Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK’s Covert Support for Ukraine’s Black Sea Strikes Exposed

Sputnik – 19.10.2025

Ukraine’s military has been spotted integrating satellite communications from the British company OneWeb to command and control its fleet of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) in the Black Sea.

The Ukrainian military uses the UK company OneWeb’s satellite system to control USVs in the Black Sea, a source in Russian security services told Sputnik.

“OneWeb terminals have been integrated into the USVs’ control system. OneWeb is now used as a secondary channel alongside the main system —the US’ Starlink,” the source said, adding that one such vehicle has been captured by Russian forces.

He explained that unlike Starlink, which operates thousands of low-orbit satellites, OneWeb deploys its network in medium Earth orbit. This allows each satellite to provide broader coverage, but requires more complex and expensive user terminals.

In 2022, the Russian Federal Agency Roscosmos demanded that the UK provide guarantees that the OneWeb satellite network would not be used against Russia. The company did not comply, leading to the suspension of OneWeb satellite launches aboard Russian rockets.

October 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Iran dismisses ‘baseless’ allegations of seeking to threaten Britain’s security

Press TV – October 18, 2025

Iran’s embassy in London has strongly rejected allegations by the head of Britain’s MI5 that Tehran seeks to threaten the United Kingdom’s security, calling the claims “baseless and irresponsible.”

The diplomatic mission, in a statement released late on Friday, repudiated the assertions made by Sir Ken McCallum on October 16, which accused Iran of involvement in so-called “deadly plots” and “cross-border hostile actions.”

“The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its strong protest to and outright rejection of these unfounded and irresponsible statements,” the statement read.

“Such baseless accusations are part of a continued effort to distort Iran’s policies and undermine bilateral diplomatic relations.”

The embassy emphasized that Iran firmly denies any involvement in violent acts, abductions, or harassment of individuals in the UK or elsewhere.

It further stated that the claims were made “without credible evidence,” and contradict Iran’s ongoing commitment to international law, the principle of sovereign equality, as well as promotion of peaceful coexistence and international cooperation.

The statement came after the MI5 chief alleged that UK security forces had thwarted 20 operations linked to Iran on British soil over the past year — a claim Tehran has dismissed as part of an ongoing campaign of misinformation.

The Iranian embassy urged the British government to “refrain from making or escalating baseless accusations” and instead pursue a “responsible and constructive approach based on dialogue and mutual respect” to address shared security concerns through legal and diplomatic channels.

The mission finally reaffirmed Iran’s preparedness for dialogue, and its commitment to international norms and peaceful international relations.

October 18, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Iran confirms UN Resolution 2231 expired, condemns US, E3 violation

Al Mayadeen | October 18, 2025

In a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the Presidency of the Security Council, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has expired and fully ceased to be in effect as of today, in accordance with its explicit provisions.

He underscored that the nuclear agreement reflected the international community’s shared belief that diplomacy and multilateral engagement remain the most effective means to resolve conflicts.

Araghchi recalled that Washington initially refrained from fulfilling its commitments before withdrawing from the agreement, reimposing what he described as illegal and unilateral sanctions, and even expanding them. “These coercive measures,” he noted, “constituted a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter, causing severe disruption in the implementation of the agreement.”

In his letter, Araghchi added that the E3 failed to fulfill their obligations and instead imposed additional illegal sanctions on Iranian individuals and institutions. Despite this, he said, Iran demonstrated the utmost restraint in the face of repeated and fundamental violations, making extensive efforts to restore balance and preserve the agreement.

After a full year of Iran’s continued compliance, Araghchi explained, Iran began implementing gradual, proportionate, and reversible compensatory steps in line with its recognized rights under the deal.

‘E3’s snapback attempt lacks legal validity’

Iran’s top diplomat stated that the E3’s attempt to activate the snapback mechanism by directly resorting to the UN Security Council disregarded the dispute settlement process stipulated in the nuclear agreement, stressing that the attempt suffers from procedural flaws and lacks any legal validity or authority.

“No action taken in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 can create any legal obligation upon member states,” Araghchi affirmed, emphasizing that any claim to “revive” or “reimpose” expired resolutions is null and void, lacking legal basis and producing no binding effect.

Araghchi highlighted that the Non-Aligned Movement, during its 19th Meeting of Foreign Ministers, reaffirmed in its final document that Resolution 2231 had expired on its scheduled date. He also referred to the two Security Council voting sessions held on 19 and 26 September 2025, which demonstrated the absence of consensus among Council members regarding the validity of the notification to trigger the “snapback” mechanism.

Iran warns against unauthorized UN Secretariat actions

Araghchi asserted that Resolution 2231 does not grant the Secretary-General or the UN Secretariat any authority or mandate to determine, announce, reactivate, or reinstate resolutions that have expired under operative paragraph 8.

He added that any such action would exceed the legal authority conferred by the UN Charter and contradict the purely administrative and neutral role of the Secretariat. “Any ‘notification of snapback activation’ or ‘confirmation’ issued by the Secretariat is legally void and undermines the credibility of the organization,” he wrote.

