Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Defunct Weaponization of the U.S. Dollar. The SCO Summit and the Decline of the West’s Financial Hegemony.

By Peiman Salehi | Global Research | September 6, 2025

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) summit in Beijing, marked by both symbolism and substance, underscored the slow erosion of Western financial dominance. While mainstream coverage focused on China’s military parade, the real significance lies in the economic agenda advanced by SCO members. Discussions of a potential SCO Development Bank, expanded use of local currencies, and closer coordination with BRICS initiatives point to a growing determination across Eurasia and the Global South to challenge the monopoly long exercised by the United States and its allies through the IMF, the World Bank, and the dollar system.

For decades, these Western-controlled institutions have functioned as instruments of geopolitical leverage. Structural adjustment programs dismantled social protections, imposed privatization, and locked countries into cycles of debt dependency.

The dollar, presented as a neutral global currency, has been repeatedly weaponized through sanctions, financial exclusion, and manipulation of international payment systems. In this context, the SCO’s economic discussions must be seen for what they are: not technical proposals, but acts of resistance. By seeking alternatives to dollar-based finance and conditional lending, SCO members are asserting that the age of Western financial coercion is no longer uncontested.

China and Russia, the central actors in this process, have both experienced the coercive use of Western financial power.

Sanctions on Russia and tariffs on China have reinforced the urgency of building parallel institutions. For smaller states, particularly in the Global South, the stakes are even higher. Access to credit that is not tied to Washington’s geopolitical priorities could mean the difference between austerity and investment, between dependency and sovereignty. The SCO’s proposals are embryonic, but they point toward a broader trend: the emergence of multipolar finance as a shield against unilateral domination.

Critics in the West have rushed to dismiss these efforts, portraying them as impractical or politically motivated. But such dismissals miss the point. The very fact that alternatives are being openly discussed and partially implemented signals the weakening of Western monopoly. The creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, the use of local currencies in trade between Russia, China, and India, and now the SCO’s initiatives all mark a shift from rhetoric to practice. Each new mechanism reduces the ability of the United States to dictate terms unilaterally.

This does not mean China or Russia will replace Washington as the new hegemons. Rather, it means that unipolarity is ending. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which no single state can control the flows of finance, trade, and development. For Global South nations, this creates both opportunities and risks. It offers the possibility of diversifying partnerships and rejecting conditionality, but it also requires vigilance to avoid reproducing dependency under new patrons. Multipolarity is not a guarantee of justice, but it is a necessary precondition for breaking the cycle of Western domination.

The SCO summit should therefore be understood as part of a larger civilizational struggle over the architecture of world order. Western hegemony has rested not only on military alliances and cultural influence, but on financial coercion. By weaponizing the dollar, Washington has sought to enforce compliance far beyond its borders. The SCO’s economic agenda represents an attempt to reclaim sovereignty in the face of this coercion, to create breathing space for states that refuse to align with U.S. geopolitical priorities.

What emerges from Beijing is not a fully formed alternative, but a direction of travel. Multipolar institutions are being built step by step, challenging the illusion that Western institutions are eternal or indispensable. For countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this is a call to action. It is an invitation to participate in the shaping of a world where development is not dictated from Washington or Brussels, but negotiated among equals.

The mainstream media will continue to focus on parades and symbols, but the real revolution is occurring in the realm of finance. The SCO summit was a reminder that the West’s monopoly on money and credit is cracking, and that the future of global order will be defined not by a single hegemon but by the collective efforts of states refusing to submit. For those seeking peace, justice, and sovereignty, this is a development to be welcomed, nurtured, and defended.

Peiman Salehi is a Political Analyst & Writer from Tehran, Iran.

September 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is the West still capable of keeping its maritime trade routes functioning?

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 6, 2025

The West risks facing an asymmetrical response to its illegal restrictions on shipping. Unlike Russia, most developed countries depend on the stable and secure functioning of maritime trade routes. The application of the measures used by the West against itself could trigger a crisis in maritime supply chains due to disruptions in the delivery of strategically important goods and raw materials.

A difficult dependency to manage

Unlike Russia, the West bases its economy and strategic security on a widely interconnected and stable global maritime trade system, established as a founding principle of the maritime power of sea-faring civilizations (Seapower, in the classical geopolitics of Mackinder and Mahan). Most developed Western countries are heavily dependent on the smooth and secure functioning of maritime trade routes to ensure the continuous supply of strategic goods, raw materials, and energy products. Maritime trade is an irreplaceable and essential pillar of Western supply chains, with the increasing complexity and vulnerability of these systems due to geopolitical and environmental dynamics.

This dependence means that illegally imposed restrictions on navigation, or pressure on key maritime routes such as the Suez Canal or the Red Sea passage, can have significant not only economic but also geopolitical impacts. The West as a whole, unlike Russia, which has developed an autonomous strategy to diversify its trade routes, does not have established and functional alternatives for many of its maritime supply lines. And this is a problem that is not easily solved.

In military science, the term ‘asymmetry’ refers to the use of strategies, tactics, and tools that do not mirror those of the enemy, but aim to exploit differences in capabilities, organization, and objectives to strike at the enemy’s weak points. Applied to the maritime domain, asymmetry describes how an actor, often weaker in conventional terms, can challenge a superior naval power by avoiding a head-on confrontation and instead seeking to destabilize its freedom of maneuver, logistics, and route security.

In the current geostrategic context, in fact, a crucial aspect concerns the risk that the West will face asymmetric responses to its illegal restrictions on navigation. This concept of asymmetry is central to the theory of contemporary maritime threats: Western powers, by unilaterally imposing restrictions on the routes or maritime activities of other states (e.g., through sanctions, blockades, or “no sail zones”), could generate unconventional reactions that are difficult to manage structurally, especially now that dominance of the seas is no longer the exclusive preserve of the old Atlantic empires.

The case of Russia is emblematic: despite being heavily affected by sanctions and restrictions on global maritime traffic, it has developed a maritime strategy aimed at building autonomous infrastructure and new routes—such as the development of the Northern Sea Route—to bypass Western restrictions and ensure internal and external economic continuity. The West, on the other hand, despite having provided important regulatory and military tools to ensure freedom of navigation, finds itself exposed to more damaging forms of retaliation precisely because it is unable to easily circumvent the key routes on which it depends.

The application of the same restrictive measures used by the West against itself would, in perspective, result in a potentially acute crisis in maritime supply chains. Disruptions in access to and passage through key trade routes would cause delays in the delivery of strategic raw materials and essential goods, with knock-on effects on industry, agriculture, energy, and final consumption.

The consequences of blockages or restrictions on strategic passages such as the Suez or Panama Canals include not only higher costs due to longer and more expensive alternative routes (with additional costs for fuel, insurance, and sailing time) but also port congestion, increased emissions, and misalignments between supply and demand in global chains. Furthermore, insecurity in maritime routes can raise insurance premiums, contributing to increased international transport costs and fueling market volatility.

Structural differences between the West and Russia and growing instability

Western vulnerability must be viewed in light of the structural differences in maritime management and strategy between the West and Russia.

Russia is gearing up to become a major maritime power, investing in infrastructure, shipbuilding, and new logistics hubs on its territory, aiming for more direct control of its export routes for resources (natural gas, coal, agricultural products) to non-Western markets such as Asia, which are becoming geopolitical and economic priorities.

For example, the Navy’s key role in Arctic routes is already a global excellence, for which the collective West lags far behind. The West, on the contrary, relies on an international maritime trade network that is increasingly subject to high interdependence and multilateral cooperation, and has not yet developed an equivalent system of autonomous routes and infrastructure capable of circumventing unilateral restrictions. This creates an imbalance that can result in asymmetric risk: while Russia can tolerate or circumvent certain restrictions due to its alternative shipping options, the West cannot do the same without serious disruption in terms of trade flows and costs.

Current geopolitical trends increase the likelihood that illegal restrictions on navigation, applied for political reasons, will translate into significant crises in Western supply chains. The effects manifest themselves in:

  • Increased delays and misalignments in the delivery of raw materials and finished products (e.g., critical materials, energy, agricultural products);
  • Higher costs for maritime transport and insurance, reflected in higher prices and potential pass-through to end consumers;
  • Risk of port congestion and logistical disruptions that can trigger temporary regional or global economic crises;
  • Increased geopolitical tensions in key regions, with exposure to maritime conflicts or asymmetric actions by state and non-state actors.

The application of restrictive Western measures on oneself is not only a technical challenge, but also a factor that could trigger chain reactions that are difficult to control, as other maritime powers and regional actors could adopt asymmetric strategies, including the militarization of routes, piracy, and targeted sabotage.

A war of maps

But how did the West construct these restrictions? This corresponds to a ‘war of maps’: whoever controls cartography and security warnings dominates the very perception of freedom of navigation.

Three types of restrictive measures have been applied: economic sanctions, maritime exclusion zones (mainly in areas of open or potential conflict) and the updating of maritime charts. And when sailing, maps are essential.

The map war is a cognitive and regulatory domain, in which the representation of space becomes a weapon, more or less directly. Those who control the maps, i.e., decide what to show, what to obscure, and which routes are safe or prohibited to follow, effectively exercise strategic dominance that influences many actors.

The map war at sea is played out on several levels:

Cartographic: updates to official charts (e.g., NOAA for the US, UKHO for Great Britain) can delimit restricted areas, minefields, and training areas. This forces civilian and military ships to change their routes, even if the sea remains physically free.

Digital: ECDIS and AIS systems, which are mandatory in commercial navigation, receive updates from Western sources (Navtex, Inmarsat, IMO). By adding or removing “digital layers,” the West can channel traffic.

Narrative-legal: maps are never neutral; they reflect a vision of the law of the sea. A NATO map will show as “international waters” areas that Russia or China consider “territorial waters.” It is a form of “cartographic lawfare.”

Operational: navies reinforce on the ground what the map represents. If an area is marked as “restricted” and is patrolled by frigates or naval drones, the cartographic representation becomes reality.

Cognitively controlling space means dominating representation, i.e., conditioning the movements of commercial and military fleets, driving up insurance and logistics costs, legitimizing a certain view of maritime law and, most importantly, transforming the sea into a sort of “mosaic” made up of mandatory corridors and prohibited areas. In other words, it is no longer just the strength of ships that determines control, but also the use of the power of representation, which constrains reality geopolitically speaking.

The problem is that the West, with its maritime powers of glorious memory, cannot be denied, is still convinced that it has immeasurable and unchallenged power. However, this perception does not correspond to the truth. Western leaders have promoted sanctions and restrictive policies, driven by the desire to maintain control that has long since ceased to belong to them, and have ended up compromising their own economies and damaging their interests. The schizophrenia seems never-ending.

Even sanctions have not worked

Economic sanctions and export controls are now the main weapons of US national security. With a simple administrative act, Washington can exclude its adversaries from the dollar-dominated international financial system and limit their access to advanced technology supply chains. These tools, designed to reinforce foreign policy and defense objectives, are often used as an intermediate response: more effective than diplomacy alone, but less risky than direct military intervention. Their apparent low cost and ease of use have encouraged their frequent use, with the risk of gradually reducing their effectiveness and raising doubts about the stability of the dollar as a global reserve currency.

Over the past two decades, these tools have been applied against a growing range of adversaries. The campaign against Iran saw intensive use of financial leverage, in particular through pressure on European banks to sever ties with Tehran, a model that inspired the approach towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014: targeted sectoral sanctions were introduced, calibrated to affect future growth prospects without causing immediate shocks to energy markets. Subsequently, attention shifted to China, with technological restrictions directed at giants such as Huawei and ZTE in an attempt to slow down the development of advanced capabilities in areas such as artificial intelligence and defense.

After 2022, with the start of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the measures became more complex, with oil price caps and new controls on the export of advanced semiconductors introduced in addition to financial and trade blockades, the result of coordination with European and Asian allies. This combination of instruments showed how economic measures can be integrated into a single strategy, even if they fail to produce positive effects. Arrogant rhetoric clashed with harsh reality: sanctions are no longer as effective a deterrent as they once were, and their effect is much less controllable and predictable.

Behind every sanctions package lie intricate decision-making processes, in which coordination with allies and calculation of the effects on global markets play a decisive role, and, above all, a discreet sense of masochism. Countless hours of work, commissions, discussions, and proclamations in the media have produced only an unprecedented accumulation of disadvantages.

Because, to be honest, the sanctions system simply does not work. On the one hand, sanctions have evolved in response to increasingly sophisticated threats, combining financial, commercial, and technological levers, but entirely in a self-congratulatory sense, as they are not pragmatically effective. on the other hand, they have rarely produced significant political change in the affected states on their own, instead generating side effects on the global economy and tensions with the private sector or with Western partners themselves, creating a disastrous boomerang effect.

If the West does not decide to stop, it will be forced to pay the price for all its misdeeds, a price that is much higher and more painful than it can imagine. And then it will be too late to turn back.

September 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

UK anti-genocide activists face dozens of terrorism charges

The Cradle | September 5, 2025

UK authorities charged six campaigners with 42 terrorism offenses on 3 September over their efforts to challenge the ban on Palestine Action.

They were released on bail the following day and placed under a strict curfew. Following hearings at Westminster Magistrates Court, the defendants, including former government lawyer Tim Crosland, were granted bail after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) requested they be held on remand.

Defend Our Juries (DOJ), the advocacy group to which the activists belong, said the judge’s decision prevented them from facing up to 18 months in custody due to court backlogs.

According to DOJ, the bail conditions include a tagged curfew between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, a ban on contacting co-defendants, and a prohibition on supporting Palestine Action either “directly or indirectly.”

A DOJ spokesperson described the outcome as both relief and outrage. “We welcome the release of our key spokespeople and the judge’s decision to reject the CPS’s absurd attempt to remand them in prison for what could have been many months. However, the fact that they are now facing 42 charges between six of them and extraordinarily draconian bail conditions for hosting public Zoom calls is nothing short of a scandal.”

Police said the charges stem from an investigation led by the Counter Terrorism Command into allegations that the defendants coordinated protests and held 13 Zoom calls supporting Palestine Action.

Section 12 (2) of the Terrorism Act makes it a criminal offense to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organization, while Section 12 (3) criminalizes addressing such a meeting with the intent of encouraging support.

DOJ said the six were targeted by UK authorities when their homes were raided earlier this week, hours before they were due to announce details of a mass action planned for Saturday.

The group reported that homes were searched and the activists were held beyond the 24-hour custody limit before being charged.

The case follows the UK government’s 4 July decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, a move triggered by an incident in which members broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalized two military aircraft with paint and crowbars. The aircraft are reportedly linked to the genocidal war in Gaza and wider military operations across West Asia.

The designation equates the group with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, making public support for its activities punishable by up to 14 years in prison, a move strongly condemned by various groups and individuals as “grotesque,” “chilling,” and an “unprecedented legal overreach.”

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Zionist lobby put the final nail in the coffin of my career, here are the details

By Doc Malik | September 4, 2025

In November 2023, complaints were made about me from within my hospital, most likely by other staff, other doctors, who I suspect were sympathetic to Israel. Just before my suspension from the Princess Grace Hospital, two jewish surgeons contacted me to complain that I had Eva Bartlett on my podcast. The very next day, I was suspended. That was no coincidence.

And my story is not unique.

The Price of Speaking Out

Take Dr Rameh Aladwan, a Palestinian British trauma and orthopaedic surgeon. For almost two years she has been harassed, attacked, threatened. Attempts were made to strip her of her licence, her livelihood, even her home. Her crime? Speaking out against the genocide in Palestine.

In my case, my “sin” was hosting Eva Bartlett, an independent journalist. She stated that Israeli officials, after October 7, openly called for ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That was factually correct. I simply gave my guest the freedom to speak. For that, I was punished in my personal life, outside of my medical work. You can watch the episode here.

I was suspended for five months. Cleared at the end, yes, but by then my career was destroyed. And all this came after earlier suspensions for speaking out against the COVID gene jabs, transgender mutilation surgery, and finally the persecution of Palestinians.

The Hidden Hand

The Zionist lobby is powerful. Finance, media, culture, medicine, judiciary, they have influence in every corner. They whisper in shadows, smear your name, use policies, regulations, and institutions to destroy you. They rarely confront you face to face.

After waiting over a year, I finally obtained my file from the Princess Grace Hospital: 154 pages. Almost all of it was just my CV, contract, and medical records. One or two letters about my suspension. No evidence of who complained. No record of how the decision was made. No outcome of the investigation.

And then there were eight completely blacked-out pages.
What are they hiding? Who are they protecting?

A Sign of the Times

My case, Dr Rameh’s case, and the persecution of academics like David Miller all point to one truth: we do not live in a free society. Question the Zionist regime, question its influence on our country, and you will be labelled antisemitic and persecuted.

Criticising Israel is NOT the same as criticising all Jews. That distinction should be obvious. But they have made it otherwise. And that is dangerous.

We are told to worry about migrants invading our nations. Yes, to some extent. But that is not the real story. The invasion already happened. Our institutions are captured. Every branch: who are you not allowed to criticise?

There lies the real problem.

Here is the original letter announcing my suspension.


Here is the outcome of my investigation that I received 6 months after my suspension, and was sent to me by accident. Within minutes of receiving the copy of the investigation I was told to delete it as it had been sent in error. Please note I was NOT invited to defend myself, provide evidence or challenge the accusations.

Here is the investigation they did NOT want me to see.

The Smear

Who brought my podcast “to the attention of the Division president and CEO with a suggestion that Mr Malik’s podcasts express “anti-Israel hate much of which include deliberately false narrative”.

The claim was made that “the specific concern was around Mr Malik’s ability to be impartial in treating any Jewish patients.”

Think about that.

In 25 years of practice, I have never treated any patient differently based on colour, sex, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, or religion. Not once. I have never received a single complaint on those grounds. On the contrary, I have treated many Jewish patients over the years, who left glowing reviews and referred their friends and families to me.

To suggest that my criticism of a government could mean I would treat Jewish patients improperly is not only false, it is offensive. If I criticise the UK government, does anyone imagine I would mistreat English patients? If I criticise Saudi Arabia, would I treat Saudis with prejudice? Of course not. I am perfectly capable of separating governments from people. That is basic human decency. And when those governments wage wars on others, kill innocents, or carry out genocide, then yeah, I will not keep my mouth shut.

And yet this was the narrative used against me.

Perhaps this is why the hospital refused to release the outcome of their so-called investigation. An “investigation” in which I was never invited to participate, never allowed to present evidence, never given the chance to defend myself against anonymous accusations.

The Verdict They Buried

And here is the most damning part. In the summary of the investigation itself, the key line reads:

“As part of my investigation, I watched the full podcast interview with Miss Bartlett. Having done so, I find that at no point during the podcast interview with Ava Bartlett did Mr. Malik express anti-Semitic or hateful views. I consider Mr. Malik’s attempts to adopt a balanced position, and he clearly refers to the October 7, 2023 attack as a massacre and a tragedy, and laments the killings of Israeli civilians and children. Whilst he does refer to Hamas as freedom fighters, he does so in the overall context of both sides suffering as a result of the protracted conflict. I do not find that the podcast contained anti-Israeli hate… Given his attempts to adopt a balanced position in his interview as regards the current conflict in the Middle East, I do not consider Mr. Malik’s ability to be impartial in treating any Jewish patients to be adversely affected. I was not presented with any evidence that Mr. Malik’s impartiality in this regard was adversely affected.”

In other words, even their own process exonerated me. No hate. No anti-Semitism. No evidence whatsoever that my ability to treat patients impartially was in doubt.

And yet I was still suspended. My career was still destroyed.

What does that tell you about the real forces at play here?

What happened to me is not just about one surgeon, one hospital, or one podcast. It is about the kind of society we now live in. A society where speaking the truth about powerful interests can cost you your career, your reputation, even your freedom.

When institutions redact evidence, silence dissent, and smear critics with false accusations, we should all be alarmed. Because if they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.

Freedom of speech is not the right to repeat approved slogans. It is the right to question, to challenge, to criticise, even when it makes people uncomfortable. Especially then.

Whether it be challenging lockdowns, masking, experimental jabs, wars, or genocides.

We must defend that principle. If we allow it to be eroded, if we allow powerful lobbies to decide who may speak and who must be silenced, then we are already living in captivity.

The real invasion has already happened. The question is: will we wake up and see it?

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Britain’s Example Vindicates Rand Paul’s Opposition to ‘Kids Online Safety Act’

By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | September 4, 2025

In July 2024, Rand Paul (R-KY) was one of only three senators who voted against the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), legislation that sought to protect children from harmful material online. The other two were Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Senator Paul said of his decision:

“How would platforms comply with KOSA’s requirement to mitigate and prevent undefined harms such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders? Should platforms stop children from seeing war coverage because it could lead to depression? Should pro-life messages be censored because platforms worry it could impact the mental well-being of teenage mothers? Would sites permit discussion of a teenager overcoming an eating disorder?”

Fair questions, all. KOSA passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion in the Senate but has not advanced through the U.S. House. Paul’s problem with it, with giving the government this power, was the many potential unintended consequences—ones that his senate colleagues apparently didn’t even consider.

Yet, Senator Paul’s worries are being proven in real time in the United Kingdom where their Online Safety Act (OSA) has just gone into effect, creating all sorts of problems, great, small, and dangerous.

Wikipedia has threatened to throttle traffic coming from the UK due to the law, where the platform is expected to block minors from “harmful” content, including articles covering “Bulimia nervosa” and “Oxford child sex abuse ring.”

A student might need to research eating disorders or child sexual abuse for educational purposes, but if Wikipedia allows this access, the platform could face fines of eighteen million in British pounds, or 10% of the website’s annual revenue.

Companies aren’t going to want to subject themselves to that kind of punishment.

How would—how can—Wikipedia actually police this? How would the many social media companies be able to keep tabs on the endless labyrinth of potentially worrisome material shared by millions on their platforms and the ages of users who have access to them?

The downsides to such laws are almost impossible to predict. Thanks to OSA, British users who did not want to verify their age have lost access to Spotify. The same was true for some Brits and pizza delivery. No pepperoni pie for you, young lad. Don’t worry, it’s for your own good.

The backlash against OSA has been significant. U.S.-UK dual citizen Liz Mair reported at Real Clear Policy:

“VPN apps, which allow a user to disguise their actual location, became the most downloaded apps in the UK—as Brits sought to dodge the restrictions. And in a matter of days, 500,00 Brits—approaching 1 percent of the population of England—signed a petition urging Parliament to debate a repeal of the law (10,000 signatures are all it takes to force an official response from the government; after 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider a debate).”

So far, Paul’s KOSA worries looks prescient.

But the unforeseen negative effects of OSA get worse than pizza delivery and streaming services. Far worse.

There is a “Grooming Gangs” scandal in the United Kingdom that is a threat to young women and girls. Mair notes that with the OSA:

“… there have also been some really serious, adverse effects that actually could jeopardize, not enhance kids’ safety. It all demonstrates what many of us who criticized the law when it was a bill, and who have criticized the US companion bill, KOSA, have been saying for a long time: One man’s definition of ‘protecting’ children online can easily wind up hurting kids when a well-intentioned rule comes into effect.”

She’s not wrong.

“If you read up on the scandal, you will discover that it’s not really about ‘grooming’ at all, and much more about really horrific mass rape and abuse of kids orchestrated by gangs here in Britain,” Mair writes.

She notes as a practical matter:

“Maybe tween and teenage girls in areas where these gangs have operated don’t need to be exposed to every last detail, but surely they need to have some idea of the fact that if they accept gifts from an older ‘boyfriend,’ the end result may be really, really atrocious, almost unthinkable abuse—and not groping or unwanted kissing (and not just by the ‘boyfriend’ but dozens of his ‘friends’)?”

This is an important point. Shouldn’t young British girls be able to learn about the methods used by men who might harm them? But instead are being shielded by harsh but useful information in the name of protecting them?

In reality, is OSA really just making kids more vulnerable?

These are the sorts of problems Sen. Paul warned about with KOSA.

Politicians in both parties are always quick to support any legislation that is intended to “protect” children. But maybe they should pause and think about what the negative effects could be, for even a second? Thinking is not popular among politicians and this is bipartisan, with KOSA being co-sponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

Americans of a certain age will recall the PATRIOT Act ushered in rapidly after 9/11 to supposedly better “protect” us was done so by overwhelming majorities in both parties. But instead of targeting foreign terrorists, that law ended up being used more to go after drug dealers.

Giving the federal government these sorts of extra-constitutional powers is never a good idea, and can be used against political opponents across the ideological spectrum depending on which party is in power. As Paul wrote in opposing KOSA, “This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to suppress important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free and healthy society. That is why a legion of advocacy groups on the left and the right, such as Students for Life and the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose KOSA.”

Rand Paul is right about KOSA and how it might not only harm liberty but endanger Americans if it passes.

The United Kingdom’s example should be proof enough.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Western European powers are facing major problems

By Mohammed Amer – New Eastern Outlook – September 5, 2025

The policies of major Western European countries are not understood by the majority of the population of these states because they do not serve their national interests. In fact, they have led to an economic recession and threaten a serious deterioration in the standard of living of many segments of the working population.

France: The Sick Man of Europe

In France, a vote of confidence in the government will take place in early September, and it is almost a foregone conclusion that François Bayrou’s cabinet will be dismissed: the country will lose its third prime minister in one year. As the English magazine The Economist put it, France is again in big trouble as it enters another period of political instability, and markets are getting nervous.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the French left-wing opposition, has called for the impeachment of President Macron as the country sinks into political, economic, and social crisis. Notably, the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah concluded that France has “become an unreformable country and the sick man of Europe.”

Great Britain on the Brink of Impoverishment

Perhaps the crisis is felt most acutely in Great Britain, which is becoming a country of constant protests: the actions of Prime Minister K. Starmer are being increasingly harshly criticized. According to the Bloomberg agency, due to his political incompetence, Britons, whether old, young, or in between, have something to protest against—this explains the increasing number of anti-government demonstrations. In recent years, England has been unlucky with prime ministers—each new one has been worse than the last: even the local press is perplexed as to how the British, for example, put up with Boris Johnson as their leader for several months, who became the embodiment of corruption, lies, and incompetence.

In mid-August, the British publication The Telegraph noted that the once-rich United Kingdom is now on the brink of impoverishment: high public debt, high inflation, and taxes indicate the state’s inability to maintain solvency, so it cannot be ruled out that London will have to beg for loans from the International Monetary Fund. Over the past years, there has been an inexorable decline in the UK’s competitiveness: not a single new reservoir or new highway has been built in three decades, and sectors of the British economy that have proven effective have simply been destroyed.

“The State of Universal Unwell-being”

A negative situation is developing in various sectors of German industry; even the current chancellor admits that the country is experiencing a structural and economic crisis: Europe’s leading economy is facing the problem of high-energy prices. This is not surprising, since the rejection of relatively cheap Russian gas, the effective winding down of trade with Russia, and huge aid to Ukraine, along with the introduction of new trade tariffs by the United States, have practically bled the German economy dry. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the Federal Republic of Germany will no longer be a “social welfare state,” meaning an inability to finance social security costs.

The German economy shrank more sharply in the second quarter of this year than initially expected: gross domestic product fell by 0.3% compared to the previous three months, and investment also fell by 1.4%.

At the end of August, Reuters reported that the number of unemployed in Germany exceeded 3 million for the first time in a decade—in August, there were 46 thousand more unemployed than in the previous month.

Corruption, Spanish Style

The Spanish government is also facing serious difficulties: two close associates of Prime Minister P. Sánchez have been accused of corruption. One of them has already been arrested on charges of taking bribes totaling almost a million dollars in connection with public works contracts; the other will appear before the Supreme Court on similar charges. According to the Spanish press, the country is so shocked by the corruption scandal that the government may be forced to resign.

The Decline of Western Europe Becomes Apparent

It is noteworthy that more and more politicians are talking about Western Europe losing its influence. Former French Ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud, in an article for Le Point, noted the end of Western global dominance, linking it to the conflict in Ukraine, which, in his words, “cartoonishly illustrates the misunderstanding and rejection of the coming world by European leaders.”

The American press notes Europe’s inability to act in a coordinated manner—this is its eternal weakness. Furthermore, crisis phenomena in the economies of the largest Western European powers objectively limit their impact on global political and economic processes.

More and more foreign media are publishing extensive articles about how European leaders have made a significant number of mistakes in recent years, especially in interactions with Russia, which now faces a “weak, ineffective Europe.” The European Union has expanded too much, and decision-making has become very burdensome—this became painfully apparent starting in 2010, when the economic crisis in the eurozone led to the fall of governments in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, followed by years of zero interest rates and sluggish growth.

Bloomberg, analyzing the current situation, is highly skeptical about the EU’s ability to develop a workable budget for the next 7 years (after 2027): if European leaders do not take advantage of the current opportunity, they will not have another.

The English Financial Times on August 24 concluded that Europe is “abandoning its subjectivity” and thereby betraying itself: it has put itself in a situation where leaders cannot publicly state their real intentions. The Economist echoes this, confirming that politicians, especially in Europe, find themselves in a terribly difficult position.

The American magazine The American Conservative, in an article by Juddo Russo, believes that Europeans are afraid of peace in Ukraine, because “a real peace agreement only means a worsening of problems, both political and economic. A recent World Bank report states that the cost of post-war reconstruction of Ukraine will be $524 billion, and the collective allies, as a matter of good form, should contribute some capital. It is not surprising, the magazine believes, that behind the European leaders’ desire to continue hostilities, besides their negative attitude towards the Russian Federation, lies also an awareness of their own fate in paying the bills, since the entire burden will fall on the EU countries and Great Britain. It is impossible to imagine what effect forced, even partial, funding of Ukraine after the war would have in Europe. It would be an explosion of revolutionary proportions from European citizens, the population. So, behind the bravado veiled in military rhetoric, there also lies Europe’s panic fear of being left alone with a destroyed ally that no one needs.”

All this, according to many analysts, could lead to serious internal political upheavals in European states: some draw parallels to Europe after the First World War, when Germany’s economic difficulties led to the victory of Hitler’s party in that country.

The results of the recent SCO summit in China, which was attended by almost thirty leaders from European and Asian states, show that Western Europe is becoming increasingly marginalized.

Mohamed Amer is a Syrian political analyst.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

‘Coalition of the Willing’ Ready to Deliver Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine — What Could Go Wrong?

Sputnik – 04.09.2025

Members of the “Coalition of the Willing” have expressed their readiness to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, Downing Street said on Thursday.

A meeting took place in Paris earlier on Thursday in a hybrid format, chaired by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“The Prime Minister also welcomed announcements from Coalition of the Willing partners to supply long range missiles to Ukraine to further bolster the country’s supplies,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that Ukrainian forces could only carry out such operations with NATO personnel involved, signaling direct Western participation in the conflict. This could fundamentally change the nature of the confrontation, with NATO members effectively fighting against Russia.

At the same time, Europe’s vision of security guarantees for Ukraine involves stationing troops away from the front lines for demonstration and training purposes, the Washington Post reported Thursday, citing unnamed officials with direct knowledge of the plans.

The deployment will include a “demonstration” element, with troops serving as a deterrent against Russia, and a “regeneration” element, which implies training and rebuilding the country’s military force. The ultimate goal is transforming the Ukrainian military into what EU leaders call a “steel porcupine,” the daily reported.

On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that work on preparing security guarantees for Ukraine had been completed. The so-called coalition of the willing will meet in Paris on Thursday in a hybrid format to thrash out details of security arrangements. Following the meeting, several European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will call US President Donald Trump, French media reported.

On August 18, US President Donald Trump held a meeting in Washington with Ukrainian and European leaders, after which he announced that France, Germany and the United Kingdom want to deploy troops on Ukrainian territory. He added that there would be no US troops in Ukraine during his presidency. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said previously that the presence of NATO allies’ troops on Ukrainian soil — under any flag and in any capacity, including as peacekeepers — was a threat to Russia, and that Moscow would not accept it under any circumstances.

September 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The End of the Free, Global Internet

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | September 1, 2025

It appears that the free global internet, such as it was, which many of us loved and grew up with, is nearly dead. Long gone are the days of anonymous IRC chats or where only paranoiacs thought their emails were monitored. The growing standard is the government demanding websites know who you are all the time to “protect” you from a myriad of trivial things such as “hate speech” or videos of people eating too much.

As has become common, it is not any of the “authoritarian” states we hear about leading the way to the end of internet freedom, but instead the ethnic European parts of the former British Empire. The United Kingdom itself has just implemented legislation which demands all users upload ID to show they are over eighteen when using anything it deems “dangerous,” while Australia is restricting all of those sixteen and under from having social media accounts whatsoever, again to protect them primarily from thoughts the government dislikes. The British legislation is particularly dangerous as it is expected that sites based anywhere in the world comply with expansive moderation rules, while Australia’s law is a blanket ban on social media usage for an age category. In both cases, however, they kill internet anonymity and set a terrible precedent.

The internet has been under siege from many directions for many years. It is true that America’s regime change class found free internet useful for “Color Revolutions” and did at times use it to undermine foreign governments. As a consequence, it has historically acted as a defender of internet freedom when it advances other objectives. Thus, something like “The Great Firewall of China” which we were conditioned to care about, though it did not impact anyone outside of China.

The attacks on the internet have only grown more blatant, such as in Brazil where Judge Alexandre de Moraes has been on a rampage trying to “protect” the public from political speech he dislikes. In the United States, however, the bigger problem was originally just collecting enormous amounts of data secretly, which they did while encouraging people to use the internet however they wished—creating all the more data. The attempts at algorithmic mind control pushed by the Joe Biden administration and complacent—or enthusiastic—tech companies was again done while purporting to be for a free internet. Despite government hypocrisy and abuses, the internet remains the greatest communication tool in human history and we should protect it at all costs, while remaining mindful of government data collection activities, information control, and regime change operations.

The British and Australian laws are all the more nefarious as they impact almost all internet activity, and of course, they use the classic line “Won’t someone think of the children!” Age verification for pornography is one thing—that brings the internet in line with the laws of the physical world where you can’t walk into a store and buy that content without an adult ID; but this is much broader. As a recent Politico article explains, as well as pornography, there are age verification limits on, “hate speech, content promoting drugs and weapons, online harassment and depictions of violence… Large platforms restricted everything from X posts on Gaza to subreddits on cigars, and blocked content entirely in certain cases.” As Kym Robinson recently explained, they are rapidly medicalizing internet use and making it about physical and mental health, which for eKarens is an endless justification for meddling. In short, nearly anything fun or interesting could be considered adult content and the sites themselves are being made to police this or face significant fines, which intentionally creates a situation where cautious site owners will expand it past anything the government demands. No reasonable man can have any faith in any supposed privacy protections which are said to stop governments from accessing the ID used to age verify an account.

It’s easy as an adult to forget the experience of being a child, and imagine children lack the ability to understand anything about the world around them, when in fact they are learning such things at a rapid pace. It happens to be the case that I was twelve in the year 2000 when the first major law on this topic went into effect in the United States: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA.] This law, in its original form, stopped kids under thirteen from having accounts on any website without a parent’s permission. To recover your email address your parent had to put in credit card information, which many were hesitant to do back then in an era where online shopping was still fairly rare. The thing about that though was the sites simply removed the option to sign up if you were under thirteen and had no verification option, so no one’s privacy was made worse; it was just annoying and condescending towards children.

What is notable about this is that at the time I wrote a persuasive speech for English class against this law. I have a reason to remember at age twelve that my classmates and I were able to understand the policy being unfairly implemented and I was able to write a formal argument against it. Now, being a parent instead of a twelve-year old, I certainly have some different views about what is appropriate for children, but the ability of children to understand what is going on around them is greater than commonly realized. The Australian Communications Minister tried to defend their ban on all social media use, including YouTube, for kids under sixteen by likening it to teaching your kid to swim in the pool before putting them in the ocean with the sharks and rip currents. In fact it is the exact opposite: it throws kids right in at sixteen with no experience when they are the most irresponsible and difficult to control.

What is the most nefarious about these “age verification” laws is that the United Kingdom and Australia both regularly arrest internet users for posts that they don’t like. The end of anonymity will kill the most valuable discourse coming from either country. Both of these countries in many ways seem completely defeated and devoid of the love of liberty, but in fact have thriving and creative “anon” communities still carrying the fire of freedom. The ability to express opinions and tell the world what is happening will all but disappear under a regime where you have to verify your age to use Spotify—not to mention how ridiculous it is to ban seventeen-year olds from using Spotify even if it impacted no one eighteen and above. Everything that has happened up to now shows that age verification laws in these countries will set the stage for an even larger crackdown on all unapproved thoughts.

Something I have noticed in my time on this Earth is that you can tell a lot by a man for how he uses the term “the Wild West.” It is generally either used by liberty lovers to mean, “You’re allowed to do what you want and it’s awesome,” or by sniveling Mandarins to mean “This is terribly dangerous and needs to be regulated.” I have long feared a future where the young say that the internet used to be like the Wild West and view this as scary and dangerous. Now, the younger generation seems to be coming up tired of the schoolmarm government, but it will be a hard fight to keep any of the internet’s Wild West charm as it is consumed by meddlesome nanny states.

If these laws in the United Kingdom and Australia are allowed to stand it will represent a major step in a perhaps irreversible process whereby the internet will become ever more broken up by the country of the user, and in most of them much less free. I would be able to take some comfort in the idea that this could send people back to the pubs to talk in person, but the Brits are also cracking down on pub banter, and I somehow doubt other states are far behind them.

September 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Zelensky threatens ‘new deep strikes’ into Russia

RT | August 31, 2025

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has threatened new strikes into Russia, days after claiming that Kiev possessed a brand-new long-range missile capable of reaching Moscow.

Zelensky wrote on Telegram that he had been briefed by Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Syrsky, on the current battlefield situation.

“We will continue our active actions exactly as needed to protect Ukraine. Forces and means are prepared. New deep strikes have also been planned,” he said on Sunday, without providing further details.

Earlier this month, Zelensky claimed Ukraine had developed the long-range Flamingo missile with a reported range of 3,000 kilometers – which would be enough to reach not only Moscow but also Russian cities beyond the Ural mountains. The Ukrainian leader, however, said that mass production is not expected for the next several months.

British media outlets cast doubts on whether the Flamingo was developed in Ukraine, noting similarities with the FP-5 cruise missile produced by the UK-based Milanion Group and unveiled at an arms expo in Abu Dhabi this year. The UK has also been supportive of Kiev’s long-range strikes, having provided it with Storm Shadow missiles in the past.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that there is “nothing surprising” in the similarities, adding that “Ukraine has long turned into a testing ground for Western weapons. There are more than enough examples.”

On Friday, the Kyiv Independent also reported that Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau has launched an investigation into Fire Point, the defense firm linked to the development of the Flamingo missile, after reports it misled the government on pricing and deliveries.

Earlier this month the Wall Street Journal reported that the US had blocked Ukraine from carrying out strikes deep inside Russian territory. Throughout the conflict, some of Kiev’s Western backers have been wary of authorizing unrestricted strikes into Russia using Western-supplied weapons, citing concerns over escalation with Moscow.

Ukraine has regularly carried out long-range attacks inside Russia, which Moscow says frequently hit civilian areas and critical infrastructure. Russia has retaliated with strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities and defense enterprises but maintains that it never targets civilians.

August 31, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s parliament submits emergency bill to withdraw from NPT

Al Mayadeen | August 29, 2025

Following the announcement by the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) to trigger the snapback mechanism on sanctions against Tehran, Iran’s Parliament has drafted and submitted an emergency bill proposing a full withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Hossein-Ali Haji-Deligani, Deputy Chairman of the Article 90 Committee of Iran’s Parliament, confirmed that the bill will be uploaded to the parliamentary system on the following day and subsequently reviewed in an open session.

“As we had previously stated, these countries were already implementing the consequences of the snapback mechanism, including sanctions against us. There is nothing new in this.” Haji-Deligani told Iran’s Tasnim.

He further stated that the steps taken were “the most minimal response by Parliament to the recent action of the European countries, and further regret-inducing measures are also on the agenda.”

Deputy chairman calls for decisive action

The proposed legislation comes amid growing frustration in Tehran over the West’s repeated failure to honor agreements and ease pressure on Iran. Haji-Deligani noted that Iran’s Parliament is determined to pursue a firm and deterrent course of action.

According to the lawmaker, the activation of the snapback mechanism effectively reinstates previous sanctions but introduces no new developments. Nonetheless, he emphasized that Iran’s response would be strategic and assertive.

Criticizing continued dialogue with Western countries, Haji-Deligani asserted, “Given what these three countries have done, negotiations with them are now meaningless. Dialogue will only embolden them.”

“We witnessed that during negotiations with the arrogant US, a brutal war was launched against our country by Israel, and the US bombed our peaceful nuclear sites,” he added. “Our people clearly know that talks with these countries have brought nothing but more pressure. Therefore, all dialogue must be suspended until these countries abandon their double standards.”

The emergency bill signals a potential turning point in Iran-E3 talks and highlights a significant policy shift in Tehran’s approach to its nuclear file. The move could impact the broader framework governing the Iran nuclear program and regional diplomacy.

Iran vows response

Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed on Thursday that France, Britain, and Germany have formally notified Tehran of their decision to trigger the “snapback” mechanism to reimpose United Nations sanctions under the 2015 nuclear deal.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the measure as “illegal and unjustified,” warning that Tehran would respond “appropriately to protect and guarantee its national rights and interests.”

In a phone call with his French, British, and German counterparts, Araghchi urged them to “appropriately correct this wrong decision in the coming days.” He stopped short of detailing possible retaliatory steps but hinted that the E3 risk being excluded from any future negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

The E3 action came just days after Iranian and European diplomats held a second round of talks in Geneva, billed as a last chance to salvage engagement before the October deadline for invoking the snapback clause.

The discussions collapsed without “tangible commitments,” according to European officials, who claim that Tehran’s ongoing breaches of enrichment limits left them with no choice but to act. It is noteworthy that the E3 had failed to uphold their commitments in accordance with the JCPOA after the US unilaterally left the agreement in 2018.

August 29, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Ambassador Slams U.S. & Europe Over Iran Sanctions at UN

Russia confirms circulating draft proposal aimed at preventing activation of ‘snapback’

Press TV – August 27, 2025

Russia has confirmed circulating a draft proposal at the UN Security Council aimed at averting activation of the so-called “snapback” mechanism that would restore the council’s sanctions against Iran.

The country’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyanski made the remarks to reporters during a press conference on Tuesday.

“It (the proposal) is about extending Resolution 2231,” he said.

The resolution’s expected expiration in October would lead to reinstatement of the coercive measures.

The European trio of the UK, France, and Germany – the United States allies in a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world countries – has been trying hard to have the measures restored.

Polyanski, however, insisted, “Russia and China want to give more breathing space for diplomacy and provide some possibilities for an active quest for a diplomatic solution to this issue.”

He said Moscow and Beijing were doing so in their capacity as “as responsible members of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal’s official name. … Full article

August 28, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s foreign minister: Entry of IAEA inspectors does not signal full cooperation

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister
Press TV – August 27, 2025

Iran’s foreign minister has confirmed the arrival of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) following a months-long hiatus.

Abbas Araghchi, however, said their presence does not mean the resumption of full cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog.

Speaking to reporters in Tehran on Wednesday, the foreign minister said the entry was authorized by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and limited to overseeing the fuel replacement process at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.

He said under a recent parliamentary law, all cooperation with the IAEA must be approved by the SNSC.

“No text has yet received final approval,” he added, referring to ongoing discussions about a new cooperation modality following the acts of aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States in June.

Iran has barred any new inspections since the attacks, citing safety concerns at damaged nuclear sites and criticizing the IAEA’s failure to condemn the strikes.

Earlier, Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said the inspectors’ presence was tied to routine operations at the Bushehr facility and the need to maintain electricity supply to the national grid.

On August 26, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi announced that inspectors were “back in Iran.”

In an interview with Fox News, Grossi said, “When it comes to Iran, as you know, there are many facilities. Some were attacked, some were not.”

“So we are discussing what kind of … practical modalities can be implemented to facilitate the restart of our work there.”

The developments come amid renewed diplomatic tensions, as Iran held talks in Geneva with Britain, France, and Germany over their threat to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism, a provision of the 2015 nuclear deal that would restore UN sanctions lifted under the accord.

European signatories to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) have said they will wait until August 31 to decide whether to activate the mechanism.

Iran has reduced its cooperation with the IAEA in recent years in response to the withdrawal of the United States from the 2015 nuclear deal and the failure of Europeans to make up for the withdrawal.

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »