Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Preliminary talks in Istanbul are a start… the real show to come is Trump and Putin

Strategic Culture Foundation | May 16, 2025

The talks in Istanbul this week provide a prospect for peace. It bears emphasizing that the three-year proxy war could have been avoided if diplomacy had been permitted by Washington in early 2022 instead of being sabotaged.

Three years on, we have a new president in the White House, and there appears to be a more enlightened policy. Or maybe it’s an implicit admission that the U.S. proxy war agenda is a failure and can’t go on.

In any case, Trump and his envoys are unequivocally saying that they want to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine. That’s a big change from his predecessor, Joe Biden, who vowed to back Ukraine for as long as it takes in a fantastical, reckless pursuit to strategically defeat Russia.

It was the Biden administration, along with the British government, that intervened to scupper nascent peace talks in March 2022 between Russia and Ukraine for a peace deal. Washington and London coaxed the Kiev regime to fight on with promises of more weapons.

The result: three more years of intense conflict, which have caused millions of casualties, mainly on the Ukrainian side. The proxy war has come perilously close to provoking an all-out world war between nuclear powers.

Trump appears to want peace. If he is genuine in that intention, then the American president will have to address the root causes of the conflict. Russia has consistently explained the deeper causes of NATO aggression and the militarization of Ukraine as a hostile bridgehead on its borders since the CIA-orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014.

The American president has shown petulance at times, urging Ukraine and Russia to get down to a peace deal. He has even threatened Russia with more (futile) economic sanctions. What the Trump administration needs to understand is that resolving deep causes of conflict requires commensurate negotiations and a realistic commitment to lasting geopolitical security arrangements.

The talks in Istanbul this week to explore a peaceful resolution were initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an announcement last week.

Russia’s delegation was led by Putin’s senior aide, Vladimir Medinsky. That speaks of consistency and commitment. Medinsky led the peace talks three years ago in Istanbul, which were then sabotaged in April 2022 by the American and British intervention.

This week, the Russian side held preliminary bilateral talks with the Americans led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Subsequently, the Russian and Ukrainian delegates engaged in a meeting convened by Turkish diplomats. It was the first direct encounter between Russian and Ukrainian officials since the March 2022 negotiations.

It is not clear if follow-up meetings will take place. But at least one might say that talks took place.

The key to any prospect of ending the conflict depends on Washington demonstrating the requisite commitment. Trump said this week again that he would like to hold a summit with Putin as “soon as possible.” The Kremlin has also said that a formal presidential meeting is desirable.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that there must first be adequate preparation for meaningful discussions. That implies that any top-level meeting must be cognizant of Russia’s demands for a resolution, one that deals with the historic, systematic causes of the proxy war.

Western politicians and media denying Russia’s perspective are delusional or duplicitous. To claim that the conflict is all about “unprovoked Russian aggression” against “democratic Ukraine” and “Russian expansionism” towards Europe is a travesty. It’s a bogus narrative that precludes peaceful resolution. Trump seems to be aware of that. But he needs to go beyond a superficial “peace broker” charade.

If Trump wants a gimmicky big summit with Putin for PR ratings, as his tour of the Middle East this week illustrates his egotistical wont, he can forget it.

The meetings this week in Turkey can be seen as preliminary technical discussions.

However, President Trump needs to take the lead. Appropriately, a peaceful resolution will only happen at the senior level of the U.S. and Russian governments. That’s because the United States is the primary protagonist in the proxy war against Russia.

It is clear from the antics and theatrics of the Kiev regime this week that there is no prospect of a meaningful, lasting peace if negotiations are confined to that level. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky does not even have constitutional legitimacy after cancelling elections last year. His erratic behavior of grandstanding and mudslinging at the Russian diplomatic efforts proves that he is not capable of substantive negotiations.

The European leaders are also an impediment to achieving an authentic peace settlement. Even before delegations met this week in Istanbul, various non-entity European politicians were disparaging Russia’s diplomatic initiative. Macron, Starmer, Merz, Von der Leyen and Kallas were desperately trying to insult the Russian president, indulging Zelensky’s PR stunt demanding a face-to-face meeting with Putin in Istanbul.

The European Union also timed an announcement this week to double its supply of heavy-calibre munitions to Ukraine. Another provocation.

France’s Macron sought to impose a precondition for the talks by demanding a 30-day ceasefire. That was a flagrant attempt to sabotage the negotiations before they even started.

These people are not honest about ending the worst war in Europe since the end of World War Two. Disgracefully, they want the bloodshed to continue for their political survival and gratifying their obsessive Russophobic fantasies.

If Trump wants to end NATO’s proxy war against Russia, he will have to sideline the European naysayers and the Kiev puppet regime. Their involvement is counterproductive. One suspects that Trump already knows that.

An American and Russian agreement at the highest level is the only way to bring the war to an end. It is no use for the American side pretending that they are mere peace brokers. They are the main protagonist, not the European lapdogs nor the Kiev regime.

Preliminary talks are all very well. But they are just that. Preliminary. If the talks have any chance of succeeding, the American side must take responsibility for the war it started and fueled.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US House Judiciary Committee Warns EU and Poland’s Tusk Government Over Censorship Threat to US Free Speech

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 15, 2025

The US House Judiciary Committee is sounding the alarm over an escalating threat to free expression, warning that censorship efforts by Poland’s current government, coupled with the European Union’s regulatory framework, could extend their reach into American speech online.

In a letter addressed to EU Commissioner for Justice and Rule of Law Michael McGrath, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and four congressional colleagues requested a briefing on how the EU plans to respond to what they described as disturbing developments under Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Since coming to power in December 2023, Tusk’s government has launched legal actions against members of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party.

These efforts include removing the legal immunity of PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński, pressing forward with criminal charges that appear politically motivated, and subjecting detainees to harsh treatment.

One former aide denied access to her attorney during questioning, reportedly suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after. Another case involved the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Father Michał Olszewski, a Catholic priest tied to the former justice minister.

The Judiciary Committee points to these incidents as evidence of a political strategy designed to suppress opposition speech ahead of Poland’s 2025 presidential election.

According to the letter, the pattern includes targeting conservative activists and media outlets. A key example is the Polish government’s threat to revoke the license of Telewizja Republika, a station known for criticizing the Tusk administration.

Lawmakers expressed concern that these actions are taking place without pushback from EU institutions. They argue that the European Commission, which was quick to condemn the previous PiS-led government for its alleged violations of democratic norms, has so far failed to hold Tusk’s coalition to the same standard. The result, the committee says, is a perceived double standard that undermines the EU’s credibility and emboldens further censorship.

Of particular concern is the potential for EU censorship laws to ripple beyond Europe. The Digital Services Act, which requires platforms to remove “misleading or deceptive content,” may end up influencing global content moderation practices. Because platforms typically apply one uniform set of rules, the DSA could effectively establish a worldwide censorship template. The committee warned that this might restrict Americans’ speech online as companies adjust to foreign legal requirements.

Supporting this concern, the committee cited documentation showing that Poland’s Ministry of Digital Affairs, through the National Research Institute, requested the removal of TikTok videos that criticized electric vehicles. The content in question was not overtly political, but the request demonstrates, in the committee’s view, a willingness to use regulatory power to suppress opinions the government dislikes.

This pattern of behavior, if left unchecked, could allow foreign governments to influence global information flows. The letter emphasized that such interference is unacceptable, particularly when it has the potential to impact the speech of American citizens. The concern is not merely theoretical; as the letter points out, the Tusk government accused foreign actors of electoral interference through online ads just one day after the Committee’s communication to the EU.

The letter was signed by Chairman Jim Jordan, Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, and Representatives Chris Smith, Warren Davidson, and Andy Harris. Their message to Brussels is direct: silence in the face of repression is not neutrality. If left unchallenged, the EU’s regulatory apparatus and inaction on political censorship risk becoming tools for silencing voices far beyond Europe’s borders.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Germany: Police block activists from leaving country to attend Remigration Summit in Italy in major crackdown

Remix News | May 16, 2025

German activists leaving the airport for the Remigration Summit taking place in Milan on Saturday were stopped and detained at the airport, interrogated for hours, and issued with an exit ban from leaving the country.

The summit will be attended by well-known activists from across Europe, such as the Austrian author Martin Sellner, Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek, and Belgian activist Dries Van Langenhove.

The latter currently faces a potential prison sentence for memes that were posted in a group chat seven years ago. However, not only are German police now cracking down on activists, even leaving the country for the event, but Italian police are also showing up at the hotels of activists attending the event.

Sellner has been putting out a video and posting updates on X on the various actions taken against activists involved in the summit.

“I know them, they are great guys, Generation Identity activists, who have been detained for hours by the German police. They were arrested at the airport in Munich. Two of them were arrested on the plane, where they tried to enter a plane to Milan, Italy, to attend a conference about remigration. And the German state now bans them from exiting Germany for several days until the conference is over. Bans them from exiting. They banned me from entering, and then they threw me out of several cities and basically crushed my readings, and now they’re banning their own citizens, EU citizens from exiting.”

