Oxford city council passes boycott divestment, sanctions motion
Press TV – March 26, 2025
The Oxford City Council has passed a motion supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, in accordance with International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings.
On Monday, the members of Oxford City Council unanimously voted for an “ethical investment and procurement” process against Israel.
The motion calls on the Oxford City Council to avoid cooperation and trade with entities complicit in human rights violations and international law.
In January 2024, the ICJ delivered an interim ruling that said it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. The court called on Israel to refrain from impeding the delivery of aid into Gaza
Amongst other orders, ICJ also ordered Israel to avoid acts of genocide in the besieged enclave and punish incitement to genocide.
The Israeli regime not only has continued to ignore the ICJ’s rulings but also has committed numerous acts of genocide against the people of Palestine, including the restriction of the delivery of international aid into the besieged enclave.
Given Israel’s disregard for the Court’s orders, Oxford councilor Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini said councilors had “unanimously passed a boycott and divestment motion citing the ICJ rulings on Palestine.”
One of the motion’s proponents, councilor Barbara Coyne, said in a press release, “I hope this motion will be thoroughly implemented, and that its passage may pave the way for other councils to take decisive action.”
In addition, the Council has called on the Oxfordshire Investment Fund to divest more than 157 million pounds from companies complicit in the Israeli regime’s apartheid, genocide, occupation, and settler colonialism.
The people of Palestine have long called for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, including an arms and energy embargo, against the occupying regime.
The BDS movement demands that Israel, under international law, withdraw from the occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, and respect the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.
War, doublethink and the struggle for survival: the geopolitics of the Gaza Genocide
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | March 26, 2025
In a genocidal war that has spiralled into a struggle for political survival, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and the global powers supporting him continue to sacrifice Palestinian lives for political gain. The sordid career of Israel’s extreme far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, epitomises this tragic reality.
Ben-Gvir joined Netanyahu’s government coalition following the December 2022 election. He remained in the coalition after 7 October, 2023, and the start of Israel’s war and the Gaza Genocide, with the understanding that any ceasefire in Gaza would force his withdrawal from the government. As long as the killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their cities continued, then Ben-Gvir stayed on board. Neither he nor Netanyahu had any real “next-day” plan, though, other than to carry out some of the most heinous massacres against a civilian population in recent history.
On 19 January, Ben-Gvir left the government immediately when a ceasefire agreement came into effect, which many argued would not last. Netanyahu’s untrustworthiness, along with the collapse of his government if the war ended completely, made the ceasefire unfeasible.
Ben-Gvir duly returned to the coalition when the genocide resumed on 18 March. “We are back, with all our might and power!” he tweeted.
Israel lacks a clear plan because it cannot defeat the Palestinians.
While the Israeli army has inflicted suffering on the Palestinian people like no other force has against a civilian population in modern times, the Gaza Genocide endures because the Palestinians refuse to surrender.
And yet, Israel’s military planners know that a military victory is no longer possible. Former Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon added his voice to the growing chorus recently, saying during an interview on 15 March that, “Revenge is not a war plan.”
The Americans, who supported Netanyahu’s violation of the ceasefire — and gave the green light for the resumption of the killings — also understand that the war is almost entirely a political struggle, designed to keep extreme far-right figures like Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Netanyahu’s coalition.
Although “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state, but about Netanyahu’s own political survival. He is sacrificing Palestinian children to stay in power, while his extremist ministers do the same to expand their support among right-wing, religious and ultra-nationalist constituencies.
This logic — that Israel’s war on Gaza reflects internal politics, ideological warfare and class infighting — extends to other political players as well. The Trump administration supports Israel as payback for the financial backing it received from Netanyahu’s supporters in the US during the past few presidential election campaigns. Britain, meanwhile, remains steadfast in its commitment to Tel Aviv, despite the political shifts in Westminster, thus continuing to align with US-Israeli interests while disregarding the wishes of its own population. Meanwhile, Germany, it’s said, is driven by the guilt of its past crimes, while other Western governments pay lip service to human rights, all the while acting in ways that contradict their stated foreign policies.
This mirrors the dystopian world of George Orwell’s book 1984, wherein perpetual war is waged based on cynical and false assumptions; where “war is peace… freedom is slavery… and ignorance is strength.”
These elements are indeed reflected in today’s equally dystopian reality.
However, Israel substitutes “peace” with “security” (its own; nobody else’s), the US is motivated by dominance and “stability”, and Europe continues to speak of “democracy”.
Another key difference is that Palestinians do not belong to any of these “super states”. They are treated as mere pawns, their deaths and enduring injustice used to create the illusion of “conflict” and to justify the ongoing prolongation of the war.
The number of Palestinians killed — now more than 50,000 — is reported widely by mainstream media outlets, yet rarely do they mention that this is not a war in the traditional sense, but a genocide, carried out, financed and defended by Israel and Western powers for domestic political reasons. Palestinians continue to resist because it is their only legitimate option in the face of utter destruction and extermination.
Netanyahu’s war, however, is not sustainable in the Orwellian sense either. For it to be sustainable, it would need infinite economic resources, which Israel, despite US generosity, cannot afford. It would also need an endless supply of soldiers, but reports indicate that at least half of Israel’s reserves are not rejoining the army.
Furthermore, Netanyahu does not merely seek to sustain the Gaza Genocide; he aims to expand it. This could shift regional and international dynamics in ways that neither Israeli leaders nor their allies fully understand.
Aware of this, Arab leaders met in Cairo on 4 March to propose an alternative to the Netanyahu-Trump plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza. However, they have yet to take meaningful action to hold Israel accountable if it continues to defy international and humanitarian laws, as it has since the Arab summit.
The Arab world must escalate its response beyond mere statements.
If they don’t, then the Middle East may endure further wars, all to prolong Netanyahu’s coalition of extremists a little longer.
As for the West, the crisis lies in its moral contradictions. The situation in Gaza embodies Orwell’s concept of “doublethink”, holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both. Western powers claim to support human rights while simultaneously backing genocide. Until this dilemma is resolved, the Middle East will continue to endure suffering for years to come.
Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic & Baltic Fronts
By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025
Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defense magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.
In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.
Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.
He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying Northwestern Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.
He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.
Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.
Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.
At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.
Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.
Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.
Ian Proud: Britain Will Slowly Adjust to the US Position on Ukraine to Remain Relevant
Glenn Diesen | March 24, 2025
Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles…
UK military slams Ukraine ‘peacekeeping’ plan as ‘political theater’ – Telegraph
RT | March 24, 2025
UK military officials have dismissed Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s proposal for deploying Western troops to Ukraine as part of a ‘peacekeeping force’ to oversee a potential ceasefire, The Telegraph reported on Sunday. Senior military sources told the outlet that Starmer had “got ahead of himself.”
Starmer announced the initiative earlier this month, aiming to build a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine militarily. Last week, he claimed that multiple countries backed the idea of sending in a peacekeeping force of up to 10,000 troops, despite Moscow’s opposition to any Western deployments in the conflict zone.
London hosted planning talks last week with military officials from partner nations. However, military sources dismissed the plans as premature and politically motivated.
“There is no defined military end-state or military-strategic planning assumptions. It’s all political theater,” one senior army official told the news outlet.
“Starmer got ahead of himself with talk of boots on the ground before he knew what he was talking about.”
The discussions have reportedly shifted their focus from boots on the ground to air and naval support. The Telegraph reported that RAF fighter jets could be deployed to patrol Ukrainian airspace, while British Typhoons could provide air cover for ground forces, though the size and role of any ground deployment remain unclear.
“It’s politics. There’s no military sense in it,” another defense source said, noting that neither Russia nor the US support the coalition. He also pointed to a lack of clarity on mission goals.
“What is a 10,000-international force based in the west of the country over 400km from the front line meant to do? It cannot even protect itself,” he argued. “What is the mission? What is its legitimacy? What are the rules of engagement? How is it commanded, supplied and housed? How long is it there for and why? No one knows.”
Further planning talks are expected in London on Monday between British and French defense officials. French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly considering invoking the UN to authorize a European troop presence in Ukraine. However, Russia has repeatedly rejected the idea of Western peacekeepers in Ukraine, noting that it would require UN Security Council approval, where Moscow holds veto power.
Stepan Bandera’s Sinister MI6 Alliance Exposed
[Source: ar.inspiredpencil.com]
By Kit Klarenberg | Covert Action Magazine | March 20, 2025
October 15, 2024, marked the 65th anniversary of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) founder Stepan Bandera’s assassination by the KGB in Munich, in then-West Germany.
The date passed without mention anywhere. This may reflect how prior public commemorations of the life and death of Nazi collaborator Bandera—widely credited as the father of Ukrainian nationalism—in Kyiv sparked significant controversy and condemnation across Central and Eastern Europe, particularly neighboring Poland.
The complicity of Bandera and the fascist movements he birthed during World War II is well-documented. His influence over modern-day ultranationalist and Neo-Nazi factions in Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment, has also been acknowledged in the mainstream media.
Yet, Bandera’s secret Cold War bond with British intelligence has never been seriously explored by Western news outlets. Now, examination of little-known declassified CIA records by CovertAction Magazine exposes the malign contours of a long-running, ruthless conspiracy between Bandera and MI6 to destabilize the Soviet Union.
This dark handshake only expired because MI6’s fascist asset was resistant to joining forces with other Ukrainian anti-Communist forces, therefore jeopardizing plans by Washington and London for all-out war with the Soviets in Donbas. That plot, intended to ultimately collapse the entire USSR, has eerie, direct echoes of the current Ukraine proxy war. So too Britain’s willingness, then and now, to go even further than the U.S. in building alliances with the most reactionary, dangerous Ukrainian ultranationalist elements, in service of balkanizing Russia.
“Bandit Type”
MI6 first contacted Bandera while he was exiled in post-war West Germany in 1948, via Gerhard von Mende. An ethnic German hailing from Riga, Latvia, von Mende has been described as the “enthusiastic Nazi” who headed Berlin’s Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, or Ostministerium. Among other connivances, von Mende was charged with recruiting fifth columnists from the USSR’s Central Asian republics, to undermine and attack Communist authorities. He has been credited with influencing subsequent British and American support for Islamic extremists.
Per a declassified CIA biography, after Nazi Germany’s defeat, von Mende was “interned as a ‘guest’” at the Agency’s Camp King, where Nazi officials and soldiers were interrogated and tortured. In some cases, inmates were unwittingly dosed with LSD under PROJECT BLUEBIRD, a forerunner to the CIA’s notorious MK-ULTRA mind-control program. Subsequently, von Mende became an asset for West Germany’s Nazi-riddled BND, the CIA, and MI6, continuing his spy recruitment in the USSR via a front company.
Through this position, von Mende was kept abreast of UPA activities and capabilities, and maintained an intimate personal relationship with Bandera. The Ukrainian fascist ideologue’s thuggish West German network was by then hard at work killing hundreds of local citizens suspected by the CIA and MI6 of harboring Communist sympathies. While the OUN-B chief’s “ask” of British intelligence was initially judged too high, that perspective rapidly changed. By 1949, MI6 was helping Bandera airdrop his chaos agents into Ukraine.
A year later, Britain’s foreign spy agency began formally training these operatives to gather intelligence and carry out sabotage and assassinations on Soviet soil. This sinister compact was established despite stern CIA and State Department opposition. At this point, the Agency had identified a comparatively moderate alternative to Bandera’s murderous ultranationalist mob, the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR). The group was led by Ukrainian-Greek Catholic priest Ivan Hrinioch, a “longtime CIA asset” and former high-ranking OUN-B operative Mykola Lebed.
During World War II, Lebed oversaw the UPA’s massacre of tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. However, he subsequently disavowed this genocidal carnage, and led UHVR’s push to unite Ukrainian émigrés, who had fractured due to bloody, internecine squabbles toward the conflict’s end. Under the auspices of Operation AERODYNAMIC, for decades the Agency exploited the UHVR to foment “nationalist flare-ups” throughout the Soviet Union, “particularly” in Ukraine, and “encourage divisive manifestations among” the population, to “exert pressure on the Soviet regime.”
By this time, Bandera had fallen out of favor with many Ukrainian nationalists, and was even renounced by what remained of OUN-B’s Kiev-based leadership. This, his genocidal past, and overt anti-U.S. actions and statements due to Washington’s refusal to publicly advocate for Ukrainian independence, all deterred the CIA from employing him. However, MI6 was unperturbed and pushed ahead with its Bandera operations. This created a ludicrous situation, with London and Washington supporting bitterly antagonistic Ukrainian nationalist factions, which frequently undermined and attacked each other.
As a British intelligence memorandum on “the crisis over Bandera” noted, by 1950 Ukrainian nationalist leaders had “become aware of the fact that the British and Americans were backing rival groups,” putting the agencies’ joint anti-Soviet project at risk. It was decided to dispatch a co-signed message to UPA headquarters via Ukrainian CIA and MI6 agents parachuted into Lviv, calling for an end to “present disagreements” between opposing nationalist factions, which London and Washington professed to “deplore and earnestly hope may be resolved.”
It signed off with the now-infamous, Bandera-coined nationalist slogan, “Glory to Ukraine” (“Slava Ukraini”). The memo’s MI6 author, moreover, recalled an in-person meeting they had with Bandera in London. The spy described him thusly:
“Convincing and sincere… a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game, acquired by hard experience, along with a thorough knowledge of the Ukrainian people… a bandit type if you like, with a burning patriotism which provides an ethical background and a justification for his banditry.”
The MI6 operative cheerfully added that genocidal mass murderer Bandera was “no better and no worse than others of his kind I have had dealings with in the past,” and “genuinely grateful for the help given to him” by British intelligence, “but at the same time is certainly trying to get all he can out of it.” The CIA begged to differ, however, commissioning a study of London and Washington’s conflicting positions on the “Ukrainian underground” and Bandera, and how to resolve this divergence.
UPA poster from the 1940s. OUN/UPA’s formal greeting is written on two of the horizontal lines “Glory to Ukraine!” “Glory to the Heroes!” The soldier is standing on the banners of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. [Source: euromaidanpress.com]
“Political Overtones”
A subsequent appraisal repeatedly declared Bandera and OUN-B to be “completely unacceptable” to the CIA, “both from the political and the operational standpoints.” It proposed the Agency and MI6 take joint ownership of the UHVR and its anti-Soviet wrecking project in Ukraine, and “exchange political, operational and intelligence data resulting from these operations.” Meanwhile, the CIA would “take independent action to neutralize” OUN-B’s “present leadership,” including Bandera himself. It is unknown if this was pitched to MI6, although London’s steadfast opposition was inevitable.
The “British position,” as described in the study, was Bandera’s “importance” had been perennially “underestimated by the Americans, as a rallying symbol in the Ukraine, as leader of a large émigré group [and] as a leader favored by the homeland headquarters.” This did not conform to the reality on the ground as detected by the CIA, but MI6 had a vested interest in maintaining the fascist demagogue as an agent. An April 1951 Agency memo summarizing recent “talks” with British intelligence “on operations against the USSR” noted:
“[MI6 is] seeking progressively to assume control of Bandera’s lines… [MI6 argues] Bandera’s name still carried considerable weight in the Ukraine… [and OUN-B is] the strongest Ukrainian organization abroad, is deemed competent to train party cadres, [and] build a morally and politically healthy organization.”
By contrast, the CIA observed Soviet authorities “had been successful to a remarkable degree in transforming the mentality of the younger generation” of Ukrainians, resulting in them vehemently rejecting Bandera and his brand of rabid nationalism. While the Agency, therefore, favored “political neutralization of Bandera as an individual,” MI6 balked, as this “would lead to a drying up of recruits” and “disrupt British operations.” However, the declassified paper trail shows London eventually tired of their fascist asset.
In February 1954, a senior MI6 official who led liaison with OUN-B for two decades made a “final attempt to bring Bandera to reason” in London, due to the genocidaire’s refusal to reconcile and unite with opposing Ukrainian nationalist elements. The high-ranking British spook offered him “one last chance” to make amends with émigré leaders. Bandera “refused this suggestion with arrogant finality,” thus making “the break” between Bandera and MI6 “complete.”
All British intelligence-run Ukrainian agents who remained loyal to Bandera were duly jettisoned. MI6 informed other nationalist leaders the agency “would not resume” its relationship with him “under any circumstances.” Bandera remained exiled in Munich, West Germany, and continued to run belligerent cloak-and-dagger operations against the Soviet Union, while ratcheting up his anti-Western rhetoric. The CIA and MI6 viewed these activities as a significant problem, with no obvious solution.
As CIA records of a January 1955 “joint U.S.-UK conference” put it, despite the “unanimous desire” of British and American intelligence to “‘quiet’ Bandera,” it was equally vital the KGB was “not allowed to kidnap or kill him.” This could make Bandera “a martyr” among Ukrainian ultranationalists, a prospect to be avoided if at all possible. Hence, London and Washington kept him alive and well, while permitting West Germany’s BND to run him as an agent. Their old friend Gerhard von Mende was his handler.
West German authorities wished to punish Bandera and his in-country network for crimes including kidnapping, but von Mende consistently intervened to insulate his compatriot from prosecution. A July 1959 CIA report noted the BND’s use of Bandera was such a “closely held” secret within the agency, it was not even formally cleared with the West German government “due to political overtones.” Despite this omertà (code of silence), the BND moved to secure Bandera a U.S. visa.
It was hoped he would connect with Ukrainian émigrés Stateside, while ingratiating himself with the CIA and State Department. Per an October 5, 1959, Agency memo, the BND believed “it should be a simple matter” for the CIA “to influence the issuing of a visa” for Bandera, as “many less desirable and less ‘exploitable’ individuals” had already visited the country via Agency assistance. A formal request was submitted to Washington. Just ten days later, though, the KGB finally caught up with him.
Despite their mutual wish that Bandera not be “martyred” by Soviet intelligence, it is likely that the CIA and MI6 breathed a collective sigh of relief upon hearing of his death. The OUN-B and UPA founder’s destabilizing, disruptive influence within the Ukrainian anti-Communist underground was a significant impediment to Anglo-American spying agencies’ implementation of a far grander plan than has hitherto been tried. Namely, fomenting all-out war against the Soviet Union, using Ukrainian ultranationalists as foot soldiers.
This is the first instalment of a two-part investigation. Stay tuned.
Who is opposing peace in Ukraine?
By Dmitri Kovalevich – Al Mayadeen – March 20, 2025
March 2025 marks the beginning of a fourth year of the military conflict in Ukraine. Kiev, its sponsors in Europe and the United States, are proving unwilling to end the war being waged despite mounting evidence they are facing a major political and military defeat.
Zelensky vs Trump?
The five-year, electoral mandate dating from May 2019 of Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraine expired ten months ago. Yet on February 28, Zelensky staged a widely publicized quarrel with the new US administration in Washington headed by Donald Trump. The administration reacted, in turn, with a dramatic suspension of US arms shipments and sharing of intelligence and satellite data. Without this data, Ukrainian troops are ‘blinded’ because US military specialists have played a key role in helping choose Russian targets and helping operate complex rocket and missile weaponry. Particularly valuable are the images provided, with US government approval, by US commercial satellite imaging company Maxar.
The ‘suspensions’ were very short-lived. A meeting in Saudi Arabia on March 11 between the Kiev government and the Trump administration saw a renewal of the briefly-disrupted partnership between the two after its brief interruption in supplying military data and equipment. The meeting issued a proposal to Russia (better described as a threat) prepared in advance by Washington for a 30-day ‘ceasefire’. Critics in Russia and abroad say the proposal would allow the Ukraine Armed Forces to rest and regroup. If Russia turned it down, the Western powers could then condemn it for refusing peace.
Every serious analyst is pointing out that the ceasefire proposal does not at all address Russia’s well-publicized minimum conditions for a peace settlement. In other words, the plan is something of a trap for Russia. For that reason, it will not see the light of day.
Zelensky was absent from the Ukraine delegation in Saudi Arabia. He remains apprehensive over the prospect that Trump may wish to replace him and could do so at any time. Ukrainian political analyst Kost Bondarenko, who now lives abroad, explained on Telegram on March 4 that Zelensky is no longer listening to anyone, including those in his personal entourage. “He is acting hysterically and capriciously, recognizing only his own claimed righteousness. He doesn’t even listen to Yermak [head of the Office of the President of Ukraine]. His egocentrism has made Ukraine hostage to his whims.”
Europe benefits from the war
Zelensky is seeking more support from his patrons in the European Union and becoming more dependent on them, especially on the government of Great Britain. The latter continues to encourage him to sacrifice the people of Ukraine in a losing war against Russia.
Former Ukrainian (now Russian) political scientist Rostislav Ishchenko said in an interview on March 7 that the only difference between the Trump regime in Washington and the leading governments of the European Union is that ‘liberal’ Europe wants a consolidated West under a ‘liberal’ image while the right-wing, conservative Trump regime wants a united West focused on weakening and paralyzing Russia while simultaneously weakening China.
“Trump’s goal is not to make life easier for Russia. Trump’s goal is to get a peace that is acceptable to America. So far, everything that Trump formulates is absolutely unacceptable to us.”
Another former Ukrainian and now Russian political analyst Andrey Vajra told a Crimea news broadcast in February that the war in Ukraine has helped the European elites to appropriate billions of euros. “Europeans understand perfectly well that the war is lost. But the European elite needs to continue stealing [from weapons supplying and the multitude of forms of ‘aid’]. I have already explained how it is possible to continue stealing billions of euros so long as the killings continue in Ukraine. Far more millions of euros can be had. That’s why the European leaders are clinging to a warmaking Ukraine.”
In early March, the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, stated in an interview with the state-run Deutsche Welle that it would be ‘safer’ for Europe if the war in Ukraine continued for another five years. He criticized the Trump administration, saying the kind of swift end to the war being voiced by Trump “would enable the Russians to focus their energy against Europe”. This suggested ‘long war’ against Russia is the new, official theme of EU leaders as they strive to convince their populations of the need to massively expand military spending.
Even former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (2007-2010) of the Batkivshchyna faction in the Ukrainian legislature says she is outraged by Kahl’s frank admission. “Bruno Kahl for the first time officially confirmed what we were so reluctant to believe: At the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the very existence of Ukraine, some people decided on a war to ‘deplete’ Russia and thereby enhance the security in Europe? I did not think that they would dare to say it so officially and openly. This explains a lot,” Tymoshenko doth protest too much. She was a key fomentor of the violent, Maidan coup in February 2014 and an ardent advocate since then of military and political confrontation with Russia.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has also stated that a peace agreement could be more dangerous for Ukraine than an ongoing war. “I understand that many people believe that a peaceful solution or a ceasefire is a good idea, but we run the risk that peace in Ukraine would actually be more dangerous than the war that is ongoing now.”
Such pro-war stances are not only due to the fact that Western companies are getting rich on fulfilling military orders. A permanent war in Ukraine appeals to many Western leaders because this would weaken and pre-occupy Russia. “Israel” has long acted on the same principle in the Middle East. It has waged bloody wars in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to weaken these countries and prevent them from doing anything to stop “Israel’s” genocide against Palestinians and its occupation of Syrian territory.
Those who justify continued war in Ukraine make two contradictory assertions. On the one hand, they argue that the war has greatly weakened Russia and that the government there may soon collapse. Ukrainians should therefore fight just a little longer to secure ‘victory’. On the other hand, they say that Russia has become too strong and is a threat to overrun more European countries in the future. Ukrainian social networks have coined an ironic term for this contradictory belief system, calling it ‘Russophrenia’ (derived from the word ‘schizophrenia’).
The end of Ukraine’s adventure in Kursk
Disaster has befallen the Ukraine Armed Forces present in the Kursk border region of Russia. Large numbers of Ukrainian troops have become encircled—as many as 10,000 according to some Western media outlets. A March 8 report in a Ukrainian media outlet nervously reassured that the situation in Kursk “is not yet catastrophic”.
The Ukrainian military command did not issue any orders to retreat from threatened encirclements in Kursk. This repeats the experiences with earlier military encirclements in Donbass. These have allowed the Russian army to make steady and continued military advances there.
As reported by the online Politnavigator on March 7, a former advisor to the office of Zelensky, Alexei Arestovich, sees a familiar pattern to events in Kursk. “In dire conditions where encirclement is threatened, only the introduction of reserve troops can help. So we [the Ukraine Armed Forces] proceed as usual: drop in a few reserves removed from other threatened locations. These will most likely be unable to stabilize for any length of time because there are few reserves to draw upon. No one is left. Even worse is to keep the army in encirclements or threatened encirclements for too long, waiting for the political leadership to give an order to retreat. But those orders do not come. This scenario has repeated itself over and over again. We need to stop playing by such scenarios.”
Arestovich lives in exile somewhere in Europe and has said he would be a candidate in a forthcoming election for president of Ukraine should a free election take place.
On March 8-9, Russian troops managed rather easily to contain the remaining Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and cut off re-supply routes. This was partly helped by the spring thaw because Western-supplied military equipment becomes booged down in mud; it is designed primarily for use on paved or improved gravel roads.
Ukrainian opposition blogger Anatoliy Shariy writes that the losses of the AFU in Kursk are huge – some of the biggest losses that Ukrainian servicemen can remember.
The Ukrainian grouping in Kursk was centered around the border town of Suzdha. It is the site of an important pumping and transit station for a natural gas pipeline built during the Soviet era which connects the vast gas fields of eastern Russia to markets in Ukraine and further west in Europe. In January, Ukraine shut down pipeline shipments through Suzdha, drawing sharp protests and threats of counter-measures from Hungary and Slovakia.
An ironic consequence of Ukraine shutting down the pipeline was that Russian soldiers were able to use the now-empty pipeline to advance some 15 kilometers directly into the center of the Ukrainian grouping in Suzdha. They waited days for orders. Russia then surprised and overwhelmed the embedded Ukrainian forces with a multi-pronged attack beginning on March 8. Many Ukrainian soldiers and allied mercenaries ended up stampeding into surrounding minefields.
Russian military correspondent Anna Dolgareva spoke to Russian military scouts in Suzdha and reported, “For six days, the Russian fighters sat inside the pipeline awaiting orders to move. They spent some 24 hours of difficult walking to get there. The pipeline still contained traces of methane gas and so holes were cut in the pipe along the way for ventilation.”
This operation was made possible because Ukraine shut off gas transit causing European countries to buy much more expensive liquefied gas from producers in the United States. Western sanctions against Russia have cost Europe its supply of relatively cheap Russian gas, replaced by shipments of expensive liquefied natural gas from the United States as well as gas from Norway and Algeria shipped by pipeline.
Ukrainian elite on ‘starvation rations’
Representatives of the Ukrainian political elite are today extremely worried about Zelensky’s quarrel with the new US administration that exploded into view in Washington on February 28. For most, funding from the United States is their main source of income.
Since the early 1990s, Ukraine has developed an entire class of government officials and politicians who have ‘monetized’ Russophobia and anti-communism. A key piece of moving up the career ladder has been to act the loudest in stigmatizing the former Soviet Union and modern Russian Federation, and figuring out how best to draw Western funding for such efforts. This scheme has worked well for decades, but now the apparent chaos being sown by the new Trump regime in Washington has upset the old arrangements. The chaos is merely the expression of a governing U.S. regime facing a looming defeat of its proxy war in Ukraine along with its European partners.
Some legislators realize that Zelensky’s harsh outbursts and confrontation with Trump and Trump’s vice president in Washington on February 28 could cost the country dearly, but others are betting on maintaining an aggressive, pro-war rhetoric. They are looking to the British government to help out.
Alexei Arestovich writes that Zelensky’s ‘disobedience’ is based solely on his desire to extract security guarantees for himself and his entourage. He says the problem for the White House is that “providing personal guarantees to thieves risks setting yourself up before American justice.”
Ukrainian economist Oleksiy Kushch writes that for the Ukrainian elite, the era when it could act as a child and demand money from the ‘adult uncles’ in the West is coming to an end. The West is so used to that arrangement that Zelensky’s apparent conflicts with the U.S. administration are bewildering, a kind of ‘revolt against the boss’.
Kushch summarizes Ukraine’s situation after Zelensky’s quarrel with Trump in this way, “Like a teenager who ‘unexpectedly’ has a child and finds all responsibility now rests on him, ‘daddy’ U.S. may threaten to stop helping out as punishment for any ‘disobedience’ while ‘mommy’ Europe promises to continue giving money but not forever.”
