Berlin Police hunt down those responsible for leaked list of New Year’s Eve suspects dominated by foreigners
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 9, 2025
The publication of a list containing the first names of 256 suspects arrested by Berlin police on New Year’s Eve has sparked an internal investigation into a security leak.
The list, published by German media outlet Nius, pertains to those apprehended after mass civil unrest in the German capital after New Year’s celebrations turned sour and migrant-fueled violence erupted with fireworks launched at police and into residential buildings.
As Remix News previously reported, the authorities’ own data showed 670 suspects in total had been arrested — 406 had a German passport and 264 were foreign nationals.
German police do not publish data identifying the nationalities of suspects, but a list of the “German” suspects, which included a plethora of foreign names including Abdul Kerim, Abdulhamid, Abdulkadir, Ali, Hassan, and Mohammed in its various spellings, managed to make headlines.
Nius, run by Bild’s former editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt, estimated that 65 percent of those in the German bracket had first names “that are clearly of non-German origin.”
The authorities are now reportedly on the warpath to track down those responsible for the leak.
The Department for Police and Corruption Crimes at the Berlin State Criminal Police Office has been tasked with identifying the source, police spokesperson Florian Nath confirmed to Tagesspiegel.
“Our Police and Corruption Crimes Department is investigating the suspect who may have illegally extracted and released lists of names from protected, internal police systems,” Nath said, adding that the authorities will always pursue “the release of personal data without any legal basis.”
The police spokesperson described the release as an unauthorized and unacceptable violation of data protection laws that promotes a “disproportionate and discriminatory approach to explaining criminal behavior.”
Berlin Police did not deny the authenticity of the list.
The response by the authorities has drawn strong criticism in some quarters with journalist Birgit Kelle writing on X: “In Berlin, people would rather investigate colleagues in their own ranks who tell the population the unvarnished truth about the cultural origins of the city’s criminals than criminals themselves.”
Prior to the leak, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group in Berlin had submitted a parliamentary query demanding the names of the suspects be released.
AfD co-leader Alice Weidel had also weighed in, sharing the leaked list on social media and stating that it “speaks for itself.” She further insisted that “foreign violent criminals” who endanger lives have “forfeited their right to hospitality and must be deported.”
Investigations into the leak have also been discussed politically at state level with left-wing politician Niklas Schrader announcing plans to address the matter in the Berlin Senate’s Interior Committee.
Scholz’s Cabinet Blocks $3 Billion Urgent Aid Package to Ukraine – Reports
Sputnik – 10.01.2025
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s cabinet is blocking the provision of additional military aid to Ukraine, a move backed by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, the Spiegel newspaper reported.
Baerbock and Pistorius, of the Green Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), respectively, reportedly want to mobilize 3 billion euros ($3.09 billion) in emergency aid for Ukraine before parliamentary elections scheduled for February 23. Scholz’s office, however, is blocking the plan, the newspaper said.
It added that the foreign and defense ministries intend to ask the German parliament’s budget committee for additional funds because the planned budget does not include money for Kiev’s urgent needs and because of the uncertainty surrounding the incoming US administration’s Ukraine policy.
Scholz’s cabinet, in turn, explains its veto of the plan with the unwillingness to present the government that will be formed after the elections with an already decided fact, the newspaper said.
Another possible motive behind the Chancellor’s stance could be the fear of scaring the SDP voters with another expensive aid package.
In late December, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he had decided to dissolve the Bundestag and call early elections for February 23.
Scholz suggested Steinmeier dissolve parliament after a majority of lawmakers supported a no-confidence vote in his government on Dec. 16. Of the 717 lawmakers who took part in the vote, 394 voted against Scholz as chancellor, while 207 voted in favor and 116 abstained. A minimum of 367 votes in favor or against was required for a vote of confidence or withdrawal of confidence.
Russia has said that the West’s arms deliveries to Ukraine hinder the settlement of the conflict and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia.
150 EU officials expected to monitor Elon Musk conversation with Alice Weidel, possible ban on the table
Remix News | January 9, 2025
The European Union’s outrage is only growing over a planned interview hosted by Elon Musk later today with Alternative for Germany (AfD) party co-chair Alice Weidel. Now, Politico is reporting that 150 EU officials are expected to attend the conversation between Musk and Weidel for the purpose of learning whether X is complying with EU rules. In addition, French politicians are already talking about an EU-wide ban.
The claim is that there are fears that Musk’s team will manipulate the algorithm to provide the interview more attention. However, Musk has over 200 million followers and nearly all of his posts receive millions and often tens of millions of views, which makes it certain that the interview, which has also been widely advertised, will receive significant attention.
Weidel has also taken to X about the surveillance of the upcoming interview.
“Big Brother is watching you: 150 EU officials are supposed to monitor my conversation with @elonmusk. An EU that uses its bureaucracy to exercise censorship on social media is instilling the spirit of unfreedom. The #dsa threatens democracy!” she wrote
The officials overseeing the interview are “given relatively extensive power,” according to Politico. They will be able to use, among other things, the Digital Services Act (DSA) to monitor how the algorithm works and how content is being displayed to users.
Politico writes that Musk allegedly pushed certain posts in the past, including one about the Super Bowl in the past. The alleged reason was that Musk was mad that one of President Biden’s posts were getting more attention.
The EU officials are working with experts from the European Center for Algorithmic Transparency” in Seville to determine if such an action will occur once again. However, they will not release this information immediately. Instead, it will like be added to a general procedure against X.
A wide range of EU leaders fear losing power due to shifting public sentiment, and Musk’s X represents their top threat. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, called for a decisive stand against political influence. When asked whether a ban on X, in the same style as Brazil, was possible, he responded: “That is possible under our laws.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez also claimed Musk was pushing “hate” and warned against the rise of fascism in Europe.
SPD General-Secretary Matthias Miersch said that Musk’s influence on Germany’s elections now “call into question the foundations of democracy.”
However, Musk is unlikely to manipulate the algorithm in favor of Weidel especially when enough people are already likely to watch the interview without any interference. Absent some overt manipulation, it is unclear what could possibly be illegal about such an interview. Musk is allowed to interview Weidel. That is his right and her right. The bigger problem would be if he censored anyone who criticized such an interview or manipulated the algorithm to suppress this criticism, which is undoubtedly what the old Twitter regime did before his purchase — all of which the EU actively supported
The head of Germany’s Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, appeared to take a more measured approach to the issue.
“Not everything that you get upset about is also illegal,” said Müller on Thursday morning on Deutschlandfunk. “In election campaigns, you also have to put up with things that you personally find inappropriate, indecent or unacceptable.” Freedom of expression always means “the freedom of those whose opinion you do not share.”
He said that the excitement over the Musk interview was “understandable” but it must first be observed whether any laws are actually broken during the process. He noted, however, that people could choose simply not to listen to the interview.
Germany: Green-led agency warns Facebook of potential sanctions after Zuckerberg says he will end censorship regime
Remix News | January 8, 2025
Germany and the European Union are in an uproar after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he was going to take efforts to end censorship on Facebook and Instagram, including the termination of Meta’s relationship with fact-checkers who Zuckerberg accused of political bias.
Given that much of the EU power runs on political censorship, Brussels and member states like Germany are worried they might lose control of the political narrative, especially when left-liberal leaders are falling from power across the Western world.
The Federal Network Agency in Germany, which reports to German Economic Minister Robert Habeck, is threatening that Facebook could more likely face sanctions if it does not continue its “fact checking” relationship with controversial organizations like Correctiv, known for its hit pieces on the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
The Green Federal Network Agency boss is threatening Facebook with sanctions if it does not resume working with “fact checkers” such as “Correctiv”. This has led to censorship on a large scale, as Zuckerberg admitted.
Klaus Müller, of the Greens and who runs the Federal Network Agency, wrote on X on Wednesday morning according to the Digital Service Act (DSA), “the cooperation of very large online platforms with fact-checking organizations is not mandatory, but their risk of sanctions is reduced if they do so in the EU.” EU election guidelines also note that the presence of fact checkers is considered “a risk-minimizing measure in elections” with regard to “systemic risks.”
“If a (Very Large Online Provider) VLOP does not work with fact checkers, it must prove that it is taking other, equally effective risk-minimizing measures,” he further wrote.
Zuckerberg admits that these fact-checkers have helped drive a regime of censorship on his platform. He notes that these organizations have exerted pressure to “censor more and more.”
However, German media reports that Facebook is still currently working with Correctiv. It is unclear when that relationship will end — if ever.
Zuckerberg says he now wants to switch to a community notes system like the one deployed by Elon Musk on X. Notably, he wants to lift restrictions on certain issues, such as immigration and gender issues, and adjust filters to allow free expression on the platform.
As Remix News reported, our own news site has come under attack from Facebook censors in the past, reducing our reach from millions of views a week to a few thousand a week as of now.
Germany’s gun grab? Saxony-Anhalt begins disarming AfD members
Remix News | January 6, 2025
Authorities in Germany have begun withdrawing gun ownership licenses from Alternative for Germany (AfD) members, who are deemed a “danger to public safety.”
So far, five AfD members have received a notice that their gun license would be revoked, while another member voluntarily returned his license after a revocation procedure was initiated. Another 51 cases are currently being examined by authorities, according to data released by the Saxony-Anhalt Interior Ministry in response to a request for information from the Left Party.
Hunters and sport shooters will also have their gun licenses canceled by authorities. In total, there are 74 members of the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt that hold a firearms license, with 49 registered as sport shooters and 25 as hunters.
The revocation of gun licenses comes after the Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s powerful domestic intelligence agency, classified the AfD as “certainly right-wing extremist.” With this designation, AfD members suddenly faced a litany of problems. For one, authorities could spy on their communications without any warrant; however, authorities could also seize their firearms, and members could also face issues with government employment.
The efforts to disarm AfD members won praise from the Left Party’s parliamentary group leader Eva von Angern.
“The first revocation notices show that, after individual examination, these people pose a threat to public safety,” she said to German news outlet Mitteldeutsche Zeitung.
As Remix News has reported in the past, the BfV has also been active designating the AfD as an extremist threat in other states such as North Rhine-Westphalia, where gun owners are also under threat of having their firearms taken away from them.
The BfV is a highly politicized intelligence agency targeting domestic “threats” to the constitutional order, while critics contend it is designed to snuff out political opposition. The agency is currently monitoring AfD members in a number of states, including tapping their phones and surveilling their internet communications, all without a warrant. Currently, their membership in the party offers enough legal grounds to target what is the second-largest party in the country.
In 2023, the Gera Administrative Court ruled that the Thuringian Ministry of the Interior cannot revoke firearms licenses of AfD members in a blanket measure; however, it left the door open for individual cases.
Angela Merkel’s Revelation: The Minsk Agreements Were Not Intended To Be Pursued
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – January 4, 2025
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.
German MP calls for NordStream to be reactivated
RT | January 3, 2025
Germany should respond to the rising energy prices caused by Ukraine’s halting of Russian gas transit by repairing and reactivating the Nord Stream pipelines, leftist German MP Sevim Dagdelen has said.
Ukraine refused to extend its transit contract with Russia’s Gazprom beyond the end of 2024, effectively cutting off the flow of natural gas to some EU countries as of Wednesday. Under the old contract, Ukraine moved gas through its own pipeline network and into Moldova, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, and then on to Austria and Italy.
Ukraine’s decision caused EU gas prices to spike to €50 per megawatt hour, a figure unseen since October 2023.
“Ukraine drives the energy price up further by stopping the transit of Russian gas in Europe,” Dagdelen wrote on X on Thursday, complaining that “the German government and the EU are happily watching the destruction of European industry due to high energy prices.”
Energy costs soared in Germany after the government renounced Russian oil and gas imports in 2022. Whereas the country once relied on Russia for around 55% of its natural gas supply, it has struggled to make up the shortfall, and its leading manufacturers – including Volkswagen, Bosch, and BASF – have all announced layoffs and plant closures.
Prior to the start of the Ukraine conflict, Germany received gas from Russia via the Nord Stream 1 pipelines, while Nord Stream 2 was due to come online in 2022. Berlin revoked the certification for Nord Stream 2 several days before Russia’s military operation in Ukraine began, and both sets of lines were destroyed in an act of sabotage in September of that year.
While German investigators have reportedly settled on the theory that the pipelines were destroyed by Ukrainian saboteurs, American journalist Seymour Hersh maintains that they were blown up by the CIA and US Navy. The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has blamed “professional saboteurs from the Anglo-American special services,” referring to the US and UK.
In her post, Dagdelen called for the pipelines to “finally be put into operation,” and for the German government to “stop giving money to Kiev!”
Dagdelen is a member of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), a leftist political faction that supports rapprochement with Russia and shares the right-wing Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) anti-immigration stance. The party’s leader, Sahra Wagenknecht, recently blamed the Ukraine conflict on the failure of the US to acknowledge Russia’s “red lines.”
Back in September, Wagenknecht declared that “if Ukraine is responsible for the terrorist act against the German energy supply, the arms deliveries must end immediately and the question of compensation must be put on the table.”
Dagdelen is not the first German MP to demand that Nord Stream be reopened. In September, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla called the undersea pipes “a lifeline of German industry,” and declared that “Nord Stream must be repaired, opened, and secured.”
2025 Looks Bleak For Germany… Energy The Most Expensive In Europe … Growing Speech Tyranny
2025 in Germany will be a year of more energy inflation and loss of free speech rights
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | January 1, 2025
Effective today, Germany’s CO2 surcharge will rise from 45 euros a tonne to 55 euros, which will further fan inflation and social discontent.
Already Germany’s electricity prices are among the highest in the world, and the most expensive in Europe:
Chart: strom-report.com/
Germany clamps down on dissenters, free speech
2025 will not be an easy year for dissenters and critics of the government, as this is increasingly being criminalized in Germany thanks to recently passed laws and acts that aim to suppress free speech in Germany.
The former head Germany’s Constitution Protection Authority (Bundesverfassungsschutz), Thomas Haldenwang (CDU Party), suggested last February when presenting measures to fight right-wing extremism, that human thoughts and speech patterns need to be under surveillance and become the business of the government: “It’s also about shifting verbal and mental boundaries. We have to be careful that thought and language patterns don’t become embedded in our language.”
Mocking the state now verboten
Haldenwang’s boss, Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD Party), wants to treat vocal conservative protesters in the same way as organized crime groups: “Those who mock the state must deal with a strong state.”
“We want to take account of the fact that hate on the internet also occurs below the threshold of criminal liability,”said Federal Minister for Family Affairs Lisa Paus (Greens) at her press conference on February 13 on the topic of ‘Hate on the Internet’.“Many enemies of democracy know exactly what falls under freedom of expression on social media platforms,”
Meant by “enemies of democracy” here are opposition forces, even when democratically elected.
Unwanted election results may be annulled
In response to comments in favor of the conservatives made by Elon Musk, German President Frank Walter Steinmeier hinted he would annul the results of the upcoming February 23 national elections if he doesn’t like the results.
So in Germany, it’s watch what you say and, if the old parties don’t like the election results, then they might just annul them. Germany is slipping back quickly to darker times.
Germany whining it’s defenseless against ‘Oreshnik’ after initially mocking it
By Drago Bosnic | December 30, 2024
After the Russian military’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) used the latest “Oreshnik” missile in Dnepropetrovsk on November 21, the world was left shocked, with news ranging from “end of the world” scaremongering to ridicule. Some major German media outlets resorted to the latter, with Julian Roepcke (better known as Jihadi Julian), one of the more prominent “military experts” at the Bild, a German tabloid, saying that the missile “likely carried no explosive charge and did not cause any significant damage”. Roepcke’s report, published on November 23, says that the launch was “a propaganda and political action rather than a military one”, as there was “neither a nuclear charge nor explosives inside”. The German author insists “that’s the reason the damage was so insignificant”. As many analysts have already suggested (myself included, both last year and in April), Roepcke also believes that the missile is most likely based on the RS-26 “Rubezh” (although this is yet to be confirmed). However, he erroneously thought that “the ‘Oreshnik’ didn’t contain explosives or a warhead and would have been equipped with a substitute of the same size and weight to simulate the appearance of a nuclear warhead”. While this is true for regular missile tests, the launch of the “Oreshnik” was anything but. Namely, the RVSN used 36 advanced kinetic penetrators to strike heavily fortified targets, including those deep underground. Thus, it’s quite clear that Roepcke’s virtually immediate disregard of the “Oreshnik’s” capabilities was a careless miscalculation, to say the least.
President Vladimir Putin himself stated that the missile is effectively unstoppable, but this too was met with disregard and even ridicule. For some inexplicable reason, neither the mainstream propaganda machine nor its bosses in the political West’s leadership seem to be able to learn from their mistakes. Namely, when President Putin says something, it should be taken very seriously. For instance, back in 2004, just two years after the United States announced its unilateral withdrawal from the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty, he publicly promised that Russia would resume the development of hypersonic weapons started during the (First) Cold War. However, nobody listened, as NATO was convinced that the Eurasian giant was “finished” (nothing could be further from true).
Just two years after that speech, Moscow inducted the “Iskander-M” missile system, along with its 9M723 hypersonic missile. Since then, the Russian military acquired at least a dozen types of such weapons, resulting in an advantage measured in decades. Back in 2019, I argued that the Kremlin was at least 20 years ahead of its NATO adversaries, including the US. This turned out to be not only true, but it can even be argued that the “Oreshnik” ensured this advantage grows further. Now, much unlike Roepcke, it seems that the German military understands just how outclassed it is, especially by such weapons. Namely, Roepcke’s own newspaper, the Bild, disagrees with his previously mentioned report about the “Oreshnik”. First, the outlet lamented that Russia deployed the missile in Belarus.
According to the report, a recently leaked internal document showed that the Federal Foreign Office (AA) warned that “Germany is not adequately protected against this deadly danger”. Interestingly, the document also posits that “the current protection provided by ‘Patriot’ systems is not sufficient” and that “the federal government now wants to close the gap”. The report also points out that interception rates are atrocious and that the extremely overhyped US-made ABM/SAM (surface-to-air missile) system would “base their performance on sheer luck” when it comes to intercepting Russian missiles (particularly something like the “Oreshnik”). The Bild also added that Berlin would purchase the Israeli “Arrow” ABM system to “help strengthen Germany’s defense against new types of missiles”.
It’s quite interesting that the Germans openly said that the “Patriot” cannot effectively intercept hypersonic weapons. Namely, for nearly three years, the Neo-Nazi junta has been saying its forces regularly “shoot down” Russian hypersonic missiles. I’ve argued numerous times that such claims are virtually guaranteed to be nothing more than war propaganda. Simply put, the numbers behind all this just don’t add up. This fact is supported by other globally renowned experts, including senior military officers. Namely, retired Group Captain Uttam Kumar Devnath from the Indian Air Force recently stated that “Russia’s ‘Oreshnik’ missile system is beyond the interception capabilities of Western defense systems like the ‘Patriot’ and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense)”.
“The ‘Oreshnik’, described as a hypersonic, intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), is claimed to travel at speeds that exceed Mach 10, making it, according to Devnath, ‘too fast for radar targeting’. This speed, coupled with its maneuverability, purportedly renders it impervious to interception by current Western missile defense technologies,” the Indian Defence Research Wing reported, quoting Group Captain Devnath and adding: “The ‘Oreshnik’s’ velocity and ability to alter its trajectory are cited as key reasons why systems like the ‘Patriot’, designed to counter ballistic threats, would fail to engage it effectively. Devnath highlighted the missile’s design, suggesting it leverages stealth technologies and hypersonic flight principles to evade detection and interception.”
President Putin has already publicly called on NATO to pick any target, deploy its much-touted SAM/ABM systems to defend it and promised that the Russian military would neutralize it either way. Such confidence serves as a testament to Moscow’s unrivaled hypersonic capabilities. Obviously, the political West would never accept such a proposal, which speaks volumes about the veracity of the claims that NATO-sourced missile defenses are supposedly “shooting down” Russian hypersonic weapons left and right. It should also be noted that the usually quoted speed of Mach 10 for the “Oreshnik” is quite misleading, as the missile it was based on, namely the RS-26 “Rubezh”, can actually fly at speeds of anywhere between Mach 20 and Mach 25 (7-8,5 km/s or 25,000-30,000 km/h).
The “Oreshnik” is not only a major asset for Russia, but also for the whole multipolar world, as it offers a massive advantage in non-nuclear strategic deterrence. Although surely nuclear-capable, the “Oreshnik” is armed with a conventional MIRV/MaRV/HGV payload composed of 36 advanced kinetic penetrators (six in each of the six warheads). Coupled with its speed and maneuverability, this makes it the most powerful conventional weapon ever devised. This combination is what makes hypersonic weapons effectively impossible to track and intercept. Namely, unlike traditional ballistic missiles which fly at a predictable path, hypersonic weapons maneuver, making the interception based on the calculations of ballistic computers completely useless and void.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
US could buy Nord Stream – Vucic
RT | December 27, 2024
The sabotaged Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline could become US property in a year, and gas supplies from Russia to the EU would be resumed, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has said.
Vucic shared his view about the future of the pipeline and its potential ownership in an interview with the German news outlet Handelsblatt published on Friday.
“I dare to predict: In a year at the latest, Nord Stream will be owned by an American investor, and gas will flow from Russia to Europe through the pipeline,” the Serbian leader said. “Mark my words. One year until Nord Stream is up and running!”
The pipeline, which was built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Western Europe, was ruptured by explosions at the bottom of the Baltic Sea in September 2022.
Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that US financier and investor Stephen Lynch had asked permission from the US Treasury Department to buy the sabotaged Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline if it is put up for auction next year.
The financier said a deal for the Russian pipeline could be seen as a strategic opportunity for long-term US interests. The ownership of the pipeline would give the American government a tool to exert pressure in any peace negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine conflict, Lynch told the WSJ.
Lynch reportedly said he could buy the Nord Stream 2, which has been valued at around $11 billion, for “pennies on the dollar,” adding that it would be a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for the US to take control over the EU’s energy supply.
While no one claimed responsibility for the 2022 attack on the pipeline, Western media outlets have reported that people linked to Ukraine were behind the operation.
Moscow has argued that the US benefited from the attack due to its position as a supplier of liquefied natural gas to Europe, and pointed the finger at Washington as a possible culprit.
The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, said last month that his agency had information about the “direct involvement” of professionals from the US and British special services in the Nord Stream sabotage. London and Washington, as well as Kiev, have denied any involvement.
Decline of German Greens the result of stupid energy policy and war madness
By Patrick Poppel | December 25, 2024
The Green Party is currently preparing for the federal election. To this end, they also put original green concerns up for discussion. The Greens’ entire election campaign is now tailored to their top candidate, Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck, a special election campaign where a personality is put in the foreground.
Criticism of the minister should be avoided as much as possible, at least until the date of the federal election. But the concept didn’t fully work. Some Greens close to the climate movement, such as Luisa Neubauer, noted that Habeck simply questioned a central goal of green climate policy in an interview.
In an interview that Habeck gave at the industrial summit, he answered the question of whether the date of the coal phase-out was in question: “Yes. For me, energy security is always the current priority.” Now the answer is also fodder for the many Habeck opponents in the parties, who have for years accused Habeck of an ideological energy policy that leads to the de-industrialization of the country.
In mid-December, when Habeck gave the interview, the price of electricity on the exchange had risen massively due to the dark season, no wind and hardly any sun. Even a steelworks in Saxony had to be disconnected from the energy grid for a short time because of this. Of course, this is not good news for a Green candidate for chancellor.
But Habeck avoided discussing his statements further. He preferred to talk about the fact that the construction of new gas-fired power plants was intended to compensate for the electricity loss caused by nuclear and coal-fired power plants being taken off the grid.
However, due to the premature end of the federal coalition, the Power Plant Act can no longer be implemented during this government period. Whether it will be back on the Bundestag agenda after the new elections also depends on whether the Greens will return to government responsibility.
According to current surveys, the CDU/CSU (Union Party) is likely to become the strongest party and could enter into an alliance with the SPD (Social Democrats) or the Greens. At the same time, there are politicians in the CDU and even more so in the CSU who almost see Habeck as their main opponent and, above all, no longer want to see him in the Federal Ministry of Economics.
But it’s not just about the reputation of the party’s top candidate. So now everyone asks themselves the question; what are the themes of the party, which at the beginning of its existence campaigned for peace in Europe and the protection and improvement of the ecology.
When it comes to peace and weapons disarmament, the Greens have finally switched to the other side since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict in 2014. No other party is as committed to escalation with Russia as the former green “Peace Party”. Both the Union Party and the Greens want to send Ukraine even more and accurate weapons against the Russian army.
But this course is also causing more and more Green voters to think, as this decision goes exactly against the party’s original direction. But in addition to the peace issue, the failure and unclear approach to energy policy is certainly also a point that will have a negative impact on the election.
First the party was against nuclear energy, then for solar power and wind turbines, then against coal-fired power plants and now against gas from Russia. Many voters are no longer familiar with this issue and are confused.
It is particularly tragic that the Greens are completely failing on exactly these two core issues of peace and energy. If this course continues, the future of this party is very uncertain.
Of course, the Greens are always a very interesting junior partner for large parties, as the current situation shows that they make a lot of compromises in order to be able to become part of a government. But with this behavior they regularly lose favor with their voters and always receive poor results in the following elections. All surveys show this clearly.
Since the Greens lost a lot of power, especially in the last regional elections in eastern Germany, it is clear that this party is unlikely to be successful in the federal elections. The Green Party of Germany has put itself in a situation from which it will be difficult to get out.
The only role this party can play in the future is as an extremely small, compromise-ready junior partner of other parties, which are trying by all means possible to prevent the patriotic forces from participating in the government.
Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade.