Sellner says that the German government’s reasoning is “crazy,” arguing that allowing the activists to leave “would be detrimental to the German state, the reputation of the German state, if they would go outside and take part in those events, because this would look like the German state endorses those events.”

Sellner argues that the German state is headed into dark territory, mimicking the GDR, communist East Germany, with this exit ban.

“No, you are our property, and it’s our property, our citizens. If you go there, it’s bad for our reputation. That’s why we lock you in like nasty little children. The German state is going full GDR. That’s exactly what the GDR did with the Berlin Wall. They didn’t let their own citizens leave the country, and that’s the case right now. It would be now punishable by law if they try to exit to Italy, Austria, and Switzerland. They’re banned from going to Switzerland, Austria, and Italy for a certain amount of days. The German state can extend this at will.

Of course, they will take immediate legal measures. They have very good lawyers. You need good lawyers in Germany. If you’re an activist, if you’re posting memes on X, you need an excellent lawyer by now. But it’s really crazy. These laws exist, but they might be lying dormant for a while and now the German state is shutting down, switching off the democracy simulation, and moving up and activating the totalitarian mode, the GDR mode.

As for the German activists, six men and two women who were stopped at the airport, Sellner stated they were released after hours of interrogation. They must now report to the police station twice a day.

“Eight young Germans are now banned from LEAVING Germany. If they try it, they commit a crime. They have to check in daily at their local police station. If not, they have to pay an extra fine. The democracy simulation is shutting down,” wrote Sellner.

The explanation they were given for the exit ban was also delivered to them in written form. It reads:

“In the event of an exit from German right-wing extremists, there is a considerable risk of damage to the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany due to the stays of German right-wing extremists who promote the transnational networking of the right-wing extremist scene, actively promote the inhuman ideology and give it more scope, thus harbors the risk of radicalization of other people and their trips for the development of financial resources and the like.”

Freilich also writes that “it is also due to the history of Germany that the arrival of the activist concerned gives the international impression that the Federal Republic of Germany supports the right-wing extremist ideas openly spread at the event or at least does not adequately address them.”

Essentially, the German state is attempting to make the argument that allowing the activists to attend the summit would be the equivalent of endorsing their beliefs and harming the reputation of Germany. If that is the standard, then apparently it could be argued that any activists Germany does not detain in the future for any conference is a sign that the German state officially endorses the contents of that conference? Such reasoning reaches into the realms of the absurd.

The exit ban on the activists not only applies to Italy, but also to countries like Switzerland and Austria, and will be in effect until May 17, just a minute before midnight.

The activists also shared photos of the last moments they had before they were detained at the airport.

Although Sellner says the Italian police are not involved in this travel ban, and it is the German police at fault, he recently also posted an update on X, noting that an activist staying in Milan was also visited by police and questioned at his hotel.

Sellner says that booking the Remigration Summit has been fraught with difficulties, as vendors and hotels have been continuously canceling on organizers, likely due to pressure from activists. Antifa groups are also active and may try to disrupt the conference, or even more importantly, physically attack those involved.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Romanian presidential front-runner accuses Macron of interference

 Al Mayadeen | May 16, 2025

Romanian nationalist candidate George Simion has accused French President Emmanuel Macron of exhibiting “dictatorial tendencies” and interfering in Romania’s democratic process, just days before the country’s do-over presidential election.

“I love France and the French people, but I don’t like Emmanuel Macron’s dictatorial tendencies,” Simion said during an interview with French television channel CNews, adding, “I don’t respect Emmanuel Macron’s intervention in our democracy.”

Simion further said that France’s ambassador to Romania had discussed the election with the president of the Constitutional Court, which annulled the 2024 presidential vote in December due to concerns over Russian interference.

“The French ambassador has gone… through all regions of the country to convince businessmen to support my opponent, the mayor of Bucharest,” Simion added, referring to Nicușor Dan, his opponent in Sunday’s final vote.

Simion, 38, is the leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) and is campaigning on a nationalist platform that opposes military aid to Ukraine and supports unification with Moldova.

He faces Nicușor Dan, 55, an independent centrist and current mayor of Bucharest, who is running on a pro-European, pro-Western platform and advocates a tougher stance against Russia.

In the first round of the presidential election, Simion secured 41% of the vote, compared to Dan’s 21%. However, recent polling shows the race tightening. Politico’s Poll of Polls currently places Simion at 49% and Dan at 46%.

“We are basically winning,” Simion told Politico during a visit to Brussels. “The only thing we need is fair and free elections. … I think it will be a landslide.”

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

France leading West’s ‘party of war’ – Russia

RT | May 16, 2025

France has emerged as one of the leaders of the “hybrid war” against Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. She made her remarks after the EU agreed to its 17th package of sanctions.

France, together with the United Kingdom, proposed the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to take a more proactive role supporting Ukraine in its fight with Russia in February 2025 after the new administration of US President Donald Trump moved to adopt a more conciliatory stance towards resolving the conflict.

“It is common knowledge that since 2022, Paris has been one of the most uncompromising participants in the West’s hybrid war against our country,” Zakharova said during a press call on Thursday.

“Over the past few months, the French have effectively become the leaders of the West’s ‘party of war,’” she added, citing France’s military aid to Ukraine and its push for additional sanctions on Russia.

“France has played a major role in devising illegitimate sanctions packages in the past. Now, it is attempting to blackmail us with new, supposedly broader sanctions,” Zakharova said.

She argued that the restrictions are part of a “trade war” aimed at “hindering Russia’s economic, technological, and humanitarian development, and at undermining its industrial potential.” Russia, she added, will have a “measured response” to any new restrictions.

French President Emmanuel Macron has said the EU would impose new sanctions “in the coming days” if Moscow does not accept Ukraine’s demand for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Earlier this year, Paris delivered a first batch of Mirage 2000 fighter jets to Kiev.

Russia has warned that military aid to Ukraine would only lead to further escalation. President Vladimir Putin has insisted that, for a lasting ceasefire, Ukraine must halt its mobilization campaign, stop receiving weapons from abroad, and withdraw its troops from all territory claimed by Russia.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

EU queen Ursula preached transparency – then did backdoor deals with Big Pharma

By Rachel Marsden | RT | May 16, 2025

Well, this is awkward. How many times has Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president and unelected de facto ruler of the EU, delivered sermons about transparency like she’s the high priestess of some kind of parallel Brussels Vatican? And now the EU’s own top court has called her out in a ruling for neglecting to practice what she preaches.

Back in 2023, during her State of the European Union address, doing her finest impression of someone elected by the actual public, von der Leyen declared the need to douse any and all sketchiness in sunlight in order to “not allow any autocracy’s Trojan horses to attack our democracies from within.”

“Transparency should characterize the work of all the members of the Commission and of their cabinets,” she said as far back as 2019. “I have asked commissioners…to engage more and be more transparent,” she proclaimed in a speech to EU parliamentarians last year. Transparency and accountability also figured prominently in her bid for reappointment by the EU’s ruling elites last year.

Great news! She can now finally embark on this noble mission, and begin her journey with little more than a simple glance in the mirror. Because the European Court of Justice – the body that rules on whether EU institutions have actually crossed into illegality, not just occupying their usual territory of elite-grade idiocy – has just decided that Queen Ursula’s Commission can’t just wave away a pile of her own Covid-era text messages by going, “Whoops! They disappeared. Oh well, what do you do?” Which is basically what the Commission’s response was to the New York Times when it asked to see those messages.

And how did the Times know that these texts even existed? Because Ursula literally told them, bragging in an interview about how she scored so many vaxxes because she’s super tight with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. All this was for a piece spotlighting her Covid efforts, published in April 2021: “How Europe sealed a Pfizer vaccine deal with texts and calls.”

The article featured the same kind of glamour photography reminiscent of the good ol’ days when Ursula was Germany’s defense minister from 2013 to 2019, under former Chancellor Angela Merkel, and doing photo shoots in front of military hardware while accusations swirled that she had bungled the budget with shady defense contracts, even as the Bundeswehr was stuck using brooms for guns during a NATO exercise, as the Atlantic Council reported in 2015.

“For a month, Ms von der Leyen had been exchanging texts and calls with Bourla, the chief executive of Pfizer… Pfizer might have more doses it could offer the bloc – many more,” the NYT piece reads, referring to the “personal diplomacy” that “played a big role in a deal” for 1.8 billion Pfizer anti-Covid doses.

So the Times hears about these text messages and was like, “Oh, cool. Let’s see!”

Suddenly Queen Ursula became a lot less chatty. So the Times took the matter to the EU’s own top court to get the disclosure. And now this court has said, in legal terms, that Ursula can’t just ghost the Times – and the public by extension – without giving a real reason. That there has to be a “plausible explanation to justify the non possession” of the texts. And also, the court says that “the Commission has failed to explain in a plausible manner” why it thought that these messages were so trivial that they could be vaporized like they were just her Eurovision contest text voting and not a matter of public record which, by definition, should be maintained.

Out of these little chats came €71 billion in Covid jab contracts with Big Pharma’s Pfizer and AstraZeneca – 11 of them to be precise, totaling 4.6 billion doses, paid for with cash taken straight from EU taxpayers. Enough for ten doses for every EU citizen.

Turns out that freewheeling it may have resulted in some consequences that could have been avoided had a diverse group of minds been engaged on the issue, as protocol normally dictates, and not just Ursula’s. It’s not like there hasn’t been a costly fallout from all this. A big chunk of the EU, including Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, is shouting about surplus doses for which they’re on the hook, urging Brussels to renegotiate the contractual terms with Big Pharma. Germany alone has reportedly trashed 200 million of them. Tricky to negotiate, though, when no one’s even sure what the terms were, as the second-highest European court pointed out last year. “The Commission did not give the public sufficiently wide access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines… The Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings,” it ruled.

The details of these contracts – how they were made, what they say, and how anyone’s supposed to back out of them if citizens politely decline to max out their ten-jab punch card – remain a mystery.

Back in 2024, Brussels more or less shrugged and suggested that it could really only be as transparent as the courts forced it to be. So hey, what can you do? “In general, the Commission grants the widest possible public access to documents, in line with the principles of openness and transparency,” the EU said, underscoring that the lower court ruling “confirmed that the Commission was entitled to provide only partial access.”

Well, good news, guys! Your very own top court just ruled that you can now be a lot more transparent! So go crazy. Be the change that you keep saying you want to be in the world. Nothing is holding you back now. If transparency were a vaccine, this court just gave Ursula a booster. So we’ll see if it takes. I won’t hold my breath.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Negotiations or Political Theatre in Istanbul?

Prof. Glenn Diesen on MOATS with George Galloway
Glenn Diesen | May 15, 2025

How will the war end? The position of Ukraine and NATO continues to go from bad to worse, yet there is still a reluctance to engage in genuine discussions. There is subsequently a growing possibility that there will eventually be a collapse of the government in Ukraine, which would allow Moscow to dictate the political settlement. Yet, even as the situation goes from bad to worse, the Europeans and Ukraine are reluctant to engage with Russia in genuine negotiations. Part of the problem is evidently the extent of demands from the Russian side, although the Russian demands will only grow as the war drags on.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why is the secret German spy report on the AfD party only filled with public statements?

Remix News | May 15, 2025

The German domestic spy service, the Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has released a 1,100-page report on the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which it used to label the party a “confirmed” right-wing extremist party. The report is huge and reads like it was written by Antifa, but that was to be expected. However, one interesting point is that it contains only public statements, including quotes made by AfD politicians and a lot of memes.

Why is that?

We already know that the BfV is secretly surveilling AfD members in certain German states, mostly in the east, where the party is “confirmed right-wing extremist” already. This designation allows for the BfV in those states to partake in extraordinary surveillance powers over AfD members, including reading their chats and emails. Presumably, they can also track their browsing history, and perhaps they are even listening in on their conversations at home.

What this means is that the BfV has plenty of statements, memes and content to use based on private statements, but it is purposefully choosing not to use them. After all, a certain number of those AfD members, in private moments, probably also express opinions, post memes, or share thoughts that the BfV would love to include in a secret report on the party, which many hope will eventually justify an outright ban.

Again, why is the BfV not using these private statements?

There are multiple reasons. For one, a big part of the apparatus of spy agencies is to obtain information, but not release it to the public. The public may not be able to stomach such personal and private information and the means that were used to obtain it. Since the Edward Snowden revelations, and even before then, we have become acutely aware that we have accepted devices into our lives and homes that can be used to spy on us on a scale never seen before in history. However, even now — even after all this information has been revealed — I believe nearly all of us still cannot quite grasp what this means — nor do we want to.

Yes, we know that AfD members are being spied on across Germany. Their emails are read, their phone calls are recorded. AI is being used to sort out keywords of interest to the security services. However, nobody really knows how this information is being processed and what it is being used for, or even who is reading it. The spies who control this information have extraordinary power. As a significant portion of them are now far left, at least in Germany, they believe they are acting as a bulwark against the rise of Nazism, and the ends justify the means when it comes to the AfD. There are other psychological motives at work, of course, as spy agencies are on the whole very good at keeping their secrets, not even necessarily because of internal controls, but because the spies are dedicated to their mission. There is, also, the sense of power that comes with being the watcher, and for many spies, this is a powerful intoxicant. They know, while you are in the dark.

In practice, these spies know which AfD members are having affairs, their personal struggles, their health issues, their financial situation, and even their personal browsing history. In other words, they know their targets better in many cases than even their close friends and family. The spies of the world, not just in Germany, are now in many ways gods and mind readers, seeing through the walls people build up around themselves and accessing their darkest fears and secrets — all due to rapid advances in technology and the rise of smartphones.

Earlier this month, commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek, the famed Dutch activist reported that she was alerted that her phone was being breached with Pegasus-like spyware, mainly produced in Israel, which can unlock essentially every aspect of her personal life, including chats, location data, photos, contacts, and so on. With this software, they can even record her in real time, including personal conversations in her home, as well as turn on her camera to record her in her most personal moments.

This software, and software like it, has been used on thousands of people, including journalists, politicians, and activists, sometimes with deadly results. It is not just the right, but far-left activists have also been targeted, including human rights activists. It is also unclear how long Vlaardingerbroek may have been targeted in such a manner. Previous versions of Apple iOS may have not been able to detect this software on her phone. In short, much of her personal life may already be in a database somewhere waiting to be used by intelligence.

Vlaardingerbroek is not in the AfD or even German, but she has backed the party, and she and people like her are most certainly the target of intelligence operatives in countries across Europe.

The point is that this software and the means for surveilling people are very unsettling. In a privacy-minded country like Germany, revealing the scale of surveillance being used against the AfD may be a scandal within itself, and could taint the entire report, which at the end of the day, should be used to justify a ban of the AfD.

There may have been voices in the BfV who were calling to use secretly recorded data in the report as well, but the agency also knew this report would eventually be leaked and made public. The agency does not appear to want to divulge who they are surveilling, what information they have about them, and how they obtained this information.

Another important consideration is also to be taken into account. The BfV decided it did not need to include this secret information in the report because it is likely confident that it can get what it wants using public statements alone. It can still keep the scale of its surveillance secret and get the ban it desires — at least that is the gamble the agency is making.

Surveillance is everywhere, it is being practiced by the left, the right, and many foreign governments are also active in the West, collecting data on targets. So, this is not a uniquely German issue by any means. However, if the establishment in Germany becomes truly desperate, there is probably a secret report waiting that includes far more information and personal details than many Germans want to believe is possible.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

EU Council pushes overhaul to expand speech regulation, target influencers, and tighten control over online platforms

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 14, 2025

As the European Union lays the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of its audiovisual media regulations, the European Council is doubling down on its campaign to police online speech, draped in the familiar language of “safety” and “harm reduction.”

In a set of draft conclusions ahead of the 2026 review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), the Council is urging the European Commission to expand regulatory oversight over video-sharing platforms like YouTube and TikTok, demanding stricter measures to counter what it vaguely labels “disinformation” and “societal risks.”

We obtained a copy of the draft conclusions for you here.

Under the surface of these bureaucratic formulations lies an unmistakable effort to entrench centralized control over online speech across the EU. While dressed as a protective measure, especially toward children and young people, the Council’s recommendations represent a coordinated push to tighten the screws on independent voices, alternative narratives, and the chaotic, open nature of internet communication.

Wrapped in vague definitions and bolstered by expanding EU digital legislation, these proposals are paving the way for a more surveilled, less spontaneous digital public sphere.

Particularly troubling is the call for the Commission to “engage regularly with Member States” to assess how very large online platforms (VLOPs) comply with self-regulatory codes meant to eliminate what the EU designates as “harmful content.”

This not only formalizes political pressure on private platforms to suppress speech but does so under a self-justifying cycle where the same institutions define both the problem and the acceptable solution.

The Council also throws its weight behind efforts to classify influencers and independent content creators as formal audiovisual media providers. If adopted, such a move would bring an entire ecosystem of decentralized communication under a regulatory regime designed for legacy broadcasters. This is not about leveling the playing field. It is about reining in anyone who communicates outside the narrow channels of state-sanctioned media.

“In an ever-changing media landscape, we need rules that are both robust and adaptable,” stated Hanna Wróblewska, Polish Minister for Culture and National Heritage.

“Today’s conclusions highlight the most pressing challenges facing the EU’s audiovisual media sector and call for an approach that will ensure all our citizens are protected from harmful content for years to come.” The sentiment may sound benign, but in practice, “robust” rules often translate into bureaucratic tools for censorship, and “adaptability” into a blank check for regulators to constantly redraw the boundaries of permissible expression.

The Council’s emphasis on combating “foreign information manipulation and interference” (FIMI) also deserves scrutiny. While it invokes threats from abroad, the solutions offered inevitably point inward, toward greater institutional control over speech flows within Europe. The specter of “foreign influence” has long served as a justification to erode civil liberties, and in this context, it becomes a pretext to further entangle state actors in decisions about what citizens can see, share, and say.

The AVMSD was never intended to be a speech-regulating weapon. It was built to coordinate standards across media markets, not dictate what truths may circulate. Yet the Council’s conclusions betray a shift away from this principle, echoing a broader authoritarian drift in the EU’s digital policymaking. Initiatives like the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act are increasingly being used to empower unelected bodies to interfere in editorial processes and curate public discourse under the banner of safety.

Calls for “media literacy,” “pluralism,” and “support for journalistic standards” now serve as euphemisms for state-aligned narratives. Rather than equipping citizens to think critically, these measures promote compliance with officially approved information streams while marginalizing dissent, satire, and counter-establishment viewpoints.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU court overturns Commission’s denial of access to von der Leyen-Pfizer text messages

(Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 14, 2025

The General Court of the European Union on Wednesday annulled the European Commission’s refusal to grant a New York Times journalist access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

According to a communication published on Wednesday, the judgment concluded that the Commission failed to provide a credible explanation for its claim that it no longer holds the requested messages, which were allegedly sent during Covid-19 vaccine procurement negotiations.

The ruling comes in response to a 2022 request by Matina Stevi, a Brussels-based journalist with The New York Times, who sought access to all text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022. The Commission denied the request, stating that it possessed no such documents. Stevi and The New York Times challenged that decision before the EU’s General Court.

The full transcript of the Court’s ruling was published on its website.

On May 11, 2022, Stevi submitted a formal request to the European Commission seeking access to the text messages. The request was registered by the Commission the following day, on May 12. When the Commission failed to respond within the time frame set by EU transparency rules, Stevi’s legal representative filed an initial confirmatory application on June 28, 2022, reiterating the request for access.

On July 20, 2022, the Commission responded to the initial application, stating that it did not possess any documents corresponding to the request. In response, Stevi’s representative submitted a second confirmatory application on Aug. 9, 2022, which was formally registered the same day. Later that month, on Aug. 31, the Commission notified Stevi that the deadline for its response would be extended by 15 working days, setting a new target date of Sept. 21.

On Sept. 21, the Commission informed Stevi that the assessment of her application had been completed but that the draft decision still required approval from its Legal Service. Nearly two months later, on Nov. 16, 2022, the Commission issued its final decision, reiterating that it did not hold any of the requested text messages and therefore could not grant access.

The Court found that the Commission’s justification was insufficient and that Stevi and The New York Times had provided “relevant and consistent evidence” showing that such messages had existed. The Commission, it said, failed to meet its obligations under the Access to Documents Regulation and the principle of good administration as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The judgment scrutinized the Commission’s procedural conduct, noting that it relied on assumptions and imprecise information throughout the request process. It also emphasized that public institutions must document and retain information related to their activities in a “non-arbitrary and predictable manner.”

In its decision, the Court stated that “despite those imprecisions, [the Commission] maintains that it does not possess the requested documents, with the result that it is for the applicants to produce relevant and consistent evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of non-possession of those documents.”

That presumption was indeed rebutted, the Court held, by a New York Times article and transcripts of interviews conducted by Stevi with both von der Leyen and Bourla in April 2021. The article reported that for a month during vaccine talks, von der Leyen and Bourla “had been exchanging texts and telephone calls.” In the interview transcript, Bourla said that “[the Commission President and I] exchanged text messages, if there was something that we needed to discuss,” and that von der Leyen had “sent me her phone [number].” These statements provided sufficient grounds for the Court to determine that the text messages likely existed at some point.

The Commission, by contrast, was found to have offered no credible detail about the searches it had conducted for the messages or about their fate. “It remains impossible to know with certainty,” the Court wrote, “whether the requested text messages still exist or whether they have been deleted and, if so, whether such a deletion took place deliberately or automatically.” The Commission also failed to clarify whether von der Leyen’s mobile phone had been replaced, and if so, what happened to the previous device and its data.

“The Commission did not provide in the contested decision any plausible explanation as to why it had not been able to find the requested documents,” the Court held.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the Commission’s argument that the messages did not constitute official documents because they were allegedly short-lived or lacked policy significance. Even if the messages were not registered in its document system, the Commission was still obligated to retain and account for them under EU transparency rules. “Institutions cannot deprive of all substance the right of access to documents which they hold by failing to register the documentation relating to their activities,” the Court held.

The Commission’s handling of the request, the Court concluded, “breached the principle of good administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter.”

As a result, it annulled the Commission’s decision and ordered the institution to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

The judgment has led to calls for greater transparency within EU institutions and among the bloc’s leaders.

Rob Roos, a former Dutch MEP who was vice-president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament during the now-dubbed “Pfizergate scandal,” wrote how his legal challenge against the Commission was dismissed at the time.

“My case as an MEP was ruled inadmissible, while a foreign newspaper was accepted. Transparency isn’t optional. Democracy demands it. Back to court,” he wrote on X.

Hungarian MEP András László slammed the corruption scandals at the highest level in Brussels, which he claimed keep piling up. “Europeans want change in Brussels. We deserve better leadership! Qatargate, Pfizergate, Hololei, Reynders and money laundering, Green Deal and Timmermans, fake NGOs… The interests of Europeans are being sold out. Enough is enough!”

Several other European lawmakers demanded that the text messages now finally be released to see what agreements were reached over Covid-19 vaccines between von der Leyen and Bourla.

“She should have made her text messages in the Pfizergate affair public,” said Dutch MEP Marieke Ehlers. “This proves the need for the parliamentary commission of inquiry into transparency proposed by the Patriots for Europe [parliamentary group].”

Anna Bryłka, Polish MEP for the right-wing Confederation, and Spanish MEP Hermann Tertsch of Vox, went further, calling on von der Leyen to resign following the judgment.

The European Commission is yet to formally respond to the judgment.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Ian Proud: Ukraine Peace Talks or Political Theatre?

Glenn Diesen | May 13, 2025

Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.

Ian Proud’s Substack: https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Heating costs for Hungarian families could triple under EU plans to ban Russian gas, think tank warns

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 13, 2025

Heating bills for Hungarian households could rise by as much as three and a half times if the European Union moves forward with a full ban on Russian natural gas imports, according to a new report by the Századvég Institute, as cited by Magyar Hírlap.

The economic research group estimates such a move would impose nearly HUF 1,100 billion (approximately €2.8 billion) in additional annual costs on Hungary, putting severe pressure on both the country’s energy system and its citizens.

According to Századvég, their calculations — based on publicly available domestic and international energy data — show that a total ban on Russian energy imports would result in a doubling of gas prices and heightened volatility on European energy markets. This would not only harm the EU’s competitiveness but also destabilize Hungary’s long-standing utility bill reduction program, which currently ensures some of the lowest heating costs in Europe for Hungarian families.

Earlier this month, the European Commission published a roadmap outlining its intention to wean European nations off Russian gas before a wholesale ban came into effect by the end of 2027.

“No more will we permit Russia to weaponize energy against us… No more will we indirectly help fill up the [Kremlin’s] war chests,” European Commissioner for Energy Dan Jorgensen told reporters.

The move, however, faces stiff opposition from several nations still heavily reliant on Russia for their imports and unsure of where alternative energy sources will be found for an acceptable price.

In addition to Hungary, Slovakia is also holding firm against the plans. Prime Minister Robert Fico said earlier this week he would veto the move in the European Council if need be.

“A halt of gas supplies will cause instability. Our petrochemical plants were set up to use Russian oil for oil refining, and the shutdown may cause technological problems. I hope that our EU partners will learn about this when legal acts are adopted,” Fico said.

“If it is necessary for all 27 countries to agree, we will use our veto power,” he added.

Currently, Hungary imports around 4.5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas annually through a long-term supply contract, which covered more than half of the country’s total gas consumption last year.

Replacing this volume on international markets, the institute notes, would cost Hungary an estimated HUF 660 billion more. When including Russian gas delivered to Hungary by alternative routes, the shortfall reaches 7.5 billion cubic meters, raising the potential total impact to HUF 1,100 billion annually.

The institute highlighted that Hungarian households today pay an average of HUF 176,900 (around €435) per year for heating, thanks to state price regulations. Without these protections and based on current exchange rates, that figure would nearly double to HUF 355,310. If Russian gas were banned outright, average heating costs could skyrocket to HUF 625,000 (€1,540) — more than three and a half times the current average.

Századvég recalled that the EU’s reliance on Russian gas fell from 40 percent before the war in Ukraine to below 20 percent in 2023. This dramatic shift led to a doubling of gas prices on the Dutch energy exchange. Under the European Commission’s new strategy, prices could rise from €35 to €70 per megawatt hour, according to the think tank’s projections. They warned, however, that actual increases could be even steeper due to market instability triggered by supply shocks.

The report also emphasized the cumulative effect of EU sanctions on Hungarian households. Since 2022, Századvég estimates that higher energy prices, loss of export markets, and increased borrowing costs have drained HUF 2.2 million (€5,430) from the average Hungarian household. The direct financial cost of Ukraine’s accelerated EU accession process would add HUF 458,000 annually, while a ban on Russian gas could tack on another HUF 448,000.

“Brussels’ three highest priority objectives — arming Ukraine, accelerating EU accession, and banning Russian energy — would impose unbearable burdens on Hungarian families,” the Századvég Institute concluded on its website.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »