On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development.
The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind.
Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried.
According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukrainewere all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.”
‘Direct Conflict’
One objective was “avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO.” Miraculously, despite the US and its allies consistently crossing Moscow’s clearly stated red lines on assistance to Kiev, providing Ukraine with weaponry and other support Biden himself explicitly and vehemently ruled out in March 2022, on the grounds it could cause World War III, and greenlighting hazardously escalatory strikes deep inside Russian territory, so far all-out hot war has failed to materialise. On this front perhaps, the former President can be said to have triumphed.
However, another “was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.” This prospect dwindles daily, as the proxy war’s frontline teeters constantly on total collapse. Kiev is facing an eventual and seemingly inevitable rout of some magnitude, with the conflict likely settled solely on Russia’s terms, and Zelensky – or whoever replaces him – having no negotiating position to speak of. In December 2024, Empire house journal Foreign Policy even openly advocated cutting Kiev out of eventual peace talks.
Biden also “wanted the US and its allies to remain united.” It is this objective that most obviously failed, and quite spectacularly. As this journalist has repeatedly documented, British intelligence has consistently sought to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out war between the West and Russia, and encouraged Kiev in its maximalist aims, to the extent of covertly plotting grand operations for the purpose, and training Ukrainians to execute them. London’s overriding ambition, per leaked documents, is “to keep Ukraine fighting at all costs.”
The Western media has acknowledged Ukraine’s calamitous August 2024 invasion of Russia’s Kursk region was to all intents and purposes a British operation. London provided a vast welter of equipment to Kiev “central” to the effort, and “closely” advised their Ukrainian counterparts on strategy. The aim was to draw Russian forces away from Donbass and boost Kiev’s bargaining position, which has proven a staggering embarrassment on both fronts. But there was a wider, more insidious goal behind the incursion.
Britain openly and eagerly advertised its fundamental role in the Kursk misadventure to bolster public support at home for continuing the proxy war, and “persuade key allies to do more to help.” In other words, to normalise open Western involvement, and create the “direct conflict” the Biden administration was so keen to avoid. London was also at the forefront of pressuring NATO member states to permit Ukraine to use foreign-supplied weaponry and materiel inside Russia, which could likewise produce their long-sought hot war against Moscow.
Several Western countries – including the US – have offered such authorisation. Yet, Russia has consistently responded to strikes deep inside its territory with heavy duty counterattacks, which Kiev has been unable to repel. Meanwhile, London’s invitation to its allies to become more overtly involved in the proxy war was evidently rebuffed. In November 2024 too, pro-government outlet Ukrainska Pravda published a startling investigation, documenting in forensic detail how the October 2023 – June 2024 Krynky operation was, à la Kursk, essentially British.
Never spoken of by Ukrainian officials today, the nine-month effort saw wave after wave of British-trained and equipped marines attempt to secure a beachhead in a river-adjacent village in Russian-controlled Kherson. Poorly prepared, many died attempting to reach Krynky, due to relentless artillery, drone, flamethrower and mortar fire. Of those that survived the nightmarish journey, most were then killed under a constant and ever-intensifying blitz, in marsh conditions. Russia’s onslaught grew so inexorable, evacuating casualties or providing forces with even basic supplies became borderline impossible.
Survivors of the Krynky catastrophe – one of the absolute worst in military history – who spoke to Ukrainska Pravda revealed it was hoped the beachhead would be a “game-changer”, opening a second front in the conflict, allowing Kiev’s invading marines to march upon Crimea and all-out victory in the proxy war. They hoped to recreate the June 1944 Normandy landings – D-Day. It is all too easy to envisage British intelligence filling the heads of their Ukrainian trainees with such fantasies.
‘Settle Up’
Fast forward to today, and Britain and France are openly discussing sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine, to “help underpin” whatever “post-war settlement” emerges between Kiev and Moscow. This is after in February 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested formally deploying his country’s forces to Ukraine to halt Moscow’s advance. The proposal was summarily dropped and forgotten when Russian officials made abundantly clear each and every French soldier dispatched to the frontline would be killed without hesitation, and Paris could become a formal belligerent in the war.
It appears the “peacekeeping” plan is likely to suffer the same fate. On January 20th, coincidentally or not the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, CIA-created Radio Free Europe published an explainer guide on why sending European troops to Ukraine is “a nonstarter”. Among other things, as the Russians are unambiguously winning, they are unlikely to offer many concessions, particularly allowing foreign soldiers to occupy Kiev’s territory. Furthermore, “as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Moscow can block any peacekeeping mission.”
As if the message to London and Paris wasn’t emphatic enough, two weeks earlier, at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump made numerous comments reiterating his commitment to ending the proxy war. “We’re going to have to settle up with Russia,” he declared. Notably, the President sympathised with Moscow’s “written in stone” determination Kiev not be enrolled into NATO, warned the situation “could escalate to be much worse,” and stated his hope the conflict could be wrapped up within six months.
Markedly, Zelensky was not invited to Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he was unable to attend, as it wasn’t “proper” to do so “during the war”. Amusingly, Trump’s son Donald Jr. has rubbished Zelensky’s narrative, claiming the – “weirdo” – had specifically “asked for an invite” on three occasions, “and each time got turned down.”
For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance.
Marine Tondelier, secretary-general of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, has called for the social media platform X to be banned across the European Union, at least during election periods, arguing that it plays a role in shaping public opinion in ways that can threaten democracy.
Speaking on RTL’s Le Grand Jury program on Sunday, Tondelier expressed concerns about the influence of social media on democratic processes amid heightened tensions between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and EU officials who accuse the US-based billionaire of meddling in European politics.
“It’s not a question of freedom of expression; it’s a question of shaping public opinion,” she claimed. Tondelier highlighted the growing concentration of media ownership in France and globally, accusing “ultra-rich individuals” of trying to “buy power” once they accumulate enough wealth.
“We also need to take social media into account in this calculation now. It is part of the fabrication of opinion. It has a grip on reality. It impacts election results,” she stated. “It’s dangerous because it’s a challenge to our democracies,” she added, suggesting a ban on X during sensitive periods, such as elections.
“The social network Twitter is not only annoying but also dangerous. The question of leaving it obviously arises, but it will not be enough: it must be banned,” she wrote in a post on X.
Tondelier also urged her partners from the left-wing New Popular Front (NPF) coalition, which won the most National Assembly seats in this summer’s legislative elections, to migrate to alternative networks.
“I’m going to leave, but what are the others doing? It will still have an impact on reality. It will still contribute to destabilizing the upcoming elections,” she said.
Musk provoked major controversy by claiming in December that “only the AfD can save Germany,” a statement some EU officials denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling. This followed an op-ed piece published by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, in which he defended the right-wing party’s policies. Last week, Musk hosted an interview on X with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election.
Musk also clashed with former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, referring to him as “the tyrant of Europe,” after Breton appeared to endorse the cancellation of Romania’s presidential elections, warning about potential foreign interference in the upcoming German polls.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot recently voiced concerns about Musk’s influence, urging the European Commission to take a firmer stance and use existing mechanisms against alleged external meddling. Breton clarified that his remarks were aimed at ensuring compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act.
In recent weeks, the South African-born tech mogul also criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the Pakistani grooming gang issue and refusing to properly investigate the mass rape of underage girls while he was head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013. He also urged Washington to step in and “liberate” the Brits from their “tyrannical government.”
This movie is free thanks to members and donors from ANC Report. If you found this informative consider sending a few shekels. This is the only way we can do films. NUMEC Map https://anti-neocon.myshopify.com/
The film exposes how terrorists took advantage of the massive weapons surplus following the end of WWII and created lucrative black-markets for illegal arms trafficking many of which went to the blood thirsty ethno-stater lunatics who created the state of Israel. The weapons theft would escalate to Highly Enriched Uranium for nuclear bombs and the assassination of a US president. The gun running routes doubled as human trafficking routes as the post war climates had created millions of refugees and nations of women with little or no opportunities who were easily exploited. This in turn gave rise to international forced prostitution and pedophile rings that targeted state figures and businessmen for blackmail. The press and policing agencies were forced to capitulate because challenging Zionist power right after the horrors of the Holocaust was political suicide. WWII’s own justification for nuking cities and murdering millions of civilians through bombing and starvation was the made for TV images of the Holocaust, even though Palestine had nothing to do with that, they paid the ultimate price. And by allowing Israeli power to grow out of control the US effectively lost its sovereignty. Especially in regards to foreign policy, Zionist partisans most recently the Neocons have thrown the US into one conflict after another against its own interests to further the personal interest of a criminal cabal. This film, like any Dawson film, names the names and gives the details and documents. The criminal networks of organized crime, sexual blackmailers, arms smugglers, financiers, and political cover up have all been mapped out, literally. Help us at the Anti-Neocon report reach our goal and once again put the establishment and donor class psychopaths under the spot light. The truth will set you free. But Freedom isn’t Free.
“By far the best production value ANC has ever created”- Pug
“When you think having your greatest ally attack you is the worst thing they have done, Dawson drops this bomb” – Oliver
“I think I wet my pants, but I had my underwear on so I couldn’t have raped that girl” -Alan Dershowitz did not say
“With an entire room full of people who have been drinking all night and done a 3 and a half hour conference with Ron Paul and eaten a big meal, not a single person fell asleep, that’s impressive” -Reed Coverdale
It’s easy to support freedom of speech when one doesn’t have to face any risks for doing so, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov wrote on Wednesday, in a post on his messenger platform. The entrepreneur was apparently commenting on recent announcements by Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads – which has announced some major policy changes.
On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company would ditch its controversial third-party fact-checking program in the US. He admitted that such services did more harm than good, as they “shut out people with different ideas.” He also said that Donald Trump’s victory in the November presidential elections was one of the developments that prompted the policy change.
Zuckerberg called the recent US elections a “tipping point” towards prioritizing freedom of speech, and vowed to reduce censorship.
“It’s easy to say you support something when you risk nothing,” Durov wrote in his Telegram post the next day, adding that some “platforms are announcing they’ll now have less censorship.” He did not cite Meta by name in his post, though.
Those making such changes only now would face a “real test of their newly discovered values” when “the political winds change again,” the Telegram CEO predicted, adding that his company’s values “don’t depend on US electoral cycles.”
“I’m proud that Telegram has supported freedom of speech, long before it became politically safe to do so,” Durov said.
His words came just a week after the Telegram CEO himself said that his platform was facing certain restrictions in the EU due to anti-Russia sanctions. At that time, Durov stated that Russians had more media freedom than Europeans did, given that all Western media outlets were “freely accessible” on Telegram in Russia while “certain Russian media has been restricted in the EU under DSA/sanctions laws.”
Durov also faced major legal challenges in the EU last year. The Russian entrepreneur, who is also a citizen of France, the UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, was detained in France and faced 12 criminal charges, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing, and money laundering. French authorities claimed that Telegram’s supposedly lax moderation rules had allowed criminals to flourish on the platform.
The businessman was released on bail but barred from leaving France. In September 2024, he announced an update to Telegram’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which would make it clear that that IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate the messenger’s rules “can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.” In October of the same year, he also admitted that the platform had already been sharing such information with relevant authorities, as it had been possible to do so since 2018.
French multinational retail giant Carrefour has announced the suspension of its operations in Oman, just two months after closing all its branches in Jordan in response to a global anti-“Israel” campaign denouncing the occupation entity’s decades-long crimes against Palestinians.
Carrefour, one of the largest supermarket chains worldwide, confirmed its decision through a statement on its official Instagram account on Tuesday: “Effective from January 7, 2025, Carrefour operations will be discontinued in the Sultanate of Oman.”
The closures were attributed to significant financial losses and reputational damage resulting from a widespread and creative boycott campaign. Majid Al Futtaim, which holds the exclusive rights to operate Carrefour in the West Asia region and the Arab world, publicized the decision.
The campaign, led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) as part of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, began in December 2022 in response to the French global retail group’s complicity in Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
The #BoycottCarrefour campaign has gained momentum over the past two years, with protests staged outside Carrefour outlets globally, despite efforts in some countries to suppress such activism.
