WHY IS THE DOJ LYING ABOUT JACK TEIXEIRA?

By Larry Johnson | SONAR | May 11, 2023
When CBS reporter Catherine Herridge posted the story about the DOJ claim that the alleged leaker of classified intelligence documents had a “cache of weapons and tactical gear surrounding his bed,” my first reaction was that the FBI was going all out to paint him as a right wing extremist with possible plans to carry out a mass shooting. Call me naive, but I never imagined that the DOJ and FBI could engage in such an easily disproven lie in such an important case.
Here is how the U.S. Government claim was reported:
Teixeira, a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guard member, was arrested earlier this month in connection with the leak of more than 100 top-secret military documents about the war in Ukraine and other national security issues.
An 18-page court filing submitted by federal prosecutors on Wednesday said that Teixeira had a gun locker two feet from his bed filled with an “arsenal” of weapons.
“In the gun locker were multiple weapons, including handguns, bolt-action rifles, shotguns, an AK-style high-capacity weapon, and a gas mask,” the prosecutors said.
Stash of “weapons?” Not quite. The “firearms” pictured in Jack’s room ARE NOT ACTUAL FIREARMS. These are AIR SOFT guns. All AIR SOFT guns are required by law to have an orange tip when sold to the public. Yes, they look realistic but they do not fire ammunition that can kill or maim. These “guns” fire a round plastic projectile that can leave a bruise. These faux firearms are used predominantly by guys who like to simulate the alleged thrill of combat without putting their lives or bodies in actual risk. The following videos explain the concept.
Judging from the “stash” in Jack’s room it appears he was an avid AIR SOFT guy. That’s why he had all the tactical gear. He would go to the woods or an AIR SOFT range and chase other guys, similarly armed, doing simulated combat. The evidence collected from Jack’s room in terms of the faux “firearms” picture tells us one thing for certain — the media are a bunch of lying bastards too lazy or too ignorant to actually do some legitimate reporting.
I would also like to know if the FBI accurately identified this so-called “weapons stash” as AIR SOFT and DOJ omitted the Bureau’s explanation or are the FBI agents on the case also morons? To reiterate my previous conclusion regarding Airman Teixeira — it appears he mishandled classified information as a stunt to show off to his chat room buddies. That is a far cry from being a dangerous psychopath training to shoot up a school or mall.
NBC Host Worries No One Will Be Able to “Police” What Tucker Carlson Says if He Moves Show to Twitter
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | May 10, 2023
NBC host Tom Costello is worried that no one will be able to “police” what Tucker Carlson says if he moves his show to Twitter.
Oh no, the absolute horror.
The former Fox News host posted a video to Twitter yesterday announcing that he would move his content to the platform owned by Elon Musk.
“There aren’t many platforms left that allow free speech. The last big one remaining in the world is Twitter,” said Carlson, adding, “You can’t have a free society if people aren’t allowed to say what they think is true.”
The legacy media reacted by panicking that Carlson will go uncensored.
NBC host Costello accused Twitter of peddling “misinformation, disinformation, all out lies” (information that doesn’t fortify regime narratives) before expressing his real fear.
“Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says, or is this the point, it’s just a free for all?” he asked former CNN host Brian Stelter.
Stelter responded by claiming that Tucker’s increased presence on Twitter will cement the platform as a “right-wing website.”
Because God forbid someone be allowed to speak freely without having their activity ‘policed’ by censors – we can’t have that!
Yesterday, CNN faced ridicule for describing Carlson, who at his peak enjoyed a viewership of over 5 million people, as a “right wing extremist.”
Carlson moving full time to Twitter might be a way to circumvent the fact that Fox is trying to keep him locked in a contract until 2025, preventing him from being signed up by other broadcasters and freezing him out of the 2024 election.
Elon Musk responded to the announcement by clarifying that Twitter and Carlson have not signed “a deal of any kind whatsoever,” and that the former Fox host will be supported by user subscriptions and advertising revenue.
Why American and Kiev regime media keep insisting Russian ‘Kinzhal’ hypersonic missile was shot down?
By Drago Bosnic | May 10, 2023
For approximately a week, the Kiev regime has been claiming it shot down one of Russia’s hypersonic missiles, specifically the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal”. According to the unsubstantiated (to say the least) claims, on May 4, air defense units deployed in and around Kiev shot down one of the air-launched hypersonic missiles allegedly fired by Russian Aerospace Forces. Various local sources published images supposedly “proving” the incident took place. In the first two days, the news went largely unreported by non-Ukrainian sources, but on May 6, CNN, the infamous neoliberal mouthpiece and the flagship of the mainstream propaganda machine among news networks, broke the story in the political West.
According to CNN, commander of the Neo-Nazi junta’s air force, three-star General Mykola Oleshchuk, announced in a Telegram post that “a Russian ‘Kinzhal’ [commonly designated as Kh-47M2 by various media sources] was inbound until being successfully intercepted using American ‘Patriot’ missiles”. The intercept supposedly took place on Thursday night, with the Kiev regime forces claiming this is the first time the much-touted US “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) system shot down a target, and no less than a hypersonic one. The aforementioned images published by various sources show an object which indeed seems to have been hit by the “Patriot’s” kinetic kill vehicle.
“Yes, we shot down the ‘unique’ Kinzhal,” General Oleshchuk stated, adding: “It happened during the night time attack on May 4 in the skies of the Kyiv region.”
Oleshchuk claims that “the missile was launched by a MiG-31K jet from the Russian territory and was then shot down” with a missile fired by a battery of “Patriot” SAM systems. In a separate statement from Neo-Nazi junta’s air force spokesman Yurii Ihnat, given to Kiev-based Channel 24, he was boasting about the US-made “Patriot’s” supposedly “proven” capabilities:
“They were saying that the ‘Patriot’ is an outdated American weapon, and Russian weapons are the best in the world. Well, there is confirmation that it effectively works against even a super hypersonic missile… … successful interception of the ‘Kinzhal’ is a slap in the face for Russia.”
However, no military analyst worth his salt has ever taken these claims even remotely seriously. The images presented by the Kiev regime show an object that doesn’t even resemble the air-launched hypersonic “Kinzhal”. While it remains uncertain what sort of weapon the Neo-Nazi junta forces shot down, images show what looks like a KAB-1500L or perhaps a BetAB-500 ShP, both of which are laser-guided bombs. It’s also unclear which of “Patriot’s” several versions were used. The Kiev regime is known to have received one of the PAC-2 variants (MiM-104C, D and F), all of which have proven unable to shoot down even the old Iraqi “Scud” ballistic missiles during the First Gulf War in 1991.
There are reports that one of the newer PAC-3 versions has been delivered as well, but these claims are yet to be supported by any actual evidence. What’s more, this variant is also nowhere near the capabilities to shoot down even older supersonic missiles the Russian Aerospace Forces have been using extensively, let alone a maneuvering hypersonic missile such as the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal”. On the other hand, even basic knowledge of how physics works makes Western and Kiev regime claims ridiculous. The images show that the Russian weapon was struck by the aforementioned kinetic kill vehicle, which in the PAC-2 variant flies at approximately 4000 km per hour.
The 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal’s” speed ranges from over 12,000 km per hour to almost 16,000 km per hour. If we were to imagine an interceptor missile flying at 4000 km per hour hitting another missile flying three or four times faster than that, can anyone really believe there would be anything more than a bunch of sparks, let alone a wreckage of any kind? Worse yet, the alleged “Russian ‘Kinzhal’ hypersonic missile” fell to the ground in a relatively good condition and was then even photographed and presented as supposed “evidence”. So, again, if nothing more than basic physics is taken into account, the claims become extremely difficult to even consider, let alone take at face value.
Even some Kiev regime media, such as The Kyiv Independent, almost immediately refuted the claims. Only a day after the incident, this outlet published that the Kiev regime forces have denied shooting down the “Kinzhal” over the capital city, because there were neither MiG-31K/I strike fighters nor 9-A-7660 “Kinzhals” in the air that night. However, this didn’t stop mainstream propaganda outlets from parroting the story. Considering the fact that the political West and its Kiev puppets are primarily fighting an infowar, this is the only viable explanation as to why they keep insisting that a Russian hypersonic missile was shot down.
It was only in late April that the Neo-Nazi junta confirmed the delivery of its first “Patriot” batteries from the US, Germany and the Netherlands. The system has had an atrocious track record against any sort of target, be it the Iraqi “Scuds” over 30 years ago or Houthi/Iranian drones nowadays. On the other hand, the political West is decades behind Russia in hypersonic weapons development, meaning that this propaganda story accomplishes at least two objectives – promotes US-made air defenses after decades of humiliating failures and “tarnishes” the reputation of Russian hypersonic missiles. The previous is also aimed to help the sales of US systems, just like the hype about the alleged successes of the HIMARS.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Bloomberg Wants The West To Punish African States Over Their Preferred Security Partners

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | MAY 8, 2023
Bloomberg’s demand for the West to punish African states over their preferred security partners is extremely condescending. Opinion columnist Bobby Ghosh published a piece about this over the weekend urging to “Make Russia’s Wagner Group a Pariah in Africa”, to which end he’s lobbying for the US and EU to designate it as a terrorist organization so that its clients there can then be sanctioned. This suggests that the West knows what’s better for African states’ security than their own governments do.
According to Ghosh, Wagner is only useful for “reinforc[ing] military rule” in “despot[ic]” states and “disproportionately targeting civilians” in its anti-terrorist operations. In exchange, it supposedly bleeds local partners dry by extracting their resources. He thus predicts that “The arrival of fresh legions of Wagner mercenaries in Africa will make it harder for the West to nudge military governments back toward democracy, and to prevent democratic governments from going in the other direction.”
The reality is altogether different as could have been expected considering how often Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets like Ghosh’s publish the exact opposite of the truth in pursuit of the West’s interests. “Russia’s Newfound Appeal To African Countries Is Actually Quite Easy To Explain” since it simply boils down to Wagner’s “Democratic Security” expertise. This refers to its counter-Hybrid Warfare tactics and strategies that ensure its partners’ sovereignty in the face of related threats from the West.
Its earlier success in the Central African Republic (CAR) inspired Mali’s revolutionary anti-imperialist government to follow in that nearby country’s footsteps. Just last week, neighboring Burkina Faso’s interim leader declared that his state is in a “strategic alliance” with Russia too despite denying that Wagner is on the ground helping the national forces fight terrorism. In all three cases, these Russian-friendly governments enjoy genuine grassroots support for striving to restore their sovereignty.
This means that Ghosh’s demand for the West to designate the CAR and Mali’s Wagner partners as terrorists in order to then punish them with sanctions is anti-democratic, as is the potential deterrent effect that this could have on that group’s cooperation with Burkina Faso and other countries. So long as any given security relationship doesn’t occur at the expense of a third party’s legitimate interests, then there shouldn’t be any pressure put upon either side for their ties with one another.
Wagner is always invited by African authorities to assist their armed forces and hasn’t ever intervened without their permission. Allegations of it committing war crimes are part of the US’ Hybrid War against that group, which was detailed at length by Politico a few days after Ghosh’s piece and analyzed here. Whether by coincidence or collusion, his article advances America’s information warfare interests, with its timing being extra curious since it in hindsight preconditions his audience to accept the US’ narratives.
Regardless of his speculative ties with its military-intelligence services, there’s no denying that the condescending way in which he addresses Africans is very offensive. It’s up to their countries as equal members of the international community to decide for themselves how best to ensure their security and who to partner with to that end, not any third parties like the US, let alone MSM figures like Ghosh. Meddling of the sort that Bloomberg just attempted only further discredits the West in Africans’ eyes.
Fake News Alert: It’s Extremely Unlikely That Kiev Shot Down A Hypersonic Missile
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | MAY 6, 2023
The Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force claimed on Saturday that his forces shot down a hypersonic missile with the help of the US’ Patriots, which Mainstream Media outlets like CNN took at face value to question Russia’s related capabilities. It’s extremely unlikely that this happened, though, since no air defense system anywhere in the world at this time is able to intercept any such projectile traveling at ten times the speed of sound. At most, there might have been an accidental hit or a technical malfunction.
Either of those scenarios would represent statistical anomalies, especially the first one, which means that it’s almost certainly the case that Kiev is just lying through its teeth yet again. It makes sense why it would do so at this particular time since its perception managers hope to dent Russians’ pride ahead of Victory Day, sow the seeds of doubt about its hypersonic capabilities with the intent of deterring purchases whenever they’re eventually put to the market, and exaggerate the Patriots’ effectiveness.
Furthermore, Kiev was likely tipped off about CNN’s investigation into Russia’s electronic jamming of their much-hyped HIMARS missile systems by some of those same Pentagon officials that the outlet cited in their report, which was also released on Saturday. In response, they could have then prepared this latest fake news provocation with the expectation of carrying it out on the same day that CNN’s report was published, thus distracting the public from this unsavory story.
Even so, as was noted in the introduction, CNN had no problem taking their side’s claim at face value and subsequently spinning it for maximum anti-Russian soft power effect. It obviously has the experts on hand who, if they were honest, would have informed them that the Patriots are incapable of shooting down hypersonic missiles. By not relying on those professionals’ insight prior to publishing their report and inserting their opinion into it, CNN once again exposed its anti-Russian bias.
The same observation can be said about all those other Mainstream Media outlets that reported on this fake news story without including any reference to the Patriots’ lack of requisite capabilities for achieving this literally unprecedented military feat. They uncritically repeat Kiev’s most ridiculous claims about the NATO-Russian proxy war despite knowing better like in this instance, which proves that they don’t conduct genuine journalism anymore and only parrot a foreign country’s propaganda nowadays.
The climate scaremongers: How the ‘world disaster’ figures lie
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | May 5, 2023
According to AP last year:
‘A disaster-weary globe will be hit harder in the coming years by even more catastrophes colliding in an interconnected world, a United Nations report issued Monday says. If current trends continue the world will go from around 400 disasters per year in 2015 to an onslaught of about 560 catastrophes a year by 2030, the scientific report by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction said. By comparison from 1970 to 2000, the world suffered just 90 to 100 medium to large scale disasters a year, the report said.
‘The number of extreme heat waves in 2030 will be three times what it was in 2001 and there will be 30 per cent more droughts, the report predicted. It’s not just natural disasters amplified by climate change, it’s Covid-19, economic meltdowns and food shortages. Climate change has a huge footprint in the number of disasters,’ report authors said.’
The UN report included this graph, showing how the number of disasters were now five times as high as in the 1970s:

https://www.undrr.org/media/79595
Last week it was the turn of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to bang the climate change drum. Their State of the Global Climate 2022 report commented: ‘From mountain peaks to ocean depths, climate change continued its advance in 2022 . . . Droughts, floods and heatwaves affected communities on every continent and cost many billions of dollars. While greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the climate continues to change, populations worldwide continue to be gravely impacted by extreme weather and climate events.’
The WMO is, of course, a UN body, so unsurprisingly this report has little to do with science and everything to do with politics.
But have natural disasters become so much more common in recent years? A closer look at that graph above reveals that the number of disasters has actually been declining since 2000, a fact which should immediately cast doubt on the ‘global warming is making everything worse’ meme.
The real reason for the ‘increase’ is that many natural disasters in years past were never officially logged in the UN database, called EM-DAT, which is compiled by CRED, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The database was not created until 1998, and CRED relied on informal reports for disasters prior to that year.
CRED has acknowledged that many events were missed by them in the past. In their 2006 report, they warned that earlier data was incomplete and should not be used for comparing long-term trends. In particular, over the past 30 years development in telecommunications, media and increased international cooperation has played a critical role in the number of disasters reported. In addition, increases in humanitarian funds have encouraged reporting of more disasters.
In fact the unreliability of the database in earlier years is much worse than we thought. Take a look, for example, at the official data for the number of deaths from floods in the UK:

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
Now look again, and see if you can spot what is missing. Yes, the North Sea floods in 1953, recognised as one of the worst natural disasters ever to hit Britain, and which left 307 dead on the east coast alone. The death toll in 1952, by the way, reflects the Lynmouth disaster, which killed 34.
How any supposedly reputable database can omit an event like the 1953 flood and still claim to be credible is beyond me. Other bad flooding events have also been missed, such as those in Somerset in 1968 which killed 15 people.
Flooding events in the UK have been thoroughly recorded as far back as the 19thC and beyond. If CRED cannot even get accurate data for the UK, what chance is there of compiling full and accurate data for the rest of the world?
The truth about the looming energy shortage
UK FIRES is a five-year research programme funded by £5million of government money, a collaboration between the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Nottingham, Bath and Imperial College London. Its job is to look at what Net Zero means in practical terms for the economy.
The researchers have a habit of revealing the harsh realities of Net Zero which are deliberately hidden from us by the government and its advisers. For instance, in their 2019 report, called Absolute Zero, they calmly informed us that we would all have to drive less, use less energy, and stop eating beef and lamb. All UK airports except for Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast would have to close by 2030, and those three would also have to go by 2050. All shipping to and from Britain would have to be phased out as well.
Their report on the construction sector last November told us that no bricks, cement or glass would be allowed in our bright new future. Instead we would have to make do with recycled materials, along with stone, earth and timber. A sort of cross between Fred Flintstone and Mad Max!
Their latest analysis came out last month, looking at the prospect for UK energy supplies under current emission reduction targets. The government has pledged to reduce emissions by 68 per cent from 2018 levels by 2035.
According to UK FIRES, to do this we need to be constructing 14GW of low carbon generation every year until 2035, whereas the current rate is only about 2GW. (They do not tell us, by the way, how we can build wind farms and nuclear plants without cement and steel!)
One problem is that it is now taking more than 20 years to build a large nuclear power station. It seems unlikely therefore that we will see Sizewell C before the 2040s, even if contracts were signed today.
According to UK FIRES, they have been pointing out this energy shortfall for a while, but government and the civil service prefer to stick their heads in the sand. Not that UK FIRES are concerned either, because they just want us to drastically cut the amount of energy we use instead.
Over the next eight years, they say, we must cut our car mileage by a fifth, consume a third less beef, lamb, milk and cheese, replace millions of gas boilers with heat pumps, and spend tens of billions that we have not got on insulating our homes.
Industry must halve its use of construction materials, such as cement and steel, and shut half of the county’s blast furnaces. With all this and more, we will be able to reduce the country’s energy use by 30 per cent. All in the next eight years; after that it really gets tough!
For years, successive governments, along with the Committee on Climate Change, other advisers, and the complicit media, have lied to us, pretending that we could chart a path to Net Zero without any real cost or consequences. Thanks to UK FIRES, we are beginning to get a glimpse of the truth. And the public will be horrified and extremely angry when they discover they have been duped.
Top Polish general says ‘situation does not look good’ for Kiev
By Drago Bosnic | May 4, 2023
For well over a year, the mainstream propaganda machine has been trying to convince everyone that the Kiev regime forces are “massively overperforming” against Russia. However, behind all the Western disinformation clutter, NATO military commanders are extremely concerned with the fact that what would be the second most powerful military in NATO (if it were a member) is being quite literally wiped out, with the casualty ratio going as high as 10:1 or even 11:1, and not in its favor. Worse yet, the Neo-Nazi junta forces include tens of thousands of NATO mercenaries and radicalized volunteers, whose casualties are estimated to be well into five figures counting. General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Chief of General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, recently warned about this.
“War always was, is, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise – a matter of politics, and in its determinants has a substantial number of economic factors: finance, infrastructure issues, social issues, technology, food production and a whole set of problems that must be put into this box to understand this conflict… When I look at the conflict in Ukraine, I mainly see it through these political lenses, and unfortunately it does not look good,” Andrzejczak stated in the closing days of April, during a strategic debate at the National Security Bureau, adding: “I think that there is nothing that indicates Russia would be unable to sustain its war effort, and that Western economic warfare efforts had failed to prevent this.”
“Those financial instruments which it had before the conflict, the dynamics of spending, the effectiveness of sanctions, and the whole complex economic situation speak to the fact that Russia will have the money for this conflict,” Andrzejczak said and then warned that Kiev doesn’t have remotely similar capabilities: “We know how much the country needs per month. We know what American assistance amounts to, that of the entire collective West amounts to. We also know what Polish assistance is in this area, because we are the second-largest donor and should probably be a major inspiration for others. The speed of attrition in the financial area is, in my opinion, unfavorable, unfortunately.”
The Polish Chief of General Staff further added: “There was little indication that millions of Ukrainians who had left the country would be ready or willing to return home to rebuild. Many Western leaders failed to realize how far Ukraine is from winning the war. The Western Bloc just doesn’t have the ammunition, industry is not ready not only to send equipment to Ukraine, but to replenish our own stocks, which are melting [away]. This awareness is not the same there as it is here on the Vistula River, and it must be communicated firmly, without an aesthetic, to everyone and in all forums, wherever possible, which is what I’m doing.”
The top Polish general’s concerns are hardly misplaced, especially considering the fact that he’s getting actual, unbiased military reports from Polish and other NATO services. Expectedly, such reports are extremely unlikely to ever be published by the mainstream propaganda machine, but General Andrzejczak’s words alone should be enough to indicate the actual state of the Kiev regime forces. Indeed, in recent days, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that its forces have been able to neutralize nearly 600 enemy combatants and dozens of pieces of hardware in the Donetsk area alone, along with over 200 tons of various types of NATO-supplied munitions.
Battlefield reports for May 1 indicate that the Russian military used long-range weapons to destroy at least two air defense divisions composed of S-300 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems in a strike on depots in Pavlograd, a city in the Dnepropetrovsk oblast (region). Apparently, these systems were defending a depot in which the Neo-Nazi junta’s “Grom-2” tactical ballistic missiles were housed, which were also destroyed in one of the subsequent strikes. A third strike destroyed an ammunition depot of the 127th Mechanized Brigade based in the Kharkov oblast. Only a day prior, an entire network of munitions manufacturing facilities was also destroyed.
Perhaps the most disappointing (for both Kiev and the political West) aspect of the grossly overhyped performance of the Kiev regime forces is the recent admission that the much-touted HIMARS is nowhere near its declared capabilities. While the mainstream propaganda machine extensively reported on the alleged successes of this system, in reality, it has shown less than limited performance, as Russian air defenses have been able to intercept most HIMARS rockets, while the Russian Aerospace Forces “took care” of most launchers sent by NATO. Modernized versions of the “Buk” SAM system, particularly the M3 “Viking” variant, have proven to be extremely effective in virtually nullifying this threat.
HIMARS was portrayed as one of the Neo-Nazi junta’s “wunderwaffen”, a supposedly “decisive weapon” that could “turn the tide” against Russia. However, just like many of the actual “wunderwaffen” deployed by Nazi Germany in the closing months of the Second World War, this is proving to be futile. Poland’s top general essentially confirms this by pointing out what virtually all military commanders in NATO are perfectly aware of, but can’t disclose publicly.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Kiev regime’s meddling destroys last vestiges of press freedom in US
By Drago Bosnic | May 3, 2023
It’s hardly breaking news that the United States is meddling in the affairs of virtually every country on the planet. The simple fact that Washington DC is the only geopolitical player that operates under the doctrine of so-called “full spectrum dominance” is a testament to that. Perhaps the most obvious example of that is former Ukraine, a country that has been hijacked by a US-backed Neo-Nazi junta in 2014. However, it would seem the meddling isn’t always one-sided, at least according to the latest reports regarding the background of Tucker Carlson’s firing from the Fox News Channel (FNC).
All things considered, Carlson is the most popular news anchor in American history. His rational, highly informed, witty and mostly unbiased (with the notable exception being his views on China) analyses are extremely popular, both in the US and worldwide. However, as such, they are also an insurmountable obstacle for the warmongering propaganda machine. Years before the start of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe, Carlson had been warning against antagonizing Moscow. For this, the rabid Russophobes keep accusing him of supposed “pro-Russian bias”.
These attacks on Tucker Carlson and his family went on for years, but escalated dramatically after the start of the SMO (special military operation). Any attempt to actually analyze this new stage of the US-induced Ukrainian conflict is effectively considered “heresy”. Carlson dismissed this, convinced that his country is still a “bastion of freedom”. However, although the attacks from the establishment became more direct, he refused to back down and continued his reporting, at that point the only one in an American mass media outlet not going 100% with the official narrative.
According to Semafor, Fox Corporation Chair Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan spoke on the phone with the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky before Carlson was ousted on April 24. The report claims that “the elder Murdoch held a call with the Ukrainian leader in March where the two discussed the war in the Eastern European country as well as the anniversary of the deaths of two Fox News journalists outside of Kyiv in March 2022”, further adding that “a similar conversation took place between Zelensky and the younger Murdoch, Fox Corporation Executive Chairman, on March 15, which was noted in a national broadcast last month”.
If the reports are accurate, this would mean the phone calls took place just weeks before Carlson’s contract was officially terminated. Citing “a person familiar with the calls”, Semafor reports that “senior Ukrainian officials had raised their objections to Carlson’s coverage of the war to Fox Executives, but Zelensky did not address these objections [directly] during the calls”. While Zelensky may have skipped direct appeals to have Carlson fired, he certainly must have “strongly implied” that this would be “good for freedom and democracy” in the US and worldwide.
“Clearly, he spooked a lot of members into not being fully supportive of Ukraine,” an unnamed senior GOP congressional aide told Semafor, adding: “Carlson’s ouster probably reduces the loudest voice out there against US support.”
Fox Corporation is yet to reveal which of the numerous reports on the Ukrainian conflict, including exposing the lies about Russia’s long-debunked “battlefield failures” and the staggering level of corruption associated with the Kiev regime, got Carlson fired. However, whichever it was, his ouster is certainly in the interest of Zelensky, whom Carlson even called a “dictator” on several occasions (although a “puppet” would be more suitable). It is also in the interest of numerous high-ranking US officials, particularly since Carlson’s investigative approach that revealed just how corrupt the Kiev regime frontman is could easily incriminate them as well.
This notion is further reinforced by the reactions of top-ranking officials like the Republican congressman from Texas, the infamous warmonger Michael McCaul, one of the most prominent GOP warhawks and an outspoken supporter of US meddling in Ukraine and Taiwan, who described Carlson’s reporting as “Russian disinformation”. Needless to say, without providing any evidence for such bold claims. Carlson (rightfully) slammed the attack as slander. Although some of his fellow journalists supported Carlson, the vast majority, particularly those working for the mainstream propaganda machine, almost uniformly applauded his ouster from the FNC.
One of the founders of The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, is among the former, as he criticized Carlson’s removal and the open suppression of his stances against the proxy war in Ukraine and the rapidly escalating confrontation with Russia. Greenwald also commented on the revelations about Zelensky’s involvement.
“This article strongly suggests that the Murdochs talked to Zelensky, and Tucker’s opposition to the US proxy war in Ukraine was a major factor in his firing. I’ll await confirmation, but one thing is for sure: his removal eliminated the most influential anti-war voice from TV,” Greenwald posted on Twitter.
“From the start of Biden’s war policy in Ukraine, the establishment wings of both parties were – as usual – in lockstep. Schumer and AOC have the same views as McConnell and Lindsey Graham,” Greenwald noted, adding: “The only DC opposition came from the populist right, and Tucker was its key media voice.”
Considering the fact that Zelensky officially leads an unashamedly Neo-Nazi regime that openly persecutes Ukrainian Orthodox Christians, essentially kidnaps regular Ukrainians and sends them to die as cannon fodder for a “NATO mission”, the American people should be terrified of the prospect that the same person is regulating what they can (or cannot) watch on TV.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Russia’s Military Performance Doesn’t Match the Propaganda
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 3, 2023
American government and media statements have led the public to believe that the Russian military has been shockingly ineffective and there should be confident optimism for a Ukrainian victory. Ukrainians have indeed fought courageously and performed above expectation. But there has been a vast gulf between private and public assessments. Recent leaks have confirmed what has long been suggested: there is a need to re-evaluate the performance of the Russian army and to recalibrate the optimistic expectations.
The ridiculing and mocking of the Russian military has been possible only because of a deliberate self-delusion that demanded turning away from two important admissions.
First, in the three quarters of a century since the United States became the world’s dominant power, it has seldom decisively won a war or fully achieved its explicit policy goal for going to war. Honestly evaluating Russia’s military performance requires comparing it to the exemplar of recent American wars. The United States has consistently failed to defeat armies far more ragtag than the modern Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Since Vietnam, the United States has failed to achieve its military and political goals in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. After twenty years of fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. was forced to withdraw. They were in disarray; the Taliban is back in power. The United States has twice withdrawn from Iraq because their government refused to capitulate to Status of Forces Agreements. The first withdrawal left Saddam Hussein in power; the second removed him and left Iran (not the U.S.) strengthened in Iraq. The war in Libya left a failed state to bleed weapons into extremist movements throughout North Africa. In none of these wars did the United States leave victorious nor with their foreign policy objectives achieved. Each of them left a government in power that was not pro-American. The war in Syria has also left Bashar al-Assad in power.
If the Russian military has fared badly against the modern Ukrainian army, it has fared no worse than the United States has against much less modern adversaries.
The second point is the reason why Russia is fighting such a modern Ukrainian army. Ukraine has become a de facto member of NATO. The United States and its NATO allies are providing everything but the bodies in the war against Russia. Moscow is not pulling off this level of performance against Kiev: it is pulling off this level of performance against the combined resources of NATO. The United States and its NATO allies have provided and maintained the weapons, trained the Ukrainian soldiers to use them, and provided the intelligence on where to target them. The U.S. is providing “stepped up feeds of intelligence about the position of Russian forces, highlighting weaknesses in the Russian lines.” The U.S. has essentially assumed planning, conducting war-games, and “suggesting” which “avenues… were likely to be more successful.” In March, the U.S. hosted members of the Ukrainian military at an American military base in Germany for war games to strategize for the next phase of the war. In April, they “held tabletop exercises with Ukrainian military leaders to demonstrate how different offensive scenarios could play out” in the expected counter offensive, for which the U.S. has “worked” with Ukraine “in terms of their surprise,” according to General Christopher Cavoli.
But even though Russia is facing an enhanced Ukrainian military, recent leaks confirm what private assessments have long suggested: Ukraine’s losses have been understated while its prospects have been overstated, and Russia’s losses have been overstated while its achievements have been understated.
Long before the recent leaks revealed that many more Ukrainian soldiers than Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded on the battlefield, that Ukraine will be out of antiaircraft missiles by early May, that they are short of troops and ammunition and their counteroffensive will fall “well short” of its goals, attaining, at best, only “modest territorial gains,” U.S. generals and government officials had been quietly admitting as much.
In February, The Washington Post reported that privately the U.S. intelligence’s “sobering assessment” that retaking Crimea “is beyond the capability of Ukraine’s army” has been “reiterated to multiple committees on Capitol Hill over the last several weeks.” As early as November, 2022, U.S. officials shared that assessment with Ukraine, suggesting they “start thinking about [their] realistic demands and priorities for negotiations, including a reconsideration of its stated aim for Ukraine to regain Crimea.” That same month, western military analysts began to warn of an “inflection point” at which Ukraine’s battlefield gains were at an apex. And on January 21, 2023, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said publicly that Ukraine would not be able to retake all of its territory.
But it was not only that Ukraine’s ambitions had been inflated and their prospects overstated. Their losses had also been understated. Despite public claims of parity in losses or worse for Russia, the leaked reports of a much higher ratio of Ukrainian deaths and casualties to Russian deaths and casualties had been forecasted by military analysts who frequently put the ratio of soldiers killed at closer to 7:1 or 10:1 Ukrainian versus Russian losses. Der Spiegel has reported that German intelligence is “alarmed” by the “high losses suffered by the Ukrainian army” in the battle for Bakhmut. They told German politicians in a secret meeting that the loss of life for Ukrainian soldiers is in “three-digit number[s]” every day on that battleground alone. The Washington Post has reported that the most highly trained and experienced Ukrainian soldiers are “all dead or wounded.”
And it is not only Ukrainian losses that may have been understated. Russian losses, ineptitude, and material setbacks may have been just as overstated. After suffering high casualties at the beginning of the war, Alexander Hill, professor of military history at the University of Calgary, says Russia began to pursue a more methodical battlefield strategy and lowered their losses.
On April 26, General Cavoli, the commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, gave a congressional audience of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee a report that is very different from what they’d been told just a month earlier. The public is constantly told that Putin is throwing his soldiers into a meatgrinder. General Mark Milley recently reported that Russian troops are “getting slaughtered.” He told the House Armed Services Committee in late March, “It’s a slaughter-fest for the Russians. They’re getting hammered in the vicinity of Bahkmut.”
But in April, General Cavoli told that same body, “The Russian ground force has been degenerated somewhat by this conflict; although it is bigger today than it was at the beginning of the conflict.” And it is not only the ground force. Cavoli went on to report, “The air force has lost very little: they’ve lost eighty planes. They have another one thousand fighters and fighter bombers. The navy has lost one ship.”
And as for the larger Russian military, Cavoli said, “Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict… despite all of the efforts they’ve undertaken inside Ukraine.”
Historian Geoffrey Roberts, an authority on Soviet military history, told me:
“Russia’s Armed Forces have made many mistakes and suffered severe setbacks during the course of its war with Ukraine and NATO, but overall it has performed very well. Like the Red Army during the Second World War, the Russian military has shown itself to be a resilient, adaptable, creative, and highly effective learning organization—a modern war-making machine whose lessons and experience—positive and negative—will be studied by General Staffs and military academies for generations to come.”
After initial territorial setbacks, the Ukrainian military countered with two shocking victories in Kharkiv and Kherson provinces. But in each of those cases, Russia seems to have either decided to leave or redeployed, offering little defense. Military analyst and ret. Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis has pointed out that in each situation where the Russian military “chose to stand and fight, Ukraine has not defeated them.” Russia has not lost a battle it has chosen to fight.
Since then, the Russian military has settled itself in Bakhmut where, like death’s maw, it has devoured everyone Kiev has sent in to displace it. A Ukrainian commander in Bakhmut has said that “the exchange rate of trading our lives for theirs favors the Russians. If this goes on like this, we could run out.” Daniel Davis has pointed out that, even if Ukraine were to launch and win a counteroffensive, the rate of casualties and deaths would be so high, they would “have spent [their] last remaining force with which to conduct offensives” or future operations. Military historian Geoffrey Roberts recently told an interviewer, “if the war continues for much longer, I am worried that Ukraine will collapse as a state.”
Professor Hill argued in November 2022 that “had Zelensky’s Ukrainian government been willing to negotiate back in April [2022] then the eventual outcome on the ground would probably have ended up being better for Ukraine than is likely to be the case today or in the future.” It’s a prognosis, he told me, that still stands.
The Ukrainian military may have performed above expectation, and the Russian military may have performed below expectation. But recent statements, both leaked and on the record, suggest the need for an updated, more sincere evaluation. Russia is not struggling only against the Ukrainian Armed Forces: they are struggling against a military seriously swollen by NATO resources, training, and planning. And even still, they are faring no worse than the U.S. military has fared against much less equipped, trained, and prepared forces over the past several decades. The dismissive mocking of the Russian military has been helped by underestimating Ukrainian losses, overestimating Ukrainian capabilities, and by overestimating Russian losses and degeneration and underestimating Russian capabilities and achievements.
Both senior U.S. military leadership and major western media must begin reassessing the Russian military and its capabilities for what they are, instead of how narratives wish them to be.




