Russia ‘has no faith’ in German Nord Stream sabotage probe
RT | August 27, 2025
Russia has accused German authorities of attempting to cover up the true circumstances of the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions by blaming private “scapegoats” for what Moscow insists was likely a state-sponsored operation.
Earlier this month, a Ukrainian veteran was arrested in Italy at Germany’s request on suspicion of belonging to a small group behind the sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Russian Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said on Monday that Moscow mistrusts Berlin’s motives.
Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting, Polyansky criticized what he described as a lack of transparency from German officials and frequent leaks to the press. He argued that Germany and its allies are steering public opinion toward a narrative in which “amateur” operatives driven by personal motives carried out the blasts, thereby clearing governments of any involvement.
“We have no faith in Berlin’s findings,” Polyansky said. “We urge the German authorities not to try to hide the truth behind a veil of secrecy, but to demonstrate a willingness to engage in genuine cooperation and reveal all the information at their disposal.”
He reminded the council that media reports about the yacht Andromeda and rogue Ukrainian operatives first surfaced in 2023, after US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh alleged that President Joe Biden’s administration orchestrated the attack. Hersh’s claims, Polyansky said, aligned with expert assessments that the operation required nation-state resources. The US has rejected the journalist’s accusations.
Polyansky described the theory promoted in Western media as resembling a spy novel, adding that it conveniently distracts from the possibility that the sabotage – which “directly harmed German economic and political interests” – could have been carried out by a NATO ally.
The Nord Stream pipelines were built to transport Russian natural gas directly to Germany. After the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, Berlin ended imports of Russian energy, ending decades of reliance on the fuel for economic growth.
China decouples from US energy as key exports crash to zero
Inside China Business | August 25, 2025
Resources and links:
The Illusion of Israeli Self Sufficiency in Intelligence
By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | August 26, 2025
Casual onlookers salivate at the supposed brilliance of Israel’s intelligence services. From Mossad’s assassinations abroad to daring sabotage campaigns in hostile territory, the Jewish state has been elevated in popular imagination as a scrappy David with unmatched cunning, capable of pulling off operations that leave even world powers like the United States in awe. Books, films, and mainstream pundits reinforce this myth, presenting Israel’s intelligence machine as self-sufficient and independent.
But when one peels back the layers, the narrative quickly unravels. Israel’s most celebrated operations—from targeted killings in Europe to sabotage inside Iran—were rarely the product of Israeli ingenuity alone. They relied on cooperation with the CIA, NSA cyberwarfare expertise, European intelligence networks, and even covert collaboration with Arab regimes that publicly denounce Israel while privately working with it. Much like its dependence on U.S. military aid and diplomatic cover, Israel’s intelligence empire survives not through independence but through reliance on Western logistics, intelligence sharing, and political approval. What is sold as the story of a bootstrapping nation is a case study in multinational complicity.
According to investigative reporting by Israeli journalists Melman and Ronen Bergman, Israel’s intelligence community relied heavily on intelligence partnerships with Western and allied nations to conduct clandestine activities in foreign territories.
The foundation of this intelligence cooperation traces back to the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. According to Dr. Aviva Guttmann’s research, which Melman has covered extensively, the Berne Club—a secret European intelligence alliance founded in 1969—provided crucial support for Israel’s subsequent assassination campaign against Palestinian operatives. This multinational intelligence network initially included Switzerland, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and later expanded to include the United States, Canada, Australia, and other nations. Through an encrypted communication system called “Kilowatt,” thousands of cables were exchanged among eighteen Western intelligence services after the system was established in 1971. The network functioned as a secret clearinghouse for raw intelligence. Shared reports contained the locations of safe houses, vehicle registrations, the movements of high-value targets, updates on Palestinian guerrilla tactics, and analytical assessments, all of which provided Israel with crucial operational support for its clandestine operations.
Direct American involvement in Israeli operations became particularly evident during the George W. Bush administration. The February 2008 assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus was reportedly approved by President Bush himself after being briefed by then-CIA Director Michael Hayden. This was not merely intelligence sharing but active operational participation. “The Mossad agent would ID Mughniyeh, and the CIA man would press the remote control,” a Newsweek report noted. The CIA designed and built the bomb that killed Mughniyeh, tested it at a secret facility in North Carolina, and smuggled it into Syria through Jordan, while Mossad provided intelligence and logistical support.
When it came to confronting Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel collaborated on the creation of the Stuxnet computer virus in a joint operation codenamed “Olympic Games.” The malware was designed to sabotage centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. According to Ronen Bergman, the virus was developed with input from Israeli cybersecurity experts alongside the U.S. National Security Agency. This operation represented a quadrilateral effort involving the CIA, NSA, Mossad, and Israel’s military intelligence agency, AMAN. It was conceived during the administrations of W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and ultimately executed in 2010 under President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The scope of American involvement extended to Israel’s broader targeted killing policies. Ronen Bergman revealed that during Ariel Sharon’s tenure, a secret deal was struck with then-U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that committed Israel to “significantly reduce the construction of new settlements in exchange for American backing of the war with the Palestinians and of Israel’s targeted killing policy” of high-value Palestinian figures.
American intelligence cooperation facilitated Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, with Melman documenting extensive Western knowledge of and potential involvement in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2007-2012. The Obama administration was aware of the assassination campaign carried out by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization, which was being financed, armed, and trained by Mossad. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) reportedly trained MEK members starting in 2005, and U.S. intelligence was providing crucial information for these operations. As one former senior intelligence official told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “the United States is now providing the intelligence” for assassinations carried out “primarily by MEK through liaison with the Israelis.”
Israeli dependency on foreign support went beyond Western allies to include collaborationist elements in the Arab world. Bergman revealed extensive details about Mossad’s regional cooperation during Meir Dagan’s tenure (2002-2010) as director of the Mossad, including secret partnerships with Arab intelligence services that publicly condemned Israel while privately cooperating with it. These arrangements involved joint operations with countries that “share more or less the same set of interests” despite public hostility, coordination in counter-terrorism operations across the Middle East, and partnerships that enabled many operations attributed solely to Mossad.
The pattern of foreign dependence continues in contemporary operations. An August 2025 ProPublica report by Yossi Melman and fellow journalist Dan Raviv showcased Israel’s enlistment of Iranian dissidents for executing missions inside Iran during “Operation Rising Lion.” They specifically outlined Mossad’s strategic shift from using Israeli personnel to cultivating a “foreign legion” of Iranian and regional operatives to carry out activities ranging from support functions to covert action.
This pattern of intelligence reporting by Melman and Bergman reveals that Israel’s reputation for independent intelligence capabilities obscures a reality of extensive foreign dependence, particularly on Western intelligence services, for conducting operations that extend Israeli influence and security interests globally.
Far from being a model of independence, Israel’s intelligence record underscores how deeply its operations are embedded in Western power structures. The myths of self-sufficiency and unmatched brilliance collapse under the weight of evidence: Mossad’s reach is extended only because Washington, European capitals, and even regional neighbors provide the pipelines of intelligence, technology, and manpower that make its operations possible.
The true scandal lies not in Israel’s dependency but in the willingness of other nations to abet its destabilizing campaigns by supplying the bombs, intelligence streams, and diplomatic cover that allow Tel Aviv to operate with impunity. To strip away the mythology is to confront the uncomfortable truth that Israel’s “miraculous” intelligence victories are collective endeavors, outsourced across continents, exposing not a triumph of independence but a parasitic reliance on collaborators who enable its shadow wars.
The Palestine Chronicle case: When truth becomes the crime
By Mohamed El Mokhtar | MEMO | August 26, 2025
The Palestine Chronicle is not a militant organisation. It is a modest, independent publication, sustained by small donations and animated by a singular mission: to bear witness. It tells the untold stories of Palestine, documenting dispossession, resistance, and the endurance of a people condemned to silence. In a media landscape dominated by powerful conglomerates repeating the language of governments, the Chronicle insists on a journalism of proximity — grounded in daily lives, in the rubble of Gaza, in voices otherwise erased. Its true offense, in the eyes of its detractors, is not invention but truth.
At the heart of this endeavor stands Ramzy Baroud. His career is the antithesis of clandestine. For decades he has written, taught, and spoken in public, producing books translated into multiple languages, contributing columns to international publications, addressing audiences in universities and public forums across continents. He is not a shadowy figure; he is a man whose work has been consistent, transparent, and intellectually rigorous. His life is not untouched by the tragedy he describes: many members of his family were killed under Israeli bombardments. Yet while mainstream media rushed to amplify unproven allegations against him, they remained deaf to his personal grief. His tragedy was ignored, his integrity overlooked, his voice distorted — because his engagement is unbearable to those who would prefer silence.
A crime of conscience, not of law
He is an engaged journalist in the noblest sense: independent, lucid, unflinching. His so-called crime is not collusion with violence but fidelity to memory. That is why he is demonised — not for what he has done in law, but for what he represents in conscience. America, unable to silence Palestinian voices through censorship alone, now instrumentalises its justice system to achieve by indictment what it failed to achieve by argument. Having harassed universities, intimidated students, and punished professors for their solidarity with Gaza, it turns the courtroom into a new battlefield. And Congress, captive to the whims of its Zionist masters, joins the manhunt, targeting a journalist for the sole offense of telling the truth of his people. As for the mainstream press, it chooses cowardice: ignoring his family’s suffering, ignoring the emptiness of the charges, while echoing the accusations of power as if they were evidence.
Law twisted into a weapon
The complaint filed against Ramzy Baroud and the organization (People Media Project) that runs the Palestine Chronicle rests on the Alien Tort Statute, grotesquely overstretched to criminalise editorial decisions rather than acts of war. It alleges that by publishing articles from Abdallah Aljamal — described by Israel as a Hamas operative killed during a hostage rescue — the Chronicle “aided and abetted” terrorism. But here lies the first fissure: this characterisation of Aljamal comes exclusively from Israeli military sources, themselves a belligerent party. It has never been independently verified. The claim that he was both a journalist and a Hamas operative remains an allegation, not an established fact. To treat it as judicial evidence is to replace proof with propaganda.
Even if—hypothetically—Aljamal had, at the demand of a militant group, harbored hostages, such a circumstance would not in itself render him culpable: what ordinary civilian in a war zone can refuse the command of militants under threat of force? And even if it occurred, how could Ramzy Baroud have known of it? Even taken at face value, the allegation collapses upon scrutiny. No evidence demonstrates that the Chronicle or its editor had actual knowledge of Aljamal’s supposed operational role, nor that modest freelance payments — if any at all — bore any causal nexus to hostage-taking. The federal judge, in February 2025, dismissed the original complaint precisely for lack of proof of knowledge or intent. The plaintiffs returned with an amended filing, repackaged in rhetoric and pathos, but still devoid of the material elements required under international law: actus reus (a substantial contribution to the crime) and mens rea (intent or knowledge).
To equate the publication of articles with material support for terrorism is not jurisprudence but a juridical contortion. It is the substitution of law by politics, the criminalisation of journalism under the mask of counterterrorism. What is sought is not justice but intimidation — to cast suspicion on every Palestinian voice, to brand their words as weapons, their witness as crime.
Thus the legal emptiness is evident:
- Jurisdiction overstretched: the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) was never intended to criminalise editorial contracts.
- Elements unmet: no proven knowledge, no intent, no substantial assistance.
- Factual foundation unstable: the Hamas label rests on unverified allegations from one warring party.
- Political aim transparent: to silence Palestinians and punish one of their most articulate representatives for his independence.
This case is not justice. It is intimidation. It is not law. It is propaganda dressed in the robes of a courtroom. The allegation against Ramzy Baroud rests not on proof, but on the word of a belligerent army. An army that bombs, besieges, and kills — and then dictates who is journalist, who is terrorist, who is fit to speak. To transform those claims into evidence is to surrender law itself to war.
Ramzy Baroud is not a conspirator. He is a journalist of record, a man of books, a teacher, a witness. His own family has been buried under rubble. And yet, America has not mourned them, has not spoken of them. Instead, it chooses to hunt him — to turn his grief into accusation, his fidelity into crime.
Some congressmen have joined this manhunt, eager to please their Zionist patrons. Universities have been disciplined, their students silenced. The press, that great sentinel of truth, has abandoned him, repeating only the charges while ignoring his suffering. This is not democracy. It is servitude.
The elements of law are absent. There is no actus reus, no mens rea, no causal link. There is only suspicion. There is only the will to silence.
And so the true purpose stands naked: to criminalise the Palestinian word, to punish a journalist for speaking the truth of Gaza, to make an example of him so that others will be afraid to write.
But intimidation is not justice. A trial without evidence is not law. And silencing the witness will not erase the truth.
Law or servitude
Here one hears Thurgood Marshall’s axiom: “The Constitution does not permit the discrimination of silence.” One hears Cochran’s defiance: “If the proof is not there, the case cannot stand.” One hears Vergès exposing the colonial reflex that brands resistance as terror. One hears Vedel’s warning: that when law is bent to politics, law ceases to exist.
Ramzy Baroud stands here not accused, but accusing. He accuses a system that bends to power, a Congress that bows to lobbyists, a press that betrays its duty, and a nation that dares call itself free while shackling its own justice.
Therefore, the American justicial system has a choice: to lend its authority to propaganda, or to defend the very principle that sustains law — that guilt must be proven, not declared. To condemn Ramzy Baroud would be to condemn journalism itself. To acquit him is to restore some dignity to justice. The choice is clear.
Ukraine conflict marks end of Western dominance – former French ambassador
RT | August 26, 2025
The Ukraine conflict has highlighted a gradual shift in the global balance of power and has signaled the end of Western supremacy, former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud has claimed.
“We are experiencing the end of an era,” Araud wrote in the French magazine Le Point on Sunday, adding that the collapse of the order inherited from the end of WWII means the West no longer dominates international affairs.
He argued that the Ukraine conflict has shown that Western leaders are unable to accept this change, describing it as revealing “to the point of caricature the incomprehension and rejection of the world to come by European leaders.”
Araud suggested that one of the main reasons behind this shift is that the US, under President Donald Trump, no longer wishes to serve as the world’s “policeman,” leader, and “protector.” Trump has scaled down Washington’s involvement in Ukraine, urged European NATO members to take greater responsibility for their own defense, and prioritized domestic issues.
While lamenting the decline of Western power, Araud admitted that global affairs have always been defined by “power relations” in which “the strong imposed their law on the weak.”
Moscow has also repeatedly insisted that Western hegemony has ended and that a multipolar world is emerging, with interests increasingly represented by BRICS and the Global South. Russian officials have argued that the Ukraine conflict confirms this transition.
In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a high-level security forum in Moscow that the “tectonic shift” in world politics reflects the redistribution of power toward Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America.
He also dismissed Western claims that multipolarity would lead to “chaos and anarchy,” stating instead that unipolar dominance, characterized by sanctions, interventions, and economic coercion, had triggered the major crises of recent decades.
Russia has consistently described the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war waged by the West and maintained that any settlement must address Moscow’s security concerns and the root causes of the crisis, including NATO’s continued eastward expansion.
The West seemingly preparing to remove Zelensky from power
By Ahmed Adel | August 26, 2025
The arrest of a Ukrainian citizen in Italy, suspected of sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, confirms that Kiev was an accomplice, but not the one who ordered the act. Nonetheless, the launch of the investigation serves a broader political goal – the removal of Volodymyr Zelensky from power. The plan could be to appoint a new leader, both for the West and for possible negotiations with Russia, given that Zelensky’s presidential mandate expired in May 2024 and he cannot be a signatory to a peace agreement with Moscow.
An investigation by American journalist Seymour Hersh found that American divers placed explosives under the Nord Stream gas pipeline during the NATO exercise Baltops in the summer of 2022, and that it was activated three months later by the Norwegians. According to Hersh, then-US President Joe Biden had a clear motive for sabotaging the Nord Stream pipeline — fear that Germany, facing serious economic difficulties due to the war in Ukraine, might lift sanctions on Russia and resume imports of Russian gas.
The journalist said this is what prompted Washington to organize the sabotage of the gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany. The West did not want to allow this, which ultimately plunged Germany into economic and political chaos.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also believes that the sabotage of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines was carried out by American intelligence services, specifically the CIA. According to him, in such cases, one should always look for who has a motive and who can carry it out. There may be many interested parties, but not everyone can dive to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carry out that explosion. It is the combination of these components – who had a motive and who is able to carry it out – that, according to Putin, reveals who is really behind the sabotage.
After a period of lull, the issue of sabotage on the Nord Stream gas pipelines has returned to the spotlight following the announcement by German prosecutors that Ukrainian citizen Sergey Kuznetsov was suspected of involvement in the underwater explosions that damaged the gas pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm in September 2022. Following the arrest of the retired captain of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who also served in the Security Service of Ukraine, Italian media reported that he is connected to another major incident – the explosions on an oil tanker in Savona in February, which was allegedly transporting oil of Russian origin.
Sahra Wagenknecht, leader of the German party “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance,” after the arrest of Kuznetsov, stated that the German parliament should convene a commission to investigate the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. She noted that this act of state terrorism must be thoroughly investigated and that Zelensky should also testify before the commission.
Wagenknecht believes it is absurd to think that the arrested Ukrainian citizen and his accomplices acted without the knowledge of the Ukrainian leadership and the Biden administration. She added that it is unacceptable that Germany is providing substantial aid to Ukraine without seeking an explanation from Zelensky, and that consideration should be given to possible compensation for damages.
The question of whether United States President Donald Trump will take advantage of the Nord Stream controversy and launch an investigation against Biden remains an exclusively internal matter for the US. Trump has the opportunity to conduct his own investigations and deal with his domestic adversaries, whom he claims stole his victory in the 2020 elections. However, this does not affect the situation in Ukraine for the time being, as the West continues to support Ukraine with weapons, intelligence, and other assistance.
The fate of the Nord Stream gas pipeline is one of the key and most complex issues in the energy and geopolitical spheres. With Trump’s pragmatic approach, there is a possibility of cooperation between Russia and the US. Russia does not refuse to continue gas supplies to the European Union. However, the bloc continues to feel the consequences of its own policy, such as suffering economically by still purchasing Russian energy at inflated prices from third parties like India and Azerbaijan.
Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which directly connect Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea, have not been operational since 2022 and remain damaged, but they are still strategic infrastructure that American investors have set their sights on. These pipelines could become the property of American investors, which would enable the US to control Russian gas supplies to Europe. Although Europe is currently refusing Russian gas, it may be forced to buy it in the future, albeit at a significant margin, to the benefit of the Americans.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
HHS REINSTATES VACCINE TASK FORCE
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 21, 2025
Aaron Siri reveals how ICAN has fought HHS since 2017, relentlessly exposing and litigating the agency’s decades-long neglect of its legal duty under the 1986 Act to ensure vaccine safety. After disbanding its safety task force in 1998—following just one report—and failing to submit even a single required biannual report to Congress, HHS is finally being forced back to the table. Now, with RFK Jr. at the helm of HHS, the task force is being revived—and ICAN is ready with decades of overdue recommendations.
Green Energy Wall Coming Into Focus In New York?
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 17, 2025
It was back in 2021 that I started to ask which country or U.S. state would be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” It has long been obvious to anyone who looks at the situation that the fantasy of a fully de-carbonized energy system, with everything run on electricity generated by intermittent wind and sun, could never happen.
But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to the madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage? Or perhaps a string of blackouts caused by insufficient backup of the wind and solar generation?
Here in New York, we are starting to see some push back from politicians on the fantasy green energy transition, but the source may be the last thing you would have predicted. The immediate issue is the cost of upgrading local delivery infrastructure to transmit sufficient electricity for the imagined future of electrified buildings and vehicles.
Supposedly, under a statute known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, we are faced with a 2030 deadline to get some 70% of our electricity from “renewables.” Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls. Without another Niagara Falls on the horizon, theoretically we should be building vast fields of wind turbines and solar panels to meet the statutory mandates; but that effort has stalled out, and the costs of wind and solar generation, and of backup to make the grid run all the time, have barely started to show up in consumer bills. Nor have various big new long-distance transmission projects yet come into consumer bills.
But meanwhile, the big utilities have come forward with large demands for rate increases. So why the need for big rate increases if not from new generators or long-distance transmission? The answer is that the rate increases mainly relate to the portion of the consumer bills referred to as the “delivery” charge, as opposed to the charge for generation. The utilities seek funds to add delivery infrastructure like substations, transformers, and cables to deliver vastly increased amounts of electricity for things like vehicle charging stations (for both cars and trucks) and for the electrification of building heat.
In upstate New York, a utility called National Grid has been petitioning the regulator for a large electricity rate increase, mostly to support these kinds of upgrades to the delivery infrastructure. The service territory of National Grid in upstate New York covers the region between about Syracuse and Albany, and from there North to the Canadian border. After prolonged negotiations, the regulator (Public Service Commission) and National Grid entered into a “settlement” a few days ago on August 14. Here is the PSC release describing the settlement. Basically, the PSC congratulates itself on beating back a much larger rate increase originally sought by National Grid. (The headline is “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request.”). But if you read on you find that they still agreed to a very large increase. The release makes clear that most of the increase relates to the delivery infrastructure:
National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year.
Basically, they spread NG’s requested increase out over three years; but it still comes to almost a 30% jump on the delivery side by the time it all kicks in.
Governor Hochul then issued a release expressing extreme displeasure:
While I appreciate that the New York Public Service Commission worked to significantly lower the outrageously high initial rate proposals, it’s still not enough. I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority.
Well, Governor Hochul, good luck trying to blame the utility, but you are the one with all the electric vehicle mandates and incentives and subsidies, thus calling on the utility to provide all this new infrastructure. In all likelihood few will ever buy the electric vehicles, and nobody will ever generate the extra electricity from wind and sun, and thus this infrastructure will mostly be wasted. But can the utility just refuse to make itself ready to meet your ridiculous mandate?
And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97). It is likely that the result of the Con Edison rate proceeding will be a settlement agreement comparable to what occurred in the National Grid case a few days ago.
I am an intervenor in this Con Edison rate case, and in recent days I have actually been personally participating — in a minor way — in the settlement negotiations. My co-intervenors and I are objecting to any rate increases based on adding infrastructure to support building and vehicle electrification unless and until the additional electricity generation capacity has been built to support these mandates. (There is no chance that this additional capacity, supposedly wind and solar generators, will actually be built.)
The New York Post has a lead editorial today summarizing how the green energy madness is coming around to bite New Yorkers in their pocketbooks. Excerpt:
New York’s state Public Service Commission just OK’d big National Grid rate increases that’ll hike many upstate utility bills by $600 a year — fueling outrage Democrats will soon feel. Downstate, Con Edison is seeking an 11.4% hike to electric bills and 13.3% gas hike — largely thanks to green-energy mandates that Gov. Kathy Hochul embraced along with the rest of the party. The “climate agenda” is delivering pain we’ve long warned of, in New York and New Jersey.
