Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Klaus Schwab, Sophist

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2025

The existence of Klaus Schwab became known to much of the thinking world during the Coronapocalypse, when so-called conspiracy theories began to flourish about the use of the novel COVID-19 virus as a pretext for reconfiguring the world. The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” began to be spoken of fondly by bureaucrats back in 2020, shortly after the in some ways incomprehensibly influential Schwab co-authored with Thierry Malleret a short book extolling just those concepts: Covid-19: The Great Reset.

The work, or paraphrased excerpts of it, must have been spam-emailed to every government official and mainstream media journalist on the planet, because in no time pundits and their parrots in the press were gushing about the Great Reset, essentially a Brave New World to come (had none of them read Aldous Huxley’s classic work, or did they simply not understand it?). Nearly every influential person with a microphone was emitting the expression “Everything has changed,” insisting that this was because of the emergence of the novel coronavirus, not the government policies enacted in response to it. Schwab was lurking behind the scenes from the beginning, proffering gaslighting homilies and question-begging arguments camouflaged as benevolent recommendations and facts:

“The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic has no parallel in modern history.”

In truth, “Everything changed” only because government officials changed everything, by closing national borders, locking down entire populations, preventing groups from assembling, and shutting down schools and all but specially designated “essential” businesses. Human beings were required to wear masks nearly everywhere they went, and those who demurred were treated as miscreants and pursued by the police. The insistence by politicians, bureaucrats and other opinion makers that “Everything has changed” was curiously reminiscent of how officials rationalized a massive and ruthless assault on Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of crimes committed on September 11, 2001, by a small group of persons hailing primarily from Saudi Arabia. (Induction on two cases: when someone starts chiming, “Everything has changed!” in order to persuade you to do something or to support some initiative, you should probably turn around and walk away.)

Klaus Schwab founded and led the World Economic Forum (WEF) for more than fifty years. Many of what were revealed during the pandemic period to be the most brazen authoritarians among ostensibly democratic world leaders have connections to the organization. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron are notable examples of leaders who punished and even ostracized citizens for daring to defy their administration’s draconian COVID policies. Schwab recently resigned from his position, but whether that was because of age—he was born in 1938—or scandal matters little at this point, for his legacy has been secured throughout much of the world.

Key features of the Great Reset were to foist ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance investing) on people transnationally or, perhaps more accurately, meta-nationally. We have seen that elements of Schwab’s Weltanschauung have indeed made their way into not only federal government policies, with Green New Deals and carbon-limiting programs imposed in many parts of the planet, but also global corporate initiatives, as many companies now boast about their “environmental and social conscience,” using this as a marketing tool. Under the “Social Governance” guise of the ESG program, enthusiastic efforts to expand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks throughout the spheres of education and business have led to the appearance of “trans flags” waving alongside national flags at government buildings in what can only be characterized as a bizarre obsession with the subset of human beings, oddly in ascendance, who are said to have been born with the wrong set of genitalia.

One of the more extreme consequences of DEI has indeed been the effusive promotion of a radical trans agenda, which is arguably both homophobic and misogynistic, promoting as it does a grotesque caricature of femininity, exemplified by the skimpily clad and seemingly ditsy Dylan Mulvaney (remember the Budweiser ads?), while essentially denying the possibility of androgyny. In the name of inclusion, biological males (persons in possession of a Y chromosome) have been allowed to compete with females (persons devoid of a Y chromosome) in sports, with female competitors predictably forced to forego awards and scholarships as a result. Female athletes whose sports involve contact with competitors have been physically endangered by the admission of males into their sphere, as is evidenced by the case of volleyball player Payton McNabb and the 2024 Olympic boxing controversy, when two competitors who had previously failed a female gender test (for Y chromosome and testosterone levels) were permitted to compete. On top of all of those clear and present dangers, females in locker rooms have been faced with the prospect of seeing a penis dangling before them as they change their clothes or shower. Rather than attempt to protect females, policymakers were somehow persuaded by radical trans activists that males who decreed themselves to be female needed to be protected instead.

The incomprehensible power of the radical trans facet of the DEI agenda also brought about the enactment of laws which criminalize the “mis-pronouning” of persons who, despite having been born male, self-identify as female, or vice versa. Or neither, which necessitates, by law in some places now, that their interlocutors restrict personal pronoun usage to ‘they/them’. The latter is needless to say a no-win arrangement, for in complying with pronoun laws, one is thus obliged to commit a crime of grammar.

On the New Green Deal front, the European Union is continually devising new policies which attest to its commitments to the New Normal as envisioned by Schwab’s WEF, perhaps the most notorious slogan of which is “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Countless memes have satirized the WEF leader for exhorting people to eat insects and stay in their “pods,” on the grounds that livestock and travel are allegedly a menace to the future of the planet. (Note: the persons who attend the ever-proliferating conferences on the environment or serve as parliament members of the EU generally fly to their meetings, sometimes in private jets.) Earnest discussion of the possibility of “15-minute cities,” where people do not need to (or are not allowed to) travel farther than fifteen minutes from their domicile has been taken up among local council members in “green-savvy” communities.

The list of rules and regulations already imposed by the European Union is seemingly endless, but to offer only two recent examples: plastic bottles sold in Europe are now required to have their caps affixed to them, and single-serving portion containers (such as are used at bed and breakfast hotels for jam, butter, honey, etc.) are in the process of being outlawed, despite having been devised as a means not only of convenience but also to prevent cross-contamination between unrelated guests. Only time will tell whether bureaucrats eventually side with public health officials or environmentalists in the latter case.

Far more important for the future of free people are the persistent censorship measures in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and beyond, modeled after anti-misinformation and surveillance policies aggressively enforced in many countries during the COVID period. To the shock of many thinking people, governments have taken it upon themselves to monitor the social media posts of citizens and to criminalize the expression of what are deemed unacceptable opinions, an obvious legacy of the COVID period, when persons who disagreed with the government were roundly denounced as agents of misinformation who needed to be de-platformed and silenced, lest they kill anyone with their dangerous ideas. Strikingly, reports of vaccine injury were not even false (misinformation), according to the censors themselves, but instead “malinformation,” which officials regarded as having the potential to prevent people who needed the “vaccine” from getting it.

Looking back at the surprising convergence among governments about the necessity of global lockdowns and, later, universal vaccination in the face of a virus which primarily endangered elderly and already infirm persons, it is clear that Schwab’s work served as a sort of template for how to communicate with constituents and conduct public affairs. Paternalism reigned (or, if you prefer, “maternalism” à la Nurse Ratched), as citizens were spoken to by political leaders in condescending tones as though they were toddlers who needed to be protected from themselves. This approach to governance can be summed up in a phrase: Children are to be seen, not heard.

Citizens were told that it was wrong to do their own research because only “the experts,” such as pandemic guru Anthony Fauci knew what they were doing. Despite having repeatedly lied in insisting that the virus had emerged naturally, having somehow leapt from a bat to a human being (when someone in Wuhan ate a bowl of soup?), Fauci himself, we now know, promoted and funded the gain-of-function research which culminated in the very existence—and potency—of the virus. Throughout this period of history, persons who dared to dissent from the dictates and narratives of the government were decried as enemies of humanity who needed to be controlled in order to protect other people from their nefarious tendencies. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of The Real Anthony Fauci (a true tale of moral horror), who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Donald Trump’s second administration, was publicly derided and discredited as an insane conspiracy theorist throughout Joe Biden’s presidency.

The conduct of governments during the period of history from 2020 to 2023 was so confounding and preposterous that a plethora of bona fide conspiracy theories continued to emerge, reaching a peak with the release of the alleged miracle vaccine, which everyone on the planet was first encouraged (through coaxing and bribery) and then, in some cases, required to line up for, on pain of punishment for failure to comply. Some of the theories were quite creative, asserting, for example, that the shots were introducing microchips into the bodies of the recipients, or would turn them into frogs. But the term antivaxxer was affixed to anyone who declined the shot, whatever their reason, with everyone in that group assimilated and depicted as intellectually inept for defying what were claimed by officials at the time to be the dictates of common sense.

Some people, whether with formal training in science or simply endowed with critical thinking skills, understandably expressed skepticism about the new m-RNA therapy shot which they were told would eradicate the virus, while being simultaneously told that natural immunity was inadequate and that persons who already recovered from the virus would still need to undergo vaccination. Because a vaccine, by definition, exploits the subject’s own immune system, anyone with even a modicum of logical acumen must have understood that the new miracle vaccine, which depended on the immune system itself, would only work as advertised if, in fact, natural immunity was possible. This flagrant contradiction was not recognized or acknowledged as such by inept (or, in some cases, mercenarily corrupt) government officials and public health pundits, but it was the most obvious sign to people yet to be indoctrinated into the COVID cult (or not on the Big Pharma dole) that something was seriously awry.

The “Natural immunity is not possible, but this vaccine is necessary and will save you!” contradiction no doubt inspired some of the ever-mutating and proliferating theories about what was really going on. In Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab himself refers to antivaxxers as a dangerous impediment to getting through the crisis, and the term came swiftly to be used to denounce anyone who raised even doubts grounded in logic and science about the wisdom of submitting to an experimental treatment in cases where the person’s chances of death from the virus were quite low, as was true for all healthy young persons, and had already been demonstrated in each particular case of anyone who had recovered from previous infection.

The Pentagon required all service persons to take part in the experimental trial of the mRNA therapy, whether or not they had already recovered from infection. The more than 8,000 troops who refused the shot were discharged without pay in 2021, and the military vaccine mandate was not rescinded until 2023. Since assuming office in 2025, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defense secretary, has been apologizing to those persons and attempting to make amends, acknowledging that the order to take an experimental vaccine was in fact illegal and that no one was obliged to follow illegal orders. The true motives and sincerity of the new administration on this matter will be seen in how they treat the persons who suffered vaccine injury as a result of having undergone the procedure, under the erroneous belief that Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, knew what he was doing when he ordered the entire military corps to follow his über-masked, serially vaccinated and boosted example. If the government extends its offer of compensation only to healthy troops, in an effort to woo them back into service, and ignores the persons who were disabled by the vaccine, or the individuals and families wrecked by being plunged precipitously into penury, then it will be safe to conclude that Hegseth’s apology tour is no more and no less than a measure intended to mitigate the ongoing recruitment crisis.

There seemed to be grounds for hope that the United States had managed to extricate itself from the totalitarian clutches of meta-bureaucrats such as Klaus Schwab and their “Fifty Year Plans” for humanity when Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris (who to this day has pronouns in her profile at X) in the November 2024 presidential election. The new president immediately rescinded all DEI initiatives implemented under Biden and enacted numerous executive orders in an effort to protect women, and restore a modicum of sanity to what had become a surreal situation, by boldly asserting the biological fact that no matter how many body parts a male human being chooses to cut off or modify, every remaining cell in his body will still contain a Y chromosome. Trump also acted swiftly to criminalize the scandalous medical practice of mutilating the genitalia of minors. Both Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, repeatedly pronounced that free speech would always prevail in the United States as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and they vociferously denounced the censorship going on abroad.

Vestiges of the New World Order, however, can be seen in the United States, for example, the requirement that all citizens who wish to travel or enter a federal building be in possession of a Real ID. This measure, too, which begins in May 2025, having been planned long ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, bears similarities to some of what was going on during the COVID period, when tracking apps and data collection at borders were nearly ubiquitous. More and more data about citizens continues to be collected by governments, and remnants of the health documentation requirements during the COVID period can be seen in the visas now needed to travel to countries where formerly a passport sufficed. Restriction of movement reached a peak during the COVID period, but the apparatus now exists and with a bit of tweaking could be used to stop anyone, anywhere, from relocating at the caprice of government officials, whoever they may be, and whatever their priorities.

The removal of students from campuses in the United States for daring to speak out against the government’s continuing support of the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza suggests that Trump, like Biden and Harris, supports free speech only so long as it does not threaten his own plans for the country or its satellite state, Israel. The libertarians who voted for Trump were needless to say thrilled when he followed through on his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road who had received a double life sentence plus forty years with no possibility of parole. In choosing to vote for Trump, however, libertarians had somehow forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that Julian Assange was thrown into Belmarsh prison under Trump’s watch. (I am aware that many persons vote according to a “lesser evil” calculation, but the fact remains: the worst persecution of Assange occurred under Trump.) The fact that U.S. government drones are now acknowledged to be flying above U.S. skies (they were under Biden as well, although this was denied at the time), reveals that surveillance of residents remains a priority of the ostensibly new administration.

Antiwar activists—some of whom voted for Trump—were hopeful that he was sincere when he promised on the campaign trail not to start but to end wars. Even more welcome, albeit frankly astonishing, was Trump’s assertion on February 13, 2025, not long after having re-assumed the presidency, that he would like to cut the $800 billion Pentagon budget in half and work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pacific hopes were swiftly dashed less than two months later when, immediately after hosting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (for the second time in 2025), Trump announced on April 7, 2025, a new, even bigger, $1 trillion defense budget, accompanied by his customary raving about how splendid the U.S. military will be, thanks to his management.

In a welcome change to citizens concerned about government overreach and the massive federal debt, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the direction of Elon Musk, has been purging programs and canceling contracts relating to DEI and other parts of the Schwab “New Normal” agenda, including regulations intended to promote the Green New Deal and expand government power over citizens’ lives. The era of big government, however, is obviously not behind us. Along with his sudden imposition of extreme tariffs and announcement of a shocking 25% increase in defense spending, Trump’s strange fascination with the future possible annexation of Greenland, Canada, and Gaza, does not bode well for the future of free people. The idea that the leader of one country may simply “buy” another country or a part of another country (in the case of Gaza) reflects the very megalomania intrinsic to supra-national organizations such as the WEF and characters such as Klaus Schwab who attempt to impose their will on the rest of humanity.

Setting all of those substantial concerns aside, at the very least we can take solace in the fact that Klaus Schwab is no longer calling the WEF shots and penning flagrantly sophistic pamphlets replete with non sequiturs and gaslighting guidance masquerading as benevolence. Goodbye and good riddance, Herr Professor Doktor Schwab, we will not miss you. Alas, the WEF continues on (funded by not only a congeries of self-interested global corporations, but also NGOs and, by transitivity, unwitting taxpayers), and the danger it poses thus remains. Self-deluded officials named as global thought leaders will continue to comply with the WEF, as was exemplified by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is explicitly singled out for praise in Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Bureaucrats, for their part, will continue to conduct themselves as bureaucrats do, amassing power, devising new rules and regulations, and imposing arbitrary policies by all means necessary, as we witnessed throughout the COVID era. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the recently named interim chairman of the WEF, is a former CEO of Nestlé who famously claimed that people have no right to water. Unbeknownst to many of the millions of people who purchase and imbibe bottled water everyday, much of it derives from government-treated municipal water supplies filtered and then poured into plastic bottles to look as though it was sourced from natural spring wells such as Evian, Perrier, Pellegrino, Gerolsteiner, et al. It is unclear how much power Brabeck-Letmathe will exert, or for how long, but he does happen to look empirically indistinguishable from the super villains depicted in movies, so there is some chance that if he begins spouting out gaslighting prescriptions about how all human beings ought to behave, at least some among us will shudder, turn around and walk away.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Could The UK and France Recognize Palestine? Spoiler – It’s Not About Sympathy

Sputnik – May 1, 2025

There’s a bigger game at play, geopolitical analyst Mehmet Rakipoglu tells Sputnik.

  • Strategic autonomy: Recognizing Palestine may not yield immediate political gain – but it could be a move to challenge US hegemony, noted the researcher at UK-based Dimensions for Strategic Studies think tank. It could send a message that London and Paris are not pawns of the US and Israel or fully aligned with Donald Trump policies, he added.
  • Public pressure: The British and French governments are not suddenly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause – domestic protests and global outrage over Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza have forced their hand, argues the pundit. Anti-Zionist sentiment is surging in all Western capitals, with silence no longer an option for British and French leaders.
  • ️Ethical crossroads: If the UK and France claim to uphold Western values, staying silent on Israel’s war in Gaza creates a moral dilemma, noted the analyst, since you cannot preach human rights and ignore genocide.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

France working to dissolve pro-Palestinian group Urgence Palestine

Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2025

Ahead of the May Day protests in Paris, expected to draw around 15,000 participants, French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau announced on the CNews channel on Wednesday that he has initiated the dissolution of Urgence Palestine.

The Palestine Emergency Collective (Urgence Palestine) is a broad coalition comprising citizens, trade unions, political movements, and associations advocating for Palestinian self-determination.

Retailleau justified the move by claiming it was necessary to “hit the Islamists,” saying that Islamism is a political ideology that seeks to exploit Islam for power, representing a distortion of Islam’s true spiritual teachings.

The French state has a documented history of using group dissolution as a legal tool against Palestine advocacy.

In 2022, the Conseil d’État upheld the ban on Collectif Palestine Vaincra, imposed by then-Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin.

