The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 2, 2025
When western pundits resist efforts to bring an end to fighting in Ukraine, they never provide an alternative vision of what they would do differently.
A respected associate of mine asked me today if a ceasefire and peace process in Ukraine would simply embolden China and Russia to further aggression.
This is a line oft repeated among the majority of politicians, journalists and so-called academics in the west, who are opposed to an ending of the war. ‘We can’t stop the war, because if we do, China will invade Taiwan and Russia will invade Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.’
My view, for what it’s worth, is that an end to the war in Ukraine might embolden China longer-term over Taiwan in particular. I’ve seen no evidence that it will embolden Russia to invade NATO, precisely because Russia sees itself, in large part, as a country of Europe, even if it has been excluded.
However, and critically, if both China and Russia were so emboldened, then should we not ask ourselves how we have ended up in this position?
Russia’s decision to go to war was driven by a belief that it’s core strategic interests in preventing NATO expansion to its border via Ukraine was being ignored, and that it was subject to permanent sanctions with no possibility of removal through any concessions it might make.
That’s my opinion and one I know that many ‘realists’ share.
But, in any case, the ‘what next’ question should have been considered as part of a longer-term strategic assessment when western nations pushed the NATO enlargement agenda.
We have known since at least 2008 that this was a redline for Russia.
Did we expect Russia’s position to change and if so, how? If Russia’s position did not change, how far would we go to advance Ukraine’s NATO aspiration, including through direct military confrontation?
I’m not aware that those questions were ever asked or, if they were, considered rather than dismissed. And I was at the heart of British government decision making from the latter part of 2013, before the Ukraine crisis started (and must therefore accept some of the blame).
Without the United States, a war in Ukraine was never going to be sustainable for Europe, financially, politically or militarily.
Yet no one thought this through. Or, if they did, they didn’t factor in the eminent risk of America doing an about face on policy one day, as is now happening.
With America now withdrawing, sustaining a losing war in Ukraine rather than calling a halt to the killing cannot be considered a legitimate strategy if its only goal is to avoid losing face.
That makes us look weaker and more feckless.
If other states are now emboldened by the failure of western policy in Ukraine, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid an end to the bloodshed now.
Our self-righteousness indignation to peace is merely a figleaf covering the deflated genitals of our policy failure.
The west so badly mishandled relations in the eight years between the flashpoint of the Maidan and the start of war, not thinking through the consequences.
Russian actions and reactions in Ukraine have always been predictable.
They were predictable in February 2014.
They were predictable in February 2022.
They were predictable in February 2025.
We were never going to fight for Ukraine.
I have heard senior British Ambassadors say that we were never going to fight for Ukraine. And we are the most hawkish nation in Europe.
Why were we never going to fight?
Because it would never be possible to ensure that the 27 nations of the EU or the 31 nations of NATO would come to a collective agreement to fight.
Someone would always block fighting.
Compromises would be made.
We would pursue a lowest common denominator. That led us to a sanctions-only approach.
As I have said many times before, in the game of geostrategic chess, President Putin always knew that large, chattering teams of politicians around the table couldn’t outmanoeuvre him.
In fact, they would take weeks and months just to agree on the meaning of pawn, let alone whether to move it on the board.
We lost through indecision and have yet to learn the lesson.
You can’t fight wars by committee. But you can make peace in a group.
As Albert Einstein said, ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. That is seen by some as the source of the misattributed saying, ‘the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different result.’
As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach.
They are not introducing new ideas to up the ante, if that is what they want to do. In fact, I don’t know what they want to do, because they’ve been saying exactly the same things for three years and I am epically bored right now.
The problem here, is that neither are they advancing a credible argument against ending the war.
Their position seems to be, the war is bad, it’s all Russia’s fault and if we give in now, Russia will be emboldened to strike elsewhere.
Their defensive position is held together by straplines not substantive arguments.
In a recent speech, the veteran U.S. Democrat politician Bernie Sanders said,
‘Russia started the war, not Ukraine,
Putin is a dictator, not Zelensky.’
While I am sure he may believe that it’s just another banal outburst, intended more to rail against the political leaders in his own country, rather than to bring peace in Ukraine.
Of course, people view the origins of the war differently and people are entitled to their views.
Debate on the war in Ukraine has become reduced to ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ with voices of reason and realism in the west, like mine, stifled by the mainstream.
But we will never reach a position in which there is a universally accepted view of who was at fault and who was not.
Instead, let’s try to accept that every side in this conflict takes some share of the blame, be that Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., UK and everyone else.
Let’s have a frank but polite discussion about a way forward.
President Trump has advanced a new policy proposition that engagement and dialogue is vital if we are to bring an end to the fighting. British and European leaders can’t continue unchallenged, carrying on as if the world hasn’t changed.
They need to come up with genuinely new and constructive ideas, rather than continuing to say the same things. And reengage in dialogue with Russia.
HighWire Dispels Misinformation About Measles
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | February 28, 2025
Del does a deep dive into the science behind the measles virus, dispelling decades of misinformation from public health agencies, as well as what is actually driving the recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. See a shocking scientific equation comparing the number of individual deaths that would occur if the measles vaccine had never been introduced based on pre-vaccine stats to the number of deaths from MMR injury.
A dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat: What now for the humiliated Zelensky?
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 1, 2025
“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.
And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.
“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist ); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel ); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde ); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times ) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.
And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.
The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.
Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.
For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.
Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long ago have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.
Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.
In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.
And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.
Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.
The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.
Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.
The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.
In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.
Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.
Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.
There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.
Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.
It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.
The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.
What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
Trump gives Zelensky bum’s rush and flushes the European ploy to escalate war against Russia
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2025
After his mauling from President Trump live on TV and then being booted out of the White House, Ukraine’s Zelensky immediately phoned European leaders.
That reaction shows that the Ukrainian actor-turned-president had flown to Washington from Kiev not to merely sign a supposed minerals deal with the U.S., but to inveigle Trump into a trap to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
No doubt there is consternation and alarm among the Europeans that their agenda for prolonging the war against Russia is in disarray. Worst still, a furious Trump may now cut Ukraine loose and leave it completely at the mercy of Russia.
European leaders are huddling in London on Sunday for an emergency meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Zelensky is to attend and be showered with European expressions of support and billions more of taxpayer money. Incredibly, they still champion the impudent conman as a “Churchillian hero”.
The fallout in the Oval Office on Friday was a sordid spectacle. Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, tore into Zelensky under the full glare of TV cameras for daring to make more demands for U.S. security guarantees as part of a deal giving American companies access to Ukraine’s alleged mineral wealth, including oil, gas and rare earth metals.
The meeting started cordially, but Trump refrained from giving specific “security guarantees” to Ukraine. Zelensky’s sniveling insistence on getting explicit U.S. commitments for military support following any peace deal with Russia triggered Trump and his officials to rebuke the Ukrainian leader for wrangling in public and not being respectful.
After their fireside fireworks, an incensed Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush. No minerals deal was signed and Zelensky left Washington empty handed. That’s not the end of it either. Trump later told reporters that Zelensky is not welcome back until he is ready to make the peace with Russia.
Trump was astute to the attempted rumble. He told reporters on the White House lawn following the slap-down of Zelensky: “We want peace. We’re not looking for somebody to sign up a strong power and then not make a peace deal because they feel emboldened. That’s what I saw happening. He wants to fight, fight, fight. I am not looking to get into anything protracted.”
Zelensky’s immediate phone calls to French President Emmanuel Macron and the NATO chief Mark Rutte after the White House fiasco is the big reveal here.
Days before Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday, European leaders had lobbied Trump for U.S. security guarantees as part of any peace deal with Russia.
Macron met Trump on Monday. On Thursday, it was Starmer’s turn to ingratiate with Trump. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas was also in Washington. Significantly, her meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was abruptly called off “due to scheduling issues.”
The main objective for Macron and Starmer was to extract a commitment from Trump for a military “backstop” in Ukraine to beef up their proposal to deploy French and British troops under the guise of “peacekeepers”.
The British wanted American “air cover” for their troops, according to the BBC.
Both Macron and Starmer were palmed away with vague nothings despite the bonhomie and compliments, and a British sweetener from King Charles to invite Trump on a royal visit.
Trump’s diplomatic overture to Russian President Vladimir Putin, beginning with a phone call on February 12 followed by a high-level meeting of U.S. and Russian diplomats in Saudi Arabia on February 18, has sent shockwaves across the European NATO members.
They feel aggrieved that Trump is going to make a peace deal with Putin without them. The Europeans are still beholden to the propaganda narrative of the previous Biden administration about “defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine from Russian aggression.”
Trump wants out of the extravagant mess in Ukraine. He recognizes that the conflict was always a proxy war with an ulterior agenda to defeat Russia. Hundreds of billions of dollars and euros have been wasted fueling a futile proxy war that, as it turns out, Russia is decisively winning.
Marco Rubio, the U.S. top diplomat, disclosed in an interview to CNN after the Oval Office spat, that a European foreign minister had told him that “their plan” was to keep the war in Ukraine going for another year in the hope that it would eventually “weaken Russia” and make Moscow “beg for peace.”
The callousness of the Europeans and their Russophobic obsession are grotesque. The three-year conflict in Ukraine has cost up to one million military deaths, millions of refugees across Europe, and broken economies, not to mention the danger of it turning into World War Three.
Sneakily, the Europeans are covering their desire for continuing the proxy war with a belated apparent concern for making peace and backing Trump’s diplomacy.
Macron and Starmer ostensibly commend Trump (after initially being in a flap over this call with Putin) and they talk about “finding a path to a lasting peace.”
However, their seeming offer of deploying French and British soldiers as “peacekeepers” is a Trojan Horse that has nothing to do with keeping the peace. For its part, Moscow has categorically stated that any NATO troops in Ukraine will not be acceptable and will be attacked as combatants.
That is why Macron, Starmer and other European leaders were so insistent on trying to get Trump to give “security guarantees”. The so-called American military “backstop” would be a way to escalate the proxy war against Russia.
Zelensky was in Washington on a mission to beguile Trump into giving a security guarantee while dangling the bait of a lucrative minerals deal.
It was reported that the Trump White House wanted to cancel the meeting for Friday before Zelensky departed from Ukraine on Thursday. But Macron intervened and implored Trump to go ahead with the reception.
Zelensky, having got used to being indulged with endless blank checks, thought he could wheedle more out of Trump than just a mining deal. He was expected to extract the direct U.S. military involvement that the European Russophobic leaders want. In that way, the proxy war would escalate and those riding the war-racket gravy train would continue to extort the world’s biggest security crisis.
Fortunately, Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush and flushed out the European ploy.
The irony is that Trump had earlier in the week lavished praise on Macron and Starmer, exalting France for being America’s “oldest ally” and Britain for its “special relationship”. Trump might want to radically revise those cliched notions.
Trump takes on the ‘collective west’
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 1, 2025
The dramatic scene in the Oval Office on Friday evening signals that President Donald Trump is decoupling the US from the ‘forever war’ in Ukraine that his predecessor Joe Biden left behind. The war is poised to end with a whimper, but its ‘butterfly effect’ on our incredibly complex, deeply interconnected world will define European and international security for decades to come.
The western media which is hostile toward Trump, have seized the opportunity to caricature him as an impulsive figure in a role reversal with Zelenskyy. In reality, though, Trump has been literally driven to this point by the Biden administration.
The highly charged emotional reaction by the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen commiserating with President Zelensky speaks for itself: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Trump’s refusal to give Von der Leyen an appointment may partly explain her fury as a woman scorned. Truly, the ‘Collective West’ find themselves at a crossroads and do not know which road to take. Without US air cover and satellite inputs, western troop deployment in Ukraine will be impossible. Even French Emmanuel Macron would agree that his troops will be put through a meat grinder.
Both Von der Leyen and Macron had a whale of a time as cheerleaders of Biden’s war but any further adventures in Ukraine will be suicidal, to put it mildly. Ukraine’s military will collapse if Trump freezes support. None of the European powers will risk a collision with Russia.
Trump knows by now that the western narrative of Biden’s war is a load of bullshit peppered with falsehoods and outright lies, and that the war erupted only out of the diabolic western plot to poke the bear, which got provoked finally and hit out.
The CIA’s coup in Kiev in February 2014 was a watershed event paving the way for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil. Indeed, terrible things happened, which have been shoved under the carpet — for instance, then German foreign minister (current president) Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s dubious links with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian groups who acted as storm troopers in the 2014 coup. Just think of the grotesqueness of it — a German social democrat patronising neo-Nazi groups!
Most certainly, Trump knows that the US deep state had set in motion an agenda to destabilise the Russian Federation and dismember it as the unfinished business no sooner than the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Chechen War has no other explanation. In fact, Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding the insurgents.
Again, the Bill Clinton administration floated the idea of NATO expansion as early as in 1994. It came out of the blue but was obviously a work in progress since the disbandment of the Soviet Union. By the mid-nineties, even Boris Yeltsin understood that he was played nicely. The return of Evgeny Primakov to the Kremlin and Yeltsin’s overture to Beijing were the surest signs of a course correction.
Those familiar with Soviet history had known all along that Ukraine would be the theatre where the US would try to seal the fate of Russia. If further confirmation was needed, it came with the CIA’s colour revolution in Ukraine in 2003 where the election was rigged (as is happening in Romania today) and carried to a third round till the proxy emerged victorious and surely, Viktor Yushchenko brought the NATO membership issue to the table. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted that the alliance formally offered membership to Ukraine!
Today, Britain’s MI6 calls the shots in Kiev. Zelenskyy admitted recently that much of the money given by Biden simply ‘disappeared’. Sordid tales of massive kickbacks and corruption are galore. Biden ignored them. The Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s cesspools is widely known. Contrary to his pledge earlier not to do so, Biden felt constrained finally to grant a presidential pardon to son Hunter Biden so that he wouldn’t end up in jail.
Suffice to say, Zelensky’s ‘strategic defiance’ stems out of his quiet confidence that western leaders — starting with Boris Johnson and Biden — who have been fellow travellers in the gravy train during the past three years of the war are beholden to him till eternity.
The axis between Zelensky and his European Union supporters is cajoling Trump, pressuring him and flattering him in turn to get him on board the bandwagon so that the war rolls on for another four years. Last week alone, the presidents of France and Poland and the British prime minister descended on the White House one after another seeking assurance that the war in Ukraine will continue. But Trump has refused to oblige.
Zelensky and his European backers want a ‘forever war’ in the western border lands of Eurasia, the traditional invasion route to Russia. And last week Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. He also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”
Trump repeated last week that the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” Basically, he realises that this is an unwinnable war, and is apprehensive that a prolonged war may transform into a quagmire sinking his presidency and derailing the grand bargain he hopes to strike with the two other superpowers, Russia and China, to create synergy for his ambitious MAGA project.
Trump has chalked up 2026, the Quarter Millennial of the United States Declaration of Independence, for hosting the leaders of Russia and China on American soil to celebrate the high noon of his quest for world peace. The European political elites weaned on the liberal-globalist ‘rules-based order’ cannot understand Trump’s deep-rooted convictions and his abhorrence of war.
The big question now is wether the unprecedented fracas in the White House yesterday could backfire on Zelensky, since Washington has significant leverage vis-a-vis Kiev and given the latter’s heavy dependence on the US for some of the critical elements of its defence.
Following the Oval Office argument, Zelenskyy has issued a lengthy statement admitting that it is “crucial” for Ukraine to have Trump’s support. A patch-up cannot be ruled out but the transatlantic system has received a big jolt, as the overwhelming majority of European countries have voiced support for Zelensky. In fact, there hasn’t been a solitary voice censuring Zelensky. Britain kept mum. Keir Starmer, UK prime minister is hosting a meeting of European leaders on Sunday which Zelensky is due to attend. It is unlikely that Europeans will push the envelope further
In this dismal scenario, the best hope is that Zelensky’s ouster, which seems probable, will not be a violent bloody event, considering the power rivalries within the regime in Kiev. At any rate, his replacement may not be a terrible thing to happen since it would necessitate holding the long overdue election and lead to the emergence of a legitimate leadership in Kiev, which has now become a dire necessity for what Trump would call ‘common sense’ to prevail.
Trump and Zelensky Clash in the Oval Office
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | February 28, 2025
The disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates why sensitive diplomacy should be done behind closed doors and not in front of the public. At such press conferences, one speaks to both the leader of the other country and the public. Both Zelensky and Trump escalated the rhetoric as they were in front of the cameras to win over the public and not appear weak. The need to prioritise the public as the main audience is a wider problem for diplomacy as, for example, the Europeans have for three years refused to engage in basic diplomacy with Russia (that could have reduced the risk of nuclear war) because it can “legitimise” Putin in the eyes of the public. The immense focus on narrative control in international politics makes it even more important to defend diplomacy.
The Trump-Zelensky meeting was predictably sensitive, as the issue of security guarantees had not been resolved before the press conference. Subsequently, the press conference became a battleground to win over the public. The purpose of the meeting was to sign an agreement that would give the US significant control over Ukraine’s natural resources, yet the document prepared in advance was deliberately vague. Trump was confident that Zelensky would fall in line as the US enjoys overwhelming leverage, while Zelensky had hoped to pressure Trump into offering security guarantees in return for the resources.
A security guarantee would pull the US into a direct war with Russia if a future peace agreement broke down. Such a security guarantee would deter Russia from breaking the ceasefire, yet it would also incentivise Ukraine to restart the fighting as the US would then be pulled into the war on the side of Ukraine to assist with reconquering lost territories. A likely outcome would be World War III with a possible nuclear exchange.
The visits by Macron and Starmer in the days before Zelensky’s arrival were also intended to prevent the US from decoupling itself from the conflict by obtaining US security guarantees. Europe cannot send troops into Ukraine without the promise of a US military “backstop”. Macron and Starmer probably also wanted to shower Trump with flattery to warm him up before Zelensky visited with economic incentives to get the US entangled in the war. The appeal to Trump’s vanity and greed did not work, as Trump seems to recognise that the war has been lost and that nuclear war is a growing possibility in the absence of peace negotiations.
The positive outcome of this very undiplomatic confrontation is that Zelensky may abandon his delusions. The Biden administration and the Europeans have been stringing along Ukraine for more than a decade on a path to its destruction. Trump and Vance seemed genuinely bewildered that Zelensky would not change course as his country is obliterated. The Europeans’ promises of NATO membership, return of territories and ironclad security guarantees are presented as expressions of support, but in reality they are fantasies to uphold dangerous delusions. NATO lost the proxy war in Ukraine, and there are no good solutions left. However, this should not have been done in public.
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish: Why the Five Eyes Alliance Should Be Dismantled
Sputnik – February 28, 2025
UK media have reported that senior Trump advisor Peter Navarro lobbied his boss to cut Canada out of the Five Eyes intel-sharing network. Navarro rejected the report. But given the harm the intel coalition has done to Trump, Americans and relations with allies, removing members or dismantling the organization wouldn’t be a bad idea. Here’s why.
In 2024, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger revealed that Barack Obama’s CIA chief had worked with Five Eyes partners to circumvent restrictions on domestic spying to illegally tap Trump’s 2016 campaign, targeting Trump himself and over two dozen of his associates.
In 2013, NSA contractor-turned whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed his former employer’s work with the Five Eyes using tools like PRISM and XKeyscore to engage in a global, unfathomably massive warrantless spying program targeting foreigners and Americans alike.
Besides ordinary people, the Snowden leaks revealed Five Eyes spying on non-Anglosphere allied countries’ leaders, including Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Hollande of France.
The Five Eyes have also been linked to diplomatic crises between Western nations and the developing world, with the 2023-present spat between Canada and India over the extraterritorial killings of Sikh separatists accompanied by allegations of a Five Eyes plot to destabilize India.
In 2013, a scandal erupted in Australian-Indonesian relations after it was revealed that Canberra and its Five Eyes partners sought to tap the phones of Indonesia’s sitting president, his wife and other senior officials.
And the Five Eyes’ shady activity goes back much further than that, with the ECHELON surveillance program, launched in the early 1970s, ostensibly to monitor Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union, actually engaging in the interception of communications worldwide.
In the late 1990s, it was revealed that ECHELON had been used by US corporations to spy on their European competitors.
Similar activity was uncovered by WikiLeaks in 2015, with Japanese officials and companies revealed to have been monitored by the NSA using Five Eyes during negotiations on the TPP trade pact.
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The EU in Panic as Peace May Break Out
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2025
I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Sachs after his speech at the European Parliament. How did we end up in a position where the EU has become the leading actor to oppose diplomacy and negotiations, and instead aims to prolong a war that devastates Europe and cannot be won? How did the Europeans reach a consensus on absurd notions such as Russia should not have a say in where NATO expands, and that the Europeans cannot sit down and talk to Russia without Ukraine? Professor Sachs attended the Istanbul negotiations in early 2022, but why are these negotiations now largely absent in the EU’s war narrative?
Putin invaded Ukraine ‘to stop NATO’, alliance chief tells EU
Jeffrey Sachs’ Full Address
How UK counter-terror police colluded with Zionists to detain me after Beirut trip
By David Miller – Press TV – February 27, 2025
At 21.32 local time on the evening of Monday, 24 February, I stepped off a plane from Istanbul to Heathrow and into the terminal building.
In front of me were a wide circle of people evidently waiting for someone, perhaps for a number of passengers. I knew right away one of them was me.
One of the SO15 (formerly special Branch) plain clothes officers of the Counter Terrorism Command, for it was them, asked for my passport and whether I had started my journey in Istanbul.
Of course I knew that they knew this was not the case. In any case, I had done nothing wrong in – as I said to them – visiting Beirut to cover the funeral of Hezbollah leaders Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine.
This was my first taste of Schedule 7. They started to explain what Schedule 7 was and I said yes, I know about it. From being stopped before? No, because I am a researcher who studies terrorism legislation.
About then, on the moving walkway, I realised that the circle of people had only been waiting for me. I looked round and counted them out loud. I know I’m a big lad, I said, (I am over 6 foot) but did you really need eight officers to detain me?
So, we got to the interrogation room, which is, as past detainees will know, immediately behind passport control. Anyone coming out of that door is SO15 or a detainee.
For those who may face this experience in the future, it is worth explaining how the process goes. It’s a bureaucratic procedure.
There is a guidance hand book dictating how the process should be handled. First they have to read out the relevant extract from the Terrorism Act. It’s a whole page (see below) and they give you a copy, which they ask you to sign.
The essential bit is that you are being ‘detained’ as opposed to arrested in order that the ’Examining Officer’ can determine if you ‘appear’ to be a person ‘concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism’.
A couple of other details are of relevance. They can’t hold you for more than 6 hours after the time they first apprehend you. You are not under criminal investigation or under arrest and as a result ‘you do not have the right to remain silent’. If they do change their minds and arrest you, you do at that point have the right to remain silent and you should do so.
You have to participate in the process, answer questions and to accept being searched. You don’t have to answer questions that you think they are asking and only need to answer what they actually ask. There is no need to be unduly long winded!
The other point to note is that nothing you say can be used ‘in evidence in criminal proceedings’. (The only exceptions are that if you do not comply, that can be used in evidence and if you later rely on something in court which is ‘inconsistent’ with what you say, then the contents of your interview can be used).
You have the right to contact a next of kin/friend and a lawyer and you should exercise that right. The rules state that if you ask for a solicitor you cannot be questioned until your solicitor has consulted you.
And your solicitor can participate in the questioning either on the phone or in person, if you can get them out of bed to come to wherever you are detained!
Once in the room both I and my luggage were searched. They found little of interest. No devices. The only thing that they brightened at was a very small USB drive, which I had forgotten was in there.
I confirmed that I thought it had no security protection and they took it away. Later it was returned, much to my surprise. What was on it I asked? Only some teaching notes they said in disappointment.
Later, at home I checked. Hilariously there was only one file on the drive: a Powerpoint presentation on the ‘Zionist movement’.
And so we got to the actual interrogation. I estimate that mine started about 23.00, so there was a long period of silence while we waited for the solicitor to call back.
This was partly due to the police deciding that they could not call my first nominated solicitor because he wasn’t on their list, though he should not have needed to be.
Anyway, after I talked to my solicitor, we were off.
What followed was around two hours of questioning about my trip to Beirut. Why did I go, what did I do when I was there, did I support Hezbollah, and many other similar questions.
There is not space to tell it all blow by blow but here are some highlights which might be of use to others who like me are manifestly not involved in the commission of acts of terrorism, as everybody knows.
First, they wanted to know why I went. As I had already intimated when they first stopped me, I was there to cover the funeral as a journalist. As is public knowledge, I work as a journalist on a freelance basis.
I produce a TV show called Palestine Declassified for Press TV, and write for a variety of other publications such as Electronic Intifada, Mintpress, TRT World and Mayadeen English. I mentioned this as well as mentioning that I used to work at the university of Bristol until I was sacked.
They asked about that. I summarised the story including the four occasions on which I was exonerated of ‘antisemitism’ at Bristol (internal enquiry, two external QC reports and the internal appeal), followed by the ‘landmark’ victory at the Employment Tribunal in February 2024.
We went on to discuss my trip to Lebanon. What did I do there? I recounted that I had visited the southern village of Maroun El Ras which is within a mile of the border of occupied Palestine, high on a hill overlooking the colonial settlements of Avivim and Yir’on.
I went with a number of other foreign guests including from Ireland, Yemen, Brazil and various other countries. What was there I was asked? I replied (truthfully) that there was nothing in the village since almost all 600 houses had been destroyed.
The officer seemed confused: why would I want to visit then? Precisely because it had been destroyed by the Zionists, obviously.
We got fairly quickly to the question of whether I supported Hezollah as a proscribed organisation. I referred back to my Employment Tribunal at which similar questions had been asked somewhat ineffectually by the University of Bristol’s counsel Chris Milsom.
There I had said the same thing as I now stated: I ‘support’ the right as given in international law for the Palestinians (and indeed others under occupation) to resist including by armed force.
In case officers in SO15 or other actors need reminding of this, the relevant text is from the UN General Assembly resolution 38/17 of 1983, which states that it
“Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.
They went on to see if they could entice me into saying I specifically supported proscribed organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah. So, I obviously went on to say that it was not only a question of Hezbollah and Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP-GC, which is of course not the same as the PFLP itself, which is not proscribed. It was instructive that my interrogator appeared not to know about PIJ and the PFLP-GC, asking me to repeat each name.
We also visited the topic of deproscription. The officer wanted to know why I thought that all of the four, groups should be de-proscribed.
It seemed like he thought this was a valuable concession from me. But, as he is, presumably, aware, the Terrorism Act (year) specifically notes that it is not illegal to call for de-proscription.
I include a table from the Home Office website which gives a list of the charges that can relate to proscribed organisations.
And then we were on to the question of terrorism. Did that mean that I thought they were not terrorist. At which point I am afraid I referred back to my decades long record of research on the question of terrorism and its role in propaganda including my early work on the struggle to decolonise the north of Ireland.
As if the sentiments encoded in the proscribed list or the Western use of the term ‘terrorism’ itself are necessarily subscribed to even by most British citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Let’s not forget that the way in which we use the term ‘terrorism’ in the west – in particular ‘Islamic terrorism’, has it origin in Zionist propaganda operations as has been shown by, for example, Remi Brulin.
At one point, apparently out of the blue I was asked: Are you a practising Muslim? I expressed some surprise at this question. In his defence my interrogator said that I had earlier noticed and asked about whether the small pile of folded prayer mats in the cupboard was in fact a small pile of folded prayer mats.
I had noted them earlier and wanted to check that’s what they were. Only the best for the predominantly Muslim ‘guests’ of the room! As the Guardian reports only 20% of Schedule 7 detentions are of white people (that’s including ‘white Irish’, and others stopped, like me for their solidarity activities, so it’s likely that the proportion of white ‘far right’ suspects stopped is lower than 20%)
The officer seemed mystified about my attendance at an event in which everyone must have been a supporter of Hezbollah. As if reporting on events and supporting those events is the same thing. He asked if everyone there supported Hezbollah.
I replied that I didn’t feel able to report any great knowledge on the consciousness of perhaps the million people there. But it is certainly the case that there were very many Hezbollah flags.
I did also note that there was a largish contingent from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and made the point that the sheer numbers present suggested that Nasrallah has something of a larger reputation than just among party members and core supporters.
As we talked the officer started asking about Press TV, for which I work on a freelance basis. He evidently had not known what Press TV was as it took a long time for him to understand – after I told him that it was the English Language TV channel of the Iranian government – the equivalent of the BBC world Service.
Then he wanted to know about whether the people I work with at Press TV are extremists or have extreme opinions. Obviously I had to press him to explain what he meant by extremism. Given the British government abandoned its efforts to define the term in any legally robust way, he fared no better.
So he asked something about how many were opposed to western society. I was not impressed by this, since, as I said, most people in the world are opposed to the West, and many of them are British citizens.
And then; does Press TV support the recent ‘terrorism’ in this country?! Which terrorism, I enquired. And do you know what he said? He only said the Southport attack. That was not terrorism I said. Even his colleague butted in and agreed with me!
So we were back to finding specific examples and – put on the spot – he came up with the stabbing and car at Parliament in 2017. That, of course, was carried out by an individual who had made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia and appeared to have been inspired by an ISIS related ideology.
Before we got any further I was asked if Press TV covered incidents like this. The implication, of course, being that covering such activities might be tantamount to ‘supporting’ them.
Obviously, being a news service Press TV does cover political violence of many types, as does every other news organisation in the world.
But moving on I replied that in fact Press TV is opposed to those kind of attacks. I was on the verge of going on to say that this of course was different to the position of their colleagues in MI6 and in the government and indeed the BBC who are only too happy to collaborate in supporting ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria if it suits their perception of British foreign interests. But I let that lie.
By now we were winding down and it was pretty clear they were about to release me, even if I had taken their claim that it would be over soon with the requisite heap of salt. At the end they asked if I had anything to ask, like we were coming to the end of a job interview.
I made one statement which was that it was abundantly clear to everyone in the room that I was not a person who was concerned in the ‘commission, preparation or instigation’ of acts of terrorism.
By way of defence of the detention the officer attempted to justify it in term of a British citizens attendance at the funeral of a terrorism leader, a defence which of course worked to deny that they had effectively been instructed by others to stop me. With that we were done and I was released at 1am too late to get home except via a prohibitively expensive taxi.
It appeared abundantly clear that SO15 did not have any real idea of who I was and had not prepared any case against me. It was just a normal Schedule 7 stop.
Except of course, it wasn’t. I had openly announced on X that I was in Lebanon for the funeral and had reported from my visit to Maroun El Ras and the Iran garden, on its outskirts both of which had been totally destroyed by Zionist bombardment.
I also posted a clip of my visit to Kfar Kila showing mass destruction of civilian infrastructure wreaked by the Zionists and my discovery of a US arms firm manufactured detonation wire used in blowing up civilian houses.
I also posted on the funeral itself, including while I was stuck in traffic on the way, as I arrived in the ‘nick of time’ and as the ceremony started.
Of course all of this was very triggering for the genocidal Zionists who track any deviation for the authorised position of pretending that the genocide is not happening and that those that resist are simply ‘terrorists’.
A wide range of anonymous trolls and Zionist regime assets started mass reporting the Met Police calling for me to be arrested and jailed. I know they say that the Zionists don’t have much power, but bouncing the Met into detaining a journalist on assignment seems like power of some sort.
Here is a select list of Zionist agents and assets who called for me to be arrested:
- Gary Spedding the Zionist asset who poses as being pro-Palestine – 23 February 1.44pm
- Sabrina Miller, Daly Mail journalist and former student at Bristol University – 23 February 2.09pm
- Labour Against Anti Semitism (LAAS) – 23 February 7.41 pm
- Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) – 24 February 1.15pm
All of the above were involved in one way or another in the campaign to have me sacked at Bristol, a decision that the Employment Tribunal found was flawed and unjustified, in its ‘landmark’ decision.
This was all topped off by reports on Monday in the Mail (published at 5 to one in the morning just as Monday 24th began) and later (at 5.25 pm) in the Telegraph. This latter report cited the fanatical Zionist Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who was reported as saying: “David Miller isn’t even bothering to hide his anti-Semitism any more.
He’s now openly boasting of his support for a proscribed terrorist group. It’s shocking that for so long he held a senior position at Bristol University.” Of course no actual ‘antisemitism’ was on display, and I said no words capable of being construed as ‘openly boasting’ of ‘support’ for Hezbollah.
Jenrick has form a far as I am concerned in that he has in the past spent a not inconsequential amount of time trying to have me sacked from my post at Bristol. For example, when he was Housing minister he directly bullied the University of Bristol over my case.
The report ended by saying that the paper had (like the Mail claimed too) contacted me for comment. The facts are that I have had no such query from the Telegraph or from the Mail.
I must say that I did enjoy the column the next day by Stephen Pollard who presided over a significant number of libel defeats in his role as editor of the Jewish Chronicle. ‘Opening a communication from’ me back then he says was like ‘ingesting poison’. My parents would be proud.
What, self-evidently, happened in this instance was that the Zionist pressure worked its way through and an order to detain was issued. As to whether it came from the top of the counter Terrorism Command, the Home Office or elsewhere, we don’t know as yet.
But it is very much of a piece with the general picture post October 7 2023, which is that there is intense Zionist pressure on the counter terrorism and policing apparatus to weaponise both hate crime laws and terrorism legislation.
It is perfectly plain, as I have shown elsewhere that this pressure from Zionist lobby and intimidation groups and pressure from Zionist aligned politicians like Michael Gove, Suella Braverman, Stuart Polak, Robert Halton and the aforementioned Robert Jenrick, more than adequately explains all of the alleged rise in ‘antisemitism’ as well as almost all of the uses of the many Terrorism Acts on the statute books to oppress and repress those who will stand with the Palestinians in virtually any way.
And in recent months the attacks have widened to journalists, who’s historically recognised craft implies that they can report on all events without being attacked directly by the state.
But now, after Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley and most recently Ali Abunimah, it is clear that journalists too are direct targets of the Zionists operating as they do via the allegedly sovereign justice apparatus of Western states.
David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.
Zelensky now with only the dictatorship in London to support him
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
What is the definition of a ‘dictator’? In the days that followed Trump’s social media post calling President Zelensky one, British media seized upon the subject and ran with it for days. Various public figures were asked whether Trump was right to use the word and whether they believed Zelensky was actually one. Two figures from the right, Nigel Farage and Liz Truss both said they thought Trump was both wrong to call him one and that in fact he wasn’t one.
This remarkable endearment for Zelensky is really the core of the problem in the west in particular the UK, where its leader Sir Keir Starmer declared that he would be ready to send British troops to Ukraine – a suggestion which was quickly shot down by the elites of Germany and France as preposterous.
It’s rare that the giants of the EU put the British government in its place on world affairs but we are living in unprecedented times of sensational stupidity and perhaps ignorance from politicians which we have never seen before.
Farage’s views on the Middle East tell us he is both ignorant of what is happening there and doesn’t have any advisors covering the region. But his views on Ukraine are even more shockingly deranged. Zelensky is a leader who has shut down anything which resembles an ‘opposition’ both politically and media, he has conglomerated all TV stations into one state-owned entity so as to shut down even the slightest criticism or accountability of his own actions, he has had the few dissident voices arrested and thrown into prison, with some predicting that there are thousands of journalists and media workers. Add to that it is rapidly emerging that the level of corruption and embezzlement linked directly to Zelensky is on a scale that even hard line critics in the West could not have even imagined.
In my own investigation in October 2023, where a very angry Ben Wallace insulted me in a WhatsApp interview before blocking me, I outline how the original, more sensational claim that only about a third of all military equipment sent to Ukraine was actually making it to the battlefield was in fact realistic. This analogy was bandied about for some time and was dismissed by Wallace and others like Alecia Kearns MP as nonsense and yet turned out to be more than just realistic but likely. That is to say that 66 percent of what was being sent to Ukraine was being sold on the black market in Libya making Zelensky and his close circle billionaires.
In recent weeks now mainstream journalists and politicians are talking about the arms scandal and it is only a matter of time before we shall see the realities of this. The British government have always turned a blind eye to it, both in Ukraine and further afield. It would cost them nothing to do a study in the Sahel to evaluate how much of the equipment there funding terrorism is coming from the arms bazaars of Tripoli where all of this kit is ending up. I suggested to Wallace that his own government at the time should send some investigators there (Libya) to look at what’s available. I was more or less told to go there myself and do the job for them.
But Zelenksy support structure for so long has been that of a dictator, in particular media. The hundreds of media outlets in Ukraine which were receiving USAID funding is extensive, not to mention the hundreds of civil servants which support him being on the same payroll. If that doesn’t shock Farage and Truss, then consider the same slush fund which paid out around a 100 million dollars to movie stars to go and visit him and fake their adulation, all for the purposes of cheating the humble U.S. taxpayer by raising his profile.
Who could forget Sean Penn giving him his own Oscar, or Ben Stiller chilling with the Ukrainian leader and making small talk? Angelina Jolie is even reported to have been paid 20 million dollars to meet with him but didn’t even manage that and simply mooched about a bit in the country before jetting back to the U.S. Of course, the celebrities all dismiss these claims, through the same left-wing woke press which is part of their extended political family. But the question we should be asking ourselves is simply this: if they were not paid, then why won’t they show up now and show support at the precise moment when Zelensky needs it the most? Given that these celebrities supported Biden and are Democrats, this would be the most logical thing for them to do. In reality, the wall of silence is what we see.
Dictators don’t stand over their hired killers and watch their victims in their final moments like Idi Amin did. In reality, they only indicate and hint to the thugs on their payroll what she should do to fix problems. Do Farage and Truss actually believe that dissidents are not rounded up and thrown into jail where they are tortured and in some cases murdered? Now that the vultures are circling over Zelensky and many are wondering how many days in office he has left, more reports are emerging with details of such cases. The story of Gonzalo Lira, the American Chilean blogger whose vlogs were often well-informed and threw a very poor spotlight on Zelensky is a very sad one as he was brutally tortured while in prison and finally died. If the Zelensky cabal can do this to an American citizen, perhaps Farage and Truss will not be too surprised when in the coming weeks we will have the same Damascus prison media moment where it transpires that there are certainly hundreds, possibly thousands of journalists, commentators and political rivals in Ukraine’s prisons.
The debate, if we can call it that in the UK, over whether Zelensky is a dictator or not is a remedial one at best as it misses the point. In Britain, during the same period a man was imprisoned for posting a social media comment about a Labour official while a granny was visited by two plain clothes cops about her mere criticism of a Labour councilor’s conduct. Plain clothed detectives!
Britain has descended rapidly into a police state with Starmer as its dictator. The high ground we once had where we scolded China for arresting protestors has now been kicked away from under our feet. We have become China. Britain’s police now cannot deal with crime but prefer being the ‘Thought Police’ and threatening old biddies.
And so the talk about what is a dictator is rather fatuous if not incongruent given that those doing it are part of an elite which only claim to cherish free speech but in fact loath it. Farage cannot be taken seriously on Ukraine but his comments do steer the bumble hack towards darker questions. Who is funding him? And is his own dream of being a PM in the UK going to merely continue the present dictatorship which silences anyone who questions him? His reputation of being thin-skinned and kicking out of his party anyone who questions his ideas is already established. His own repugnance of British media also is well known. Previously in Brussels, his decision led to the closure of the only free speech, anti corruption magazine going, which he was always fearful of exposing his own infidelity while an MEP. And as for Truss, the most inept prime minister Britain has ever had in its long history, whose dictator-like style while in office crashed the economy? How should we interpret her support for Zelenksy? Do both Farage and Truss admire this dictator? The problem is not with the word ‘dictator’, it is more about the people who use it for their own purposes. It is not important whether Zelensky is one or not, rather than he is not a dictator who is servile to Trump and his cabal. Unlike Farage, Zelensky is not our kind of dictator.
America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.
Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.
Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.
Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?
The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.
Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.
It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?
Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.
That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.
Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.
It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.
Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.
What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.
Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.
The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.
Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.
Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.
How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.
In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.
The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.
It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.
So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.
Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.
Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.
If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.
It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.
The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.
Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.
Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.
UK’s iCloud Encryption Crackdown Explained: Your Questions Answered on Apple’s Decision
How does Apple’s UK encryption move affect your iCloud data? Even for those not in the UK, we break down security risks, government access, and privacy options.
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | February 24, 2025
The UK government’s latest demand from Apple has caused a major conversation about digital privacy, encryption, and government surveillance. With Apple withdrawing its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature in the UK rather than complying with the government’s order, many users are left with questions.
- How does this affect your iCloud data, whether you’re in the UK or not?
- Can the government now access your photos, backups, and messages?
- Are alternative services like Google, Android, or Samsung any better?
- What are the risks, and what are your options for securing your data?
With this Q&A feature, we break down the key details, security implications, and next steps for UK users—and why this could be a turning point for global encryption policy.
What exactly did the UK government demand from Apple?
The specific details of the Technical Capability Notice (TCN) issued to Apple are not public due to the secretive nature of the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), which was amended in 2023 to expand government access to encrypted data. Reports from the Washington Post suggest the UK Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer demanded compliance with the order by creating a backdoor into their encryption.
Why did Apple choose to withdraw ADP instead of complying?
Apple has consistently opposed government backdoors, arguing that any compromise in encryption, even for one government, creates a security risk for all users globally. If Apple built a decryption tool, it could be exploited by hackers or demanded by authoritarian regimes. By withdrawing ADP in the UK, Apple likely aims to avoid setting a precedent and to pressure the UK government while reinforcing its brand as a privacy-focused company. It’s also possible that Apple privately negotiated with the UK government but couldn’t reach a compromise.
What happens to UK users who already enabled ADP?
Existing UK users with ADP won’t lose encryption immediately, but Apple has confirmed they will eventually need to disable the feature. The exact timeline remains unclear — Apple’s February 21 announcement did not specify specific dates, suggesting a phased approach. Users might receive notifications asking them to opt out voluntarily or could face automatic disabling via a future software update. Until then, their data remains end-to-end encrypted.
What data can governments access without ADP?
Without ADP, most iCloud data reverts to Apple’s standard encryption, meaning Apple can decrypt and provide access if compelled by a legal order. This includes:
- Photos, videos, documents, notes, and device backups
- Email content (if using iCloud Mail or a different provider but the account is backed up to iCloud)
- iMessage chats (if iCloud backups are turned on)
Some data, like real-time iMessages and Health data, may still retain end-to-end encryption depending on user settings.
Losing ADP increases UK users’ vulnerability to data breaches because their iCloud data, once decrypted by Apple, could be exposed if Apple’s systems are hacked. Standard iCloud encryption is robust against external threats, but high-profile breaches (e.g., past celebrity iCloud leaks) show it’s not infallible. Foreign entities could also target this data if they penetrate Apple’s infrastructure, though there’s no evidence of state-sponsored hacks yet. The risk isn’t immediate for most users but grows over time as cybercriminals adapt, making UK users a softer target compared to those with ADP elsewhere.
What are the Security Risks for UK Users?
Losing ADP increases UK users’ vulnerability to data breaches because their iCloud data, once decrypted by Apple, could be exposed if Apple’s systems are hacked. Standard iCloud encryption is robust against external threats, but high-profile breaches (e.g., past celebrity iCloud leaks) show it’s not infallible. Foreign entities could also target this data if they penetrate Apple’s infrastructure, though there’s no evidence of state-sponsored hacks yet. The risk isn’t immediate for most users but grows over time as cybercriminals adapt, making UK users a softer target compared to those with ADP elsewhere.
Governments aside, what are the UK government’s next steps?
The UK government could escalate by fining Apple for non-compliance, though Apple’s removal of ADP might technically satisfy the notice by removing the contested capability. The government may also target other encrypted services like WhatsApp, Signal, or ProtonMail with similar demands. The 2023 amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act allow the UK to issue preemptive decryption demands on tech firms, meaning broader enforcement is possible. However, political backlash and pushback from the tech industry might slow down aggressive enforcement. That’s why challenging the UK government is important.
What legal basis does the UK have for this demand?
The Investigatory Powers Act (2016)—sometimes called the Snooper’s Charter—was updated in 2023 to expand government power to issue Technical Capability Notices. These notices require companies to remove encryption or other security measures if deemed necessary for national security and proportionate. This appears to be the first major use of the amended law against a tech giant like Apple, setting a precedent that could encourage other countries, such as EU nations or Australia, to follow suit. This is a test case for global encryption policy, though secrecy limits transparency.
Why hasn’t Apple explicitly confirmed the UK order?
Apple has not officially confirmed receiving a Technical Capability Notice, likely due to a gag order under the Investigatory Powers Act. This law prohibits companies from disclosing such requests to avoid tipping off targets or causing public backlash. However, Apple’s decision to withdraw ADP and its statement expressing disappointment strongly imply that it received a legally binding order. Silence could also be a strategic choice, keeping the focus on the impact of withdrawal rather than escalating a legal battle it cannot win.
What does this mean for US-UK relations?
This could strain US-UK tech relations, particularly given comments from figures like JD Vance criticizing European overreach on American firms. The US and UK share intelligence via the Five Eyes alliance, but this dispute (at least, as far as it looks) highlights divergent views on privacy versus security. Apple might lobby the US government to pressure the UK, especially if it sees this as a threat to America’s tech dominance. Diplomatic fallout seems unlikely to escalate significantly, but it could complicate future transatlantic tech policy talks, especially if other EU nations follow suit.
Do any lawmakers in the US want to ban this type of encryption?
Yes, some US lawmakers have pushed to limit or effectively end strong encryption, particularly end-to-end encryption, by requiring tech companies to provide law enforcement access to encrypted data. While they don’t always frame it as “ending encryption” outright, their proposals would undermine its effectiveness by mandating backdoors or weaker standards, which many experts argue amounts to the same thing. This has been a recurring theme in Congress over the years.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Graham has been a key figure, co-sponsoring the EARN IT Act (2020) with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and introducing the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act (LAED Act) in 2020 with Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Both bills aimed to force tech companies to unlock encrypted data under court orders, effectively targeting E2EE.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Co-sponsor of the EARN IT Act, which critics say indirectly threatens encryption by tying legal protections to government-approved “best practices” that could ban E2EE.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Co-sponsors of the LAED Act, which explicitly sought to outlaw “warrant-proof” encryption—systems where only users hold the keys. These efforts often have bipartisan support, driven by concerns over crime and national security.
Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) have also recently called for a crackdown on end-to-end encryption, using the fight against fentanyl as a justification.
Should global Apple users be concerned about the UK’s move against encryption?
Yes, global users should be concerned because the UK’s action sets a dangerous precedent that could inspire other governments to demand similar backdoors, weakening digital privacy worldwide. If Apple complies with one government’s demand to weaken encryption, it may face pressure from other nations, including the EU, Australia, India, or China, to do the same. This risks creating a domino effect where end-to-end encryption is gradually eroded across multiple jurisdictions.
Moreover, any security loophole introduced for the UK could be exploited by hackers or authoritarian regimes, endangering global Apple users. Apple’s current refusal to comply suggests it is drawing a line to protect its security model worldwide, but if the UK succeeds in enforcing its demands, Apple and other tech companies may struggle to resist similar pressures elsewhere.
For now, users outside the UK still benefit from full encryption protections, but privacy advocates worry that if this case goes unchallenged, governments may target other encrypted services, such as WhatsApp, Signal, or Google Drive, making digital privacy harder to maintain globally.
What about those iCloud users that didn’t have Advanced Data Protection (ADP) turned on?
For most users, this change doesn’t affect them because the majority of iCloud users never had ADP enabled in the first place. Apple’s standard iCloud encryption, which was always the default, means Apple already holds the keys to decrypt most stored data and can provide access when legally required. This means that users who never switched on ADP were always using the less secure version of iCloud storage, and their data was already accessible to Apple and, by extension, law enforcement with a legal order.
However, for privacy-conscious users in the UK who did enable ADP, this decision does impact their security. Without ADP, their iCloud data will eventually revert to standard encryption, meaning Apple can access it again if compelled. While this is currently a UK-specific change, privacy advocates worry that it could set a precedent for other governments to demand similar access, potentially eroding encryption protections worldwide over time.
If ADP is available in your region, you should turn it on.
Even WITH Apple’s Advanced Data Protection turned on, what data could Apple and the government potentially see?
Quite a lot.
Here are the parts that were never end-to-end encrypted:
- iCloud Mail
- Contacts
- Calendars
- iCloud Data on the Web (Apple says, “You have the option to turn on data access on iCloud.com, which allows the web browser that you’re using and Apple to have temporary access to data-specific encryption keys provided by your device to decrypt and view your information.
- Metadata and usage information, including “dates and times when a file or object was modified are used to sort your information, and checksums of file and photo data” (which “are used to help Apple de-duplicate and optimize your iCloud and device storage — all without having access to the files and photos themselves.”). Specific examples of the app specific metadata and usage information that was never end-to-end encrypted includes:
- iCloud Backup:
- Name, model, color, and serial number of the device associated with each backup
- List of apps and file formats that are included in the backup
- Date, time, and size of each backup snapshot
- iCloud Drive:
- The raw byte checksums of the file content and the file name
- Type of file, when it was created, last modified, or last opened
- Whether the file has been marked as a favorite
- Size of the file
- Signature of any app installers (.pkg signature) and bundle signature
- Whether a synced file is an executable
- Photos:
- The raw byte checksum of the photo or video
- Whether an item has been marked as a favorite, hidden, or marked as deleted
- When the item was originally created on the device
- When the item was originally imported and modified
- How many times an item has been viewed
- Notes:
- Date and time when the note was created, last modified, or last viewed
- Whether the note has been pinned or marked as deleted
- Whether the note contains a drawing or handwriting
- The raw byte checksum of content from an imported or migrated note
- Safari Bookmarks:
- Whether the bookmark resides in the favorites folder
- When the bookmark was last modified
- Whether the bookmark has been marked as deleted
- Messages in iCloud:
- When the last sync was completed and whether syncing has been disabled
- Date when content was last modified
- Error codes
- Type of message, such as a normal iMessage, SMS, or tapback
- iCloud Backup:
- iWork collaboration
- The Shared Albums feature in Photos
- Content shared via the “anyone with the link” feature
- Any data that was shared with an Apple user that doesn’t have end-to-end encryption enabled e.g. Messages sent to someone that has iCloud Backup enabled but not Advanced Data Protection, Notes shared with someone that has iCloud Backup enabled but not Advanced Data Protection.
I’m thinking of switching to Google or Android because of the UK’s encryption dispute with Apple. Is that a better move for privacy?
Not necessarily. Google or Android isn’t a monolith — Google’s services (like Drive and Photos) and Android’s open ecosystem differ from what Samsung or other manufacturers layer on top.
Privacy-wise, none of these options universally outshine Apple, especially if end-to-end encryption (E2EE) is your priority. Google’s core services don’t use E2EE by default for Drive, Photos, or backups, meaning Google can access your data and comply with law enforcement requests.
Android’s encryption varies by implementation, and Samsung adds its own features, but they don’t fully match Apple’s default E2EE across key services (like iMessage or Health data) that remain intact even without Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in the UK.
What about Samsung?
Samsung, as a major Android manufacturer, uses Google’s ecosystem for services like Google Drive, Google Photos, and phone backups, but it also layers its own features on top. Like other Android devices, Samsung phones don’t get end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for Google Drive or Google Photos—those services encrypt data in transit and at rest, but Google holds the keys, making them accessible to Google or law enforcement. For phone backups, Samsung relies on Google’s E2EE system (since Android 9 Pie), which encrypts app data and settings using your credentials, not Google’s. However, Samsung offers Samsung Cloud, which provides an optional E2EE feature called Enhanced Data Protection (introduced with One UI 5.1.1 in 2023). If you enable it, your backups to Samsung Cloud—like contacts or calendar data—can be E2EE, unlike Google’s broader cloud services. So, Samsung gives you somewhat of an extra encrypted option, but it’s not default and doesn’t cover everything (e.g., photos synced to Google Photos).
Does Google Drive use end-to-end encryption?
No, Google Drive does not offer true end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Files are encrypted in transit (using TLS) and at rest (with AES-256), but Google holds the encryption keys. This means Google can decrypt your files if required—say, for a legal warrant—or if their systems are breached, a hacker could potentially access unencrypted data after compromising Google’s infrastructure. You can add client-side encryption via third-party tools (like Cryptomator) or Google Workspace’s enterprise option, but that’s not standard for personal users. Compared to Apple’s iCloud with ADP (now unavailable in the UK), where users control the keys, Google Drive is less private by design.
What about Huawei or other major Android smartphones? Do they change the encryption picture?
Huawei, a Chinese Android player, doesn’t rely on Google services due to US sanctions (post-2019), so it skips Google Drive, Photos, and Google backups entirely. Instead, Huawei uses its own Huawei Mobile Cloud, which offers encrypted backups for photos, contacts, and more, but it’s not E2EE by default—Huawei holds the keys unless you use specific encryption settings. Huawei’s HiSuite software for PC backups also encrypts data, sometimes with user-set passwords, but research shows these can be decrypted with effort, suggesting weaker protection. Unlike Samsung, Huawei lacks Google’s E2EE phone backup system and faces scrutiny over potential Chinese government access, though no hard evidence confirms backdoors. End-to-end encryption is banned in China anyway so using Chinese services is inherently less secure in terms of privacy.
I keep hearing about Google Drive, Google Photos, and phone backups. Are they all the same thing?
No, they’re distinct services with different purposes, even though they’re all tied to your Google account. Google Drive is a cloud storage platform for files—like documents, videos, or anything you manually upload. Google Photos is a specialized service for storing and organizing your pictures and videos, often syncing automatically from your phone. Phone backups, on the other hand, are a feature of Android that saves device-specific data—like settings, app data, and call logs—to Google’s servers. Think of Drive as a general file locker, Photos as your photo album, and backups as a snapshot of your phone’s configuration and data.
Regarding Google, what kind of stuff gets stored in each one?
Here’s the breakdown:
Google Drive: Anything you choose to upload—PDFs, Word docs, spreadsheets, random videos, or even folders. It’s manual unless you set up syncing from your device or apps.
Google Photos: Primarily photos and videos from your phone’s camera roll, synced automatically if you enable it (via the Google Photos app). You can also upload other images manually, but it’s built for media.
Phone Backups: Device-specific data like app settings, Wi-Fi passwords, call history, SMS (if enabled), and some app data (if developers opt in). It doesn’t include your full photo library or random files unless they’re part of an app’s backup scope.
They overlap a bit—e.g., a photo could be in Photos and Drive if you upload it twice—but they’re designed for different needs.
Is everything encrypted the same way across these services?
No, encryption differs:
Google Drive: Encrypted in transit (TLS) and at rest (AES-256), but Google holds the keys. They can decrypt your files if needed (e.g., for law enforcement). No end-to-end encryption (E2EE) unless you add it manually with tools.
Google Photos: Same deal—encrypted in transit and at rest, but Google has the keys. No E2EE, so your photos aren’t fully private from Google or legal requests.
Phone Backups: Encrypted end-to-end since Android 9 Pie (2018). The key is tied to your Google account password and device lock screen credentials, stored in Google’s Titan Security Module. Google can’t decrypt this without your input, unlike Drive or Photos.
So, if I switch from Apple’s Advanced Protection version of iCloud to Google’s suite of products, I would be less protected?
Yes.
If I switch to Android and use these, am I safer from the UK government than with Apple?
Not really. The UK’s issue with Apple was about iCloud’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which offered E2EE. Without ADP, iCloud’s standard encryption (Apple holds the keys) is like Google Drive and Photos—accessible to the company and thus to governments with warrants. Android phone backups are E2EE, which is safer from Google or the UK snooping without your credentials, but Drive and Photos aren’t, leaving most of your cloud data as vulnerable as non-ADP iCloud. You’re not dodging the problem—just shifting where it applies.
Do de-googled phones come with their own encrypted cloud backups?
No, de-googled phones—like those running GrapheneOS or LineageOS—don’t include built-in cloud services with encryption. Unlike Samsung (with Samsung Cloud’s optional E2EE) or Google (with non-E2EE Drive), they strip out Google’s ecosystem entirely and don’t replace it with a default cloud. You’re left to back up locally (e.g., to a computer with manual encryption) or pick your own cloud service. There’s no out-of-the-box E2EE cloud solution baked in.
Does switching to a de-googled phone help if I use cloud services anyway?
Not much, if you pick non-E2EE clouds like Google Drive or Dropbox. De-googled phones avoid Google’s data harvesting, but they don’t fix the encryption gap—Drive, Photos, or Huawei’s Mobile Cloud (non-E2EE by default) still let the provider decrypt your data. Switching from, say, a Samsung phone with Google’s non-E2EE services to a de-googled one is useless for privacy if you just plug in the same unencrypted clouds. You’re back to square one, with your backups exposed to companies or governments.
Do you have any recommendations for keeping my documents and photos securely backed up?
Yes, check out our recommendations here.
We also have a members post with recommendations for specific photos apps.
This battle is far from over—whether Apple will face further pressure, how other tech companies will respond, and whether legal challenges arise remain key questions in the fight for encryption.
For users concerned about privacy, this situation underscores the need to take control of their own data security. Whether that means using end-to-end encrypted services, backing up data locally, or switching to alternative platforms, individuals must weigh the risks and make informed choices. As governments push for more access and tech giants weigh their responses, one thing is clear: the future of digital privacy is at a crossroads, and what happens next in the UK could shape encryption policies worldwide.
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- The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
- Italy suspends defense deal with ‘Israel’ over war on Iran, Lebanon
- 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
- If Americans Knew
- ‘Not Acceptable’: President of Iran Condemns Trump For His ‘Desecration of Jesus, the Prophet of Peace’
- We Are the Barbarians
- Netanyahu Says the Trump Administration Gives Him Reports on Iran Talks Every Day
- Second Contractor Steps Forward to Blow the Whistle on Israeli Attacks at Gaza Aid Site
- 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
- 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 