Britain: Operation Gladio’s Secret ‘Headquarters’
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 11, 2025
Operation Gladio was a covert NATO program using clandestine units for false flag attacks and political destabilization, with Britain and the CIA playing a central role.
‘Operation Gladio’ is the collective name for a notorious Cold War-era program whereby Anglo-American intelligence services and NATO, in conjunction with mafia elements and fascist paramilitaries, constructed a pan-European nexus of clandestine “stay behind” armed resistance units. Their ostensible purpose was to remain ever-poised to respond to potential future Soviet invasion. In reality, these guerrilla factions carried out false flag attacks, assassinations, robberies, mass casualty bombings, and other incendiary acts to discredit the Western left, while fomenting a “strategy of tension”. Their objective was simple:
“You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. [This would] force the public to turn to the state and ask for greater security… People would willingly trade their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This was the political logic behind the bombings. They remain unpunished because the state cannot condemn itself.”
This candid explanation was provided by an Italian fascist, jailed for life in 1984 for a car bombing 12 years earlier that killed three police officers, and injured two. The attack was intended to be blamed on the Red Brigades, a left-wing militant group. This false flag’s unraveling played a significant role in subsequently blowing the Operation wide open publicly. However, three-and-a-half decades later, much remains unclear and uncertain about Gladio, and the evidential trail went cold long ago.
Perhaps the most striking feature of Operation Gladio is also its least well-known. The effort is typically understood and widely portrayed as a primarily CIA-led effort. In reality, Britain served as the inspiration, headquarters and training ground for all Europe’s “stay behind” secret armies throughout the Cold War, with MI6 taking the lead on arming these factions and directing their incendiary activities. This little-acknowledged history has enormous contemporary relevance, given London secretly continues to perpetuate the Gladio model overseas today.
In November 2024, The Grayzone exposed how a cloak-and-dagger Ministry of Defence-created cell of military and intelligence veterans, dubbed Project Alchemy, is charged with “keeping Ukraine fighting… at all costs”.
Since the proxy war’s first days, the unit has strategised and orchestrated a vast array of belligerent acts, both covert and overt, to escalate the conflict and prevent a negotiated settlement. Chief among their initial recommendations was the creation of a “stay behind”, Gladio-style force, to carry out assassinations and sabotage in Russian territory.
‘The Meanest’
Uniquely revealing insight into Britain’s central role in Operation Gladio is provided by interviews with Francesco Cossiga, published in November 2010 by Bulletin of Italian Politics, a political science journal. A prominent politician throughout Rome’s bloodspattered “years of lead” and beyond, the journal notes Cossiga had “always been proud of his association” with Gladio, and took personal credit “for the creation of anti-terrorist rapid response units in Italy”, tied to Rome’s “stay behind” paramilitaries.
During the interviews, Cossiga revealed these “special services” were born following a tour of Europe, where he studied “different models” of special forces units for inspiration. Repeated visits to the base camp of Britain’s SAS, where he was shown “mock-up villages” used to train soldiers deployed to Northern Ireland during London’s brutal “counterinsurgency” against the province’s Catholic minority, convinced him to “opt for the British model”. Cossiga explained, “the meanest of all were the British” – and besides, if Gladio’s activities ever came to public light:
“I could always defend myself by saying I had chosen the model used in the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world.”
Moreover, Cossiga testified, Britain was “the headquarters” of every European “stay behind” organisation. Namely, Fort Monckton, where MI6 operatives are trained in every covert discipline, including surveillance, sabotage, assassinations, entrapment, and other black ops. According to Cossiga, Italy’s Gladio legions and “special services” similarly received instruction in these murderous dark arts at the facility, and from the SAS. A secret base in Sardinia was also “made available to the CIA and to other intelligence services,” to enhance “stay behind” operations in the country and beyond.
Despite all this, and a 1959 Italian intelligence agency report stating plainly “domestic threats” were a dedicated “stay behind” target, Cossiga vehemently refuted any suggestion Operation Gladio was ever “intended to combat subversion” by local political elements. Its sole purpose, he insisted, was to “resist invasion” by the Soviet Union, which never materialised. Yet, Cossiga’s unconvincing veil of denial slipped somewhat when asked whether he believed it possible for security and intelligence agencies “to act without the implicit or explicit approval of a government”:
“Yes it is. A certain autonomy exists, and it’s not as if an intelligence service has to tell its government what it does. The government sets objectives but it doesn’t have to know the means by which the service goes about achieving those objectives. Nor does it want to know. An intelligence service that respects the rules doesn’t exist. It’s a contradiction in terms. If MI5 had to obey the law it might as well use Scotland Yard’s Special Branch [Britain’s political police].”
‘Repressive Backlash’
Cossiga’s discussion of the murder of Aldo Moro – purportedly his “confidant and friend”, with whose “political philosophy” he ardently adhered – raises further alarm bells. Moro was a veteran centre-right Italian statesman, who served as the country’s prime minister five times during the 1960s and 70s. Highly respected then and now, he was kidnapped by the Red Brigades in March 1978, en route to a historic meeting where he would greenlight a coalition administration, formally bringing Italy’s Communist party into government for the very first time.
After 55 days in captivity, Moro was executed, his bullet-riddled corpse left in a car trunk in central Rome to rot, and for authorities to find. According to Cossiga – then-interior minister – official rescue efforts were exhaustive and wide-ranging. “We tried everything,” he proclaimed, including “air patrols… fitted with infrared sensors that would pick up heat from human bodies” in order to find the abducted premier. Cossiga also supposedly prepared the SAS-trained Comsubin, an Italian special forces unit, to conduct raids to find Moro.
Cossiga recounted how “one evening” during Moro’s captivity, authorities “received information” he “might be in a certain place.” Comsubin was thus mobilised, with a doctor charged with “[throwing] himself over Moro if there was a shootout.” Cossiga excitedly noted the medical professional in question was not only his “classmate at school”, but “later became the effective commander of Gladio!” That extraordinary coincidence may account for why, as Bulletin of Italian Politics reports, Comsubin in fact “did not conduct any raids” whatsoever while Moro was imprisoned.