Calls for a boycott intensified further following the outset of “Israel’s” war on Gaza, with critics accusing Carrefour branches of supporting war crimes by providing gift packages to Israeli soldiers and running donation campaigns to support soldiers involved in the war on the Palestinian enclave.
Additionally, Carrefour has reportedly signed agreements with Israeli technology firms and banks implicated in human rights violations and war crimes against Palestinians.
Futtaim Group’s semi-annual report for 2024 revealed a 47% decline in retail sector profits, citing reduced consumer confidence due to the “geopolitical conflict in the region.”
The report highlighted the impact of the extensive boycott campaign, which has gained traction across the region, from Jordan to Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
The Algerian Parliament accused French President, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday of “blatant interference” in the North African country’s internal affairs, Anadolu Agency reports.
Macron, on Monday, criticised Algeria, calling the detention of Franco-Algerian writer, Boualem Sansal, at Algiers Airport in November a “disgraceful matter”.
In a statement, the People’s National Assembly, the first house of parliament, called Macron’s remarks “irresponsible” and represented an “affront to Algeria’s sovereignty and dignity” in a case currently under judicial review under Algerian law.
The statement termed Macron’s comments an “overt attempt to tarnish the image of Algeria and its sovereign institutions.”
The Assembly emphasized Algeria’s firm rejection of any foreign interference, particularly regarding issues related to human rights and freedoms.
“Algeria, which endured horrific violations during the French colonial era, will not accept external lessons on these matters,” the statement said.
Such actions are “unacceptable to the Algerian people and will not deter Algeria from its independent path. Instead, they strengthen its resolve to protect its sovereignty and dignity,” it added.
The Assembly called on French authorities to respect the principles of international relations, including mutual respect.
During his meeting with French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace on Monday, Macron claimed that Algeria “prevented a seriously ill man from receiving treatment” and called for Sansal’s release.
“We who love the people of Algeria and its history urge its government to release Boualem Sansal,” he said.
Two weeks earlier, Algerian President, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, accused France of “sending an illegitimate figure” – an apparent reference to Sansal – to claim that parts of Algeria’s territory once belonged to another country.
Sansal, a former industry ministry official dismissed in 2002, had previously asserted in French media that large parts of north-western Algeria historically belonged to Morocco.
The Algerian authorities arrested Sansal on 16 November at Algiers Airport upon his return from France.
Local media reported that he was charged under Article 87 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of undermining national unity and territorial integrity, according to his defence team.
The EU was born as a peace project. Is it still so? The former German Chancellor reveals in an interview and in her Memoirs that Europe preferred conflict to peace with Russia.
The Minsk Agreements: A Tactical Pause, Not a Path to Peace
The former German chancellor Angela Merkel sparked controversy with her candid reflections on the Minsk agreements. These accords were ostensibly negotiated to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine after Russia’s accession of Crimea in 2014 as a result of a referendum by its residents and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities by the Ukrainian army and the Azov Battalion against ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Donetsk regions.
In an interview and in her memoirs titled Freedom, Merkel stated that the agreements were not genuinely pursued as a path to peace with Russia but rather as a strategic delay tactic, buying Ukraine time to strengthen its military and prepare for an inevitable confrontation.
Her statements highlight deeper underlying tensions within the European Union, particularly among member states like the Baltic nations and Poland, who viewed Russia’s actions as an existential threat. This perspective helps explain why efforts for peace were limited, and why many in the EU tacitly or openly preferred to prepare for conflict rather than seek reconciliation.
The Minsk agreements—Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015—were brokered under the Normandy Format with the involvement of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia. These agreements called for an immediate ceasefire in Donbas and Donetsk, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, granting autonomy for these regions in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reforms in Ukraine to ensure the autonomy of these regions. If the agreements had been implemented, they would have saved the lives of 14,000 Russian ethnics in Donbas and Donetsk, and certainly, they would have avoided Russian special operation in Ukraine.
However, Merkel’s remarks suggest that these agreements were never fully intended to resolve the conflict. Instead, they were a way to “freeze” the situation, allowing Ukraine to rebuild its military capacity and align itself more closely with NATO and the West. This approach mirrored a broader strategy within the EU that saw Russia’s actions, such as the accession of Crimea, not as isolated incidents but as part of a larger pattern of aggression.
Baltic and Eastern European Perspectives: Security over Diplomacy
For the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—Russia’s accession of Crimea and its support for people in eastern Ukraine were seen as dire warnings. These countries, which share borders and historical tensions with Russia, viewed any peace deal as a potential opportunity for Russia to consolidate its gains and prepare for further expansion.
The Baltic States, are deeply rooted in Russophobia. As a result, they prioritise strengthening NATO and bolstering their defences over engaging in diplomacy, which they perceive as a tool Russia has exploited for strategic advantage. Additionally, there is a persistent mistrust of European institutions, viewed as incapable of guaranteeing their security. Consequently, they place greater reliance on the United States through NATO and favour purchasing American defence equipment over European alternatives.
This is the stance held by the EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, who is hindering a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. This makes her unfit for the role, as she is driven by deep Russophobia and is little inclined toward diplomacy.
EU’s General Stance: Divided but Increasingly Hawkish
Within the broader EU, member states were divided over how to handle Russia. Western European countries like Germany and France initially pursued dialogue and diplomacy, partly due to their economic ties with Russia. However, Merkel’s remarks suggest even these efforts were tempered by a recognition that peace with Russia might only be temporary.
By contrast, Eastern European members like Poland and the Baltics were vocal advocates for a tougher stance. Their influence grew as Russia’s actions in Ukraine escalated, pushing the EU toward a more unified, confrontational approach.
The Militarization of Ukraine was pursued as the EU and NATO believed that a stronger Ukraine was essential to deter future Russian aggression. This focus on military preparedness left little room for genuine peace efforts. As a result, the U.S. did not respond to Putin’s letters and security guarantee requests.
Further, there was the question of strategic interests. For many EU members, particularly the Baltics and Poland, a weakened Russia was viewed as essential for regional stability. Consequently, the West and NATO members were accused of unnecessarily prolonging the war. A former U.S. Senator famously remarked, “We will fight until the last Ukrainian,” underscoring the approach of continued military engagement.
The peace agreement reached in Istanbul in April 2022 was reportedly rejected by Western powers. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of U.S. President Joe Biden, hurried to Kyiv to dissuade President Zelensky from signing the deal, assuring him of full Western support to defeat Russia.
Merkel’s Legacy and the Fallout of Her Comments
Merkel’s acknowledgement that the Minsk agreements were merely a strategic delay has sparked debates about the sincerity of European diplomacy. Her remarks have also undermined Europe’s moral narrative, exposing the calculated realpolitik behind decisions often framed as efforts towards peace. While Merkel defended her actions as necessary to protect Ukraine and Europe, they raised uncomfortable questions about the EU’s commitment to its proclaimed values of diplomacy and conflict resolution.
At the time, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements—France and Germany—still held significant diplomatic clout on the international stage. Today, however, these nations have become diplomatic dwarfs, rendered increasingly irrelevant by their subservience to U.S. interests—a dependency deepened by the war in Ukraine. This decline is also compounded by the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, which have eroded its legitimacy on the global stage.
In sum, Merkel’s comments highlight a Europe that, while officially advocating peace, frequently prioritised U.S. interests over genuine reconciliation. For the Baltics and other Eastern European nations, their warmongering approach underscores the challenges of pursuing balanced diplomacy in an era of resurgent great-power rivalry.
The Kiev regime, unable to defeat Russia on the battlefield, has opened a “second front” in Africa by aligning with terrorist groups in Mali and Niger, both of which have already severed diplomatic ties with Ukraine, said the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Ukraine’s opening of a “second front” on the African continent is “a desperate move aimed at media sensation, with no clear vision and strategy,” Professor Alexis Habiyaremye, Research Chair in Industrial Development at the University of Johannesburg, told Sputnik.
Context for Ukraine in Africa
It is unclear what Ukraine’s strategy in Africa is “beyond participation in destabilization” of the continent, he said, mentioning the Confederation of Sahel States, which are “led by a vision of sovereignty that is stronger than Ukrainian hatred and racism.”
“African countries are motivated by the determination to wrest their full independence from the neocolonial Western powers, while Ukraine is acting erratically based on anger and frustration. [Volodymyr] Zelensky and his agents will certainly bite the dust in Africa,” Habiyaremye stressed.
Ukrainian intelligence services “have unashamedly claimed to collaborate” with terrorist groups in Africa, “hoping to destabilize Russian security partners, and by doing so, to discredit Russia,” the analyst added, pointing to “the blanket impunity granted to Ukraine by its Western backers.”
Why is the Effort Fruitless?
The professor singled out the Sahel region, where he said the Kiev regime relied on “French logistics and American satellite technology” to help “terrorists ambush troops of Malian Armed Forces.”
“By allying itself with terrorists to attack African countries, Ukraine has squandered any possible goodwill it could hope to get from Africa and the rest of the Global South. It is therefore unlikely to achieve anything of significance as it tied its lot with that of the terrorists,” Habiyaremye concluded.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova earlier stated that Mali’s and Niger’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Ukraine indicates the African countries’ growing understanding of the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime.
The Telegram channels of multiple major Russian news outlets were rendered inaccessible across the EU on Sunday. The affected channels now display a plaque stating that access to them has been restricted over alleged “violation of local laws,” with all the content unavailable.
According to media reports, the affected channels include such Russian majors as RIA Novosti, Izvestia, Rossiya 1, Channel One, NTV and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. While it was not immediately clear whether the bans are EU-wide, the restrictions have been reportedly rolled out in Poland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy and the Czech Republic.
The EU has taken multiple hostile steps against Russian media amid the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev – and even before it. Some of the media affected in the apparent Telegram ban, namely Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia and RIA Novosti, were slapped with a broadcasting ban in the bloc in May. At the time, the EU Council claimed the outlets were under the “permanent direct or indirect control” of the Russian leadership, and played an “essential and instrumental” role in the hostilities.
No official statements have so far been made on the matter, either by Telegram, the EU as a whole or by individual members of the bloc.
A contingent of 120 French soldiers has left Chad following the country’s decision to end its defense cooperation pact with Paris.
French troops were seen boarding their plane on Friday and departing from N’Djamena airport.
The withdrawal process formally began earlier this month with the departure of two French Mirage warplanes.
France still has about 1000 troops stationed in Chad, with the full drawdown expected to take several weeks.
The terms and conditions of the complete withdrawal, including whether any French troops will remain in Chad, are yet to be finalized between the two countries.
Chad announced on November 28 its decision to end a defense accord with Paris mainly dating from independence in 1960.
“At midday, 120 French soldiers took off from the military airport of N’Djamena on board an Airbus A330 Phoenix MRTT, headed for France,” the ministry said in a statement on Facebook.
The departure of French soldiers took place in the presence of Chadian military authorities, the statement said.
The move comes after France had already pulled its forces out of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger in recent years.
This departure signals the end of decades of French military presence in the Sahel region as the anti-French sentiment continues to grow.
It’s been a bad few months for democracy. Election results offensive to the European Union were annulled in Romania; an attempted coup occurred in Georgia over elections that didn’t go the way the west wanted; the French government, widely hated, teetered over the abyss as president Emmanual Macron tried to ignore the last election; on December 16, Washington’s pet German government fell; lots of funny-business happened in the Moldovan referendum and election, amid widespread disenfranchisement of Moldovan voters living in Russia; elections were long ago cancelled in dictatorial Ukraine; and South Korea hosted an attempted coup. In short, western democracies’ storied enchantment with elections is over. As western populations grow sick and tired of their political class and vote against it, what are elites to do? Annul, cancel, overturn and ignore the elections, that’s what. The problem, for the west, is the voters.
What will happen if far-right Alternative for Deutschland sweeps the early German elections in February, or if far-left France Insoumise does the same in France? Will the U.S. through its NATO and EU tentacles annul those votes? Don’t think it won’t try. And Washington doesn’t even have to give the order, because its European puppets know exactly what’s expected of them. Granted, the Romanian front-runner, so feared by NATO, Calin Georgescu, was far right. But so what? Besides, I doubt that’s what led to the constitutional court vacating the vote. More likely it was his opposition to the Ukraine War – hence the court citing “foreign influence” (translation: Russian) via TikTok as its flimsy basis for negating the election. Incidentally, reports are coming in that the heat and internet to Georgescu’s house have been cut off, and, surprise! he can’t get anyone on the phone to help with this.
But you can’t blame European honchos for ditching elections. They’re just following Washington’s lead. After all, the post-2016 phony Russiagate hysteria may not have succeeded in ousting Trump, as was intended, but it did provide the template for American vassals. The four years of lawfare against Trump (and then another four after he left office) blazed the trail for Europe, so that now, if a candidate not favored by political bigwigs wins, all they have to do is scream “Russian influence!” to dump the election. In other words, democracy is dying in the west. It’s kicking the bucket in Europe – and if Trump ends the Ukraine War (provided Biden doesn’t utterly sabotage his peace efforts before he takes office) or gets us out of the NATO sinkhole, you can bet your paycheck the 2028 establishment campaign will dust off the 2016 playbook and get right to work.
In western media, Georgescu has been portrayed as an unknown. This is false. He is well-known in Romania and had a diplomatic career. But he is also a religious nationalist, and that’s verboten in the EU; worse yet, the U.S., aka NATO, built its biggest military airbase in Europe – where? You got it, Romania. So Washington can’t have just anybody running that country. It must be someone who will keep everything copacetic with the U.S. A nationalist opposed to Washington’s pet proxy war in Ukraine is not that someone.
As for Georgia, there the electorate proved itself most unreliable to the Exceptional Empire. It voted in a government that actually dares to require foreign NGOs to register as such – you know, the way we do, here in the United States. But here, those NGOs don’t aim to overthrow the government, like they do in Georgia, in order for Tbilisi to open a second front against Moscow. Indeed, the vast majority of rioters against the Georgian government, who were arrested, were – I’m shocked! Shocked! – foreign, i.e. European. The icing on the cake is that the French president of Georgia refused to leave office when her term expired – a president with French and Georgian passports, who boasts Nazis in her family tree.
The EU finagled things more successfully in Moldova. That nation’s October 20 referendum on joining the EU won – kinda. In country, the Moldovan government only snagged 50 percent of the vote, but Moldovan expats in Europe gave it a boost, while the 400,000 Moldovans living in Russia found, to their dismay, only two polling stations open for them, by their government, in Moscow. That meant as few as 10,000 of them got to vote. And as East European expert and political scientist Ivan Katchanovski tweeted October 21, many pro-Russian citizens in Transdniestria could not vote. So all in all, the Moldovan referendum was a sorry excuse for a democratic exercise. Then there was also Moldova’s presidential election, equally compromised. But hey, Washington’s EU vassal got to lure a country out of Russia’s orbit, and that’s all that counts, not mere democracy, right? After all, Washington doesn’t stand for democracy. It stands for and has long stood for something quite different – power. Just look at it backing a terrorist takeover of Syria, among them a ruler on whose head Washington has a $10,000,000 bounty. Let that sink in. One American hand posts a huge reward for a terrorist, while the other hand paves his way to power. The obvious conclusion (also obvious to any student of American-backed coups and regime changes abroad going back at least 70 years) is that U.S. doesn’t stand for anything besides power (certainly not anything as antiquated and nettlesome as international law). That’s the definition of a gangster state.
If you doubt that, just peek at South Korea, where the CIA’s man, president Yoon Suk Yeol, faced a grim electoral future. The voters were unlikely to support him in the next election, given that they mostly back the opposition. And that opposition, per Col. Douglas Macgregor, wants a Korean four-star general, not an American one, to head the roughly 500,000 Korean armed forces and also wants to boot the 30,000 U.S. troops off the peninsula. This, of course, goes over in Washington with all the joy of a root canal.
So what to do? Yoon took the bull by the horns December 3 with martial law. During the few hours when it looked like our man in Seoul had pulled off a coup, the Biden gang was coyly silent. But there is nothing enduring in this world, as Gogol noted, and even the most brazen attempts at subverting democracy occasionally fail. The opposition gathered and voted against Yoon. His defense minister was deposed, jailed and attempted suicide, and Yoon’s own tenure came now, ahem, under a cloud, to say the least, as insurrection charges loomed, and he was impeached and suspended from office.
And don’t forget France, where Macron, affronted by an EU parliament vote last summer that installed many anti-Ukraine War representatives, totally lost it and, quite idiotically and hubristically, called snap elections. He promptly lost those to the left, but then snubbed the voters by breaking with tradition and refusing to appoint a left-wing prime minister. Surprising no one, the center-rightist he chose received a vote of no confidence, and Macron’s government looked likely to fall. That was temporarily forestalled by the appointment, December 13, of a centrist prime minister. But if his government does ultimately crash, expect Macron to do something really stupid, like suspend the legislature, call a national emergency or, a la Yoon, declare martial law.
Lastly of course we have Ukraine, that shining example of democracy, where its president rules illegally, having cancelled elections, banned the opposition, throttled the press, exiled the church, jailed anyone he doesn’t like and press-ganged thousands of vehemently objecting Ukrainian men into the military. All this while ferociously lining his pockets with western, mainly American, funds. This is the tyranny upon which Biden bestows hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars. It’s not even supported by Ukrainians, most of whom, according to recent polls, want the war over. But Joe “War Is My Legacy” Biden, in his crazed enthusiasm for Ukrainian combat, just won’t stop. On December 11, Ukraine fired six ATACAMS into Russia. We can all thank God they did little damage, since the Russians shot two down and diverted four with electronic warfare. Had they inflicted real harm, we in the west might very well have had worse troubles than the death of democracy, namely death itself. Biden appears oblivious to this reality. For us, what’s at stake is life itself, and the whole, wondrous human and natural world. For him, it appears to be just another step on the path of endless war, another day, another dollar.
Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest novel is Booby Prize. She can be reached at her website.
Algeria summoned French Ambassador Stephane Romatet for what it dubbed “hostile plans” by the French intelligence service, Algerian media reported on Sunday,
Romatet was summoned to the Foreign Ministry last week to answer allegations of French intelligence participation in destabilizing efforts in Algeria, according to the state-run publication El Moudjahid.
The summoning came following reports that the French intelligence service had recruited former Algerian terrorists to destabilize the country’s security.
It referenced the instance of Mohamed Amine Aissaoui, who recently made a live confession on Algerian television about a suspected plot orchestrated by French intelligence.
Algerian officials told the French envoy that such measures “won’t go unanswered” and that they will not stand idly by in response to “attacks on its sovereignty,” according to the newspaper.
There was no French response to the Algerian media claim.
This event adds to Algeria and France’s already difficult ties, which have been hampered by disagreements over historical memory, migration, and the Western Sahara conflict.
Morocco primarily controls Western Sahara, but the Polisario Front has advocated for the territory’s independence since before Spain, its colonial ruler, withdrew in 1975. The United Nations classifies it as a “non-autonomous territory.”
Rabat, which governs around 80% of the territory, supports a plan for limited autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty. In contrast, the Polisario Front is demanding a UN-supervised referendum on self-determination, which was intended to be established following the ceasefire in 1991 but has yet to be implemented.
Slava Zilber: Sam, three years ago, you appeared on Talk Nation Radio with David Swanson and spoke about the case of the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. You pointed out that the people involved in the spying on the UN and the people authorizing the Iraq War were not held accountable:
“Virtually everybody who went along with the war, whether it is Kerry or Clinton, of course, the Bush administration themselves has falsified their own records in terms of why, what they did, when they did, why they did it, to the extent that they’ve been scrutinised at all.”
You also address it in a recent article. And recently, Joe Biden has been lying about his position on the Iraq War. How can such an important issue escape meaningful scrutiny? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
