Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Monroe Doctrine Under Siege: America’s new war in the backyard

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 18, 2025

Washington’s new militarized campaign against Venezuela, framed as a drug war, is in reality a risky attempt to blunt China’s rising influence in Latin America—and it may only accelerate the region’s shift away from the United States.

Trump vowed to end America’s endless wars. Yet he is now starting another and doing it in Latin America, the very ground where US power is already slipping. The administration’s militarised “drug war” against Venezuela is less about cartels than about toppling Maduro to blunt China’s rise in the hemisphere. But it’s a gamble that exposes Washington’s deeper weakness: the US no longer has an economic playbook to compete with Beijing’s money, markets, and infrastructure. And Latin America knows it.

America’s Worry

It’s not about drugs. Washington has a long history of using the “war on narcotics” as cover for covert operations, and in Venezuela today, the real source of alarm is China. Beijing has become Caracas’s most dependable lifeline, underwriting more than US$60 billion in loans, running oil-for-credit schemes, building joint ventures, infrastructure, and even a satellite ground station, all coming together to cement a long-term strategic presence. In 2024 alone, bilateral trade hit US$6.4 billion, with China importing US$1.6 billion in Venezuelan oil and minerals and exporting US$4.8 billion in manufactured goods.

Venezuela is far from an outlier. Across Latin America, Sino-regional trade surged to US$518 billion, with direct investment totaling US$14.7 billion, creating a sprawling parallel economic architecture of ports, refineries, mines, 5G networks, and credit lines that regional governments now treat as indispensable. Even though the US still dominates the region in cumulative FDI—over US$1 trillion—China is rapidly eroding American influence, winning leverage not through ideology or coercion, but through markets, capital, and sustained economic engagement.

For Washington, this is not commerce; it is geopolitical encroachment that directly pushes against the so-called Monroe Doctrine, turning the US “backyard” into a zone where Washington’s influence is not decisive anymore. The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, held that the Americas were under US influence and off-limits to outside, i.e., European, interference. Over time, it became the foundation of Washington’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Today, China’s deep economic and strategic footprint in Latin America is quietly—but surely—undermining that century-old principle, challenging US control in its own backyard.

Yet instead of matching Beijing’s patient economic game, the US is increasingly relying on force—missiles, warships, and military threats—to reassert influence in its own hemisphere. In Venezuela, that approach is especially dangerous: every escalation risks doing exactly what Washington fears most, driving Latin America further into China’s orbit and underscoring the stark reality that America no longer wins with markets.

The zero-sum American Mindset

That China is the real target is not irrelevant. China’s successes are seen, in a zero-sum manner, as Washington’s loses. It was always known, although it gets little mention in the ongoing US official discourse about Venezuela. Perhaps the US does not wish to complicate its ongoing trade talks with China to ‘end’ the trade war that Washington has lost. However, elements of the current US administration had already made clear, even before capturing power in the latest presidential elections, that China cannot be allowed to expand its presence in the region.

In 2024, The Economist spotlighted China’s “dramatically” growing footprint across Latin America—a shift that seems to have triggered alarm bells in Washington. The US Secretary of State (and National Security Advisor) Rubio had warned, even before assuming his current positions, that America “can’t afford to let the Chinese Communist Party expand its influence and absorb Latin America … into its private political-economic bloc.” Yet, he lamented, many regional leaders have merely shrugged. Now, Rubio appears determined to turn up the pressure—and he’s starting with Venezuela.

Beijing’s inroads stretch far beyond Caracas. Earlier this year, left‑leaning Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva joined a Latin American summit in Beijing, signaling his willingness to coordinate on key geopolitical issues, including backing China’s position on Ukraine. At the same time, China quietly opened its first major deep‑water, “smart” port in Latin America: the $3.5 billion Chancay megaport in Peru, operated by COSCO and equipped with unmanned cranes, 5G networks, and driverless trucks. Xi Jinping praised the port as a “new land-sea corridor” linking Latin America and Asia. According to Chinese state media, Chancay can cut shipping times between Peru and China by nearly 12 days while reducing logistics costs by 20%. Diplomatically too, Beijing is undeterred. When pressed on US interventionism, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian retorted in September that Latin America is “no one’s backyard,” an explicit rebuke to American regional dominance. Accordingly, in November, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning condemned Washington’s “excessive force” against boats in the Caribbean and insisted that “cooperation between China and Venezuela is the cooperation between two sovereign states, which does not target any third party.”

The Possibility of Backfire

America’s strategy therefore can—and will—backfire. It will only make regional states more open towards Beijing and more apprehensive towards the US (interventionism and unpredictability). At the 2025 China–CELAC Forum, Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, called for a “dialogue of civilizations” and said China and Latin America should forge a new model of cooperation—not one imposed by external powers. This sentiment exists across Latin American states, including, for instance, Brazil.

What Washington must understand is that China’s patient, capital-driven strategy, combining trade, investment, infrastructure, and diplomacy, has created a durable foothold that the US cannot simply displace with missiles or threats, although it can introduce temporary disruptions only through a military approach. Still, every escalation in Venezuela risks cementing the very outcome Washington fears: a hemisphere where American influence is conditional and secondary. If the US hopes to reclaim strategic authority, it must first confront the uncomfortable truth that power in the 21st century is won with markets, credit lines, and long-term partnerships, not just force. Until it does, the Monroe Doctrine will remain a relic, and Latin America a proving ground for China’s quiet but decisive ascendancy.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

On the ‘Legitimate Authority to Kill’

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | November 18, 2025

“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025

As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.

An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.

The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.

Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.

Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.

As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.

It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.

In the 1960s, the U.S. government claimed that North Vietnam would have to be toppled in order for Americans to remain free. The conflict escalated as a result of false interpretations of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident, which came to be parroted by the press and repeated by officials even after the pretext for war had been debunked. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam ended unceremoniously with the military’s retreat, and no one was made less free by the outcome, save the millions of human beings destroyed over a decade of intensive bombing under a false “domino theory” of how communist control of Vietnam would lead to the end of capitalism and the enslavement of humanity.

Beginning in 1989, the country of Colombia became the focus of a new “War on Drugs,” the result of which was, for a variety of reasons too complicated (and frankly preposterous) to go into here, an increase in the use of cocaine by Americans. In the early twenty-first century, Americans were told that the Taliban in Afghanistan had to be removed from power in order to protect the U.S. homeland and to secure the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. The military left that land in 2021, with the Taliban (rebranded as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) once again the governing political authority. Many thousands of people’s lives were destroyed during the more than two decades of the “War on Terror,” but there is no sense in which anyone in Afghanistan was made more free by the infusion of trillions of U.S. dollars into the region.

Let these examples suffice to show (though others could be cited) that no matter how many times U.S. leaders insist that war has become necessary, a good portion of the populace, apparently oblivious to all of the previous incantations of false but seductive war propaganda, comes to support the latest mission of state-inflicted mass homicide. Among contemporary world leaders, U.S. officials have been the most flagrantly bellicose in this century, and they certainly have killed, whether directly or indirectly, many more human beings than any other government in recent history. This trend coincides with a marked rise in war profiteering, as a result of the LOGCAP (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program) scheme of the late secretary of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose policies made him arguably the world’s foremost war entrepreneur.

The general acceptance by the populace of the idea that conflicts of interest no longer matter in decisions of where, when, and against whom to wage war, has resulted in an increased propensity of government officials to favor bombing over negotiation, and war as a first, not a last, resort. Because of the sophistication of the new tools of the techno-death industry, and the establishment of a plethora of private military companies (PMCs) whose primary source of income derives from government contracts, there are correspondingly more war profiteers than there were in the past. Many apparently sincere war supporters among the populace are not profiteers but instead evince a confused amalgam of patriotism and pride, and are often laboring under the most effective galvanizer of all: fear.

The increasing influence on U.S. foreign policy of the military-industrial complex notwithstanding, it would be a mistake to suppose that the folly of war has anything specifically to do with the United States. The assumption of a legitimate authority to kill on the part of political leaders has a long history and has been embraced by people for many centuries, beginning with monarchic societies wherein the “received wisdom” was that rulers were effectively appointed to rule by God Almighty and therefore acting under divine authority. The fathers of just war theory, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, lived and wrote in the Middle Ages, when people tended to believe precisely that.

As a result of the remarkable technological advances made over the past few decades, the gravest danger to humanity today does not inhere, as the government would have us believe, in the possibility of havoc wreaked by small groups of violent dissidents. Instead, the assertion of the right to commit mass homicide by political leaders inextricably mired in an obsolete worldview of what legitimate authority implies has led to the deaths of orders of magnitude more human beings than the actions said by war architects to justify recourse to deadly force.

Today’s political leaders conduct themselves as though they are permitted to kill not only anyone whom they have been persuaded to believe is dangerous, but also anyone who happens to be located within the radius of a bomb’s lethal effects. This abuse of power and insouciance toward human life has been seen most glaringly since October 7, 2023, in the comportment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under whose authority the military has ruthlessly attacked and terrorized the residents of not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Iran, and Iraq, on the grounds that militant Hamas members were allegedly hiding out in the structures being bombed.

Even as piles of corpses have amassed, and millions of innocent persons have been repeatedly terrorized by the capricious bombing campaigns, Zionists and their supporters reflexively bristle and retort to critics that Netanyahu’s intentions were always to save the hostages. It was certainly not his fault if Hamas persisted in using innocent people as human shields! As a result of this sophism, the IDF was able to kill on, wholly undeterred, massacring many thousands of people who posed no threat whatsoever. Throughout this savage military campaign, the IDF has ironically been shielded by the human shield maneuvers of Hamas.

The “good intentions” trope has served leaders frighteningly well and, like the so-called legitimate authority to kill, is a vestige of the just war paradigm, which continues rhetorically to inform leaders’ proclamations about military conflict, despite being based on an antiquated worldview the first premises of which were long ago abandoned by modern democratic societies. With rare exceptions, people do not believe (pace some of the pro-Trump zealots) that their leaders were chosen by God to do what God determines that they should do. Instead, modern people are generally well aware that their elected officials arrive at their positions of power by cajoling voters into believing that their interests will be advanced by their favored candidates, while fending off, by hook or by crook, would-be contenders who, too, claim that they will best further the people’s interests. Despite debacles such as the U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Libya, the just war theory’s “Doctrine of Double Effect,” according to which what matter are one’s leaders’ intentions, not the consequences of their actions, continues to be wielded by war propagandists, undeterred by the sort of ordinary, utilitarian calculus which might otherwise constrain human behavior on such a grand scale.

The slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the harm done to millions more persons in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. government was said to be justified by the architects of the War on Terror by the killing of approximately 3,000 human beings on September 11, 2001. Similarly, the Israeli government’s slaughter of many times more people than the number of hostages serving as the pretext for mass bombing was a horrible confusion, an affront to both basic mathematics and common sense. Nonetheless, it was said to be supported by the false and sophomoric, albeit widespread, notion that “our” leaders (the ones whom we support) have good intentions, while “the evil enemy” has evil intentions. That notion is, at best, delusional, for it entails that one’s own tribe has intrinsically good intentions and anyone who disagrees is an enemy sympathizer, the absurdity of which is clear to anyone who has ever traveled from one country to another. Stated simply: geographical location has no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of human beings, what should be obvious from the incontestable fact that no one ever chooses his place of birth.

Beyond its sheer puerility, the “We are good, and they are evil!” assumption gives rise to a very dangerous worldview on the part of leaders in possession of the capacity to commit mass homicide with impunity, as leaders such as Netanyahu and Trump, along with many others, currently do. Note that the same assumption was made by Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and every other political mass murderer throughout history. Most recently, when supporters of Israel began to characterize anyone who voiced concern over what was being done to the Palestinians as “Hamas sympathizers,” they embraced the very same framework which came to dominate the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as people who opposed the invasions were lumped together indiscriminately with the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and denounced as terrorists.

It is obvious to anyone rational why dissidents become increasingly angry as they directly witness the toll of innocent victims multiply. The very same type of ire was experienced by Americans when their homeland was attacked. Yet in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea that human beings have a right to defend their homeland was seemingly forgotten by the invaders, and little if any heed was paid by the killers to the perspective of the invaded people themselves, who inveighed against the slaughter and mistreatment of their family members and neighbors, even as it became more and more difficult to deny that the U.S. government was in fact creating more terrorists than it eliminated.

Returning to 2025, President Donald Trump continues to authorize the obliteration of a series of small vessels off the shore of Venezuela and in the Pacific Ocean. It is unclear who is behind this arbitrary designation of some—not all—boats alleged to be loaded with drugs to be sunk rather than intercepted by the Coast Guard, which until now has been the standard operating procedure—and with good reason. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), more than 25% of the vessels stopped and searched by the Coast Guard on suspicion of drug trafficking are found not to contain any contraband whatsoever. Senator Paul has also made an effort to disabuse citizens of the most egregious of the falsehoods being perpetrated by the Trump administration, to wit: The country of Venezuela is not now and has never been a producer of fentanyl, the primary cause of the overdose epidemic in the United States.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a denizen of the fact-challenged Trump world, appears to delight in posting short snuff films of the Department of War missile strikes, most of which have left no survivors nor evidence of drug trafficking behind. In two of the strikes, there were some survivors, who were briefly detained by the U.S. government before being repatriated to their country of origin. The incoherence of the administration’s treatment of these persons—alleged wartime combatants, according to every press release regarding all of these missile strikes—has caught the attention of an increasing number of critical thinkers.

Senator Rand Paul has admirably attempted, on multiple occasions, to wrest control of the war powers from the executive and return it to the congress. Most recently, he drew up legislation to prevent Trump from bombing Venezuela, well beyond the scope of the AUMFs granted to George W. Bush at the beginning of the century, but the motion failed. Democratic Senator Fetterman, who voted against the bill along with most of the Republican senators, has evidently fallen under the spell of the techno-death industry propaganda according to which the president may kill anyone anywhere whom he deems even potentially dangerous to the people of the United States. Since the legislation was voted down, Trump and his team no doubt view this as a green light. The president may not have a new AUMF, but the senate, by rejecting Rand Paul’s legislation, effectively signaled that he does not need one. Fire away!

What all of this underscores is what became progressively more obvious throughout the Global War on Terror: most elected officials and their delegated advisers are not critical thinkers but base their support of even obviously anti-Constitutional practices, such as the summary execution of suspects, as perfectly permissible, provided only that the populace has been persuaded to believe that it is in their best interests. In the twenty-first century, heads of state are being advised by persons who are themselves working with analysis companies such as Palantir, which devise the algorithms being used to select targets to kill, and have financial incentives for doing so.

What began as a revenge war against the perpetrators of 9/11 somehow transmogrified into the serial assassination of persons whose outward behavior matches computer-generated profiles of supposedly legitimate targets. The industry-captured Department of War’s inexorable and unabashed quest to maximize lethality has played an undeniable role in this marked expansion of state-perpetrated mass homicide based on an antiquated view of divinely inspired legitimate authority. 

As the Trump administration prepares the populace for its obviously coveted and apparently imminent war on Venezuela, mainstream media outlets have reported a surprisingly high level of support among Americans for the recent missile strikes. According to one recent poll, 70% of the persons queried approve of the blowing up of boats involved in drug trafficking. If true, this may only demonstrate how effective the Smith-Mundt Modernization act has been since 2013, permitting the government to propagandize citizens to believe whatever the powers that be wish for them to believe. Given the government’s legalization of its own use of propaganda against citizens, we will probably never know how many of the social media users apparently expressing their exuberant support for the targeting of small boats on the assumption that they contain drugs headed for U.S. shores are in fact bots rather than persons. None of this bodes well for the future of freedom.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

CRAZY New BLOOD PRESSURE Guidelines Could HURT MILLIONS

Dr. Suneel Dhand | November 4, 2025

This really needs to be discussed. Recommendations are way different from other advanced countries.

New Hypertension Guidelines: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topic…

Doctors of Ojais Channel:    / @doctorsofojais  

Dr. Dhand’s Website: https://www.drsuneeldhand.com

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Is Trump protecting pedophiles in the Epstein files?

By George Samuelson | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 17, 2025

Following a batch of newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein, the late child offender, it appears thus far that U.S. President Donald Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing. So why is he acting so suspicious?

On November 12th, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released some 20,000 emails from the files that suggested Donald Trump may have known more about Epstein’s underage sex-trafficking activities than he previously admitted.

In an email exchange between Epstein, who committed suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial, and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein notes that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump.

“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote in an April 2011 message to Maxwell, who is awaiting trial from federal prison in the United States.

“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,, he has never once been mentioned,” he continues.

“I have been thinking about that…” Maxwell replied.

In another email between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff from 2019, Epstein writes that [Victim] mara lago… [redacted]… trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever.. of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.’

While the email exchange looks tantalizingly close to some form of guilt on the part of the U.S. leader, it is not a smoking gun. That’s largely because the redacted ‘victim’ mentioned in the above email messages is none other than Virginia Giuffre, who was 17 years old when she was lured away from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club to work for Jeffrey Epstein.

Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, was deposed in November 2016 as part of her lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. In the course of the deposition she maintained that Trump never attempted to have sex with her. She also responded under oath that she never saw Trump at any of Jeffrey Epstein’s residences.

Over the years, Trump and Epstein had rubbed shoulders in elite social circles in New York and Florida. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, Trump said he had known Epstein for 15 years, calling him a “terrific guy” who was “a lot of fun to be with.”

In that same interview, Trump added, “it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

So, if there is nothing more to the story between the disgraced billionaire pedophile and the American president, why are Trump and other top officials so reluctant to release the remainder of the files to public scrutiny? (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing”).

Is the U.S. leader covering for himself or for others in the knowledge that there may be far more incriminating revelations in other messages? The answer appears to be obvious and self-evident, but whatever the case may be, Trump is putting intense pressure on Republicans to block release of the remainder of the files now in possession of the Justice Department.

CNN reported that the White House summoned representative Lauren Boebert – one of four Republicans in the House who have signed a special discharge petition to release the files – to a meeting in the Situation Room with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and FBI director, Kash Patel, to discuss her position. Trump failed to get a reversal from Boebert, as well as other lawmakers contacted by the White House, including South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace. But the administration had other cards to play, it seems.

Perhaps Republicans and Democrats alike were of the opinion that a conveniently timed government shutdown – the longest in history, in fact – would make the public forget about Mr. Epstein. If that was the goal it also failed. After the government reopened for business, the late swearing-in of the Democratic representative Adelita Grijalva brought the number of signatures on the discharge petition to the magic number of 218 required to force a vote on legislation demanding the release of all files on Epstein within 30 days.

Meanwhile, the U.S. president’s efforts to portray the files as part of an elaborate ‘Democrat Hoax’ is not working among his MAGA constituents, many of whom cast a vote for Trump specifically on the grounds that the files would be made public. In July, much to the anger and frustration of the Republican base, the Justice Department released a memo that pointed to a “lack of evidence” to continue with the investigation.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” the memo said. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

“No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” the memo continued.

If the Trump White House was of the opinion that the American people would forget the Epstein case, they were sadly disappointed. They smelled a rat and they would not rest until the matter was brought to its final conclusion.

“The best-case explanation for the Trump administration on their mishandling of the Epstein case is rank incompetence,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, in a statement. “But the much likelier explanation is that Trump and wealthy people around him have things to hide.”

Will those hidden things be brought to the light of day? Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely. Even if the discharge petition passes the House, it still needs to get through the Senate and be signed by Trump, who certainly does not want to be seen as the person left holding the hot potato. The question remains: how much will the Republicans suffer at the ballot box if they continue to ignore the Epstein case?

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

European countries create joint fund to send new weapons to Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | November 17, 2025

Apparently, the war plans of European countries are far from over. Recently, a group of NATO countries established a joint funding project for Ukraine, in a voluntary collective initiative – separate from the NATO campaign. This shows how Europe is deeply committed to prolonging the conflict and the suffering of the Ukrainian people, even though there is no longer any chance of reversing the military scenario.

Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced that a group of European countries is jointly creating an extra military aid package for Ukraine valued at over 430 million euros (500 million dollars). The participating countries are Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden. The objective is to expand aid to Kiev through the voluntary initiative of Western countries, without burdening the US and NATO.

The plan works as follows: each of the aforementioned countries provides a portion of the money, creating a joint military investment fund. The money is then used to buy American weapons and send them to Kiev through the “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” program. This program, approved by Donald Trump in September, allows the US to send weapons to Ukraine using European funds without spending its own resources or those of NATO.

Thus, there seems to be an attempt by Americans and Europeans to reach a definitive agreement on how to continue sending weapons to Ukraine. Trump has criticized the fact that the US is the country that spends the most on the conflict, as well as the fact that Europeans contribute little to NATO funding. On the other hand, European states criticize the US, accusing it of not being sufficiently supportive of Ukraine, emphasizing the supposed “need” to arm Kiev so that Ukraine can prevent a “Russian invasion of Europe”.

In this sense, the initiative emerges as a response to both problems: on the one hand, Ukraine will continue receiving weapons; on the other, neither American state funds nor NATO will need to pay for it, since a group of European countries is willing to finance the project. Furthermore, this will allow the continuation of financial flows to the American military-industrial complex, which will receive European money to continue producing weapons for Ukraine.

Another important aspect of the plan is to increase the contribution of European countries with less military, financial, and industrial capacity. Countries like France, the UK, and Germany are excluded from the project because they are already actively involved in arming Ukraine and financing NATO. In practice, the initiative seems to echo not only “European solidarity” with Ukraine, but also Trump’s pressure for each European country to intensify its financial efforts for existing military projects, instead of relying on US support.

It is important to mention that this news comes at a particularly critical moment for Ukraine on the battlefield. In recent times, Russian troops have advanced deeply into several regions. In the Donetsk People’s Republic, the siege of Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk continues, causing constant casualties among enemy troops. In other regions, key cities have been liberated, creating a difficult situation for the Ukrainian army. Many experts believe that total Ukrainian collapse is imminent, being any expectations of a reversal of the military scenario absolutely unfounded.

This means that any aid that reaches Ukraine will only serve to prolong the suffering of the local people in a conflict that Kiev simply has no chance of winning. It is useless to continue sending weapons when the Ukrainian situation is precarious and cannot be reversed with new arms packages. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the main Ukrainian problem currently is a lack of human resources, not weapons. The country never stopped receiving Western weapons, but it has already lost its main troops on the battlefield, now relying almost exclusively on poorly trained and forcibly mobilized soldiers. This situation cannot be solved with new Western aid packages.

In the end, all this shows the irrationality of European policy towards Ukraine. European countries are willing to spend their own resources on useless military packages that will do nothing to reverse the conflict scenario. Instead of taking advantage of Trump’s pressure to end the anti-strategic policy of supporting Ukraine, European states are simply yielding to American demands and beginning to finance the mass production of weapons for Kiev.

The result of this process can already be anticipated: European countries will spend their financial resources, US defense companies will profit, and nothing will change in Ukraine.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China Voices Opposition to Unilateral Sanctions, Rejects US’ Anti-Russia Restrictions

Sputnik – 17.11.2025

BEIJING – Beijing consistently opposes unilateral sanctions not approved by the UN Security Council, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said, commenting on the US bill regarding sanctions on countries cooperating with Russia.

“China has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law and are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council,” Mao told reporters.

Earlier in the day, US President Donald Trump commented on the bill to tighten sanctions against Russia, declaring that any country that cooperates with Russia will be subject to severe sanctions, and Iran may be added to the same bill.

US President Donald Trump told reporters that Republicans were introducing very tough legislation to slap sanctions on any country doing business with Russia. He added that Iran might be included as well, noting that he had suggested it, and said that any country engaging economically with Russia would face severe penalties.

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Ecuadorians reject all proposals in 2025 referendum

Al Mayadeen | November 17, 2025

Ecuadorian voters delivered a decisive blow to President Daniel Noboa on November 16, 2025, rejecting all four questions posed in a national referendum. With roughly 90% of the ballots counted, more than 60% of voters opposed lifting the constitutional ban on foreign military bases, and similar majorities rejected proposals to eliminate public funding for political parties, reduce the number of legislators, and convene a constituent assembly.

This outcome dealt a significant setback to Noboa’s administration, which had framed the referendum as a solution to Ecuador’s worsening security crisis. His plans to welcome US military installations in Manta and Salinas hinged on overturning the 2008 Constitution’s prohibition on foreign bases. However, the majority of Ecuadorians voted to preserve their constitutional protections and sovereignty.

The referendum included three constitutional reforms and one popular consultation:

  • Question A proposed removing the ban on foreign military installations, opening the door for a US return to coastal bases.
  • Question B aimed to eliminate state financing for political parties, a move critics said would undermine opposition groups.
  • Question C sought to halve the National Assembly.
  • Question D proposed establishing a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution.

The results were unequivocal: 60.56% opposed foreign bases,  58.04% voted against ending public party funding, 53.47% rejected the reduction of assembly members, and 61.61% rejected the constituent assembly.

Political fallout for Daniel Noboa

Noboa, who was re-elected in April 2025, positioned himself as a law-and-order leader aligned closely with Washington. He promoted the referendum as a means to address rampant violence and crime, exacerbated by gang activity and weakening public institutions. Yet the electorate’s verdict reflected broader dissatisfaction, not only with the proposals, but also with the government’s approach to governance.

The administration’s removal of diesel subsidies in September, which triggered a month-long national strike and left three dead, deeply damaged public trust. This unrest, paired with concerns over sovereignty and democratic erosion, fueled a grassroots rejection of Noboa’s agenda.

Grassroots mobilization

Opposition to the referendum coalesced into a broad front that included environmentalists, labor unions, indigenous movements, and former President Rafael Correa’s supporters. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) led the “No” campaign through a nationwide “minga,” or communal mobilization, emphasizing collective defense of Ecuador’s sovereignty and constitutional rights.

Despite the government’s well-funded media campaign and endorsements from international allies, the opposition leveraged community assemblies and grassroots activism to reach voters. The referendum thus became a referendum not just on policy, but on the legitimacy of foreign influence and elite-driven reform.

Implications for US military strategy in Latin America

Washington had quietly backed Noboa’s plan to reintroduce US forces to Ecuador. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured the proposed base sites days before the vote, a move seen by many as overreach. The US previously operated out of Manta until 2009, when Ecuador’s ban on foreign bases forced its departure.

The rejection halts plans for permanent US installations in Ecuador and complicates regional military operations, particularly counternarcotics missions in the eastern Pacific. Without Ecuadorian bases, the US must rely on more distant and costly alternatives in El Salvador, Puerto Rico, or at sea.

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Ecuadorian voters say ‘No’ to return of US bases

RT | November 17, 2025

Voters in Ecuador have rejected a proposal to bring US military bases back into the country, according to the results of Sunday’s national referendum.

With around 95% of ballots counted, the official tally shows that 60.58% voted ‘No’ on President Daniel Noboa’s initiative to allow foreign troops to operate in Ecuador as part of efforts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking.

Noboa said he accepts the results. “We consulted with the Ecuadorians, and they have spoken. We fulfilled our promise to ask them directly. We respect the will of the Ecuadorian people,” he wrote on X.

US troops were stationed at an air base in the port city of Manta until 2009, when then-President Rafael Correa refused to renew the lease and banned foreign bases in Ecuador.

Noboa offered US President Donald Trump the opportunity to station troops in the country, at different times pitching Manta, the city of Salinas, and one of the islands of the Galapagos Archipelago as possible locations.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Who Is Thomas Crooks?

Tucker Carlson | November 14, 2025

The FBI told us Thomas Crooks tried to kill Donald Trump last summer but somehow had no online footprint. The FBI lied, and we can prove it because we have his posts. The question is why?

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Video | , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries driving price hikes in the US – Bloomberg

RT | November 16, 2025

Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy facilities are contributing to rising oil prices in the US, Europe, and Asia, Bloomberg reported on Saturday.

The attacks, combined with outages at key plants in Asia and Africa, have removed millions of barrels of diesel and gasoline from the global market, the outlet said. US sanctions on Russian energy giants Lukoil and Rosneft in October, along with restrictions imposed by the EU, have also helped drive prices higher.

Refining margins in the US, Europe, and Asia are now at their highest levels for this time of year since at least 2018, Bloomberg said, citing its own calculations. Additional pressure has come from shutdowns and outages at refineries in Kuwait and Nigeria.

Ukraine has targeted oil depots, processing plants, and metering stations with drones and missiles, calling them legitimate facilities that support Russia’s “war machine.” Russia, in turn, has struck elements of Ukraine’s power grid, saying the infrastructure supports the Ukrainian military.

In August, Hungary imposed sanctions on Ukraine’s top drone commander, Robert Brovdi, after repeated strikes disrupted the flow of crude through the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Hamas, other factions urge Algeria to reject US Gaza forces resolution

Al Mayadeen | November 16, 2025

The Palestinian people are closely following developments over a US draft resolution on international forces in Gaza, with Palestinian leaders expressing hope that Algeria will take a firm stance against the measure, which they say undermines Palestinian sacrifices and aspirations.

A senior Hamas official told Al Mayadeen on Sunday that the Palestinian people are hoping for an “honorable stance” from Algeria in rejecting the US draft resolution regarding international forces.

The official added that Hamas has confidence that Algeria will oppose the resolution, which they said inflicts injustice on the sacrifices and aspirations of the Palestinian people, describing the anticipated Algerian position as a source of hope for Palestinians in preventing any new international trusteeship over Gaza.

Palestinian factions call on Algeria to stand for Gaza at UNSC

Meanwhile, Palestinian Resistance factions in Gaza issued a statement expressing deep concern over the ongoing efforts at the United Nations to pass a US draft resolution proposing the deployment of international forces in the Strip. The factions described the resolution as a disguised attempt to impose a new form of occupation on Gaza and to legitimize foreign trusteeship of the Palestinian cause.

In the statement, the factions called on the Algerian government and people to maintain their long-standing principled support for Palestine and to reject any initiatives that would undermine Gaza’s identity or the right of Palestinians to self-determination. They described Algeria’s historical position on Palestine as a source of genuine hope for the Palestinian people and a reflection of the Arab world’s independent popular stance.

The factions stressed that any foreign intervention in Gaza, regardless of its title or justification, constitutes a “violation of Palestinian sovereignty and perpetuates the suffering of the local population.” They emphasized that lasting security and stability can only be achieved by ending the occupation, lifting the blockade, and respecting the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Expressing confidence in Algeria’s supportive position, the statement urged all Arab and Muslim countries, as well as free peoples around the world, to stand against the US resolution and reject any form of foreign tutelage or intervention, defending Gaza’s right to freedom, dignity, and independence.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump considers skipping disarmament phase of Gaza plan amid deadlock: Report

The Cradle | November 16, 2025

The US is looking to “forgo” the stage of the Gaza ceasefire initiative, which involves deploying an international security force to the strip to disarm Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions, Israeli media reported over the weekend.

The October ceasefire agreement remains in its first stage as talks continue to stall over the issue of Hamas’s disarmament and post-war administration of Gaza.

This potential change in US direction is causing ongoing negotiations to “deadlock,” an Israeli security source told Hebrew news outlet Channel 13.

The source said Washington is struggling to get commitments from countries to directly participate in disarming the factions.

As a result, it has started to look for “interim solutions, which are currently unacceptable to Israel.”

“This interim solution is the worst there is,” the source added, referring to the plan to forgo disarmament and skip ahead to reconstruction.

“Hamas has been strengthening in recent weeks since the end of the war. There can be no rehabilitation before demilitarization. It is contrary to Trump’s plan. Gaza must be demilitarized,” the Israeli source went on to say.

Channel 13 notes that there has been a collapse in ceasefire talks over Washington’s inability to form the international force – referred to in Donald Trump’s ‘peace plan’ as the International Stabilization Force (ISF).

The US recently submitted a draft for the establishment of the force, and is seeking UN backing to implement the plan along with the rest of Trump’s 20-point ceasefire initiative.

The draft includes a broad mandate for Washington to govern Gaza for at least two years. It also mentions that the ISF will be established in coordination with the Gaza ‘Board of Peace,’ which Trump will head.

Russia has proposed its own draft, which entirely removes the ‘Board of Peace’ clause and calls on the UN to identify “options” for the ISF.

The US draft is expected to be put to a vote at the UN on Monday. On 14 November, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkiye issued a joint statement backing the US draft. That day, Indonesia said it had readied 20,000 troops for the plan.

Arab and Islamic states have “leaned toward supporting the US draft because Washington is the only party capable of enforcing its resolution on the ground and pressuring Israel to implement it,” a source told Asharq al-Awsat, adding that there is “firm American intent to deploy forces soon, even if that requires sending a multinational force should Moscow use its veto.”

However, multiple reports in western and Hebrew media over the past several days have revealed an Arab unwillingness to directly force Hamas’s disarmament through a confrontation.

“Most countries that have expressed interest in participating in the ISF have said they would not be willing to enforce the disarmament … and would only act as a peacekeeping force,” Times of Israel wrote.

Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) reported on Saturday that Tel Aviv is expecting the resolution to pass, and is preparing for the entry of thousands of foreign soldiers into Gaza.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »