Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

New Info on How the Feds Helped Censor a Bombshell

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 2, 2025

The US House Judiciary Committee has released internal chat logs, that show the FBI moved into cover-up mode the very day the New York Post published the Hunter Biden laptop story, on October 14, 2020.

The logs, first reported about by journalists Michael Shellenberger and Catherine Herridge, reveal that the FBI employees were immediately instructed “not to discuss the Biden matter,” while an intelligence analyst who, during a call with Twitter, accidentally confirmed that the story, i.e., the laptop, was real, was placed under a “gag order.”

The reason the analyst, who was with the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, was able to so quickly confirm the reporting was based on credible information was the fact the FBI had seized and authenticated Hunter Biden’s laptop several months earlier.

Big Tech platforms – notably Twitter and Facebook – then started censoring the article, branding it falsely “Russian disinformation.” By maintaining the “no comment” policy instead of confirming that the laptop was real and under investigation, the FBI was in effect tacitly promoting the false narrative about foreign interference.

These moves originated from the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was shut down earlier this year for its activities related to censorship through pressure on social platforms.

The laptop scandal was unfolding during a crucial time in the 2020 campaign and represents one of the most egregious publicly known examples of political censorship of free speech and media orchestrated by government agencies.

The chat logs that have now been published reveal that one of the FBI staff involved in the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression was Bradley Benavides.

Only weeks prior, Benavides featured in another controversy: that time in what appeared to be a smear campaign against Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, who were allegedly “advancing Russian disinformation.”

At the time, the senators just so happened to be investigating Hunter Biden’s financial connections to foreign governments.

A letter the Judiciary Committee sent Benavides in June 2023, shows that he had by that time gone through the Big Tech-Big Government “revolving door” – and was senior risk manager at Amazon.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

British intel sought to silence West’s top Russia academic, leaks reveal

UK intelligence operatives groomed British politicians to silence skeptical academics 

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | April 1, 2025

Leaked emails reviewed by The Grayzone reveal a high-level British intelligence plot to smear and silence British political scientists such as Richard Sakwa, who is widely regarded as one of the English-speaking world’s foremost authorities on Russia.

In a March 2022 email entitled “Russians in our Universities,” British military intelligence officer and former senior NATO advisor Chris Donnelly accused Sakwa of being a Russian “fellow traveller” who’d been “gradually breaking cover,” insisting the professor was “far too well-informed about Russian strategy to be called just ‘a useful idiot.’” Another email reveals Donnelly fantasizing about publicly exposing Sakwa for being “funded by Russian entities” – a claim the professor strenuously denies.

Donnelly fired off the emails just two weeks after the UK’s then-Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi pledged that the British government was “already on the case and is contacting [their] universities,” after being asked whether the UK government would intervene directly to stop anti-war academics from “acting as useful idiots for President Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine.”

The Grayzone has revealed Donnelly as a key figure behind a secret British military and spying cell dubbed Project Alchemy, which was created in early 2022 to keep Ukraine fighting “at all costs.” A core component of that effort was to silence journalistic voices and media outlets – including this one – deemed a threat to London’s control of the proxy war’s narrative.

The newly-exposed messages show that Donnelly was conducting similar operations in the academic world as well. Though Professor Sakwa has long challenged dominant Western narratives on Putin’s Russia, criticizing both NATO’s rampant expansionism and its refusal to include Moscow in the European security structure following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, he was effectively disappeared from mainstream debates on the conflict since the Ukraine proxy war erupted.

The leaked emails strongly suggest the direct intervention of Donnelly, a known British intelligence asset, may have been responsible for marginalizing Sakwa. Messages show Donnelly contacted influential UK lawmakers to stamp out the “influence” of Sakwa, whom he called his “number one” target, while calling for the blacklisting of other academics who might expose inconvenient truths about the conflict in Ukraine.

Donnelly’s determination to silence the professor apparently extended beyond the duration of the conflict. In private, he fretted that once “fighting slows down” in Ukraine, “appeasers” would “start talking about lifting the sanctions,” and “the Sakwas of this world will be spearheading the effort to change Western strategy.” In other words, even when the war ended in failure for Kiev and its proxy backers, Connelly and his associates would remain determined to prevent any public reconsideration of the West’s relationship with Russia.

Sakwa “a redoubtable opponent” who’s taken “very seriously”

While recently smeared as a Kremlin apologist and “disinformation” peddler in certain quarters, Sakwa’s works have historically elicited glowing mainstream reviews. Even after the Ukraine proxy war erupted, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs journal positively appraised the professor’s recent books dissecting the Russiagate fraud, and the origins of the Ukraine conflict. Clearly, it was Sakwa’s credibility and formidable body of knowledge that made him a target of British intelligence following the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

In emails exchanged with James Sherr, a career think tank staffer who once headed the Russia and Eurasia program at the British government-linked think tank Chatham House, Donnelly expressed discomfort about the prospect of Sakwa’s ideas reaching impressionable Western audiences. Sakwa’s “knowledge of Russian politics is very high,” Donnelly warned Sherr, making him “a redoubtable opponent” whom the “majority” of British students and “junior/mid-level politicians” would likely take “very seriously.”

Sherr responded that he had “no doubt” Sakwa was “on the Kremlin payroll,” but insisted the academic criticized NATO expansion “not [for] money,” but “out of hatred of the United States.” If there was “hard evidence” that Sakwa was “funded by Russian entities, then this should be made known,” Sherr added, but even if footage existed of Vladimir Putin personally “writing [Sakwa] a cheque over dinner… the University of Kent will continue to employ him, and he will continue to be adored by those who adore him.”

Donnelly agreed with his friend’s false assessment, but was evidently undeterred from pursuing Sakwa, telling Sherr, “we can try!” He added that Andrew Monaghan, another academic who had long warned of the perils of military confrontation with Russia, hadn’t been heard from “for a while,” and asked Sherr: “who else should we be keeping an eye out for?” A day later, Donnelly posed the same question to his longtime associate Victor Madeira, an academic closely connected to former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove.

This followed another email by Donnelly to Conservative MP Bob Seely, a hawkish military veteran and then-member of parliament’s foreign affairs committee. Donnelly asked Seely whether he was “concerned about Russian influence in our Universities,” because “if so, I’ve got some interesting material for you.” Forwarding the unsolicited email to Madeira, Donnelly boasted, “l may have an opportunity to get this addressed,” and bragged that he would soon be discussing the subject with the then-chair of British Parliament’s education select committee.

“cells in the British governmental apparatus… which subvert the fundamental principles of British democracy”

In comments to The Grayzone, Sakwa said Donnelly’s actions were “extremely disturbing,” and suggested the emails indicate “there are cells in the British governmental apparatus who are working in ways which subvert the fundamental principles of British democracy, tolerance of divergent political views, and the encouragement of open debate and dialogue.”

The professor argues that “by traducing scholars and civic activists,” Donnelly and his collaborators “precisely undermine the values which they are ostensibly trying to defend,” and “practice guilt by association.”

“The assumption [that] questioning official policy on a particular issue must be motivated by mercenary concerns, in this case being in the pay of Moscow, is a dreadful manifestation of the McCarthyism we had hoped we put behind us with the end of the Cold War,” Sakwa adds.

“In fact, it demonstrates [that] Cold War II is potentially more dangerous than the first, with the attempt to blacken the reputation of critical voices, and thus assumedly weaken their public impact. This is not only morally and politically wrong in itself, but also damages the possibility of coherent, informed and dispassionate analysis, and thus weakens the coherence of intelligent policy-making in its entirety.”

When Sakwa retired from his university position in August 2022, he was unaware that British intelligence operatives had waged a plot to silence him for over a year. Now, however, the professor wonders whether an incident that occurred two months prior may have been related. That June, the Canterbury anti-war movement organized an event at which Sakwa was the guest speaker. “To our astonishment, about 20 Ukrainians and associates picketed the meeting, with banners condemning me and the organizers,” he told The Grayzone.

Rather than being turned away, the protesters were invited in – “minus placards,” Sakwa noted. However, “they then proceeded to try to disrupt the meeting,” until the event chair warned them “that if their anti-democratic behavior continued, they would be asked to leave.” Following the warning, the event continued in peace. Sakwa said “most” attendees felt his address “struck the appropriate balance between sympathy for the plight of the Ukrainian people, and political analysis of the situation.”

The incident likely would have ended there, but counter-demonstrators seized on leaflets calling for an official inquiry into the ever-mysterious Bucha incident which were distributed by another attendee. Ukrainian officials and their British backers charge that Russian forces carried out a massacre of innocent civilians in the city of Bucha, but have blocked attempts at UN investigation, and refused to release names of purported victims.

While Sakwa believes calls for such a probe to be “not unreasonable”, he said he had nothing to do with the leaflets’ production, and was unaware of their contents at the time. He only learned of their existence when one of the Ukrainian activists who disrupted the event accused him of condoning “conspiracy theories,” leading the University of Kent to open an internal inquiry.

“To the University of Kent’s credit, they dismissed any potential charge of misconduct, and defended the principle of freedom of speech. The institution lived up to its reputation for collegiality and the robust defence of academic freedom,” Sakwa says. “However, the initial charge was clearly malicious and malevolent, and demonstrates the danger of ‘Ukraine syndrome’ damaging the quality of civic life in England.”

Today, “Ukraine syndrome” remains alive and well in Britain as Prime Minister Keir Starmer proudly declares his desire to deploy troops and aircraft to Kiev to participate in hostilities despite UK military chiefs warning that London lacks the men and materiel to even consider such a mission. A depressing official review of the British Army has prompted the head of the Financial Times’ editorial board to conclude “their forces would struggle to fight a European war lasting more than a few weeks.”

While Richard Sakwa and other genuine regional experts warned over many years that transforming Ukraine into an anti-Russian bastion would lead to disaster for all involved, Western leaders turned instead to the paranoid pronouncements of spies like Chris Donnelly for guidance on how to respond to Moscow’s forcefully stated opposition to Ukraine joining NATO. And before the belligerent plans of Donnelly and his cadre could be discredited, they made certain that no one would be left to call them out.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Here’s why the West has so far failed to start World War III

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 31, 2025

Under the title ‘The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine’, the New York Times published a long exposé that has made a splash. It is a long article advertised – with a lumbering clunkiness that betrays cramping politics – as the “untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.”

And it clearly aspires to be sensational: A revelation with a whiff of the famous Pentagon Papers that, when leaked to the same New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971, revealed what a mass-murderous fiasco America’s Vietnam War really was.

Yet, in reality, this time the New York Times is offering something less impressive by magnitudes. And the issue is not that the Pentagon Papers were longer. What really makes ‘The Partnership’ so underwhelming are two features: It is embarrassingly conformist, reading like a long exercise in rooting for the home team, the US, by access journalism: Based on hundreds of interviews with movers and shakers, this is really the kind of ‘investigation’ that boils down to giving everyone interviewed a platform for justifying themselves as good as they can and as much as they like.

With important exceptions. For the key strategy of exculpation is simple. Once you see through the rather silly group-therapy jargon of a tragic erosion of ‘trust’ and sad misunderstandings, it is the Ukrainians that get the blame for the US not winning its war against Russia, in their country and over their dead bodies.

Because one fundamental conceit of ‘The Partnership’ is that the war could have been won by the West, through Ukraine. What seems to never even have entered the author’s mind is the simple fact that this was always an absurd undertaking. Accordingly, the other thing that hardly makes it onto his radar screen is the crucial importance of Russia’s political and military actions and reactions.

This, hence, is an article that, in effect, explains losing a war against Russia without ever noticing that this may have happened because the Russians were winning it. In that sense, it stands in a long tradition: Regarding Napoleon’s failed campaign of 1812 and Hitler’s crash between 1941 and 1945, all too many contemporary and later Western observers have made the same mistake: For them it’s always the weather, the roads (or their absence), the timing, and the mistakes of Russia’s opponents. Yet it’s never – the Russians. This reflects old, persistent, and massive prejudices about Russia that the West cannot let go of. And, in the end, it is always the West which ends up suffering from them the most.

In the case of the Ukraine conflict, the main scapegoats, in the version of ‘The Partnership’, are now Vladimir Zelensky and his protégé and commander-in-chief General Aleksandr Syrsky, but there is room for devastating side swipes at Syrsky’s old rival Valery Zaluzhny and a few lesser lights as well.

Perhaps the only Ukrainian officer who looks consistently good in ‘The Partnership’ is Mikhail Zabrodsky, that is, the one – surprise, surprise – who worked most closely with the Americans and even had a knack of flatteringly imitating their Civil War maneuvers. Another, less prominent recipient of condescending praise is General Yury Sodol. He is singled out as an “eager consumer” of American advice who, of course, ends up succeeding where less compliant pupils fail.

Zabrodsky and Sodol may very well be decent officers who do not deserve this offensively patronizing praise. Zelensky, Syrsky, and Zaluzhny certainly deserve plenty of very harsh criticism. Indeed, they deserve being tried. But constructing a stab-in-the-back legend around them, in which Ukrainians get blamed the most for making the US lose a war that the West provoked is perverse. As perverse as the latest attempts by Washington to turn Ukraine into a raw materials colony, as a reward for being such an obedient proxy.

With all its fundamental flaws, there are intriguing details in ‘The Partnership’. They include, for instance, a European intelligence chief openly acknowledging – as early as spring 2022 – that NATO officers had become “part of the kill chain,” that is, of killing Russians who they were not, actually, officially at war with.

Or that, contrary to what some believe, Westerners did not overestimate but underestimate Russian abilities from the beginning of the war: In the spring of 2022, Russia rapidly surged “additional forces east and south” in less than three weeks, while American officers had assumed they would need months. In a similar spirit of blinding arrogance, General Christopher Cavoli – in essence, Washington’s military viceroy in Europe and a key figure in boosting the war against Russia – felt that Ukrainian troops did not have to be as good as the British and Americans, just better than Russians. Those daft, self-damaging prejudices again.

The New York Times’ “untold story” is also extremely predictable. Despite all the detail, nothing in ‘The Partnership’ is surprising, at least nothing important. What this sensationally unsensational investigation really does is confirm what everyone not fully sedated by Western information warfare already knew: In the Ukraine conflict, Russia has not merely – if that is the word – been fighting Ukraine supported by the West but Ukraine and the West.

Some may think the above is a distinction that doesn’t make a difference. But that would be a mistake. Indeed, it’s the kind of distinction that can make a to-be-or-not-to-be difference, even on a planetary scale.

That’s because Moscow fighting Ukraine, while the latter is receiving Western support, means Russia having to overcome a Western attempt to defeat it by proxy war. But fighting Ukraine and the West means Russia has been at war with an international coalition, whose members have all attacked it directly. And the logical and legitimate response to that would have been to attack them all in return. That scenario would have been called World War III.

‘The Partnership’ shows in detail that the West did not merely support Ukraine indirectly. Instead, again and again, it helped not only with intelligence Ukraine could not have gathered on its own but with direct involvement in not only supplying arms but planning campaigns and firing weapons that produced massive Russian casualties. Again, Moscow has said this was the case for a long time. And Moscow was right.

This is why, by the way, the British Telegraph has gotten one thing very wrong in its coverage of ‘The Partnership’: The details of American involvement now revealed are not, actually, “likely to anger the Kremlin.” At least, they are not going to make it angrier than before, because Russia is certain to have long known about just how much the US and others – first of all Britain, France, Poland, and the Baltics – have contributed, directly and hands-on, to killing Russians.

Indeed, if there is one important takeaway from the New York Times’ proud exposé of the extremely unsurprising, it is that the term ‘proxy war’ is both fundamentally correct and insufficient. On the one hand, it perfectly fits the relationship between Ukraine and its Western ‘supporters’: The Zelensky regime has sold the country as a whole and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives to the West. The West has used them to wage war on Russia in pursuit of one overarching geopolitical aim of its own: To inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia – that is, a permanent demotion to second-rate, de facto non-sovereign status.

The above is not news, except perhaps for the many brainwashed by Western information warriors from historian-turned-war-apostle Tim Snyder to lowlier X agitators with Ukrainian flags and sunflowers in their profiles.

What is also less than stunning but a little more interesting is that, on the other side, the term proxy war is still misleadingly benign. The key criterion for a war being by proxy – and not its opposite, which is, of course, direct – is, after all, that major powers using proxies limit themselves to indirect support. It is true that in theory and historical practice that does not entirely rule out adding some limited direct action as well.

And yet, in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the US and other Western nations – and don’t overlook the fact that ‘The Partnership’ hardly addresses all the black ops also conducted by them and their mercenaries – have clearly, blatantly gone beyond proxy war. In reality, the West has been waging war on Russia for years now.

That means that two things are true: The West almost started World War III. And the reason it has not – not yet, at least – is Moscow’s unusual restraint, which, believe it or not, has actually saved the world.

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the US fighting Canada and Mexico (and maybe Greenland) and learning that Russian officers are crucial in firing devastating mass-casualty strikes at its troops. What do you think would happen? Exactly. And that it has not happened during the Ukraine War is due to Moscow being the adult in the room. This should make you think.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Germany to target ‘internal EU enemies’ – Politico

RT | April 1, 2025

The incoming German government plans to play a larger role in EU decision-making, including by punishing nations that dissent against the bloc’s foreign policy, Politico has reported. According to the outlet, a draft coalition agreement targets Hungary, which has defied EU decisions on issues such as the Ukraine conflict and sanctions against Russia.

Germany is set to have a new coalition government formed by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democrats (SPD), likely led by Friedrich Merz of the CDU. The parties are currently finalizing agreements on key policy areas, including migration, climate, and EU relations. Merz is reportedly aiming to form the new government before Easter on April 20.

One of the documents reviewed by Politico outlines Berlin’s plans for a more assertive EU strategy. It proposes using the ‘Weimar Triangle’ – a trilateral alliance of Germany, France, and Poland, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency – to influence the bloc’s direction and strengthen Germany’s use of its voting rights.

The draft also states that Berlin plans to “defend” the EU against “internal and external enemies” by calling for punitive action against member states that allegedly violate principles such as the rule of law. Proposed penalties include withholding EU funds and suspending voting rights.

“We will take even more consistent action against violations,” the document states. “Existing protective instruments, from infringement proceedings and the withholding of EU funds to the suspension [of] membership rights such as voting rights in the Council of the EU, must be applied much more consistently than before.”

The coalition has also proposed the creation of a “comprehensive sanction instrument” to rein in perceived dissenters, including replacing the EU’s foreign policy unanimity requirement with majority voting to prevent countries from blocking decisions such as sanctions.

“The consensus principle in the European Council must not become a brake on decision-making,” the document states.

While Hungary is not mentioned by name, the draft agreement appears to be a clear reference to the country, which has long been at odds with EU policies, including over its approach to the Ukraine conflict and its sanctions policy towards Russia.

Budapest has argued that sanctions have been detrimental to the bloc’s economy, and has exercised its veto right on several motions to delay or dilute measures. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly accused the EU of taking a “pro-war” stance and has pursued independent peace initiatives on the Ukraine conflict.

The EU has previously threatened to suspend Hungary’s voting rights. It withheld around €22 billion in funds earmarked for Budapest in 2022, citing rights and judicial concerns, but ultimately released about half of that amount last year.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

EU to reject Russia-US Black Sea deal – von der Leyen

RT | March 29, 2025

The EU will not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.

During talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday, Russia and the US agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers.

In her interview with French broadcaster LCI on Friday, von der Leyen made it clear that Brussels will not support the idea of a maritime truce between Moscow and Kiev put forward by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

“The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever,” she said when asked about the possibility of the EU fulfilling Russian demands to lift some of the curbs.

According to the head of the European Commission, the restrictions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.”

However, she noted that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.”

Von der Leyen also said that for the conflict to end, “security guarantees for Ukraine” are needed as well as “a solid defense industrial base and a deterrent force” in the EU.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports.

Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. The Americans and Russians now see its revival as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict altogether.

Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies. According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%.

Putin previously urged the Russian business circles against expecting the sanctions to be fully lifted, describing them as a mechanism of strategic systemic pressure on the country that the West intends to keep using.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘preparing for war’ – Hungarian FM

RT | March 29, 2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone.

The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security.

Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit.

“But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday. “At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.”

“Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?”

EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.

Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow.

Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.

Meanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached.

The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 29, 2025 

In an unguarded moment, perhaps, ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson blurted out recently in an interview that the ultranationalist elements who rule the roost in Kiev are a formidable obstacle to ending the war in Ukraine. For Johnson, this might be a blame game to absolve himself of responsibility, given his own dubious role as then PM (in cahoots with President Joe Biden) in undermining the Istanbul agreement in April 2022 to rev up the simmering conflict and turn it to a full-fledged US-led proxy war against Russia. 

What Johnson will not admit, though, is that the ascendance of the MI6, Britain’s intelligence agency, in the power structure in Kiev goes back by several years. MI6 was responsible for the personal security of President Zelensky. MI6 took advantage by positioning itself to choreograph the future trajectory of the war and subsequently in the planning and execution of major covert operations directed against the Russian forces — and ultimately to carry the war into Russian soil itself. 

According to reports, the UK intends to establish a base in the Odessa region on the Black Sea coastline. See my article The Hundred Years War Donald Trump should know about, Deccan Herald, January 29, 2025.

So, indeed, the MI6’s unholy alliance with the notorious Azov militia units comprising Ukrainian ultra-nationalists fired up by neo-Nazi ideology who wield control of the power apparatus in Kiev even today, is a key factor in the war, which complicates the prospects for President Trump’s efforts to end the war. Suffice to say, Britain’s strategic defiance of Trump with PM Keir Starmer string up of an insurgency among Europeans to pre-empt any US-Russia rapprochement is a calculated strategy.

Hopefully, President Trump’s decision Tuesday to order the FBI to forthwith declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane investigation may throw some light on the so-called Steele dossier (named after an ex-MI6 officer) containing doctored ‘evidence’ that had formed the basis of Hillary Clinton’s fake allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 US election cycle.

Reports had appeared, incidentally, that incumbent president Barack Obama and then vice-president Biden were very much in the loop on the Russia hoax. 

The point is, the entrenched neo-Nazi groups in Kiev, with Zelensky as their frontman, are not in the least interested in budging from their maximalist demands on a total Russian withdrawal and so on for ending the war, which are backed by the Europeans unconditionally who would  know fully well that such hopelessly unrealistic demands are deal breakers. The Kiev regime and European leaders are joined at the hips as interest groups in the war continuing. 

Put differently, so long as the regime in Kiev remains in power (although Zelensky’s presidential term has expired), any forward movement in the peace process will remain a pipe dream. 

The best course of action would be that Zelensky steps down on his own volition and a fresh election is allowed to be held under the supervision of the parliament speaker but all that is too much to expect. Given the massive scale of war profiteering, Zelensky holds a dream job.

The alternative will be Zelensky’s ouster through coercive means as the US once did to an equally corrupt proxy, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1963 during the Vietnam War. But Trump is unlikely to do that. And in any case, the deep state is hostile towards Trump and Zelensky gets political support from Democrats.

Besides, Zelensky’s violent exit may only bring in another figure with neo-Nazi backing to power. In fact, the ex-army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who also has MI6 support, is waiting in the wings in London serving as Ukraine’s envoy. 

In such a dismal scenario, the only way out seems to be a Third Way. Russian President Vladimir Putin may have proposed just that in a speech in Mumansk on Thursday possibly to draw Trump’s attention, as the Riyadh talks are not getting anywhere and Zelensky shows no signs of interest in a ceasefire.

Putin said at the outset, “I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.” 

He then worked his way to the issue of the neo-Nazi formations who receive western weaponry and financial aid  and have the resources to recruit new personnel, holding de facto power in Kiev and are effectively running the country. Putin stated: “This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?”

Clearly, the Russians are sceptical of the outcome of the expert level talks in Riyadh last Monday. The European summit in Paris 3 days later had vowed not to relax the sanctions against Russia or to give Russian banks access to the SWIFT clearing system. In short, the exports of Russian agricultural products and fertilisers to the world market is not going to be feasible. Kiev has already raised objection to the US-Russian understanding in this regard.

Simply put, an important element in the so-called Black Sea initiative is not workable. How to cut the Gordian knot?

Taking stock of Kiev’s all-round resistance to ending the war, Putin said:

“In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist. 

“In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.

“This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice…” 

What Putin didn’t mention but is equally relevant is that the war in Ukraine will meet with sudden death the moment UN governance in Ukraine gets established. Indeed, let the UN decide the composition of any peacekeeping forces to be deployed in Ukraine for conducting elections. There won’t be any need for a ‘coalition of the willing’ of Europeans for deployment in Ukraine, either. 

Of course, the big losers will be MI6 and the politicians in power in the EU countries who lined up behind Biden as his retinue to wage a doomed proxy war against Russia and eventually ended up bringing the roof down on Europe’s economy. These decrepit politicians need the war as a distraction since they will be held horribly accountable by their public for creating conditions under which the welfare state is no longer affordable.

The Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to visit Moscow next week on Tuesday. It is entirely conceivable that the topic of UN governance in Ukraine will figure in Wang Yi’s talks.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron and Starmer’s coalition of the killing amid Europe’s insane war footing

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender.

Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia.

Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”.

Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale.

European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada. We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe.

Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine.

Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why.

In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project.

The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate.

The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

This week, the EU began urging citizens to stockpile emergency rations in their homes. Russia was not explicitly invoked as a threat, but it was palpably obvious that fear of war was being inculcated. While European states are slashing billions in social welfare, their elitist, Russophobic leaders are ramping up billions for militarism. Europe is on a war footing based on paranoia and the pathological fears of a ruling clique.

Macron and Starmer are also pushing the idea of integrating Ukraine into a first line of defense against alleged future Russian aggression toward Europe. In reality, this is about reconfiguring offense.

Their pretensions of “building a robust peace for Ukraine and Europe” are a reckless gambit to prolong the war. At its worst, the conflict could explode into an all-out world war.

It is cringe-making that failed European politicians who are mired in internal political and economic messes are seeking to aggrandize their images through high-stakes posturing against Russia.

Macron has said that his coalition of willing wants to have American backing for security. He added this week that if European troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces, they will retaliate.

Moscow has already stated categorically that no European or NATO troops deployed to Ukraine are acceptable. They will be targeted as combatants.

That means that if Paris and London go ahead with their military venture in Ukraine, a wider war is almost inevitable.

It is alarming that Macron has lately said that European troops may be dispatched to Ukraine “with or without American support.”

Laughably, though, neither the French nor the British have the military power for a serious intervention. French forces have been serially kicked out of several African countries that were former colonies. Meanwhile, British military chiefs have warned Starmer that his deployment plans are ill-conceived and amount to “political theater”.

Even the much-vaunted summit in Paris this week showed open cracks between allies. Several European states have stated they are not willing to join any military intervention in Ukraine. Italy, Poland, and Greece have expressed deep concern about where Macron and Starmer’s logic is leading.

It seems that the extreme delusions of grandeur harbored by former imperialist powers are beginning to unnerve even supposed partners.

Hopefully, it is becoming transparent that Britain and France are gambling with world security to satisfy their own egos.

Two world wars in the last century stemmed from European intrigue and duplicity.

Has-been European powers are at it again with their Orwellian doublespeak about ensuring “lasting peace”.

The reality is Russia has won the proxy war that NATO instigated. Even the normally gung-ho Americans realize that.

NATO has been caught with blood on its hands as the culprit of an epic war crime against Russia, using Ukraine as a pawn. Trump seems to want to extricate the Americans from the debacle. He can try to offload the blame onto the previous Biden administration.

However, the European elitist leaders can’t do that. They are the same lackeys who promulgated the criminal proxy war. Their only perceived option is to keep it going… until the European public wakes up and takes retribution on their criminal leaders.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU candidate’s pro-Western government arrests autonomous region’s leader

RT | March 27, 2025

A vocal critic of Moldova’s pro-Western government, who leads an autonomous region in the EU candidate state, has denounced her arrest on what she claims to be fabricated criminal charges.

Yevgenia Gutsul was taken into custody on Tuesday evening at the international airport in the Moldovan capital, Chisinau, with the authorities saying she was on a wanted list. In a statement released through her lawyers on Thursday, she accused the government of pursuing a plan to dismantle the region of Gagauzia’s autonomy through lawfare targeting her administration.

“I am behind bars now under trumped up charges, yet my heart and my soul is with you,” she said, addressing the people of Gagauzia.

”This arrest is not a personal attack. It’s part of Chisinau’s grand plan to destroy our autonomy. Law enforcement officials controlled by the [ruling party] PAS have been trying to put pressure on me with bogus criminal cases for two years,” she added.

According to Moldovan media, Gutsul was taken into custody as part of an investigation into the 2023 gubernatorial election in Gagauzia, which she won. Her campaign was accused of financial irregularities. The Moldovan government claims that Gutsul is part of a Russian influence operation aimed at disrupting the country’s attempts to become a member of the EU.

The Gagauz people are a Turkic-speaking, primarily Orthodox Christian ethnic group living in the southern part of Moldova, Their region, Gagauzia, has been granted broad self-government rights. Moldovan President Maia Sandu has questioned Gutsul’s mandate as governor, denouncing her former party ‘Shor’ as a “criminal organization.” In 2023, a court in Chisinau outlawed it.

Gutsul has called on Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to apply pressure on the Sandu administration in defense of Gagauzia’s rights.

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned the arrest, asserting that Chisinau “has decided to pay no heed to the law, democratic principles and political pluralism and to openly pressure political rivals.”

He compared the approach to that of the Romanian government, where a presidential election was recently overturned after a surprise first round victory by an opposition candidate. The constitutional court’s decision was based on claims that Russia interfered in the process, but media reports suggested that the social media campaign cited by officials originated from the ruling party, which sought to undermine a mainstream candidate by boosting an unlikely outsider.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-mediated Black Sea ceasefire deal

RT | March 27, 2025

The EU will not fulfill Russia’s demand to lift sanctions on the country’s main agricultural bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington, European Commission Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Anitta Hipper has said.

During the talks between Russian and US experts in Riyadh on Monday, the sides agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. The maritime ceasefire is seen by Moscow and Washington as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict.

In her interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday, Hipper insisted that “the end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions.”

“The EU’s main focus remains to maximize pressure on Russia, using all tools available, including sanctions, to diminish Russia’s ability to wage its war against Ukraine,” she insisted.

US President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some curbs against Moscow, saying that “there are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed later that Kiev did not agree to the maritime truce due to it representing “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions” against Russia.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to fold up its obligations.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the maritime truce could take effect only once certain conditions set out by Russia are met. “Of course, this time justice must prevail, and we will continue our work with the Americans [on the Black Sea Initiative],” Peskov stressed.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

President Putin: 25 Years of Resisting the US Deep State and European Globalists

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – March 26, 2025

Since winning on March 26, 2000, Putin has fought to protect Russia’s sovereignty—standing up to George Soros, the Rothschilds, and Western elites. Read more to see how he did it.

2025: Putin signaled readiness for dialogue with the US administration on Ukraine, while Donald Trump exposed USAID‘s financial abuses and vowed to target US deep state actors and globalists.

2016: Putin signed a law banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Russia, as well as the import of products containing or produced using GMOs.

2015: Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and other major USAID grant recipients as “undesirable organizations.”

2012: USAID was banned from operating in Russia. Additionally, Russia introduced its “foreign agents” law to regulate foreign-funded NGOs.

2003: Russian oligarch and Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested for embezzlement and tax evasion, ending Western-backed oligarchic influence in Russia. Later, he revealed Lord Jacob Rothschild as his powerful backer and Yukos’ “protector.”

2003: George Soros, who condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest, shut down his Russia funds. His exit coincided with a surge in color revolutions, but Putin’s Russia resisted the globalist push.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic & Baltic Fronts

By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025

Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defense magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.

In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.

Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.

He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying Northwestern Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.

He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.

Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.

Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.

At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.

Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.

Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.

March 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »