Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

France seizes tanker ‘coming from Russia’

RT | January 22, 2026

French commandos have boarded and seized a sanctioned tanker “coming from Russia,” President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday. The ship, Macron claimed, is part of Russia’s supposed ‘shadow fleet’.

The ship was intercepted by the French Navy in the Mediterranean, Macron said, adding that the vessel was “subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag.” The tanker has since been diverted to port, he added, where a judicial investigation will take place.

The ship, named ‘Grinch’, was sailing from the Russian port of Murmansk. According to publicly available maritime tracking data, ‘Grinch’ is a 250-meter crude oil tanker flying under the flag of Comoros.

The seizure was carried out by French naval forces with assistance from the UK, the French military said in a statement. According to an AP report, Britain provided intelligence support for the operation.

“We will not tolerate any violation,” Macron wrote in a post on X. “The activities of the ‘shadow fleet’ contribute to financing the war of aggression against Ukraine.”

There is no Russian-operated ‘shadow fleet’. Instead, the term refers to any vessel that transports Russian oil outside the coverage of London-based insurance brokers. While their cargo may be sanctioned, Western powers have no legal basis to enforce these sanctions on the high seas, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

According to Macron, the operation took place on the “high seas” in the Mediterranean, but was carried out in “strict compliance” with the convention.

The seizure took place a week after British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper promised to take “a much more assertive and robust approach” against “the Russian shadow fleet.” In October last year, Macron said that France and other EU countries would adopt a “policy of obstruction” against these vessels.

”Russian oil must be stopped, confiscated, and sold for Europe’s benefit,” Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos on Thursday. “Why not? If Putin has no money, there is no war,” he added.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

France Escalates Warmongering by Expanding Intelligence Support for Ukraine

Sputnik – 16.01.2026

While last year, Ukraine was overwhelmingly dependent on American intelligence, today “two-thirds of those capabilities are provided by France,” revealed French President Emmanuel Macron speaking to BFMTV.

France has readily stepped in to make sure the West’s proxy war doesn’t lose steam — even if the US hesitates.

Last November, reports indicated that US officials had warned the Zelensky regime that intelligence support could be halted if Ukraine rejected Donald Trump’s proposed peace framework.

While Western leaders talk relentlessly about “peace,” in reality France and its allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing are doubling down on escalation, doing everything to keep the conflict kept alive.

In the event of a ceasefire, Europe’s hawks are planning ‘military hubs’ in Ukraine – even though Russia has repeatedly emphasized any NATO troop presence there is unacceptable and would be viewed as a direct threat.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 11, 2026

The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.

That reality has never changed. This week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing has confirmed that it will not change any time soon.

The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.

Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment. And even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.

Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.

In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.

Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times newspaper when he said:

We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the U.S.) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.

President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.

All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.

Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.

And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war end anyway.

His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.

Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.

The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.

None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.

But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’

In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to ‘finalise commitments that may include’ basically means that nothing has been agreed.

The declaration also said:

We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.

So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.

What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.

Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.

So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.

Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:

Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.

You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.

However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.

And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.

I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).

But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).

You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive U.S. LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.

Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.

We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.

That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the U.S. is trying right now to finalise with Russia.

Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.

That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.

Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Britain and France want to ‘set Europe on fire’ – Hungarian FM

RT | January 11, 2026

Britain and France are risking dragging Europe into an all-out war with Russia, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, condemning plans to deploy Western troops in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a declaration of intent with Ukraine to establish “military hubs” in the country after a peace deal with Moscow. UK Defense Secretary John Healey later said during a visit to Kiev that London would spend $270 million on equipping units ready to become part of a “multinational force.”

Hungary has consistently opposed further escalation with Russia and has urged the EU to focus on diplomacy. Speaking at a congress of the ruling conservative Fidesz party on Saturday, Szijjarto said the “war fanaticism” of Western European leaders was “throwing Hungary into the greatest danger.”

“Last weekend, a statement was released in Paris announcing the two European nuclear powers’ decision to send their troops to Ukraine. Essentially, this means that the European nuclear powers are starting a war. Their goal, let us be clear, is to engulf all of Europe in flames,” the diplomat said.

Szijjarto argued that the EU viewed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as “the only obstacle” to its plans and was seeking to replace him with a pro-Ukrainian leader in parliamentary elections scheduled for April.

“If we win the election, we will stay out of the war,” he said. “If we do not win, then the Brussels–Kiev plan will be implemented.”

Under the plan outlined in Paris, Britain and France would deploy troops to help build protected weapons facilities and take part in US-led truce monitoring. The US has ruled out sending its own soldiers to Ukraine.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow would treat any Western troops or military sites in Ukraine as “a foreign intervention” posing a threat to its security. Russia has listed Ukrainian neutrality, including no foreign troops on the ground, as one of its key conditions for a lasting peace.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

European Politics in Crisis as Right-Wingers Fear for Safety – Ex-Austrian Minister

Sputnik – 10.01.2026

European politics are in a deep crisis as many people, particularly in right-wing parties, are afraid to enter the spotlight due to concerns for their personal safety, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl told Sputnik.

“Most right-wing parties, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban being a special case, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France or the Freedom Party of Austria, are running short on qualified personnel. All parties struggle to recruit skilled people, but today many are unwilling to risk their personal safety. If you engage in politics, you are under constant threat,” she said.

In Europe, having ties to those considered to be on the right of the political spectrum comes with a price such as a threat of physical violence, Kneissl said.

“There are many who have already paid a high price. As soon as you have even the most minimal contact with the right, you get serious problems. Members of the AfD [Alternative for Germany] have been attacked. There are also party officials whose bank accounts have been closed and whose children have been harassed at school,” she said.

The lack of capable personnel is also linked to a decline in the quality of Europe’s elites, Kneissl said. The education system that is meant to cultivate those elites no longer serves as a competitive environment for the skilled and talented.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

UK and France unveil troop commitments for Ukraine

RT | January 7, 2026

The leaders of the UK and France have announced that they’ve agreed to deploy forces in Ukraine if Kiev reaches a peace deal with Russia, despite Moscow categorically ruling out the presence of NATO forces in the country under any pretext.

The agreement was unveiled on Tuesday at a meeting of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ group in Paris. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the three countries had signed a “Declaration of Intent” on deploying forces “in the event of a peace deal.” He called the agreement “a vital part of our iron-cast commitment,” while asserting it would create a legal framework for British, French, and partner forces to operate on Ukrainian soil.

Starmer said that “following a ceasefire,” Britain and France would establish “military hubs” throughout Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons and equipment, while also joining US-led monitoring of the truce.

French President Emmanuel Macron described the proposed contingent as a non-combat force consisting of “potentially thousands” of troops, while stressing they would be stationed “a long way behind the contact line.”

However, neither Starmer, nor Macron, nor Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky cited exact troop numbers, deployment locations, or timelines.

Meanwhile, Zelensky claimed Ukraine had had “very substantive discussions” with the American team on the issue. “America is ready to work on this,” he said, adding that the sides have made progress on documents concerning security guarantees.

US envoy Steve Witkoff, who also attended the Paris talks, did not confirm a US commitment to deploy troops, but spoke of tough “security protocols” meant to deter attacks on Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly opposed foreign troop presence in Ukraine, warning that these forces would be treated as “legitimate targets.” Moscow has also said that Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO and host the military alliance’s troops was one of the key reasons for the conflict in the country

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

A Christmas Eve Strike on Colonialism: Algerian Parliament’s Unanimous Vote to Criminalize French Colonialism

By Simon Chege Ndiritu – New Eastern Outlook – January 5, 2026

Algeria has taken a legal step that may one day resolve many of the challenges experienced by formerly colonized peoples.

On December 24, 2025, the Algerian parliament passed a law declaring France’s colonization of the country between 1830 and 1962 illegal. The law lists France’s colonial-era atrocities against Algerians, including mass extrajudicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances, displacement and confinement, use of banned weapons, plunder of resources, and sexual violence, among others, and demands an apology and reparation. The unanimous adoption of anti-France law on the continent where association with Western Europeans gave credibility to elitist African politicians in previous decades signifies a profound shift. Both the timing and the law mark the erosion of social and legal engineering that justified colonial-era crimes, even by some independent African governments. Passing the law on Christmas Eve, when many Africans were celebrating an event spread alongside Western colonialism, sent an unmistakable message, while the legislation signified the defeat of France’s legal engineering in Algeria, which justified all aspects of colonialism and guided the Algerian government to reason in a similar way, as is the case in formerly colonized countries. This paper looks into how Algeria’s criminalization of France’s colonialism represents a crucial milestone in defeating vestiges of Western colonialism across Africa.

Defeating Colonial-Era Legal Engineering and Its Results

Algeria’s action opens a legislative front to complement other anti-colonial actions, including armed struggle and litigation. Its significance was revealed by how key European media panicked and launched into incoherent and self-indicting diversions. While other major news media, including The National Interest, Africa News, and Associated Press, foregrounded Algeria’s legislation, including its merits and implications, EU allied media, including France 24 and DW, downplayed the vote and emphasized the views of their pundits, who strangely agreed that the action was symbolic. They argued that laws passed in Algeria are internal, lacking effect outside the country, including in France, which means that all policies and laws passed in France to facilitate colonialism lacked legal bases in Algeria and other colonies. Therefore, laws made in France to authorize the invasion of Algeria, expropriation of its land, repression, forced labor, and nuclear tests were illegal, which confirms the Algerian parliament’s unanimous decision. Therefore, the media indicted France’s colonialism, including forms implemented by other European powers, before quoting an earlier statement by French President Emmanuel Macron, that Algeria’s actions hinder dialogue. Such views conceal a begrudging admission that Algeria has refused to interpret relations with France through colonial lenses, which erodes neocolonial control. Therefore, colonial-era wrongdoing, including crimes against humanity, dispossession, torture, and illegal nuclear tests, will no longer be interpreted through France’s rhetoric or be concealed through colonial legal engineering.

The key reason why Algeria’s Christmas Eve legislation unnerves European colonizers is that it signals that the former colony has overcome social and legal engineering implemented to sustain control, something that may spread to others. With time, other formerly colonized countries will no longer interpret colonial-era atrocities using colonizers’ legislative and judicial lenses that justified and sanitized racism, violence, and plunder. Such changes will leave colonizers exposed and liable. For instance, France and Great Britain provide a striking example. The legislative and judicial bodies they created served as a cover for crimes. The murder of colonized peoples was presented as “enforcing social order,” and the expropriation of land and resources as “economic development.”  Also, concentration camps for dispossessed people were framed as “reservations.” This legal perversion was passed to some post-colonial governments, which have continued to use it. However, Algeria’s move signals a shift from such engineering and entails relying on universal human rights to remodel legislatures and judiciaries, creating political systems that eradicate neocolonial control.

From armed struggle to justice

The struggle for independence did not conclude with official declarations following the armed struggles of the mid-20th century. Instead, many African countries, especially in francophone Africa, have continued facing neocolonialism and have responded, including through coups in the Sahel. The progression of the struggle from armed conflict through litigation now needs a boost through legislation to aid African victims who have continued demanding justice for colonial atrocities. The aforementioned legislation from Algiers may signal the beginning of a systematic review of colonial-era legal systems, which will expand freedoms for formerly colonized peoples. It indicates that the legal order left by European colonialists has lost legitimacy and was emphatically overthrown just before Christmas. This overthrow was a progression from previous actions, such as the Mau Mau freedom fighters of Kenya’s suing the British Government for its violations in Kenya during the 1950s. The legal suit forced the UK government to admit to violating the rights of Kenyan freedom fighters, in an out-of-court settlement in June 2013. Such a convoluted legal process occurred since the UK could not countenance being found guilty by the racist legal framework it created. However, a legal provision like the one passed in Algeria could have helped to catch the slippery colonizer.

Criminalizing colonialism may have many positive consequences for previously colonized people as they seek truth, justice, and reparations. It provides a legal framework for addressing remaining injustices and reclaiming land still held by colonialists, which is protected by colonial-era legal engineering. For instance, many Kenyans have not regained their land that was expropriated under colonial legal justification to date, primarily because the legal system in use perpetuates colonial dispossession. These victims have resorted to litigating their case in European courts, as they feel helpless since the existing laws protect current holders of land that was expropriated by the colonial government as late as the 1920s. This land should have been automatically given back to the African owners after independence in 1963. This unfortunate reality could be corrected if the legislature and judiciary were wrested back from colonial legal engineering to create laws that criminalize colonialism and illegal actions done during the colonial era.

Other Africans can learn from Algeria’s Lead.

Algeria’s action represents the continuation of the pursuit of justice by Africans and a warning to European colonialists that their conceding minimal freedoms to Africans is not the end. In places where armed struggles of the mid-20th century achieved only limited freedom, such as in the Sahel, instability persisted and culminated in recent coups through which France lost influence. In others, legal struggle continues, as seen in the case of Kenya. Additionally, others like Algeria have escalated and reversed colonial legal engineering, an aspect that will likely be used in other countries until Africans achieve their fullest extent of freedoms. The recent acceleration in decolonization of Francophone Africa should not mislead the British, Dutch, or Portuguese into thinking that their neocolonialism will continue in perpetuity. Instead, the next efforts towards defeating the remaining vestiges of colonialism might be directed towards deconstructing and reversing the legal and political engineering that gives them neocolonial control to date. Rights movements across Africa might soon start championing the criminalization of colonialism in other countries to reverse colonial-era legal and political engineering for a free Africa.

Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sanctioned by EU. Abandoned by Switzerland | Nathalie Yamb

By Pascal Lottaz | Neutrality Studies | January 1, 2026

It has come as a shock to many of us in the alternative media sphere when, on December 15, the EU put the esteemed analyst, political commentator, and former Swiss Army colonel Jacques Baud, on its Russia-Sanctions list. He was one of several newly sanctioned individuals (alongside, for instance, the popular French journalist, Xavier Moreau). Baud is already the second Swiss to be sanctioned. In June 2025, the EU announced that Nathalie Yamb, a Swiss-Cameroonian activist against neocolonialism, would be sanctioned.

Being on the EU sanctions list is a devastating event for the people concerned, especially if they reside in an EU country or a closely associated state like Switzerland, Norway, or the UK. It means banks will freeze their accounts, credit companies will cancel their cards, they are not allowed to enter into contracts with EU-affiliated companies or private persons, and no business in the EU is allowed to have dealings with them, which, in theory, even precludes them from buying bread and other necessities of life. Furthermore, many international businesses will cancel all their services to them, including mail providers, social media platforms, etc. Even Swiss banks freeze or cancel accounts, out of fear they might get in trouble if they don’t comply with EU regulations. I recently interviewed two sanctioned people, Nathalie Yamb and Hüsseyin Dogru, and their testimonies are heartbreaking. … Full article

Neutrality Studies and Nathalie Yamb | December 22, 2025

Fifty-nine individuals are by now sanctioned by the European Union in pursuit of punishing Russia for the War in Ukraine. Many of them are Russian citizens but more and more the EU is putting its own citizens and those of third states on this list, for reasons that have often little to do with Russia. One of them is my compatriot, Nathalie Yamb, who was in fact the first Swiss Citizen to be included on the list, back already in June 2025.

Links: Nathalie’s YouTube channel: ‪@nathyamb‬

Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com

Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourth…

January 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!

By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | December 31, 2025

As EU narratives collapse, desparate leaders are planning more tyrannical measures to keep it all from sinking.

Currently, EU leaders are fuming that US officials would be so audacious as to accuse them of practicing censorship. Yet, when it comes to suppressing open discussions and differing viewpoints on major issues, things are in fact worse than most people think. And, it’s about to get even worse.

A recent (indirectly EU-funded) report released earlier this year shows how the EU is planning to broaden censorship to include the topics of climate and energy science.

In the “Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” (HEAT) report, published by EU DisinfoLab and Logically, its authors investigate how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) are strategically used to undermine climate policy in Europe, specifically in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Climate science skeptics threaten democracy

The report argues that climate disinformation has moved beyond simple science denial and has become a tool for broader political and social polarization.

Outright denial of climate change, the authors claim, is being replaced by narratives focused on “climate delay.” These often acknowledge climate change but attack the feasibility, cost, and fairness of solutions, e.g., they claim green policies will bankrupt households or destroy industries.

The enemies

The report identifies four main pillars driving these agendas:

  1. The Conspiracy Milieu: Distrust of elites and “deep state” narratives (e.g., the “Great Reset”).
  2. Culture War/Partisan Discourse: Framing climate action as an authoritarian or elitist project.
  3. Hostile State Actors (HSAs): Significant involvement of Russian-linked networks (e.g., Portal Kombat) that use localized domains like Pravda DE to amplify divisive climate content.
  4. Big Oil Alignment: Narratives that align with fossil fuel interests, even if direct corporate attribution is often obscured.

In Germany, for example, there are attacks on the Energiewende (energy transition) and the Building Heating Act.

In France, there are links between climate policy and the “Yellow Vest” movement or anti-elitist sentiments.

Meanwhile, the “nitrogen crisis” has been reframed as “government land theft” in the Netherlands. 

European leaders are convinced that their policies have nothing to do with all the failure going on. In their eyes, it’s all the fault of unruly citizens and their disinfoarmtion campaigns.

The report’s key recommendations

The authors call for decisive institutional and platform-level action to treat climate disinformation as a structural threat and a danger to democracy. This all needs to stop!

Platforms must act!

The primary recommendation is for the EU to explicitly recognize climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the Digital Services Act (a.k.a. by critics the Digital Censorship Act). This would force so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to take proactive measures and conduct risk assessments.

The authors also call for mandating algorithm audits and public reporting on content moderation, specifically for climate content. It’s time to crack down on skeptics, they say. 

“Independent” auditors

Moreover “independent researchers” are to be provided with access to disaggregated platform data to track how these narratives spread.

Another recommendation is calling for the labelling and limiting the reach of “ideological or sponsored” climate disinformation.

“Trusted flaggers”

The authors also are calling for greater monitoring of Russian-aligned and other hostile state operations that exploit climate debates to weaken EU democratic resilience.

Another step suggested to counter “climate disinformation” is the establishment of reporting channels for civil society organizations (so-called “trusted flaggers”) to flag coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) and harmful narratives to regulators.

“Prebunking”

Also “prebunking” campaigns aimed at proactively educating the public on disinformation tactics before they are exposed to them—especially in lower-educated rural and working-class areas that are frequently targeted.

December 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Failed Diplomacy & Collapse of Ukraine

Glenn Diesen | December 22, 2025

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson outlines why the negotiations are failing and what the pending collapse of Ukraine will entail.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

December 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!

Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis
Glenn Diesen | December 16, 2025

I had the pleasure of speaking with Lt. Col. Daniel Davis about how Europe has trapped itself in ideological narratives of good versus evil

December 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s Red Pen on Ukraine: Jacques Baud and the Silencing of Dissent

By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | December 17, 2025 

On 15 December, the European Union took a step that few could have imagined: it sanctioned twelve individuals, including Swiss analyst and former intelligence officer Jacques Baud and French national Xavier Moreau, not for breaking the law, but for expressing views deemed politically inconvenient. Asset freezes, travel bans, and economic restrictions were imposed without any judicial process. While presented as an EU initiative, the fingerprints of NATO’s strategic communications and information-control apparatus are unmistakable, shaping both the targets and the justification. Europe is no longer simply countering disinformation; it is policing interpretation itself, turning independent analysis into a potential liability. The question now is not whether dissent will be punished, but how far these measures will go, and who will decide the boundaries of acceptable thought.

Baud, a Swiss national, is not a political activist, influencer, or anonymous online provocateur. He is a former Swiss intelligence officer and army colonel, trained in counter-terrorism, counter-guerrilla warfare, and chemical and nuclear weapons. Over the course of his career, he helped design the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and its Mine Action Information Management System (IMSMA), served with the United Nations as Chief of Doctrine for Peacekeeping Operations in New York, worked extensively in Africa, and later held senior responsibilities at NATO, where he led efforts against the proliferation of small arms. He is also the author of multiple books on intelligence, asymmetric warfare, and terrorism,  texts widely read well before the Ukraine war.

Yet this résumé, once considered exemplary, has now been recast as suspicious. On 15 December, the EU placed Baud under sanctions, freezing assets and restricting travel, accusing him of acting as a “spokesperson of Russian propaganda” and of participating in “information manipulation and influence.” No criminal charges have been filed. No judicial process has taken place. No evidence has been publicly tested in court. The punishment is administrative, political, and immediate.

DOCUMENT: COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2025/2572 of 15 December 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (Source: EUR-Lex)

This is not an isolated case. Baud joins a growing list of European journalists, analysts, and commentators sanctioned or publicly stigmatised for expressing views that diverge from official EU and NATO positions. Germans living in Russia, independent journalists, and alternative media figures have already faced similar measures. What unites these cases is not proof of coordination with Moscow, but a shared refusal to reproduce the sanctioned narrative framework through which the war must be interpreted.

From Foreign Policy to Narrative Enforcement

Officially, these sanctions are justified as defensive measures against “foreign information manipulation and interference”, a phrase now deeply embedded in EU and NATO communications. The stated objective is to protect European democracies from destabilisation. In practice, however, the definition of “manipulation” has expanded so broadly that any analysis which echoes, overlaps with, or even partially aligns with Russian positions can be deemed suspect, regardless of sourcing, intent, or transparency.

The problem is not that governments counter disinformation. Every state does. The problem is how disinformation is defined, who defines it, and what instruments are used to combat it.

In Baud’s case, the EU does not allege clandestine activity, secret funding, or covert coordination with Russian authorities. Instead, he is held responsible for contributing to a narrative environment that, in Brussels’ view, undermines Ukraine and EU security. This is a crucial shift: The target is no longer falsehood, but interpretation.

Once interpretation itself becomes sanctionable, the boundary between security policy and censorship collapses.

France’s Role, and NATO’s Shadow

Several reports indicate that the initiative to sanction Baud and eleven others originated with France. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot publicly announced that Europe would impose sanctions on what he described as “pro-Russian agents,” including individuals accused of repeatedly influencing French and European public debate. Among those named was Xavier Moreau, a French analyst long critical of NATO policy.

Barrot’s declaration on X was unambiguous:

“At France’s initiative, Europe is today imposing sanctions against Kremlin propaganda outlets and those responsible for foreign digital interference. Zero impunity for the architects of chaos.”

The language is revealing. “Architects of chaos” is not a legal category; it is a political one. It frames speech as an act of aggression and analysts as hostile operators.

Behind this framing lies a figure little known to the public but central to the architecture of Europe’s contemporary information policy: Marie-Doha Besancenot, Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications in the French Foreign Ministry. Prior to assuming this role, Besancenot served from 2020 to 2023 as NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy.

In an interview published in English by the French Ministry of the Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs, in March 2025, Besancenot openly described founding a task force in late 2023 dedicated to detecting and analysing what she termed “hostile narratives,” with the capacity to alert authorities “in real time” and propose political responses. The task force’s mission, she explained, was to detect, track, and report information threats against NATO in the information domain. In this interview, Besancenot articulates how “France understood what was happening in the information domain was a matter of national security”, and speaks of Viginum, a French agency created in response to these perceived threats, and that is responsible for monitoring and protecting the state against foreign digital interference that, according to them, affects the digital public debate in France.

The continuity is striking. The doctrine developed inside NATO’s strategic communications apparatus appears to have migrated almost seamlessly into national and EU-level policy, without democratic debate, parliamentary oversight, or public consent.

Strategic Communications as Political Power

NATO insists that it does not police speech and that it respects freedom of expression. Formally, this is true. NATO does not arrest journalists or pass laws. Instead, it develops conceptual frameworks, “hybrid threats,” “information laundering,” and “foreign information manipulation”, which are then adopted by member states and EU institutions.

Once a narrative framework is institutionalised, it becomes self-enforcing. Media outlets internalise red lines. Publishers hesitate. Platforms over-moderate. Governments justify extraordinary measures as technical necessities or national security. The perfect storm in which sanctions replace debate.

One of the most insidious concepts to emerge from this ecosystem is that of “information laundering”, the idea that domestic journalists or analysts can unwittingly “clean” foreign propaganda simply by engaging with it critically. Under this logic, intent becomes irrelevant. What matters is effect, as defined by strategic communicators.

This doctrine eliminates the possibility of good-faith analysis. To examine Russian claims, even to refute them selectively or partially, is to risk being accused of amplifying them. The only safe position is total dismissal, which appears to be NATO and the EU’s endgame.

The Democratic Cost

The danger of this approach extends far beyond Jacques Baud.

Sanctions are no longer being used to punish illegal acts, but to discipline discourse. They operate without due process and create chilling effects far wider than their immediate targets. An analyst does not need to be sanctioned to be silenced; seeing a peer sanctioned is often enough.

Moreover, these measures are imposed by non-elected bodies, EU councils, commissions, and advisory structures, drawing heavily on NATO doctrine, an alliance that itself is not subject to democratic accountability. National parliaments are largely absent from the process. Courts intervene only after the damage is done.

The precedent is dangerous. If today the target is analysts accused of being “pro-Russian,” tomorrow it could be critics of EU defence spending, sceptics of military escalation, or scholars questioning intelligence claims. Once the machinery exists, its scope inevitably expands.

History offers ample warning. Democracies do not usually collapse through sudden repression, but through the gradual normalisation of exceptional measures, each justified by urgency, each framed as temporary, each defended as necessary.

Security Without Freedom Is Not Security

The EU and NATO argue that they are facing unprecedented hybrid threats and that extraordinary responses are required. That claim deserves serious consideration. But security achieved by narrowing the space of permissible thought is a brittle security, one that ultimately undermines the democratic resilience it claims to protect.

A society confident in its values does not need to freeze bank accounts to win arguments. It does not need to conflate analysis with subversion. It does not need to outsource intellectual authority to strategic communications units.

Jacques Baud may be wrong in some of his assessments. He may be right in others. That is beside the point. What matters is that his arguments exist in the open, supported by sources, available for rebuttal. The appropriate response to analysis is counter-analysis, and certainly not sanctions. By choosing punishment over debate, Europe is not defending democracy. It is redefining it, quietly, administratively, and without asking its citizens whether this is the kind of polity they wish to inhabit.

The sanctions against Baud are therefore not merely about Ukraine, Russia, or NATO. They are about who gets to speak, who decides what is permissible to think, and whether Europe still trusts its citizens to judge arguments for themselves.

That question, once raised, cannot be easily swept away.

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

« Previous Entries