Meloni: Soros is interfering in democracies, not Musk
“This is not the first time that famous and wealthy people have expressed their opinions. I have seen many such cases, often against me, and no one was offended then”
Remix News | January 10, 2025
At a press conference in Rome earlier this year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that Elon Musk’s political posts on X do not pose a threat to democracy; while oligarch George Soros, however, continuously interferes in the politics of other nations, according to Italy’s leader.
“The problem is when wealthy people use their resources to finance parties, associations and political exponents all over the world to influence the political choices of nation states”, Meloni told reporters at an annual press conference. “That’s not what Musk is doing,” she added.
“Elon Musk financed an election campaign in his country, by his candidate, in a system in which, by the way, I would point out that this is quite common,” Meloni said. “But I am not aware of Elon Musk financing parties, associations or political exponents around the world. This, for example, is what George Soros does.”
“And yes, I consider that to be dangerous interference in the affairs of nation states and in their sovereignty,” she noted.
Meloni also pointed to other wealthy people actively funding parties and NGOs around the world to influence local policies. Musk, she said, is a very rich man who expresses his opinion and does not pose a threat to democracy.
“Is the problem that Elon Musk is influential and rich or that he is not left-wing?” asked Meloni.
She also noted that she and many others on the right are not financially dependent on Musk, unlike many on the left who are funded by Soros, or have been funded by him over the years.
Meloni denied ever taking any money from Musk, “unlike those who have taken it from Soros”.
She also denied various media reports that her government is on the verge of signing a massive deal with Musk’s company SpaceX. However, even if that were true, signing a business deal is far different than receiving financial aid for political activities, which is behavior that Soros often partakes in with his beneficiaries.
“Is the problem with Musk that he’s rich and influential, or that he’s not leftist?” the Italian prime minister asked.
In response to a journalist’s question, Meloni also spoke about Elon Musk’s open support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD). Meloni stressed that if anyone tried to influence the Italian elections, it was Germany, under the then Social Democratic-Liberal-Green government.
“I would like to remind you of the German side’s interference in the Italian election campaign,” Meloni said, referring to previous German concerns about the right-wing position she represented.
Soros has long been a controversial figure due to his outsized role in the politics of nations around the world, however, few on the left-liberal spectrum ever criticized this interference. Soros has also long called for the removal of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, with both figures antagonistic towards each other over the years.
150 EU officials expected to monitor Elon Musk conversation with Alice Weidel, possible ban on the table
Remix News | January 9, 2025
The European Union’s outrage is only growing over a planned interview hosted by Elon Musk later today with Alternative for Germany (AfD) party co-chair Alice Weidel. Now, Politico is reporting that 150 EU officials are expected to attend the conversation between Musk and Weidel for the purpose of learning whether X is complying with EU rules. In addition, French politicians are already talking about an EU-wide ban.
The claim is that there are fears that Musk’s team will manipulate the algorithm to provide the interview more attention. However, Musk has over 200 million followers and nearly all of his posts receive millions and often tens of millions of views, which makes it certain that the interview, which has also been widely advertised, will receive significant attention.
Weidel has also taken to X about the surveillance of the upcoming interview.
“Big Brother is watching you: 150 EU officials are supposed to monitor my conversation with @elonmusk. An EU that uses its bureaucracy to exercise censorship on social media is instilling the spirit of unfreedom. The #dsa threatens democracy!” she wrote
The officials overseeing the interview are “given relatively extensive power,” according to Politico. They will be able to use, among other things, the Digital Services Act (DSA) to monitor how the algorithm works and how content is being displayed to users.
Politico writes that Musk allegedly pushed certain posts in the past, including one about the Super Bowl in the past. The alleged reason was that Musk was mad that one of President Biden’s posts were getting more attention.
The EU officials are working with experts from the European Center for Algorithmic Transparency” in Seville to determine if such an action will occur once again. However, they will not release this information immediately. Instead, it will like be added to a general procedure against X.
A wide range of EU leaders fear losing power due to shifting public sentiment, and Musk’s X represents their top threat. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, called for a decisive stand against political influence. When asked whether a ban on X, in the same style as Brazil, was possible, he responded: “That is possible under our laws.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez also claimed Musk was pushing “hate” and warned against the rise of fascism in Europe.
SPD General-Secretary Matthias Miersch said that Musk’s influence on Germany’s elections now “call into question the foundations of democracy.”
However, Musk is unlikely to manipulate the algorithm in favor of Weidel especially when enough people are already likely to watch the interview without any interference. Absent some overt manipulation, it is unclear what could possibly be illegal about such an interview. Musk is allowed to interview Weidel. That is his right and her right. The bigger problem would be if he censored anyone who criticized such an interview or manipulated the algorithm to suppress this criticism, which is undoubtedly what the old Twitter regime did before his purchase — all of which the EU actively supported
The head of Germany’s Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, appeared to take a more measured approach to the issue.
“Not everything that you get upset about is also illegal,” said Müller on Thursday morning on Deutschlandfunk. “In election campaigns, you also have to put up with things that you personally find inappropriate, indecent or unacceptable.” Freedom of expression always means “the freedom of those whose opinion you do not share.”
He said that the excitement over the Musk interview was “understandable” but it must first be observed whether any laws are actually broken during the process. He noted, however, that people could choose simply not to listen to the interview.
Hungarian news portal calls Biden’s decision to sanction minister ‘a slap in the face’
Remix News | January 9, 2025
In the wake of the United States sanctioning Antal Rogán, the minister in charge of Prime Minister Orbán’s cabinet office, the Mandiner news portal assesses the case as highly unusual.
The official statement from the U.S. Treasury Department quotes Bradley T. Smith, the Treasury Department’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, as saying: “The United States will not hesitate to hold accountable individuals, like Rogan, who use the power of their office to illicitly enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of their country and their fellow citizens.”
The justification does not contain specific cases, but writes about general corruption, referring to the 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index. This index was prepared by Transparency International (TI), which receives support from organizations affiliated with the United States Department of State and George Soros, among others.
The sanctions action taken by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was based on Presidential Executive Order 13818, which implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.
The Magnitsky Act allows the United States to impose sanctions on individuals for either corruption or human rights abuses. As Human Rights First describes it, the U.S. Congress passed the original Magnitsky Act in 2012 in response to the death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax consultant who exposed a massive tax fraud scheme. The Magnitsky Act authorized the United States to impose sanctions on Russians involved in Magnitsky’s brutal detention and other human rights abuses against activists. Interestingly, the law does not define exactly what corruption means.
Between 2017 and 2023, the United States sanctioned 650 foreign individuals citing the law.
Even the soon-to-be-departing Pressman admitted that Antal Rogán’s sanctioning was unprecedented: “It is not common for the United States to designate a sitting minister. Even less common to do so in an Allied country.”
How unprecedented the case is, is well illustrated by the company in which the Biden administration placed the Hungarian minister.
People are usually put on the sanctions list for very serious reasons. Former Afghan parliamentarian Ajmal Rahmani, for example, was sanctioned in 2023 for allegedly mismanaging U.S. government aid intended for the reconstruction of his war-torn country and then building an extensive business and real estate empire in Germany and Dubai.
Under the Trump administration, a European politician was sanctioned as well. In December 2019, the U.S. government sanctioned Latvian politician Aivars Lembergs for money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, and abuse of office. Four entities owned or controlled by Lembergs were also designated, including the Ventspils Freeport Authority, which operated a major international port.
In 2021, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act against three Bulgarian individuals: former parliamentarian Delyan Peevski, prominent businessman Vasil Bozhkov, and former national security official Ilko Zhelyazkov. In addition, 64 entities allegedly associated with them were also sanctioned, Radio Free Europe reported.
Each of the cases mentioned above clearly shows that usually when someone is put on a sanctions list for corruption, their accomplices are also sanctioned, as well as the companies involved.
The Biden administration has a history of using the Justice Department and Democratic prosecutors against its own political opponents, so it is not surprising that it is using sanctions against the Hungarian government. The timing of the sanctions is also telling, as Joe Biden’s government will leave in two weeks, so this decision can be interpreted as a diplomatic slap in the face.
Algeria Parliament accuses French President of ‘blatant interference’ in internal affairs
MEMO | January 7, 2025
The Algerian Parliament accused French President, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday of “blatant interference” in the North African country’s internal affairs, Anadolu Agency reports.
Macron, on Monday, criticised Algeria, calling the detention of Franco-Algerian writer, Boualem Sansal, at Algiers Airport in November a “disgraceful matter”.
In a statement, the People’s National Assembly, the first house of parliament, called Macron’s remarks “irresponsible” and represented an “affront to Algeria’s sovereignty and dignity” in a case currently under judicial review under Algerian law.
The statement termed Macron’s comments an “overt attempt to tarnish the image of Algeria and its sovereign institutions.”
The Assembly emphasized Algeria’s firm rejection of any foreign interference, particularly regarding issues related to human rights and freedoms.
“Algeria, which endured horrific violations during the French colonial era, will not accept external lessons on these matters,” the statement said.
Such actions are “unacceptable to the Algerian people and will not deter Algeria from its independent path. Instead, they strengthen its resolve to protect its sovereignty and dignity,” it added.
The Assembly called on French authorities to respect the principles of international relations, including mutual respect.
During his meeting with French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace on Monday, Macron claimed that Algeria “prevented a seriously ill man from receiving treatment” and called for Sansal’s release.
“We who love the people of Algeria and its history urge its government to release Boualem Sansal,” he said.
Two weeks earlier, Algerian President, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, accused France of “sending an illegitimate figure” – an apparent reference to Sansal – to claim that parts of Algeria’s territory once belonged to another country.
Sansal, a former industry ministry official dismissed in 2002, had previously asserted in French media that large parts of north-western Algeria historically belonged to Morocco.
The Algerian authorities arrested Sansal on 16 November at Algiers Airport upon his return from France.
Local media reported that he was charged under Article 87 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of undermining national unity and territorial integrity, according to his defence team.
Desperate Biden ignores precedent by arming the DPP
By Hamzah Rifaat | Al Mayadeen | January 5, 2025
US President Joe Biden is slated to make way for President-elect Donald Trump in January 2025. However, his departure is marked by abysmally low ratings domestically, which is partly due to his administration’s mishandling of “Israel’s” genocide in Palestine. Now, the disgraced President is seen desperately trying to reverse his domestic downslide by coming up with foreign policy stunts. The latest controversial stunt involves the greenlighting of military aid worth $571 million to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) separatists in Taiwan. This has once again undermined the ‘One-China principle’ that the United States adheres to, as well as the precedents set in the previous joint communiques between the two countries.
This is nothing but desperation on the part of outgoing Joe Biden who has sought to address domestic disapproval by taking measures that undermine US-China ties. This is also evidence of a myopic and narrow-minded approach, which hints at self-destruction.
With his majority lost in the US Congress, Biden is adopting foreign policy blunders amid capitulation, which should have ideally resulted in a more pragmatic and visionary approach to global affairs.
That has not been the case.
Futile attempt to deflect domestic criticism
There should be little doubt that the Biden administration’s latest authorization of military aid to the DPP is nothing but an attempt to salvage lost domestic popularity. It comes after the Democrats were comprehensively defeated by the Republicans under Donald Trump in the 2025 US elections. Surveys conducted by America’s own business intelligence company, Morning Consult, clearly indicate that the Biden administration’s net approval rating has plummeted in 45 states compared to 18 during the start of his tenure. This can be attributed to his messy withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, his mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis, and rising inflation.
Ideally, in such circumstances, embattled leaders adopt more prudent policy-making and measured rhetoric to salvage lost pride and reverse the tide of declining approval ratings. However, Joe Biden sought to greenlight $571 million worth of military aid to Taiwanese separatists who are adamant that violating China’s inevitable national reunification is the right course of action. The DPP government also has a history of threatening the sovereignty of China through nefarious activities and militarization.
As a result, Bien has adopted a self-destructive strategy as it ignores both precedent and principle vis a vis US-China relations. Also, supporting separatism both politically and militarily constitutes a violation of the UN Charter which otherwise mandates all member states to respect the sovereignty of other states and refrain from actions that constitute brazen interference. Hence, the move to militarize Taiwan is unfathomable on the part of the Biden administration as arming Taiwan violates the ‘One China Principle’ as an integral part of American foreign policy, as well as precedents enshrined in the 1979 Joint Communique between the two sides.
For someone who often presents himself as a figure with a more globalized and integrated vision than his rival, Donald Trump, Joe Biden has clearly adopted a hypocritical approach in his final days in office. His push to present himself as an alternative to the more firebrand, populist, Donald Trump and his Republican Party stands exposed as he is not pushing for increased engagement with China but is supporting separatism and ignoring historical precedents instead. Recall that the decision to greenlight more military aid has been a recurring trend under his administration given his previous approval of $2 billion of arms sales to Taiwan in October 2024 which included, for the very first time, the delivery of an advanced surface-to-air missile defense system.
Will the Biden trend be reversed?
It is therefore important for the incoming President of the United States, Donald Trump, to adopt a more principled approach on the Taiwan issue vis a vis China as this can otherwise contribute to tensions between the two sides. Failure to do so would lead to a tit-for-tat reaction as no UN member state endorses interference or brazen arming of separatists on their territory, which poses a direct threat to their state sovereignty.
China’s response to Biden’s reckless adventurism has also been a sensible one as it is in line with precedents set out in the joint communiques and the UN Charter. As stated by China’s Taiwan Office, such nefarious designs and actions by the United States ‘contradict’ its leaders’ serious commitments to not supporting Taiwanese independence. Beijing also cautioned and warned the United States to tread with utmost caution and cease arming Taiwan. Clearly, the Biden administration has failed to acknowledge this incontrovertible reality, which now puts the incoming Trump administration into the spotlight over whether the US-China relationship can move forward on amicable terms.
Regardless, Biden’s decision to arm Taiwan has shown that crass desperation in the face of declining domestic approval ratings is now guiding the United States policy toward China. The death of late Jimmy Carter who was a great friend of Beijing and worked tirelessly toward improving relations should have ideally been a wake-up call for the American leadership. The key was to build on a legacy that brought China out of isolation in the 1970s rather than seek to isolate it further by propping up the Taiwan issue.
To date, Biden has failed to understand this, and Trump is set to continue from where his predecessor left off.
China should act proactively and thwart such nefarious designs in order for it to ensure that its sovereignty remains intact.
Cecilia Sala, or the stupidity of the western narrative
Western propaganda made of distortion and manipulation has a new face of the month: Cecilia Sala
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2025
Facts and… misdeeds
It is a familiar and perfectly functioning pattern that has been adopted in the case of Cecilia Sala, a mainstream Italian journalist, who arrived in Iran on 13 December on a journalistic visa and was arrested on the 19th ‘for violating the law of the Islamic Republic of Iran’. The event occurred a few days after the arrest in Italy, at Milan’s Malpensa Airport, of Iranian engineer Mohammad Abedini Najafabadi.
So far, nothing strange. These things happen for many reasons. People are arrested every day and this is not news.
The oddities, however, begin when you explore the background.
Let’s start with Abedini: an engineer specialising in drone design, who was on a business trip. He is arrested not for breaking any laws, but because… the United States of America asked for it. The master orders, the servant executes. Now the US has asked for his extradition and one can guess that they have no intention of treating Mr Abedini politely. The charge, of course, is international terrorism.
As far as Cecilia Sala is concerned, things are even more captivating. Her CV leaves little doubt. Born in 1995, she studied at Bocconi but did not graduate. She started working for Vice Italia, then went on to work for other magazines all from the same publisher and then appeared on television. The interesting thing is that he always passed under the aegis of Rupert Murdoch, one of the ‘oligarchs’ of British intelligence and politics, who in Italy invested a lot of money first in football and then in telecommunications, but also the man who owns Fox, News Corp and Disney. One of the richest men in the world, whose first interest is obviously to do independent and truthful journalism, right?
Curious that his numerous employees, especially journalists, have constant collaborations with the intelligence agencies of the USA, the UK and Israel, with offices appearing as veritable ‘schools’ of infowarfare and human intelligence; curious how there have already been convictions in this regard, as there were for the Sunday Times in the late 1970s and in 2011 with the News of the World ; equally curious that a good slice of mainstream information is in the hands of this man and his empire. And even more curious is that we should think of Cecilia Sala as a ‘clean’ person working for the universal good.
Since we are in the realm of fantasy, let’s try an imaginative suggestion: let’s think for a moment of Cecilia Sala as an advisor or intelligence agent, perhaps under a British or American flag, who goes to Iran, a country notoriously hostile to the two empires mentioned above, and is arrested. If we see it for just one minute like this, we immediately realise that there is nothing strange about it. If Abedini can be considered a ‘terrorist’ and arrested just because he deals with drones, why should we not be able to consider Sala a ‘spy’ who goes on a mission in a foreign land to do something she has been asked to do?
Let’s add another biographical detail: Cecilia Sala’s father was an executive at Monte dei Paschi di Siena and is Senior Advisor for Italy at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and has been a member of the Greenmantle Think Tank since 2017. He is one of the Founding Members of the Canova Club in Milan. He is currently CEO of Advisor S.R.L. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
What a curious coincidence… because it is a coincidence, isn’t it?
A few blots on the Curriculum
It must be pointed out that Cecilia Sala was a well-known anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-Palestinian and anti-Iranian propagandist, coincidentally a journalist for Il Foglio, in contact with the Zionist sectors of the anti-Iranian opposition, and despite this she was freely allowed to enter Iranian soil by the government in Tehran. This is not the case, for example, for Russian journalists.
After Abdeini’s anomalous arrest, since Ms Sala had all the elements to be detained by the Iranian justice system, culturally collaborating with part of that opposition that has carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian soil, even deadly ones, it did not follow that the government in Tehran, not being the monster depicted today by the western and Italian media, but simply a sovereign nation that does not accept interference, proceeded to detain the goliardic journalist.
We reiterate this for those who had not grasped the ‘subtle’ difference: Abedini’s arrest at Malpensa is entirely arbitrary, while Sala’s is justified under the laws in force in the Islamic Republic.
The Italian press immediately turned to somersaults worthy of the Olympics to attack Iran, ignoring both the truth of the facts – a subject, the truth, that most Western journalists have not been interested in for years – and how certain ordinary diplomatic protocols between hostile countries work.
Diplomatic bodies and intelligence agencies are in constant contact with each other and carry out such activities every day.
A journalist with Cecilia Sala’s CV does not just happen to be arrested. Is that clear?
We know nothing about the circumstances of her arrest. However, those who know a little about the country know that it is unlikely that she was arrested for her work as a reporter on women’s movements or for her opinions, which may transpire from her writings, which were certainly scrutinised by those who granted her the visa. Under normal conditions, i.e. not in this geopolitical context that has taken shape in the last year, and not with Iran as a ‘live’ and perhaps imminent target of the US, UK and Israeli administrations, we could have assumed a classic detention due to active participation in political demonstrations or more likely any photos at military, government or nuclear installations; however, it is very likely that Cecilia Sala knew these things very well and did not do this kind of journalism. Perhaps there is much more behind it.
The point is that this ‘more’ is not the subject of journalistic comment. The vast majority of western journalists are talking out of their ass about things they do not know.
The US ordered the capture in Italy of an Iranian engineer who was travelling, Iran arrested a journalist with a respectable resume to find a job with MI6 and the CIA because she violated the laws of the Republic. Incidentally, in America one can be arrested on the free initiative of a policeman, who can also shoot at a distance of 21 paces on his own free initiative. This, in Iran, is illegal. But the Western press does not know this and writes nonsense anyway.
The newspapers have spoken of the shadow of an Iranian ‘blackmail’, but if we are to accept it as such, we must remember two things: it is also American blackmail to countries called upon to arrest Iranian civilians on the basis of embarrassing and specious US laws, according to imposed sanctions that magically take effect even in vassal states; how it got to this point, after 20 years of assassinations of Iranian scientists and physicists, that is, to the point where Iran, under threat of bombing by Israel, uses even with a country considered a ‘friend’ like Italy the methods of diplomatic soft power to get a break in the interminable Western attack.
The point is that Iran is not a country born yesterday, nor is it just any old colony that can be exploited at will. Iranians still enjoy two things that are bitterly lacking in the West: sovereignty and dignity.
From slogan to slogan
In the sum of the parts, Cecilia Sala’s case is a great gimmick for anti-Iranian propaganda and will be used for a long time to come.
All this, of course, with the usual Western hypocrisy.
It is full of journalists who on social networks (sick!) are indignant about the arrest and write posts about the importance of free journalism, but not one of them has been tearing their hair out over all the crimes committed against freedom of the press and information in the West or in Israel, for example, with more than 200 journalists killed in Palestine in one year, even with targeted killings
Juicy news for the western press: much worse has come into Iran, Il Foglio fortunately counts for nothing in the world, and those who have come in have written much worse things than Cecilia Sala who, let’s be honest, is not worth a lira as a journalist (this is proven by her own articles and posts, many of which will remain in the annals of propaganda vileness).
In Iran, and elsewhere, as a foreigner they stop you or arrest you if they suspect you are a spy, and this is a fact we should learn to understand and keep in mind, because at home these terms and definitions or accusations belong only to the cinematic dimension but in certain quadrants of the world they are anchored in tangible reality.
In the past few days I read a brilliant commentary on the matter, which I quote from memory: ‘We have agreed to participate in the American sanctions festival – which began well before last year – and to consider as a ‘global threat’ even those who are not, or who are at worst for Israel, and not for us; we have agreed to harass, detain, interdict Iranian citizens who until proven otherwise are civilians and not guilty of any crime that has not been configured ad hoc in the American ‘acts’; we have even agreed at certain times to interrupt supplies of stocks of goods that have already been paid for, just as the USA has reserved the right to withhold tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian state property for decades; we have decided to join a belligerent and hostile coalition, without yet having understood what role to play, other than that of paper-pusher. We should, however, be careful in the future about which cards we pass on to the next one’.
Once again, from slogan to slogan, the truth that journalism is supposed to investigate and tell will be of no interest to anyone. On the other hand, no one is interested in reporting on what is happening in Gaza, but there has never been a shortage of time to post some new hashtag to win the war against Russia, China, Iran and any other enemy, evidently terrified by the use of social network posts with a few well-functioning keywords for psy ops marketing.
Once again, we will have to settle for the words of Seneca: ‘Magis veritas elucet quo sepius ad manum venit’.
US imposes sanctions on IRGC entity over alleged election interference
Press TV – December 31, 2024
The United States has announced sanctions on an entity it says is affiliated with the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) over its alleged interference in the 2024 US presidential elections.
The designation was announced by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Tuesday and targeted the IRGC subsidiary, which it identified as the Cognitive Design Production Center (CDPC).
A statement on the Treasury’s website claimed the CDPC had planned influence operations since at least 2023 to incite tensions among the US electorate on behalf of the IRGC.
Iran has repeatedly rejected accusations it has interfered in elections in other countries, including in the US.
Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations issued a statement in late August to reject such allegations.
“Such allegations are unsubstantiated and devoid of any standing,” said the Mission after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other American intelligence agencies claimed that Iran had been involved in the hacking of the campaigns of Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris.
“As we have previously announced, the Islamic Republic of Iran harbors neither the intention nor the motive to interfere with the US presidential election,” said the statement.
Iranian authorities say that Washington’s policy of imposing numerous sanctions on the country is solely aimed at forcing the country into accepting political and military concessions.
The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
By Professor Glenn Diesen | December 23, 2024
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states.
Constructing the hegemonic rules-based international order
The process of constructing alternative sources of legitimacy to facilitate sovereign inequality began with NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. The violation of international law was justified by liberal values. Even the legitimacy of the UN Security Council was contested by arguing it should be circumvented as Russia and China veto of humanitarian interventionism was allegedly caused by their lack of liberal democratic values.
The efforts to establish alternative sources of authority continued in 2003 to gain legitimacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, called for establishing an “Alliance of Democracies” as a key element of US foreign policy.[1] A similar proposal suggested establishing a “Concert of Democracies”, in which liberal democracies could act in the spirit of the UN without being constrained by the veto power of authoritarian states.[2] During the 2008 presidential election, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain argued in favour of establishing a “League of Democracies”. In December 2021, the US organised the first “Summit for Democracy” to divide the world into liberal democracies versus authoritarian states. The White House framed sovereign inequality in the language of democracy: Washington’s interference in the domestic affairs of other states was “support for democracy”, while upholding the West’s sovereignty entailed defending democracy.[3] The aforementioned initiatives became the “rules-based international order”. With an imperialist mindset, there would be one set of rules for the “garden” and another set for the “jungle”.
The rules-based international order created a two-tiered system of legitimate versus illegitimate states. The paradox of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often demand that they dominate international institutions to defend democratic values from the control of the majority. Yet, a durable and resilient international system capable of developing common rules is imperative for international governance and to resolve disputes among states.
International law in accordance with the UN Charter is based on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality as “all states are equal”. In contrast, the rules-based international order is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. Such a system of sovereign inequality follows the principle from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that stipulates “all animals [states] are equal but some animals [states] are more equal than others”. In Kosovo, the West promoted self-determination as a normative right of secession that had to be prioritised above territorial integrity. In South Ossetia and Crimea, the West insisted that the sanctity of territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Charter, must be prioritised over self-determination.
Uniform rules replaced with a tribunal of public opinion
Instead of resolving conflicts through diplomacy and uniform rules, there is an incentive to manipulate, moralise and propagandise as international disputes are decided by a tribunal of public opinion when there are competing principles. Deceit and extreme language have thus become commonplace. In 1999, the US and UK especially presented false accusations about war crimes to make interventionism legitimate. British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the world that Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide”.[4]
The rules-based international order fails to establish common unifying rules of how to govern international relations, which is the fundamental function of world order. Both China and Russia have denounced the rules-based international order as a dual system to facilitate double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Xie Feng, asserted that the rules-based international order introduces the “law of the jungle” insofar as universally recognised international law is replaced by unilateralism.[5] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly criticised the rules-based international order for creating a parallel legal framework to legitimise unilateralism:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law—all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialised agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognised structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action”.[6]
The rules-based international order does not consist of any specific rules, is not accepted internationally, and does not deliver order. The rules-based international order should be considered a failed experiment from the unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a requirement for stability and peace.
Article based on excerpts from my book: “The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order”
[1] I. Daalder and J. Lindsay, ‘An Alliance of Democracies’, The Washington Post, 23 May 2004.
[2] G.J. Ikenberry and A.M. Slaughter, ‘Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century’, Princeton, The Princeton Project on National Security, 2006.
[3] White House, ‘Summit for Democracy Summary of Proceedings’, The White House, 23 December 2021.
[4] N. Clark, ‘Fools no more’, The Guardian, 19 April 2008.
[5] Global Times, ‘US ‘rules-based intl order’ is ‘law of the jungle’ to contain others: Chinese vice FM tells US envoy’, Global Times, 26 July 2021.
[6] S. Lavrov, ‘Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 29th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP)’, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2 October 2021.
Elon Musk’s AfD Endorsement Triggers EU Push for Stricter Censorship Under Digital Services Act
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 23, 2024
Elon Musk’s endorsement of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has sparked significant controversy, particularly among European political figures concerned about the potential for what they call “foreign interference” in Germany’s upcoming elections.
Musk, the CEO of X, voiced his support for some of AfD’s policies following a deadly terror attack in Germany. His comments have raised alarm among EU officials, prompting calls for increased scrutiny of the X app and its compliance with the EU’s stringent censorship laws.
Thierry Breton, the European Union’s former Commissioner, took to X to express his outrage over Musk’s support for AfD. In a tweet posted on December 21, Breton accused Musk of being involved in “foreign interference” in Germany’s electoral process, especially given the timing of his comments around the tragic attack in Magdeburg.
Breton, who has been an advocate for strict censorship of social media platforms, and even threatened Elon Musk over his interview with President Donald Trump, also called for the immediate application of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) to combat what he described as “double standards” when it comes to regulating speech online.
Breton’s tweet read: “A few weeks ahead of the next elections in Germany, and at the time of the heinous attack in Magdeburg, @elonmusk — the world’s top influencer on X and a potential member of the future U.S. administration — openly supports the far-right AfD party. Isn’t this the very definition of foreign interference? We must end the ‘double standards’ and apply the #DSA in Europe 🇪🇺”
This rhetoric reflects the growing unease among pro-censorship EU officials, who have long sought to use legislation like the DSA to control what is shared on social media platforms.
Musk’s support for AfD, a party criticized by some for its skepticism of some immigration policies and labeled as “far-right,” has spurred discussions about free speech and government intervention online.
Karl Lauterbach, the German Health Minister, also weighed in, echoing concerns about Musk’s political influence. He accused Musk of election interference and advocated for keeping a “close eye on the goings-on on X.”
Lauterbach, a well-known advocate of restricting speech on social media, has called for greater scrutiny of platforms that he believes allow for the unchecked spread of “extreme” views.
This growing tension between free speech advocates and pro-censorship officials comes at a time when Musk’s platform, X, has become a battleground for political discourse, especially with the European Union’s push to enforce stricter speech regulations.
Moldovan President Sandu Plans to Seize Transnistria Power Station – Russian Intel Service
Sputnik – 23.12.2024
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said that Moldovan President Maia Sandu had demanded that the country’s government prepare a plan to take over the Cuciurgan power station in Transnistria.
Sandu held a meeting with the Moldovan government to discuss the country’s energy security issues, the SVR said in a statement on Monday. During the meeting, the president “lost her temper” after hearing a report by Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean on the potential energy supply problems Moldova could face after the expiration of the Russia-Ukraine natural gas transit agreement on December 31, the statement read.
“The president was not sobered by the reminder that the right bank of Moldova is almost entirely dependent on electricity supplies from the Cuciurgan power station in Transnistria. After ‘flying into a rage,’ the president demanded that preparations be made for a violent seizure of the power station,” the SVR said.
Sandu flatly refused to discuss the issue of Moldova’s energy supplies with the Ukrainian authorities after the gas transit agreement expired, the statement added. The president said that if Moscow did not supply Moldova with natural gas, Chisinau would “take revenge” on Transnistria, according to the SVR.
The meeting concluded with Sandu’s remarks about the need to develop a military operation plan to establish control over Transnistria and eliminate the Russian peacekeeping presence in the region, the SVR said.
Since December 2022, Moldovagaz has been sourcing natural gas from Moldovan energy utility Energocom and Gazprom. The Russian gas is supplied to Transnistria in exchange for electricity, which is used to power the rest of Moldova. Moldova’s Cuciurgan power station covers 80% of the country’s electricity needs.
Transnistria, where Russians and Ukrainians make up 60% of the population, sought to secede from Moldova even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, fearing that Moldova would join Romania amid a wave of nationalism. In 1992, after an unsuccessful attempt by Moldovan authorities to resolve the issue by force, Transnistria became a de facto territory outside Chisinau’s control.
Pro-Western party funded anti-NATO candidate in EU state – media

RT | December 22, 2024
Allegations that Russia was behind a Romanian social media campaign that helped independent presidential candidate Calin Georgescu win a first round vote, and which contributed to the country’s constitutional court canceling the entire election, are false, an investigation has found.
Georgescu’s campaign was not funded by Russia but in fact by the pro-Western National Liberal Party (PNL), the media outlet Snoop has reported, citing the probe’s findings.
A critic of NATO and the EU and a staunch opponent of sending aid to Ukraine, Georgescu topped the first-round vote in Romania with 22.94%, beating other liberal leftist and democrat candidates.
Romania’s Constitutional Court promptly annulled the election ahead of the second-round vote, citing intelligence documents alleging ‘irregularities’ in Georgescu’s performance.
The documents claimed Georgescu’s candidacy was improperly promoted online, including on TikTok, by paid influencers and extremist right-wing groups, and that his campaign may have benefited from Russian interference – an allegation that Moscow has denied as “absolutely groundless.”
According to Snoop, Romania’s tax authorities analyzed financial flows and discovered that the campaign that promoted Georgescu on TikTok was in fact paid for by the PNL and run by Kensington Communication, a company which provides political marketing services, as well as online campaigns.
The briefs delivered to influencers were aimed at promoting “a responsible attitude and a mature choice” among Romanians that would help the country continue its “democratic path,” wrote Snoop.
Influencers were reportedly given a script to describe the qualities of a future president without giving a name. Some of them however left comments below the videos, providing Georgescu’s name.
“It is a shock to everyone that the public money that taxpayers had provided to the PNL was used to promote another candidate,” one expert involved in the investigation told the publication.
Kensington Communication has issued a statement alleging that its campaign had been “hijacked” or “cloned” and said it would file a criminal complaint.
The leak came on Friday, a day before the expiration of Romanian President Klaus Iohannis’ term, and just days before the supreme court is scheduled to hear the case initiated by Georgescu. Iohannis himself had earlier refused to leave office, citing the country’s legislation.
Georgescu, who was labelled “pro-Russian” by his critics, filed a lawsuit with the supreme court to challenge the annulment of the election results. The candidate’s lawyer described the situation as “a flagrant violation of the constitution” and “a coup d’état.” The first hearing is scheduled for December 23.
Chinese Military Calls US Biggest Threat to Global Security After Alarmist Pentagon Report
Sputnik – 21.12.2024
BEIJING – The Chinese Defense Ministry on Saturday denounced the Pentagon’s recent report on China’s rapid military development, saying that the United States itself had an increasingly confrontational military strategy that was turning it into the biggest threat to global security.
“The evidence shows that the US military strategy is becoming increasingly confrontational, offensive and adventurous. The US, addicted to war, has become the biggest destroyer of the international order and the biggest threat to global security,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Zhang Xiaogang said on WeChat.
Zhang accused the US of taking advantage of its military superiority to “preserve its unipolar hegemony, carry out forced power changes and provoke ‘color revolutions.'”
The Chinese defense spokesman pointed to Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of how US military interventions have led to humanitarian disasters and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The US Department of Defense released on December 18 the congressionally mandated report, which alleged that China presented “a significant, persistent cyber-enabled espionage and attack threat.” It claimed that China’s stockpile of operational nuclear warheads surpassed 600 as of mid-2024 and was projected to top 1,000 by 2030. China is believed to be rapidly expanding its nuclear forces amid an intensifying strategic competition with the United States. At the same time, the Pentagon said it remained committed to maintaining open lines of communication with China to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict.

