Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK trying to prevent peace – Ukrainian MP

RT | February 7, 2025

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s recent visit to Kiev was an attempt to disrupt potential peace negotiations with Russia on the settlement of the Ukraine conflict, according to jailed Ukrainian MP Aleksandr Dubinsky.

Britain’s foreign secretary visited Kiev on Wednesday and announced a further 55 million pounds ($68.7 million) in financial aid.

Dubinsky, an opposition lawmaker who has been held in custody since November 2023 on a litany of charges, including high treason, claimed on his Telegram channel on Thursday that the actual purpose of Lammy’s trip was to disrupt a nascent peace process.

According to him, Lammy’s “urgent” visit to Kiev as well as Vladimir Zelensky’s “urgent” interview with British media “were necessary to prevent a peaceful settlement” and to “discredit” a US-backed push for a ceasefire being led by President Donald Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg.

“What is needed for this? An urgent counteroffensive. I believe Zelensky has been brought his plan,” Dubinsky stated.

Kellogg is expected to present a peace plan at next week’s Munich Security Conference, Bloomberg reported earlier this week, citing insiders. However, in an interview with Newsmax on Wednesday, the envoy clarified that while he will be holding discussions with EU leaders in Germany, he will not publicly unveil any proposition.

Any deal would instead be presented by Trump himself.

Last Friday, Trump said that communication is ongoing between his administration and the Russian government and reiterated his goal of putting a swift end to nearly three years of hostilities.

During his Kiev visit Lammy also met with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Sybiga, who urged the UK to scale up investment in Ukraine’s weapons industry. London has already beefed up its backing for Ukraine. Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a £4.5 billion package which includes the procurement of hundreds of air defense systems and drones.

The so-called Istanbul round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine was scrapped in April 2022, despite having reached a draft agreement, following then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s surprise visit during which he pledged continuous military support and urged Kiev to keep fighting.

David Arakhamia, then head of the Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations, later acknowledged Moscow’s claims that Johnson had played an influential role in scuppering a peace deal that would have seen Kiev retain territories it has since lost.

While the controversial British politician denied the claims, former US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland later confirmed that the negotiations fell apart due to US and UK pressure on Kiev to continue with warfare and reject the Istanbul deal.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

French ‘Mirage’ 2000-5 for the Kiev regime, yet another ‘game changer’ or more?

By Drago Bosnic | February 7, 2025

On February 6, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced that the first “Mirage” 2000-5 fighter jets were delivered to the Kiev regime. According to his post on X, the aircraft promised by French President Emmanuel Macron on June 6 last year finally arrived after at least eight months of training programs for the Neo-Nazi junta’s pilots. It’s safe to assume that such training lasted much longer, as it takes time for the staff to learn how to use them.

There’s no precise information on how many of these jets were delivered, nor the exact version of the “Mirage” 2000-5. In addition, there was an announcement that Dutch F-16s were also delivered on the same day. The mainstream propaganda machine was quick to proclaim that both types will be “game changers” and “greatly contribute” to fighting off the “evil Russian invaders”.

However, while this sort of superficial enthusiasm might make one think that the “Mirage” 2000-5 is some groundbreaking “wunderwaffe”, the reality is that it’s a largely outdated aircraft. Designed in the 1970s by the French Dassault Aviation, “Mirage” 2000-5 is a multirole, single-engine, fourth-generation fighter jet, largely analogous to the American F-16. This suggests that it will most likely play a similar (if not identical) role to the US-made jet, although some argue that it has better ground attack options due to French insistence on multirole (or omnirole, as they say) capabilities. Considering the number of available aircraft around the world (assessed at approximately 600 in eight countries), the Kiev regime is likely to experience even greater problems with operating and maintaining them, especially in comparison to the F-16s.

Namely, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin manufactured well over 4,600 units, with new deliveries still ongoing. There are currently more than 2,000 F-16s in active service. In practice, this means that spare parts and support for the US-made jet are much more readily available, while the “Mirage” 2000-5 hasn’t been in production since 2007.

The aforementioned variant of the French jet was introduced in the late 1990s, with improvements to avionics and weapon systems. Perhaps the most prominent of these is the Radar Doppler Multitarget (RDY), a multimode look-down/shoot-down pulse-Doppler radar designed by Thomson-CSF (now Thales). Although certainly potent when it was introduced, RDY is by no means a match for the target acquisition systems used by modern Russian fighter aircraft.

Worse yet, in terms of air-to-air ordnance, the “Mirage” 2000-5 is even more heavily outclassed, as its older R.550 “Magic” and earlier iterations of MICA missiles are no match to the plethora of Russian long-range munitions, particularly the now legendary R-37M used by the Su-35S air superiority fighters and the superfast, high-flying MiG-31BM interceptors (to say nothing of Moscow’s unrivaled air defenses). These Russian jets are also far more potent in terms of pure kinetic performance and are flown by highly experienced pilots. They also carry more weapons without the need for external fuel tanks, while the French jet cannot match their range even with those (which also means reduced payload capacity). However, the “Mirage” 2000-5 makes up for this with the ability to deploy a number of advanced air-to-ground munitions.

Namely, it can use the “Storm Shadow”/SCALP-EG ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) and AASM-HAMMER guided bombs. From a purely military standpoint, using the French-made jets as platforms for launching such weapons is much more sensible than trying to challenge Moscow’s air dominance. The Neo-Nazi junta’s propaganda (until recently funded by the infamous USAID) claims that the “Mirage” 2000-5 will primarily be used in an air defense role, intercepting missiles and drones.

However, this is not exactly the purpose its designers had in mind, so it’s questionable how successful it could be. On the other hand, strike missions make more sense, albeit these would also be limited by the number of available aircraft. Officially, France has at least 40 “Mirage” 2000-5F jets in its inventory, of which only 28 are still in active service.

Although some have reportedly been modernized, Paris was planning to retire these jets by the end of the decade. This could certainly free up most of them for the Kiev regime forces. However, there’s another, far more disturbing element to this story. As previously mentioned, the conventional capabilities of the “Mirage” 2000-5 are by no means the supposed “game changer” touted by the mainstream propaganda machine.

On the other hand, the French military operates the nuclear-capable “Mirage” 2000N variant (75 have been produced and most are reportedly still in service). Considering the Neo-Nazi junta’s insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons (Zelensky reiterated it in his latest interview with NATO propagandist Piers Morgan), this possibility certainly shouldn’t be discarded. The Kremlin itself has been warning about this for years.

This includes both President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Notably, several other NATO member states with nuclear-capable jets (namely the Dutch and Belgians) have pledged and delivered them to the Kiev regime. These countries have engaged in harsh rhetoric and even threats to Moscow, with France being no exception. What’s more, its troops have been present in NATO-occupied Ukraine even before the special military operation (SMO), while their numbers have only increased ever since (as have their already heavy casualties).

Russia and France are now engaged in a geostrategic duel in Africa, where Moscow supports at least a dozen countries that want to break free from the (neo)colonialist chokehold Paris has kept them in since the 19th century (and this is certainly not going very well for the latter).

If it wants escalation in Ukraine, France could either deliver some of its “Mirage” 2000Ns while insisting they’re actually the 2000-5 variant (the less likely option) or it could possibly modify the latter to also make them nuclear-capable (the more viable alternative). For the time being, there’s no concrete evidence for this, but the rhetoric coming from the most prominent NATO members (including the US) certainly suggests that the Kremlin is ready for any eventuality.

With the possible strategic paradigm shift under the new American administration, both Brussels and the Neo-Nazi junta are desperate to keep the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict going for as long as possible. However, the rapidly deteriorating capabilities of the Kiev regime forces stand in the way, meaning that the political West believes nuclear weapons could be the last resort.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US President resets ‘maximum pressure strategy’ on Iran but adds a nuanced message on US-Iran deal

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | February 7, 2025

France’s distinguished former career diplomat Sylvie Bermann, wrote an op-ed recently in the leading financial paper Les Echos that a new chapter of ‘transactional geopolitics’ has begun with Donald Trump. 

Extremely unlikely events can be expected, metaphorically called ‘black swans’. The so-called ‘black swan theory’ characterises events that come as a surprise, have a major effect, but can be rationalised only after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight. 

One may say, on February 4, a black swan appeared in the White House, as President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring “maximum pressure” on Iran, denying that country “all paths to a nuclear weapon.”  

White House Fact Sheet detailed that NSPM establishes the following truism: 

  • “Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles”;
  • “Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralised”; and, 
  • “Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered.” 

The black swan was intriguing. On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in DC on Tuesday, Jerusalem Post had written: 

“The Trump administration is in the process of formulating its Iran policy, and Netanyahu’s visit at this early stage in the president’s second term affords him a golden opportunity to give his input. And Iran remains Israel’s number one threat and problem… 

“While his (Trump’s) administration still seeks to contain Iran’s regional influence and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there have been early signs of shifts in tone and priorities.

“These shifts may reflect internal divisions within the administration – between Iran hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and isolationists like Vice President JD Vance, who said in October: “Our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran… this is where smart diplomacy really matters.”

At any rate, Trump decided to sign the NSPM without waiting for Netanyahu’s “input.” Equally, Marco Rubio was conspicuous by his absence in Trump’s team for the talks with Netanyahu. And Vice-President Vance not only assisted Trump at the talks but the president made it a point to ostentatiously convey his appreciation by hailing him in the presence of Netanyahu and his entourage, which was striking. 

And the mother of all surprises was that the NSPM document as such studiously avoided any threat of war against Iran. Trump avoids anti-Iran rhetoric, which used to be a running feature of his first term as president. Trump, although a mercurial personality, is not tweaking, either, the complex web of unwritten ground rules and norms of conduct that kept the four decades-old US-Israeli standoff from turning into military confrontation (which of course neither side wants). 

Meanwhile, all indications are that Trump senses that the Iran question has transformed as Tehran’s deterrent capability began  surging, and is no longer a ‘stand-alone’ challenge for the US, as the external environment has changed phenomenally since the Ukraine war began. Russia and Iran are in a quasi-alliance today. That said, Russia is also a stakeholder in nuclear non-proliferation and has a congruence of interests with the US that Iran abides by the NPT.  

A sense of proportions is always necessary to assess the US-Iran tensions. Therefore, Trump’s remarks after signing the executive order on NSPM need to be properly understood. Suffice to say, It was a carefully choreographed performance by Trump, caught on camera and speaking with an eye on a prompter — rather unusual for Trump who is famous for his stream of consciousness on such occasions.  

An announcer in the background introduced almost apologetically that NSPM  seeks to impose “maximum pressure” on Iran, but qualified it saying that many provisions in the document are only  “similar to action taken” during the first Trump administration. 

He continued that the “basic idea” is to ensure every government department and agency acts in unison, “and the intent here is to give you all the possible tools to engage with the Iranian government.” 

Trump spoke calmly in a measured tone of resignation. He noted stoically, “This is what everybody told me to sign. It is very tough on Iran. The Iran situation — hopefully, we don’t have to do very much. 

“We will see whether we can arrange to work out a deal with Iran and everybody can live together. Maybe it is possible, maybe it is not possible.” 

Trump continued: “So, I am signing this and am unhappy to do it. But I really have not so much choice because we have to be strong and firm. And I hope that it does not have to be used in any great measure at all. 

“We could have a Middle East and a world in total peace. Right now, we don’t have that. I like to have peace all over the world but now you have the world blowing up.” 

Trump repeated, “I am signing this but, hopefully, it will be a document which will be important but hardly has to be used.” 

When asked what kind of a deal is envisaged with Iran, Trump replied, “We will see. They (cannot) have a nuclear weapon. With me, it is simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. We don’t want to be tough on Iran…This (deal) could have been done long ago.” But Biden did nothing for whatever reason. 

When asked about alleged Iranian plots to assassinate him,  Trump reacted, “They (Iranians) have not done that. That will be a terrible thing to do. Not because of me, but they will be obliterated… I have left instructions. If they do it, they will get obliterated. There won’t be anything left. If anything like that happens (from any quarter), there will be total obliteration of that state — not only Iran…

Trump concluded by repeating again, “So, I am signing this. It is a very powerful document (read maximum pressure strategy) but, hopefully, I will not have to use it.” 

In essence, Trump conveyed a nuanced message to Tehran before Netanyahu’s arrival that he has an independent line of thinking regardless of what the hotheads in Tel Aviv might be saying. And that is to work for a deal through smart diplomacy — the JD Vance line. 

Trump understands that the Masoud Pezeshkian government also seeks dialogue and negotiations. Trump does not believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, no matter the Israeli propaganda to the contrary through the past decade. 

Without doubt, Tehran will grasp Trump’s nuanced message of ‘transactional geopolitics’. Iranian officials have welcomed Trump’s remark that he is willing to work out a deal. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a message on X: “In addition to being one of the committed parties to the NPT and other global non-proliferation treaties, Iran has already explicitly declared that ‘Iran will not seek to produce or acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances’.” 

Araghchi added: “Obtaining practical guarantees that Iran will not attain nuclear weapons is not difficult, provided that, in return, concrete assurances are given to effectively end hostile actions against Iran—including economic pressures and sanctions.”

Tehran has taken note that Trump did not rule out a meeting with Pezeshkian. When asked about Trump’s remark, the government spokeswoman  Fatemeh Mohajerani told reporters at a press conference in Tehran on Wednesday, “Our international issues have been founded upon the principles of dignity, wisdom and expediency. All issues, specifically relations with other countries, are being pursued on the basis of these three principles.” 

In effect, Iran has responded positively to Trump’s estimation that a deal is possible and signalled flexibility and pragmatism on its part. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Majed Al-Ansari told Fox News today that his country is ready to act as mediator. 

February 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

UK local council pensions enabling Israel’s genocide, apartheid, new figures reveal

MEMO | February 6, 2025

Funds held by the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is administered by local council across the UK, invest over £12 billion ($14.9 billion) in companies enabling Israel’s genocide, military occupation and apartheid against Palestinians, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) revealed today.

The group said research it carried out, obtained through Freedom of Information requests, details the investments of 81 LGPS funds in companies which: produce weapons and military technology used in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians; provide services or infrastructure that supports Israel’s unlawful military occupation; or conduct activity in Israel’s illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

“Collectively, LGPS funds invest over £450 million [$557.6 million] in BAE Systems, which manufactures components for Israel’s F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighter jets used to bomb Gaza. Over £80 million [$99.1 million] is invested in Caterpillar, which manufactures bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes, schools and hospitals. While over £90 million [$111.5 million] is invested in RTX Corporation, formerly Raytheon, which produces 4000-pound GBU-28 bombs used by the Israeli military,” PSC said in a statement.

For the first time, PSC’s research identifies investments in Amazon and Alphabet Inc (Google). This totals £4.7 billion ($5.8 billion), nearly 40 per cent of the value of all investments listed. Both companies work together to provide cloud computing infrastructure to the Israeli military and government, dubbed Project Nimbus. In addition, the research shows LGPS funds hold over £28 million ($34.7 million) in Israel government bonds, “therefore lending Israel money to carry out its atrocities”.

The new research comes as campaigns calling for the divestment of LGPS funds from companies enabling Israel’s human rights abuses continue to gather momentum.

Lewis Backon, campaigns officer at PSC, said: “The scale of LGPS fund investments in companies that are complicit in Israel’s grave abuses of Palestinian rights is shocking. The deferred wages of millions of local government workers are going into companies enabling Israel’s war crimes, without their consent.”

“Divestment from Israel’s crimes is a moral and legal imperative that cannot be ignored.”

February 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

‘I much prefer a nuclear deal’: Trump dismisses talk of US–Israeli attacks on Iran

The Cradle | February 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump has denied that Washington and Tel Aviv are planning military attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying that he would “much prefer” a nuclear agreement preventing Tehran from acquiring an atomic weapon.

“I want Iran to be a great and successful Country, but one that cannot have a nuclear weapon. Reports that the United States, working in conjunction with Israel, is going to blow Iran into smithereens, ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED,” Trump said early on 5 February on his social media platform Truth Social.

“I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!” the president went on to state.

In early February, reports said that Trump shot down Israeli plans for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Trump expressed hope late last month that a nuclear deal could be “worked out without having to go that further step,” referring to an attack.

Wall Street Journal report in December said Trump’s team was mulling options for strikes on the Iranian nuclear program and that there was a “rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup.”

This week, the US president signed an executive order restoring his “maximum pressure” policy of sanctions on the Islamic Republic, as reports had said he would prior to his second presidential term.

“If the main problem is Iran not having nuclear weapons, this problem can be solved,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday, adding that “maximum pressure is a failed experiment and testing it again will lead to another defeat.”

Trump withdrew from the 2015 US–Iranian nuclear deal in 2018 – during his first term – and restored harsh sanctions against Iran.

Tehran is subject to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970, as well as a religious fatwa outlawing the development and use of any form of weapons of mass destruction.

Former CIA director said last month that “we do not see any sign” that Iran is planning to weaponize its nuclear program.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pulling the Money Chain: The NGO Network in Ukraine and the Global War on Terror

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | February 5, 2025

Detritus from Joe Biden’s administration doesn’t just amount to the obvious—inflation and deficit spending, regulations and wars. There’s also been a more subtle shift off of these failures, affecting who has power in our country and how they’ll use it in the future.

Nowhere is the shift less noticed or more definite than in the world of humanitarianism, which has been enriched these past three years by the previous administration’s proxy wars. Since 2022—when the Biden White House responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by neither escalating nor defusing but prolonging—a network of humanitarian non-profits has grown up around the conflict. This network has fed off the deaths of Ukrainians and the piling on of debt for future Americans through its operators’ deep contacts with the United States government and its outgrowths.

This network is worth investigating on its own. But with the advent of the second Trump Administration which is looking to wind down the war, its players appear to be pivoting from Ukraine to the Middle East: from ginning up funds for an endless proxy war to ginning them up for a repeat of the Global War on Terror.

The most obvious entry point into this network is Ukraine NGO Coordination Network (UNCN), which has a small staff but a wide reach: forty-two organizations are members. Many of them are some version of globalist: “Cross Border Civilians,” “Aviation without Borders,” “Global Outreach Doctors,” “Medical Teams Worldwide.” And many of these have the institutional links one might expect. Cross Border Civilians recruits from the World Economic Forum while Global Outreach Doctors traffics in Black Lives Matter. But even UNCN non-profits with close connections to Ukraine are much more tied into Washington DC-backed institutions than they first appear.

Listed first of all these organizations is Razom, a Ukrainian-American non-profit active since 2014. Its president, Dora Chomiak, is a Princeton and Columbia graduate who served in the 1990s as a Director of Regional Media Programs for George Soros’ newly-founded Open Society Institute. Under Chomiak’s leadership, Razom has a spot at the World Economic Forum, a regular Soros haunt. It also has a strong presence at Bard College, a major accepter of Ukrainian refugees which recently received a $500 million endowment pledge from Soros, whose second wife directs the Bard Graduate Center.

Razom also has government and university contacts. Samantha Power, the outgoing director of USAID, the government agency responsible for foreign aid, has been a featured speaker at Razom-hosted events, and so has the U.S. State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker. Columbia University, which has received extensive donations from Soros as well as tax exemptions from Washington, hosts regular pro-Ukrainian events at its Harriman Institute, where Chomiak serves on the board.

Another prominent member of UNCN’s network is Help Ukraine, founded by Brian Mefford, who also founded Wooden Horse Strategies, which by its own description is “a Kyiv-based consulting firm focusing on USAID and EU project development and evaluation, risk analysis, due diligence, political strategy and strategic communications” that “provides clients with both Ukraine and regional insight that achieves results for their projects, businesses and policy objectives.” In 2023, Wooden Horse Strategies was listed by Russian officials as under contract with Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center to help carry out “the United States’ military biological programs in Ukraine.”

This claim isn’t verifiable, but it is verifiable that Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center contracted with Wooden Horse Strategies to combat “disinformation” about the Ukrainian war effort. Mefford was also reliably identified as an attendee at a 2022 Washington summit on the conduct of the war sponsored by “private sector cyber security and intelligence operators and CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel,” which, according to its CEO, has seen over thirty of its portfolio companies “deplo[y]” their technologies “as part of Western efforts to support Ukraine.

These players, in other words, are not the Salvation Army. They’re highly plugged into government-funded universities and intelligence agencies as well as the U.S. Department of State. This positions them to be indirect or direct recipients not just of defense and university grants but of staggering amounts of formal humanitarian aid. “Since February 2022,” according to a Congressional Research report released on January 6, 2025, “Congress has appropriated more than $46 billion in emergency funds for accounts solely or partially managed by USAID to address the war in Ukraine” including for “humanitarian assistance.” This is on top of $65.9 billion in direct military assistance in the same period.

It’s not clear, as this report notes, where funds raised and spent this fast actually went. But almost surely some of them percolated directly or indirectly to the organizations which help make up the UNCN. Now, with the Trump administration opposed to further involvement in Ukraine, at least one of UNCN’s players appear to be mobilizing to get funding for a different foreign cause.

This player is Sarah Adams, Chief of Operations for UNCN from January 2022 to January 2024 and an institutional operator par excellence. At the start of her career, Adams worked for a pharmaceutical company with links to Pfizer and in the 2010s she was a CIA analyst abroad, including in Libya. She serves as a Program Analyst for the United States Department of the Air Force in Tampa.

Currently, though, on conservative podcasts like Shawn Ryan’s and Tudor Dixon’s on which she appears, Adams presents herself as a former CIA agent and whistleblower cut from MAGA’s mold: an ex-soldier sounding the alert on jihadi infiltrations. She makes the case for a unified global movement of pre-planned Al Qaeda “wave” attacks which represent a clear and present danger to the United States. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the January 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Adams’s supporters claimed validation for her—despite the fact that the attacker was an American-born resident of Texas and a Deloitte employee radicalized online.

Adams claims to be going up against Pentagon pushback when she makes her warnings, despite the fact that she’s employed by the Air Force, which is run from the Pentagon. But the Pentagon’s history of firing employees who dissent, among them decorated Space Force Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, renders this claim extremely dubious. Journalist Max Blumenthal has pointed out other inconsistencies as well. Not only are “Adams’ sources [for her claims] unnamed,” they’re also uncited outside of her constant references to “we.” In only the first fifteen minutes of her appearance on The Shawn Ryan Show, Adams cites “open source” information, i.e. information from publicly available sources or that she got “on the ground”; doesn’t link to those sources (outside of a terrorist training video); and then makes broad claims. One is that Al Qaeda activities in Europe are a planned operation for revenge against America for its interfering in the Middle East. Another is connecting threatened Al Qaeda attacks on America to the October 7 attack against Israel, implying that combating one means combating the other.

The way Adams phrases her warnings reinforces the confusion. She sounds either like she’s not confident in her own material, or that she’s patronizing her audience by talking down. “But it’s just, um, al Qaeda has all these waves of attacks planned, okay” is her way of describing a clear and present threat to Americans. About terrorist trainees: “Remember their life is they train all the time so if that’s all you’re doing all day long, I mean, you’re gonna get really competent at it and then they have different emotions behind it too and, you know, different beliefs, and the religion behind it too, which makes you more devout.” She calls a Pentagon communication to her a “nastygram.” She says (jokingly? not?) that Shawn Ryan’s head of production looks like a terrorist and that she “could have [his address] by the end of the day if I really wanted it.” This doesn’t sound like an experienced veteran delivering a serious warning. It sounds like a self-promoter with a strange side.

When it comes to questions about her analysis or sources, Adams is not tolerant. When I pushed back on X with “total respect” about whether the issue of the Taliban targeting a French Afghani in France was relevant, as Adams claimed, to “all of us,” she responded before blocking me:

One reason Adams may take this attitude is that engaging with American conservatives isn’t really what she wants to be doing; it’s a means to an end. One of her supporters explained to me on X: “Sarah’s focusing on raising attention with ‘the right’ (even though they typically lack nuance) because they’re still national security focused, while Left leaning westerners tend not to [be].” This ally, James Griffin, runs a website titled “Analytica Camillus.” It pairs broad sloganeering (“Morality in Ruthlessness”; “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”) with intricately plotted maps of counteroffensives in Ukraine.

All of this raises a question: if Muslim terror tactics have been such clear threats and created such humanitarian calamities, why did self-identified experts in war and humanitarianism like Adams and Griffin spend years focusing on Ukraine and only pivot to Islamism as a new Donald Trump presidency loomed? One answer is that these pivots—from the Russia threat to Muslim terror, from Kosovo to Iraq—have been happening for three decades, executed by the same connected institutional operators in the name of the same general principles applied to different situations based on which administration is in the White House.

These general principles are security and humanitarianism, a double rhetorical punch that has justified the foreign interventions that have created unprecedented non-and-for-profit boondoggles since the 1990s. Tellingly, Adams describes herself as 10% warlord, 90% humanitarian, or a warrior in the name of humanitarian ideals, and neither her pairing of war and human rights nor the profits that accrue from that pairing are new. An early beneficiary was George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations picked up in the Balkans where NATO left off, and who has been heavily invested in Ukrainian companies. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also a boondoggle for non-profits as well as for business ventures to “build up” the region America had decimated by players like the Pritzker Family; one of whose members, Thomas Pritzker, set up North America Western Asia Holdings in partnership with a former undersecretary of Defense in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration to pursue those opportunities in 2011.

A humanitarian-crusader thru-line also runs through the careers of government officials responsible for these crusades. Biden USAID director Samantha Power made her name in the 1990s with a Pulitzer Prize winning book urging American intervention in the name of human rights and later stage-managed the intervention in Libya, where Sarah Adams served as a CIA analyst. Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a key backer of humanitarianism up to his last days in the State Department, had a father, another humanitarian, who was a key supporter of the NATO expansion off of our 1990s Balkans interventions which began our long cool down with Russia. Both Power and Blinken also  advanced their career off of or in support of the Iraq War. This was the ultimate in humanitarian-security politics gone wrong. It was justified by links between Muslims (Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda) that later proved conflationary and that are uncomfortably similar to the links Sarah Adams is currently making between different Muslim groups.

In between stints in government, both Power and Blinken subsisted off Ivy League research perches with links to nonprofits and security contractors. Almost surely, both will lend their support to policies already being bandied around in Washington, and reinforced by testimony from people like Sarah Adams that empower those institutions. These policies include re-authorizing government surveillance on American citizens and expanding the power of the Department of Homeland Security in the name of combating Muslim terror.

Other prominent supporters of these policies like Aayan Hirsi Ali, operating out of non-profits inside government-funded universities, want Americans to take the same broad-brush approach to national security as Sarah Adams does. But they expand the threats even further, broadcasting a new humanitarian and security crusade against Marxism, Islamism, the Chinese Communist Party, and Vladimir Putin. Tellingly, Hirsi’s husband, Niall Ferguson, an institutionally-connected booster of American interventionism and humanitarianism since a dozen years before the Iraq War, has recently become a Trump supporter, self-professedly dancing at Mar-a-Lago not too long ago.

He, along with longtime interventionist Bret Stephens and Stephens’ protégé, Free Press founder Bari Weiss, have increasingly identified with conservatives while pushing very different focuses. As of January 28, The Free Press’ last twenty international stories have included five on the Western hemisphere or China; the other fifteen have been on Europe and the Middle East. And this doesn’t even mention The Free Press’ separate section on Israel and antisemitism. Whatever one’s views of these issues, these players’ focus is far away from the focus of constitutional conservatives or the Trump White House.

Arguably, these humanitarian-military crusades—the ones which fund people like Sarah Adams, Brian Mefford, and Dora Chomiak, and which open investment opportunities for the Pritzkers and George Soros—are the most durable beneficiaries of America’s post-Cold War deep state apparatus. Quietly since 1995 and loudly since 2001, there has literally not been a year when we weren’t engaged in one of these missions, empowering contractors and non-profits abroad while encouraging surveillance at home.

Today’s latest sales pitch for a new crusade by Ukraine War pushers is something believers in small government and individual liberties should push back against. Profits in the name of war-linked humanitarianism are suspect to begin with. But when they threaten our liberties and our finances, they’re anathema to American interests.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow welcomes Trump’s stance on Kiev’s NATO bid

RT | February 5, 2025

Russia welcomes the statements made by US President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Trump is the first Western leader to admit that it was wrong to support Kiev’s plans to join the military bloc, the diplomat said on Wednesday.

Trump stated last month that he understands the Russian stance that Ukraine should not be part of NATO. Speaking to reporters in Florida, the US president said Moscow’s position had long been “written in stone,” but that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had ignored it, which contributed to the current conflict.

“Somewhere along the line, Biden said, ‘[Ukraine], they should be able to join NATO.’ Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feelings about that,” Trump added.

Speaking at an ambassadors’ roundtable on Ukraine, Lavrov said Trump’s comments suggest Washington may finally be ready to address issues linked to Ukraine’s NATO bid and the bloc’s eastward expansion.

“President Trump bluntly said that one of the main mistakes was drawing Ukraine into NATO, and that if he had been in power the past four years, the conflict would not have happened,” Lavrov noted.

“For the first time, a Western leader… the leader of the entire Western world, uttered these words, which we welcome because for the first time the problem of NATO was identified as something that the US is ready to discuss seriously,” he added. Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a root cause of the current conflict, saying that warnings not to encourage these aspirations either fell on deaf ears or were met with “duplicity” and “hypocrisy” by Western politicians.

“The root cause is the conscious, long-term desire and… practical steps of the West to create direct military threats to Russia on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, and drawing it into NATO. We have raised this issue repeatedly, demanding NATO honor its pledge not to expand eastward, but all was in vain,” Lavrov said. He suggested Trump’s remarks could signal a shift in US policy, which he called crucial as “Washington is the one who will ultimately make the decisions” regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, insisting any settlement of the ongoing conflict must include Kiev’s neutrality and demilitarization. Ukraine, however, considers its membership a strategic foreign and security policy objective, and has recently claimed that it sees its admission to the US-led military bloc as a security guarantee to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. While NATO last year declared that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to joining the bloc, its members warned that Kiev would have to meet certain conditions first, such as resolving the conflict with Moscow.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky a ‘maniac’ to demand NATO nuclear weapons – Moscow

RT | February 5, 2025

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s statements on obtaining nuclear weapons are cause for serious concern, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. In a social media post on Wednesday, she branded Zelensky a “maniac [gripped by] sick delusions” who could seek a ‘dirty bomb’.

Zelensky reiterated his nuclear aspirations in an interview with British television host Piers Morgan on Tuesday, in which he lamented that Kiev traded Soviet-era deterrence “for nothing” in the 1990s.

“Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons,” Zelensky told Morgan. “What missiles can stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That is a rhetorical question.”

He called on NATO to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a stopgap measure while Kiev awaits accession to the US-led military bloc.

Responding on Wednesday, Zakharova wrote: “Zelensky’s latest statements that he wants to possess a nuclear capability expose him as a maniac, who considers the planet as an object for his sick delusions. They also prove that for him nuclear power stations are not a source of peaceful energy, but a dirty weapon that the Kiev regime needs for blackmail.”

Ukrainian nuclear rhetoric predates the outbreak of hostilities with Russia. Zelensky suggested that Kiev could build atomic weapons in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022, days before the escalation of the conflict.

Russian officials have expressed concern over Ukraine potentially developing a dirty bomb amid its battlefield setbacks. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported no diversion of declared radioactive materials in the country.

Ukraine inherited a well-developed civilian nuclear industry from the USSR, and currently operates three nuclear power plants and two research reactors.

Contrary to Zelensky’s assertion, independent Ukraine lacked a true nuclear deterrent as it did not possess the unilateral capability to launch Soviet weapons deployed on its soil in response to an attack. The disarmament of Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was part of a broader nuclear reduction initiative in the 1990s. Western nations incentivized the host nations with aid programs.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin comments on talks with ‘illegitimate’ Zelensky

RT | February 5, 2025

Moscow is ready for talks with Kiev even though Vladimir Zelensky currently has no legal right to lead Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

On Tuesday, Zelensky told British journalist Piers Morgan that he could hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The comments marked a significant shift from Zelensky’s stance adopted in the autumn of 2022, when he signed a decree banning any negotiations with the Russian leadership.

“If that is the only setup in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this setup, for this meeting,” Zelensky told Morgan.

Asked to comment on Zelensky’s remarks on Wednesday, Peskov said there is “no place for emotions” when it comes to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “What is needed here is legal analysis and absolute pragmatism… Zelensky has significant de jure legitimacy issues within his own country,” the spokesman pointed out.

Peskov referred to the Ukrainian leader’s refusal to hold a presidential election and the fact that his term expired last May. Moscow maintains that the legitimate power in Ukraine now lies with the parliament and its speaker.

“Despite this, the Russian side remains open to negotiations,” Peskov stressed, arguing that Moscow’s successes on the battlefield “clearly suggest that Kiev should be the one to demonstrate openness and interest in such negotiations.”

Peskov also weighed in on Zelensky’s suggestion that the West could give Ukraine nuclear weapons as a substitute for NATO membership to guarantee its protection.

“In general, such statements are borderline madness. There is a nuclear non-proliferation regime,” the spokesman said. Peskov suggested that EU politicians, despite their flaws, should understand the “absurdity and potential danger of discussing such a topic.”

Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the deal after Crimea voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Russia has argued that the deal was fundamentally undermined by NATO’s expansion towards its borders.

Putin has said that Russia would not allow Kiev to create or obtain nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.”

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Trump approves $1 billion in new bombs, armored bulldozers for Israel

The Cradle | February 4, 2025

US President Donald Trump has asked Congress to approve transferring $1 billion worth of additional bombs and other military equipment to Israel, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 4 February.

The planned weapons transfer includes 4,700 bombs that weigh 1,000 lbs each, worth more than $700 million, as well as armored bulldozers built by Caterpillar, worth more than $300 million, the White House officials said.

The 4,700 bombs consist of 4,500 BLU-110s and 200 Mk-83s, which the Pentagon refers to as “general purpose bombs.”

The Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers are used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinians’ homes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

Funds for the weapons and equipment will come from the billions of dollars in US military aid provided to Israel annually at the expense of US taxpayers.

US-supplied bombs have significantly contributed to Israel’s killing of over 62,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the majority women and children, since the start of the war on 7 October 2023.

The report of the new weapons transfer comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are in Washington to meet with President Trump.

Netanyahu is expected to pressure Trump to approve additional arms transfers that were initially requested by former president Joe Biden, the WSJ added. These additional arms requests include $8 billion in new bombs, missiles, and artillery rounds.

Before Israel’s ground invasion of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza last spring, the US suspended just one shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel.

President Trump lifted the suspension last week, saying he released the bombs because “they paid for them, and they have been waiting for them for a long time.”

Netanyahu later thanked Trump in a video message.

While a temporary ceasefire is currently in place in Gaza, Israel is escalating its war on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including through the use of airstrikes.

On 1 February, three Israeli airstrikes killed five Palestinians and injured three others in Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank. Among the victims was a 14-year-old.

During the recent Israeli army campaign in Jenin, dozens of houses have been demolished, and roads in the refugee camp there have been dug up by armored Israeli bulldozers, driving thousands of people from their homes.

Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 900 Palestinians across the occupied West Bank.

As the war began, former national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir initiated a campaign to arm Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank with thousands of additional high-caliber rifles. He also intensified calls for Israel to annex the occupied Palestinian territory.

When asked about the possibility of annexation on Tuesday, Trump did not answer the question but stressed Israel’s small size.

“It’s a pretty small piece of land,” Trump said. “It’s amazing what they’ve been able to do when you think about it – a lot of good, smart brain power.”

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Is North Korea a nuclear state?

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – February 4, 2025

The transition from the Biden to the Trump government was marked by an interesting discussion as to how the outgoing and coming administrations view North Korea’s nuclear potential.

Republicans: DPRK is a nuclear state and de-nuclearisation is unlikely

On January 14, US Secretary of Defence nominee Pete Hegseth called North Korea a “nuclear power” that poses a threat to global stability. He noted Pyongyang’s success in increasing its nuclear potential, bringing down the size of nuclear warheads and improving mobile launch platforms, which is of particular concern given North Korea’s proximity to the territories where US military contingents are located.

Also, Donald Trump intends to appoint Elbridge Colby, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Strategy and Force Development in his first term, to the post of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. This is a man who believes that the de-nuclearisation of the DPRK is an ‘unlikely’ goal. In addition, Colby believes that US troops on the Korean peninsula should focus more on threats from China and that “North Korea is not the primary threat to the United States”. “It is irrational to sacrifice several American cities to fight the DPRK” and Washington should allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons or at least to seriously consider such a possibility.

Democrats: DPRK is not a nuclear state, de-nuclearisation remains the goal

On the same day, January 14, the outgoing US president’s national security adviser, John Kirby, noted that the White House’s policy on this issue had not changed. The current US administration, led by Joe Biden, does not agree with Pete Hegseth’s statement.

On January 7, former US Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Philip Goldberg, stated that, despite the issues associated with the development of Pyongyang’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, the de-nuclearisation of North Korea should remain a goal that must continue to be fought for.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry made similar statements: “North Korea’s de-nuclearisation has been a principle consistently upheld by South Korea, the United States and the international community” … Under the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), North Korea can never be recognised as a nuclear-armed state”.

The conservative media in South Korea also began to sound the alarm; such terminology ‘not only changes the international community’s understanding of North Korea’s nuclear status, but also undermines the long-standing efforts of South Korea and the United States to achieve the de-nuclearisation of the North’. “Recognising North Korea as a nuclear power is fundamentally different from recognising its technical nuclear capabilities”. Their writing show concerns that by shifting the conversation from de-nuclearisation to arms control, Washington and Pyongyang may eventually agree to freeze the nuclear programme, from which the US-ROK alliance would take a blow and which could also trigger a nuclear domino effect. “If North Korea is recognised as a nuclear power, countries like South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan may reconsider their non-nuclear positions”.

Marco Rubio’s views

A while later, on January 16, in response to statements that the US’ policy towards North Korea, including sanctions, is ‘ineffective’ and Pyongyang is only doubling down on its nuclear and missile programmes, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio has already noted that Washington should take a serious look at policy on North Korea to study how to reduce the risk of an ‘unintended’ war between the two Koreas and prevent a crisis on the Korean peninsula without encouraging countries to build their own nuclear weapons.

Note that the new Secretary of State does not make the North out to be a ‘threat to humanity’ and sets more practical tasks, avoiding what the author calls ‘conflict for irrational reasons’ and the likely fall of the nuclear non-proliferation regime due to the emergence of new nuclear actors (we shall not name them specifically, but all is clear to everyone).

Rubio admitted that he was initially sceptical about engaging with Pyongyang, but during his first term as president, Trump “stopped missile tests. This did not stop the development of the programme, but at least it calmed the situation down a bit”.

Rubio did not directly mention de-nuclearisation, but noted that Kim Jong Un “used nuclear weapons as an insurance policy to stay in power” and “no sanctions prevented him from developing this potential”.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry’s response to Rubio’s remark on January 16, 2025, was similar to the answer to Hegseth: the de-nuclearisation of North Korea is a “unanimous goal” shared by the international community. We have heard Rubio, but “the new Trump administration has yet to outline its policy towards Pyongyang” and South Korea “intends to maintain close contacts with the United States in the process of reviewing its policies to ensure a coordinated response to North Korea’s nuclear and other challenges”.

In summary…

Previously, US officials refused to publicly recognise North Korea as a nuclear power, even though Pyongyang has called itself a nuclear power in its constitution, adopted a nuclear doctrine and showed no willingness to discuss giving up its nuclear weapons. In their opinion, the use of this term can be interpreted as the recognition of the DPRK’s nuclear status and thus negatively affect US efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Biden administration tried to look the other way and not acknowledge the reality, perceiving the North Korean regime as a country that does not yet have real nuclear potential and, importantly, may even be subject to de-nuclearisation. Although, it was clear by the end of the 2010s that such a process was possible only after a regime change.

The Trump administration is more realistic in this regard. Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there are quite a lot of military personnel who have worked in the field and are well aware of what real North Korean nuclear missile power is.

The question, however, is how US policy will be adjusted in relation to the idea of a nuclear North. Say Trump decides to recognise North Korea’s nuclear status; what practical steps will follow and how it will affect changes in sanctions? On the one hand, it becomes clear that de-nuclearisation, which was the main formal goal of the negotiations between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un at the previous stage, no longer makes sense. At best, it makes sense to talk about arms control and here there are some theoretical prospects. On the other hand, for American public opinion, North Korea remains an ‘evil state’ to which concessions are unacceptable. This means that Donald Trump will have to think very carefully to come up with a proposal that Pyongyang will actually be ready to discuss. Moreover, if such a proposal is formulated, the American deep state and public opinion will be strongly opposed to such concessions and it is unclear whether Donald Trump will be able to put his ideas into practice.

Nevertheless, it is still pleasant that the new US administration is beginning to recognise reality vis-à-vis Korea.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine has lost – ex-Zelensky adviser

RT | February 3, 2025

Ukraine has lost the armed conflict with Russia, primarily due to the inability of the Ukrainian people to take personal responsibility for their failures, Aleksey Arestovich, a former aide to Vladimir Zelensky, has argued. He expects the US, Russia, and China to decide on a resolution without consulting Kiev.

Arestovich resigned from his government post in early 2023 after contradicting the official narrative around a missile incident. Now a sharp critic of the Zelensky administration, he argued in a Telegram post on Sunday that the changing tone of Western discourse about Ukraine has signaled a significant policy change.

US President Donald Trump will sort things out with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping “without consulting us, because engaging with those who deny reality is futile,” he wrote.

“We have lost the war due to our own stupidity, pride and stubbornness. In truth, we have defeated ourselves,” Arestovich added. “We have created a society of mutual hatred and intolerance, in which every individual is right and everyone collectively is to blame.”

He cited several recent news stories, calling them a wakeup call for Ukrainians to acknowledge defeat and their role in it.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for the Ukraine conflict, has called on Kiev to resume presidential and parliamentary elections, which Zelensky suspended under martial law. Conservative US political commentator Tucker Carlson branded the Ukrainian leader “a dictator” during a debate with British television host Piers Morgan. Additionally, Washington’s decision last month to suspend foreign aid programs has forced many Ukrainian NGOs and media outlets to solicit for private donations to avoid shutdown.

Public statements and media reports suggest that the Trump administration seeks a freeze of the Ukraine conflict along existing frontlines. Moscow has said that it won’t accept an outcome that would allow Kiev to rebuild its military and renew hostilities in the future. The core causes of the conflict, including NATO’s expansion in Europe, need to be addressed in order for a sustainable peace agreement to be reached, Russian officials have asserted.

The Ukrainian military is reportedly plagued by large-scale desertion and poor morale, while Russia continues to advance. Zelensky, meanwhile, has called on Kiev’s Western backers to deploy at least 200,000 troops as “peacekeepers.” He has also urged Trump to adopt a “peace through strength” approach to pressure Moscow into accepting truce terms favorable to Kiev.

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment