Israeli naval commandos conducted a raid in northern Lebanon on 1 November, abducting one Lebanese man, prominent journalist Hasan Illaik reported for Al-Mahatta.
Some 25 soldiers landed Friday on the Lebanese coast in Batroun, a Christian town south of Tripoli. They raided a chalet near the beach and abducted a Lebanese man before escaping in speedboats, the report says.
Illaik provided surveillance camera footage from the incident showing a group of soldiers taking the abducted person with them.
The abducted man has been identified as Imad Amhaz, who had been attending a month-long captain’s training course at a maritime institute located in the area.
Illaik reported further that Lebanese security forces are investigating the incident and suspect the Israeli commandos collaborated with German naval forces deployed to the Lebanese coast as part of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
By collaborating with German naval forces, the Israeli commandos could ensure that the Lebanese Navy, which is active in the region to combat smuggling to Europe, would not be able to disrupt the operation.
Illaik suggested that the Israeli commandos were likely from the Shayetet 13 or Sayeret Matkal divisions of the Israeli military.
Shayetet 13 specializes in sea-to-land incursions, sabotage, maritime intelligence gathering, maritime hostage rescue, and boarding.
Sayeret Matkal is a special reconnaissance unit (sayeret) of Israel’s General Staff (matkal).
On Saturday afternoon, Lebanon’s Caretaker Minister of Public Works and Transportation, Ali Hamieh, told the media that “The kidnapped person is a sea captain of civilian and commercial ships and is receiving his education at a civilian institute.”
He added that the government and security institutions are conducting the necessary investigations.
Saudi news station Al-Hadath claimed that the abducted man was a top Hezbollah operative, citing sources within the Islamic resistance movement.
However, Hezbollah’s media relations department rejected the Al-Hadath claim.
The media relations department issued a statement, saying: “Our policy is very clear; we have previously explained and confirmed in past statements that there are no sources in Hezbollah or sources close to Hezbollah that would provide such alleged information to Al Hadath and its affiliated channels, which are openly engaged in the Zionist propaganda machine against our resistance and the Lebanese people.”
Ukraine is apparently trying to interfere in the domestic politics of its European “partners.” Recently, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany tried to pressure German political parties not to cooperate with parties or public figures who oppose the military aid program to Kiev. This shows how desperate the neo-Nazi regime is to prevent any decrease in its international support, as this would mean the end of its military capability.
Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Aleksey Makeev, has recently launched a blackmail campaign against local political parties that advocate a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict. Makeev has publicly stated that all leading German politicians should avoid any involvement in projects aimed at reducing or ending Germany’s participation in the war against the Russian Federation.
The statement came shortly after the establishment of the so-called “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance” (BSW), a coalition of political parties and social movements opposed to German participation in the war. The group is being led by the well-known German left-wing leader Sahra Wagenknecht. According to Sahra, there needs to be “more diplomatic efforts,” and it is not right for Berlin to engage in military initiatives.
“We need more diplomatic efforts (…) There is a good peace plan by Brazil and China. I hope that Germany and the EU will support such initiatives (…) It is not about being a friend or enemy to Russia, but about peace in Europe and [ending] the war in Ukraine. Without peace, everything else is nothing (…) (Germany became) an internationally respected voice that mediates in conflicts and advocates diplomacy,” she said at the time.
Apparently, despite the hegemonic status of the anti-Russian lobby in Germany, the proposal has taken the attention of many local politicians and activists, which is why Ukraine decided to “react”. The Ukrainian ambassador announced that local “democratic parties” should avoid participating in such initiatives, considering “intolerable” any possibility of Berlin cooperating with a diplomatic solution project.
“If politicians from democratic parties need support in dealing with the intolerable ultimatums of non-democratic actors, particularly in foreign policy matters, I am ready to share my own experience of negotiating with Russia,” he said.
The ambassador’s words were just the continuation of a series of recent statements against any form of alliance with pro-peace activists in Germany. Previously, he had already said that no party should “give in” to the BSW. He called all German anti-war activists “populists”, suggesting that any peace initiatives are mere meaningless populist rhetoric.
“Anyone who adopts the slogans of the BSW will only lose themselves. Democratic parties must not allow populists at either the regional or the federal level to dissuade them from solidarity with Ukraine,” he said.
It is important to emphasize that the Ukrainian Embassy is not merely criticizing the initiative. Such an attitude would be natural for Kiev, since the regime is in the midst of an armed conflict with Moscow. But what is happening is actually deeper. The Ukrainian ambassador is simply demanding that German parties not take part in a movement that has emerged in Germany itself. In other words, he is trying to tell German politicians what to do in their own country.
It is not surprising that Ukraine is using its diplomatic apparatus to lobby for war. While this practice is wrong and reprehensible – since the very purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war – there is nothing really surprising in this case, considering that the Kiev regime is simply implementing the same practices that have already become commonplace among its Western allies and sponsors.
The Ukrainian action is motivated by desperation and fear. The Zionist lobby feels “threatened” by the BSW initiative. The coalition showed interesting electoral results in key German regions such as Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia, where it achieved around 15% of the vote – concluding the regional elections in third place. There has been a growth of anti-war sentiment in some cities in the former East Germany, where people usually have very critical views of Berlin’s foreign policy.
However, unlike its Western sponsors, Ukraine does not have enough power to profoundly influence the domestic politics of other countries. The lobby that the Ukrainian embassy is promoting is likely to fail, as popular dissatisfaction with the pro-war stance of the German government is growing. In the end, all Ukrainian blackmail efforts will prove useless, as it is inevitable that there will be a growth of anti-war initiatives in Germany – both among politicians and among ordinary people.
The European Union is hoping to install a ‘Jawohl government’ in Hungary as it did in Poland, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said, vowing to resist such plans.
Orban came under attack by 13 EU member states on Monday, after he visited Georgia and commended its government for a fair and democratic election. Meanwhile, the EU leadership has embraced the Georgian opposition’s claims that the vote had been marred by irregularities.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Orban issued a reminder that two powerful German officials in Brussels are hoping to replace his government with one more willing to obey their orders – just as they boasted about doing in Poland last year.
“There’s an open conspiracy against Hungary led by Manfred Weber and President [Ursula] Von der Leyen.” Orban said. “They admitted that their aim is to replace the Hungarian government with a new ‘Jawohl government’, just like the current Polish one. We will not let this happen!”
He included a minute-long video from his recent radio interview, where he explained the matter in detail.
There’s an open conspiracy against Hungary led by @ManfredWeber and President @vonderleyen . They admitted that their aim is to replace the Hungarian government with a new “Jawohl government”, just like the current Polish one. We will not let this happen! pic.twitter.com/HWIpYFKaDy
In the video, Orban showed EU officials declaring that his government should be replaced by the opposition and boasting that they had done so in Poland – whose previous government also defied many of the orders from Brussels – last year, by installing former European Council chair Donald Tusk as prime minister.
‘Jawohl’ is the German word used to respond to commands. Orban used it because the head of the European People’s Party (EPP) faction in the bloc’s parliament, Manfred Weber, and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, are both German.
“We call what they want a ‘Jawohl’ government. So you get a phone call from Brussels or Berlin, and then you have to say ‘Jawohl’! And then it must be done,” Orban told the national broadcaster Kossuth on Friday.
“The Poles were also going their own way,” Orban added. “They also pursued their own independent Polish policy in migration, gender, and the economy. They were on the same page as the Westerners when it came to the [Russia-Ukraine conflict], but not in all other matters.” The EPP then openly announced that the conservative Polish government would leave and be replaced with another, the Hungarian prime minister explained. “This is how our friend Tusk became prime minister in Poland. Now the same scenario exists in the case of Hungary.”
“This is not even a secret conspiracy against Hungary, this is a plan they announced openly,” Orban said. “I was sitting there, they said it to my face.”
MOSCOW – Denmark prevented the initiation of an independent international investigation into the explosion of Nord Stream pipelines, the country is not interested in establishing the truth, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin said commenting on the possibility of the Danish side resuming the investigation.
“This would contradict the logic of the Danish side’s behavior. Denmark curtailed its own investigation, rejected any interaction with the Russian side, prevented the initiation of an independent international investigation under the auspices of the UN, concealed the fact of the presence of American warships in the area of the explosions on the eve of this terrorist attack on the gas pipelines,” he said.
The head of the diplomatic mission noted that Copenhagen had no interest in establishing the truth.
“The Danish authorities are obviously concerned that the investigation may reveal inconvenient facts and evidence that will compromise both Euro-Atlantic solidarity and further arms supplies to the Kiev regime,” the ambassador added.
Denmark and Sweden stopped investigating the Nord Stream explosions in February 2024.
The explosions on two Russian export gas pipelines to Europe, Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, occurred on September 26, 2022. Germany, Denmark and Sweden did not rule out deliberate sabotage. Nord Stream AG, the operator of Nord Stream, said that the destruction of the gas pipelines was unprecedented and that it was impossible to estimate the repair time. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has initiated a case on an act of international terrorism. Russia has repeatedly requested data on the explosions on Nord Stream, but has never received it, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
Data revealed by the German Foreign Ministry on Thursday indicates that Germany has approved over $100 million in military exports to “Israel” over the past three months, marking a significant increase following a drop in arms exports earlier this year.
The arms exports, valued at approximately €94 million ($101.61 million), have drawn scrutiny after the information was released in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Left Party MP Sevim Dagdelen.
This news comes as the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) announced it has filed an appeal with the Frankfurt Administrative Court on behalf of a Gaza resident.
The plaintiff, a Palestinian resident of Gaza, lost his wife and daughter in Israeli airstrikes and argues that Germany’s continued weapons shipments could further endanger civilians in the region.
“The case challenges Germany’s responsibility in ensuring that its military exports are not used in ways that cause civilian harm,” stated the ECCHR in a press release.
The focus of the case is on Germany’s approval of specific military components, including those used in “Israel’s” Merkava tanks, which are produced by German defense company Rheinmetall AG.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Rheinmetall AG have yet to comment on the appeal, leaving questions about the potential use of German-made components in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Germany has consistently been a significant arms supplier to “Israel”, ranking as the second-largest exporter after the US.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany accounted for 30% of “Israel’s” major arms imports between 2019 and 2023.
In 2023, Germany approved arms exports to “Israel” valued at approximately €326.5 million ($353 million), marking a substantial increase compared to previous years.
Note that X, rebranded as a “free speech platform,” provides information on platform users to the governments of EU member states in connection with not just illegal speech — and, yes, national legislation in EU countries includes many “speech crimes” — but also legal speech that is deemed “harmful.”
This is the real innovation involved in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA): It creates an obligation for platforms to take action in the form of “content moderation” against not just illegal content, but also ostensibly harmful content such as “disinformation.” Note that in the period covered in X’s latest “Transparency Report” to the EU on its “content moderation” efforts, nearly 90% of such requests for information on the purveyors of ostensibly “illegal or harmful speech” came from just one country: Germany. See the below chart.
Note that X also takes action against posts or accounts for “illegal or harmful speech” that is reported to it by EU member states or the European Commission. Such action may involve deletion or geo-blocking (“withholding”) of content. But, as the “enforcement options” linked in the report make clear, it can also involve various forms of “visibility filtering” or restricting engagement — “in accordance with our Freedom of Speech, Not Reach enforcement philosophy,” as the report puts it.
Here again, Germany is top of the table, having submitted 42% of all the reports to X on “illegal or harmful speech” and nearly 50% of the reports from member states. See the chart below. Germany submitted nearly twice as many reports as any other member state — France finished a distant second — and over ten times more reports than comparably-sized Italy. The European Commission submitted around 15% of the reports.
It is also notable that Germany submitted by far the most reports on content entailing “negative effects on civic discourse or elections,” yet another category of speech that is clearly not illegal per se but that is deemed “harmful” enough under the DSA regime to require suppression. (Hence, while the content is not per se illegal, it would be illegal for platforms under the DSA not to suppress it. This ambiguity is at the very heart of the DSA censorship regime.) Germany submitted well over half of all such reports and over 60% of the reports from member states.
Finally, it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of these reports and the related “enforcement actions” undoubtedly involve English-language content. This can be gleaned from the fact that nearly 90% of X’s “content moderation team” consists of English speakers. The “primary language” of 1,535 of the team’s 1,726 members is English, as can be seen in the below chart.
But why should Germany or the EU be accorded any jurisdiction over English-language discourse? Needless to say, Germans are not as a rule native English speakers and only 1.5% of the total EU population has English as their mother tongue.
In any case, two things are very clear from X’s “Transparency Report.” One is that Elon Musk’s “free speech platform” is not that and is in fact devoting enormous resources, both in terms of “trained” human censors and programming, to complying with the EU’s censorship regime. And the other is that Germany is the EU’s — and hence undoubtedly the world’s — undisputed, online censorship champion.
There were 226,350 “enforcement actions” taken by X in response to reports from EU member states or the EU Commission in the reporting period covering barely more than three months. This is to say nothing of the “enforcement actions” taken proactively by X in accordance with its own DSA-compatible terms of service and rules.
Lest readers have trouble reconciling the foregoing with the viral kerfuffle between Elon Musk and Thierry Breton and the famous “proceedings” against X that were initiated under Breton’s leadership, please see Jordi Calvet-Bademunt’s helpful account of the “preliminary findings” of the EU Commission’s investigation here.
According to a new Bloomberg report, EU officials are even contemplating taking into account the revenues of some of Musk’s other companies in calculating a potential fine against him. Needless to say, despite the fact that the sources are unnamed, this has been widely construed as a further escalation in a mammoth free speech struggle between Musk and the EU.
But as Calvet-Bademunt’s analysis shows, the EU’s case against X, as it now stands, has nothing to do with insufficient “content moderation” — or, in other words, censorship — but merely concerns other, more arcane, aspects of the DSA.
Interestingly, the original proceedings opened against X did indeed involve “content moderation” and — believe it or not – could even have had a positive impact on freedom of speech, since X was ostensibly being investigated not for failing to remove or suppress user content, but rather for failing to inform users about such “content moderation decisions” or, in other words, shadowbanning. But, as Calvet-Bademunt shows, this aspect has been dropped from the investigation.
The fact of the matter, in any case, is that no online platform of any size can remain on the EU market and be a “free speech platform.” The DSA makes this impossible.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs.
The Western alliance spurned Russian aspirations for improved relations and the creation of a Europe-wide security architecture after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, swallowing up all of Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact allies and seven former Soviet and Yugoslav republics, and sparking a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
German defense chief Boris Pistorius presided over the unveiling a new NATO naval HQ in Rostock, northeastern Germany on Monday, with the facility not only threatening to exacerbate tensions with Russia, but violating a key deal on the non-deployment of alliance forces in the territory of the former East Germany.
The Commander Task Force Baltic HQ “will play a crucial role in the preparation of military situation reports and in responding to regional challenges, including the protection of NATO member states’ interests against aggressive actions, particularly given the proximity of Russia,” Pistorius said.
“The Baltic Sea has always been at the crossroads of Europe’s history and it is much more than just a waterway. It is a vital corridor for trade, military mobility, and energy security. It is a strategic area of great geopolitical importance and a frontline in our collective defense against evolving threats,” Pistorius said, going on to accuse Russia of “challenging” regional security “on almost a daily basis.”
The HQ will be commanded by a German, with Polish and Swedish officers serving as deputies. Formal goals of the base, manned by 60 personnel (expandable to 240 in a pinch), include improving interoperability, planning joint drills and overseeing regional military deployments.
The facility also happens to be illegal. In 1990, during talks on German reunification, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev approved Bonn’s annexation of East Germany on the condition that NATO troops not be stationed in the Federal Republic’s new territories.
Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the pact, formally called the Two-Plus-Four Treaty, states that “Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers shall not be stationed in or transferred to this part of Germany.”
On Tuesday, Germany’s ambassador to Russia was summoned and slapped with a protest in connection with the Rostock HQ, with the Foreign Ministry emphasizing that the hostile move will not be left without a response.
“The ambassador was informed that this step by Germany’s ruling circles constituted a continuation of the creeping revision of the results of the Second World War, and the militarization of Germany. It was also a gross violation of the spirit and letter of the Two-Plus-Four Treaty… We demanded immediate and comprehensive explanations from Berlin,” the Ministry said in a statement.
“Washington, Brussels and Berlin must be aware that the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure into the territory of the former GDR will have the most negative consequences, and will not remain without an appropriate response from the Russian side,” the Ministry added.
Throughout the decades of the Cold War, whilst the blocs were competing, two major attractions worked powerfully to the advantage of the West. Firstly, the comfort and prosperity that it was able to provide to its citizens, which its Eastern rivals could hardly match. The second feature that in the eyes of the world gave the West a huge competitive edge was the comparatively better performance of its institutions with regard to individual liberties.
The twin advantages of prosperity and the impression that the West valued freedom successfully neutralised much of the theoretical critique of the capitalist social and economic model. In particular, the West’s ostensible commitment to personal liberties acted as a powerful magnet. As a political weapon it served its purpose effectively. It is indisputable that so long as scrupulous adherence to the rule of law and respect for individual rights were seen as the distinguishing characteristic of Western societies they were widely perceived as a desirable alternative to the competing systems, which often disregarded strict legality and did little to diminish arbitrariness.
This is the state of affairs that prevailed until roughly the 1990s, when the Western bloc finally reached the pinnacle of its global might and was widely perceived as triumphant over its adversaries. But ever since the social gains which had made the lives of common people relatively comfortable and safe, and society cohesive across class lines, are being dismantled throughout the Western world. The sense of legal security that for decades citizens of Western countries unquestionably enjoyed proved equally evanescent. The phenomena of lawless abuse and vulnerability to the powers that be, normal elsewhere but long extirpated from the practice of Western societies and largely faded from the memory of their citizens, have reappeared with a vengeance. On both the domestic and international levels, the “rule of law” rapidly morphed into its unrecognisable caricature. That metamorphosis ultimately became jokingly known as the “rules based order.”
With scant internal opposition or even much public awareness, the core countries of the collective West became infected with the contagion of arbitrariness in the interpretation of inherent human rights and application of legal principles erected to protect them. The transformation, which in historical terms took place with lightning speed, was spearheaded by a ruthless and duplicitous political cabal and was implemented with the connivance of a judiciary which was utterly corrupt and shamefully impotent.
The breakdown of legality is generally a precursor of worse things to come, which almost invariably takes the form of increasingly egregious abuse of power. The point can be illustrated with disturbing but by no means isolated examples of the emerging state of affairs in the countries of the collective West that used to be envied for their freedom. Readers will recall the famous line, “they hate us for our freedom.” The utterance in 2001 of that false assertion whilst doing nothing to advance the cause of freedom did introduce an orgy of destruction and mass slaughter.
The most striking representation of the breakdown of the legal order can be cited today is the illegal kidnapping and incarceration by the German judicial system of German-American lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, under fabricated embezzlement charges. There are many solid reasons for deep state cabal’s virulent hatred of Dr. Fuellmich. He was the spoiler who in 2020 had the temerity to found the Covid pandemic research committee, just as the social control experiment was gaining momentum. The committee’s outstanding work in uncovering the sordid motives and homicidal objectives of the orchestrators of the bogus medical emergency was a major blow to them, especially because it was delivered successfully under conditions of nearly total informational blockade. Dr. Fuellmich’s ultimate, and perhaps overambitious and naively conceived goal of a medical Nurenberg to bring the culprits to justice was never achieved but the very thought of it must have caused nightmares to those he intended to be prosecuted.
“This agenda has been long planned,” Dr. Fuellmich summarised his Committee’s findings. “It’s ultimately unsuccessful precursor was the swine flu some 12 years ago, and it is cooked up by a group of super-rich psychopathic and sociopathic people who hate and fear people at the same time, have no empathy, and are driven by the desire to gain full control over all of us, the people of the world.”
The time came for the psychopaths to seek their sweet revenge, and the operation was not exceedingly difficult because they happen to control the mechanisms of power. Eleven months ago Dr. Fuellmich was imprisoned in Germany on the false allegation of a colleague who had been infiltrated into the Covid Committee that he misused the organisation’s assets for personal benefit. A charge that under German law is a misdemeanour and for which there is no precedent of lengthy pre-trial imprisonment resulted in incarceration that has now lasted for over 400 days under Abu Ghraib conditions, except that it is in Germany and not in Iraq. For a shocking portrayal of those detention conditions, see here. And see here for the disgraceful procedural deficiencies of the trial itself, which is currently in progress, stained by practices incompatible with the image of Rechtsstaat, that Germany along with the collective West regimes associated with it are misleadingly cultivating.
The lawless persecution of Dr. Fuellmich for the “offence” of performing a remarkable public service by uncovering and documenting the fraudulent nature and sinister background of the Covid “pandemic” is, however, but the tip of the iceberg in the collapse of the rule of law in the societies that portray themselves as its champions. Additional examples illustrate the breakdown and flesh out the picture of the legal disarray which undercuts the elementary freedoms of citizens and renders them defenceless before the demands of unaccountable Power.
In Ireland, the entire Burke family of Christian believers who refuse to bend their knee to the dictates of gender ideology is being targeted for vindictive persecution. One of the sons, Enoch, who is a school teacher, has so far spent over 400 days in solitary confinement, like Dr. Fuellmich in Germany. His “offence” is that in formerly Christian and Catholic Ireland he refuses to use the pronoun preferred by one of his students who claims other than his biological gender, because Burke holds that acquiescence to the gender identity charade would be a violation of his religious principles. Enoch Burke is being punished for refusing to debase himself as a professional educator and as a free human being by falsely confessing under the duress of his persecutors that 2 + 2 = 5. Nothing short of such a recantation of his conscientiously held beliefs would satisfy his country’s legal and educational overseers, who have gone berserk. He therefore remains in an Irish prison, despite being assured of instant release if only he manifested submission to their lunatic demand. For an insight into the broad official scope of that lunacy, see here.
As in the Fuellmich case, the collective and exemplary punishment meted out to the Burke family is being kept out of the public eye as much as possible. Political and even religious figures refuse to take a stand or comment on it, and the controlled media studiously avoid discussing the subject.
Not to round off this complex picture of civilizational decline but merely to supplement it with another unsettling detail, the institution of thought crime portrayed in George Orwell’s novel, once considered no more than literary fiction, appears now to be enshrined in British law. For the present it appears to be a pilot programme, perhaps a precursor of even more frightening things to come. It operates as a prohibition of prayer within a designated exclusion perimeter around abortion “clinics” in Great Britain. The incriminating prayer would presumably be for the souls of children that departed this world due to the medical attention that they received in those establishments. The private performance of such unauthorised religious offices is now prohibited as it may cause “harassment and distress” to the employees of the “clinics” and their clients. And ominously, according to the Home Office, “anyone found guilty of breaking the law will face an unlimited fine.” One wonders if the European Court of Human Rights would have anything to say about such open-ended punishment schemes. Was anything of the sort ever before recorded in the annals of civilised jurisprudence?
Interaction between the thought police, who of course are merely “following orders,” and citizens suspected of mentally violating the “law” may be watched here by all who cherish their liberty and human integrity.
Wretched British jurisprudence (sceptics should also see here) now boasts its first successful prosecution of a thought crime violator. British Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was recently found guilty of silently praying for his aborted son inside an abortion “clinic” buffer zone, was sentenced conditionally to two years in prison, and fined £9000 in costs for His Majesty’s court’s expense and trouble in prosecuting him. The courts still are not imposing “unlimited fines,” as the Home Office recommends, but for a retired person who must support a family arguably even that is a considerable sum.
Smith-Connor, be it noted, is far from the only victim of abortion-related thought crime harassment in the United Kingdom.
And also for the record, the theme here is not one’s personal position on Covid, transgenderism, or abortion. The central issue in every one of the cited instances, and others of a similar nature too numerous to mention, is the evident crumbling in the collective West of the legal order. That now makes it possible to impose on peaceful citizens draconian punishments wholly disproportionate to the alleged conduct they are being accused of. To what limits will the severity of punishment extend, or is it potentially as “unlimited” as the threat of monetary assessment the British Home Office is prepared to impose on those undertaking to silently pray in public for unborn babies?
The famed “City on the Hill” that many had been tricked into believing was illuminating mankind from on high is now forlorn and largely deserted. Its lights are getting progressively dimmer, life in it increasingly intolerable. Its deceived inhabitants and ardent admirers are dispersing in every direction. Word is out that a new City of great luminosity and magnetic attraction is being erected elsewhere, and that its architects will soon meet, in Kazan.
The UK and Germany will sign a bilateral defense agreement this week, paving the way for both nations to step up their military drills near Russia’s borders, The Sunday Times has reported.
Under the terms of the deal, Britain and Germany will cooperate on arms procurement and development, with the agreement serving as a “first step” for a larger deal between the UK and EU next year, the British newspaper reported.
The pact “is expected to enable British and German forces to conduct joint military exercises on NATO’s eastern border with Russia, most probably in Estonia and Lithuania,” The Times noted, without offering further explanation.
Britain and Germany already take part in NATO exercises, such as this year’s ‘Steadfast Defender’ drills. Conducted near Russia’s western borders, ‘Steadfast Defender’ involved 90,000 troops from all 32 NATO states, and was perceived in Moscow as open preparation for “a potential armed clash with Russia.”
In addition to these multilateral exercises, Germany already takes part in smaller-scale bilateral exercises, such as Germany’s ‘Grand Quadriga’ drills with Lithuania earlier this year, and its ‘Baltic Tiger’ maneuvers with Estonia in 2022. The Times’ article suggests that Britain could join these exercises once the new deal is signed.
British Defense Secretary John Healey told the newspaper that the deal is modeled on the 2010 Lancaster House agreement between the UK and France. Under this agreement, Britain and France pledge to create a joint expeditionary force to take part in military drills, to collaborate on developing drones and submarine technology, and to share nuclear-weapons data with each other.
During a two-day NATO summit in Brussels this week, Healey also announced that British troops stationed in Estonia will receive new drone warfare equipment and training, and that the UK will work with Germany, France, Poland and Italy to create new long-range missiles for Ukraine.
Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, addressed parliament yesterday and justified Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza.
‘Self-defence means not only attacking terrorists but destroying them. When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools… civilian places lose their protected status because terrorists abuse it.’
This, however, is not true, according to human rights lawyer, Craig Mokhiber. The former senior UN human rights official told MEMO claims that Israel has a right to ‘self-defence’ in Gaza don’t have a standing in international law.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, strongly condemned the statements made by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Wednesday, in which she claimed that “Israel” can target civilians in Gaza for “self-defense.”
In a statement, Hamas said the “German government is unashamed of the targeting of civilians and hospitals as long as it provides security for Israel, and this is part of its commitments.”
Bildcited internal Defense Ministry documents to report that Germany finally maxed out its military support for Ukraine and won’t give any more heavy equipment, which comes around six weeks after the Polish Defense Minister effectively said the same thing about his country’s support. The Federal Cabinet detailed “The arms and military equipment Germany is sending to Ukraine” last month, which they said totals €28 billion in assistance that’s either already been provided or committed for future years.
Poland and Germany have done much more for Ukraine in this regard than most countries so the fact that they’ve already maxed out their support suggests that the West as a whole might soon seriously consider freezing the conflict. After all, Russia is already far ahead of NATO in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition”, with even Sky News candidly reporting earlier this year that Russia is producing three times as many shells as NATO at one-quarter of the price.
This was followed last month by CNN sharing a glimpse of just how bad everything has become for Ukraine, which coincides with growing interest among the Western public and even some of their elite in cutting their side’s losses by exploring a political solution to the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. “Russia’s Capture Of Pokrovsk Could Reshape The Conflict’s Dynamics” whenever it comes to pass so it naturally follows that they’d either want to preempt that or find a way to freeze the conflict afterwards.
The challenge though is that Russia won’t consider a ceasefire so long as Ukraine continues to occupy Kursk and Donbass, neither of which Kiev is willing to withdraw from as a “goodwill gesture”, thus risking the scenario that the front lines collapse due to the combination of attrition and Russia’s new tactics. In that case, Russia might try to expel Ukraine from the remainder of Zaporozhye Region east of the Dnieper, including its namesake city of an estimated 750,000 people.
There’s also the chance that Russia moves into eastern Dnipropetrovsk (“Dnipro”) Region despite having no claims to it either to coerce Ukraine into withdrawing from eastern Zaporozhye and its namesake capital and/or to push the Line of Contact (LOC) as far as possible before freezing it. This tactic could also enable Russia to open up a southern front in Kharkov Region to complement the eastern and northern ones. The worst-case scenario for Ukraine is simultaneous attacks along these three axes.
With Poland and Germany having already practically tapped out, unless they dig into the rest of their reserves that they’ve thus far preserved to meet their minimum national security requirements, this sequence of events is certainly possible. It could only be preempted by a comparatively more generous ceasefire proposal from the West that piques the Kremlin’s interest, Russian self-restraint, or Ukraine and/or the West “escalating to de-escalate”.
The first could see the West pressure Ukraine into withdrawing from eastern Zaporozhye Region, the second could be due to Russia not wanting to risk overextending its military logistics, and the third could involve a nuclear provocation, the formaldeployment of NATO to Ukraine, and/or an attack on Belarus. Relevant factors include the timing of any potential Russian breakthrough and the outcome of the US elections, both of which could influence Ukraine and/or the West, perhaps even in different ways.
All that can be said for sure is that Ukraine can’t depend on more military aid after Germany just joined Poland in dropping out of the “war of attrition”. Unless they dig into their reserves or others step up (if they even have much left to give), then something game-changing might soon happen, though whether it’s positive or negative remains to be seen. Russia will either decisively win, be offered a more generous ceasefire that it’ll accept for pragmatic reasons, or its enemies will dangerously “escalate to de-escalate”.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was stating the “absolute truth” when he took aim at NATO countries and their support for Ukraine in a scathing recent social media post, French MEP Florian Philippot has said.
The European Parliament member was commenting on a post published by Medvedev on Sunday, in which he pointed to the problems that Ukraine’s Western backers are facing with their economies.
“The West has no money to clean up Florida after Hurricane Milton, no money for French farmers, no money to revive the German industry,” Medvedev, who now serves as deputy head of the Russian Security Council, wrote on Telegram.
These countries, however, still have funds to bankroll “a bunch of drunk and crazy” Ukrainians and to produce weapons “to exterminate the Slavs in the military conflict,” he added.
In a post on X, Philippot, who is leader of the Patriots party, wrote that Medvedev “just smashed the NATO countries by throwing absolute truths at them.” Philippot also took aim at French President Emmanuel Macron, saying he is “also taking a beating” for his recent pledge of a “new check for 3 billion to Zelensky.”
Philippot called on Macron to “stop these checks and these arms shipments,” arguing that Medvedev’s remarks are “factually terribly true!”
During a visit last week to a military camp in eastern France to inspect the training of Ukrainian troops, Macron pledged some €3 billion ($3.3 billion) worth of military aid for Kiev this year. Earlier in 2024, French farmers staged massive protests across the country, demanding that preferential trade rules granted to Kiev be lifted and calling for more government support.
In the US, former President Donald Trump last week accused the administration of President Joe Biden of neglecting the survivors of Hurricane Helene in the southeastern part of the country while sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Germany, which has emerged as one of Kiev’s top backers, is facing a new recession and its economy is set to contract for a second straight year due to shrinking industrial output, high energy prices, and weak foreign demand, according to reports.
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … 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.
Al Mayadeen | October 16, 2024
Aletho News 