US State Dept Pledges to Retain Sanctions Until Russia Returns Crimea
Sputnik — 16.03.2016
Washington will not lift the sanctions imposed after the reunification of Crimea with Russia until Moscow decides to “return Crimea to Ukraine,” the spokesman for the US State Department said.
Crimea, which has a predominately ethnically-Russian population, seceded from Ukraine to rejoin Russia two years ago following a referendum on March 16 in which over 96 percent of voters supported the move.
“We will not accept the redrawing of borders by force in the 21st century. Sanctions related to Crimea will remain in place as long as the occupation continues. We again call on Russia to end that occupation and return Crimea to Ukraine,” John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.
He added that Washington remains committed to “a united, sovereign Ukraine.”
In 2014, the United States, the European Union and some of their allies imposed a series of economic sanctions targeting key Russian sectors as well as a number of individuals and entities over Russia’s reunification with Crimea and its alleged interference in the conflict between Kiev and independence supporters in eastern Ukraine, denied by Moscow.
Russia opposes any sanctions on Iran over missile tests
Russia’s envoy to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin
Press TV – March 14, 2016
Russia opposes the imposition of any new sanctions on Iran over its recent ballistic missile tests, saying the missile launches did not violate UN resolutions.
In response to a question on whether new sanctions should be imposed on Iran over its recent missile tests, Russia’s envoy to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said Monday, “The clear and short answer is no.”
He added that Iran did not breach the Security Council Resolution 2231 that endorsed a nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 group of countries on July 14, 2015.
Resolution 2231 (2015) provides for the termination of the provisions of previous Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear program and establishes specific restrictions that apply to all states without exception.
The resolution calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) successfully test-fired two more ballistic missiles on March 9 as part of military drills to assess the IRGC’s capabilities. The missiles dubbed Qadr-H and Qadr-F were fired during large-scale drills, code-named Eqtedar-e-Velayat.
On March 8, Iran fired another ballistic missile called Qiam from silo-based launchers in different locations across the country.
On January 16, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany – started to implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
After the JCPOA went into effect, all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the Security Council and the US were lifted. Iran, in return, has put some limitations on its nuclear activities.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossein Jaberi Ansari, said on March 10 that the test-fire of ballistic missiles was “neither inconsistent with Iran’s commitments under the JCPOA, nor is it against the Security Council Resolution 2231.”
Libya military intervention needs UN approval, says Russian FM
Press TV – March 14, 2016
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says any military operation in Libya requires the approval of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
Lavrov said during a joint press conference in Moscow with visiting Tunisian Foreign Minister Khemaies Jhinaoui on Monday that Russia is aware of some plans for military involvement in Libya, but insisted that those plans could be implemented only with the permission of the 15-member council.
“We know about what’s being discussed openly and not so openly on plans of military intervention, including with the situation in Libya. Our common position is that this is possible only under the UN Security Council’s decision,” Lavrov said.
The top Russian diplomat also noted that a possible mandate for an operation against the terrorists in Libya must be defined unambiguously so as not to allow misinterpretations.
Russia says that the US-led military alliance NATO abused a United Nations resolution in 2011 to protect Libyan civilians from slain Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in order to pursue regime change and political assassinations during a popular uprising across the North African country.
The remarks come as New York Times recently reported that the Pentagon and the highly secretive Joint Special Operations Command have provided the White House with “the most detailed set of military options yet” in Libya.
France’s Le Monde newspaper also reported last month that the country’s special forces and members of the country’s external security agency Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) were in Libya for “clandestine operations” in cooperation with the US and Britain.
Meanwhile, a UN panel is also investigating claims that Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sudan have violated an existing arms embargo by providing weapons to warring groups operating in Libya.
In mid-February, Libya’s internationally recognized Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni accused Ankara of interference in his country’s internal affairs.
Since 2014, when militants seized the capital Tripoli, Libya has had two parallel parliaments and governments.
Daesh took advantage of the chaos and captured Libya’s northern port city of Sirte in June 2015, almost four months after it announced its presence in the city, and made it the first city to be ruled by the militant group outside of Iraq and Syria.
Lavrov says has evidence of Turkey forces on Syria soil
Press TV – March 13, 2016
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Moscow has evidence that Turkish forces are on Syrian territory despite Ankara’s denial of troops’ entry to the war-torn Arab country.
Lavrov made the remarks in an interview with Ren-TV that was broadcasted on Sunday.
Last December, Moscow also said it has evidence Turkey is involved in the smuggling of oil from areas held by Daesh in Iraq and Syria. Ankara has strongly rejected the claim.
Russian Defense Ministry officials showed satellite images at a briefing in Moscow, revealing that tanker trucks loaded oil at installations controlled by Daesh in Syria and Iraq, before entering neighboring Turkey.
Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz has rejected that Turkish forces have entered Syrian territory to help foreign-backed militants fighting against the Syrian government. Last month, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, however, said Saudi Arabia and his country could launch a ground operation in Syria.
Also on Sunday, Lavrov referred to Turkey’s shelling of Kurdish positions in Syria and called Ankara’s actions on the border with Syria “creeping expansion.”
The Russian foreign minister further noted that despite Ankara’s opposition, Moscow will call on the United Nations to invite Kurdish groups to a new round of talks between the Syrian government and opposition groups which is scheduled for Monday in Geneva, Switzerland.
Turkey’s tanks have shelled positions of Kurdish People’s Protection Units, also known as YPG, over the past few months, accusing them of having links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group that has been fighting for an autonomous Kurdish region inside Turkey since the 1980s.
The YPG, which is nearly in control of Syria’s entire northern border with Turkey, has been fighting against Daesh.
Lavrov also said in the Sunday interview that Moscow was ready to coordinate its operations in Syria with the US so that the northern city of Raqqah could be freed from Takfiri militants.
Daesh has seized parts of Iraq and Syria, where it has been engaged in bloody acts of terrorism against people of all communities.
US Foreign Policy Gurus Say Souring Relations with Russia Was Washington’s Fault
By Andrei AKULOV – Strategic Culture Foundation – 13.03.2016
It was quite different in the 1990s — early 2000s. Significant improvements were achieved in the relations between the US and Russia, including in the sphere of military cooperation. Those days there was no doubt the Russia-US relationship had a great future.
The military met each other as friends and allies to discuss what could be done to boost cooperation and prepare for joint actions to counter terrorist threats. Then the process got stalled. The relations deteriorated. All the efforts applied went down the drain. What really caused it to happen? Today US foreign policy old timers and savvies have something to say about it.
Consistent disregard for Russia’s interests by the US, as well as Washington’s dismissive attitude towards Moscow in the post-Cold War era, have led to strained relations between the two, former US Defense Secretary William Perry told The Guardian on March 9.
Perry said that a complete lack of regard for Russia as a power or a dialogue partner from Washington officials played a crucial role in this reversal.
According to the opinion of former US Defense Chief, reckless expanding NATO, making plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and supporting the so-called «color revolutions» in former Soviet republics were all steps in the wrong direction, which were all taken without ever even considering Russia’s concerns.
Perry also denounced the George W. Bush administration’s decision to station a US missile defense system in eastern European countries – particularly in Poland. He also emphasized that the US support of the so called «color revolutions», was another serious blow to bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991 and the author of the book titled Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, has his own views on the matter.
According to him, after the USSR ceased to exist the United States insisted on treating Russia as the loser. The former ambassador writes that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to call and offer support when terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. In return, he got further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council approval; overt participation in the «color revolutions» in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Speaking at the meeting of the Committee for the Republic, an organization established by former diplomats and government officials, Mr Matlock went on to lambaste Obama for using the State of the Union to personally attack Russian President Putin.
«His comments were totally out of place», Matlock said. He also attacked Congress for their own interference in passing the Magnitsky Act. «The Russians are reacting to a policy of insufferable arrogance and humiliation», he said. He criticized the whole policy with regard to Ukraine and «regime change». «If you can think that you can solve all problems by removing a leader, you’re wrong. Didn’t we learn the lessons from Iraq?» asked the former ambassador.
Henry Kissinger is clearly still one of America’s foremost foreign policy gurus who served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as United States Secretary of State in the administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He believes that instead of trying to break Russia, America’s goal should be to «integrate» it into the international order taking Moscow’s interests into account.
According to the US foreign policy vet, that would begin with recognition of the realities of Russian power and interests, treating Russia like the great power that it is, and on that foundation exploring «whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities».
The opportunities to change the relationship for the better are here to stay.
On March 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that a policy of confrontation with the West is not something that Moscow wants. «We are not seeking confrontation with the United States, or the European Union, or NATO. On the contrary, Russia is open to the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners. We continue to believe that the best way to ensure the interests of the peoples living in Europe is to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific», the Russian foreign policy chief wrote in an article.
US candidates in the presidential race (except Republican candidate Donald Trump), as well as many in the Obama administration, find the idea of trying to work with Russia appalling when they speak in public. There is a reason to believe they don’t entirely share that view, but at least that’s what they say. No matter who wins in November, a new president will have to shape new policy on Russia. He or she will have to make decisive choices. It presupposes immense responsibility. The Americans are normally reluctant to admit mistakes, but it’s important to understand what is the root of the problem. That’s when the opinion of foreign policy gurus stands one in good stead.
Russia says no to Syrian federalization as former NATO commander talks partition
RT | March 12, 2016
While media rumors claim that Moscow sees a post-crisis Syria as a federalized state, Russia denies holding such an opinion. At the same time, a ‘plan B’ mentioned by John Kerry to break up the Arab country has gained backing from an ex-NATO commander.
Reuters reported on Thursday that Russia was engaged in talks with other global powers on the possibility of turning Syria into a federal state.
“While insisting on retaining the territorial integrity of Syria, so continuing to keep it as a single country, of course there are all sorts of different models of a federal structure that would, in some models, have a very, very loose center and a lot of autonomy for different regions,” a diplomatic source at the UN Security Council told the agency.
However, the Kremlin responded by saying that no such talks were on the table – a message that was emphasized by Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Saturday.
“That is total nonsense. We are not voicing such ideas; they must come from the Syrians themselves – it is up to them to discuss and agree on such things,” deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov said, as cited by TASS.
Bogdanov added that, from Russia’s point of view, it is better to maintain Syria’s territorial integrity and keep its people intact.
Meanwhile, the discussion in the US has moved further than mere federalization.
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe James Stavridis wrote in his article for the journal Foreign Policy that dividing Syria into three parts – an Alawite state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state – is a viable idea.
“Despite the negatives, partitions can be used with good effect to move warring parties to opposite sides of the battle space. For a population that is already almost 50 percent displaced, frankly, there is not much to lose,” Stavridis wrote.
“A partition could provide a simple chance to leave a refugee camp or avoid a long and dangerous trek to an asylum state — in effect creating the elusive ‘safe zones’ that the international community has yet to put in place,” the retired US navy admiral added.
The expert echoed US State Secretary John Kerry, who said that Syria could be partitioned as a “Plan B” in the event that the ceasefire fails.
“It may be too late to keep it as a whole Syria if we wait much longer,” Kerry told the US Senate foreign relations committee on February 23.
Stavridis, however, says that because of the risk of Sunni extremists seizing large territories and Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, the most likely scenario includes a “combined campaign to defeat the Islamic State and a federal system allowing a high degree of local autonomy.”
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem rejected a peaceful solution based on the federalization of the country, Xinhua News reported on Saturday.
His comments came as a new round of UN-brokered talks between the Syrian government and opposition are to be launched in Geneva on Monday. The parties are set to discuss the creation of a new Syrian constitution and government, as well as parliamentary and presidential elections.
Moallem also said that the Syrian government would not discuss the possibility of Assad stepping down.
“We will not talk to anyone who talks about the position of the presidency,” Foreign Minister Walid Moualem said during a televised news conference in Damascus, Reuters reports. “I advise them that if this is their thinking, they shouldn’t come to the talks. They must abandon these delusions.”
The Syrian opposition accused Damascus of putting the talks in jeopardy by making such a statement.
“Moualem is stopping Geneva before it starts,” Monzer Makhous, a member of the opposition’s High Negotiations Committee, said.
On February 22, President Assad called for new parliamentary elections to be held on April, 13, 2016. This came just hours after Moscow and Washington announced that they had worked out a ceasefire plan for the Arab country, which was implemented four days later.
Russia to disarm world’s largest nuclear ballistic missile submarine
RT | March 11, 2016
In 2016 Russia is set to disarm the missile system of the Typhoon-class Arkhangelsk submarine, the largest in the world. The disarmament will be carried out in accordance with the New START agreement between Moscow and Washington.
Working in accordance with the New START treaty between Russia and US, the country’s leading Zvezdochka shipyard in the northern Russian city of Severodvinsk will disarm the missile system of the Arkhangelsk submarine, the shipyard’s press service told TASS news agency on Friday.
“We will remove the covers of the submarine’s missile launchers and seal them, thus making it impossible to use the vessel’s missile weapons,” the press service said. “We are not talking yet about dismantling the submarine itself. The tender for this procedure has not yet been announced.”
According to the data published by the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, the sub’s disarmament is estimated to cost some 28 million rubles (about US$ 400,000).
The nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine Arkhangelsk TK-17 was designed in 1987 under the Project 941 ‘Shark’ (or ‘Typhoon’ according to NATO classification). The project was aimed to equip the Soviet Navy with nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and resulted in the creation of the largest class of submarines ever built – large enough to accommodate decent living facilities for the crew of 179 when submerged for months on end, and to stock an arsenal of 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Three of the six Typhoon-class submarines built in the 1980s have already been dismantled at the shipyards in Severodvinsk. Of the three that remain, Arkhangelsk and Severstal are set to be dismantled. Dmitri Donskoi just recently underwent a modernization procedure and is now equipped to test the latest sea-based missile system Bulava.
The New START treaty (on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms), which was designed to reduce American and Russian nuclear stockpiles, came into force in 2011. It replaced the previous 1991 agreement, introducing lower ceilings for the numbers of warheads and delivery systems deployed.
Commenting on the progress made on the treaty’s fifth anniversary in February, US Secretary of State John Kerry complimented both sides on successful cooperation in the field.
“[New START treaty] continues to be an area of cooperation and continued dialogue between the United States and Russia. I share President Obama’s strong belief that our two countries, which ushered in the era of nuclear arms, have a special responsibility to lead the world beyond it,” he said in a statement.
However, the latest moves by the US – such as plans to upgrade 180 B61s strategic bombs stocked in European air bases to a modernized B61-12 version – have raised doubts whether the US adheres to the nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Opponents of the program have argued that instead of scaling down atomic weapons stockpiles in accordance with the NPT, the overhaul is actually creating more states hosting modern nuclear weapons – a provocation that theoretically weakens Russia’s deterrent.
Moscow keeps the presence of American nuclear weapons in Europe in mind when shaping its own military policies as reflected in Russia’s newest military doctrine published in 2014, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova told German television last year.
“The comprehensive analysis of the situation points to the threat posed by the increasing military capability of NATO and its endowment with global functions, which it performs in violation of the international law, as well as the encroachment of the military infrastructure of NATO members on the borders of the Russian Federation,” she said.
Read more:
Is the world ready for further reduction of nuclear weapons?
NATO eyes long-term breach of nuke non-proliferation treaty, Russia to respond – senior diplomat
Russian Ties in Central Asia Threaten US Interests – CENTCOM Chief Nominee
Sputnik – 09.03.2016
WASHINGTON — CENTCOM commander nominee General Joseph Votel said that Russia’s trade and military relationships with neighboring Central Asian states threaten US interests in the region.
Russia’s trade and military relationships with neighboring Central Asian states threaten US interests in the region, US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander nominee General Joseph Votel said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
“Russia has moved to assert itself in Central Asia through a combination of military, economic and informational means in an effort to resurrect its great power status and hedge against perceived instability emanating from Afghanistan,” Votel stated.
After 14 years, the United States has reduced its military presence in Afghanistan to 9,800 troops, with plans to reduce troop levels to 5,500 by 2017. In the past year, Taliban militants and Daesh terrorist fighters have been on the rise in Afghanistan, prompting US commander of operations there, General John Nicholson, to describe the conditions in the country as “deteriorating.”
Votel further argued that Russian security partnerships with former Soviet states in Central Asia “make it difficult for the United States” to deepen defense ties in the region, which he described as a “key US interest.”
Since 1992, Russia has partnered with neighboring nations in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russia also founded the Eurasian Economic Union in 2014, to further regional economic development among member nations including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Did the Saudis Just Win? 5 Signs That the Oil Glut Crisis May Be Over
Sputnik – March 8, 2016
Saudi Arabia’s alleged strategy of pushing high-cost oil producers off the market may have worked, as investors have shifted their focus away from high-cost shale oil operations and large multinationals are increasingly looking at short-term projects.
Although hedge funds such as Goldman Sachs are warning against thinking that commodities including oil are facing a long-term rally, there are several signs that oil prices may have already hit bottom.
1. OPEC Rebalance
News of a looming oil deal among OPEC countries may have helped oil prices begin a stable, nearly month-long rally on February 12. Days earlier, Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, Russia’s biggest oil company, said it would be open to the idea of an output cut and OPEC’s Venezuela made the first concrete proposal the following day.
Unlike OPEC countries, Russia’s oil producers are predominantly private companies responsible to shareholders, although some, such as Rosneft, also have a significant share of government control. The new deal, however, may lead to a rebalance of OPEC influence by including Russia and Mexico, both of which held negotiations, while members such as Venezuela, which has the world’s largest oil reserves, could lose standing.
At the same time, Russian oil companies are starting to diversify internationally, with Lukoil looking into Iranian assets while Rosneft begins drilling off the coast of Vietnam to regain positions potentially lost as a result of US sanctions.
2. Shale Crash
Despite a rise in prices over the past few weeks, US shale oil companies announced that they would cut output as a result of major losses.
Companies such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips may actually compete against shale oil companies as they cut investments in deepwater oil extraction, giving domestic shale producers more opportunities to cut losses and liquidate their assets.
In the long term, however, the effect may be temporary, as the lifting of the US oil export ban could lead major US companies to increase exports.
3. Chinese Weather
Despite fears regarding China’s economy and predictions of an economic “perfect storm,” the fears did not materialize. As a result, volatility unseen since the 2008-2009 financial crisis began to fall, allowing oil prices to regain stability and head higher.
China’s troubles still prevail, but disruptions in the country’s stock market proved to not significantly impact economic fundamentals, in an economy which still suffers more from overinvestment as a result of government planning than from problems raising capital.
4. Iranian supplies
While Iran was ready to ship oil as soon as sanctions were lifted, with long-term supplies stored in tankers, the introduction of Iranian oil did not greatly impact the European oil market, as the country shipped less than a third of the oil it promised to export.
Low oil prices may have also been behind Iran’s less-than-spectacular results when it came to raising capital for new oil production, which the country plans to grow to pre-sanctions highs.
5. US Inventories May No Longer Matter
Although the oil glut prevails, in the United States, oil prices have continued steadily rising even after announcements that US inventories grew nearly three times more than expected. The country’s oil producers have actually begun eyeing oil exports to Europe, which faces supply disruptions as a result of an accident in Nigeria and financial trouble among offshore North Sea oil operations.
At the same time, major oil companies are increasingly wary of long-term investments which could be subject to future volatility.
The situation suggests that Saudi Arabia’s alleged strategy of forcing out high-cost operations for both shale and offshore projects may have actually worked, and while the US would face beneficial export conditions while the glut is ongoing, consolidation and liquidation in the shale sector could bring back the pre-shale world while scaring off investors from higher-cost projects.
Featured Video
Trump: “Iran Will Submit, We Won the War” /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Is A Genocidal Society
The Israeli Political Spectrum From The “Liberal Left” To The Far Right, Is United In Genocide
The Dissident | May 5, 2026
… The fundamental issue of Israel is not Benjamin Netanyahu, but the fact that Israel is overwhelmingly a bloodthirsty, war-ready, genocidal society.
Historian Zachary Foster has documented that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis have supported every Israeli war since the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, writing:
2006
86% of the Israeli adult population justified “the IDF operation in Lebanon against Hizbollah,” or 2006 Lebanon War, in which Israel killed 1,191 people, the vast majority civilians according to HRW (Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher)2008-2009
82% of the Israeli public thought that the 2008-9 war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 1,417 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians.) Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher2012
90% of Israeli Jews supported war on Gaza ( in which Israel killed 160 Palestinians, 66% civilians)2014
95% of Jewish Israelis believed the war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 2,310 Palestinians, 70% civilians)2021
72% of Israelis believed the war on Gaza should continue (as of May 21) after Israel had already killed 250 Palestinians in Gaza, vast majority civilians. The % of Jewish Israelis who supported killing more Palestinians was much higher.2024
A January poll found 95% of Jewish Israelis thought the Israeli military was using either the “appropriate” amount of force or “too little” force in Gaza at a time when Israel had already killed >25,700 Palestinians in Gaza.2024
In September, 90% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Lebanon (in which Israel killed 800+, including hundreds of civilians)2025
In March, 82% of Israeli Jews supported the forced expulsion of residents of Gaza, Israel’s main goal in it’s genocide & war on Gaza.2025
In June, 82% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Iran known as the “twelve day war”2026
On March 4, 93% of Israeli Jews expressed support for the war on Iran. 97% of “right-wing” Jewish Israelis support it, compared with 93% in the center and 76% on the left.
The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis also have openly genocidal views towards Palestinians.
Polls in Israel have shown that:
- 84% of the (Israeli )public gives the IDF an excellent or very good grade regarding the moral conduct of the army
- 75% of Jewish Israelis agree with the idea that ‘there are no innocents in Gaza.’
- A vast majority of Israeli Jews – 79 percent – say they are ‘not so troubled’ or ‘not troubled at all’ by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The fundamental problem in Israel is Zionism, not Benjamin Netanyahu. – Full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What has Guterres supported in Gaza?
- UAE received $80m in EU farming subsidies as calls grow for sanctions over Sudan genocide
- Trump gives green light for new arms deliveries to Ukraine
- U.S. Blockade Against Cuba Must End Immediately: China
- Trump’s Bogus Claims About Progress in Talks with Iran Just Made Some Insider a Lot of Money
- US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi
- Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
- German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
- The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number
- Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
- If Americans Knew
- “Most Moral Army” caught desecrating another Christian statue, as famine looms in Gaza – Daily Update
- Israel’s subversion of Foreign Agents Registration Act
- Israeli Paper Admits That The Mossad Astroturfed The January Riots In Iran.
- Prominent Christian Zionist Group Is Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers on Israel—Without Revealing It’s Funded by Israel
- Ex-US spy for Israel runs for office on platform of ethnic cleansing in Gaza – Daily Update
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 