Araghchi concluded that no member state, the Secretariat, or any official may take legal action in this regard without a new and explicit resolution from the Security Council.

Earlier last week, Araghchi condemned Trump, accusing him of spreading falsehoods about Iran’s nuclear program and being misled by Israeli deception. His remarks followed an earlier statement by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which condemned Trump’s address at the Israeli Knesset as “irresponsible and shameful.”

In a post on X, Araghchi said it was “more than clear” that Trump had been “badly fed the fake line” that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was on the verge of weaponization. He described this claim as a “BIG LIE”, emphasizing that even the US intelligence community had confirmed there was “zero proof” of such allegations.

“The real bully of the Middle East, Mr. President, is the same parasitic actor that has long been bullying and milking the United States,” Araghchi declared, referring to “Israel”.

October 18, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One million pounds and a war without end: Boris Johnson’s intervention in Kyiv changed Europe’s future

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – October 17, 2025

When history revisits the Ukraine conflict, one episode may stand out as a turning point: Boris Johnson’s sudden visit to Kyiv in April 2022, just after a tentative peace agreement had been initialed in Istanbul.

At that moment, a ceasefire was within reach. Yet Johnson, then British Prime Minister, reportedly urged President Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign, assuring him that the West would arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” That decision, now under renewed scrutiny following revelations by The Guardian, may have changed the course of the conflict—and Europe’s political destiny.

The Istanbul Agreement That Never Was

By early April 2022, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed in principle to a framework that could have ended hostilities. Ukraine would forgo NATO membership in exchange for security guarantees. But after Johnson’s unannounced visit to Kyiv, talks collapsed.

Following The Guardian investigation, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.

According to leaked documents published by The Guardian, sourced from Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), a US-based transparency collective, Johnson had other motives for discouraging compromise.

The investigation traces a £1 million payment from businessman Christopher Harborne, a major shareholder in a British drone manufacturer supplying the Ukrainian military, to a private company created by Johnson shortly after leaving office. Harborne also accompanied Johnson to Kyiv, raising questions about direct lobbying and influence-peddling at the highest level of government.

Following the Money

Harborne’s donation, ostensibly legitimate under UK law, takes on a darker significance in this context. As Johnson lobbied Zelensky to prolong the war, Harborne’s company stood to benefit from expanded arms contracts. The Guardian’s exposé describes this payment as “a reward for services rendered,” a euphemism for bribery in geopolitical disguise.

Johnson dismissed the report as “a pathetic Russian hack job,” yet neither he nor Downing Street has provided a transparent accounting of the donation or its timing. The optics are damning: a former prime minister allegedly persuading a wartime ally to reject peace while personally profiting through associates linked to the arms trade.

The Price of Prolongation

Since that fateful spring, the toll has been catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians have perished. More than three trillion US dollars in Western aid and military spending have flowed into the conflict, much of it financed by debt and by diverting funds from social programmes.

European citizens are paying the price. Budgets once earmarked for welfare, healthcare, and pensions have been repurposed to sustain the war effort. Energy costs have soared, industrial competitivity has sunk, inflation has eroded savings, and social unrest has become regular across the continent.

The narrative of European solidarity has given way to anger and fatigue. Populist and far-right parties are sweeping across Europe. In this sense, Johnson’s intervention did not only prolong a war; it accelerated a social and political crisis within Europe itself.

From Peace Project to Proxy War

The European Union once prided itself on being a “peace project.” Yet its handling of the Ukraine conflict has projected a very different image: that of a continent complicit in militarisation and escalation. France and Germany, the supposed guardians of diplomatic balance, quietly aligned themselves with Washington’s maximalist stance.

No leader publicly questioned why the Istanbul Agreement was abandoned. No parliamentary inquiry has addressed whether Johnson’s visit influenced European policy and why European leaders did not censure Johnson.

In retrospect, Europe’s passivity reveals both dependency and cowardice. The EU’s foreign policy has become an echo of Washington’s strategic interests and those of arms manufacturers, such as Mr. Harborne, while dissenting voices were marginalised as “pro-Russian”. This reflex has stifled honest debate about the human and economic costs of the war and about who truly benefits from its continuation.

The Corruption Business

War has always been fertile ground for corruption, and Ukraine is no exception. From inflated procurement contracts to opaque aid transfers, vast sums have disappeared without audit. Johnson’s alleged bribe merely symbolises a broader pattern: the convergence of political ambition, corporate profit, and ideological fervour.

Bribery and influence-trading have evolved into sophisticated transnational systems cloaked in legality: foreign lobbying, consultancy fees, and donations to foundations. Such practices blur the line between governance and outright corruption. They ensure that conflicts endure not because peace is impossible, but because war remains profitable.

Europe’s Crisis of Leadership

The scandal surrounding Boris Johnson’s intervention in Ukraine exposes a deeper political and strategic crisis within Europe. The same continent that once championed diplomacy and human rights now finances a proxy war that has devastated a nation and destabilised an entire region.

European leaders invoke solidarity while diverting resources from welfare and pensions, tolerating rising inequality and industrial competitivity decline to sustain arms deliveries. The rhetoric of democracy has been replaced by the logic of deterrence.

Across the continent, disillusionment is fuelling the ascent of populist and far-right parties. Citizens who once viewed the EU as a guarantor of peace now perceive it as complicit in perpetual conflict. From Slovakia to the Netherlands, voters are turning against Brussels’ alignment with Washington, revealing a growing mistrust of supranational elites and foreign-driven policy agendas.

Johnson’s defenders claim his visit to Kyiv stemmed from moral conviction, not financial interest, but conviction cannot erase consequence. Had the Istanbul peace framework been pursued, thousands of lives and trillions in resources might have been spared. Instead, Johnson’s theatrics helped entrench a war whose primary beneficiaries are defence contractors and political opportunists.

That the European Union tolerated this manipulation without investigation or accountability reflects a failure of leadership, not merely a lapse of ethics. By outsourcing strategic direction to NATO and moral authority to Washington, Europe has strayed from its founding principles of peace and autonomy.

The result is a continent economically weakened, politically fragmented, and increasingly defined by the conflicts it once sought to prevent.

In sum, The Guardian investigation has done what official institutions would not: follow the money and expose the moral bankruptcy behind the rhetoric of freedom. Whether courts or parliaments act on these revelations remains uncertain. But the evidence is clear enough for history’s judgment.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics

October 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

How MI6 built Syria’s extremist police

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | October 16, 2025

On September 19th, in a speech marking the end of his five-year tenure as MI6 chief, Richard Moore hailed the achievements of Britain’s foreign spying agency under his watch. Key among the stated gains was “the end of 53 years of the Assads in Syria.” He openly admitted MI6 “forged a relationship” with HTS, Damascus’ Al-Qaeda and ISIS-tied presumptive rulers – “a year or two before they toppled Bashar.” Moore went on to boast:

“Syria is a good example of where, if you can get ahead of events, it really helps when they suddenly, unexpectedly move at a faster pace. This nimbleness is a fundamental requirement for MI6 – and I think we remain pretty good at it. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, while discussing a piece of joint business, said to me recently: ‘You guys can really hustle.’”

Al Mayadeen English has previously exposed how HTS was groomed for power for years prior to its violent palace coup in December 2024 by Inter-Mediate, an MI6-adjacent consulting firm run by Jonathan Powell. A key architect of the criminal 2003 Anglo-American Iraq invasion, he now serves as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, coincidentally taking up the position mere days before HTS illegitimately proclaimed themselves Syria’s government. It’s been subsequently revealed that Inter-Mediate has maintained a dedicated office in Syria’s Presidential Palace ever since.

Moore’s fresh admissions, while vague, offer further confirmation that London’s foreign spying agency has a longstanding relationship with HTS, which remains a proscribed terrorist group under British law. A key, confirmed mechanism by which MI6 entrenched HTS’ power in north west Syria over the years before the extremist group’s seizure of power was by financing and managing, via cutouts, “moderate opposition service provision”. This took the form of entities including the infamous White Helmets, which supposedly provided “demonstrations of a credible alternative” to Bashar Assad’s government.

While the clandestine efforts were ostensibly intended to weaken HTS’ hold on power and push “moderate” groups, leaked documents indicate British spooks were well-aware these initiatives were cementing the group’s credibility as a governance actor, assisting its “growing influence”, and meant many Syrians regarded HTS as “synonymous with opposition to Assad.” Eerily, the same documents note the group and its armed affiliates – including Al-Qaeda – were “less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support” from British intelligence, such as the White Helmets.

We are now left to ponder whether British-run “service providers” were explicitly left alone because of MI6’s secret relationship with HTS. In this context, the earliest and most obvious indication of a dark alliance between London and Syria’s new rulers may date back to January 2019, when HTS took power outright in north west Syria. Almost instantly, the Free Syrian Police, a British-created “moderate opposition service” provider, was formally dissolved. Its members were then invited to continue their activities under HTS’ banner.

‘Revolutionary Entities’

Like the White Helmets, the FSP were components of a wider effort by London to establish a series of statelets across occupied Syria, complete with parallel governance structures staffed by locals trained and funded by Britain, the EU, and US. Western propaganda and media reporting – heavily influenced by MI6 – universally portrayed these breakaway colonies as “moderate” success stories. In reality, they were deeply chaotic and dangerous, run by murderous violent factions, often under obscenely strict interpretations of Sharia Law.

In March 2017, the BBC published a fawning profile of the FSP, noting its British funding, and claiming the group “demonstrates to Syrians that it is not necessary to carry weapons in order to administer law and order in the country.” The British state broadcaster repeatedly stressed, the FSP “does not co-operate with extremist groups.” However, nine months later, it was revealed that London’s “moderate” police force enjoyed intimate relationships with multiple extremist groups, including HTS forerunner Jabhat al-Nusra.

Several FSP stations were found to be closely linked to and take directions from extremist courts run by these militants, which executed citizens who violated local extremist legal codes. FSP operatives were also not only present when women were stoned to death for disobeying al-Nusra’s extreme codes, but even closed roads to allow executions to take place. Meanwhile, portions of sums sent to the FSP by its foreign sponsors were regularly handed over to extremist factions for “military and security support”.