This glaring contradiction tends to confirm the conclusions of Italian security and intelligence veteran Roberto Jucci – that the hunt for Moro was set up to fail. In March 2024, he publicly exposed how the formal, foreign-advised committee established to save Moro was “composed largely” of individuals tied to Propaganda Due – aka P2 – a CIA-tied Masonic lodge inextricably linked with Operation Gladio. These rabidly anti-Communist actors were, per Jucci, determined to destroy Moro “politically and physically”, therefore preventing the development of radical politics locally.
Jucci’s disclosures caused domestic and international shockwaves at the time. Yet, declassified British Ministry of Defence files dating to November 1990, in the immediate wake of Operation Gladio’s public exposure, show officials in London were well-aware of the mephitic role played by P2 in sabotaging the mission to rescue Moro. The Masonic lodge was described as just one “subversive” force in Italy employing “terrorism and street violence to provoke a repressive backlash against Italy’s democratic institutions,” in service of a “strategy of tension.”
Those documents also note that “circumstantial evidence” indicated “one or more of Moro’s kidnappers was secretly in touch” with Rome’s “security apparatus at the time,” and Italian spooks “deliberately neglected to follow up leads which might have led to the kidnappers and saved Moro’s life.” One might reasonably ask how London’s secret state could’ve been possessed of such knowledge. An obvious answer is that, given Britain’s enduring status as Operation Gladio’s “headquarters”, MI6 was, one way or another, embroiled in the plot to neutralise Moro.
USAID and NGOs for Narrative Control and War
By Professor Glenn Diesen | February 10, 2025
President Trump’s decision to cut funding to USAID revealed the extent to which the US government has been financing media, protests and other means to hijack the civil society around the world. In Ukraine, USAID had a key role in toppling President Yanukovych in 2014 and has since financed between 85-90% of Ukrainian media to ensure narrative control. The Georgian Prime Minister has also been warning that Western NGOs have been activated to topple the government and convert Georgia into a second front against Russia. There is also overwhelming evidence that the US government established “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) since the 1980s that are financed by the US government, staffed with people linked to the US intelligence community, and pursue US geopolitical interests under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. One of these “NGOs” is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) established by Reagan to take over some of the tasks of the CIA. These organisations are instruments for the US to govern the societies of other nations and pursue regime change when necessary.
Subverting Democracy and Pursuing War
When Zelensky won a landslide victory in the 2019 presidential election on a peace platform, the US activated its NGOs to ensure that Zelensky would reverse and abandon his peace mandate. Zelensky had won 73% of the votes by promising to engage in talks with Donbas, make peace with Russia, and implement the Minsk peace agreement. Furthermore, Zelensky argued in favour of preserving language rights and religious rights to prevent divisions in society. Immediately, protests emerged with NGOs presenting Zelensky’s peace platform as “capitulation”.
One of the US-financed “NGOs” was the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre which had been established allegedly to “promote the development of a self-sufficient Ukrainian state and society”, something I would certainly support. However, this is yet another NGO created by the US to subvert society and prevent peace from breaking out.
The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre threatened Zelensky, and warned him against delivering on his election promises: “As civil society activists, we present a list of ‘red lines not to be crossed’. Should the President cross these red lines, such actions will inevitably lead to political instability in our country and the deterioration of international relations”.[1]
These red lines included “holding a referendum on the negotiations format to be used with the Russian Federation and on the principles for a peaceful settlement”; conducting negotiations without the Western states; “making concessions to the detriment of national interests”; failing to implement the security and defence policies of the former government; “delaying, sabotaging, or rejecting the strategic course for EU and NATO membership”; “initiating any actions that might contribute to the reduction or lifting of sanctions against the aggressor state by Ukraine’s international partners”; attempting to review the language law or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine; “ignoring dialogue with civil society” etc. Simply put, the peace platform supported by the overwhelming majority of the population or the NGOs would make sure Zelensky was also ousted from power.
This threat from the US-financed NGO was countered with death threats from US-financed far-right groups. Zelensky eventually abandoned the peace mandate, ignored the Minsk peace agreement and fell in line with US policy.
The donors to the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre that financed the cancellation of Zelensky’s peace mandate include USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US embassy, and various Nordic governments. On the list of donors is also The Institute for Statecraft, the discredited organisation behind the Integrity Initiative, which was caught in the covert operations of creating “clusters” of loyal politicians, journalists and academics to manufacture the impression of an established consensus to control the narrative. The integrity initiative was also working with UK intelligence agencies to target dissent in politics and the media.
My Encounter with these “NGOs”
USAID, NED and other NGOs also operate in countries allied with the US to prevent dissent and preserve bloc discipline. The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre wrote an entire article smearing me in its project of “shady horses of Russian propaganda”, which listed false accusations such as being a “defender of Russia’s aggression”. The evidence for the absurd accusations included conversations with Professor John Mearsheimer and former US Senator Ron Paul, which are labelled Kremlin “mouthpieces”.[2] The Norwegian government (my own government) is also listed as a donor to this project of intimidation and smears.
The US foreign ministry, the National Endowment for Democracy, and my own government also finance the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “human rights NGO”, which has pursued a project of systematic intimidation against me for the past 4 years. Their tactics against me include regular smear pieces in the media, almost weekly tweets labelling me a propagandist for Russia, letters and phone calls to the head of my university to end my position as a professor, calls on other academics to go against me, efforts to cancel me from events where I have been invited to speak, etc. After successfully whipping up hatred in the public, the police advised me to hide my address and phone number. At this point, an employee at the Norwegian Helsinki Committee published a picture of my house on social media. These are the activities that my own government finances under the guise of supporting an “NGO” that promotes democracy and human rights. In response to the purge of academic freedom, I am now in the process of acquiring another citizenship to relocate to a country where civil society is not outsourced to fake NGOs pushing war propaganda and censorship.
What was my great crime? I have been deeply critical of NATO’s policies towards Ukraine since the NGO-backed “Orange Revolution” in 2004. For years I criticised the efforts to pull Ukraine into NATO’s orbit when only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted to join the military alliance, and NATO was aware it would likely trigger a war. I criticised the EU’s rejection of Ukraine’s proposal for a trilateral EU-Ukraine-Russia agreement in 2013 that would have made Ukraine a bridge rather than a frontline. I warned that the NGO-backed toppling of Yanukovych in 2014 would result in Russia’s seizing Crimea and war. For 7 years, I insisted that sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement would result in a military solution to the conflict. Since 2022, I have argued that the sabotage of the Istanbul peace agreement and the boycott of all diplomacy and negotiations would result in Russia destroying Ukraine in a war of attrition. From my perspective, these are pro-Ukrainian arguments that would have preserved Ukrainian sovereignty, territory and lives.
The people who advocated for the policies that created this disaster have a monopoly on the media, and all dissent is crushed with smears, censorship and cancellation. We have more newspapers than I can count, yet they all write the same thing and cite the same “NGOs”. Even now, it is still considered controversial and suspicious to argue for peace negotiations, even as the majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, the war has been lost, and Ukraine suffers greatly with the loss of men and territory every day. Criticism of the NATO war narratives is not met with counterarguments, rather it is met only with accusations of having evil intentions, being “controversial” and “pro-Russian”, legitimising the invasion, not caring about Ukrainians, spreading propaganda etc. These crude and pathetic attacks do not have to be substantiated as the assault on free speech and academic freedom are always wrapped in moralistic language and claims about defending democracy.
Everything I have argued played out as predicted, including why the sanctions were destined to fail. I can confidently argue why my analyses have been correct and why my policy recommendations would have prevented this disaster. However, I do not live in an open society with the free exchange of ideas. I live in a society where government-sponsored smears, censorship and cancellation are permitted as long as an NGO is used as a middleman.
[1] Joint statement by civil society representatives on the first political steps of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky | UACRISIS.ORG
[2] Kremlin Shady Horse’s: Glenn Diesen – Russian propaganda aligned rhetoric, defender of Russia’s aggression, blames NATO for expansionism | UACRISIS.ORG
Trump’s USAID purge has revealed US scheming in Kiev, but won’t stop it
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | February 8, 2025
The catastrophe of the Ukraine War will leave a long trail of painful questions. Because this hubristic proxy confict has become such a pie-in-the-face fiasco for the West, there will be plenty of resistance to honest answers for a very long time.
But facts undermining self-serving Western narratives have started emerging already during the war. Most recently, revelations about the activities of USAID have delivered another hard blow to Western – and official Ukrainian – deception and self-deception.
But before we get to USAID, let’s note that those are not the first embarrassing disclosures with regard to the West’s harebrained and bloody attempt to use Ukraine to demolish Russia. Those with eyes to see have long known, for instance, that large-scale war would have been avoided if the West and Kiev had not deliberately sabotaged the 2015 Minsk-2 agreement, a short but viable blueprint to end a still comparatively small conflict, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Or if the West had not brushed Moscow off when it sent what was, in effect, a clear last warning in late 2021.
Then there was a very early opportunity to stop the war, namely the almost-peace of the Belarus and Istanbul talks in spring 2022. Kiev, shocked by the reality of escalation, was ready to take this exit ramp. The conditions offered by Russia and the concessions it made during the negotiations – above all ending its advance on Kiev – amounted to a good deal for Ukraine, as one of Ukraine’s key negotiators has since admitted. And yet the West chose more war, and an obedient Vladimir Zelensky followed its lead. That failure, too, has long been denied but has to be acknowledged now under the weight of the evidence.
Last but not least, the ongoing, absurd Western lying about the Nord Stream pipeline attacks – the largest ecoterrorist assault in European history and an act of barely-covert war among NATO allies – is not even amusing anymore. All that’s left of that big lie is a reverse IQ test, sorting the indoctrinated dim from the normally intelligent.
And now, USAID and Ukraine. There, the gist of the matter is that the Trumpists are now purging and (probably) recasting that agency in what is a mean fight among US establishment insiders. Don’t be too optimistic: Despite American leader Donald Trump’s and henchman-in-chief Elon Musk’s loud noises about USAID being a “criminal organization” that is “run by a bunch of radical lunatics,” the Washington “swamp” is not being drained; it’s just changing management.
However, as a side effect, details of some of USAID’s very seedy activities are coming to light. Not that we have not known before that this “humanitarian aid” and “development agency” – founded in 1961 at the height of John F. Kennedy’s “liberal” drive to escalate the US struggle against genuine decolonization in the Global South – has always served as a front for intelligence and in particular for the type of massive subversion that precedes and produces coups, regime change, and “color revolutions.”
Indeed, the more honest defenders of USAID have always admitted – really, boasted of – the fact that it has been a tool of strategy in the geopolitical sense of the term. Even the presidential executive order that initiated the Trump administration’s drive against foreign aid in general has now admitted that the latter serves “to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”
Indeed, USAID’s last, Biden-administration head Samantha Power – a comically disingenuous regime change careerist and “genocide expert” who can recognize that crime anywhere as long as she’s paid or promoted, just not in US allies such as Israel – is a perfect embodiment of USAID’s rotten top and core.
Don’t get me wrong: It would be silly not to recognize that USAID has also provided some real assistance, even if never – yes, really never – without political strings attached. Hence, if you think of “aid” as something given exclusively or even mainly out of compassion, then it’s a misnomer here, as USAID critic Mike Benz has rightly pointed out.
In any case, before being gutted, USAID had an annual budget somewhere between 30 and 40 billion dollars and around 10,000 employees, including 6,000 outside the US. In fiscal year 2023, the agency was active in 130 countries (there are about 200 total). And its activities did include things such as food assistance, health services, and disaster relief in countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen.
Let’s also be fair to those USAID staff and grant recipients – American or not – who have genuinely helped in valuable ways and out of sincere good will, often under harsh as well as dangerous conditions. In the world as it really is, many must make deals with the devil: it is not their fault that their organization has always worked as a front for political influence and subversion as well. Indeed, it is a bitter irony that those who really needed what was actually useful about USAID assistance and those distributing it are now being punished together with those who befouled all of it with their vile as well as rather ham-fisted subversion games. Samantha Power, for one, will, obviously, have the softest of landings, in a bespoke think-tank, Ivy League university, “consulting” job (i.e., influence peddling), or media sinecure.
One simple indicator of just how corrupt USAID has been is that, recently, the very top recipient of its aid has been, as it happens, Ukraine: in 2023, for instance, its hand-out of more than $16 billion left runner-up Ethiopia in the dust with less than $1.7 billion, that is about a tenth of Kiev’s allotment. So much for helping the neediest the most.
But serving as just one more funnel to pump endless gazillions into the always wide-open maw of the insatiable and highly demanding Zelensky regime was only one, if you wish, ordinary aspect of USAID’s special role in Ukraine.
This is where we return to those pesky revelations about the war: It turns out that USAID has also proactively and systematically helped to suffocate any hope for peace. And not in just one but two ways.
First, we now learn that almost the entire Ukrainian media sphere – 90 percent of news organizations – depended on USAID funding. Indeed, Olga Rudenko, editor-in-chief of the Kyiv Independent (the irony…), a staunchly info-warring publication, fears that losing access to the USAID trough “has caused harm to independent Ukrainian journalism on par with the COVID-19 pandemic and the onset of Russia’s full-scale war.” Hear, hear.
More generally, a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review is worrying that losing USAID money will threaten “independent” journalism worldwide. No wonder, as USAID itself has proudly claimed that the US government “is now the largest public donor to independent media development globally.”
But any talk of “independence” here is, just like Rudenko’s complaint, obvious Orwellian-grade propaganda: Journalism that literally depends for its very existence on funding from an organization serving as a front for the foreign interests of the single most powerful and aggressive country in the world may be anything, but it cannot be – by definition – independent. You may, if that’s your thing, politically sympathize with such journalism or argue that you feel it is still, on balance, useful, if you wish, but please cut out the absurdity.
In practice, Ukraine is a perfect illustration of how such media dependency-across-borders can easily end in catastrophe: Anyone who knows Ukrainian well enough – as I do – can have a look for themselves. What they will find is a Potemkin village of pseudo-diversity, at best, with very few and embattled exceptions. In reality, the Ukrainian public sphere has been massively manipulated by a monotonous diet of pseudo-”patriotic” messaging. The single most urgent question concerning Ukraine’s own national interests, however, has been systematically maligned and made taboo: namely, if serving as proxy war cannon fodder for the West has been worth it.
The second manner in which USAID has promoted this devastating war was, if anything, even worse, in the sense of more drastic and hands-on: It’s now almost forgotten, but when Ukraine’s current past-best-by-date leader Vladimir Zelensky actually did face and win an election in 2019, his single concrete – and sensible – promise was to seek peace through negotiations.
Clearly, at the time, that promise was a major factor in his unprecedented landslide victory. Once in office, for a very short moment, it seemed as if Zelensky was trying to keep that promise. But then – years before the 2022 escalation – he made a 180-degree turn and emerged as an uncompromising and shortsighted nationalist and a tool of the US – if a very expensive and occasionally capricious one. It is likely that he will soon be discarded, as tools can be. But the damage he has already done to his country is enormous.
Many observers have long been puzzled by early Zelensky’s terrible turn. Was it fear of the powerful and aggressive Ukrainian far-right? Was it a misconceived play for even more popularity? Was it money? Was it Western pressure? We still don’t know the whole story, but we do know one important new thing: a wave of “popular” resistance “from below” and by “civil society” against Zelensky’s initial attempts to look for peace was not genuine. Instead, it had massive Western backing, including from USAID.
In particular, the organization was one of the key sponsors of a “joint statement” which presented a concerted threat to Zelensky in 2019, that is, almost immediately after he assumed office. On the surface the product of 70 Ukrainian NGOs, this was, in reality, a massive affront to democracy and the rule of law: Its sole purpose was to unconstitutionally constrain the newly elected president with so-called “red lines” and, in particular, nullify what so many of his voters wanted, namely an honest search for peace. None of this means that Zelensky is innocent. On the contrary, it was his duty and, literally, his job to resist such shameless pressure tactics and their foreign backers and stand up for his voters and the country as a whole. His failure to do so is his and will remain so forever.
Those NGOs were supported not only by USAID, but also by the National Endowment for Democracy, another US subversion front, the US embassy, and NATO, to name only a few. Whatever else the so-called Ukrainian “diaspora” (that is organized Ukrainian exile nationalist organizations rooted in World War Two fascist nationalism) was up to, it also took part in that big arm-twisting: the Temerty Foundation, a key “diaspora” power broker, also figured among those NGO supporters.
Here is the sad irony: Ukraine has never been “free” and it has never had a “civil society” of its own. Instead, it has been used and manipulated by false “friends” from the West and a comprador “elite” that has put Western interests above those of their own compatriots. Together, they have openly and covertly colonized Ukraine’s public sphere and fed its people into a meatgrinder proxy war that is being lost as we speak. Soon, the West will sell out what is left of Ukraine entirely. None of this is unprecedented: It is a classic pattern of imperialist abuse. All those smart Westerners who have tried to apply “post-colonial” categories to the case of Ukraine: Go ahead – but look at yourself. You are the baddies.
In any case, don’t mistake the purge of USAID for some kind of principal improvement. It is true that some – rest assured: very selective – light is now thrown on its seedy, subversive activities. That’s a plus, for now. And yes, it’s fun to see Centrists and liberals exposed. Schadenfreude can be legitimate.
Of course, none of the above means that Washington intends to generally abandon foul play. On the contrary, under new Trumpist management, the US will remain as mean as ever. There will always be money for subversion, sabotage, disinformation campaigns, regime change, and coups. It will just flow through different channels, and the LGBTQ+ and DEI angles will be dropped. News flash: The US did not need those to coup Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and have Chile regime-changed and its president Salvador Allende murdered in 1973, for instance.
Even the good old USAID is down but not dead: Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s extraordinarily obedient secretary of state, has already announced that its work just has to be aligned with American foreign policy. How funny: As if it had not.
Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
USAID or SorosAid? How US Tax Dollars Fund Chaos Worldwide
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 07.02.2025
Soros’ vast NGO network has spent over $20 billion since 2000 on radical liberal causes across the world. Tens of millions or even billions of US taxpayer dollars were funneled through USAID, observers suspect.
- The Soros-linked East-West Management Institute received over $260 million from USAID to influence foreign affairs in Georgia, Uganda, Albania, and Serbia.
- Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, backed by Soros, began receiving USAID grants in 2014 – the same year the US-backed Euromaidan coup ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych with neo-Nazi support. Over $1 million has been funneled by USAID to the center.
- In August 2024, a coup against Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina was allegedly fomented by USAID, IRI, and Soros-linked groups. Her successor, Muhammad Yunus, is a known Clinton and Soros ally. According to The Grayzone, US taxpayer money funded rappers, transgender activists, and LGBT initiatives to create a “power shift.”
- Soros and USAID have long sought to unseat Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, who has actively opposed the globalist billionaire since 2017. During the 2022 elections, the Soros-linked NGO Action for Democracy funneled $7.6 million to his opposition.
Election Meddling at Home?
- Soros-linked groups, backed by USAID, led resistance efforts against Donald Trump during his presidency, influenced the 2020 election through Black Lives Matter protests, and worked to flip battleground states in 2020–2021.
- Soros funded the Electoral Justice Project, Black Lives Matter’s voter mobilization effort, and gave $22 million to Tides Advocacy, which supported the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation’s pre-election nationwide protests aimed against Trump in 2020.
- USAID and Soros allegedly spent $27 million on anti-Trump prosecutions, claims journalist Mike Benz. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg was also accused of being “bought” by Soros.
UK trying to prevent peace – Ukrainian MP
RT | February 7, 2025
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s recent visit to Kiev was an attempt to disrupt potential peace negotiations with Russia on the settlement of the Ukraine conflict, according to jailed Ukrainian MP Aleksandr Dubinsky.
Britain’s foreign secretary visited Kiev on Wednesday and announced a further 55 million pounds ($68.7 million) in financial aid.
Dubinsky, an opposition lawmaker who has been held in custody since November 2023 on a litany of charges, including high treason, claimed on his Telegram channel on Thursday that the actual purpose of Lammy’s trip was to disrupt a nascent peace process.
According to him, Lammy’s “urgent” visit to Kiev as well as Vladimir Zelensky’s “urgent” interview with British media “were necessary to prevent a peaceful settlement” and to “discredit” a US-backed push for a ceasefire being led by President Donald Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg.
“What is needed for this? An urgent counteroffensive. I believe Zelensky has been brought his plan,” Dubinsky stated.
Kellogg is expected to present a peace plan at next week’s Munich Security Conference, Bloomberg reported earlier this week, citing insiders. However, in an interview with Newsmax on Wednesday, the envoy clarified that while he will be holding discussions with EU leaders in Germany, he will not publicly unveil any proposition.
Any deal would instead be presented by Trump himself.
Last Friday, Trump said that communication is ongoing between his administration and the Russian government and reiterated his goal of putting a swift end to nearly three years of hostilities.
During his Kiev visit Lammy also met with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Sybiga, who urged the UK to scale up investment in Ukraine’s weapons industry. London has already beefed up its backing for Ukraine. Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a £4.5 billion package which includes the procurement of hundreds of air defense systems and drones.
The so-called Istanbul round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine was scrapped in April 2022, despite having reached a draft agreement, following then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s surprise visit during which he pledged continuous military support and urged Kiev to keep fighting.
David Arakhamia, then head of the Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations, later acknowledged Moscow’s claims that Johnson had played an influential role in scuppering a peace deal that would have seen Kiev retain territories it has since lost.
While the controversial British politician denied the claims, former US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland later confirmed that the negotiations fell apart due to US and UK pressure on Kiev to continue with warfare and reject the Istanbul deal.
French ‘Mirage’ 2000-5 for the Kiev regime, yet another ‘game changer’ or more?
By Drago Bosnic | February 7, 2025
On February 6, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced that the first “Mirage” 2000-5 fighter jets were delivered to the Kiev regime. According to his post on X, the aircraft promised by French President Emmanuel Macron on June 6 last year finally arrived after at least eight months of training programs for the Neo-Nazi junta’s pilots. It’s safe to assume that such training lasted much longer, as it takes time for the staff to learn how to use them.
There’s no precise information on how many of these jets were delivered, nor the exact version of the “Mirage” 2000-5. In addition, there was an announcement that Dutch F-16s were also delivered on the same day. The mainstream propaganda machine was quick to proclaim that both types will be “game changers” and “greatly contribute” to fighting off the “evil Russian invaders”.
However, while this sort of superficial enthusiasm might make one think that the “Mirage” 2000-5 is some groundbreaking “wunderwaffe”, the reality is that it’s a largely outdated aircraft. Designed in the 1970s by the French Dassault Aviation, “Mirage” 2000-5 is a multirole, single-engine, fourth-generation fighter jet, largely analogous to the American F-16. This suggests that it will most likely play a similar (if not identical) role to the US-made jet, although some argue that it has better ground attack options due to French insistence on multirole (or omnirole, as they say) capabilities. Considering the number of available aircraft around the world (assessed at approximately 600 in eight countries), the Kiev regime is likely to experience even greater problems with operating and maintaining them, especially in comparison to the F-16s.
Namely, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin manufactured well over 4,600 units, with new deliveries still ongoing. There are currently more than 2,000 F-16s in active service. In practice, this means that spare parts and support for the US-made jet are much more readily available, while the “Mirage” 2000-5 hasn’t been in production since 2007.
The aforementioned variant of the French jet was introduced in the late 1990s, with improvements to avionics and weapon systems. Perhaps the most prominent of these is the Radar Doppler Multitarget (RDY), a multimode look-down/shoot-down pulse-Doppler radar designed by Thomson-CSF (now Thales). Although certainly potent when it was introduced, RDY is by no means a match for the target acquisition systems used by modern Russian fighter aircraft.
Worse yet, in terms of air-to-air ordnance, the “Mirage” 2000-5 is even more heavily outclassed, as its older R.550 “Magic” and earlier iterations of MICA missiles are no match to the plethora of Russian long-range munitions, particularly the now legendary R-37M used by the Su-35S air superiority fighters and the superfast, high-flying MiG-31BM interceptors (to say nothing of Moscow’s unrivaled air defenses). These Russian jets are also far more potent in terms of pure kinetic performance and are flown by highly experienced pilots. They also carry more weapons without the need for external fuel tanks, while the French jet cannot match their range even with those (which also means reduced payload capacity). However, the “Mirage” 2000-5 makes up for this with the ability to deploy a number of advanced air-to-ground munitions.
Namely, it can use the “Storm Shadow”/SCALP-EG ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) and AASM-HAMMER guided bombs. From a purely military standpoint, using the French-made jets as platforms for launching such weapons is much more sensible than trying to challenge Moscow’s air dominance. The Neo-Nazi junta’s propaganda (until recently funded by the infamous USAID) claims that the “Mirage” 2000-5 will primarily be used in an air defense role, intercepting missiles and drones.
However, this is not exactly the purpose its designers had in mind, so it’s questionable how successful it could be. On the other hand, strike missions make more sense, albeit these would also be limited by the number of available aircraft. Officially, France has at least 40 “Mirage” 2000-5F jets in its inventory, of which only 28 are still in active service.
Although some have reportedly been modernized, Paris was planning to retire these jets by the end of the decade. This could certainly free up most of them for the Kiev regime forces. However, there’s another, far more disturbing element to this story. As previously mentioned, the conventional capabilities of the “Mirage” 2000-5 are by no means the supposed “game changer” touted by the mainstream propaganda machine.
On the other hand, the French military operates the nuclear-capable “Mirage” 2000N variant (75 have been produced and most are reportedly still in service). Considering the Neo-Nazi junta’s insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons (Zelensky reiterated it in his latest interview with NATO propagandist Piers Morgan), this possibility certainly shouldn’t be discarded. The Kremlin itself has been warning about this for years.
This includes both President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Notably, several other NATO member states with nuclear-capable jets (namely the Dutch and Belgians) have pledged and delivered them to the Kiev regime. These countries have engaged in harsh rhetoric and even threats to Moscow, with France being no exception. What’s more, its troops have been present in NATO-occupied Ukraine even before the special military operation (SMO), while their numbers have only increased ever since (as have their already heavy casualties).
Russia and France are now engaged in a geostrategic duel in Africa, where Moscow supports at least a dozen countries that want to break free from the (neo)colonialist chokehold Paris has kept them in since the 19th century (and this is certainly not going very well for the latter).
If it wants escalation in Ukraine, France could either deliver some of its “Mirage” 2000Ns while insisting they’re actually the 2000-5 variant (the less likely option) or it could possibly modify the latter to also make them nuclear-capable (the more viable alternative). For the time being, there’s no concrete evidence for this, but the rhetoric coming from the most prominent NATO members (including the US) certainly suggests that the Kremlin is ready for any eventuality.
With the possible strategic paradigm shift under the new American administration, both Brussels and the Neo-Nazi junta are desperate to keep the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict going for as long as possible. However, the rapidly deteriorating capabilities of the Kiev regime forces stand in the way, meaning that the political West believes nuclear weapons could be the last resort.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
USAID’s Color Revolutions: Destabilizing States for US Interests
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.02.2025
USAID openly acknowledged its role in regime change operations through “democracy” programs by 2006.
“USAID played a critical role in influencing color revolutions by providing financial, logistical, and strategic support to opposition movements” in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, Dr. Marco Marsili of the Portuguese Catholic University’s Institute of Political Studies tells Sputnik.
These regime change operations advanced US geopolitical interests but brought no real benefits to the affected nations, he argues.
“USAID’s activities were framed as democracy promotion, electoral assistance, and civil society development,” Marsili notes. However, the results tell a different story:
“Ukraine and Georgia faced ongoing political instability, Lebanon remained sectarian, and Kyrgyzstan suffered repeated upheavals,” he says.
Here’s a breakdown:
Georgia – Rose Revolution (2003)
- US aid: $103M (2002), $141.16M (2003)
- “Democracy programs” received $23.5M (2002), $21.06M (2003) via USAID, IRI, and NDI for NGOs, activists, and media.
- In 2004, the US admitted it “helped” prepare Georgia’s 2003 election, with US-funded NGOs playing a key role in the regime change.
- USAID noted Georgians “borrowed” Serbia’s 2000 pro-democracy tactics, later influencing Ukraine in 2004.
Ukraine – Orange Revolution (2004)
- US aid: $188.5M (2003), $143.47M (2004)
- “Democracy programs” received $54.7M (2003), $34.11M (2004) via USAID, NED, and the Eurasia Foundation.
- To push a pro-US candidate, USAID launched the Strengthening Electoral Administration in Ukraine Project (SEAUP) in Dec 2003, influencing Ukraine’s parliament and judiciary.
Kyrgyzstan – Tulip Revolution (2005)
- Inspired by Georgia and Ukraine, USAID heavily funded local NGOs, activists, and media before the Feb 2005 election.
- US aid: $56.6M (2003), $50.8M (2004), with “democracy programs” receiving $13.5M (2003), $12.2M (2004).
- George Soros’ Open Society Institute funneled $5M (2003) to Kyrgyzstan’s American University of Central Asia.
Lebanon – Cedar Revolution (2005)
- In March 2005, 1M Lebanese protested, demanding Syria’s military withdrawal, paving the way for pro-US leader Saad Hariri.
- USAID’s 2006 report claimed years of work laid the foundation for the uprising.
- US aid to Lebanon tripled in the early 2000s from $15M to $45M.
Did Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Just Leak?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025
A leaked document has given us a first glimpse at President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian online newspaper Strana, U.S. officials handed the plan to European diplomats who then passed it on to Ukraine.
The existence of the plan has not been verified, and Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has said “no ‘100-day peace plan’ as reported by the media exists in reality.”
If the plan is real, and if it is being put on the table by the Trump administration as a finished product that, if rejected, will lead to more sanctions on Russia and more weapons for Ukraine (as Trump has threatened), then the war will go on, and Trump’s promise to quickly end the war will vanish in a puff of delusion. But if the plan is real, and if it is put on the table as a starting point for negotiations, then there is hope. And there is suggestion that it is a starting point.
Here is an item by item analysis of what each side may consider acceptable in the supposed plan and what each side may insist on negotiating further.
The process begins with an immediate phone call between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed by discussions between Washington and Kiev. That the plan may be intended as a starting point for negotiations is suggested by the fork in the schedule that negotiations will continue if common ground is found or pause if it is not. Further negotiations would lead to an Easter truce along the front line, an end of April peace conference, and a May 9 declaration of an agreement.
Russia has said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” In June 2024, Vladimir Putin set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for current territorial realities. Putin’s proposal had four points: Ukraine must abandon plans to join NATO, they must withdraw from the four annexed territories, they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and they must ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
The alleged Trump plan can be evaluated by comparison to Putin’s proposal and to recent statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Kursk at the time of the April Truce. This would be acceptable to Russia, who would insist on Ukrainian troops leaving its territory. But for Ukraine, this would be a difficult concession; not because of the withdrawal but because of the timing. Aside from the strategically catastrophic hope that the Kursk invasion would divert Russian troops away from the Donbas, the point of taking Russian territory was to use it to barter for the return of Ukrainian territory. Giving up the bargaining chip before the negotiations begin would nullify Ukraine’s hope of using it to force the return of more of its land.
- Ukraine must end martial law and hold presidential elections by the end of August and parliamentary elections by the end of October. This could be a bitter pill for Zelensky. Recent polling has shown that he could well lose that election. Elections would be welcomed by Russia, who see Zelensky’s government as intransigently hostile and anti-Russia. This would legally transfer hope for regime change to Ukrainians.
- Ukraine must declare neutrality and promise not to join NATO; NATO must promise not to expand into Ukraine. Ukraine was willing to abandon its NATO hopes in Istanbul. Though accepted by Kiev as inevitable, it would now be a painful concession. In the absence of NATO membership. It would be a hard sell to Ukrainians that the war after the Istanbul talks was worth the devastation. For Russia, this point is key, and there can be no negotiations without it. It would be the key accomplishment to get the two-sided promise that Ukraine will not ask for membership and NATO will not offer it.
- Ukraine will become a member of the European Union by 2030. This item is acceptable to both. EU membership will be necessary for Zelensky to present to Ukrainians as something that was worth fighting for. Ukraine is now free to pursue its ambitions to turn west and join Europe. Though Russia had concerns in 2014 with the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine because of its implied integration of Ukraine into the European security and military architecture, Putin has long left EU membership on the table for a postwar Ukraine, and that was specifically agreed to in the Istanbul agreement.
- Ukraine will not reduce the size of its armed forces and the United States will continue modernizing the Ukrainian military. While Ukraine will welcome this, it may not be enough. Russia will have a hard time with this one. This is like “the Israeli model” that then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Putin and Zelensky were both open to in the early days of the war. But, in the absence of NATO, Zelensky has been adamant about American supported security guarantees. And, already by Istanbul, Russia was demanding limits on Ukraine’s armed forces. At the very least, modernized Ukrainian weaponry would have to be defensive and with a cap on firing into Russian territory.
- Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories, but does not officially recognize Russian sovereignty. This item does not go far enough for Russia and too far for Ukraine. Zelensky has accepted that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.” So, he will accept not attempting to return the occupied territories militarily. He has also insisted that Ukraine would never officially recognize Russian sovereignty over those lands. But the added clause, that he will not attempt to return them diplomatically, may be going further than Zelensky has been willing to go. In the case of Crimea, he has reserved the right to try to bring territory back diplomatically. For Russia, the de facto recognition of the territory it occupies will likely be enough. In his proposal, Putin insisted on the complete withdrawal from the territories while saying nothing about Ukraine officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over them. However, though Russia may be willing to negotiate over Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less likely to accept only the lands east of the current front without it including all of the Donbas.
- Some sanctions on Russia will be lifted, including European Union bans on Russian oil. This item will likely be acceptable to Ukraine, especially since temporary duty on sales of oil will be used to restore Ukraine. It will likely be acceptable, at least as a starting point, for Russia.
- Parties that support Russian language and peaceful relations with Russia can participate in Ukraine’s elections. State actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Russian language must cease. Though difficult for Zelensky and some forces in Ukraine to accept, protection of language, religious and cultural rights is the second key Russian demand along with NATO.
- The idea of a European peacekeeping force is to be discussed separately. The recognition that security guarantees are both key and difficult for both parties is realistic. Neither side will agree to a European security force: Russia because it goes too far, Ukraine because it goes not far enough.
If this possible plan is a final draft whose rejection means negotiations end, then the war will not end. But if Donald Trump’s plan is intended as a starting point to negotiations—the most difficult of which may be the security guarantees — then there is hope.
Moscow welcomes Trump’s stance on Kiev’s NATO bid
RT | February 5, 2025
Russia welcomes the statements made by US President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Trump is the first Western leader to admit that it was wrong to support Kiev’s plans to join the military bloc, the diplomat said on Wednesday.
Trump stated last month that he understands the Russian stance that Ukraine should not be part of NATO. Speaking to reporters in Florida, the US president said Moscow’s position had long been “written in stone,” but that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had ignored it, which contributed to the current conflict.
“Somewhere along the line, Biden said, ‘[Ukraine], they should be able to join NATO.’ Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feelings about that,” Trump added.
Speaking at an ambassadors’ roundtable on Ukraine, Lavrov said Trump’s comments suggest Washington may finally be ready to address issues linked to Ukraine’s NATO bid and the bloc’s eastward expansion.
“President Trump bluntly said that one of the main mistakes was drawing Ukraine into NATO, and that if he had been in power the past four years, the conflict would not have happened,” Lavrov noted.
“For the first time, a Western leader… the leader of the entire Western world, uttered these words, which we welcome because for the first time the problem of NATO was identified as something that the US is ready to discuss seriously,” he added. Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a root cause of the current conflict, saying that warnings not to encourage these aspirations either fell on deaf ears or were met with “duplicity” and “hypocrisy” by Western politicians.
“The root cause is the conscious, long-term desire and… practical steps of the West to create direct military threats to Russia on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, and drawing it into NATO. We have raised this issue repeatedly, demanding NATO honor its pledge not to expand eastward, but all was in vain,” Lavrov said. He suggested Trump’s remarks could signal a shift in US policy, which he called crucial as “Washington is the one who will ultimately make the decisions” regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, insisting any settlement of the ongoing conflict must include Kiev’s neutrality and demilitarization. Ukraine, however, considers its membership a strategic foreign and security policy objective, and has recently claimed that it sees its admission to the US-led military bloc as a security guarantee to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. While NATO last year declared that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to joining the bloc, its members warned that Kiev would have to meet certain conditions first, such as resolving the conflict with Moscow.
Zelensky a ‘maniac’ to demand NATO nuclear weapons – Moscow
RT | February 5, 2025
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s statements on obtaining nuclear weapons are cause for serious concern, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. In a social media post on Wednesday, she branded Zelensky a “maniac [gripped by] sick delusions” who could seek a ‘dirty bomb’.
Zelensky reiterated his nuclear aspirations in an interview with British television host Piers Morgan on Tuesday, in which he lamented that Kiev traded Soviet-era deterrence “for nothing” in the 1990s.
“Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons,” Zelensky told Morgan. “What missiles can stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That is a rhetorical question.”
He called on NATO to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a stopgap measure while Kiev awaits accession to the US-led military bloc.
Responding on Wednesday, Zakharova wrote: “Zelensky’s latest statements that he wants to possess a nuclear capability expose him as a maniac, who considers the planet as an object for his sick delusions. They also prove that for him nuclear power stations are not a source of peaceful energy, but a dirty weapon that the Kiev regime needs for blackmail.”
Ukrainian nuclear rhetoric predates the outbreak of hostilities with Russia. Zelensky suggested that Kiev could build atomic weapons in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022, days before the escalation of the conflict.
Russian officials have expressed concern over Ukraine potentially developing a dirty bomb amid its battlefield setbacks. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported no diversion of declared radioactive materials in the country.
Ukraine inherited a well-developed civilian nuclear industry from the USSR, and currently operates three nuclear power plants and two research reactors.
Contrary to Zelensky’s assertion, independent Ukraine lacked a true nuclear deterrent as it did not possess the unilateral capability to launch Soviet weapons deployed on its soil in response to an attack. The disarmament of Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was part of a broader nuclear reduction initiative in the 1990s. Western nations incentivized the host nations with aid programs.
Kremlin comments on talks with ‘illegitimate’ Zelensky
RT | February 5, 2025
Moscow is ready for talks with Kiev even though Vladimir Zelensky currently has no legal right to lead Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
On Tuesday, Zelensky told British journalist Piers Morgan that he could hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The comments marked a significant shift from Zelensky’s stance adopted in the autumn of 2022, when he signed a decree banning any negotiations with the Russian leadership.
“If that is the only setup in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this setup, for this meeting,” Zelensky told Morgan.
Asked to comment on Zelensky’s remarks on Wednesday, Peskov said there is “no place for emotions” when it comes to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “What is needed here is legal analysis and absolute pragmatism… Zelensky has significant de jure legitimacy issues within his own country,” the spokesman pointed out.
Peskov referred to the Ukrainian leader’s refusal to hold a presidential election and the fact that his term expired last May. Moscow maintains that the legitimate power in Ukraine now lies with the parliament and its speaker.
“Despite this, the Russian side remains open to negotiations,” Peskov stressed, arguing that Moscow’s successes on the battlefield “clearly suggest that Kiev should be the one to demonstrate openness and interest in such negotiations.”
Peskov also weighed in on Zelensky’s suggestion that the West could give Ukraine nuclear weapons as a substitute for NATO membership to guarantee its protection.
“In general, such statements are borderline madness. There is a nuclear non-proliferation regime,” the spokesman said. Peskov suggested that EU politicians, despite their flaws, should understand the “absurdity and potential danger of discussing such a topic.”
Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the deal after Crimea voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Russia has argued that the deal was fundamentally undermined by NATO’s expansion towards its borders.
Putin has said that Russia would not allow Kiev to create or obtain nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.”
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Crusades – colliding narratives
Ashes of Pompeii | June 13, 2026
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
- Iran deputy FM says MoU with US finalized, to be signed in Geneva on Friday
- With one strike, Netanyahu tries to kill two peace deals
- Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
- Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
- Desperate Starmer choosing piracy as distraction over UK crime crisis – Putin envoy
- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- If Americans Knew
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 