Russia has repeatedly warned that the US and its Western sponsors’ assistance to the Kiev regime will only prolong the Ukraine conflict.
Western financing of Ukraine reached a whopping $238.5 billion from February 2022 to the beginning of December 2024, which approximately corresponds to 87% of the country’s budget expenses, Sputnik’s research based on information from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry, the University of Kiel, and open data has shown.
The expenses of the Ukrainian budget in 2022-2023 amounted to $193.3 billion, while in 2024 the figure is expected to stand at $81.3 billion. It means that over the past three years, the expenses have increased to $274.6 billion, according to the analyzed data.
Aid Breakdown
The volume of financial aid sent by Western countries to Ukraine amounted to $106 billion, whereas the West’s military assistance reached $132.5 billion within the aforementioned period. At the same time, the total volume of Western aid is 43% less than the $416 billion the West promised to Kiev, per the analysis.
The US remains Ukraine’s largest donor, having sent $95.2 billion to the Kiev regime in the past three years. Two-thirds of the sum was military aid, while one-third went towards budget financing.
EU member states transferred financial and military aid to Ukraine worth $94.2 billion, with Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands being the bloc’s largest donors with $11.9 billion, $7.5 billion, and $6.3 billion, respectively. The UK sent $13.4 billion, Canada $7.8 billion, and Japan $6.7 billion.
During the December 19 Direct Line and year-end press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed that Ukraine can fight and exist only with the support of its Western donors.
The statement came after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Washington’s financial aid to Kiev will not change the situation on the battlefield and will lead to “new victims among Ukrainians.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for his part, recalled earlier that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasizes that continued aid to Ukraine is a guarantee of creating new jobs in the United States.
“As if he is not speaking about financing a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in Ukraine, but a lucrative business project,” Lavrov stressed.
This followed Peskov warning that the EU’s hefty sums to Ukraine are “allocated to the detriment of EU economies which are already going through difficult times.” For example, Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is facing a second year of zero growth, in what comes as more Germans oppose Berlin’s excessive financial assistance to the Kiev regime, according to a recent opinion poll conducted by the ARD news channel.
December 22, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Economics | European Union, UK, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
UK’s Online Safety Act has come into force and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) regulator has quickly set out to start enforcing it, with noncompliance resulting in high fines.
What those opposed to the legislation consider to be a censorship law and a sweeping one at that, is, according to Ofcom, a way to “protect” online users in the UK from illegal harms by legally requiring tech companies to “start taking action to tackle criminal activity on their platforms” as well as “make them safer by design.”
But what the law’s provisions in reality do, say critics, is bring in even more censorship, while at the same time providing for possibilities to undermine encryption via backdoors.
Then there are those who don’t think the Online Safety Act goes far enough, and are in particular upset by the gradual way it has been designed to boil this particular “frog.”
Right now, the deadline of March 15, 2025, has been given to tech companies to come up with risk assessments regarding the consequences that illegal content has on their users, and then starting two days later, they will have to begin putting measures in place to reduce those risks.
But going forward, Ofcom, which says the current requirements are “just the beginning,” plans to introduce more measures, including “crisis response protocols for emergency events (such as last summer’s riots).”
Here, the fear is that newsworthy content about various forms of protests could get censored as well.
Citing crimes like child abuse and terrorism as the reason, Ofcom also reserves the right to force tech firms to build and implement what are effectively encryption backdoors.
Ofcom says the Online Safety Act allows it to, “where we decide it is necessary and proportionate, make a provider use (or in some cases develop) a specific technology to tackle child sexual abuse or terrorism content on their sites and apps.”
Coupled with this, another provision – hash-matching – starts to gain sinister overtones, contrary to what the stated reason for it is, namely, preventing the sharing of “non-consensual intimate imagery and terrorist content.”
Ofcom is for now short on details regarding this, but the two requirements combined could easily be used for encryption backdoors.
Privacy is one victim of weakened encryption that immediately comes to mind, however, harm to online security, and the economy is often overlooked.
“Creating an encryption ‘backdoor’ for law enforcement would effectively be a blackmailer’s charter, allowing criminals and hostile foreign actors to exploit security flaws,” notes the Adam Smith Institute, and adds:
“Such measures would undermine the growth and competitiveness of the UK technology sector, potentially resulting in large companies withdrawing from the market entirely.”
December 20, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
For a while now, emerging AI has been treated by the Biden-Harris administration, but also the EU, the UK, Canada, the UN, etc., as a scourge that powers dangerous forms of “disinformation” – and should be dealt with accordingly.
According to those governments/entities, the only “positive use” for AI as far as social media and online discourse go, would be to power more effective censorship (“moderation”).
A new report from the US House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government puts the emphasis on the push to use this technology for censorship as the explanation for the often disproportionate alarm over its role in “disinformation.”
We obtained a copy of the report for you here.
The interim report’s name spells out its authors’ views on this quite clearly: the document is called, “Censorship’s Next Frontier: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech.”
The report’s main premise is well-known – that AI is now being funded, developed, and used by the government and third parties to add speed and scale to their censorship, and that the outgoing administration has been putting pressure on AI developers to build censorship into their models.
What’s new are the proposed steps to remedy this situation and make sure that future federal governments are not using AI for censorship. To this end, the Committee wants to see new legislation passed in Congress, AI development that respects the First Amendment and is open, decentralized, and “pro-freedom.”
The report recommends legislation along four principles, focused on preserving American’s right to free speech. The first is that the government cannot be involved when decisions are made in private algorithms or datasets regarding “misinformation” or “bias.”
The government should also be prohibited from funding censorship-related research or collaboration with foreign entities on AI regulation that leads to censorship.
Lastly, “Avoid needless AI regulation that gives the government coercive leverage,” the document recommends.
The Committee notes the current state of affairs where the Biden-Harris administration made a number of direct moves to regulate the space to its political satisfaction via executive orders, but also by pushing its policy through by giving out grants via the National Science Foundation, once again, aimed at building AI tools that “combat misinformation.”
But – “If allowed to develop in a free and open manner, AI could dramatically expand Americans’ capacity to create knowledge and express themselves,” the report states.
December 19, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Canada, European Union, Human rights, UK, United Nations, United States |
Leave a comment
The UK’s sweeping online censorship law – the Online Safety Act – that will be enforced from March of next year is already claiming its first victims.
The new legislative landscape in the country is now not providing any kind of safety for hundreds of small websites, including non-profit forums, that will have to shut down, unable to comply with the act – specifically, faced with what reports refer to as “disproportionate personal liability.”
The fines go up to the equivalent of USD 25 million, while the law also introduces new criminal offenses.
Earlier in the week, the act’s enforcer, Ofcom, published dozens of measures that online services are supposed to implement by March 16, including naming a person responsible – and accountable – for making sure a site or platform complies.
The law is presented as a new way to efficiently tackle illegal content, and in particular, provide new ways to ensure the safety of children online, including by age verification (“age checking”).
Opponents, however, reject it as “a censor’s charter” designed to force companies to step up monitoring and censorship on their platforms, including by scanning private communications and undermining encryption.
But another way that concrete harm can be done to the online ecosystem, while declaratively seeking to prevent harm, is now emerging with the example of small and community sites, where those running them are unwilling to take on the massive risk related both to the fines, and criminal responsibility in case they fail to “moderate” according to the act’s provisions.
UK press reports about one of the first examples of this, as the non-profit free hosting service Microcosm and its 300 sites – among them community hubs and forums dedicated to topics like cycling and tech – will go down in March, unable to live up to the “disproportionately high personal liability.”
“It’s too vague and too broad and I don’t want to take that personal risk,” Microcosm’s Dee Kitchen is quoted.
Although the general impression has been that only large corporate services will be affected by the law, in reality requirements and penalties for them are higher, but Ofcom made it clear that “very small micro businesses” are also subject to the legislation.
Microcosm’s decision illustrates what that will look like in practice, as sites – big and small – consider finding hosting overseas, or even leaving the UK market.
December 19, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Ukraine launched a missile attack against a massive chemical plant in Russia’s southern Rostov Region, the Russian Ministry of Defense has reported. According to the military, the attack happened on Wednesday. Six American-made ATACMS tactical missiles and four air-launched Storm Shadow cruise missiles were used in the assault.
Russian air defense units engaged the incoming missiles, successfully intercepting all ATACMS and three out of the four Storm Shadow missiles using S-400 and Buk-M3 surface-to-air missile systems, as well as the Pantsir air defense system. One of the Storm Shadows veered off course. However, it still impacted the facility, resulting in damage to a technical building on the premises, the ministry said.
Moscow condemned the attack, claiming that these actions by the Kiev regime, supported by Western sponsors, would not go unanswered.
The Kamensky plant is one of the largest chemical enterprises in southern Russia. Established in 1939, the plant has been intensively developed, producing essential chemical products to address issues of national importance and strengthening the country’s defense capabilities.
December 19, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | UK, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.
First of all, it is a sickening display of wretched so-called journalism. The celebratory tone in British media outlets at the sight of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov’s bloodied corpse lying in the snow speaks volumes of a despicable lack of respect. It says something about the depraved depth of British culture.
By comparison, the reporting of the assassination by American media outlets was relatively mundane and matter-of-fact.
Not so in Britain. The British media were almost euphoric in their reaction.
The Pentagon’s response was significant. Spokesman Patrick Ryder denied any U.S. involvement in the killing. He said the Americans were not forewarned about the assassination and he added that the United States did not support such action.
Of course, such denials should always be treated with skepticism.
However, while the Americans had the decency to remain reserved, the British were giddy in their ghoulishness.
The London Times editorial board declared that Lt Gen. Kirillov was a “legitimate target” for assassination.
The Daily Telegraph ran an oped piece by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon with the headline: “Putin’s chemical weapons henchman Kirillov was a truly evil man. He deserved to die.”
Meanwhile, the BBC blithely used the Foreign Office’s description of Kirillov as a “notorious mouthpiece for Kremlin disinformation” to convey an implicit justification for murder.
Over at the Guardian, their Russophobic reporter, Luke Harding, abandoned all pretense of journalistic standards by glorifying Ukraine’s military intelligence service (SBU) for its “success,” adding: “The agency has cemented its reputation as an outfit that administers its own form of brutal extrajudicial justice. It is an abrupt and swift form of vengeance, delivered as if from the heavens.”
The Ukrainian secret services were no doubt involved. The SBU is claiming responsibility and distributing a video to Western outlets of the bombing outside the Moscow apartment block, which killed Kirillov and his assistant as they walked out of the building on Tuesday morning.
Russian security services (FSB) have reportedly arrested a 29-year-old Uzbek national who says Ukrainian agents recruited him to plant the explosive-laden scooter at the street-side doorway of Kirillov’s apartment block. The suspect says he was promised payment of $100,000 and a European passport.
That all points to the higher involvement of NATO military intelligence services in the assassination. The American CIA and Britain’s MI6 are the two principal players behind Ukraine’s military intelligence.
But the circumstances indicate that the British are the primary culprits.
In October, Britain put sanctions on Kirillov after London accused him of overseeing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine, a charge that Moscow vehemently denied. The British provided no credible evidence – only hackneyed claims – and, besides, the allegation does not make sense, given that Russia is decisively winning the conflict. Why would it need to resort to using chemical weapons?
Lt Gen. Kirillov was chief of the Russian army’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces. His investigators had uncovered what they claimed to be a secret and illegal network of Pentagon-run biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. The investigations provided substantive evidence that the bioweapons labs were authorized at U.S. presidential level and involved major American pharmaceutical companies. Typically, the West rubbished the claims as “Kremlin disinformation” without considering the information.
In other words, Kirillov’s work was mainly focused on interdicting NATO-run weapons of mass destruction, not on overseeing their use, as the British claimed.
Kirillov was the most senior Russian military commander to have been killed since the conflict in Ukraine erupted three years ago.
The British objective was to demonize Kirillov as a “chemical weapons henchman” and “an evil man.” That move was then followed by the Ukrainian secret services accusing the Russian general of being a “war criminal”. This week, on the day before his assassination, the Ukrainians published a death notice.
One could argue that the Americans had more motive to eliminate Kirillov than the British, given his potentially incriminating investigations into the bioweapons and the way it implicated President Biden.
But, arguably, that was not the motive behind his assassination. He was merely a high-profile target for a psychological operation.
Ukrainian opposition political figure Viktor Medvedchuk makes the important observation that Britain has taken over from the United States as the main intelligence player behind the Kiev regime. He says that the British are using the Ukrainian puppet president Vladimir Zelensky and his cronies to launder much of the U.S. and European money sent to Ukraine to end up in London’s banks.
With the incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expressing concern about winding down the Ukraine conflict and cutting off the financing of the Kiev junta, Britain wants to sabotage any such initiative. It wants to prolong the conflict and the money racket.
Assassinating a senior Russian commander in Moscow is aimed at humiliating the Kremlin and provoking an escalation of the conflict in a way that scuppers any possible peace negotiations with Trump, who takes up office in four weeks.
The British media’s gloating about the murder of Igor Kirillov and his assistant Ilya Polikarpov reveals Britain’s nefarious hand.
Not only was the victim vilified and condemned, the killing was glorified. The BBC, in particular, showed a keen interest in reporting on the “deep shock” felt by Muscovites in the immediate aftermath of the deadly explosion.
The state-owned outlet opined: “People living in the area told the BBC of their deep sense of shock. Even after nearly three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, for many Muscovites, the war is something that is happening a long way away – something they only see on TV or on their phones. The killing of a Russian general in Moscow is a sign that this war is very real and very close to home.”
Russia has vowed to retaliate for the murder of Igor Kirillov. Zelensky and his cronies in Kiev are no doubt bracing themselves. The British werewolves of London might want to re-check their security arrangements, too.
Questions have to be asked about how Russian security services. How could they be so easily penetrated only a few kilometers from the Kremlin – and not for the first time? Only last week, a senior missile scientist, Mikhail Shatsky, was shot dead in Moscow in an attack ascribed to Ukrainian secret services.
But also it should be questioned if Russia is being too soft in exacting revenge. Should the masterminds of terrorist operations beyond the puppets in Kiev not also be “legitimate targets,” as the British are so fond of saying?
December 19, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | UK, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
For those that grew up in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, the explosion of Russophobia over the past decade likely came as something of a surprise. A brief survey of the history of Russophobia, however, reveals that the decade and a half after the end of the Cold War was something of an anomaly in the past century and a half of American foreign policy, with a blend of inherited geopolitical fears and ideological tensions leading to a generally anti-Russian sentiment in Washington.
Our investigation begins with the so-called “Testament of Peter the Great.” An eighteenth century forgery of largely Polish origin, it purported to show, in the words of the University of London historian Orlando Figes, that the aims of Russian foreign policy were nothing less than world domination:
“… to expand on the Baltic and Black seas, to ally with the Austrians to expel the Turks from Europe, to conquer the Levant and control the trade to the Indies, to sow dissent and confusion in Europe and become the master of the European continent.”
First published in Napoleonic France in 1812, on the eve of the Grand Armée’s ill-fated invasion of Russia, it was to go on to provide the grist for many an English fear-monger’s mill.
In 1817, Sir Robert Wilson’s A Sketch of the Military and Political Power of Russia in the Year 1817 luridly detailed the military and geopolitical threat supposedly posed by Russia, and a decade later George de Lacy Evans’s On the Designs of Russia repeated these earlier warnings—both were favorably received by the public and among the ruling establishment, paranoid as ever about any potential threat to British control of India. Then, in 1834, the highly influential David Urquhart published his own pamphlet, England, France, Russia and Turkey, casting Russia as the perpetual antagonist to British interests in the Near East and Central Asia.
Not everyone was fooled, however. As noted by the Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken, the great British liberals, such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, often opposed these characterizations and exaggerated threats. In turn, they were rewarded only with the scorn familiar to today’s scoffers. Indeed, the perception of Russia as a natural, age-old enemy became embedded in British geopolitical thought.
As the nineteenth century progressed, these ideas influenced American perspectives, particularly as the United States emerged as a power in its own right. Initially, U.S.-Russian relations were cordial, demonstrated by the Russian offer to aid the Union during the Civil War should Britain or France recognize the Confederacy, and by the sale of Alaska. However, this camaraderie began to erode in the final decades of the nineteenth century as American elites increasingly viewed Russia as a backwards autocracy at odds with the progress and democratic ideals of the United States.
The overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy and the seizure of power by the communists in 1917 would only further entrench this ideological divide—totalitarian communism being almost as at odds with the republican capitalism of the United States as the old Russian regime, but more dangerous for its apparently global revolutionary ambitions.
At the same time, the Rhodes Scholarship, established in 1902 and conceived by British imperialist Cecil Rhodes, was bringing American elites into closer contact with British institutions and thinking. Many prominent U.S. policymakers would pass through Oxford, absorbing the geopolitical theories of figures like Halford Mackinder, who viewed Eurasian control as pivotal to global power.
Graduates of the Rhodes program, such as Stanley Hornbeck, who served as an advisor to longest running Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and J. William Fulbright, the longest serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, carried this thinking into U.S. foreign policy—along with later Rhodes scholars like Dean Rusk and Walt Rostow.
Indeed, during this period, U.S. strategy came to mirror Britain’s in its suspicion of Russian ambitions. Mackinder’s work on the Heartland Theory influenced American realists like Nicholas Spykman, whose views would in turn inform the policies of John Foster Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of State. The synthesis of British and American grand strategies, marked by shared Russophobia, persisted throughout the Cold War, interrupted only by moments of detente.
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a brief period during which Russophobia seemed to wane. However, the resurgence of tensions over the past decade reflects the deep-rooted nature of these perceptions, which never fully dissipated. The influence of figures educated under British tutelage continued, with Rhodes scholars like Richard Haas and Strobe Talbott playing key roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy post-Cold War. Talbott, as Deputy Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, was pivotal in crafting policies that expanded NATO, a move seen by Russia as a direct threat.
The resilience of Russophobia can also be viewed through the lens of American conservatism’s evolution. In Reclaiming the American Right, Justin Raimondo explored how the original Old Right, wary of foreign entanglements and empire-building, largely resisted the knee-jerk Russophobia that would later define the Cold War. Figures like Senator Robert Taft and journalist John T. Flynn saw anti-communism not as an invitation to global interventionism but as a principle grounded in American self-reliance and non-intervention. Raimondo argued that the transformation of conservatism in the post-World War II era—particularly with the rise of the neoconservatives—led to a more aggressive foreign policy, one that embraced Russophobia as both a geopolitical strategy and an ideological necessity.
This shift mirrored the integration of British geopolitical thinking into American policy circles, where Russia remained the perennial “other,” a rival to be contained or defeated. Raimondo’s analysis highlights how historical Russophobia, rooted in fears of Russian autocracy or expansionism, found new life under ideological pretexts—whether combating Soviet communism during the Cold War or resisting Russian influence in the post-Soviet era. As Raimondo reminds us, this hostility was as much about the ambitions of American policymakers as it was about any perceived Russian threat.
In conclusion, Russophobia in America did not arise from a vacuum but from a historical continuum that began with British anxieties and evolved through ideological, cultural, and geopolitical conflicts, and as a function of the domestic political incentive structures in Washington. This lineage of suspicion, and profitable fear mongering, has proven resilient, shaping policy and public perception for over two centuries, much to the detriment of (almost) all involved.
December 19, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | Russia, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday slammed Britain’s flagship daily The Times for justifying the assassination of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov. Medvedev blasted the editors as “lousy jackals” who are part of a hybrid war against Russia.
Kirillov, who headed Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces, was killed in a blast outside his residence on Tuesday morning. Russian investigators said an improvised explosive device (IED) packed with up to 1kg of TNT was attached to an electric scooter parked near the building’s entrance. Investigators suspect Ukrainian special services of orchestrating the attack, which took place mere hours after the general was accused by Kiev of being linked to the use of chemical agents on the battlefield, a claim Moscow has denied.
In an article on Tuesday, the UK outlet claimed that its sources within Ukraine’s security services admitted responsibility for the assassination. It went on to describe the incident as “a legitimate act of defense by a threatened nation.”
“The assassination is a discriminate strike against an aggressor,” The Times wrote. The paper further characterized Kirillov’s killing as an “eminently defensible” act that should be seen as “a warning and deterrent to other plenipotentiaries of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin.”
“It’s impossible to ignore the editorial published in The Times, where the bastards called the terrorist attack on Igor Kirillov and his assistant a ‘legitimate act of defense’,” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy head of the Russian Security Council, said in a Telegram post. He stated that according to the logic employed by The Times, its entire management could now be considered “legitimate military targets” for Russia, along with all Western decision-makers.
“All NATO decision-makers from countries that provided military assistance to Bandera Ukraine are participating in a hybrid or conventional war against Russia… All these individuals can and should be considered legitimate military targets for the Russian state,” Medvedev said, adding that the people “who committed crimes against Russia” always have accomplices, including in the media.
“And they, too, are now legitimate military targets. These may include the lousy jackals from The Times, who cowardly hid behind an editorial… So, be careful! After all, a lot can happen in London,” he warned.
Russian authorities have launched a criminal probe into Kirillov’s death and brought charges of murder, terrorism, and illegal weapons trafficking. On Wednesday, the Investigative Committee announced it has detained a 29-year-old citizen of Uzbekistan suspected of carrying out the attack. According to the investigators, the suspect admitted that he had been recruited by the SBU, and agreed to carry out the bombing in exchange for a reward of $100,000 and safe passage to the EU.
December 18, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | Russia, UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Igor Kirillov spent years investigating incidents involving chemical and biological weapons
Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, who was killed on Tuesday in Moscow along with his assistant in an assassination allegedly carried out by Ukraine, was the Russian military’s top official on the hazards posed by weapons of mass destruction.
Kirillov commanded the military branch responsible for protecting troops and civilians from chemical and biological weapons, and from the radioactive fallout of a nuclear strike or ‘dirty bomb’ attack. He was also in charge of military investigations into numerous high-profile cases directly and indirectly involving Russia.
He delivered over 40 briefings about the findings made by specialists under his command since being appointed in 2017. He also regularly offered his expert opinion to Russian officials and the media. His work came as allegations of chemical weapons use became an increasingly frequent tool in Western foreign policy over the past decade.
Syria
The turning point was arguably the war in Syria and claims by then-US President Barack Obama that Damascus had deployed chemical weapons against opposition forces, thus crossing a Washington-declared ‘red line’. In a Russia-mediated attempt to deflate tensions, the Syrian government agreed in 2013 to destroy all of its declared stockpiles of such weapons.
However, more incidents followed, which the West blamed on government forces, alleging that Damascus never actually fulfilled its obligations. Moscow, meanwhile, maintained that anti-government groups were conducting false flag operations, while foreign-funded organizations, such as the notorious White Helmets, were providing media support.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which has the mandate to investigate such allegations, was compromised by Western influence, Russia believes.
“Syrian authorities demanded on numerous occasions that the OPCW deploy specialists on the ground [for investigation], but received refusals that cited lack of security,” Kirillov said during a briefing in 2018, as he detailed cases of alleged manufacturing of chemical weapons by militant groups.
The same year, the OPCW faced what was arguably its worst internal crisis while investigating a chemical attack in the city of Douma.
According to whistleblowers, its top management suppressed findings by field investigators and manipulated testimony to implicate Damascus. Dissenting scientists argued behind closed doors that the evidence contradicted such a claim, only to be dismissed as disgruntled employees when they went public.
Kirillov reported in 2019 that Russian troops deployed in Syria conducted hundreds of tests for traces of chemical weapons as part of their monitoring mission.
Novichok
Moscow was accused of deploying a chemical weapon in 2018, after Andrey Skripal, a Russian intelligence defector, and his daughter fell ill in Salisbury, Great Britain. London and Western media claimed that they were poisoned with Novichok, a toxic chemical allegedly developed exclusively by the Soviet military.
Although civilian officials were responsible for Moscow’s messaging over the incident, Kirillov was called in to set the record straight about Novichok’s “Russian” nature. Western nations, including the UK, have chemical weapons programs of their own with enough expertise to synthesize highly lethal compounds, he pointed out.
The US and its allies had an opportunity to gain insight into Soviet research, including from chemists involved in it, he added during a briefing in 2018. A scientist named Vil Mirzayanov was the first person to discuss the program dubbed Novichok publicly after moving to the US.
He went as far as to publish a formula for one of the chemicals developed by the USSR, which Kirillov said was deeply irresponsible and posed a proliferation threat.
Ukraine and US-led biolabs
A significant part of Kirillov’s reports in the media focused on the Ukraine conflict after it escalated into open hostilities with Russia in 2022. Some of them documented alleged use of chemical agents by Ukrainian troops on the battlefield or warned of possible provocations by Kiev.
Others dealt with a network of US-backed microbiological labs, which have been a source of major concern for Russia and other countries. Washington claims that the Pentagon-funded activities by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency are merely meant to detect and identify naturally emerging threats. Critics, however, believe the program pursued more sinister aims.
Kirillov claimed that the US evacuated some 16,000 relevant samples from Ukraine while other pieces of evidence were destroyed. But some materials were captured by the Russian military, giving Moscow a glimpse into the clandestine research, the late general claimed.
With his visor up
In October, the UK placed personal sanctions on Kirillov, along with the entire Russian military branch under his command. London cited Kiev’s claims that the general was responsible for using chemical weapons in the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has consistently denied such accusations, insisting it destroyed such materials back in 2017.
The Ukrainian security service SBU announced formal charges against Kirillov hours before his murder. A source in the agency told the media that the assassination was its operation against a “war criminal.”
Kirillov spent years “exposing the crimes of the Anglo-Americans,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, commenting on his death.
“He worked without fear. Did not hide behind anyone’s back. Walked with his visor up. For the motherland and the truth,” she added.
December 17, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | Russia, Syria, UK, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group arrived in the Middle East on December 14, entering the US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. The deployment was announced by CENTCOM on the social media platform X.
The group includes the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, Carrier Air Wing 1 with nine aviation squadrons, the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (Ticonderoga class), and two guided-missile destroyers, USS Stout and USS Jason Dunham (Arleigh Burke class).
Earlier in November, US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were deployed to the region from the United Kingdom, reinforcing the American military presence in the Middle East.
The deployment comes amid heightened regional tensions and US President-elect Donald Trump’s earlier remarks promising to avoid “starting wars” once he officially takes office.
December 15, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Wars for Israel | Middle East, UK, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.
Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.
We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.
And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.
Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.
But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.
Since encrypted platforms provide anonymity, the spies from the five countries (who refer to the state of affairs as, “a large degree of anonymity”) don’t like that either – and again link it to negative scenarios, such as “radicalization to violence.”
The paper is not specific on the exact mechanisms that would ramp up online censorship, but mentions both governments and the tech industry; the first category should “strengthen legislative support for law enforcement,” while the other is urged to “take greater responsibility for the harm done on their platforms.”
Gaming platforms Discord, Instagram, Roblox as well as TikTok are singled out as “seemingly innocuous” – but the way Five Eyes sees it, they make violent extremism content “more accessible.”
The “whole-of-society response” is the proposed solution to the problem of radicalization of minors in these countries. And the documents vow the alliance will continue working with “government agencies, the education sector, mental health and social well-being services, communities and technology companies.”
“It is important to work together early as once law enforcement and security agencies need to become involved, it is often too late,” the paper warns.
And so, a network whose members are likely, in one capacity or another, behind many of the existing attacks on online encryption and anonymity – has now come out as the campaign’s supposedly “latest recruit.”
December 12, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
In the immediate wake of the Syrian government’s abrupt collapse, much remains uncertain about the country’s future. While longtime leader Bashar Assad has sought refuge in Moscow, most of his government and its military, security, and intelligence apparatus remains in Damascus. Calls for reconciliation between officials and the predominantly foreign “opposition” abound, but the prospect of show trials for state apparatchiks is high. After all, elements of Anglo-American intelligence have been planning for such an eventuality since before the Syrian civil war even started.
In May 2011, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) was birthed by shadowy NATO state contractors, ARK and Tsamota. Its first act was to train handpicked Syrian “investigators, lawyers, and activists in basic international criminal and humanitarian law… enabling [them] to link state and non-state actors to underlying criminal acts.” Dedicated “teams of investigators according to their regions” – including Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and Idlib – were created, “and equipped with field investigative kits.”
Their objective was to gather evidence of war crimes committed by Syrian government forces, in support of a “domestic justice process in a future transitional Syria.” We must ask ourselves how such a project came to be before the Syrian army was formally deployed by Damascus, in response to the foreign-fomented crisis that commenced in mid-March that year. Particularly given bringing officials to trial in a “future transitional Syria” was wholly contingent on all-out regime change.
The timing of CIJA’s launch is a palpable indication foreign actors were laying foundations for that eventuality from the very first days of Syria’s “peaceful revolution”, before full-blown civil war had erupted. Given the affiliations of ARK and Tsamota, the pair were well-placed to know in advance of plans by Western governments to topple the Assad government via brute force. Now that has come to pass, it may be time for their long-standing plan to at last be put into action.
‘Regime Change’
Founded by MI6 journeyman Alistair Harris, ARK was one of a constellation of contractors, staffed by military and intelligence veterans, employed by British intelligence at a cost of many millions to conduct covert psychological warfare campaigns in Syria, from the initial days of the crisis. The aim was to destabilise Assad’s government, convince the domestic population, international bodies and Western citizens that genocidal CIA and MI6-backed militant groups pillaging the country were a “moderate” alternative, and deluge media the world over with pro-opposition propaganda.
Under this operation’s auspices, ARK founded and ran numerous ostensibly independent opposition media outlets targeting Syrians of all ages, while tutoring and equipping countless local “citizen journalists”, teaching them “camera handling, lighting, sound, interviewing, filming a story… video and sound editing… voice-over, scriptwriting,” and “graphics and 2D and 3D animation design.” The firm’s students were also instructed in practical propaganda theory, such as “target audience identification, media narrative analysis and monitoring, behavioral identification/understanding, campaign planning, behavioral change, and how communications can influence it.”
Such was ARK’s intimate proximity with anti-Assad elements, it boasted in leaked submissions to the Foreign Office of being entrusted by Western governments to develop a dedicated Office for Syrian Opposition Support. This entity identified the most promising groups for the proxy war’s sponsors to finance, in turn “[helping] present them to international donors, and provide access to networks that could deliver assistance.” These efforts intensified “as the conflict deepened and it became apparent that regime change would not occur in the short term.”
Tsamota’s primitive official website describes the company as “a security and justice sector consultancy which provides rule of law, forensics and natural resources advisory services,” working in “in politically, legally, socially and logistically challenging environments” for Western governments. The firm is not a compelling candidate for holding government officials anywhere accountable for war crimes. Tsamota has since inception offered guidance to major corporations on how to maximise profits in the Global South, while limiting their local and international legal liabilities.
In 2013, Tsamota director William Wiley gave a scandalous presentation to Canadian consortium MineAfrica Inc. In it, he set out a series of hypothetical scenarios in which mining companies operating in countries such as the Congo and Mali employed private security firms to crack down on striking workers, or deal with “local militias” interfering with their operations. Wiley outlined a number of means by which companies could be insulated from repercussions of heavy-handed responses to such incidents, up to and including murder.
That presentation described Tsamota as composed of “experts” drawn from “national police, military and intelligence forces.” Wiley is no exception, having served in the Canadian military for almost two decades. Subsequently, he turned to international law, among other things overseeing the trial of Saddam Hussein October 2005 – December 2006, for crimes against humanity. Mainstream accounts acknowledge Wiley was imposed on the former Iraqi leader’s defence team without consent – a major breach of basic legal norms – by the US embassy in Baghdad’s Regime Crimes Liaison Office.
After capture, Hussein was initially interrogated by the CIA. Contemporary media reports note there was significant concern within the Agency that “their questioning could become public during his eventual trial,” raising issues around “how to conduct the questioning and record the conversations.” The reasons why were unstated, although a likely explanation was Washington wished to avoid awkward disclosures in court about Hussein’s long-running relationship with the CIA, and active US complicity in many of the most heinous crimes of which he was accused.
To say the least, this was a sensitive role indeed. Even prominent Iraqi supporters of US invasion and occupation charged Baghdad’s “interim” puppet government was seeking “show trials followed by speedy executions” of Hussein et al to boost its credibility. That Wiley was entrusted with this mission speaks volumes about his reliability from the US government’s perspective. It also raises obvious questions about the nature of his relationship with the CIA, and whether that bond influenced CIJA’s creation half a decade later.
‘Moving Documents’
A series of leaked ARK files on CIJA’s activities authored in the years immediately following its creation make grand claims about its achievements. One declares the Commission “innovated in the field of transitional justice… aiding the collection of evidence to document war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of International Humanitarian Law” in Syria. Another states its work represented “a landmark development in international justice: the contemporaneous gathering of evidence of violations of international humanitarian law conducted by regime forces”:
“[CIJA], through expert training, effective equipment provision and a commitment to the truth were able to ensure that when the conflict ends, the raw material of a post-conflict war crimes process is ready for trial, in turn providing a key contribution to truth telling, reconciliation and the future of Syria.”
Elsewhere, ARK boasted how CIJA had seized thousands of kilograms of “contemporaneous documentation”, hundreds of thousands of pages of “evidential material” and thousands of videos from Syria, “all of which had to be hand carried” out of the country. Cut to February 2021, and Commission chair Stephen Rapp, a US diplomatic warhorse, bragged to CBS about the sheer volume of evidence CIJA collected. He claimed the papertrail exposed a systematic strategy of Assad government-directed executions of opposition activists, along with ensuing coverups:
“Now we have 800,000 pages of original documents, signed and sealed with original signatures going all the way up to Assad that document this whole strategy…We see reports back about ‘well, we’ve got a real problem here, there are too many corpses stacking up, somebody’s gonna have to help us with that’… Everything is handled in this sort of totalitarian system where they frankly think they can get away with things… they were almost stupid… they created evidence.”
If such damning, incontrovertible proof was bagged at any stage by CIJA, it has never emerged publicly. Still, throughout the Syrian dirty war, the Commission enjoyed glowing profiles in Western media, while providing journalists and rights groups with multiple scoops supposedly exposing Syrian government atrocities. At no point did any mainstream reporter or NGO question, let alone raise concerns about, the manner in which the Commission garnered the material upon which its cases against government officials in Damascus was “hand carried” out of the country.
CIJA chief Wiley acknowledged in 2014 that his organisation smuggled evidence from Syria by working with every opposition group “up to but excluding Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.” However, a 2019 investigation by The Grayzone amply indicates that CIJA was frequently in extremely close quarters with both groups. Moreover, they were paid handsomely for their assistance in securing documentation. This included material seized in Raqqa after its January 2014 capture by ISIS, right when the ultra-extremist group was massacring Alawites and Christians.
In a 2016 New Yorker profile of CIJA, Wiley detailed the practical hassles and financial drain inherent in “moving documents [over] international borders” and opposition-controlled “checkpoints”, while relying on “rebel groups and couriers for logistical support.” He described how bundles of government files “typically” arrived at the Commission’s offices “in a dizzying array of crappy suitcases.” Wiley lamented, “we burn enormous sums of money moving this stuff.”
Accordingly, CIJA received tens of millions of dollars for its efforts from a variety of Western governments, including those at the forefront of the Syrian dirty war. Despite the vast windfall, the Commission’s work produced zero prosecutions for many years. This changed in late 2019, when Anwar Raslan and Eyad Gharib, two former members of Damascus’ General Intelligence Directorate, were indicted in Germany for crimes against humanity.
‘Many Contradictions’
Raslan headed the Directorate’s domestic security unit, while Gharib was one of his departmental subordinates. The pair defected to the opposition in December 2012. Raslan and his family fled to Jordan, where he played “an active and visible role in the Syrian opposition.” He was part of the anti-Assad delegation at the Geneva II conference on Syria in January 2014, and in July that year, was granted asylum in Germany.
After his escape from Syria, Raslan told numerous lurid tales of abuse and atrocities perpetrated by his unit, and the Assad government more widely, during his 20 years of state service. He claimed his defection was spurred after learning an apparent opposition attack in Damascus that he was charged with investigating was, in fact, staged by security forces. Significant doubts about his accounts, and whether his defection was principled or just cynical opportunism, have been raised in many quarters.
Artist’s rendition of Raslan’s trial
In a perverse irony, Raslan’s loudmouth propensity was his undoing. His assorted claims post-defection provided grounds for arrest by German authorities, and were used against him and Gharib in their prosecutions. These legal actions heavily relied on documents seized by CIJA, including Central Crisis Management Cell records. This unit was created in March 2011 by Damascus, to manage responses to mass rioting that erupted this month. These documents have been widely described as the “linchpin” of the Commission’s case against “the Syrian regime.”
Yet, as this journalist has previously exposed, the Central Crisis Management Cell files in fact show the Assad government explicitly and repeatedly instructed security forces to protect protesters, prevent violence, and keep the situation under control. The documents also detail how from inception, many “peaceful” demonstrators were extremely violent, while opposition fighters systematically murdered security service operatives, pro-government figures, and demonstrators to foment catastrophe, in a manner eerily similar to many CIA/MI6 regime change operations old and new.
In February 2021, Gharib was found guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. He received four-and-a-half years in prison. A year later, Raslan was given life for crimes including mass torture, rape, and murder. The pair were not convicted for personally perpetrating these horrors, but serving in the General Intelligence Directorate at the time they were allegedly committed. “Expert” witness evidence provided at their trials left much to be desired.
For example, judges and prosecutors alike expressed disquiet at “many contradictions” in the testimony of “P3”, a Syrian government operative who purportedly worked in a security service “mail department”, and was central to Gharib’s conviction. P3 professed to seeing sensitive documents “related to the transfer of corpses” of opposition activists “to burial sites.” They “provided contradictory information” in statements to German police and the court, and were “visibly nervous” while testifying. Throughout, their seemingly aghast attorney sat nearby “putting his hands behind his head.”
Meanwhile, during Raslan’s prosecution, “P4” – a nameless individual who claimed to have been detained in a Syrian prison, and bribed his way out – testified he saw 500,000 corpses buried via a “bulldozer and a truck” next to his house, in an area which was previously “a desert”. Reports of the trial indicate there “was a feeling” among those present in court, including “the public”, that these numbers were greatly “exaggerated.”
The sense that Gharib and Raslan were prosecuted because they were within easy reach, and CIJA needed something to show for all its well-remunerated efforts, is ineluctable. The Commission had strong grounds to be anxious about failing to fulfill its founding objective. In March 2020, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) formally accused the organization of “submission of false documents, irregular invoicing, and profiteering” relating to an EU “Rule of Law” project it ran in Syria.
Fast forward to today, and The Guardian reports that “the abrupt implosion of the infrastructure of state terror” in Syria “has made available a huge volume of evidence.” The outlet quoted CIJA chief William Wiley at some length. He compared Assad’s fall to “a situation much like Germany in 1945 or Iraq in 2003,” with “a sudden availability of all state records” making prosecution of state officials a fait accompli:
“It’s a very unusual situation, and its suddenness creates challenges and opportunities in simply dealing with the material… If there’s any security intelligence guy that rocks up in Europe, there’s typically going to be enough material already to hand.”
December 12, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Wars for Israel | CIA, Middle East, Syria, UK, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 