If we ever get to the point of building dozens of gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity, and enough backup and storage to make them work to support a grid, that would cause electricity rates to multiply by a factor of five or ten or more. We are a long way from that. But here we are just trying to add enough substations and transformers to support 30-50% vehicle electrification, and a comparable amount of building electrification, and it is causing politicians to start to scream. How much more of this will it take before we quit?
Pentagon begins sudden troop withdrawal from major Iraq bases: Report
The Cradle | August 25, 2025
US forces have begun their withdrawal from two major military bases in Iraq, accelerating a previously negotiated timeline for the drawdown of International Coalition troops, Iraqi Kurdish media reported on 24 August.
According to a high-level source in the Iraqi government speaking with Kurdistan24, the withdrawal began Sunday morning following an order issued by the US Embassy.
The source stated that the Ain al-Asad base in Anbar and the Victory base at Baghdad International Airport are expected to be completely evacuated within the next few days.
The source added that some 2,000 US troops have been stationed at Ain al-Asad, a key hub for US operations in the country.
An Iraqi security source speaking with Shafaq News had provided a longer timeline for the withdrawal from Ain al-Asad, stating last week that the last US soldier would leave the base by 15 September, after which the international coalition headquarters there would be permanently closed.
Washington has justified the presence of US troops in Iraq under the pretext of fighting ISIS as part of an international coalition.
However, the US military has covertly supported ISIS in the past, including during the organization’s lightning capture of Mosul – the country’s second largest city – in June 2014.
The source speaking with the Kurdish news outlet indicated that a portion of the soldiers who have withdrawn have been transferred to Erbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
The Kurdistan region is controlled in part by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Masoud Barzani.
The KDP assisted ISIS in taking over Mosul in 2014 and in carrying out the Genocide of Yezidis in nearby Sinjar two months later. Following the genocide, some ISIS leaders continued to live in safety in Erbil under KDP protection.
The abrupt withdrawal of US forces also accelerates the official timeline recently announced by Hussein Alawi, an advisor to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.
Alawi announced a timeline for a gradual withdrawal that would begin in September of this year and be completed by September 2026. He said the move would return relations between the US and Iraq to a “normal state,” giving the US military only an advisory role in Iraq.
US troops invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 in a war to topple the government of Saddam Hussein. After withdrawing in 2011, they returned in 2014 following the rise of ISIS.
Alawi stated that “the Iraqi government is committed to its governmental program by building up the armed forces, ending the mission of the International Coalition, and transitioning the security relationship with them to a stable, bilateral defense relationship.”
Earlier this month, the US Defense Department announced that US forces had departed three military bases in northeast Syria. US troops were also stationed in Syria under the pretext of fighting ISIS.
A quarterly report from the Defense Department’s Inspector General said US and coalition troops had withdrawn from Mission Support Site Green Village, H2, and Mission Support Site Euphrates, sometimes referred to as the Conoco gas field, in May.
Trump Hopes to Meet with North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un This Year
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2025
President Donald Trump met South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and discussed improving ties with North Korea during a White House summit on Tuesday. Pyongyang has ruled out talks with Seoul and pledges only to engage with Washington if Trump drops the demand that North Korea denuclearize.
“I have very good relationships with Kim Jong-un, North Korea,” he said. “In fact, someday I’ll see him. I look forward to seeing him. He was very good with me. We had two meetings, we had two summits. We got along great. I know him better than you do. I know him better than anybody, almost other than his sister,” said Trump.
Trump met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un three times during his first administration. Lee asked Trump to leverage his relationship with Kim to improve ties on the Korean Peninsula. Lee suggested building a “Trump Tower” and playing golf in North Korea.
Trump said he would like to meet with Kim this year.
At the end of Trump’s first administration, tensions on the Korean Peninsula were at a low point. Pyongyang and Washington were working to implement the steps agreed to during the 2018 Singapore summit. The US and South Korea canceled most war games, and North Korea froze missile tests.
However, during the 2019 summit in Hanoi, Trump allowed his then National Security Adviser John Bolton to demand that Kim agree to undergo “Libyan-style” denuclearization. Pyongyang often cites Libya, where dictator Muammar Gaddafi agreed to denuclearize and was then overthrown in a US-backed revolution, as a reason for maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
President Joe Biden took a more confrontational approach towards North Korea. The Biden administration resumed live-fire war games with South Korea and pushed Tokyo and Seoul into a trilateral military pact with Washington.
In response, Kim resumed missile tests and signed a defense pact with Russia. North Korea provided weapons and soldiers for Russia’s war with Ukraine. Additionally, Kim ruled out talks with South Korea and said North Korea no longer sought to reunify the Korean Peninsula.
Trump said that ties with Pyongyang would not have deteriorated had he been president, and Lee agreed.
Over the past month, Pyongyang has ruled out talks with Seoul. North Korea argues that South Korea is subservient to the US. Kim Yo-jong, Sister of Supreme Leader Kim and senior party official, said North Korea was still open to talks with the US if Trump would drop the demand for denuclearization.
EU shows ‘outdated worldview’ as von der Leyen uses China, Russia as excuse to defend trade deal with US
By Wang Qi | Global Times | August 25, 2025
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the EU’s trade deal with the US. By invoking Russia and China, she suggested that the failure to strike a deal would have been a gift to Europe’s rivals, according to media reports.
Chinese analysts have observed that von der Leyen’s remarks reveal a tendency among certain European politicians to politicize trade matters. Their emphasis on alliance with the US underscores Europe’s anxiety over American pressure, especially as Washington prioritizes its own interests and fails to treat Europe as an equal partner.
A trade war between the EU and the US would have been “celebrated” by Russia and China, von der Leyen wrote in a guest commentary for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on Sunday, per the Bloomberg report.
“Instead, we agreed on a strong, if not perfect deal,” she added, warning that retaliatory tariffs could fuel a costly trade conflict with “negative consequences for our workers, consumers, and our industry,” Bloomberg reported.
Similarly, von der Leyen wrote in an op-ed for Spain’s El Mundo on Saturday, “Imagine for a moment that the two largest democratic economies had not managed to reach an agreement and instead launched a trade war — only Moscow and Beijing would be celebrating,” the Politico reported.
Von der Leyen’s remarks came after the release of EU-US joint statement on Thursday, which confirmed that the EU will accept tariffs of 15 percent on 70 percent of its exports to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. In return, the bloc will expand market access for US agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market, according to media reports.
Although von der Leyen described the move as a choice for “stability and predictability over escalation and confrontation,” the controversial trade deal with the US has drawn criticism. Former director-general Pascal Lamy has warned the accord risks undermining Europe’s credibility as a defender of rules-based trade, the Politico reported
Cui Hongjian, director and professor of the Center for European Union and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday that von der Leyen’s comments primarily serve to justify her compromises, as the US-EU trade agreement has substantially undermined European interests.
“Ironically, when the US imposes tariffs on Europe, it prioritizes its own interests, clearly not treating Europe as an equal partner,” Cui said, “Yet, Europe is willing to endure losses in its dealings with the US to maintain ongoing cooperation, in order to counter what it perceives as a greater ‘threat’ from non-Western economies, an approach [that] blatantly politicizes trade matters.”
Cui said such actions reveal that some European politicians cling to an outdated worldview, unwilling to face the reality of the US gradually distancing itself from its traditional alliance with Europe. “Their emphasis on the alliance only underscores their anxiety over the losses and economic shocks inflicted by the US, not by China and Russia.”
The South China Morning Post said the Thursday deal did not explicitly mentioned China, however, “veiled references appeared throughout” in terms of AI chips, as EU pledged to purchase $40 billion of AI chips from the US, and that it would adopt US security standards to “avoid technology leakage to destinations of concern.”
According to Cui, China and the EU are scheduled to engage in high-level interactions in the latter half of the year, which requires fostering a constructive atmosphere, adding that China will judge Europe more by its actions than its words.
If Europe takes actions that harm China’s interests, China will undoubtedly respond with countermeasures. However, when EU politicians exploit criticism of China for political gain, it sows discord in China-EU relations and even risks creating conflict, which would in turn affect China’s relationships with individual member states. This is a situation China cannot accept as well, said the expert.
Are Democrats More Neocon Than Republicans Now?
By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2025
Last week as Donald Trump met separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine head Volodymyr Zelensky to potentially seek an end to the years long war between their countries, Democrats have been very upset.
That peace might happen. They are worried Ukraine might have to make concessions to Russia to reach an agreement, including land.
Never mind that it is Ukrainians who are dying. Never mind that most Ukrainians themselves want to end this war. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainian respondents want a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, while only 24% said they still want to fight “until victory.”
Democratic voters sitting in the United States, with no imminent bombs or bullets to worry about, insist that this war go on for as long as it takes, and are being loud about it. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agrees with them. This doesn’t seem to faze Democrats.
This opposition to Trump’s diplomacy seems to be the consensus of many Democrats, shown in spades all over media this week.
This is a position shared by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This is the position of Bill Kristol. This is the position of virtually every neoconservative hawk in either major party and has been since this conflict started, that Ukraine must “win” at all costs.
Even at the cost of more Ukrainian lives.
Let me be clear about the definition of “neoconservative” I’m using here. I’m not just talking about the narrow and few band of post war, ex-Trotskyites of the Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz variety who stood for a number of things, including the pursuit of a hyper aggressive American foreign policy. I’m talking about Senator Graham, Kristol, the late John McCain, talk host Mark Levin and any other figure on the right who has been rabidly pro-war and hateful toward Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and any other prominent antiwar Republican leader of the last thirty years.
I’m talking about the Republicans who use “isolationist” as a pejorative slur for non-interventionism.
I tend to “neoconservative” as carefully here as those people use “isolationist.”
There have always been neocons in both major parties. But this week it has seemed Democrats have outweighed Republicans on this front. There is no poll on this. There is no hard data. I’m just observing.
President Trump has said he wants the killing to end between Ukraine and Russia. Cheering him on in this effort is Congresswoman and MAGA booster Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and many other GOP members. Also, pundit Tucker Carlson and former Trump aide and talk host Steve Bannon, whose audiences are large and full of MAGA supporters who also endorse Trump’s pledge to end America’s “endless wars.”
There are still plenty of GOP neocon members of Congress and voters within the base, but Trump’s Republican party is a very different one than George W. Bush’s when it comes to hawkish foreign policy.
On the other side, there are progressives like Ro Khanna (D-CA) who have expressed in the past wanting to see Trump help achieve some kind of diplomatic peace.
This week, Khanna has been silent on this, and who could blame him? Because Democrats by and large seem upset that Trump could achieve some sort of deal. They even got mad when Trump shook Putin’s hand during the summit.
Embracing war by avoiding diplomacy is key to neoconservatism. It’s why hawks got so mad in the mid-1980s when President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev. It’s why neocons were absolutely irate when Trump met with not only Putin but North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and even Hungary’s Viktor Orban.
2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney, got her and her father Dick Cheney’s endorsement and slammed Trump for “bowing down” to dictators, sending a signal to her neocon friends that she would not be engaging in that kind of diplomacy.
Now the people who voted for Harris are reflecting the same sentiment. Trump’s diplomatic efforts have them fuming.
During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney said that Russia was the United States “No. 1 political foe.” President Barack Obama mocked Romney at the time, saying in a debate, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for twenty years.”
Romney was clearly representing the neoconservative Bush-Cheney foreign policy legacy that still resonated with so many Republicans at the time, and Obama, the anti-Bush message that had delivered him the White House in 2008. Obama did not remotely live up to that promise, but this was roughly the dynamic in the 2012 election.
Politics change and history happens, but it is feasible today that there are more Republicans, in Congress and in the base, who think constant U.S. hyperventilating about Russia, even now, is overblown and Americans should be more concerned about their own country first.
It’s also feasible that there are more Democrats, in Congress and in the base, for whom Trump and Putin are considered one in the same and those folks are more laser focused on hating both men than any other concern, including the health and security of their own country or any other (Ukraine).
When Barack Obama was a rockstar in 2008, Democrats prided themselves on being the complete opposite of Bush-Cheney neoconservative Republicans. In 2025, it appears that more Democrats than not now staunchly side with Bush-Cheney neoconservatives regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
What changed? That might be a longer discussion. But it wasn’t neoconservatives.
Featured Video
Israel and the Palestinians — It’s about Mind Over Matter
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward
- Israeli forces raid Syria’s Dara’a, Quneitra countryside, set up checkpoints
- IRGC says to reverse engineer 15 undetonated US missiles uncovered in southern Iran
- Liberation From War
- Major fire erupts at UK base used for US bombers
- What Is Asthma?
- When a Train Ticket Costs Your Passport: The Eurail Breach and the Digital ID Problem
- Seyed M. Marandi: The Strike That Wiped Out Trump’s Plan (It’s Over)
- Court Forces German Chancellor Merz to Open Files on 300 “Insult the Chancellor” Cases
- ‘Territorial Theft With Better Branding’: Israel Keeps Advancing Its ‘Yellow Line’ in Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- In Gaza, 17,000 infections linked to rodents and external parasites – Daily Update
- Lobby group taking journalists on propaganda tours of Israel
- The Shattered Figure of Jesus Is Not an Exception. It’s a Pattern
- Israel’s idea of ceasefire includes killing 21 in one day – Daily Update
- Christians in Israel and Palestine, past and present
- Israel eager to restart Iran war, Gaza genocide – Daily Update
- Meet the Top “Content” Producers Linked to Canary Mission
- Lebanese Journalist Amal Khalil Bombed and Left to Die by Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 