While these disclosures caused a scandal, and British funding for the FSP was temporarily suspended, it was reinstated within mere weeks, sparking outcry among aid experts. Officials justified their decision on unstated “mitigating context” to the revelations, and the issues in question being “already known” by the Foreign Office. Indeed, leaked documents reviewed by Al Mayadeen English indicate close collaboration with extremist groups and courts was hardwired into the FSP from the group’s inception, and not concealed from donors.

The documents, submitted to the Foreign Office by ARK – founded by MI6 veteran Alistair Harris – noted the FSP were “revolutionary entities who share a general ideological affinity with the Syrian rebels,” conducting “rudimentary policing operations” in opposition-controlled territory. FSP stations varied significantly “in terms of their effectiveness, their mandate and their overall level of organisation” in the areas comprising their beat. “Their authority” was dependent on “several factors, the most important of which” were:

“The strength of the relationship between an FSP station and local armed groups; the centrality of an FSP station in the work of a local rebel court or other judicial structure; the sophistication and maturity of an FSP station’s overarching command structure.”

‘Direct Engagement’

The leaks further state, “FSP networks enjoy the strongest relations with more moderate Syrian rebel groups.” Yet, chief among “key armed groups that have established relationships with FSP stations” was Nur al-Din al-Zinki. The group was said to have greatly “empowered” FSP offices across occupied Aleppo, establishing the force “as primary policing bodies in towns in which it is strong.” In reality, Nur al-Din al-Zinki didn’t adhere to any meaningful definition of the term “moderate”.

During the initial years of the foreign-fomented Syrian civil war, the group committed countless horrendous atrocities, including beheading a Palestinian teenager in 2016. Its fighters subsequently joined HTS en masse. The readiness of ARK – and by extension British intelligence – to rub shoulders with dangerous armed elements is writ large in another leaked file, outlining potential risks to the project. If “armed actors” denied the FSP “operating space”, ARK would conduct “direct engagement” with the relevant militants to resolve the issue.

Other hazards included almost inevitable submission of “fraudulent invoices” by FSP operatives, and “significant physical risk” to them, “including possible assassination of police or justice actors.” Still, the British were so keen on the project, millions were pumped into the force over many years, with sophisticated communications equipment and vehicles provided. ARK also looked ahead to rebel groups increasing their “influence and territorial reach” in Syria, believing this would “[yield] benefits for the FSP” and expand its sphere of operations.

Fast forward to today, and courtesy of HTS, the British-created FSP is now Syria’s national police force. Ever since Assad’s fall, they have acted accordingly, brutally repressing internal dissent, while standing by as the new government’s militants massacre Alawites and other religious minorities in the country. Just as Inter-Mediate’s office in Damascus’ Presidential palace raises grave questions about the extent of London’s control over HTS, we must ask who all past beneficiaries of “moderate opposition service provision” in the country are truly working for.

As The National reported in February, the White Helmets have been formally invited by Syria’s HTS-run Health Ministry to “run the emergency services countrywide.” The creation of such groups years prior to Assad’s ouster is a palpable example of the ability of “hustlers” in British intelligence to “get ahead of events” in Moore’s phrase, and ensure MI6 has the people, organisations and structures in place to effectively take over countries if and when an enemy government falls.

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

London Is Still Bent on Influencing India’s Independent Policy Trajectory

By Anvar Azimov – New Eastern Outlook – October 16, 2025

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited India to promote previously reached trade agreements; however, the negotiations have laid bare the extremely limited reach of London’s influence on New Delhi.

During the latest UK-India summit held on October 8-9 in Mumbai, London once again made an unsuccessful bid to affect New Delhi’s course regarding Russia, to secure its support for the Euro-Atlanticists’ plans for settling the Ukrainian conflict and for continuing anti-Russian sanctions policy.

Nevertheless, the two countries managed to make progress in expanding cooperation in trade, investments, defense, and security.

The official visit of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India aimed at cementing the agreements reached during the stay of the head of the Indian government, Narendra Modi, in London this July, and, first and foremost, at signing a far-reaching free trade agreement. The pact would open vast prospects for achieving the ambitious goal set by the parties to increase trade turnover by 2030 from the current $35 billion to $120 billion.

Starmer Urged Modi to Stop Purchasing Russian Oil

Simultaneously, the British guest made another attempt to talk New Delhi into abandoning substantial purchases of Russian energy resources, which currently account for up to 40 percent of India’s oil imports. Furthermore, the trade turnover between India and Russia, taking into account petroleum product supplies, has reached an unprecedented $70 billion, a fact that London and the West as a whole are also seriously apprehensive about. However, despite these British exertions, Prime Minister N. Modi made it clear that this matter is no exception to the rule; hence, here, India would also be guided by its own national and economic interests.

Nor has New Delhi veered from the path of distancing itself from anti-Russian Western sanctions, prioritising, once again, independent national interests. The Ukrainian conflict hasn’t evaded such a fate either, with Starmer failing to pull India completely to his side. While being committed to a peaceful settlement of the situation around Ukraine, India rejects anti-Russian rhetoric on the issue and maintains a measured, balanced stance. Even London’s various assurances of support for New Delhi’s aspirations to gain a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council did not spur India to alter its principled neutral position in the current struggle between the West and Russia.

Success evaded the British leader on this anti-Russian front, but he cancelled out his failure on the track of bilateral relations by means of signing a series of agreements in various fields, including defense, security, technology, trade, and education. Notably, the parties managed to conclude a military deal worth approximately $470 million for the supply of light multipurpose missiles to the Indian army. They also agreed on setting up a regional centre of excellence in maritime security and on developing marine electronic engines for Indian naval ships.

Further progress in trade, economic, and investment areas was also outlined. It is indicative that Starmer was accompanied by a representative delegation from the British business community (over 120 people), including heads of companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange, and British Airways. Within the framework of the joint forum held, the representatives signed commercial contracts.

India Dictates the Terms

All in all, British companies have invested about $40 billion in the Indian economy, and New Delhi traditionally remains one of London’s key trade and investment partners. And what further contributes to such a situation is the signed free trade agreement, which added up to a significant reduction in tariffs on a wide range of goods, and expanded market access for companies and Indian labour migrants.

In a nutshell, the latest meeting of the two countries’ leaders concluded with new agreements on enhancing multifaceted cooperation and increasing trade turnover to $120 billion by 2030. At the same time, Starmer was clearly frustrated that even his attempts to prompt India to weaken its ties with Russia ended up a failure, which once again confirms New Delhi’s determination to stick to its own guns on its foreign policy, providing for the development of partnerships with both the West and the East and drawing on the national interests of this major, now global, power.

Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Research Fellow at Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia accuses UK, Ukraine of sabotage plot against TurkStream

Al Mayadeen | October 16, 2025

Russia has accused the United Kingdom and Ukraine of attempting coordinated sabotage operations against the TurkStream gas pipeline, a vital conduit transporting Russian natural gas to Turkey and European markets.

During the 57th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) session in Uzbekistan, Federal Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov revealed some of the details behind the plot.

According to Bortnikov, British instructors from the Special Air Service (SAS) and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), in coordination with Ukrainian intelligence, are actively planning a series of attacks targeting Russian energy infrastructure. These operations reportedly include drone strikes on the TurkStream pipeline, as well as attacks on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, a multi-national venture with Russian, Kazakh, and US shareholders.

Bortnikov said that the UK has been directly involved in training and coordinating these sabotage groups.

“Together with MI6, they are coordinating Ukrainian sabotage groups to carry out raids in Russia’s border regions, targeting critical infrastructure using drones, unmanned boats, and combat divers,” FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov stated.

The FSB director further revealed that British intelligence orchestrated Ukraine’s SBU “Spider Web” operation conducted on June 2, 2025, prior to Ukraine–Russia talks in Istanbul. Bortnikov said the UK managed a propaganda campaign exaggerating the operation’s impact and attributing it solely to Ukraine. In addition, Russian authorities reported a series of FPV drone attacks in June on airfields across Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur regions.

Failed attacks on TurkStream

These remarks follow earlier reports of Ukrainian plans to target TurkStream. In November 2024, German media outlet Der Spiegel reported that former Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander Valerii Zaluzhny had proposed a plan codenamed “Diameter,” modeled on the 2022 Nord Stream sabotage, to target the pipeline. The plan reportedly failed, and no independent evidence has confirmed its execution.

Russia has also intercepted multiple drone attacks on TurkStream infrastructure in January 2025, which were described by Moscow as acts of “energy terrorism,” though the facilities continued normal operations. Additionally, Russian forces shot down three more Ukrainian drones in early March following another attempted strike on a TurkStream compressor station.

TurkStream remains a strategic energy artery for Europe, delivering Russian natural gas to Turkey and several European nations. Any disruption to its operation could have serious consequences for regional energy security.

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Once Again, Jeremy Bowen Is Misleading the British Public About Gaza

By Jonathan Cook | October 15, 2025

Yet again the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen is misrepresenting a key issue in Gaza – and as always, he is doing so in a way that places Israel in the most flattering light possible.

The BBC’s international editor notes two reasons why Hamas will not wish to disarm, as stipulated by Israeli and US officials:

a) Because having weapons is “deep in their ideological DNA”.

b) Because Hamas are worried that, if they are not armed, “there are plenty of people out there in Gaza who would like to take revenge on them and will come after them”.

Notice two things here:

First, both of these claims are rooted in Israeli rationales for why Hamas needs disarming. Inadvertently or not, Bowen is subtly suggesting that the group is inherently bloodthirsty, and that it does not properly represent the people of Gaza (more on that in a moment).

Second, Bowen ignores the main reason why Hamas wants to keep its weapons, one so obvious that it is simply astounding that he forgot to mention it.

Hamas believes that, if it is not armed, Israel will have an even freer hand to carry out its genocidal policies in Gaza, to continue its decades-long, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and to intensify its siege of the enclave. Hamas believes Israel’s violence against the Palestinian people should not be cost-free.

Whether or not one approves of Hamas’ approach – and to do so would be a violation of the UK’s Terrorism Act and could lead to a 14-year jail sentence – Bowen is required to report what the group actually thinks. Otherwise he is not a journalist, he is just another western propagandist.

Instead, he is actively misleading the British public both about Hamas’ worldview and about a core issue – Hamas’ disarmament – that could soon give Israel the excuse it seeks to trash the ceasefire agreement.

Like the rest of the BBC’s coverage, Bowen’s reporting refuses to address the elephant in the room: that Palestinians are caught in a trap crafted for them by the West. If they try to resist their illegal occupation by Israel, they are slaughtered and damned as terrorists. But if they don’t, they must live as permanent prisoners of an illegal, dehumanising occupation.

A further point: Bowen says Hamas are using their weapons to take on “armed clans who have weapons themselves – to reassert their power, to send a message to Gazans, ‘Don’t mess with us’.”

Bowen, of course, carefully ignores the part Israel has played in arming these criminal clans and letting them steal food aid. The clans sold that aid at inflated prices to a small section of Gaza’s population who could still afford to pay, while everyone else starved.

One doesn’t need to be a genius, or Hamas sympathiser, to imagine – contrary to Bowen’s implication that Hamas is widely feared by the population – that most people there may be relieved to see Hamas back and taking on the criminal gangs that extorted them and were central to the implementation of Israel’s genocidal starvation campaign.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why western sanctions have failed and become self-defeating

Or are sanctions an end in themselves?

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 15, 2025

I recently participated in a debate in London about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. I argued that they have proven ineffective as a tool of foreign policy, and kept my remarks focussed on Russia, which is the most sanctioned country on the planet, with over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far.

For good or ill, I argued that sanctions were ineffective from a position of having [personally] authorised around half of the UK sanctions against Russia after war broke out in 2022. I take no great pride in that, but that was my job at the time and I eventually left my career as a British diplomat in 2023, largely out of a sense that UK foreign policy was failing in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, it worries me that so few people appear focused on what we in the UK want the sanctions to achieve, to the point where they have become an end in themselves. Yet, look at the legislation, specifically the Russia Sanctions Regulations of 2019, and the [alleged] purpose is quiet clear:

Encourage Russia to cease actions destablising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

More than eleven years since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and not far from four years since war broke out, the UK and its allies have manifestly failed to deliver upon that goal.

We have been through eleven years of gradually ramping up sanctions against Russia only to see Russia increase its resistance, and then to launch its so-called Special Military Operation in 2022.

Sanctions did not prevent that. One might argue that they helped to precipitate it.

Ukraine is bankrupt, its cities broken, its energy infrastructure once again subject to nightly bombardment as the winter approaches and people wonder whether they’ll be able to heat their homes.

Sanctions are not preventing this.

Yet at the debate, my opponents somehow advanced the argument that sanctions remain an effective tool of foreign policy, from the comfort of a grand hall, two thousand miles away from the frontline, even further from responsibility, and completely detached from reality.

In my mind, there are two clear reasons why sanctions policy has failed.

Firstly, because even if people in the west consider them to be justified, the Russian State considers them to be unjust.

Ever since the Minsk II peace deal was subordinated to sanctions in March 2015, President Putin has become increasingly convinced that western nations would sanction Russia come what May.

And that has proved to be the case.

Every time an inevitable new package of sanctions is imposed by the UK, Europe or others, it also convinces ordinary Russian people that this is true.

People in the west might hate Putin, but he is far more popular in Russia than Keir Starmer is in Britain, or than Friedrich Merz is in Berlin, or than Emmanuel Macron is in France.

So the idea that sanctions undermine support in Russia for President Putin is deeply misguided.

Likewise, sanctioning British-based Russian billionaires who took their assets out of Russia might play well in the Financial Times but is a meaningless gesture; these figures have no real power in Russia.

The idea that if we sanction Roman Abramovich he might some how rise up and try to unseat Putin together with other oligarchs is a fantasy.

The Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkoff who took to Instagram after the war started to criticise the Russian army, was forced to sell his eponymous bank and yet the UK still sanctioned him.

Why would any wealthy Russian on that basis stand up against President Putin on the west’s behalf only to get sanctioned by us anyway?

Yet, we have sanctioned 2000 individuals and entities, banning them from travel to the UK, even though 92% of them never had [visited] before the war started. These, I’m afraid, are empty gestures.

Sanctions will not stop the war.

And the longer they go on, more Ukrainians will die.

Despite Russia having done everything to adjust to sanctions since 2014, commentators in the west nevertheless try to tell you that, well, maybe we should have imposed more sanctions at the start for a bigger effect.

But on my second point, that denies the political reality of how sanctions are imposed.

While the combined economies of NATO are 27 times bigger than Russia, 32 states cannot coordinate policy quickly enough to take decisive action.

This results in waging war by committee.

Imagine, if you will, a chessboard with President Putin staring across at a team of thirty-two people on the other side, squabbling loudly among themselves for months on end before deciding not to make the best move.

If you believe that Europe is about to become a rapid decision-making body now at a time when its member states are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties who resent the war policy in Brussels, then my message to you is, good luck waiting for that.

Europe has now been debating for over a year whether to expropriate 200 billion in Russian assets housed in Belgium.

Yet that has not been agreed precisely because the Belgian government has blocked it consistently out of a not illegitimate fear that it will shred that’s country’s reputation among international investors at a time when new financial architecture is being constructed in the developing world.

Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have continued to grow and now stand at over $700 billion for the first time. So even at this late stage if Europe chose to expropriate the assets, Russia could live without them.

Rather than being forced to the negotiating table – the complete fantasy that proponents of this hair-brained idea would tell you – Russia would be so enraged by what it sees as theft that it would keep on fighting.

And more Ukrainians would die.

President Putin is not hemmed in by the need to consult, and western indecision gives him time to adapt.

Since 2014, Russia’s economy has reoriented away from its dependence on the west, precisely to limit the impact of sanctions.

When war broke out in 2022, Russia had been adapting to sanctions for 8 years already.

Even though the scale was unprecedented, Russia had already prepared itself for the onslaught when it happened and has adapted better.

In 2022, with everyone crowing about the crashing rouble, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of over $230 billion which, by the way, is bigger than Ukraine’s whole economy.

Despite cutting off gas supplies and bearing down on shadow tankers, Russia to this day continues to pull in hefty trade surpluses each year. It has not been in deficit since 1998.

Lots of people argued that if we had gone all in 2014, then that might have made a difference. But believe we, that was debated in Europe, and no one could agree to it.

And I wonder whether, had it been agreed, Europe would simply have faced the political and economic turmoil which is currently going on now, ten years earlier.

So let’s stop talking about what ifs.

The ugly truth is that sanctions have become an end in themselves. They are not a strategy, but a fig leaf covering the embarrassing fact that the west does not have a strategy.

They are a weak alternative to war or peace that serve no purpose other than to prolong the war in Ukraine.

Western nations have shown themselves unwilling to contemplate diplomacy. Talking to Putin is dismissed as a prize that will take him out of international isolation; even though he only appears isolated by western nations. Yet diplomacy isn’t about talking to your friends, despite the never ending round of backslapping summits our leaders attend. Diplomacy is about talking to the people with whom you most disagree. We have refused to talk to Russia and continue to avoid diplomacy at all costs to this day.

Neither do we want war, Britain’s army today has 73,000 soldiers, 2,000 fewer than 2 years ago. Russia has 600,000 troops in Ukraine, apparently. We couldn’t even agree to send 10,000 troops as part of a so-called reassurance force although, to be honest, that idea didn’t reassure me at all.

Russia is outstripping us in the production of munitions, tanks and naval warships. And it has 6,000 nuclear warheads.

So I’m glad we don’t want war either.

But as we continue to pursue ever diminishing packages of sanctions, Ukraine will remain stuck in the middle, devastated and depopulated, as Europe deindustrialises and falls into the embrace of nationalism at an accelerating rate.

Meanwhile, despite obvious headwinds, Russia’s economy appears in better shape than ours. It would be impossible to claim that there had been no economic impacts on the Russian economy from sanctions. Yet with economic links to the West now all but destroyed, sanctions relief is less important to Russia than it is to Europe.

In Budapest recently I got talking to a member of the House of Lords and former Diplomatic Service colleague who is a close friend of Boris Johnson. During his speech he remarked that sanctions on Russia have had no impact at all.

Later over drinks we discussed this and he agreed with the arguments that I have put forward today. But then he paused, and said ‘ah, but you just can’t say that in Britain though’.

It’s time to wake up and realise the terrible mess we have got ourselves into through sanctions. Sanctions have failed to the great detriment of Ukraine. It’s time, finally, to get back to diplomacy.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

UK antisemitism training body under fire for links to Israeli military

Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025

The Union of Jewish Students (UJS),  the organization contracted to deliver hundreds of “antisemitism awareness sessions” for university staff across the United Kingdom, is facing renewed scrutiny following the resurfacing of a video in which its former president praised the group’s alumni serving “in senior positions in the Israeli government, the IDF, and even the President’s office.”

The footage, filmed during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, shows then-UJS President Nina Freedman telling him that former members occupy high-ranking roles across Israeli entity institutions. The clip has sparked widespread concern over the impartiality of UJS’ government-funded training, particularly amid the International Court of Justice’s ongoing genocide case against “Israel” over its atrocities in Gaza.

Under a program led by the UK Department for Education (DfE) to address antisemitism in schools and universities, UJS was awarded a £998,691 ($1.27 million) contract to deliver antisemitism training across British higher education institutions.

According to the contract published on the government’s Contracts Finder portal, the organization is responsible for helping staff “recognise and respond to incidents of antisemitic abuse” and for leading discussions on “antisemitism, including related topics such as the Israel/Palestine conflict.”

Wider context 

The award forms part of the DfE’s Tackling Antisemitism in Education initiative, funded through a £7 million ($8.9 million) government scheme announced in 2024 to combat what it designates as antisemitism in the education sector.

However, critics have long questioned UJS’ political neutrality, given its constitutional commitment to “inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to Israel” and its longstanding ties with the Israeli Embassy in London. The union has previously hosted Israeli emissaries with military backgrounds on its executive team and facilitated pro-“Israel” campus initiatives, including “birthright trips” and visits by Israeli diplomats.

During her address to Herzog, Freedman described UJS as being “on the frontline of the fight against antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israel bias,” adding that the group seeks to “shine a positive light on Israel’s successes” and encourage students to defend the entity through advocacy and online engagement.

“I feel so lucky to have gone through the UJS machine,” she said, referring to it as an incubator for “young Jewish activists.”

The remarks have amplified growing concerns about conflicts of interest in the UK government’s decision to outsource “anti-Semitism education” to an organization so closely linked with the Israeli entity.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

West weaponizing laws to silence pro-Palestine activism: Study

Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025

The right to protest is facing increasing restrictions across the West, The Guardian reported on Monday, citing a new study by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which accuses governments of criminalizing pro-Palestine activism and using counter-terrorism and antisemitism laws to stifle dissent.

The report focuses on the UK, US, France, and Germany, accusing authorities in these countries of “weaponizing” national security and anti-hate legislation to silence criticism of “Israel” and suppress demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

“This trend reflects a worrying shift towards the normalization of exceptional measures in dealing with dissenting voices,” Yosra Frawes, head of FIDH’s Maghreb and Middle East desk, told The Guardian.

Compiled from open-source data, witness accounts, and institutional reports gathered between October 2023 and September 2025, the study was released just one day after a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire that secured the release of all living Israeli captives and around 2,000 Palestinian detainees.

According to FIDH, restrictions on speech and assembly have extended beyond protests, impacting journalists, academics, and public officials who express solidarity with Palestinians.

In the United Kingdom, the organization found that protest rights have eroded under both Conservative and Labour administrations. The report points to the 2024 anti-protest law introduced by the Conservatives, later deemed unlawful, and to what it calls the Labour government’s continuation of “official narratives” justifying support for “Israel”.

It highlights former Home Secretary Suella Braverman‘s branding of pro-Palestine rallies as “hate marches”, arguing that this rhetoric “stigmatized support for Palestine and Palestinian resistance movements” and “worked to discriminate against Muslims and other racialized groups in the UK.”

FIDH says the change in government in July 2024 “did little to change official government narratives,” claiming Labour has linked criticism of “Israel” with “violent antisemitism” while continuing to target Muslim and racialized communities.

The tensions have been further inflamed by the Labour government’s ban on the activist network Palestine Action and its proposal to expand police powers at protests.

FIDH draws parallels across the Atlantic, where US authorities have detained demonstrators and pursued legal actions against individuals expressing solidarity with Palestine. In France, the government has faced criticism for banning pro-Palestine demonstrations in several cities and for dissolving the rights group Urgence Palestine.

Meanwhile, in Germany, protests have drawn thousands, but police tactics and restrictions on slogans deemed antisemitic, for the mere criticism of “Israel”, have been widely condemned as excessive. The report argues that Germany’s actions reflect a “collective discomfort” in balancing free expression with its postwar responsibility to combat what it classifies as “antisemitism”.

Freedom crisis

The federation recommends that the UK establish an independent oversight body for policing demonstrations and amend key legislation, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, to protect political speech and prevent arbitrary searches.

“Ultimately, the crackdown on solidarity with Palestinians reveals a profound crisis, not only of human rights in the occupied territories but of freedom itself, in societies that claim to be democratic,” the report concludes.

FIDH says that while legal frameworks vary among the UK, US, France, and Germany, the trend toward restricting Palestinian solidarity movements represents a global pattern of shrinking civic space, one that calls into question the credibility of Western nations as defenders of democratic freedoms.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

First Minister says Scotland must seek independence amid UK decline

Al Mayadeen | October 13, 2025

Scottish First Minister John Swinney declared on Monday that “now is the time” for Scotland to become independent, arguing that Westminster’s decades of failed policies have led to national decline and stagnation.

Speaking at the Scottish National Party (SNP) annual conference, Swinney described independence as a “fresh start” for Scotland, offering hope and ambition in contrast to what he called “decline, decay, and despair” under the UK government.

“Independence offers Scotland a fresh start. This is a moment of decision. We all face a choice: decline, decay, and despair with a Westminster government or hope, optimism and ambition with a Scottish self-government,” Swinney said. “Now is the time for Scotland to become independent.”

10 Downing Street ‘working against Scotland’

The SNP leader accused the government in London of “working against Scotland,” pointing to high inflation, declining living standards, and long-term economic stagnation as “the culmination of decades of failed Thatcherite policies.”

Swinney also pledged to block any attempt by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to introduce a digital ID system in Scotland, adding that his government would redirect energy revenues to combat poverty and support social welfare programs.

The remarks come amid renewed debate over Scotland’s constitutional future. In June, Prime Minister Starmer reiterated that he would not permit another Scottish independence referendum during his premiership.

Scotland last voted on independence in 2014, when 55% of voters chose to remain in the United Kingdom. However, Swinney and the SNP argue that shifting political dynamics, economic challenges, and a desire for self-determination have made independence once again a central issue in Scottish politics.

October 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »