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.
If the last twenty-five years have taught us anything, it’s that people who work in the government are absolutely abysmal at quantifying and managing the risks of their own ambitious schemes. Already in 2020, Dr. McCullough and I intuitively sensed that the COVID-19 mass vaccination program was a major gamble that would probably end up blowing up in the faces of the people who so aggressively pushed it.
To be sure, it would only eventually blow up in their faces if they allowed the truth of the matter to come out. For at least two years now, we have been in the cover-up phase of this criminal misadventure—not only in the United States, but also in the UK, Europe, and Australia.
C.J. Hopkins—an insanely persecuted American ex-pat author in Berlin—just mentioned on his Substack an extraordinary commentary in the Berliner Zeitung.
Traffic light coalition cancels Corona investigation: Who would have thought?
Back in September, Lauterbach said, “Anyone who doesn’t review things seems like they have something to hide.” Is anyone surprised by the cancellation of this review? A commentary.
“We need this review. I have called for it myself on several occasions,” said Karl Lauterbach less than a month ago in the ARD Report from Berlin. “If we don’t do it,” continued the SPD health minister, “then the impression will simply arise that we have something to hide. Therefore, such a review is necessary and should take place.”
Lauterbach would certainly have liked to have had a reappraisal carried out.
Lauterbach’s own coalition government has now denied him this wish. Some say to protect him.
Lauterbach himself has not exactly been at the forefront of the reappraisal process. In March, on the ZDF morning magazine, he rejected an inquiry commission because this type of reappraisal was “politically charged” and “right-wing groups” would turn the issue into an “ideological battle.”
Then came the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols and the health minister changed his publicly stated opinion surprisingly quickly—not only with regard to their assessment, but also regarding purported “interference by foreign powers.”
At that point, he offered an assurance that he would have the protocols de-redacted as soon as possible—something that has not officially happened during his term of office to date. So now [we are told] he is in favor of a review of Corona policy.
However, the majority of his colleagues apparently do not want such a review. This week, the “traffic light” coalition agreed that there can be no political review of the pandemic in the current legislative period because they cannot agree on what form such a review would take.
This means that there will not be a review of the corona pandemic in this country before 2026, because there will be new elections in September 2025, and after that they will need to resuscitate the issue.
Review á la Citizens’ Council may therefore be discarded
Why is the government refusing to review the situation?
The SPD’s justification is that the FDP refused to hold a Citizens’ Council. Well, what a surprise. Citizens’ Councils have recently produced such groundbreaking results. In other words, this political issue is simply too hot for the SPD. The actors who voted in favor of the compulsory vaccination are still in office.
Lately it’s become fashionable to reinterpret one’s own role in the pandemic, but in politics, this is more difficult to do than in other domains. Politicians’ votes from this period are public record unless they were secret votes. During the big debate in the Bundestag in April 2022 about compulsory vaccination, the voting behavior of the parties was recorded and is still circulating on the internet.
This is yet another reason why it is still vividly remembered that the SPD and the Greens voted almost unanimously in favor of compulsory vaccination, while everyone else almost entirely voted against. And so, is anyone really surprised that the SPD—which is already having a hard time—is calling off the political review of the pandemic?
There is so much to review—including the vaccination campaign
The voting behavior on compulsory vaccination is also such a popular meme because it shows the extent to which politicians were prepared to put the supposed common good above the possible well-being of the individual. Compulsory vaccination remains an intervention in the body over which the individual can no longer decide.
The fact that vaccination—contrary to all assurances at the time—can go horribly wrong is evidenced by countless vaccine victims, whose fate Karl Lauterbach now says he is touched by. Nevertheless, this does not really prompt him and his colleagues to take action.
To this day, we do not know exactly how many vaccine injured there are, and how they can be helped. We do know, however, that around 20 times more suspected cases were reported to the Paul Ehrlich Institute for corona vaccinations than for other vaccines.
We made it through the pandemic alright in Germany—everything is okay, right? Wrong. The bad consequences are merely poorly concealed. Trust in government, politics and institutions has been permanently damaged; some no longer even trust their own doctors.
The next pandemic is supposedly just around the corner?
A thorough review would also be very important because there are warnings everywhere about new pandemics that are certain to come, sooner or later. The World Health Summit in Berlin will be hotly discussing this prospect over the next three days.
It is ridiculous that the coalition would cancel the review under these circumstances, and the decision could potentially cost them their jobs. Their decision is also negligent.
Housing prices are exploding, warns Polish MEP Anna Zalewska, and EU policy backed by commission President Ursula von der Leyen will lead to disaster.
“In the European Parliament, we have recently been discussing crises themselves — the automotive industry, the competitiveness of the EU economy and yesterday, the housing crisis,” said MEP Anna Zalewska. “There is one conclusion from all these debates. Ursula von der Leyen is leading the European Union to the edge of the abyss.”
Zalewska claims that the reason for the housing crisis is EU climate regulations during the 10th session of the EU parliament, according to Polish news outlet Do Rzeczy. She cites the energy efficiency directives, as well as the regulation on eco-design, on construction products, and the certification of CO2 emissions. All of these factors are rapidly driving up the cost of not only modernizing homes, but also the cost of building new ones.
“This will make housing not only a luxury good, but also an unattainable good. What is the European Commission proposing? If someone does not comply with these documents, they will pay fines on how their apartment is heated, among other things. These documents should be thrown in the trash,” Zalewska.
Even left-wing organizations and news outlets have acknowledged that “green renovations” are driving up housing and apartment prices. In many cases, any renovations landlords will need to make to meet energy efficiency and carbon goals will be passed on to tenants.
“With their sights set on energy efficiency, policy-makers neglect that green renovations are driving up rents for the most vulnerable. Only with strong social protections and a shift away from financialization can the basic right to housing be made compatible with curbing emissions,” writes the Green European Journal.
Housing costs across Europe have already soared over the last 10 years, but in many countries, such as Germany, new-build construction has slowed dramatically. Builders cite high building material costs, high costs for labor, and a shortage of labor. In addition, national regulations have placed serious cost burdens on developers and construction companies. Now, EU regulations are expected to cost €1 trillion to bring buildings up to code in Europe in terms of energy efficiency.
However, EU regulations are not the only factors. Mass immigration is also driving up rental and even housing prices in Europe, especially in migrant-heavy countries such as Germany. Many newcomers want to live in the cities, where competition for housing is intense.
For instance, in 2002, Remix Newsreported that Germany’s apartment vacancy rate has seen its biggest decline in more than 20 years, falling to just 2.5 percent nationwide at the end of 2022, and migration is being fingered as one of the primary causes behind the crisis.
The data, published by consulting institute Empirica and the real estate specialist CBRE, shows that the “market-active vacancy rate,” apartments that can be rented out immediately or offered for rent over the medium term, fell 2.5 percent to about 554,000 residential units at the end of 2022.
“The (drop) in vacancies in 2022 was characterized by the immigration of around 1 million people from Ukraine,” said Empirica CEO Reiner Braun at the time.
Poland, on the other hand, has not seen an influx of foreigners at the same rate as Germany, although hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have arrived in the country in recent years. Other factors at work are internal migration patterns to larger cities away from rural areas, international investment and speculation, and gentrification trends.
Although housing prices dipped in many countries shortly after the Covid-19 pandemic — which sent asset prices, including real estate, to sky-high prices — real estate prices are already recovering and marching higher, according to a new report from ING.
France’s stance on arming Israel has fluctuated significantly in recent days. President Emmanuel Macron initially made headlines by announcing a potential halt to weapons deliveries to Israel and claimed that providing arms while demanding a ceasefire was “inconsistent”. But he made a swift U-turn after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published a video statement in response, publicly shaming Macron. France’s defense ministry later clarified that the supply of weapons to Israel would persist.
On Saturday, Macron told broadcaster France Inter: “I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza”, and reiterated his concern over Israel’s horrific attacks on Gaza which are ongoing despite repeated calls for a ceasefire. The statement provoked an angry response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took to X (formerly Twitter) to condemn Macron’s remarks, calling them a “disgrace”. In the video response, Netanyahu claims: “As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilised countries should be standing firmly by Israel’s side. Yet, President Macron and other Western leaders are now calling for arms embargoes against Israel. Shame on them.”
On the same day, Macron’s office responded, claiming France is a “steadfast friend of Israel” and described Netanyahu’s reaction as “excessive and detached from the friendship between France and Israel”. After the heated exchange, BFMTV reported that France would continue sending weapons to Israel that it deems “defensive in nature”.
Netanyahu’s Threat? Warning Shot Fired Near French Gas Station After Macron’s Policy Shift
The French President’s U-turn seems to have revealed not only his failure to follow through on his words but also shed light on how France and the West’s policy decisions are constrained by foreign governments. His brief consideration, likely a strategic attempt to appease the international community critical of any government funding Israel’s ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza and Lebanon was reversed after France’s pressure to uphold alliances prevailed. Some now allege that Netanyahu later fired a warning shot by blowing up a building in the vicinity of French Gas Station TotalEnergies in southern Beirut.
The logistics of arms deliveries become even more complex when considering Jordan’s role as a crucial ally in supporting Israel, particularly in respect to the ongoing tensions surrounding air bases in Cyprus where the UK, France and Germany have been extensively delivering weapons. The French operate a significant airbase in Jordan and NATO recently established its first-ever liaison office in the Middle East and North Africa. Given the circumstances surrounding Turkey’s warning against further invasions into Lebanon, it seems possible that Jordan is being viewed as a viable and necessary alternative for arms transportation.
France & Israel’s Strong Military Partnership
France’s connections with Israel, in economic aspects run deep. According to a 2023 defense report, France has issued 767 export licenses to Israel since 2015, underscoring the long-enduring military collaboration. Additionally, France exports about €20 million worth of military equipment to Israel annually amounting to a total value of €207.6 million of French arms sent to Israel between 2013 and 2022. Moreover, France granted export licenses worth €2.5 billion between 2014 and 2022 for Israeli defense purposes. Notably, the French defense giant Thales confirmed it supplied drone transponders to Israel this year. This partnership contradicts Macron’s claims and highlights a broader pattern of military support that persists despite his statements.
A newly published investigation by the Electronic Intifada confirms that France’s strong ties to Israel’s defense industry remain intact and suggests that Macron’s rhetoric does not translate into meaningful action. They uncover Thales significant influence on the European Union’s arms policy which directly contributes to agendas that promote militarization, raising international concerns about the EU’s commitment to human rights.
NATO’s SALIS Program and European Arms Trade Logistics to Israel
NATO’s SALIS (Strategic Airlift Interim Solution) program provides participating member countries, including France and Germany, with access to large, long-range Antonov AN-124 aircraft to transport oversized cargo; logistical support which is essential for moving military equipment, such as tanks, helicopters, and other defense assets.
Moreover, the broader context is that Israel’s military operations have now resulted in the deaths of over 186,000 Palestinians, according to a recent report by The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal.
With no end in sight, these operations are sustained by a constant flow of arms from Western nations, particularly the United States and Germany. Since October 2023, the U.S. has dramatically ramped up its military aid, and Washington recently approved an additional $250 million in sales, which pushes the total US military supply to a record $17.9 billion since October 2023. Germany, the second-largest military supplier to Israel, has approved over $275 million worth of military exports since October.
German industrial orders fell 5.8 percent in August compared to July, a far higher drop than the 2 percent drop anticipated, with economists now warning of a recession and doubting a quick recovery.
The numbers reported by the German Federal Statistical Office amounted to the biggest drop since January of this year, with the German Ministry of Economics announcing that “in view of the continuing weak demand and the deterioration in business sentiment, a significant recovery in the industrial economy in the second half of 2024 is unlikely.”
Jens-Oliver Niklasch, an expert at Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, cited by Money.pl, stated bluntly: “Leading indicators are falling, forecasts are falling, bad news is not stopping. Everything points to a recession.”
Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank, describes the data as a “bitter disappointment,” adding that the best-case scenario will be gross domestic product stagnating in the second half of the year.
Of key concern is the data regarding strength, or lack thereof, in the domestic and European economies. While orders from abroad also fell just 2.2 percent, domestic orders were down by 10.9 percent. Orders from eurozone countries fell by 10.5 percent, while orders from other countries actually increased by 3.4 percent.
Experts emphasize that the current situation is a clear signal of a crisis, with key sectors being hit the hardest, including auto manufacturing, mechanical engineering and chemicals.
The Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK) predicts gross domestic product will stagnate this year and grow by just 0.7 percent next year, with experts agreeing that the federal government’s expectations of economic growth above 1 percent in 2025 seem unrealistic.
Meanwhile, the German government is expected to need €46 billion to finance welfare benefits, with half of the recipients reportedly being foreign citizens, many of whom came to Germany specifically for its generous welfare system.
The situation is not bad for everyone. Remix News just reported today that Germany is spending some €50 billion annually on housing asylum seekers and war refugees and providing them with benefits, with private security firms earning hundreds of millions across Germany for policing migrant accommodations.
Even in the world of the EU’s often perplexing politics, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (of the Greens) stands out. And while she may “excel” at political gaffes – a passion for protecting free speech doesn’t seem to be among her strong suits.
Instead, with a seemingly straight face, Baerbock is now joining the legion of politicians urging for even more social media censorship, as a distinctly counter-intuitive way to “protect” democracy.
Baerbock wants the EU to do the heavy lifting on behalf of Germany’s current authorities this time as well, and one of the arguments the minister uses is that what she considers to be “disinformation” is allowing what she calls populist parties to grow in – popularity.
It should be a basic democratic principle that no party or political grouping can stay in power forever, so this kind of underlying “argument” smacks of authoritarian, rather than democratic traditions.
When one strips away Baerbock’s latest rant about fake news, disinformation, and attacks that are “disintegrating our democratic reality” (whatever that may mean) – what is left is the “problem” of the success of the opposition AfD party, and the German authorities’ inability to counter it with meaningful policies, therefore resorting to anything from name-calling, to open censorship.
On Monday, Baerbock turned to the European Commission to ask for “new rules” around what she and her political comrades consider to be disinformation. At this point, even the Commission – the enforcer of the infamous censorship law, the DSA, might have been thinking – “but what more can we do?”
If that was the case, it didn’t last long. As soon as on Wednesday, the EC “summoned” three major social media companies and demanded information about their algorithmic recommendations.
It might just be a coincidence, but algorithms were on Baerbock’s brain the day before, too. Reports say she suggested that Germany’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution team up with the EC, against “algorithms that work against democracy.”
On June 8, 2024, a call regarding ‘Mask Exemption Certificates and House Searches’ was initiated by Dr Walter Weber, head of the doctors’ association Ärzte für Aufklärung. On this call, we received some shocking information: in Germany, there is a ‘blacklist’ of about 200 doctors who issued mask exemptions and as a result are apparently monitored by state security. Around 100 doctors who had issued similar certificates then came forward. Approximately 95% of these doctors experienced unannounced house searches, with one doctor being searched eight times.
These house searches typically took place from 6am and often lasted during office hours for 1-3 hours. In many cases, doors were broken down, and there were reports of inappropriate treatment of those affected. One example is Rolf Kron, who had to endure sitting in his nightgown with an open door for hours in the winter. Physical violence was also a concerning issue: Dr. Woitzel had to undergo a leg amputation due to police violence.
Psychological and physical consequences
These reports of physical assaults are alarming. An eye doctor from Münster suffered hearing loss after a violent incident. Moreover, several female colleagues became seriously ill, and one doctor, Dr. Ströer, was sentenced to two years in prison without parole and died six months later “for no reason”. Dr. Bianca Witzschel has been in pre-trial detention for 1.5 years due to a negative expert report, while a counter-report was rejected by the judge.
The financial implications are also severe.
Many doctors had to ‘buy their freedom’, paying sums of up to 6,000 euros. One colleague reported costs of around 30,000 euros because the waiting room chairs did not meet the required distance. Most doctors affected agree to the anonymized publication of their experiences, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Smeared, ostracised, silenced
Local press often reported on these doctors, leading to defamation and slander. Families were bullied, including children. The medical profession in Germany, consisting of about 150,000 practicing doctors, has been silenced by this systematic persecution. The 200 or so doctors willing to issue mask exemptions constitutes less than 0.00013% of the total number.
There is no justification for such treatment – but there is plenty of justification for these doctors having issued mask exemptions.
We recently reported on the leaked protocols from Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which revealed the extent to which the German people were deceived by their own government during the so-called pandemic. One revelation was that the RKI – the equivalent of the US’ CDC – knew there was no evidence that masks stopped the spread of Coronavirus. Those doctors who issued mask exemptions were both acting in their patients’ best interests and in line with the evidence, as acknowledged by the RKI. The problem is, they weren’t in line with their government and the consequences of this should shock the world.
This is what totalitarian, centralized medicine looks like.
The systematic persecution of doctors who issued mask exemptions highlights a concerning development in German society. The fear of house searches and the resulting consequences have deterred many doctors from helping patients in need. This not only silences the medical profession but also isolates them from society. It is time to question these practices and protect the rights of doctors as well as the needs of patients. Especially taking into account the actual science supporting their decision to be cautious about the inefficacy and even harm created by using masks as a mandatory tool for the management of Covid 19 (Brownstone, 2024).
The World Council for Health is grateful for these 200 brave doctors and all those supporting informed consent and the Hippocratic oath primum non nocere, first do no harm. The WCH calls on the people of Germany to speak up for these doctors and demand that all charges against them are dropped, that they are compensated for the crimes their own government has committed against them, and that they are duly honoured for maintaining their moral and scientific integrity despite devastating consequences.
The successful military operation launched by the Iranian armed forces on Tuesday against the Israeli-occupied territories again demonstrated the inefficacy of Israeli air defense systems.
Iranian military officials did not specify the number of ballistic missiles that were fired directly at the Zionist entity, however, media reports put the number of missiles at more than 400.
According to a statement released by the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), almost 90 percent of missiles managed to penetrate through air defenses to hit the intended target.
Israeli regime sources claimed that Iran launched 180 ballistic missiles and that “a large number” or “the majority” were intercepted by air defense systems.
Some Israeli and Western media reports also claimed that 99 percent of missiles were intercepted.
Evidence in the form of verified videos circulating on social media showed that the interception was very little as missiles successfully landed on the ground, hitting the targets.
There was smoke and fire all around as sirens blared loudly across the occupied territories.
In Iran, private footage shared on social media platforms showed one salvo of missiles near Kermanshah, another salvo near Tabriz, and another salvo near Shiraz.
Hundreds of direct strikes were reported in the Israeli-occupied territories, many of them hitting the Nevatim Airbase, Tel Nof Airbase, Hatzerim Airbase and the Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Overall, the data of hundreds of ballistic missiles and 80-90 percent success rates almost perfectly match the IRGC sources and confirm that the Israeli regime is once again resorting to disinformation.
As with the April case, more than a hundred widely visible intercept explosion traces over the skies of Jordan, Syria and Iraq would be recorded in the early evening hours, while there is again virtually none.
To shoot down medium-range ballistic missiles, used in the Iranian strike, the Israeli regime uses long-range anti-ballistic systems such as Arrow and David’s Sling that operate at a range of tens or hundreds of kilometers and very high altitudes.
Both systems proved extremely ineffective during Iran’s retaliatory strike with missile salvos in April, as well as Yemen’s single hypersonic missile attack on Tel Aviv in mid-September.
The case related to Nevatim Airbase is particularly intriguing, where nearly 30 warheads hit the target simultaneously within a matter of seconds, without any visible attempt of intercepting.
Some sources suggest that one of the direct hits on Tel Nof Airbase with visible secondary explosions was actually the Arrow battery with radar.
The US-Israeli joint development of the Arrow systems over the past 25 years cost billions of dollars and was previously touted as “99 effective,” which seems bizarre today.
Based on these pompous and obviously fabricated claims, Israel secured a $3.5 billion export contract with Germany last year, marking the largest military sale in its history.
All reliable data in the past year show that these air defense systems were developed to intercept outdated ballistic missiles and are not capable of dealing with salvoes of maneuvering missiles or even single hypersonic types.
In reporting the Iranian attack, the Israeli regime also used other propaganda tools, such as emphasizing the claims that there were no deaths, although the Iranian targets were obviously military installations, not civilians.
Israeli military sources also are yet to publish any foolproof technical evidence of Iranian ballistic missiles being intercepted, basing their claims on rhetoric.
Importantly, last year Press TV website exposed the fallacy of the so-called “over 90 percent success rate” of Israel’s air defense systems, establishing why such claims were trumpeted for lucrative exports and psychological calming of its own settler population.
By Maryanne DemasiMaryanne Demasi | Brownstone Institute | June 15, 2026
For decades, vaccines have been treated as the sacred cow of modern medicine. I was taught that they were the holy grail. To question them was heresy. To raise concerns about safety was to risk professional exile.
“No child should be sacrificed on the altar of the religion of vaccines,” Siri writes, as he turns his focus to America’s overcrowded childhood immunisation schedule.
I assumed little in this book would surprise me. I’ve spent years reporting on drug safety, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science. But Siri showed me how wrong I was.
Siri is not a doctor or a scientist. He is an attorney, and this, he says, is his advantage. In court, rhetoric won’t save you. Evidence does. As he puts it, he doesn’t get to say “trust me” the way many doctors do. “I need to prove claims with real data.”
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 