Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Declassified emails show Clapper pushed 2017 Russia report unity

Al Mayadeen | August 14, 2025

Newly declassified emails show that former US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper pressed senior intelligence officials in late 2016 to align behind the Obama administration’s narrative of alleged Russian “collusion” with Donald Trump’s campaign.

The revelations come from a top-secret email released by current DNI chief Tulsi Gabbard, sent by Clapper on December 22, 2016, to then-NSA Director Mike Rogers, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey.

Concerns over rushed intelligence assessment

The exchange focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ordered by then-President Barack Obama. Rogers expressed concern that the report was being rushed:

“I’m concerned that, given the expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments,” Rogers wrote.

Clapper responded by saying it was “essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page, and are all supportive of the report – in the highest tradition of ‘that’s OUR story, and we’re sticking to it’… This is one project that has to be a team sport.”

Report allegedly based on false and biased information

Gabbard also released an unclassified House Intelligence Committee report from 2020, which concluded that the Obama administration fabricated the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election despite intelligence reports to the contrary.

The committee found that the January 2017 ICA relied on “biased” and “implausible” claims — including the now-discredited Steele Dossier — to suggest Moscow favored Trump over Hillary Clinton. The report described the dossier and related intelligence as part of a smear campaign that fueled politicized investigations, arrests, and heightened US-Russia tensions.

Russia has consistently denied US allegations of election interference. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the accusations “absolutely unsubstantiated,” while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated there is no credible evidence to support claims of Moscow meddling in elections abroad.

August 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Coalition of Willing Opposes Any Restrictions on Ukrainian Army as Part of Ukraine Deal

Sputnik – 14.08.2025

The so-called “coalition of the willing” has opposed any restrictions on the Ukrainian armed forces as part of the deal on settling the Ukraine conflict ahead of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, a joint statement read.

“Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role, including through plans by those willing to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia could not have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO,” the coalition said in a joint statement published by the office of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Wednesday.

The coalition also believes that constructive negotiations can only take place “in the context of a ceasefire.”

The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled for this Friday in Anchorage, Alaska. The leaders are expected to discuss ways to resolve the Ukrainian conflict as well as other issues of mutual interest.

August 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ditching Gazprom Costs Moldova $1.16Bln Annually – Shoigu

Sputnik – 11.08.2025

In his article Moldova at a Crossroads for Sputnik, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu called Chisinau’s refusal to buy gas directly from Gazprom “a shot in the foot”, since the Moldovan budget loses more than 1 billion euros ($1.16 billion) a year from this.

“The refusal of the ‘yellow’ government to buy natural gas directly from Gazprom (although the republic still receives the same Russian gas from Europe) can hardly be called anything other than a shot in the foot. As a result, Moldova is forced to buy energy resources on the European market at inflated prices, which makes the budget annually lose more than 1 billion euros,” Shoigu said.

Since 2021, Moldova has had a government formed by the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), created by the incumbent president of the country, Maia Sandu. Next parliamentary elections in Moldova are scheduled for September 28, 2025.

The National Agency for Energy Regulation of Moldova previously reported that it had revoked Moldovagaz’s license to supply gas to local consumers. These rights will be transferred to the state-owned company Energocom by September 1. The decision was made in connection with Chisinau’s obligations to the EU to separate the gas infrastructure as part of the implementation of the Third Energy Package. The deprivation of Moldovagaz’s license to supply gas cannot be considered otherwise than the final stage of depriving Gazprom of its investment target; the Russian company will continue to protect its legal rights and interests by all available means, Gazprom said in turn. The Russian company owns 50% of Moldovagaz.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Europe’s Sad Trajectory: From Peace and Welfare to War and Scarcity

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 11, 2025

Once a beacon of peace and prosperity, the European Union is now marching into a new era of militarization and scarcity. Behind the rhetoric of security lies a project increasingly shaped by U.S. pressure, defense spending, and a quiet betrayal of its citizens.

For seven decades, the European project was presented as a beacon of peace, prosperity, and social welfare. Conceived in the ashes of the Second World War, the European Union (EU) emerged as a mechanism to bind former enemies through trade, shared institutions, and the promise that economic interdependence would prevent future wars. For much of its history, this narrative held true: the EU embodied the idea that Europe could reinvent itself as a moral community, anchored in social rights and collective security.

Today, that image is eroded. Europe is rearming at a scale unseen since the Cold War. The EU’s once-proud welfare model is being quietly sacrificed on the altar of militarization, as member states contemplate devoting up to 5% of GDP to defense spending. This transformation is not being driven by a sovereign European strategic vision, but rather by external pressure, primarily from the United States, whose military-industrial complex stands to benefit most.

From Peace Project to War Economy

The metamorphosis of the EU into what critics call a “war and scarcity” project is evident in both policy and rhetoric. European leaders, rather than articulating an independent security doctrine, appear increasingly subordinated to Washington’s priorities. The newly appointed NATO Secretary General and former Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, has become the face of this transformation.

During the so-called “Trump Summit” in The Hague, Rutte orchestrated an event less about strategy and more about appeasing U.S. President Donald Trump. Red carpets and ceremonial dinners replaced substantive debate. The summit, critics note, projected unity only by avoiding difficult questions, such as the long-term consequences of escalating the conflict in Ukraine or the feasibility of a 5% defense spending target.

Rutte even echoed unverified intelligence claims that Russia might attack a NATO member, offering no evidence, an act that some European observers described as “dangerous theatre.”

When NATO’s chief becomes a conduit for speculative threats to spread fear and make the militarization project palatable to the population, the alliance risks losing credibility and reinforcing the perception that Europe is less a sovereign actor and more a vassal of U.S. power.

The Costs of Militarization

The push toward 5% GDP in defense spending has profound implications for European societies. Bulgarian member of the European Parliament Petar Volgin, in an interview, warned that such a policy would neither enhance security nor foster stability. History shows that the accumulation of weapons often escalates risk rather than prevents conflict. Volgin invoked Anton Chekhov’s famous maxim: if a pistol hangs on the wall in the first act, it will inevitably be fired by the final one.

Beyond strategic risks, the economic trade-offs are stark. Channeling public resources into armaments will drain investments from social sectors like health, education, and welfare, which are the very foundations of the European social model. “This will turn Europe into a militarized monster devoid of social compassion,” Volgin warned.

Citizens, facing cuts in services and rising costs, will pay the price for a strategy that ultimately benefits the U.S. arms industry far more than European security, following Trump’s ruling.

Russophobia and the War Logic

Underlying this shift is what can be described as institutionalized Russophobia. Russophobia has become not just public opinion but a structured ideology shaping policy, media narratives, and diplomatic strategies.

While the focus is on Russian military action in Ukraine, the EU’s strategic response is viewed through the lens of historical Russophobia, which often replaces pragmatism with emotion and prejudice.

For centuries, Russia has been both part of and apart from Europe, contributing profoundly to its literature, music, and intellectual heritage, yet frequently treated as an alien civilization.

The military conflict in Ukraine provided an opportunistic moment for European elites to turn latent Russophobia into policy. Rather than pursuing a balanced security framework that might eventually integrate Russia into a stable European order, the EU doubled down on confrontation, sanctions, and militarization.

This approach carries a profound irony: a union born from the determination to overcome the hatreds of the past is now entrenching new fault lines on the continent. Calls for diplomacy, dialogue, or a broader European peace project, one that is social and moral, not merely military, have been marginalized or dismissed as naïve.

Democratic Disconnection and Strategic Drift

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Europe’s new trajectory is the widening gap between its political class and its citizens. Surveys conducted in the first year of the Ukraine war showed that over 70% of Europeans preferred a negotiated peace to the indefinite prolongation of conflict. Yet, in the European Parliament, 80% of MEPs rejected amendments calling for diplomacy and only 5% voted in favor.

This dissonance reflects a structural malaise: the EU’s foreign and security policy is increasingly shaped not by democratic debate, but by lobbyists, bureaucratic inertia, and transatlantic pressures.

The shift from a welfare-oriented project to a war-driven agenda has happened without meaningful public consent. As Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, former Irish MEPs, have argued, the EU’s “liberal mask has slipped,” revealing a political architecture that prioritizes geopolitics over people.

War and Scarcity: A Vicious Cycle

The economic consequences of this transformation are already visible. Sanctions on Russia, while politically symbolic, have contributed to energy crises, inflation, and industrial slowdown, particularly in countries like Germany and Italy. Simultaneously, EU states are paying far higher prices for American LNG and U.S.-manufactured weapons, effectively transferring wealth across the Atlantic while their own populations face rising costs and stagnating wages.

This is the essence of Europe’s scarcity turn: by embracing a war economy, the EU sacrifices its social welfare model, undermines economic resilience, and fuels domestic discontent and the far-right parties. Instead of projecting stability, it imports volatility: economic, political, and social.

The Question of Purpose

The European Union now stands at a decisive moment in its evolution. If its purpose is to be a subordinate military bloc within a U.S.-led “Greater West,” it may achieve that at the cost of its original identity as a peace and welfare project.

However, if it seeks to reclaim strategic autonomy and moral credibility – deteriorated by its failure to condemn the genocide in Gaza -, it must confront uncomfortable questions: Can Europe imagine security beyond the logic of militarization and vassalage? Is Europe merely buying time, waiting for a non‑Trump administration, while reinforcing its subservience? Will it rebuild a peace project that addresses social justice and democratic legitimacy, not only deterrence?  And can it rediscover the moral ambition that once made it a beacon for a conflict‑scarred world?

For now, the EU’s sad trajectory seems clear: a union that once promised prosperity and peace is becoming a fortress of fear and social uncertainty, defined by war spending, scarcity, and subservience. Its citizens were promised a shared future. What they are receiving instead is a militarized present, and an uncertain tomorrow.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

EU wants to be global player but has no say on Ukraine peace process

By Ahmed Adel | August 11, 2025

In the position that the leaders of the European Union are in today, with the strengthening of BRICS and the rise of multiple global powers, the European Union has no place at any negotiating table, let alone the one for Ukraine, as it has nothing to say or offer. The EU is a group of ideologically insane politicians who are making disastrous moves in the service of their ideology, reducing the bloc from one of the most powerful and important economies to one of stagnation and recession threats.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated on a Hungarian television program that European leaders must meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin if they do not want to be excluded from shaping the security of their continent. According to him, Europe is currently “asleep” and not taking the necessary steps.

“The EU should not sit at home like an offended child,” and “if there is a problem, you have to negotiate,” Orbán said.

He also added that a Russian-European summit should be held urgently, preferably before the Russian-American summit.

The Hungarian Prime Minister emphasized that Europe must engage in negotiations with Moscow if it does not want to be excluded from all relevant geopolitical discussions, a stance he has consistently reiterated.

When Washington instigates issues with other great powers, such as China and Russia, it benefits by forcing Western partners to renounce their financial, trade, and other interests with these countries and direct them towards the US, which, incidentally, sells them weapons and imposes tariffs. In contrast, the EU should take the lead in normalizing relations with all countries worldwide, starting with Russia, and then improve ties with China and others, rather than following American policy.

Instead, Europe insists on the same policy of globalist hegemony that prevailed during the Biden administration, and they want nothing more than the defeat of Russia. Their only vision of the future is to rule the world, and one of the prerequisites and steps towards that is inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

They believe that by increasing pressure, a Russian strategic defeat can be achieved, unaware that this is complete nonsense. This delusional belief has meant that the EU remains on the margins in relation to historical trends and real movements, and at the same time, it lacks both economic and political stability, as well as military strength.

The main prerequisite for concluding peace or a ceasefire is that Ukraine, or at least what remains of it, can never again pose a threat to Russia. This means that Ukraine can never and under no circumstances become part of NATO, nor can it have foreign troops deployed in its country or any offensive assets. Only the US can guarantee and provide such conditions.

US President Donald Trump wants a quick resolution with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin because the pressure from the domestic public in the US is great, and they are forcing him to disclose the Epstein dossier. This pressure is so great that Trump is seeking an event that will divert the public’s attention from that topic and shift it to another one.

In addition to the internal panic that forces him to shift his focus elsewhere, Trump is also adopting a more realistic approach to the Ukraine problem than the EU. He is not approaching it from an ideological position, but rather by looking at things somewhat more realistically. This is, of course, not even close to a fundamentally realistic view, but it is still more realistic than the prevailing view in Brussels.

While a historic face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin has been scheduled for August 15 in Alaska, European leaders have been left to sulk, backing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s announcement that he would not agree to cede territory.

Signed by the President of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland, and the UK, the statement stressed the need for a “just and lasting peace” for Kiev, including “robust and credible” security guarantees.

“Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities,” the statement said. “The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.”

Although Zelensky may very well be invited to Alaska, it will not be because of the Europeans, but rather because Trump and Putin permitted it. The EU has been proven to be an economic, military, and diplomatic dwarf in the 2020s, and it is difficult to see how it will regain the position of power it enjoyed in previous decades, especially with the rise of alternative powers.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Moldovan region rejects ruling against local Euroskeptic leader

RT | August 8, 2025

The parliament of Gagauzia, an autonomous, predominantly Russian-speaking region in Moldova, has rejected the sentencing of a local Euroskeptic leader to seven years in prison, calling it illegal and politically driven.

Gutsul, who was elected in 2023 and has consistently advocated for close ties with Russia, was found guilty of channeling illegal funds from an organized criminal group to the banned Euroskeptic SOR party and of financing protests against the Moldovan government.

Gutsul denied the charges, calling the process a “political execution” conducted “on orders from above.” The ruling triggered protests outside the courthouse against Moldova’s pro-Western government.

The Gagauzian parliament rallied behind Gutsul. In a resolution issued Thursday by Gagauzia’s People’s Assembly and Executive Committee, MPs said they “categorically reject and do not recognize the verdict” of the Moldovan court.

The document described the ruling as a “politically motivated” attempt “to eliminate the legally elected head of the autonomous region.”

“We consider this verdict a political reprisal, planned and executed from above,” the resolution said, adding that the ruling was “an act of political vengeance” that “undermines the autonomous region’s legal status.”

The Gagauzian authorities said Moldova’s government bears “full responsibility for the destabilization” of the situation in the region, while suggesting that the crackdown seeks to tip the scales ahead of the nationwide parliamentary elections slated for late September.

Moscow criticized the verdict as an attack on democracy. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the ruling was labeled in both Moldova and Gagauzia as “an act of revenge” and “a fabricated case” without credible evidence. “It became the culmination of repression by the Chisinau regime against the entire Gagauz autonomy,” she added.

August 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Exiled Moldovan opposition head decries police crackdown

RT | August 7, 2025

Moldova’s police action targeting alleged electoral corruption amounts to political persecution of the opponents of the government, according to exiled opposition politician Ilan Shor.

The authorities in Moldova said on Thursday they are conducting 78 search warrants across the country targeting individuals described as “members and sympathizers of a criminal organization.”

Ilan Shor, who leads the opposition Victory political bloc from abroad, claimed that the actions are directed at silencing his movement. The bloc is trying to overturn its ban from taking part in the upcoming parliamentary election against the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity.

“Law enforcement is turning offices and homes upside down solely under this demented suspicion of interference in the 2025 election, which hasn’t even taken place,” Shor said. “These searches are just more political repression and intimidation of anyone who refuses to support those scoundrels.”

Last week, President Maia Sandu, who Shor branded a “microdictator,” accused the Russian government of planning to covertly funnel more than €100 million ($115 million) to her political opponents ahead of Moldova’s parliamentary vote scheduled for September. The Kremlin rejected the claim, calling it another attempt by Chisinau to deflect attention from what it described as the government’s erosion of democratic norms.

Sandu has defended her administration’s crackdown on what she claims are pro-Russian criminal networks, saying these actions are critical to keeping Moldova on the path to EU membership.

Shor, who now resides in Russia, is the founder of the SOR party, which was outlawed by the Moldovan authorities in 2023 after its candidate, Evgenia Gutsul, won a regional election in the autonomous Gagauzia region.

Gutsul, now a leading figure in the Victory bloc, which was formed in 2024 by Euroskeptic politicians, including former SOR members, was sentenced this week to seven years in prison over alleged financial crimes. She denied any wrongdoing and called the verdict an attempt at political assassination.

August 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Trump hits India with additional tariffs as Modi prepares to visit China for first time in seven years

The Cradle | August 6, 2025

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on India over its purchase of Russian energy, the White House said on 6 August.

The additional tariffs will stack on top of 25 percent country-specific tariffs due to take effect overnight, and will come into force within 21 days, according to the executive order signed by Trump.

“They’re fueling the war machine. And if they’re going to do that, then I’m not going to be happy,” Trump said Tuesday in an interview with CNBC.

Despite a warm public reception during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s White House visit in February, Indian diplomats were “stunned” by what one journalist briefed on the meeting described as a “lack of respect” shown to the prime minister behind closed doors.

Amid these economic tensions, Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to travel to China on 31 August to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin.

The visit will mark his first to China since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, and is being widely seen by Indian media as a step toward repairing ties with Beijing amid growing economic strain from the US.

Modi’s last visit to China was in June 2018, also for a summit of SCO leaders in Qingdao.

That was followed by Chinese President Xi Jinping traveling to India in October 2019, just months before the Chinese army’s incursions in eastern Ladakh.

Indian officials have linked the Tianjin summit to earlier visits by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, describing them as part of a slow move to reset ties with Beijing.

Separately, the Times of India reported that Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is expected in Moscow this week for talks on defense cooperation, including a possible expansion of India’s S-400 missile system deal.

Doval’s trip, while previously planned, has reportedly gained renewed importance in light of US pressure over India’s energy relationship with Moscow.

August 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Hungary’s Top Diplomat Hits Out at EU Colleagues ‘Big Lie’ Narrative on Ukraine Aid

Sputnik – 06.08.2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto on Wednesday called out the “big lie” of fellow top diplomats of EU member states when they are trying to portray the assistance to Ukraine as a moral obligation, claiming that Kiev is allegedly defending their countries from Russia.

“We have been hearing for three and a half years that Ukrainians are defending Europe, but this is a big lie. Ukrainians do not defend us because no one attacked us … They [EU foreign ministers] are trying to create a sense of guilt, in which we are supposed to perceive the need to support Ukraine as some kind of our spiritual duty. But this is not true, Ukraine does not defend us,” Szijjarto told Hungarian podcast Harcosok Oraja (Warriors’ Hour).

Every meeting of EU foreign ministers starts with a speech by the top Ukrainian diplomat, who lists his demands and complains that European supplies of money and weapons are insufficient and too slow, Szijjarto said.

“And then there is a self-condemnation match. My EU colleagues say that we are doing too little and must do more, that we are slow, we are weak, we are bad, because we must provide a much more active support for Ukraine,” the minister said.

Szijjarto added that he personally, at such moments, mentally calculated how many hundreds of billions of euros in money, weapons and “who knows what else” has Brussels already sent to Ukraine, and how they had destroyed the European economy and competitiveness, but even that does not seem to be enough.

In December 2024, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the EU and the US had spent a combined 310 billion euros ($360 billion) on Ukraine, which he called a “horrific” sum that would have “worked miracles” if invested in the European economy. Instead, the money “went down the drain,” he said, warning the West that it is making a grave mistake in Ukraine that will come at a high price.

August 6, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Whistleblower exposes real 2016 US election meddling

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | August 5, 2025

On July 30th, the ODNI declassified damning evidence from a US intelligence community whistleblower. They attest to being aggressively – but unsuccessfully – pressured by superiors into signing off on the infamous 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which expressed “high confidence” Russia interfered in the previous year’s Presidential election to ensure Donald Trump’s victory. Their testimony indicates senior US spy agency officials not only well-knew the ICA’s findings were bogus, but consciously ignored and suppressed far more compelling evidence of widespread, non-Russian meddling in the vote.

The whistleblower is a US intelligence veteran who from 2015 to 2020 served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer, at the ODNI-overseen National Intelligence Council. They specialised in “cyber issues”, including “cyber-enabled information operations”. Prior to the 2016 vote, they led the production of an ICA on “cyber threats” to US elections, at the order of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for which they were “commended”. They were then tasked by the outgoing Obama administration to assist in the 2017 ICA’s production.

That assessment purported to expose “Russian activities and intentions” in the Presidential election. The whistleblower’s role was to investigate alleged attempts by Moscow “to access US election-related infrastructure”, as “reporting suggested many Russia-attributed IP addresses were making connection attempts that the [US intelligence community] could not explain the purpose of.” However, an official – name redacted – subsequently “directed us to abandon any further study of the subject,” on the basis it was “something else.”

For the whistleblower, the “abrupt dismissal of the study effort” raised significant concerns about the true nature and source of the “Russia-attributed cyber activity.” They suspected their superiors were attempting to conceal how state or non-state actors closer to home may have been engaged in “Domain Name Service (DNS) record manipulation”, to falsely ascribe cyber meddling efforts to Moscow. Their anxieties only multiplied when superiors rebuffed their attempts to include references to “other nations’ efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election” in the 2017 ICA.

The whistleblower’s “professional judgment… was multiple nations were seeking to shape the views of the US electorate,” and therefore influence their voting preferences. This assessment was based not only on relentless negative media coverage of Trump in allied countries, including Britain and other “NATO partners”, but the “interception of electronic communications from members of [Trump’s] incoming Presidential administration.” The source of this interception is redacted. So too is the identity of an official who repeatedly demanded the whistleblower conceal this from the National Security Council.

‘Tradecraft Standards’

The ICA’s release on January 6th 2017, 11 days prior to Trump’s inauguration, ignited a media frenzy over the President-elect’s potential ties to Russia, and the Kremlin’s purported role in installing him in the White House. The New York Times dubbed the document a “damning and surprisingly detailed account” of Moscow’s “efforts to undermine the American electoral system.” The Washington Post boldly described it as “a remarkably blunt assessment”, and “extraordinary postmortem of a Russian assault on a pillar of American democracy.”

In reality, the ICA offered zero evidence to support its bombastic headline conclusions. It was claimed “full supporting information on key elements of [Russia’s] influence campaign” was “highly classified”. Bizarrely, much of the Assessment’s content focused instead on the output of Russian media – both for domestic and international audiences – with no relevance whatsoever to the 2016 election. This included RT America coverage of topics including police brutality, fracking, and “alleged Wall Street greed.”

The whistleblower records how when they learned the ICA was so heavily dependent on a “simplistic treatment” of “English language Russian media articles”, they expressed “substantial concern” over the “legitimacy” of the Assessment’s “analytic tradecraft”. They moreover “could not concur in good conscience based on information available,” and their “professional analytic judgement,” of a “decisive Russian preference” for Trump’s victory, as concluded by the ICA. The whistleblower thus refused to sign off on its findings.

This was not well-received by a senior US intelligence official, name redacted. Leading up to the ICA’s release, they sought to harass and suborn the whistleblower into endorsing the Assessment. After multiple failed attempts to bully the whistleblower to “abandon” their “tradecraft standards” and simply “trust” there was “reporting you are not allowed to see,” which “if you saw it, you would agree,” the official strongly implied the whistleblower’s subsequent promotion was contingent on their agreement.

When this approach didn’t work, the “visibly frustrated” official fulminated, “I need you to agree with these judgments, so that DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] will go along with them.” This prompted discussion between the pair about the DIA’s “supposed trust” in the whistleblower, and “the necessity” of them proving their “bona fides” as an intelligence community officer “by doing what it took to bring DIA on board as an additional [intelligence] Agency signing on to the 2017 ICA.”

Refusing to compromise on “standards, tradecraft, and ethics”, the whistleblower defied his superior’s direct order “to misrepresent my views to DIA.” While unexplored in the declassified file, the official’s desperation for the DIA to endorse the ICA is understandable. In September 2020, it was revealed the entire US intelligence community had no “confidence” in the Assessment. In fact, then-CIA director John Brennan personally wrote the report’s incendiary conclusions, before selecting a coterie of his close Agency confidantes to sign off.

Many US intelligence analysts conversely assessed Russia favoured Hillary Clinton’s victory, and viewed Trump as a potentially dangerous “wild card”. As such, creating the false impression of US intelligence community unanimity over Brennan’s concocted conclusion was of paramount importance to the CIA chief. In the end, only the Agency, FBI, and NSA publicly endorsed the ICA’s findings. Even then, the NSA – which closely monitors communications of Russian officials, and could therefore detect any high-level discussions about the 2016 election in Moscow – merely expressed “moderate confidence”.

‘Something Else’

The whistleblower’s testimony indicates they were surprised the FBI expressed “high confidence” in the 2017 ICA. They were aware “as recently as September 2016,” the Bureau had “pushed back” against suggestions “of Russian intent to influence” the Presidential election, believing “such a judgement would be misleading.” The whistleblower notes the FBI “altered its positions… without any new data other than the election’s unexpected result [emphasis added] and public speculation Russia had ‘hacked’ the vote – a scenario [the US intelligence community] judged simply did not occur.”

They were furthermore shocked to learn years later disgraced former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier was a core component of the “highly classified” material, upon which the ICA’s dynamite conclusions heavily relied. It was their understanding the ODNI viewed the dossier at the time “as non-credible sensationalism”, the Office’s chief, James Clapper, considered it “untrustworthy”, and Steele’s ludicrous claims “had never been taken seriously” by US intelligence more widely.

The whistleblower’s grave, myriad anxieties about the Assessment’s construction led them to approach a variety of US government oversight agencies, including the Intelligence Community Inspector General, with what they knew. Despite receiving acknowledgement they “had witnessed malfeasance”, the whistleblower was stonewalled, and their evidence never appears to have reached any relevant authority, let alone been acted upon. Given the explosive nature of the whistleblower’s insider testimony, ominous questions abound over why they encountered such resistance – and where the non-Russian interference they identified truly emanated from.

The whistleblower’s account of being tasked to investigate alleged Russian hacking of “election-related infrastructure” the US intelligence community found inexplicable, only to be told to leave it alone as it was “something else”, is particularly striking. There are several explanations for this activity, all of which point to concerted attempts to falsely concoct the narrative of Russian election interference for malign purposes. For example, in September 2016, Hillary Clinton-connected lawyer Michael Sussmann approached the FBI, claiming to possess explosive evidence of Trump’s collusion with Moscow.

The material comprised DNS logs, supposedly indicating the Trump Organization used a secret server belonging to Russia’s Alfa Bank for back-channel communications with the Kremlin. This was fed to the media, and excitedly reported by certain liberal outlets prior to the election. However, The Intercept rubbished the trove, given the DNS records supplied couldn’t “prove anything at all, and certainly not ‘communication’ between Trump and Alfa,” meaning “no one… can show that a single message was exchanged between Trump and Alfa.”

An alternative may be the Department of Homeland Security was responsible for targeting election infrastructure. In December 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported an attempted hack into the state of Georgia’s voter registration database traced back to a DHS IP address. The incursion came at a time the Department was lobbying for election systems to be regarded as “critical infrastructure”, therefore making their protection part of the agency’s formal purview.

On January 6th 2017, the same day the ICA dropped, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson jubilantly announced he had designated “election infrastructure” part of the agency’s already vast domestic spying remit. He acknowledged “many state and local election officials… are opposed to this designation.” It was certainly a good day to bury bad news – and assist the CIA and Clinton campaign in furthering nonsense conspiracy theories about Russian attempts to “hack” the 2016 Presidential election, therefore hopefully invalidating its “unexpected result”.

August 5, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Why EU trade tactics won’t work on Beijing

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 4, 2025

The European Union’s attempt to use trade policy as leverage to shift China’s stance on Russia is faltering, as Beijing firmly resists linking economic ties to geopolitical alignments.

EU-China Ties: Geopolitics more than Trade

The July 24 meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing was widely described by international media as tense. At the close of the summit, von der Leyen reiterated that the European Union’s relationship with China stood at a “clear inflection point”—a diplomatic phrase signaling that long-standing tensions are now entangled with sharper geopolitical stakes.

Central to this strain is not merely the imbalance in trade—though China’s growing trade surplus with the EU has triggered increasing scrutiny—but rather, the political conditions under which future economic cooperation might occur. While the EU recently imposed tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese electric vehicle imports—citing market distortion and unfair subsidies—the conversation between the two leaders revealed that trade alone was not the core issue. Instead, the underlying tension revolved around China’s strategic alignment with Russia.

Behind closed doors, EU officials conveyed a pointed message: Beijing’s continued support for Moscow, particularly in the context of Russia’s military conflict with Ukraine, is an obstacle to improving trade relations. Von der Leyen was unusually blunt when she stated at the summit’s conclusion, “How China continues to interact with Putin’s war will be a determining factor for our relations going forward”. She obviously did not discuss the underlying reasons, i.e., Washington’s and EU states’ bid to expand NATO to include Ukraine and militarily encircle Russia, for Russia’s military conflict with Ukraine.

In response, President Xi Jinping pushed back against this framing. He maintained that “the challenges facing Europe today do not come from China,” and emphasized that there are “no fundamental conflicts of interest or geopolitical contradictions between China and Europe.” His comments signaled Beijing’s desire to compartmentalize its relationship with Moscow, resisting the EU’s efforts to link trade policy with foreign policy alignment.

For Brussels, however, such compartmentalization may no longer be tenable. European foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the transatlantic context. As the United States ramps up pressure on NATO allies—most of whom are in Europe—to boost defense spending and expand military capabilities, the EU finds itself under both strategic and political pressure to limit Russia’s influence. US officials have repeatedly called on European partners to take a more assertive role in confronting shared adversaries, with Russia chief among them.

How can the EU manage the so-called “threat” from Russia? One way is to boost its defence spending. But defence capacity cannot be increased overnight. It is a long-term solution. Simultaneously, therefore, Brussels is increasingly relying on its trade ties with China as a pressure tactic to strengthen its position vis-à-vis Beijing. EU officials hope that if China can somehow be weaned away from Russia, it might help them force Moscow to the negotiating table and end the ongoing conflict in ways that might protect their long-term interests. It is for this very reason that the EU has now begun sanctioning Chinese entities that may have some connection with Russia. This is pretty evident, in the EU’s decision to impose sanctions last week on two Chinese banks for their role in supplying Russia. Obviously, it annoyed Beijing, but it also sent a clear message. However, if the EU hopes that these pressures will force China to “decouple” from Moscow, it might be sorely mistaken.

Beijing won’t submit to pressure

China recently found success vis-à-vis the Trump administration’s so-called “Global War on Trade”. The US was forced to start negotiations with Beijing because the latter was able to demonstrate not only resilience but also its ability to dominate the global supply chain of critical minerals, forcing the Trump administration to roll back some export curbs on China, including a stunning reversal of the ban on sales of a key Nvidia AI chip.

In today’s context, the EU and the US are hardly the strongest of allies. With the EU fighting US tariffs separately, Beijing fully understands that there are no swords hanging over its head to quickly resolve trade or geopolitical issues with the EU in ways that may not protect Beijing’s interests. Still, while the expectation in both Washington and Brussels was that tariffs would hurt the Chinese economy hard enough for it to change its geopolitical position vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine, the Chinese economy has been performing well. In fact, it has delivered better-than-expected growth months into the trade war, according to government data, posting a record trade surplus that underscores the resilience of its exports as they pivot away from the US market. The EU economy, on the contrary, is facing sluggish growth rates in 2025 and will continue to grow very slowly in 2026. It is for this reason that when China slowed exports of rare earth minerals to Europe, it triggered a temporary shutdown of production lines at European auto parts manufacturers. And this month, China hit back at European Union curbs on government purchases of Chinese medical devices by imposing similar government procurement restrictions on European medical equipment.

The EU, therefore, must tread carefully. If the Trump administration was unable to force China into submission, Brussel’s capacity is no match either. In fact, Brussel’s core interests will be served much better if it were to 1) de-link its China policy from the US policy on China, and 2) de-link European geopolitical tensions from its ties with China. The EU can surely approach and maintain its ties with Beijing on their own merit and independently of any external factors.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Cutting Russia ties has cost EU €1 trillion – Moscow

RT | August 4, 2025

The EU’s decision to reduce energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has cost the bloc more than €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said.

In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU’s decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation.

According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now “approaching zero.” He added that Europe’s economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness.

“Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher,” he said. “That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia.”

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that refusing Russian gas supplies had cost EU countries around €200 billion ($231 billion). In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a “certain immunity” to Western sanctions.

Grushko’s comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy – which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia – and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc’s interests.

Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence.

The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »