its body, particularly the front end – how would you get line of sight on the pilot? You couldn’t. Lasers only go in straight lines.
Most sinister of all is the universal state control of media that gets every single mainstream outlet booming out the propaganda narrative, all entirely without question.
This war talk is of course the normal refuge of extremely unpopular governments. But it is part of a wider tightening of the grip of the military-industrial complex on the state. Starmer is committed to increasing military expenditure by tens of billions of pounds a year, while imposing austerity on the rest of the economy. In Scotland, we are told that the closure of major industrial sites like Grangemouth and Mossmorran will be compensated by opening new weapons factories.
Beating ploughshares into swords.
The rise of domestic racism and authoritarianism is accompanied by the increase in militarism and the desire to portray Russia and China as enemy states with whom we are already in a state of proto-war. The state has a mainstream media which is showing itself willing to pump out even the most thin propaganda to this end with no interrogation whatsoever.
Western democracy has already died. Not everybody has yet noticed.
A former BBC health correspondent said editors repeatedly prevented him from reporting on emerging scientific debates over the safety of water fluoridation, dismissing the story as “scaremongering.”
Michele Paduano spent three decades reporting for the BBC from the West Midlands, the first region in the U.K. to fluoridate its water supply, in 1964.
The court found that the U.S. fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The West Midlands fluoridates its water at 1 mg/L, about 30% higher than the recommended U.S. level.
Paduano said mainstream media rebuttals were “so strong and absolute” that he knew publishing a story on the findings would be difficult.
He said he pursued the story only after reading the September 2024 court decision, which cited new evidence pointing to potential neurodevelopmental risks at lower fluoride concentrations.
“At that point, it felt like my public duty to tell people in the West Midlands that there was potentially a problem,” he said.
BBC editors rejected story as ‘scaremongering’
Paduano said he pitched the fluoride story through the BBC’s planning process and arranged an interview with West Midlands anti-fluoridation campaigner Joy Warren. Senior online and television editors abruptly cancelled the interview.
“They told me the story was scaremongering,” he said. Internal BBC scientists and public-health staff insisted there was no credible new evidence. Paduano said he challenged the decision and urged editors to read the U.S. court judgment, but they instead accused him of bias.
“As a BBC journalist, impartiality is fundamental. But impartiality also means reporting new evidence when it emerges,” he said.
Paduano continued investigating the issue and spoke with professor John Fawell, a leading U.K. pro-fluoridation expert and adviser to the World Health Organization (WHO).
As a result of their conversation, Paduano said Fawell acknowledged that recent research should prompt the U.K. to consider lowering fluoridation levels to match U.S. and Canadian guidance. Fawell, who co-authored a book on fluoridation’s oral health benefits, urged U.K. officials to reexamine the country’s dosage and consider aligning it with the U.S.
“If somebody who is a leading pro-fluoride proponent adjusts their position, that is a story,” Paduano said. But he said BBC editors still refused to let him cover it.
Paduano said he then emailed CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs Deborah Turness and BBC Director-General Tim Davie, but the response was “radio silence.” He then took his concerns to Nicholas Serota, a BBC board member responsible for editorial standards.
In the meantime, Paduano said he learned of planned BBC coverage in the North East about proposed fluoridation expansion, and he told Serota that failing to mention the U.S. court decision would constitute “significant censorship.”
Paduano said the article on the North East fluoridation expansion that eventually appeared briefly mentioned the U.S. judgment. He continued arguing that the West Midlands — which has fluoridated its water for decades — should also have reported on the new developments.
The editorial board refused to cover the story. “Concern was that we would be scaremongering, we would frighten people and that the science wasn’t there,” Paduano said.
Paduano said frustrations over fluoride reporting, along with broader concerns about the broadcaster’s impartiality and its close relationship with government, ultimately pushed him to leave the BBC.
Soon after, the BBC published an article about a recommendation by Worcestershire public health officials to expand fluoridation countywide. In what Paduano described as “the ultimate bias,” the article didn’t refer to the U.S. judgment or related research.
After leaving the BBC, Paduano contacted The Independent, which published his story on Fawell’s changing position on water fluoridation.
Paduano said he again approached the BBC, arguing that national coverage proved the issue’s newsworthiness, but editors held their ground and directed him to the complaints process — which he says has resulted in little progress.
‘We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly,’ BBC says
The BBC has not responded publicly to Paduano’s allegations, and it did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
The organization did reply to complaint letters from Howard and FAN’s science adviser Paul Connett, Ph.D., author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.” The letters urged the BBC to show “objectivity and professionalism on the latest research into the risks of water fluoridation” and to investigate Paduano’s claims.
In its initial response, the BBC complaints team said it had “provided a fair and appropriate view” of the water fluoridation issue.
In a follow-up response to Connett and Howard, the BBC defended its decision not to mention recent science linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental issues in children.
The BBC said its reporting reflects “the majority view — from the World Health Organisation, US Centre for Disease Control, the American Dental Society [sic] and others,” and argued that it maintains a “higher bar for publishing stories around health risk.”
The BBC cited its editorial guidelines:
“The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful.”
Kevin Silverton, who signed the letter, said the complaints team could not continue corresponding and that further concerns should be taken to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit.
BBC reporting on fluoride ‘can’t be trusted’
Connett told The Defender he was “shocked” when the BBC justified its position by citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA) and the WHO as representing the majority expert view. He said:
“As you well know, the CDC oral health division’s mission was to promote fluoridation, and the ADA has avidly promoted it for years — so much so that any study that found any harm was immediately dismissed as being bad science, and the WHO has not looked at fluoride’s neurotoxicity for many years, if ever. It is incredible to me that this very large government-funded body should rely on such one-sided, essentially partisan.”
Connett said the public and local officials rely on the BBC for accurate information, but on fluoride, “it can’t be trusted.” He said:
“When a major media entity gets involved, you would hope that they would do their homework and review the science when it is available for them. In this case the issue should have been easy because it did not entail slogging through all the studies themselves. They had a major review by a government entity, the National Toxicology Program, and they also had the judgment of a judge in a seven-year lawsuit.
“In short, the BBC is abusing the public’s trust on this important health issue, and that is shocking. Scientists like myself have an obligation to speak out. In our case, we were lucky to have a journalist to give us an inside view of the censorship that went on. We are often not that lucky.”
If you are to believe western media, Mali is days away from falling to Al-Qaeda. Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), a branch of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, is blockading fuel to the capital, Bamako. It is only a matter of time before growing frustration turns Malians against their “illegitimate” government. Or so the story goes.
The reality tells a different tale. The situation is serious, not only for Mali but also for the broader Alliance of Sahel States, which includes Burkina Faso and Niger. And yet, Mali is recovering. Russia has stepped in, delivering vital fuel shipments. Schools are reopening. Vehicles are back on the road. Towns previously captured by JNIM are being reclaimed.
It is a huge gamble for Russia. But should it succeed, Moscow will have secured a key ally and gained the favor of anti-imperialist countries in Africa. The risk, however, might not come from JNIM. Instead, it could come from a western-supported intervention that seeks not to stop Al-Qaeda, but to destroy the Alliance of Sahel States.
From French client to anti-colonial spearhead
After it gained independence, Mali continued to rely on France. Even its currency, the CFA franc, is pegged to the euro. In school, children were taught French history and learned to speak French. Until recently, France had 2,400 troops stationed as part of its “counterterrorism” operations.
Despite these apparent efforts, groups like JNIM, the Islamic State in the Sahel, and Azawad separatist militias grew. Meanwhile, western corporations profited as Mali became the fourth-largest producer of gold. With this wealth extracted, Mali remained one of the poorest countries in the world.
Bamako’s cooperation with the west did not always curry favor. Its alleged failure to follow the 2015 Algiers Accords with Azawad separatists resulted in the UN Security Council (UNSC) imposing sanctions in 2017. This made little impact, with Mali’s economy continuing to grow.
Yet most Malians were still in poverty, and the security situation worsened. Frustrated, a coup was launched in 2020. But when protests erupted, another coup followed in 2021, led by Assimi Goita, Mali’s current president. Western institutions portrayed it as democratic backsliding, with a military unjustly taking over the country. But the coup was highly popular, with people celebrating. According to a 2024 poll, nine out of 10 people thought the country was moving in the right direction.
President Goita was a radical, anti-colonial, pan-Africanist. In 2022, he kicked French troops out, instead seeking help from Russia. In 2025, Mali withdrew from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), accusing it of working with western powers. Goita nationalized the gold mines, removed French as Mali’s official language, and replaced school curricula about French history with Bamako’s own rich history.
Western-aligned institutions retaliated with sanctions. ECOWAS, the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), and the EU imposed economic penalties. Cut off from financial institutions, Mali defaulted on its debt. But the impact was partly muted.
A few months after sanctions were imposed, the court of the WAEMU ordered that sanctions had to be lifted. Gold mining, which contributes to 10 percent of the economy, saw no impact. Mali shifted its trade to non-ECOWAS countries, and the economy continued to grow.
The West African country redirected trade outside the ECOWAS bloc and resolved its debt in 2024. Far from isolating the country, sanctions strengthened internal solidarity.
Even when ECOWAS lifted sanctions in July 2022 – citing a transition plan to civilian rule – no action was taken when the deadline passed. The reason? The sanctions had backfired, exposing ECOWAS as a western instrument and bolstering support for the Goita government.
Map of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
Sanctions failed, so proxy war begins
JNIM continues to receive financing from Persian Gulf patrons and income from ransoms and extortion. While it has a strong rural presence, it controls no major cities. Azawad separatists and ISIS fighters are similarly confined to Mali’s remote north.
A different strategy was needed. In recent weeks, JNIM has attacked fuel trucks, depriving Bamako of oil. Cars were unable to fill up, and schools closed. According to western media, JNIM wants to strangle the capital to promote unrest. Mali has had five coups since independence, three of which have occurred since 2012. News reports suggest that given this history, JNIM can ultimately topple the Malian government.
Reports of an “immediate collapse” are nearly a month old. What Western media fails to understand is that, unlike previous governments in Mali, the current one is highly popular. Truckers are willing to risk their lives to bring fuel to the capital. “If we die, it’s for a good cause,” one trucker said. Even if the blockade were to stop all fuel, Malian’s resilience and support for Goita would only increase.
Thankfully for Bamako, JNIM is facing setbacks. Russia, which provides support from the Africa Corps (formerly Wagner Group) and, in 2023, vetoed the UNSC’s sanctions, sent 160,000 and 200,000 metric tons of petroleum and agricultural products. This has provided some relief, with fuel lines shortening and schools reopening.
On 15 November, Mali and the African Corps seized the Intahaka mine. The next day, the town of Loulouni was also recaptured. That same day, the blockade south of Bamako was weakened, allowing convoys of fuel trucks to reach the city.
Manufacturing consent for intervention
So why does the western media continue insisting that Mali is collapsing? Simple: to justify military intervention.
One of the biggest propagandists has been France. In a post on X from the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Paris blamed Russia for abandoning Mali, despite being one of the only nations supporting it during this crisis. French news channels LCI and TF1 ran stories such as “Mali, the Jihadists at the gates of Bamako” and “Mali, the new stronghold of Al-Qaeda.”
In response, Bamako banned them from the country. Niger has also accused Benin of being a base of operations for France. French state media, France 24, did not deny the claim, only disputing that the number of soldiers was far less than Niger claimed.
France stands to regain a significant geopolitical advantage from regime change in Mali. The country borders seven former French colonies. A return would reassert French regional influence and weaken the anti-imperialist Alliance of Sahel States. Niger remains crucial to France’s uranium supply, which is necessary for 70 percent of the country’s energy. Bamako is also quickly becoming a major exporter of lithium – essential for electronics and electric cars – with the recent opening of its second mine.
Other western countries have also lost out under Goita’s rule. Canadian company Barrick Mining lost $1 billion when Mali nationalized the mining industry. Last month, other western firms, such as Harmony Gold, IAMGOLD, Cora Gold, and Resolute Mining, had their mining exploration licenses revoked.
The growing Russia–Mali partnership resembles Moscow’s 2015 intervention in Syria. Just as Russia propped up Damascus for as long as it could from a US-led proxy war, it now shores up Bamako. The payoff could be similarly strategic: diplomatic support, military basing rights, and influence in an emerging multipolar Africa.
Unlike past interventions cloaked as counterterrorism, the west now appears reluctant. Washington and its allies, usually quick to bomb under any pretext, have done nothing to aid Bamako. This silence suggests either tacit support for JNIM or confidence that Mali will implode without direct action.
Outsourcing war
As a member of the Alliance of Sahel States, the west fears that Mali’s resilience will be an inspiration to others to join the anti-imperialist struggle. The 2021 coup emerged as a result of inequality and insecurity. These factors can be found in many other West African countries such as Benin, the Ivory Coast, and Togo.
Some observers theorize that Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria, could soon have a revolution, amid high inequality and insecurity from Boko Haram. Nigeria’s growing ties with Mali are a serious threat to the west.
With sanctions failing to bring Mali to its knees, the only solution for the west is military intervention. This might be direct, as seen with Niger, where French troops are stationed in bordering Benin. But more likely, western countries will outsource their intervention to African states. This has occurred in Somalia, where the US has Kenya and Uganda do its dirty work in return for aid. The same could occur with Mali.
The most likely actors to play this role are ECOWAS and the African Union. ECOWAS receives military training from the US, and many of its leaders are closely tied to Washington. It also receives extensive financing from the EU, most recently receiving €110 million ($119 million) to support “peace, trade, and governance.” Far from neutral, it has become an enforcement arm for western interests. The bloc has previously sanctioned Mali and, in 2023, threatened to invade Niger.
The African Union has also served the interests of the west, such as the African Union Mission to Somalia, which is supported and financed by Washington and Brussels. The African Union Constitutive Act prohibits military intervention in any member state, with the exception of war crimes or at the request of the state.
Mali, however, was suspended from the African Union in 2021, making intervention fully legal under the Act. Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, recently called for “urgent international Action as crisis escalates in Mali.”
Bamako versus the empire
Mali faces a two-pronged assault: economic strangulation and the threat of foreign-backed military intervention.
Though JNIM remains a nuisance, it has failed to topple the government. The bigger threat comes from western capitals and their African proxies. Russia remains one of Mali’s few reliable allies. If successful, Moscow’s support will elevate its standing across the continent.
More importantly, Mali’s endurance will inspire other African states to challenge western domination and reclaim sovereignty.
The European Commission is proposing to make the European Union of 27 nations a seamless territory for NATO transport across national borders. The concept is to create a “military Schengen” in analogy to the free movement of civilians across the bloc.
The controversial idea is strongly advocated by pro-NATO European leaders. The proxy war in Ukraine against Russia and the escalating tensions of a wider war have helped push the sweeping militarization of the EU as a single bloc.
This week, as the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen makes her pitch for an EU-wide military Schengen zone, there were suspicious sabotage attacks on Poland’s railway network.
Von der Leyen is leading the calls for coordination of military forces to have free access to the EU’s transport links. The idea for a military Schengen-type arrangement for the EU has been around for several years, but there has been resistance from nations giving up control of their borders. The last time Von der Leyen’s German compatriots did that by marching across Europe did not go down too well.
What the proponents of the concept would like is for military forces from one country to be able to cross over several others with minimal inspection. The idea brings closer to realization the formation of an “EU army.” It also blurs the lines between NATO and the EU to the point where all 27 members of the EU become de facto members of the military alliance.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Von der Leyen were quick to blame Russia for “shocking sabotage” of Poland’s railway after trains were disrupted by an explosive attack on Sunday. No one was injured. And, as usual, no evidence was provided. Russia was not openly blamed by name, but the media reporting implicated Russian involvement. Moscow has previously denied accusations of carrying out hybrid war attacks on transport and communication infrastructure across Europe, including the use of drones to disrupt air traffic.
Questions arise about the latest railway incidents in Poland. The affected rail line was from Warsaw to Lublin, and onwards to Ukraine. Tusk described the rail link as “crucially important for aid to Ukraine.” Indeed, the rail line is a major vector for munitions flowing to Ukraine. If it is such a vital supply route for NATO military equipment to Ukraine, one wonders why the rail line was not better guarded.
The railway damage was reported by a train driver on Sunday morning, yet the government and security authorities did not act until Monday. The delay in response caused anger among Polish citizens who remonstrated with officials at public gatherings. Were the authorities deliberately being negligent in ensuring the rail line was made safe, to contrive an accident?
The BBC reported local people claiming that they heard a massive explosion whose impact could be felt several kilometers away. The strange thing is that the reported railway damage did not appear to be extensive. One would expect from such a powerful blast that whole sections of the rail would have been destroyed, making the line impassable. However, it was reported that several trains were able to traverse the damaged section on Monday before the authorities acted. The traversing trains incurred shattered windows. But if they were able to traverse, then the tracks could not have been blown apart.
We might reasonably speculate, therefore, that the explosion was not the actual cause of the relatively limited rail damage. Perhaps the blast was detonated to bring the public’s attention to a separate act of sabotage to derail the trains (without causing a calamitous loss of life). The purpose was to conflate the perception of explosion with railway sabotage. And as Tusk, Von der Leyen, and the media have all dutifully followed suit, the convenient upshot is to level accusations implicating Russian hybrid warfare.
Poland’s Army Chief of Staff, General Wieslaw Kukula, articulated the narrative as quoted by Euronews : “The adversary has started preparations for war. They are building a certain environment here to bring about an undermining of public confidence in the government and bodies such as the armed forces and the police… [creating] conditions that are convenient for the potential conduct of aggression on Polish territory.”
Week after week, European politicians, military, security, and bureaucratic chiefs are claiming with shrill rhetoric that Russia is preparing to attack member states imminently. Earlier this year, Poland’s Tusk even accused Russia of intending to blow up civilian cargo airplanes. How easy it is to plant incendiary devices to blame someone else and report “suspects” arrested without court cases. The European public is browbeaten into consenting to increased military budgets, air defenses, anti-drone walls, and tens of billions of Euros more to prop up the corrupt Kiev regime. All to “defend” Europe against an evil aggressor.
Moscow has repeatedly dismissed claims that it intends to attack European states. But the war propaganda continues relentlessly to project Russia as a drooling barbarian.
A cruel irony is that passenger trains have been sabotaged in Russia in recent months, with the loss of lives, acts which have been attributed to NATO and Ukrainian covert operations. The Western media hardly reports on those atrocities.
But an apparently contrived false-flag operation in Poland is given maximum Western media coverage with the choreographed narrative that Russia is the villain. As with the flurry of mysterious drones suddenly invading European airspaces.
The proposal for a European military Schengen is very much aimed at bringing rail networks across Europe under a seamless command to enable the rapid mass movement of NATO forces over national borders. No questions asked. Just do it.
A false-flag sabotage on Polish railways reinforces the messaging that Europe’s transport network has to be turned over for military logistical control.
The militarization of Europe and its “NATO-ization,” entails an unprecedented and mind-boggling shift in public money to military corporations, the financial elite, and their political puppets. The corruption in the Kiev regime is a microcosm of the bigger war racket that Europe has become. False flags to scare European citizens into passive acceptance of the rip-off are running like clockwork.
It used to be joked about Mussolini and Hitler that at least the old fascists made the trains run on time. The new fascists make the trains come off the rails on time.
In the shadowy world of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, few names inspire as much controversy as Otto Reich, a Jewish-Cuban exile whose career reads like a manual for regime change, complete with illegal propaganda operations, coup connections, and an unwavering commitment to toppling governments that defy Washington.
The story begins in Havana, where Otto Juan Reich was born on October 16, 1945, to an Austrian Jewish father who had fled National Socialist Germany in 1938 and a Cuban Catholic mother. His father’s escape from Germany became the foundational narrative of Reich’s worldview, a tale of authoritarian evil that he would later project onto Latin America’s leftist movements. Raised as a Catholic despite his Jewish heritage, young Otto attended the elite, American-run Ruston Academy, where he absorbed both Cuban culture and American influence in equal measure.
During Reich’s youth, Cuba was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whose political repression was so severe that even Reich’s own family, as he told The New Yorker, was “pro-revolution, anti-Batista.” The lone exception was his father, whose experience fleeing one authoritarian regime had made him suspicious of revolutionary movements. When Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, that suspicion proved prophetic—or so Reich would claim for the rest of his life. Castro’s consolidation of power prompted Reich’s father to flee once more, this time taking his family to North Carolina in 1960, when Otto was just 15 years old, as the New York Times reported.
His father’s double exile—first from Germany, then from revolutionary Cuba—became the crucible that forged the younger Reich’s political identity. Where some might see tragedy, Reich saw opportunity. Where others might advocate reconciliation, Reich would pursue confrontation. The teenage refugee would grow into one of Washington’s most zealous operators against Latin American leftism, a man for whom the line between communism and democracy admitted no gray areas, no nuance, no possibility of coexistence.
From the Military to the Foreign Policy Blob
Reich’s trajectory toward influence was methodical. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in International Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1966, then immediately joined the U.S. Army, serving three years as an officer in the 3rd Civil Affairs Detachment stationed in the Panama Canal Zone. This posting provided Reich with more than military experience; it offered a frontline view of U.S. power projection in Latin America, where American military presence wasn’t just about defense but about maintaining influence over an entire hemisphere.
After his military service, Reich completed a Master’s degree in Latin American Studies from Georgetown University in 1973, assembling the credentials that would make him indispensable to conservative policymakers seeking expertise on the region.
When Ronald Reagan swept into the White House in 1981, Reich found his moment. The Reagan administration needed operatives willing to prosecute an aggressive anti-communist agenda in Latin America, and Reich eagerly volunteered. From 1981 to 1983, he served as Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, managing American economic assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean during a period of revolutionary upheaval. But this posting was merely preparation for Reich’s true calling.
The Architect of the Contra Propaganda Machine
In 1983, Reich established and began directing the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, an anodyne name for what would become one of the most controversial operations in modern American foreign policy. The OPD’s official mission was to promote the Contra guerrillas fighting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. Its actual function, as would later be revealed, was to conduct what the Comptroller General characterized in 1987 as “prohibited, covert propaganda” to bolster the Contra’s image among the American public.
Under Reich’s management, the OPD became a factory for disinformation. The office planted false stories in U.S. media outlets, including unsubstantiated claims about the Nicaraguan government’s involvement in drug trafficking. It published opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers attributed to fictitious Nicaraguan rebel leaders. It coordinated with paid consultants who wrote pro-Contra articles while concealing their government connections—a practice congressional investigators would later identify as “white propaganda.”
Reich had effectively turned his office into a domestic propaganda operation aimed at manipulating American public opinion to support a covert war. A House Foreign Affairs Committee report didn’t mince words, characterizing the OPD as “a domestic political and propaganda operation.” For three years, Reich oversaw this machinery of deception, becoming what journalist Ann Bardach would later call the “chief spinner” of the Iran-Contra effort.
The scandal that eventually engulfed the Reagan administration would shut down Reich’s operation in 1987. Yet remarkably, Reich himself was not personally accused of illegal activity. He had operated in that gray zone where government officials claim plausible deniability—close enough to the crime to be indispensable, distant enough to avoid prosecution. It was a skill he would refine over decades.
The Lobbyist Years
When Reich left government service in 1989, following a stint as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela from 1986 to 1989, he didn’t abandon his mission. He simply changed his methodology. For 12 years, Reich worked as a corporate lobbyist, first as a partner in the Brock Group and later as president of his own firm, RMA International. But these weren’t ordinary lobbying gigs; Reich selected clients whose interests aligned perfectly with his ideological agenda.
He represented Bacardi rum company in a campaign to nullify Cuba’s trademark protection for “Havana Club,” an effort that succeeded with the enactment of the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which further fortified the Cuban embargo. He worked on behalf of Lockheed Martin to sell F-16 fighter jets to Chile. Where others saw business opportunities, Reich saw another front in his endless campaign to maintain American primacy in Latin America.
Return to Power
When George W. Bush captured the White House in 2001, Reich saw an opportunity to return to government service. Bush nominated him for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, but the appointment immediately sparked controversy. The Senate, wary of Reich’s Iran-Contra record and his advocacy for Orlando Bosch—a Cuban exile militant suspected of organizing the bombing of Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, which killed 73 people—refused to hold confirmation hearings.
Bush’s solution revealed the depths of Reich’s value to Republican hardliners: He simply bypassed the Senate through a recess appointment, allowing Reich to serve for one year without confirmation before being appointed as Special Envoy to Latin America. Democracy be damned; Reich’s expertise in destabilization was too valuable to sacrifice to Senate oversight.
The 2002 Venezuelan Coup
Reich’s tenure coincided with one of the most controversial episodes in recent Latin American history: the brief coup d’état in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, that temporarily removed President Hugo Chávez from power. During the coup, Reich communicated with coup leader Pedro Carmona Estanga and contacted ambassadors from other Latin American countries. Cuban sources would characterize Reich as the “mastermind of the April 2002 coup plot against Hugo Chávez,” though Reich has denied direct involvement in the coup planning.
The pattern was familiar: A left-leaning, democratically elected leader who defied Washington’s preferences; a sudden coup involving military and business elites; and Otto Reich in communication with the coup leaders. Whether Reich masterminded the operation or simply provided encouragement and diplomatic cover, his presence at the center of events spoke volumes about his role in Bush administration policy.
The Ideological Entrepreneur
After leaving government service in 2004, Reich established Otto Reich Associates, a Washington consulting firm providing international government relations advice. But he remained far more than a mere consultant. Reich positioned himself as an ideological entrepreneur, shaping policy from outside government through media appearances, congressional testimony, and advisory roles to Republican presidential candidates, including John McCain in 2008 and Jeb Bush in 2016.
During Donald Trump’s first term, Reich played a significant behind-the-scenes role in shaping Latin American policy. In August 2018, he was credited with recommending Mauricio Claver-Carone to National Security Advisor John Bolton for the position of top official for Latin America policy at the National Security Council. Bolton later acknowledged: “I wouldn’t have known [Claver-Carone’s] name if Otto hadn’t recommended him. I trusted Otto’s judgment.”
Reich praised the appointment of Cuban-American hawks to key Trump administration positions, stating: “We have people who understand the cause, and not just the symptoms, of the problems in Latin America—not all the problems—and that is Cuba.” He argued that “the United States has been a fire brigade in Latin America for the last 60 years and we have ignored, to a large degree, the arsonist,” referring to Cuba’s role in supporting leftist movements throughout the region.
The Unending Campaign to Preserve U.S. Hegemony
Reich’s crusade against Latin American leftism never wavered, never softened. He characterized Venezuela as a “branch” and “subsidiary” of Cuba, accusing President Chávez of “having put a lot of his country’s money at the service of Fidel Castro” and “giving away” petroleum to the Caribbean island. This close alliance, Reich claimed, fueled what he called the “disgusting and gloomy process of Cubanization” unfolding in the petroleum-rich nation.
Then-Vice President José Vicente Rangel defended Venezuela’s sovereignty in July 2005, claiming that Reich “permanently attacks the Venezuelan government, because all of the petroleum business that [the US] has with Venezuela frustrates him.” Rangel rhetorically asked Reich to clarify “exactly which process of Cubanization is he talking about,” arguing that “the true Cubanization of Venezuela occurred years ago with the infiltration of anti-Castro Cubans into Venezuela’s police bodies.”
In a February 2015 panel discussion at the University of Miami titled “Venezuela: A Deepening Political and Economic Quagmire?”, Reich compared the Venezuelan government to National Socialist Germany, stating that officials there could claim they were “simply obeying the laws of the land” just as German officials did, warning “we have to be careful what the laws of the land are.” The comparison was as hyperbolic as it was revealing—for Reich, every leftist government in Latin America was potentially the next Third Reich.
By January 2024, Reich’s criticism had intensified following the Biden administration’s temporary sanctions relief on Venezuela. In an interview with PanAm Post, Reich declared that Biden’s policy toward Venezuela “has been a failure since the beginning of his administration” and characterized it as “not just a failure but a humiliation.” He warned that “not only the ideological pressure groups of the left but now also the commercial groups, the American oil companies that are doing business with Maduro, are going to put pressure on the Biden government not to restore the sanctions.”
Expanding the Enemy List
For Reich, the list of adversaries extended far beyond Cuba and Venezuela. He grouped Nicaragua and Bolivia together with Venezuela and Cuba as what he called “21st Century Socialist States,” arguing they represented a coordinated Cuban-Venezuelan effort to undermine democracy throughout Latin America. In March 2014 testimony before Congress titled “U.S. Disengagement from Latin America,” Reich warned that these governments constituted “organized crime states” where “top politicians and high-ranking military officers have been implicated in drug trafficking, support of terrorism and other illicit activities.”
Reich’s recent writings reveal an expansion of his ideological enemies to include Middle Eastern actors. In a November 2023 article for the Jewish Policy Center, Reich argued that “for more than one year, Iran secretly provided the weapons and training that Hamas needed for planning the October 7th attack against Israel.” He specifically accused Cuba of being “a key Iran-Hamas ally” in diplomatic efforts supporting the Palestinian militant organization.
Reich documented three high-level meetings that he claimed demonstrated Cuba’s complicity in the attack: a February 5, 2023 visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian to meet with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel; a February 25, 2023 Hamas delegation visit to Jorge León Cruz, the Cuban Ambassador in Lebanon, where Cruz recognized “the legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend their land,” stating that Palestinians “are fighting for a just cause”; and a June 15, 2023 meeting between Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Díaz-Canel in Havana.
Reich asserted that these meetings, coupled with Cuba’s “long history of both antisemitism and support of extremist terrorist organizations in the Middle East,” proved that Cuba operated “terrorist training camps in secret locations” and allowed Hezbollah to establish “an operational base in Cuba, designed to support terrorist attacks throughout Latin America.”
Regime Change Villain
Throughout his career, Reich’s targets have consistently accused him of the very interference he claims to oppose. The Cuban government has consistently accused Reich of supporting terrorism and interfering in Cuban affairs. In 2002, Cuba’s Foreign Relations Ministry categorically denied Reich’s claims that four Cuban airplanes landed at Venezuela’s airport during the 2002 coup attempt, calling Reich’s assertion “an absolute lie.” The ministry stated that “if it had been necessary to land a Cuban civilian airplane to collect Cuban diplomatic personnel who were besieged by Mr. Reich’s friends, or for any other humanitarian and peaceful objective, we would have done it and we would have no reason to hide it.”
During a diplomatic visit to South America in July 2002, Reich drew criticism for instructing the Argentine government to commit to an austerity program demanded by the International Monetary Fund–one of the most notable vehicles of Judeo-American power. His aggressive approach to diplomacy was so abrasive that Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, reported getting first-hand experience of Latin American hostility toward Reich during travels in the region. The term “hemispheric security mechanism” that Reich promoted stirred “unpleasant interventionist memories” throughout Latin America, according to a report by Toby Eglund.
Venezuelan officials have been particularly vocal about Reich’s skullduggery, even in the Obama era. In March 2013, Venezuela’s then-interim president Nicolás Maduro accused “factors in the Pentagon and the CIA” of conspiring against Venezuela, specifically naming Reich and Roger Noriega, who directly succeeded Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Maduro stated: “We want to say to President Barack Obama, stop this madness,” claiming to have “testimonies and direct, first-hand information” about U.S. plots. Both Reich and Noriega rejected the claims of orchestrating a plot to assassinate Maduro’s rival Henrique Capriles as “untrue, outrageous and defamatory.”
In September 2013, Maduro cancelled his planned trip to speak at the United Nations, citing “serious provocations that could threaten his life.” He specifically accused “the clan, the mafia of Roger Noriega and Otto Reich” of conspiring against him, stating that “the US government knows exactly that these people were behind a dangerous activity being plotted in New York.”
A Legacy of Fire-Starting
In January 2018 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Reich called President Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba “a foreign policy failure.” He argued that it “consisted of a series of unrequited unilateral concessions to the Castro regime that had negative consequences for US national security, foreign policy interests and traditional values, and which brought increased repression to the Cuban people while filling the coffers of the Cuban military, the Communist Party, and the Castro family.”
Reich emphasized that “unlike previous, successful American initiatives, Obama’s rapprochement with the Castro dictatorship identified the US with a nation’s oppressor instead of the oppressed.” This framing revealed his consistent position: U.S. policy should align with opposition movements rather than incumbent leftist governments—in other words, perpetual regime change over diplomatic engagement.
In March 2023, following the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, Reich called for scrutiny of Cuba’s support for Russia’s “criminal and illegal war.” He stated that “the Cuban government has been actively using its diplomatic and propaganda services to support the illegal and criminal invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia,” while “Cuban strongman Raúl Castro, his hand-picked president Miguel Diaz-Canel, and the rest of the ruling class, are profiting from Putin’s criminal war of aggression by receiving deliveries of Russian contraband oil, and wheat stolen from Ukraine.”
As of 2025, Reich continues his work through Otto Reich Associates and serves on the Advisory Board of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization dedicated to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
As Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela intensifies, observers should recognize that this escalation did not materialize out of nowhere. They are the predictable outcome of decades of work by regime change specialists such as Otto Reich, figures who helped design a long-term interventionist blueprint for Latin America. Today, that blueprint is being dutifully executed by hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a close ally of Reich and a committed interventionist in his own right.
Just as Reich’s kinfolk in Israel labor tirelessly to secure regional supremacy for the Jewish state, Reich has devoted his career to making the Western Hemisphere safe for world Jewry by safeguarding Washington’s full-spectrum dominance in Latin America.
In this transnational criminal enterprise, the roles are clearly defined. And Reich’s role is to ensure that Empire Judaica’s strategic footholds in Latin America remain firmly intact.
“Busification” is a well-understood term in Ukraine and refers to the process in which young men are detained against their will, often involving a violent struggle, and bundled into a vehicle — often a minibus — for onward transit to an army recruitment center.
Until recently, Ukraine’s army recruiters picked easy targets. Yet, on October 26, the British Sun newspaper’s defense editor, Jerome Starkey, wrote a harrowing report about a recent trip to the front line in Ukraine, during which he claimed his Ukrainian colleague was “forcibly press-ganged into his country’s armed services.”
This case was striking for two reasons; first, that the forced mobilization of troops is rarely reported by Western mainstream media outlets. And second, that unlike most forced conscriptions, this event took place following the alleged commandeering of the Western journalists’ vehicle by three armed men, who insisted they drive to a recruitment center.
There, Starkey reported, “I saw at least [a] dozen glum men — mostly in their 40s and 50s — clutching sheafs of papers. They were called in and out of side rooms for rubber-stamp medicals to prove they were fit to fight.”
The process has drawn criticism after high-profile incidents where men have died even before they donned military uniforms. On October 23, Ukrainian Roman Sopin died from heavy blunt trauma to the head after he had been forcibly recruited. Ukrainian authorities claim that he fell, but his family is taking legal action. In August, a conscripted man, 36, died suddenly at a recruitment center in Rivne, although the authorities claim he died of natural causes. In June, 45-year-old Ukrainian-Hungarian Jozsef Sebestyen died after he was beaten with iron bars following his forced conscription; the Ukrainian military denies this version of events. In August, a conscript died from injuries sustained after he jumped out of a moving vehicle that was transporting him to the recruitment center.
Look online and you’ll find a trove of thousands of incidents, with most of them filmed this year alone. You can find videos of a recruitment officer chasing a man and shooting at him, a man being choked to death on the street with a recruiter’s knee on his neck. Many include family members or friends fighting desperately to prevent their loved one being taken against his will.
If videos of this nature, on this systemic scale, were shared in the United States or the United Kingdom, I believe that members of the public would express serious concerns. Yet the Western media remains largely silent, and I find it difficult to understand why.
In November 2024, Ukraine’s defense minister Rustem Umerov claimed that he would put an end to busification. It is true that Ukraine has been taking steps to modernize its army recruitment and make enlistment more appealing to men under the age of 25. Yet, there is little evidence that those efforts are having the desired effect. And after a year, busification only appears to be getting worse, yet remains widely ignored by the Western press.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War often reports on Russian force mobilization efforts but not on the dark and desperate aspects that lead to busification. You won’t find reports on this in the New York Times, as it conflicts with the narrative that with support from the West, Ukraine can turn the war around. It leans in instead on stories like Ukraine’s points for drone-kills game or the designer who cut the all-black suit that Zelensky now wears. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is softly banging the drum to recruit 18-year-old Ukrainians, despite this being a toxic political issue in Ukraine.
This is because busification is the tip of the iceberg. If the Ukrainians are finding it difficult to encourage young men to join the army voluntarily, then it is proving even harder to make them stay without deserting.
In January 2025, it was reported that around 1,700 troops of the Anna of Kyiv 155th mechanized brigade, trained in France and equipped with French self-propelled howitzers, had gone AWOL — 50 of them while still in France. In June 2024, a Ukrainian deserter was shot dead by a border guard while trying to cross into Moldova.
In the first half of 2025, over 110,000 desertion cases were reported in Ukraine. In 2024, Ukrainian prosecutors initiated over 89,000 proceedings related to desertion and unauthorized abandonment of units, a figure three-and-a-half times greater than in 2023. More than 20% of Ukraine’s one million-strong army have jumped the fence in the past four years, and the numbers are rising all the time.
Desertions appear in part driven by ever-greater shortages of infantry troops at the front line, which means soldiers rarely get rest and recuperation breaks. A lack of sufficient equipment is often blamed. And of course, the widespread and rising desertion rates from Ukraine’s armed forces only seem to provoke more violent recruitment practices and then civilian protests. On October 30 in Odessa, a group of demonstrators against a man’s forced detention overturned the recruitment minibus.
The growth of busification and rising desertions also track with a growth in support among ordinary Ukrainians for the war to end. Support for a negotiated end to the war has risen from 27% in 2023 to 69% in 2025. Likewise, support for Ukraine to “keep fighting until it wins the war” — a wholly deluded proposition — has dropped from 63% to 24% over the same period, according to Gallup poll results.
President Zelensky often claims that Ukraine’s military predicament is linked to a lack of guns, not a lack of people. Hoping to secure Western support to fight on for another 2-3 years, he’s quiet on whether he will have the troops or the political support to do so. For now, the message seems to be, “Don’t mention the press-gangs, in-detention killings, deserters and waning public support: just give me more money.”
A recent article in The Guardian, “Change course now: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head,” claims that the planet is in grave danger of passing climate “tipping points,” as it is now inevitable that 1.5°C warming will be breached. Although 1.5℃ of warming may be locked in if not already surpassed, the claim that it signifies a dangerous milestone is false. Not only is the tipping points narrative bunk, but there is no evidence that 1.5°C warming is any particular threat. The purported temperature threshhold was chosen arbitrarily and for political reasons rather than scientific ones.
The Guardian’s story focuses on comments made by United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who in advance of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, warned that it is “inevitable” that 1.5°C of warming will be breached, and it will result in “devastating consequences” for the planet. The Guardian says Guterres “urged the leaders who will gather in the Brazilian rainforest city of Belém to realize that the longer they delay cutting emissions, the greater the danger of passing catastrophic “tipping points” in the Amazon, the Arctic, and the oceans.”
There is no scientific basis for any so-called tipping points, and claiming otherwise is just fearmongering for political gain.
Beginning with the Amazon rainforest, the location of the next climate summit in November, Guterres reportedly warned that it could become a “savannah,” or a dry grassland. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. Like Guterres’ previous “boiling oceans” comment, it is purely fanciful hyperbole lacking any basis in fact. Guterres is referencing a period of drought suffered by parts of the Amazon basin in recent years, but that drought has not been historically unusual, and the recent localized areas of drought have not been more severe than previous drought periods. As discussed in the Climate Realism post “Media Outlets Continue Spreading False Amazon “Record Drought” Claims,” the Amazon has experienced periods of heavy rain and extended drought in the past that were worse than those we see now. Historic records do not show any worsening of drought in the Amazon. The threat that impacts tree cover is deforestation and clear cutting, not climate change.
The Arctic is also not approaching any dangerous tipping point. Should warming continue, ice extent will likely shrink, but it has not been happening at nearly as fast a rate as alarmists claim. Arctic sea ice extent has been stable since about 2010, indicating a new ice extent regime, and there is no telling how long that will last. If the past is any guide, sea ice might begin expanding again, as it has waxed and waned historically.
Finally, the ocean tipping point Guterres is referring to is the claim that coral reefs will die out as a result of ocean pH changes and higher temperatures, but again, science and paleo-history shows that corals are resilient to changes that are much more extreme than the modest warming of recent decades. As discussed repeatedly at Climate Realism, the world’s oceans are not at risk of becoming acidic and coral reefs are expanding their range and setting records for growth.
It is true that the “1.5°C threshold” is likely to be passed. But that does not mean anything, certainly nothing catastrophic. The 1.5°C warming limit was already passed in 2024 because of the El Niño conditions—with no cataclysm. This should not be of concern to anyone, because that limit is not a scientifically established value. The Guardian fearmongered about it in the past, which Climate Realism addressed here, and seems to have learned nothing. The 1.5°C number was arbitrary; established by an 11 member German political advisory board containing only one meteorologist. It is not a hard scientific threshold the way the boiling point of water is, though alarmists inappropriately treat it that way.
Guterres’ comments are not based on science, data, or even history. He is simply attempting to worry the public, with The Guardian’s complicity, in order to gain political leverage for negotiations at COP 30 even as a growing number of countries are downplaying climate concerns in the realistic assessment that other issues are more pressing and fossil fuels, for now, remain vital to prosperity.
While western commentators ease their audience into a new reality – the eastern strategic town of Pokrovsk is about to fall into Russian hands – it’s interesting to see how they carefully backpedal and twist every morsel of information. It’s as though all of the information that was prepared and delivered to them is so out of touch with reality, that all is left now is to downplay the imminent Russian victory as hollow and meaningless.
It’s certainly true that a victory for Russian forces now in Pokrovsk is less strategic than it was a few months ago, but to write it off as insignificant is just one more lie that western media and commentators are guilty of delivering.
The analysis and reporting about Pokrovsk has to be deciphered, but when British journalists like Sam Kiley, who are there on the ground, talk about the victory cry from pro-Russian media as being “premature” it’s worth noting that nearly all such journalists have crossed the line of journalism for the preferred role of commentator. Kiley’s piece in the Independent is so peppered with the conditional tense that it has little or no credibility. And like all British hacks, he is cleverly removing the sweet taste of victory out of Putin’s mouth by going into the zone of spouting irrefutable so called “facts” which are naturally impossible to disprove. The main one, which gives you an indication that he also believes Pokrovsk is close to falling, is that he mentions that the gains the Russians made came through so many dead soldiers. This ol’ chestnut is repeated over and over again as British readers like to believe it’s true. Is it true? Has Russia lost a disproportionate number of soldiers on the battlefield? We will never know, so how in God’s name does Kiley?
Irrefutable claims, written as fact, are part and parcel of British reporting on the Ukraine war. Kiley might be comforted by the sensationally bad Times Radio which takes this dark art to a new level. Philip Ingram’s podcast with his friend former British Army Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a shining example of what one ex-spook and one former colonel in the British army can do with MOD disinformation. Their podcast is so bad and bigoted, it leaves you wondering whether to laugh or cry as they both start off with the absurd argument that most of the reporting from Pokrovsk is Russian social media channels which exaggerate the scale of Russian gains and so, according to the hapless Bretton-Gordon, shouldn’t be taken seriously – before he blathers that if Russia were to take the town, it would take four years for them to do it.
He then goes on to conclude that not much is happening on the ground and that things are “opaque”. Ingram then chimes in to tone down the significance of the town, when it falls, but claims that the Ukrainians have had a success there, given what they both agree are causalities on the Russian side of a 1000 losses a day. Yet both of these numpties are reading from MOD/Mi6 data which only underlines the point that disinformation even for ex-soldiers having a go at podcasts is alive and well. While it is disturbing that Bretton-Gordon is so reliant on such data it is also off putting that he can’t even pronounce the name of the town itself correctly. Where does Times Radio find such amateurs?
For American media, even those who support Biden, the defeat of Pokrovsk is nigh and the narrative they offer contradicts the two podcasters outright. Perhaps if Times Radio Laurel and Hardy act were to actually do the legwork and interview people who are on the ground, even if it’s only the Ukrainians, their banta might have a slither of credibility about it and not leave the viewer cringing at how awful it is.
“The situation is difficult, with all types of fighting going on, firefights in urban areas, and shelling with all types of weapons,” one battalion commander told CNN, speaking on the condition of anonymity for security reasons.
“We are almost surrounded, but we are used to it,” he said. Another soldier, who also asked for his name to be withheld for safety reasons, told CNN the Russian military continues to press forward with large numbers of men.
“The intensity of their movements is so great that (Ukrainian) drone operators simply cannot keep up with the pace. The Russians often move in groups of three, counting on the fact that two will be destroyed, but one will still reach the city and gain a foothold there. About a hundred such groups can pass through in a day,” a soldier from the Ukrainian Peaky Blinders drone unit told CNN.
And so, the reporting on the British side lacks all credibility. And like all bad journalists, or pseudo journalists, the Times Radio also like to practice the deft art of omission. How did it simply pass these two that there are plenty of Ukrainian soldiers who will tell them that their MI6 taking points are BS and that it’s a shitstorm in Pokrovsk with Ukrainian losses also high? Would that not have scored them the propaganda points they crave?
In the UK, the reporting about Ukraine is so biased and manipulated by MI6/MOD disinfo that it is practically a Hollywood movie which the press is asking a gullible public to believe. Could this possibly be responsible for broad support for the war? Is a disinformation campaign actually driving the political dynamic, just as it did so many times before, not dissimilar to how many people in 2003 were happy that Tony Blair sent troops to Iraq, based on similar reports?
There is much of significance happening in Ukraine right now that is being reported either lightly or not at all by the mainstream Western media in an apparent attempt to harmonize their reporting with Kiev’s narrative in order to keep hopes high and economic and military support flowing.
Though the mainstream media has begun to report on the Russian encirclement of the Donetsk city of Pokrovsk, it is failing to report on how dire and how ominous the situation is. The reporting suggests that the battlefield situation is being stabilized, that the Russian losses are enormous, and that the loss of Pokrovsk would be strategically insignificant. None of those claims are true.
Russia’s chief of staff, General Valery Gerasimov, reported to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Russian armed forces are “advancing along converging axes” and “have completed the encirclement of the enemy” in Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.” His Ukrainian counterpart, Oleksandr Syrskii, said the report does “not correspond to reality.” Ukrainian officials “insist,” The New York Timesreports, “that special units are clearing Russians out of the city.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky boasted that “in Pokrovsk, we continue to destroy the occupier.”
Though the Ukrainian armed forces may have temporarily pushed the Russian forces partially back, the Russian forces have retaken a large part of Pokrovsk and now control about 80% of it. The pincers that are steadily closing around Pokrovsk are now just a kilometer apart, a gap that is difficult and dangerous for Ukraine’s best paratroopers to escape through. Though Ukraine continues to deny the encroaching encirclement, admitting only that the situation is “difficult,” the narrative won’t change the reality on the battlefield. Ukraine’s Euromaidan Presssays that Pokrovsk now “risks becoming a graveyard for Ukraine’s finest.” The Kyiv Independentassesses that “saving the city from falling in the short term looks to be a daunting, and likely impossible task.”
The Western media also reports that Russia’s gains are coming at a greater loss. The Times reports that “Russia’s incremental advances have come at an immense cost. While Ukraine wants to hold on to Pokrovsk, military commanders argue that the large losses it is inflicting on the Kremlin’s troops there will hurt the Russian war effort more broadly.”
But the Times exaggerates Russia’s losses in the war more broadly by at least three times and shrinks Ukraine’s losses by the same amount. As far as Pokrovsk goes, analysts have noted that the attrition of Ukraine’s forces in the war have led to a situation in Pokrovsk where Russia’s forces are taking the fortified city without huge losses in troops or equipment.
And, according to the Times, “the military significance of losing Pokrovsk may be relatively small for Ukraine.” But the loss of Pokrovsk means not only the loss of a critical strategic hub for supplying Ukrainian forces in the east, but also the possible loss of control of Ukraine’s defensive line of linked fortification in Donetsk.
Perhaps even more lacking in Western reporting of the battlefield is that a number of military analysts have pointed out that singular focus on Pokrovsk misses the larger picture that that the Russian armed forces have entered or partially encircled several cities in Donetsk, threatening a larger encirclement of the area, and that for the first year in the war, the Ukrainian armed forces have been unable to launch any kind of offensive in 2025. Those two battlefield realities combine to create a larger context that is more ominous still. It suggests that Russia’s war of attrition has depleted Ukrainian troops to the point that they are no longer able to attack Russia or to defend themselves.
Ukraine’s desperate situation on the battlefield has led to two more underreported events. The first was the simultaneous explosions at oil refineries in Hungary and Romania. The fact that both refineries process Russian crude oil and that Ukraine and Europe seem to have shifted their strategy from defeating Russia on the battlefield to cutting off Russia’s oil revenue to drive them to the negotiating table, have led to speculation that Ukraine was behind the two acts of sabotage.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said recently that the explosion at Hungary’s oil refinery could have been caused by an “external attack.” The external actor is unlikely to be Russia. They lack the motivation to sabotage their own customers at a time when U.S. sanctions are attempting to strangle its exports of oil. That seems to leave, as a consensus among analysts suggests, Ukraine or its partners. Ukraine has offered no comment on the explosions, and the silence of the Western media adds to the suspicion. It is alarming that the mainstream media has not a word to say about seemingly coordinated attacks on two European countries that could have enormous consequences in the post Ukraine war world.
Ukraine’s desperation has also led to an underreported crisis at home. Ukraine is losing troops, not only to Russian attacks on the battlefield, but to desertion. As part of the solution, Ukraine has turned to forced mobilization in which men are abducted, often aggressively, against their will and bussed off to recruitment centers. From there, they find themselves on the battlefield with very little training.
Once on the front, troops have deserted in the thousands. Though little reported in the mainstream media, in the first months of 2025 alone, more than 110,000 Ukrainian soldiers deserted. As many as 20% of Ukraine’s armed forces have deserted. Since the war began, the number of desertions may be as high as 200,000, and it is getting worse by the month.
The Western media seems to be complicit in harmonizing with Kiev’s misleading message in order to keep Western morale up and Western arms flowing. But, though the narrative may be strong enough to mislead a public that trusts its newspapers, it will not be strong enough to alter reality. Ukraine is turning to more desperate measures in an attempt to address a dire situation on the battlefield in which they no longer have the manpower to go on the offensive nor to defend themselves and in which troops are deserting as fast as they are being killed.
On Monday, November 3, a group of Israeli soldiers stood outside the Supreme Court in West Jerusalem wearing black masks. They weren’t there to apologize; they were there to defend themselves.
The soldiers, accused of torturing and raping a Palestinian detainee at the notorious Sde Teiman prison, demanded “gratitude” for their actions.
“Instead of appreciation, we received accusations,” one said defiantly. Israeli media covered the scene while Western outlets mostly ignored it.
The same soldiers are part of a criminal case that Israeli prosecutors reluctantly opened in 2024 after video evidence surfaced showing Palestinian detainees stripped, beaten, and sexually assaulted at Sde Teiman.
One Palestinian man was hospitalized with seven broken ribs and a rectal tear, injuries consistent with violent sexual abuse.
The Times of Israelreported the indictment of five reservists for “severe abuse,” while other sources cited evidence of sodomy inside the facility.
Yet, in Western coverage, the word rape almost never appeared. Headlines spoke of “abuse” or “mistreatment,” as though sexual torture were a matter of workplace misconduct.
Contrast this silence with the wall-to-wall coverage of October 7, when Israel accused Hamas fighters of “mass rape.” Those claims, still unproven, became the moral foundation of Israel’s campaign of annihilation in Gaza.
In his latest interview with American journalist Candace Owens, political scientist Norman Finkelstein called the Israeli allegations “genocidal atrocity propaganda.”
After examining more than 5,000 photographs and fifty hours of footage from that day, Finkelstein said he found “not a single shred of evidence of even one rape.” Yet those unverified stories, repeated endlessly by Western outlets, were enough to cast an entire population as subhuman and to legitimize the killing of more than 68,000 Palestinians.
In December 2023, the New York Times published a sprawling investigation titled “Screams Without Words: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”
The article claimed Hamas fighters had systematically raped Israeli women during the attack. Its pages were filled with graphic descriptions and lurid imagery. The story relied on anonymous witnesses, unverified videos, and second-hand testimony, yet it was presented as conclusive evidence of mass rape.
Within days, it shaped international discourse. Then US President Joe Biden, European leaders, and prominent feminists invoked the Times’ story to condemn Hamas and morally justify Israel’s “retaliation”.
But when journalists and scholars began checking the evidence, the story fell apart. Forensic experts found no physical proof of rape. Several of the supposed witnesses cited by the Times contradicted one another or were later discredited.
In April 2024, more than 50 journalism professors sent a public letter demanding an independent review of the article’s sourcing and editorial process. The Washington Postreported internal dissent within the Times newsroom itself, where reporters said the piece had been “rushed” to meet political expectations.
Meanwhile, the Sde Teiman scandal, an Israeli atrocity supported by video evidence, medical reports, and judicial proceedings, has never received a fraction of the attention that the Times story did. This imbalance is not merely linguistic. It is structural, reflecting the hierarchy of human worth built into Western coverage of the war.
This is how “atrocity propaganda” works. It does not require lies to function, only selective truth. By repeating unverified claims of Hamas rape while downplaying verified Israeli sexual crimes, Western media transformed journalism into a weapon of war.
Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.
Multiple mainstream media outlets published stories this week uncritically publicizing the claims of a climate change interest group, Climate Central (CC). According to CC, climate change has caused higher weather disaster costs in the United States this year than ever in history – or at least since 1980, which is as far as the records CC uses go back. These claims are false. While the costs of extreme weather events and wildfires were high in early 2025, there are no trends that indicate climate change is responsible. Rather, higher populations, increased development in disaster prone areas, poor water management, and human evil in the form of arson, were the cause of the abnormally high disaster costs.
The tenor of The Guardian, NBC, and other outlets covering CC’s disaster cost report was nearly universal. Climate change resulted in worse weather disasters and higher costs in early 2025 than ever before, a fact that would have been missed absent CC’s work since President Donald Trump cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program, which has previously monitored such costs.
Per The Guardian :
The first half of 2025 was the costliest on record for major disasters in the US, driven by huge wildfires in Los Angeles and storms that battered much of the rest of the country, according to a climate non-profit that has resurrected work axed by Donald Trump’s administration that tracked the biggest disasters.
In the first six months of this year, 14 separate weather-related disasters that each caused at least $1bn in damage hit the US, the Climate Central group has calculated. In total, these events cost $101bn in damages – lost homes, businesses, highways and other infrastructure – a toll higher than any other first half of a year since records on this began in 1980.
As NBC News wrote:
The first half of this year was the costliest ever recorded for weather and climate disasters in the United States, according to an analysis published Wednesday by the nonprofit organization Climate Central.
It is information that the public might never have learned: This spring, the Trump administration cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program that had tracked weather events that caused at least $1 billion in damage. The researcher who led that work, Adam Smith, left NOAA over the decision.
To be clear, Climate Central is not an objective authority on the causes and consequences of climate change, or a neutral party regarding proposed solutions. Rather, it was created and exists solely to produce and promote material blaming human activities for causing climate change resulting in catastrophic consequences that threaten human life, and to promote government enforced solutions that limit fossil fuel use.
Leaving aside the motives of the organization that produced the report, the news coverage of the report was inaccurate from the start. The stories ignore the history of natural disasters in the regions that have been impacted this year, the demographic changes that have resulted in the higher costs, and, most importantly, the lack of any long-term discernable changes in weather patterns and the incidences and severity of extreme weather events for the areas affected.
Looking at where the disasters occurred in the first half of this year, from CC’s own tracking we find the weather events were tornadoes that occurred during typical tornado season stretching from Texas through the plains to the upper mid-west. This area of the country is commonly referred to as “tornado alley” because such events are so common there during the spring and early summer. So, nothing unusual there. What critically undermines the CC report and the media’s suggestion that the rising cost of tornadoes is due to climate change is the fact, as explored in Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example, that neither the number, frequency, nor severity of tornadoes has increased as the Earth has slightly warmed.
Other events include flooding in areas of the country historically known for spring flooding as a result of snowmelt and severe spring snowstorms – many of the areas are popular riverfront towns or communities. Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked media claims that flooding is getting worse – data show it isn’t. If flooding is not becoming more frequent or severe, climate change can’t be causing higher costs related to flooding.
Finally, more than 60 percent of the $101 billion disaster costs that CC says resulted from climate change altered weather events are attributable to just a single event: the January 2025 wildfires that decimated a large swath of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles fires were horrific, of a kind not experienced there in recent history, but not unusual historically. The huge damage was a result of a combination of factors, good seasonal rainfall in recent years creating lush natural growth combined with and regular lawn and tree watering in wealthy enclaves, followed by a severe drought, creating conditions for a wildfire, and strong Santa Anna winds to drive a fire quickly across the landscape once started (once again a natural feature of the area). With these conditions, all that was needed was a spark, which a perverse arsonist provided. Once the fire started, winds drove it quickly across a tinder dry landscape and firefighters found a shortage of water in reservoirs as a result of political decisions made by the state government.
Los Angeles is not warmer than is was in the 1950s and precipitation has actually increased slightly in the region since 1895. Despite climate alarmists and advantage seeking, virtue signaling Democratic politicians attempting to blame climate change for the fire and its severity, the evidence indicates it had nothing to do with it.
If climate conditions haven’t change appreciably across the United States, in the sense that the more extreme weather patterns are emerging, the question is, why have costs related to weather disasters gone up so much in nominal dollars? Keep in mind that in inflation adjusted dollars as a percentage of GDP, the costs of natural disasters have fallen over time. (see the figure, below)
As should be obvious to any honest observer exercising the least bit of common sense, the reason for rising disaster costs is clear, the expanding bullseye effect. As Climate Realism has explored in dozens of articles previously, with more people moving into ecologically/climatically desirable locations, locations prone to natural disasters, erecting more homes, businesses, and related structures and infrastructure, property has gone up dramatically in value overtime. When a disaster like a wildfire (in this case an arson started wildfire) strikes, more people and property is impacted and related costs are higher. Climate Realism discussed this very point in articles linked, here, here, and here, to take but a few examples. Quite simply, when a hurricane hits Miami or Galveston now, there are more buildings and structures to destroy at those locations than there was 100 years ago.
One can acknowledge that CC is right, natural disasters are imposing higher costs in nominal dollars now than they did in the past, without jumping to the completely unfounded claim that climate change is the cause. Legitimate journalists and honest news outlets, as NBC News and The Guardian purport to be, should check their facts before parroting the false rantings of a climate lobbing group as the truth. Misleading, false alarm stories like these are perhaps why trust in the media is low and falling.
It’s that time of the great proxy war crusade against Russia again. Someone in the mainstream West has woken up to, if not the facts about the politics of Ukraine, then at least a quantum of disquiet.
The last major wave of the likes of the Financial Times, The Economist, and the Spectator suddenly noticing – all at the same time, as if on cue – that Ukraine has an authoritarianism and corruption problem (and then some) took place less than half a year ago.
Now it’s Politico – usually a steadfast party organ of Russophobia, Zionism-come-what-genocide-may, and servility to NATO – that feels vaguely troubled by the realities of the Kiev regime or, as the publication puts it, the “dark side” of Vladimir “I don’t like elections” Zelensky’s rule.
Not all of those realities, of course. That would be asking too much. Instead, Politico is homing in on one great scandal (out of countless ones) concerning one man and the anguish of a few “civil-society”-NGO types, both with good connections to the West. This time, the scandal concerns the obvious, shameless political prosecution of Vladimir Kudritsky, formerly a high-ranking and effective energy infrastructure executive and de facto civil servant.
Yet what about noticing the murder in Ukrainian detention of critical blogger – and US citizen – Gonzalo Lira? Or the vicious persecution of leftist war critic Bogdan Syrotiuk? Or the mean, indecent harassing of Christian clergy and believers for not saying their prayers in quite the right Ukrainian-nationalist-approved manner? Perish the thought!
In a similar spirit of extreme selectiveness, some Western outlets are now registering – a little and very slowly – the brutal realities of Ukrainian forced mobilization that feed the Western proxy war: Recently, a war – pardon, “defense” – editor of the ultra-gung-ho British tabloid The Sun has returned shell-shocked from NATO’s de facto eastern front, not because of the bloody and wasteful fighting but because the uncouth Ukrainians press-ganged his fixer.
In a similarly traumatic experience, Hollywood’s Angelina Jolie had her local driver snatched away at a Ukrainian military roadblock. Yet violent forced mobilization has been an everyday occurrence in Ukraine for years already. So much so that Ukrainians have chosen the term “busification” (from minibus, a popular vehicle for mobilization manhunts) as word of the year for 2025.
For quite a few of its victims, it ends up even worse than for those privileged enough to work for Western movie stars and British propagandists. Roman Sopin, for instance, who did not even resist, has just been beaten to death in a mobilization precinct in central Kiev, as an official medical assessment of his cause of death implies as clearly as anyone may dare under Zelensky’s regime.
But let’s get back to the few things Western media deign to notice occasionally: Already dismissed last year, Kudritsky is now facing the courts under transparently trumped-up charges. The reason is obvious to everyone. He has been too popular and far too vocal about corruption at the highest levels and the authoritarian power grabs of Zelensky’s presidential office in particular.
Kudritsky’s case – comparatively harmless, really – does raise many disturbing questions: why is it that the Zelensky regime has such a nasty record of abusing arbitrary financial sanctions and politically perverted legal processes, or lawfare? And haven’t we been told that this regime under its “Churchillian” leader is fighting for Western values of democracy and legality?
Are Zelensky, his sinister fixer-in-chief Andrey Yermak and their team preparing the ground for elections after a possible end of the war – that is, after losing it – by preemptively crippling domestic critics and rivals? Does this mean Zelensky, Ukraine’s most catastrophic leader since independence in 1991 (and that’s a high bar) is seriously considering not slinking away into exile but imposing himself even longer on his unfortunate country?
Or is all of this part of decimating whatever is left of Ukraine’s mangled society to continue the meatgrinder war for as long as the NATO-EU Europeans are willing to pay? If things go the way the bloodthirsty fantasists at The Economist want, then the West will shell out another cool $390 billion over the next four years. Apparently, they believe that waves of forced conscription in Ukraine will provide the human cannon fodder to go along with the Western funding.
Yet if Zelensky’s fresh authoritarian moves are really aiming at preparing for a postwar election next year, then that is a terrible sign, too. It would indicate not only that he is planning to damage Ukraine even further by his presence, but also that those postwar elections will be anything but fair and equal. In other words, in that scenario, Zelensky will try to stay around, and so will the authoritarian regime he has built.
To be fair to Zelensky, his authoritarianism has never been a response to the war, as his Western fans still believe, even when they are finally deigning to notice a little of his “dark side.” Zelensky was building an authoritarian regime – widely known and criticized in Ukraine back then already as “mono-vlada” – long before the escalation of February 2022.
Zelensky is not a benevolent leader who has been forced to adopt dictatorial habits by an emergency. In reality, if anything, he has exploited the emergency for all it was worth to indulge his lust for unlimited power and extreme corruption. So, trying to take his misrule into the postwar period is at least not inconsistent: it has never been tied to wartime.
But behind all of this, there is one great irony and one bigger question: The question is simple. If Politico really believes that going after Kudritsky with lawfare and frustrating the “civil-society”-NGO crowd is “the dark side” of Zelensky’s rule, what, if we may ask, is the bright side supposed to be?
Indeed, where is the better side of real-existing Zelensky-ism? Is it the humungous corruption? The Bakhmut-style military fiascos, the Kursk Kamikaze incursion, and now Pokrovsk? The fact that the media have been mercilessly streamlined? The raging nepotism that makes sure that the poor fight and the sons and daughters of Ukraine’s gangsterish “elite” go on holidays and party? The personality cult?
Or is it – and this brings us to the great irony – that Zelensky-Ukraine is allegedly in sync with “Western values”? And do you know what? It really is! But not the way that the propagandists of both Ukraine and the NATO-EU West want us to believe. What the Zelensky regime and its supporters in the EU really have in common is that neither care about either democracy or the rule of law.
Zelensky going after critics with individual financial sanctions to evade normal legal procedures and leave his victims not even a slim chance to defend themselves, for instance? That is exactly what Germany and the EU are now doing to the journalist Hüseyin Dogru, and not only to him. Zelensky using a perverted reading of the law to harass whoever does not submit or is a political danger to him? Bingo again. That as well is now EU practice, too. Ask, for instance, Marine Le Pen in France. Finally, widespread abuse of political office for self-enrichment and influence peddling? Bingo again: Less than a month ago, the Financial Times ran a detailed article on “scores” of EU parliament members who “earn income from second jobs in areas that overlap with their lawmaking,” raising “questions about disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.” How delicately put. And it sounds just like Ukraine’s Rada.
Here’s the real news: The “dark side” of Zelensky’s rule is all of Zelensky’s rule. And it is also what has become the new normal in an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt EU. Who has learned from whom? Kiev from NATO-EU Europe or vice versa? Either way, this is not a bug but a feature. And it must stop. Everywhere.
Tarik Cyril Amar, is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contacts with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men have died on the battlefield. The decision by diplomats to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant as diplomacy could have reduced the excess of violence, prevented escalation, and even resulted in a path to peace. However, the political-media elites skilfully sold the rejection of diplomacy to the public as evidence of their moral righteousness.
This article will first outline how NATO planned for a long war to exhaust Russia and knock it out from the ranks of great powers. Second, this article will demonstrate how the political-media elites communicated that diplomacy is treasonous and war is virtuous. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 