The Ukrainian elite has been thoroughly corrupted by years of generous Western ‘aid’ handouts. It no longer knows how to earn revenue and wealth on its own. So if some character named Zelensky becomes an obstacle to the continued flow of ‘daddy’s’ money, he becomes expendable. So much the worse for him.
Demonstrations in American, European cities condemning Israeli crimes in Gaza
Thousands gathered outside the British government headquarters in London on Tuesday evening
Palestinian Information Center – March 19, 2025
Thousands of pro-Palestinian activists marched through the streets of American and European cities to condemn the resumption of the Israeli occupation’s war of extermination against the Gaza Strip that resulted in the martyrdom and injury of hundreds, most of whom children and women.
The marches began in cities like Seattle in Washington State, San Francisco in California, and Milwaukee in Wisconsin, protesting the U.S. administration’s approval of violating the ceasefire agreement, as shown in footage shared by pro-Palestinian pages on social media.
Participants in the protests demanded a ban on arming Israel while it commits genocide in Gaza, as well as the release of Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil.
In Minneapolis, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside the Israeli consulate, holding signs demanding an end to the genocide in the Gaza Strip.
The Minneapolis demonstration, announced just four hours prior to its gathering, garnered significant attention as it coincided with rush hour in the city.
In France, demonstrators in Place de la République in Paris condemned Israel’s breach of the ceasefire agreement and the resumption of attacks on the Gaza Strip.
The protesters called for an end to the war on Gaza, an immediate end to the blockade of the Strip, halting Israeli genocide in Gaza, holding Netanyahu and occupation leaders accountable, and boycotting Israel.
In Italy, clashes erupted between police and pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Milan, where hundreds called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza amidst stalled ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas.
Footage shows columns of red smoke filling the air, while the sounds of explosions echoed through the Italian city’s streets. Protesters were seen marching, raising Palestinian flags and signs that read “Hands off the West Bank” and “Glory to the martyrs, freedom for the prisoners,” before being attacked by police forces.
In the Dutch capital Amsterdam, another demonstration was held in support of Gaza and against the genocide being committed by Israel against Palestinians.
Cities like Ankara, Istanbul, Diyarbakır, and other Turkish cities also witnessed demonstrations condemning the Israeli massacres against residents of the Gaza Strip.
Protesters accused Israel of committing genocidal crimes through its ongoing aggression against the Gaza Strip and called on the international community to hold it accountable for these crimes.
Turkish organizations, including the Anadolu Youth Association, the Humanitarian Relief Organization, and the Turkish Institutions Coalition for Jerusalem, called for organizing supportive demonstrations for the Gaza Strip in various Turkish cities and for the continuation of the boycott against Israel and products from supporting companies.
Peace Negotiations & the End of NATO
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 18, 2025
The US and Russia negotiate an end to the proxy war in Ukraine: What is realistic to expect, how can Europe’s bellicose reactions be explained, and is this the end of NATO?
Yemen being bombed by US, UK for fulfilling ICJ, UNGA ‘obligations’: Legal expert
Press TV – March 17, 2025
A prominent legal expert says Yemen is being bombed by the United States and the United Kingdom for fulfilling obligations set by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).
Craig Mokhiber, a US-based human rights lawyer and former United Nations official, took to his X handle, formerly Twitter, on Monday to condemn the latest American-British aggression on Yemen.
He said both the ICJ and the UNGA have found that all countries are “legally obliged” to cease any kind of support for the Israeli occupation regime amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The obligations, he elaborated, include banning any products from the illegal settlements, to cut off all military, diplomatic, economic, commercial, financial, investment, and trade relations with the Israeli occupation, to respect the provisional orders of the ICJ in the Israel genocide case, and to respect their third-state obligations under the Genocide Convention to act to prevent and stop Genocide.
“Yemen is being bombed for respecting these obligations,” he remarked.
Mokhiber, who previously served as the director of the New York office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, resigned from his position in October 2023 in protest against the UN’s “failure” to prevent the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
He described the US, the UK and much of Europe as “wholly complicit in the horrific assault.”
American and British warplanes attacked Yemen on Saturday night after US President Donald Trump vowed to use “overwhelming lethal force” against the poorest country in the Arab world that had recently resumed a ban on Israeli ships from crossing key maritime regions after the Tel Aviv regime reimposed crippling blockade on the besieged Palestinian territory.
Yemeni health ministry condemned the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, describing it as a “full-fledged war crime and a blatant violation of international laws and conventions.”
The US-UK military coalition launched another attack on Sunday night, with Yemeni authorities now putting the death toll at more than 50, including women and children.
According to Yemeni reports, American and British warplanes launched at least 47 airstrikes on several sites in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a as well as areas in the northern province of Sa’ada, the central province of al-Bayda, and the southwestern province of Dhamar.
The leader of the Ansarullah resistance movement in a speech on Sunday night warned the United States that the aggression against the Arab country will be met with escalation.
“The aircraft carrier and American warships will be targets for us, and the navigation ban will include the Americans as long as they persist in their aggression,” Abdul Malik al-Houthi said.
“We will respond to escalation with escalation, and we will strike at the American enemy by targeting its aircraft carrier, warships, and imposing a blockade on its vessels.”
UK Terrorism Law Overhaul Blasted as “Unacceptable” Threat to Free Speech
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 16, 2025
Jonathan Hall, a UK government-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has dubbed reforms announced by PM Keir Starmer in this legislative area as “unacceptable” – specifically in how that would restrict freedom of expression.
These changes came as part of the Labour government’s reaction to the Southport murders and subsequent protests and unrest.
The issue addressed by Hall’s report published this week is the legal definition of terrorism, and whether it needs to be expanded to acts of extreme violence like those perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana in Southport last summer.
Hall’s overall conclusion is that there is no need to amend the definition of terrorism, as it is “already wide.”
One of the implications, should proposed changes be adopted, concerns speech, writes the terrorism watchdog. He warns about risks involving “major false positives” – i.e., persons that would get prosecuted although they cannot be considered terrorists “by any stretch of the imagination.”
However, there is also the issue of definition expansion into what Hall refers to as novel territory.
“For example, any person who glorified ‘extreme violence’ would be at risk of arrest and prosecution as a terrorist. People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression,” he writes.
Hall also argues against the notion that it is possible to examine the browsing history of a perpetrator like Rudakubana and from that alone deduce which point in his online activities fatefully influenced his real world actions.
Expansion of the definition of terrorism to include such crimes – as essentially a way to give the authorities greater powers – is not likely to be effective for the purposes declared by the government, Hall suggests.
Many opponents of the UK government’s decisions and initiatives in the wake of the Southport murders have been warning that redefining legislation paves the way for greater mass surveillance capabilities.
Hall thinks that expectations when it comes to actually dealing with extreme violence in the proposed way might be unrealistic.
“There is no supercomputer or algorithm that can magically scan all online communications and tell who is an attacker and who is a fantasist,” he observes.
In order to avoid what the report describes as an extremely high risk of unintended consequences of rushed changes to the definition of terrorism, Hall advises the government to consider “a new offense, adapted from terrorism legislation, to deal with non-terrorist mass casualty attack-planning.”
Featured Video
The Destruction of Libya in 2011
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
On Herd Mentality
By Jeb Smith | April 14, 2026
I no longer trust “we the people,” because of the powers influencing them. Media and government schooling form their general ideas on reality and governance. Therefore, it’s not a case of the voter choosing the politicians. Instead, the system is conditioning and conforming the voter to the authorities’ desires.
In democracies, the people are kept occupied working and paying taxes, too busy to acquire information outside the approved sources. You will find they know and care far more about the next iPhone than political philosophy. Of those who hold some interest, 95% just toe the party line, holding the same opinion as the primary media source they listen to. They lack both the desire and time to expand their horizons.
Media’s purpose is to conform people’s thought to a preferred goal, which is why Republican and Democratic voters both firmly hold their parties’ general stances, reciting the same talking points. The people do not originate ideas; their thoughts are fed to them by the media so they can consume, digest, and parrot back whatever they are served. When it comes to politics, we rarely think for ourselves. We are told what to think.
Watch PBS, MSNBC and read your local newspaper for six months, and you will receive a particular view and understanding of the world. Then listen to The Mike Church Show, The Blaze, and The Daily Wire, and you will get not just another perspective but a whole different world of facts and events. The world people believe they live in can be entirely different depending on their news sources.
We enjoy seeing the enemy humiliated, which describes why those engulfed in politics love their preferred media sources; they keep returning for more like a drug addict. Networks ensure their “experts” align with the worldview they and their audience desire. The people who watch PBS, BBC, and so forth expect a specific perspective to be presented. Fox News watchers demand the same. In doing this, we both encourage and assure we are misled.
In their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, professors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, that voters do not decide the party platform and agenda. Instead, the parties control the “ideologies” of the voters. When the party the voter identifies with changes its position, the individuals also change theirs. They discovered the individual would quickly adopt the views of their group; they will ignore or change their own opinions over time to fit in with the collective they identify with. Achen and Bartels wrote “group memberships largely drove policy views, not vice versa.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Indonesia Agrees to Receive Oil, Gas Supplies From Russia – Indonesian Energy Ministry
- Saudi Arabia Urges US Back to Iran Talks as Other Oil Routes Face Risk
- Iran demands reparations from Arab states
- Tankers transit Strait of Hormuz amid US attempt to impose blockade, data shows
- US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
- EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- If Americans Knew
- Mighty Israel wants all of its neighbors to be defenseless – Daily Update
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 