This latest crackdown coincides with mass arrests, prosecutions, and interrogations across France targeting writers, demonstrators, and activists for supporting Palestinian Resistance or condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Interior Ministry accusations, activist testimonies 

Informed by a formal letter from the Interior Ministry, Urgence Palestine now faces a two-week contradictory exchange period as part of the dissolution procedure. The group responded swiftly online.

Activist Omar Al-Soumi from Urgence Palestine said, “At a time when the Palestinian people are facing genocide and famine… the French government wants to dissolve our collective. It’s unbearable. This is the reality of a France that is complicit in genocide.”

Authorities are believed to cite slogans used during demonstrations as justification for the crackdown, framing them as calls for violence or antisemitism.

One incident involved activist Elias d’Imzalène, who received a suspended five-month prison sentence and €10,000 in damages for calling to “lead the intifada in Paris” during a protest at Place de la Nation on September 8.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: French threat to reimpose sanctions is ‘economic blackmail’

Press TV – April 30, 2025

Iran’s ambassador to the UN has lambasted the French foreign minister’s open threat to reimpose sanctions lifted under a 2015 deal on Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Resorting to threats and economic blackmail is entirely unacceptable and represents a clear breach of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” Amir Saeid Iravani wrote in letters to UN chief General Antonio Guterres and Security Council head Jérôme Bonnafont.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Monday that his government along with Germany and Britain “will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions” lifted a decade ago if European security is threatened by Iran’s nuclear activities.

Iravani said France’s threat to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism despite its own failure to honor its commitments contradicts the fundamental principles of international law that preclude a party from claiming rights under an agreement while simultaneously failing to fulfill its obligations.

“Such an action is legally and procedurally flawed, unacceptable, and invalid, and would undermine the credibility of the Security Council,” he added.

The snapback mechanism is triggered simply by the assertion of significant non-compliance on the part of a participating state, a prerogative the West might abuse based on its accusations.

Iravani further reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to diplomacy and constructive engagement, but “genuine diplomacy cannot be conducted under threats or pressure”.

“If France and its partners are truly interested in a diplomatic resolution, they must abandon coercion and respect the sovereign rights of States under international law.”

Iravani said France’s credibility on non-proliferation is fundamentally undermined by its own record as it continues to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal, remains silent about, and is complicit in the Israeli regime’s undeclared nuclear weapons program.

France has also yet to fulfill its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), he added.

The ambassador rejected the French foreign minister’s accusations that Iran sought to acquire nuclear weapons,

“Allegations that Iran is ‘on the cusp’ of developing nuclear weapons are entirely unfounded and politically irresponsible. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never pursued nuclear weapons, and its defensive doctrine has not been changed,” Iravani said.

“Iran unequivocally rejects all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including nuclear arms,” he said. “As a founding member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran remains fully committed to its obligations under the treaty.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said, “continues to monitor and verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Its reports have consistently verified that there has been no diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes.”

Barrot’s allegations about Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program reflect either a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of Iran’s legal rights under international law, Iravani said.

The claims also demonstrate a selective interpretation of facts and exemplifies a persistent pattern of double standards by a country that bears specific responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council, he added.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

France using the ‘terrorism’ charge to silence criticism of crimes in Gaza: French lawyer

French political scientist Francois Burgat
MEMO | April 29, 2025

French lawyer Rafik Chekkat said today that the charge of “terrorist propaganda” is being used in France to silence those who speak out about crimes committed by Israel in Gaza.

French political scientist Francois Burgat, known for his work on the Arab world, was detained on 9 July 2024, in Aix-en-Provence on charges of “terrorist propaganda.” His arrest followed a complaint by the European Jewish Organisation (OJE) over social media posts he shared in January 2024 about Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

“The two most commonly used charges to silence those who respond to the crimes committed in Gaza are ‘terrorist propaganda’ and ‘incitement to hatred and discrimination,’” said Chekkat, one of Burgat’s lawyers and a member of the Marseille Bar Association.

“Sometimes you are prosecuted under one charge, sometimes the other, and sometimes even both simultaneously,” he added.

Burgat was released the same day he was arrested and appeared before a judge at the Aix-en-Provence Criminal Court last week.

The prosecution has requested an eight-month suspended prison sentence, a €4,000 (about $4,550) fine, and a six-month ban on posting on X.

“Despite being an expert on terrorism-related issues, he is now being prosecuted for ‘terrorist propaganda’,” Chekkat said.

The court is expected to announce the verdict in Burgat’s case on 28 May.

Chekkat argued that Burgat’s case is part of a broader pattern of cracking down on criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The law regarding “terrorist propaganda”, he explained, was originally designed to combat terrorist organisations’ recruitment efforts in online environments but is now “being used to suppress dissenting voices on the issue of Palestine.”

“This is just the visible tip of the oppressive iceberg. That is to say, not only are publicly known figures involved here, but also many lesser-known individuals,” he said.

“Sometimes activists, and sometimes people not affiliated with any group — even ordinary individuals — have been questioned, prosecuted, and some have even been convicted of terrorist propaganda,” he added.

April 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 28, 2025

Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line.

Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran.

The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today.

The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war.

The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran.

Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted:

“Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”.

Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over.

This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation.

After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict.

The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely).

General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington.

In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.

Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.

Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.

Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.

All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.

Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.

In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.

So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014.

In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line.

Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea.

Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered.

Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task.

Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump.

What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision.

For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire.

Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia.

The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says.

Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus:

“Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron snubbed during Trump–Zelensky meeting in Vatican

RT | April 27, 2025

French President Emmanuel Macron was sidelined when his US counterpart Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky met before the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday. Footage from the Vatican showed him being left out despite the Ukrainian leader’s apparent expectations that he would join.

Trump and Zelensky last met in February in the Oval Office. The meeting, where they’d intended to finalize a US-Ukraine minerals agreement and discuss a potential ceasefire with Russia, ended abruptly amid a heated exchange involving Vice President JD Vance, which led to the Ukrainian leader’s early departure from the White House.

Video footage from the Vatican showed Zelensky walking toward the seating area with Trump. He glanced back several times, reportedly expecting Macron to join. Three chairs were set up, suggesting plans for a three-way discussion. As the French president approached, Zelensky greeted him warmly with a smile and a hand gesture, inviting him to join.

However, just moments later, a staff member discreetly removed the third chair before the meeting began. Footage shows Trump gesturing openly while maintaining a firm posture, signaling the conversation would be strictly between him and Zelensky. Macron eventually stepped back as the two engaged directly.

Visuals captured Zelensky’s expression changing from confident to visibly tense upon realizing he would face Trump alone. The 15-minute meeting took place against a backdrop of growing tensions; the US president has pressured Kiev to accept what media outlets have termed his “final offer” to end hostilities. Reports suggest that Washington’s proposal involves freezing the conflict along the existing front lines and recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, a condition the Ukrainian leader has firmly rejected.

Trump stated in an interview with Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia.” Before 2014, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, but it joined Russia after a referendum which followed a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Trump also recently reiterated that Zelensky “has no cards to play,” echoing what he told him during their last White House meeting.

Macron has been among Zelensky’s most steadfast supporters, and has consistently emphasized that any peace agreement must ensure Ukraine retains its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Russia has stressed, however, that any deal to end hostilities must not only acknowledge territorial reality but also address the conflict’s root causes, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.

Trump voiced satisfaction with negotiations between Washington and Moscow after Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Independent Iranian journalist Hazamy detained in France amid crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices

Press TV – April 23, 2025

French security forces have arrested freelance reporter Shahin Hazamy as part of a crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices.

Media reports on Wednesday revealed that the dual Iranian-French national was detained in Paris for expressing support for Palestine.

French magazine Le Point confirmed through Hazamy’s lawyer that the arrest was based on accusations of “apologie du terrorisme,” a criminal charge under French law that pertains to supporting “terrorist acts.”

Hazamy was arrested on Tuesday at approximately 6:14 a.m. at his home in Paris and remains in temporary detention while the French judiciary investigates the case.

Reports said that Hazamy was violently arrested in front of his wife and two young children, aged 1 and 3.

Social media posts by Hazamy show his support for Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups, as well as photos taken during recent visits to Lebanon.

Hazamy had also expressed solidarity with Mahdieh Esfandiari, a detained Iranian academic living in Lyon, who has been held since early March under similar charges. Hazamy had actively campaigned for Esfandiari’s release from prison.

According to Le Point, Esfandiari’s posts on social media show that the pro-Palestinian advocate was a supporter of the Hamas resistance movement.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has criticized the arrests, demanding explanations and consular access.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said earlier in April that such detentions raise serious concerns about the rights of Iranian nationals in France.

The arrests come amid a crackdown in the US and other Western countries targeting scholars, students, and activists who oppose the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Pro-Palestinian human rights advocates say the arrests and deportation of activists are attacks aimed at terrorizing and silencing those who have courageously amplified Palestinian resistance and the call for freedom.

They say the repression of freedom of speech in the West will allow Israel to continue the genocide in Gaza.

At least 51,300 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children, and over 117,090 individuals injured in the Israeli genocide since October 7, 2023.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

US proposes leaving former Ukrainian territories under Russian control – Bloomberg

RT | April 18, 2025

The US has presented its allies with the details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing European officials familiar with the matter.

The contours of the plan were outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday. The proposal reportedly includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the war, with the formerly Ukrainian territories held by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control, the sources suggested.

One of the officials told Bloomberg that the proposal still had to be discussed with Kiev, adding that the plan would not actually amount to a definitive settlement of the conflict. Moreover, Kiev’s European backers would not recognize the territories as Russian, the source suggested.

The Paris meetings involved senior officials from several countries. The US delegation was led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff. They met with French President Emmanuel Macron and also held discussions with top officials and negotiators from France, Germany, the UK, and Ukraine.

Earlier on Friday, Rubio signaled Washington was ready to “move on” if a way to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev could not be found shortly.

“We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio told reporters before departing from France.

Moscow has signaled a full ceasefire with Ukraine was highly unlikely, citing Kiev’s violations of previous deals. Speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters on Thursday, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia said there are “big issues with the comprehensive ceasefire,” recalling the fate of the now-defunct Minsk agreements, which were “misused and abused to prepare Ukraine for the confrontation.”

The diplomat also cited repeated Ukrainian violations of a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes, implemented on March 18.

“How close we are to the ceasefire is a big question to me personally, because, as I said, we had an attempt at a limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure, which was not observed by the Ukrainian side. So, in these circumstances, to speak about a ceasefire is simply unrealistic at this stage,” Nebenzia said.

April 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe not ready to expand military aid to Ukraine when US leaves

By Ahmed Adel | April 18, 2025

More than three years in and with little initiative for a diplomatic exit from the West, NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine will reach a critical juncture when aid from the United States ends. Unless US President Donald Trump changes his mind, Europe cannot afford to continue its unconditional aid to Ukraine alone.

In the final months of his term, Joe Biden took significant steps to increase Ukraine’s munitions stockpiles, sending large quantities of projectiles, rockets, and armored vehicles, and approving a $1.25 billion aid package in December 2024. This support has allowed a continued flow of US arms to Ukraine, except for a pause ordered by Trump in March following his spat with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House.

While these decisions have bought Ukraine time, its stockpiles of US munitions are running low. The $1.25 billion aid package is nearly exhausted, and Trump has not approved any new military aid since taking office. Even if he were to use his remaining withdrawal authority, the amount available would be insufficient to sustain long-term US support, especially with the Republican-controlled Congress.

Trump has unsuccessfully sought a ceasefire in the conflict, while the parties involved have not agreed on the full terms. Faced with the impasse, the European Union has encouraged Ukraine to try to gain some strategic advantage over Russia, saying it will maintain support for as long as necessary. But Russia’s superiority has been proven daily, even with Ukraine’s flagrant unilateral violation of the 30-day US-brokered ceasefire for critical infrastructure.

European leaders have been moving to help Ukraine in the absence of US leadership. Discussions about a post-war security force are important, but more planning is needed to deal with the impending loss of US material support.

According to The Guardian, Ukraine’s European backers face two main questions: how Ukraine can persist with a combination of domestic arms production, European assistance, and US intelligence sharing, and how to finance that support. European countries must accept greater risk by donating their own military equipment and increasing defense spending to replenish their stockpiles.

The article argues that Europe should direct more resources to Ukraine’s defense industrial base, which produces drones, munitions, and air defense capabilities. The United Kingdom and France should try to negotiate with the Trump administration to secure additional air defense missiles for Ukraine, with the Europeans footing the bill, of course.

European countries must decide how to finance this support, whether by drawing on their own budgets or seizing the roughly $300 billion Russian sovereign assets illegally frozen through unilateral sanctions. These assets could finance Ukraine’s defense and reduce its dependence on the US, but time is running out for Ukraine to have anything to bargain for.

Moscow believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the resolution of the conflict and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any shipment containing weapons to Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Russia’s top diplomat, the US and NATO not only supply weapons to Kiev, but also train personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries.

Hundreds of articles and interviews by Western journalists and politicians repeatedly claimed that Russia was allegedly running out of men, shells, missiles, and tanks, and that it only had fuel for two days. However, none of these allegations have been proven because production never ended in Russia; it has only increased.

Rather, to match Russia’s strength, Ukraine will have to mobilize everything it can and increase production several dozen times, an impossible task.

On April 11, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said that the meeting of the “Coalition of the Willing” on Ukraine was a failure because participants had different views on a peace agreement. French media quoted European officials as saying the day before Kallas’ statement that about six of the more than 30 countries participating in the “Coalition of the Willing” are ready to send troops to Ukraine. They include the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltic states. Evidently, the effort to mobilize Europe for this action failed.

Kallas also hoped to mobilize up to €40bln in military aid for Ukraine this year to shore up Kiev’s position and try to gain some strategic leverage for upcoming peace talks with Russia. This proposal has been stalled for weeks though, with EU diplomats criticizing the abstract nature of the plan, the way contributions would be calculated, and the lack of buy-in from most southern European countries.

Europe does not have the military might, economic prosperity, or unity to support Ukraine once US support has truly dried up. Yet, judging by the statements and actions of Kallas, the unelected EU technocrats continue to concoct new ideas to prolong war and suffering in Ukraine.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

April 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Full speed ahead for war preparations in Europe: What are French military cartographers doing in Romania?

By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 17, 2025

In the French newspaper Le Figaro, a striking report was published regarding the presence of French Army cartographers in Romania in preparation for a possible “conflict with Russia.” The article, titled “French Army Cartographers Deployed on NATO’s Eastern Flank Amid Rising Tensions with Russia” and penned by Nicolas Barotte, details new military preparations being undertaken with the anticipation of a Russian attack.

According to the report, French Army cartographers are mapping regions along Romania’s borders with Moldova and Ukraine.

It is noted that soldiers are identifying elevated locations such as water towers or bell towers every five kilometers.

According to the French soldiers, these structures will be used as reference points for artillery targeting if necessary.

The French troops have also prepared an extremely detailed map that includes movement routes for military units and the axes along which the army can advance. The main purpose of the mapping effort is to facilitate orientation on the ground even if satellite signals are disrupted.

Who conducted the mapping?

The mapping operation was carried out by the 28th Geographic Group (28e Groupe Géographique).

Known by the abbreviation “28e GG,” this unit is stationed in the town of Haguenau near Strasbourg and is one of the smallest yet most strategic units of the French Army. The 28e GG provides geographical information, map production, and topographic analysis support to land forces. It was under the Intelligence Command for many years, but in the fall of 2023, it was reassigned to the Engineering Brigade (brigade du génie).

This unit, which plays a critical role in military operations, is responsible for map production in operational areas, 3D terrain mapping using methods such as LIDAR (a laser-based positioning method), drones, and mobile data collection tools. It also identifies passage routes for military targets and infrastructure, determines reference points for use in case satellite signals are cut off, and supports artillery with target identification and fire support planning. Comprising 350 soldiers, this unit actively participates not only in operations but also in planning processes.

French military presence in Romania

Meanwhile, the French Army’s presence in Romania is not new. When the Russia–Ukraine war began, France deployed a thousand troops to Cincu, located in the Transylvania region of central Romania, as part of NATO’s efforts to reinforce its eastern flank.

French soldiers also lead the NATO-established Multinational Battlegroup – Romania stationed there.

Why Romania?

According to Le Figaro, the unit has already hung the map it prepared in Romania on the wall of its headquarters in Haguenau.

On the map of Romania, the country’s topography is displayed in three dimensions. The 28e GG identified reference points every five kilometers and created a map of military mobility routes.

The map was created using a technology similar to Google’s Street View. A vehicle equipped with high-resolution cameras and laser sensors, used by the 28e GG, scanned the region in 3D.

The most critical aspect of this military preparation is the Focșani Gate.

The Focșani Gate

The Focșani Gate (or Focșani Pass) is located in eastern Romania and has historically been a region of great military strategic importance.

It is a narrow and flat passage between the Eastern Carpathians and the Danube Plain, serving as a corridor between Moldova, Transylvania, and the Danube region.

Unlike the mountainous terrain surrounding it, this flat region is difficult to defend and easy to attack.

Given NATO’s assumption that Russia may launch an attack through this route, it is predicted that a successful Russian invasion through Focșani could spread to the heart of Romania and even reach the Black Sea via Constanța.

Moreover, the historical use of Focșani for military purposes by the Ottomans, Russia, Germany, and the Soviets contributes to the strategic interest in the area.

What happens if Russia attacks through Focșani?

The emphasis on Focșani is undoubtedly part of the broader effort to militarize Europe under the narrative of a “Russian invasion.” But what if NATO’s assumptions prove true?

If Russia attacks through Focșani as expected, the first military forces it would encounter would be Romania’s 8th Division and the 2nd Infantry Division. The initial air response would come from Romanian aircraft based at the Fetești and Borcea air bases.

If NATO activates Article 5 and decides to fully confront Russia, the U.S. air base at Mihail Kogălniceanu on Romania’s Black Sea coast would also come into play.

If Russia were to attack through Focșani, the heavy NATO presence in the Baltic region would not have a primary impact. For example, due to the Carpathian Mountains, direct intervention in the Moldova–Romania axis by Poland and other Baltic countries would be logistically difficult. At most, these countries could apply a distraction strategy by opening a new front in the north against Russia.

In such a scenario, another key NATO force that comes to mind is the NATO Rapid Deployable Corps – Italy, established in 2001 as NATO’s Immediate Response Force.

Turkey’s position

Assuming Turkey sets aside its balancing diplomacy and fulfills its alliance obligations as the country with NATO’s second-largest land army, Turkey’s potential actions would include deploying its units to Romania within 72 hours.

As of 2023, Turkey is part of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) with high-readiness units such as the 66th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (Istanbul) or Commando Brigades.

In this context, the 66th Mechanized Brigade in Istanbul and experienced commando brigades from Syria operations appear to be the fastest units that could provide ground support to Romania.

The Turkish Navy, also the largest NATO naval force in the Black Sea, contributes on a rotational basis to NATO’s Standing NATO Maritime Group-2 (SNMG2) and Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group-2 (SNMCMG2) with frigates, fast attack boats, and minehunters.

Likewise, Turkey’s air power can provide reinforcements of combat troops and ammunition to NATO bases in Romania by air; with UAVs and maritime patrol aircraft, it can carry out reconnaissance and deterrence missions. Amphibious units with landing capabilities and SAT/SAS commandos could also be deployed to Romanian territory under NATO’s operational plans.

Of course, direct military involvement by Turkey in such a scenario is seen as a possibility that falls outside the scope of Turkey’s traditionally balance-oriented foreign policy.

While the likelihood of such a simulation materializing under the current political circumstances is clearly remote, it would require Russia to first capture Odessa and reach the Moldovan border, then attempt to invade Romania via Moldova (Transnistria).

However, even though direct Turkish involvement in a war remains unlikely for now, the possibility of Turkey taking on new responsibilities within the current “deterrence” concept is increasingly being discussed out loud.

Especially in a political climate where U.S. President Donald Trump is perceived to have “abandoned” Europe, and eyes are turning to Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s recent statement at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum—“Turkey is ready to take responsibility for Europe’s security”—is the clearest indication yet that Turkey will play a more active role in the European security architecture in the near future.

Although there is much talk lately about Turkish troops going to Ukraine, it would not be surprising to see Turkish units in Romania, a key focus area for NATO.

Conclusion

Alongside Eastern Europe, NATO also considers Southeastern Europe as a potential attack route for Russia and is tailoring its war preparations accordingly. While U.S.-Europe relations remain volatile during the Trump era, the ongoing preparations suggest that neither side truly believes the U.S. will withdraw troops from Europe in the short term. Indeed, NATO and U.S. officials have already started attempts to “reassure” on this matter.

On the other hand, while NATO considers Romania a strategic route in the event of a Russian attack and views the region as militarily critical, it is also evident that any anti-NATO or anti-EU shift in a country like Romania would cause severe damage to current strategies. This fact is already apparent from the first round of Romania’s presidential elections.

Although Romania currently plays a key role in NATO’s southeastern flank, signs of a potential shift in political preferences are beginning to emerge. In the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections, pro-Western and pro-European Union parties lost significant ground, while nationalist and EU-skeptical tendencies gained momentum. This shift could pose serious challenges to NATO’s future plans in the region if it continues.

As NATO strengthens its eastern and southeastern flanks in anticipation of a long-term confrontation with Russia, it must also closely monitor the political transformations in its member states. Public discontent, nationalist rhetoric, and the rise of far-right political movements may undermine the alliance’s cohesion and operational capacity.

Moreover, it is becoming clear that the current U.S.-European alliance is not solely built on military arrangements. The sustainability of this alliance also depends on internal political stability and public support within member countries. In this context, the role that Turkey will play is of particular significance, both as a NATO member and as a regional power capable of influencing developments in Southeastern Europe and the Black Sea basin.

While the French military’s cartographic activities in Romania may seem like a routine technical operation, they are, in fact, part of a much broader preparation for war. The choice of mapping locations, the level of detail, and the focus on vulnerable corridors such as the Focșani Gate all point to a well-thought-out military contingency plan.

In summary, Europe is once again preparing for war—this time not against a distant enemy, but against a powerful and nuclear-armed neighbor. And countries like Romania, which sit at the intersection of these fault lines, are being rapidly militarized. Whether this is genuine preparation or a calculated form of deterrence, one thing is certain: the cartographers of war are already on the move.

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

French contradictions: Macron’s Palestine play – too little, too late?

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 16, 2025

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vehement opposition to a Palestinian state aligns perfectly with a long-standing Zionist ideology that has consistently viewed the establishment of a Palestinian state as a direct threat to Israel’s very foundation as a settler colonial project.

Thus, the mere existence of a Palestinian state with clearly defined geographical boundaries would inevitably render the state of Israel, which pointedly remains without internationally recognised borders, a state confined to a fixed physical space.

At a time when Israel continues to occupy significant swathes of Syrian and Lebanese territory and relentlessly pursues its colonial expansion to seize even more land, the notion of Israel genuinely accepting a sovereign Palestinian state is utterly inconceivable.

This reality is not a recent development; it has always been the underlying truth. This, in essence, reveals that the decades-long charade of the “two-state solution” was consistently a mirage, meticulously crafted to peddle illusions to both Palestinians and the broader international community, fostering the false impression that Israel was finally serious about achieving peace.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that Netanyahu reacted with considerable fury to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine next June.

In a phone call with Macron yesterday, Netanyahu predictably resorted to his familiar nonsensical rhetoric, outrageously equating the establishment of a Palestinian state with rewarding “terrorism”.

And, with equal predictability, he trotted out the well-worn and unsubstantiated claims about an Iranian connection. “A Palestinian state established a few minutes away from Israeli cities would become an Iranian stronghold of terrorism,” Netanyahu’s office declared in a statement.

Meanwhile, Macron, with a familiar balancing act, reiterated his commitment to Israeli “security”, while tepidly emphasising that the suffering in Gaza must come to an end.

Of course, in a more just and reasonable world, Macron should have unequivocally stressed that it is Palestinian security, indeed their very existence, that is acutely at stake, and that Israel, through its relentless violence and occupation, constitutes the gravest threat to Palestinian existence and, arguably, to global peace.

Sadly, such a world remains stubbornly out of reach.

Considering Macron’s and France’s unwavering and often obsequious support for Israel throughout the years, particularly since the onset of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, some might cautiously welcome Macron’s statement as a potentially positive shift in policy.

However, it is imperative to caution against any exaggerated optimism, especially at a time when entire Palestinian families in Gaza are being annihilated in the ongoing Israeli genocide as these very words are read. It is an undeniable truth that France, like many other Western governments, has played a significant role in empowering, arming and justifying Israel’s heinous crimes in Gaza.

For France to genuinely reverse its long-standing position, if indeed that is the current trajectory, it will require far more than symbolic and ultimately empty gestures.

Palestinians are, understandably, weary and disillusioned with symbolic victories, hollow rhetoric, and insincere gestures.

The recent recognitions of the State of Palestine by Ireland, Norway and Spain in May 2024 did offer a fleeting spark of hope among Palestinians, suggesting a potential, albeit limited, shift in Western sentiment that might exert some pressure on Israel to cease its devastating actions in Gaza.

Unfortunately, this initial and fragile optimism has largely failed to translate into broader and more meaningful European action.

Consequently, Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine in June has been met with a far more subdued and skeptical reaction from Palestinians.

While other European Union countries that have already recognised Palestine often maintain considerably stronger stances against the Israeli occupation, France’s record in this regard is notably weaker.

Furthermore, the very sincerity of France’s stated position is deeply questionable, given its ongoing and concerning suppression of French activists who dare to protest the Israeli actions and advocate for Palestinian rights within France itself.

These attacks, arrests, and the broader crackdown on dissenting political views within France hardly paint the picture of a nation genuinely prepared to completely alter its course on aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.

Moreover, there is a stark and undeniable contrast between the principled positions adopted by Spain, Norway and Ireland and France’s steadfast backing of Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza from its very inception, a support underscored by Macron’s early and highly symbolic visit to Tel Aviv.

Macron was among the first world leaders to arrive in Tel Aviv following the war, while Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to the most unspeakable forms of violence imaginable.

During that visit, on 24 October 2023, he unequivocally reiterated, “France stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. We share your pain, and we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and its right to defend itself against terrorism.”

This raises a fundamental and critical question: how can France’s belated recognition of a Palestinian state be interpreted as genuine solidarity while it simultaneously remains a significant global supporter of the very entity perpetrating violence against Palestinians?

While any European recognition of Palestine is a welcome – if overdue – step, its true significance is considerably diminished by the near-universal recognition of Palestine within the global majority, particularly across the Global South, originating in the Middle East and steadily expanding worldwide.

The fact that France would be among the last group of countries in the world to formally recognise Palestine (currently, 147 out of 193 United Nations member states have recognised the State of Palestine), speaks volumes about France’s apparent attempt to belatedly align itself with the prevailing global consensus and, perhaps, to whitewash its long history of complicity in Israeli Zionist crimes, as Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and condemned on the international stage.

One can state with considerable confidence that Palestinians, particularly those enduring the unimaginable horrors of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, prioritise an immediate cessation of that genocide and genuine accountability for Israel’s actions far above symbolic acts of recognition that appear primarily aimed at bolstering France’s relevance as a global power player and a long-standing supporter of Israeli war crimes.

Finally, Macron, while reassuring Israel that its security remains paramount for the French government, must be reminded that his continued engagement with Benjamin Netanyahu is, in itself, a potential violation of international law. The Israeli leader is a wanted accused criminal by the International Criminal Court, and it is France’s responsibility, like that of the over 120 signatories to the ICC, to apprehend, not to appease, Netanyahu.

This analysis is not intended to diminish the potential significance of the recognition of Palestine as a reflection of growing global solidarity with the Palestinian people. However, for such recognition to be truly meaningful and impactful, it must emanate from a place of genuine respect and profound concern for the Palestinian people themselves, not from a calculated desire to safeguard the “security” of their tormentors.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »