Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran, US Respond With Attention to Russia’s Proposal to Help Iran Deplete Uranium

Sputnik – 11.07.2025

MOSCOW – Iran, the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have paid close attention to Russia’s proposal to remove excess enriched uranium from Iran, but the matter has not yet reached specifics, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Sputnik.

“We have conveyed this proposal to both the Iranian side and the American side, and the IAEA is also aware of it. Its purpose is to solve two problems at once – one is related to the fact that the Iranian side, as we understand it, is firmly insisting on the importance of preserving the right to carry out enrichment work on its territory. On the other hand, we see that there are opponents of Tehran who are expressing great concern about the accumulation on its territory of uranium enriched above the levels that are usually used in the manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors,” Ryabkov said.

If Russia could take this material out of Iran and carry out appropriate work with it in order to produce fuel from it or manage it in such a way that it becomes a commercial product subject to sale, then both of these tasks could be effectively solved, he said.

“Considering that it is still unclear how the dialogue will proceed, whether it will proceed at all, and if it does, in what format, we have not yet reached the specifics of such practical measures. But all interested parties approached this with attention and, perhaps, one can say, perceived this as a reflection of the seriousness of our efforts, the seriousness of our intentions in this regard,” Ryabkov said.

July 12, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

US lawmakers move to curb Trump’s control over Ukraine aid

RT | July 12, 2025

A bill authorizing more Ukraine aid and barring the Pentagon from unilaterally halting arms shipments has passed the Senate Armed Services Committee. The measures are part of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense bill that outlines the Pentagon’s priorities and funding for the next fiscal year.

The bill comes as tensions have risen between Congress and the White House over aid pauses earlier this year. In March, President Donald Trump temporarily halted all Ukraine assistance and intelligence sharing, while earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth paused weapons deliveries, citing the need to review dwindling Pentagon stockpiles.

Aid resumed earlier this week after Trump expressed frustration over delays in the peace process and said Ukraine needs weapons to “defend” itself. Media reports later suggested Trump had not been informed of the latest suspension and struggled to explain whether he had approved it.

The new NDAA draft was passed in a bipartisan vote this week. It “reaffirms” US support for Ukraine, extends aid through 2028, increases annual authorizations from $300 million to $500 million, and requires the Pentagon to continue intelligence support for Kiev, according to a summary released on Friday.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, however, said the bill also includes language blocking the Pentagon from halting aid or intelligence sharing without congressional approval. She noted that provisions listed in the bill “put guardrails” on the Trump administration “to make sure promised military assistance continues to flow to Ukraine.”

A separate version of the NDAA drafted by House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers extends aid through 2028 but keeps it capped at $300 million per year. It also prohibits the Trump administration from halting funds without written justification to Congress and requires Hegseth to report regularly on support to Ukraine. The House committee will vote on its version on Tuesday. The bill must pass committee votes before being submitted for a full congressional vote.

Ukraine has received nearly $115 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian US aid since its conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. The military component of this sum has come through congressional bills such as the NDAA and the Presidential Drawdown Authority, a fund capped by Congress that allows the president to send US weapons directly to Kiev.

Russia has long argued that Western arms prolong the fighting without changing the outcome.

Moscow and Kiev have so far held two rounds of peace talks in Türkiye, reviving a process that Kiev abandoned in 2022 to pursue military victory with Western assistance. Moscow says it is ready to continue negotiations and is awaiting Kiev’s response to schedule the next round.

July 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

‘Global War on Terror’ is Over. Terror Won.

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | July 10, 2025

On Sept. 16, 2001, five days after the attacks on New York and Washington, DC, President George W. Bush declared, “This crusade – this war on terrorism – is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I’m going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined.”

Four days after that, President Bush declared the “war on terror” to be primarily against al-Qaeda. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,” he said in an address to Congress and the nation, “but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

He described the enemy thus:

This group and its leader — a person named Osama bin Laden — are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.  There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.

Bush was correct in his assessment of the group.

One of those countries into which al-Qaeda jihadists implanted themselves was Syria, where from 2011 – with the support of the Obama Administration – they attempted to overthrow the secular leader, Bashar al-Assad, using terrorist tactics they had been well-trained in.

They soon changed their name – but not their stripes – and became the Al-Nusra Front, headed up by an experienced jihadist who fought against US troops in Iraq by the name of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. His group was known for chopping off heads. Perhaps even American heads.

Last December Jolani’s jihadists – with support from the US, Turkey, and Israel – finally brought down the Assad government and quicker than you can say “Washington PR makeover” he clipped his beard, switched out his tactical military watch for a $90,000 Patek Philippe World Time Chronograph, and declared himself president.

The “civilized world” cheered the re-emergence of democracy in Syria!

At their first meeting earlier this year in Saudi Arabia, President Trump praised jihadist Jolani as “a young, attractive fellow” and “a tough guy, a fighter, with a very strong background. He has a lot of potential, he’s a real leader.”

This was a US-designated global terrorist with a $10 million bounty placed on his head by the US authorities. His “wanted” poster STILL remains on the X account of the US Embassy in Syria!

This week, President Trump “removed sanctions on Jolani’s Syria at (Israeli Prime Minister) Netanyahu’s request,” and just yesterday Secretary of State removed Jolani’s old al-Qaeda affiliate (which had gone from al-Nusra to HTS over the years) from the US terrorist list.

As one observer on X quipped:

The history of the GWOT (Global War on Terror) began in 2001 with the US invading Afghanistan to dig out Al Qaeda. It ends twenty-four years later with the US recognizing an AQ affiliate as the new ruler of Syria.

According to Brown University’s Cost of War Project, the “Global War on Terror” cost the American people at least eight trillion dollars. It also took the lives of perhaps a million people.

And what did we get for all this blood and treasure? In Afghanistan, the Taliban were after 20 years of US military action replaced by the Taliban, and in Syria a fierce opponent of al-Qaeda was replaced by…al-Qaeda!

As Jake Sullivan, then right hand to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wrote to the Secretary in 2012, “al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria.” He wasn’t joking!

That was the shot…here’s the chaser:

In the same week the United States removed sanctions on al-Qaeda ruled Syria, it placed sanctions on…UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese!

Who is Albanese? She is the fearless defender of human life in a Gaza where it is slowly being extinguished by Israel with the backing (and weapons) of the US government.

In hitting UN human rights defender Albanese with sanctions, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote:

Today I am imposing sanctions on UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt @IntlCrimCourt action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.

Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated. We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense.

The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to lawfare and protect our sovereignty and that of our allies. (emphasis added)

What might those “whatever actions” be? Clearly it is a physical threat against Albanese for speaking out against a mass murder happening in real time, observable for all who wish to do so on our own computer screens.

So that is it. The “Global War on Terror” is over. Terrorists have been elevated by the US government to be heads of state and those who speak out against state terrorism are threatened with “whatever actions we deem necessary” to shut them up.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel lobbies Washington to restart war on Yemen: Report

Sources told Hebrew media that Tel Aviv is calling for the formation of a new coalition against Sanaa

The Cradle | July 11, 2025

Israel is pressuring the US to restart its campaign against the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) and Ansarallah movement in Yemen, according to reports in Israeli media.

According to Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN), Yemeni attacks on vessels headed to Israeli ports “can no longer remain solely an Israeli problem.”

Sources told the outlet that Tel Aviv has been calling for “more intense combined attacks against Houthi regime targets – not just [Israeli] air force fighter jet strikes, but also a renewal of American attacks and the formation of a coalition including additional countries,” an informed source told KAN.

Another anonymous security official said that “a broad coalition is needed to convey to the Houthi regime that it is in danger.”

The report comes after the YAF sunk two Greek-owned, Liberian-flagged vessels which were en route to Israeli ports.

Yemen had briefly refrained from attacking commercial vessels headed to Israel following a ceasefire that ended the US campaign against the country in May. However, it never rescinded the blockade it imposed after the start of the war in Gaza, and is now escalating its enforcement.

It has also continued to target Israel with ballistic missiles in support of the people and resistance in Gaza.

The YAF announced on 10 July that it targeted Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport with a ballistic missile. The attack came hours after Sanaa released footage of its second operation targeting a commercial ship within 24 hours. The Eternity C vessel was headed to the southern Israeli port of Eilat in violation of the Yemeni naval blockade.

The attack took place on Monday, with the ship finally sinking on Wednesday. Yemeni forces captured footage of the operation. Several crewmembers were reportedly killed, and others remain missing. The YAF said it evacuated some of the crew for medical treatment.

A day earlier, on Sunday, Yemen targeted and sank the Magic Seas vessel – also releasing footage of the operation.

Friday’s KAN report coincides with anticipation for a potential Israeli escalation against Yemen.

On 7 July, Israel carried out widespread attacks on Yemen. Tel Aviv said its latest attack on Yemen marked the start of a military operation against the country, dubbed Operation Black Flag. The YAF announced a large-scale missile and drone attack on several Israeli targets that day in response to heavy Israeli airstrikes.

Following the start of Yemen’s naval campaign in 2023, Washington attempted to muster up a coalition to stop Sanaa’s operations.

The US formed an international naval coalition under the name Prosperity Guardian, which gained little traction and failed to deter Sanaa from continuing its attacks.

Very few nations offered to contribute warships, and others only deployed a mere handful of staff officers.

An EU military mission in the Red Sea called Operation Aspides also suffered a similar failure.

“We didn’t necessarily expect this level of threat. There was an uninhibited violence that was quite surprising and very significant,” the commander of a French warship said in April 2024 after running out of munitions and being forced to turn tail and exit the Red Sea.

Last year, US Navy officials acknowledged that confrontations with Yemeni forces marked the most intense naval combat Washington had faced since the Second World War.

During US President Donald Trump’s latest campaign against Yemen, which killed an unprecedented number of civilians, Washington burned through around $1 billion in munitions and failed to significantly impact Yemeni military capabilities, sources have confirmed to western media.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s New Arms Plan? EU Pays, US Cashes in, NATO Watches

Sputnik – 11.07.2025

US President Donald Trump said NATO, to which Washington also belongs, will pay for American weapons that the alliance will subsequently supply to Ukraine.

Strategic analyst Paolo Raffone (CIPI Foundation, Brussels) explains how Washington’s role is evolving:

“European NATO members may play a role to support the military needs of Ukraine within a framework coordinated by the US that remains the single largest armament contributor.”

He describes a triangulation scheme:

  • The US provides military equipment to EU NATO states
  • Ukraine buys that equipment from those states
  • Purchases are covered by EU funds

“Technically, European NATO members are the sellers — but it ensures the equipment is effectively paid for by Ukraine using EU funds. NATO as an entity would not be directly involved… national governments will do it. At best, NATO will coordinate the scheme.”

Who pays and who supplies?

“UK, France, Germany and Poland are high on the list. However, the idea is that all European NATO members should participate.”

And what can they afford?

“Despite announced increases in spending, EU countries will need years to become effective armament producers… The munitions immediately available depend on US willingness to sell — and EU/Ukraine capacity to pay.”

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Corporate Carve-Up Collapses?

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2025 

On July 5thBloomberg reported that a BlackRock-administered multibillion-dollar fund for Kiev’s reconstruction, due to be unveiled at a dedicated Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome July 10th/11th, had been placed on hold at the start of 2025 “due to a lack of interest” among institutional, private, and state financiers. As the summit looms, lack of investor enthusiasm persists, and “the project’s future is now uncertain.” It’s just the latest confirmation that the West’s long-running mission to carve up Ukraine verges on total disintegration.

BlackRock’s Ukraine Development Fund has been in the works since May 2023. It was originally envisaged as one of the most ambitious public-private finance collaborations in history, which would rival Washington’s Marshall Plan that rebuilt – and heavily indebted – Western Europe in World War II’s wake. With vast returns promised, initially investors were reportedly “ready to plow funds” into the endeavour, due to widespread optimism Kiev’s much-hyped “counteroffensive” later that year “might end the war quickly.”

In the event, the counteroffensive was an unmitigated disaster. Ukraine suffered up to 100,000 casualties, with much of its arsenal of Western-supplied armour, vehicles, and weapons obliterated, in return for recapturing just 0.25% of the territory occupied by Russia in the proxy war’s initial phases. As BlackRock vice chair Philipp Hildebrand explained, the results killed off investor exuberance, as they required “the cessation of hostilities, or at the very least a perspective for peace.” Concerns about Ukraine’s ever-reducing skilled workforce were also widespread.

Fast forward to today there is no indication of any peace deal on the horizon, Russia is rapidly advancing across multiple fronts, and the Ukrainian government estimates the country has lost around 40% of its working-age population due to the proxy war. No wonder there is zero foreign interest in investing in Kiev’s reconstruction. Quite what will remain of Ukraine when the conflict is over, and whether any financial returns can be gleaned from its ruins, are open, grave questions.

The collapse of BlackRock’s Ukraine Development Fund is not only a microcosm of the impending, inevitable defeat of Kiev and its overseas puppet masters in Donbass. It also reflects the death of the dream of breaking apart Ukraine’s industries and resources to untrammelled rape and pillage, long-held by Western corporations, oligarchs, and governments. Planning for this eventuality dates back to the country’s 1991 independence, producing concrete results following the 2014 Western-orchestrated Maidan coup, and becoming turbocharged once all-out proxy war erupted in February 2022.

‘Investment Climate’

From the start of 2013, Western corporations began moving en masse to buy up Ukraine wholesale. It was widely expected across Europe and North America Kiev would enter into an “association agreement” with the EU, facilitating privatisation, and tearing up of longstanding laws restricting foreign purchase and ownership of the country’s untold agricultural riches. The former “breadbasket of the Soviet Union” was equivalent to one-third of the EU’s total arable land, and potential profits could be voluminous.

That January, Anglo-Dutch MI6-linked energy giant Shell signed a 50-year deal with the Ukrainian government to explore and drill for natural gas via fracking in areas of Donetsk and Kharkov “believed to hold substantial natural gas.” Then, in May, notorious, now-defunct chemical giant Monsanto announced plans to invest $140 million in constructing a corn seed plant in the country’s agricultural heartlands. The company was a founding member of the US-Ukraine Business Council, established in October 1995 to “improve” Kiev’s “investment climate.”

USUBC’s treasurer was and remains David Kramer, who then-served as president of Freedom House, a National Endowment for Democracy division. NED was avowedly founded by the CIA to do publicly what the Agency historically did publicly. The Endowment and Freedom House were responsible for Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, which brought pro-Western puppet Viktor Yushchenko to power. He immediately implemented deeply unpopular neoliberal economic reforms, including slashing regulations and social spending. Yushchenko was voted out in 2010, securing just 5% of the vote.

Following Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU association agreement in favour of a more advantageous deal offered by Russia in November 2013, mass protests – later dubbed “Maidan” – in Kiev were ignited by NED-affiliated actors, and fascist agitators. They raged until late February 2014, when Yanukovych fled the country. In the meantime, Ukraine was plunged into total chaos – yet, firms associated with USUBC weren’t deterred. Many, including major companies with representatives on the organisation’s executive committee, continued making sizeable investments in Ukraine.

Their undimmed enthusiasm may be explained by David Kramer being an alumni of Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank widely credited with masterminding the Bush administration’s “War on Terror”. The organisation’s cofounder Robert Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, at this time the State Department’s point person on Ukraine. She visited Kiev repeatedly during the Maidan “revolution”, and hand-picked Yanukovych’s replacement interim government. Nuland was thus well-placed to know USUBC member investments in Ukraine would be safe long-term.

‘Trade Opportunities’

Nuland’s fascist interim government was replaced in June 2014 by an administration led by far-right Petro Poroshenko, who stood on an explicit platform of privatising state industries. The President passed legislation enabling this in March 2016. Two years later, his government adopted sweeping laws to further facilitate the auctioning off of Kiev’s public assets and industry to foreign actors. However, a moratorium on private sale of arable land, imposed in 2001, remained in place. No matter – in August 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled this was illegal.

There was still one problem, though. Opinion polls consistently showed Ukrainian citizens overwhelmingly rejected privatisation, and the sale of their country’s agricultural land to overseas buyers. As luck would have it, the proxy war’s eruption, and imposition of martial law, allowed for industrial scale trampling by Volodomyr Zelensky’s government over public opinion, and political opposition. Throughout 2022, a series of laws intended to “make privatization as easy as possible for foreign investors” were passed.

In the process, close to 1,000 nationalised enterprises were offered up for overseas sale, and auctions for purchase of these entities “under simplified terms” convened. The next year, these efforts intensified, with further legislation enacted enabling “large-scale privatisation of state assets and state companies.” This was reportedly motivated by “the attractiveness” of Ukraine’s “large state assets to institutional investors.” They included an Odessa-based ammonia factory, major mining and chemical firms, one of the country’s leading power generators, and a producer of high-quality titanium products.

Encouraged by the West’s reception to these moves, in July 2024, Kiev announced a dedicated “Large-Scale Privatisation” plan, with more prized assets under the hammer. Little wonder that  two months later, a British Foreign Office briefing document acknowledged it viewed “the invasion not only as a crisis, but also as an opportunity.” London’s primary economic aid project in Ukraine is explicitly concerned with ensuring the country “adopts and implements economic reforms that create a more inclusive economy, enhancing trade opportunities with the UK.”

The previous January, the World Economic Forum’s annual congress was convened in Davos, Switzerland. The proxy war, and Kiev’s economic future loomed large on the event’s agenda. Its centrepiece was a breakout breakfast attended by political leaders and business bigwigs, where Zelensky appeared via videolink. The President thanked “giants of the international financial and investment world,” including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan, for buying up his country’s assets during wartime. He boldly promised, “everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine.”

Subsequently, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink pledged to coordinate billions of dollars in reconstruction financing for Kiev, forecasting the country would become a “beacon of capitalism” resultantly. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs chief David Solomon spoke with intense optimism about Kiev’s post-war future, and the gains his firm and other major Western financial institutions could reap. “There is no question that as you rebuild, there will be good economic incentives for real return and real investment,” he crowed.

Zelensky spoke at multiple events held in Davos over the five-day-long conference’s course, where pro-Kiev sentiment was reportedly “overwhelming”. The President spoke of recapturing Crimea, and demanded attendees “give us your weapons.” His audiences were invariably highly receptive. On one panel, Boris Johnson, who personally sabotaged fruitful peace talks between Kiev and Moscow in April 2022, urged that Zelensky be given “the tools he needs to finish the job.” Johnson boomed, “Give them the tanks! There’s absolutely nothing to be lost!”

In years to come, the January 2023 Davos summit may be viewed both as the high point of Ukraine’s proxy war effort, and roughly when everything began to spectacularly unravel. The desired weapons arrived in huge quantities, to no effect. Kiev’s three biggest military efforts since that year’s counteroffensive, the Krynky incursion, and Kursk “counterinvasion” – were all deeply costly cataclysms, leaving the country undermanned and ill-equipped to fend off Russian advances. Countries that supplied munitions borderline disarmed themselves in the process.

On June 10th, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Ukraine would receive no further military aid from Washington, save for remaining shipments agreed by the Biden administration. On July 1st, even this much-reduced commitment was jettisoned, due to Pentagon concerns over artillery, air defense missiles, and precision munition stockpile shortages. Kiev is now permanently out of American weapons, and it will take years for Europe to plug the gap, if at all.

In the intervening time, Ukraine has been subject to ever-increasingly devastating Russian drone and missile attacks, and Moscow’s forces appear to be going in for the kill across the frontline. Public and political support for keeping the proxy war grinding on is waning across the West. BlackRock’s once-vaunted Ukraine Development Fund failing to drum up a single dollar for the country’s reconstruction strongly suggests international investors foresee Kiev’s post-war corpse offering them nothing to pick at.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Pro-Palestinian Activists Targeted By Trump Administration Match Canary Mission Blacklist

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 10, 2025

The Donald Trump administration is finding students on the Canary Mission’s website to target with deportation. The Canary Mission is an anonymous website that uses McCarthyite tactics against people expressing pro-Palestine views.

During a trial challenging Trump’s immigration policy on Wednesday, a federal judge asked, “Many of the names of the student protesters provided to you for the Office of Intelligence to produce reports of analysis on came from the website Canary Mission?”

Peter Hatch, a senior DHS investigations official, responded, “It’s true, many of the names, or even most of the names, came from that website.” The DHS official said the agency had other sources. The Canary Mission denied direct contact with the Trump administration.

Hatch added that there were no official ties between the Canary Mission and the US Government. “I don’t know who creates the website. We don’t have a relationship with the creators of the website,” he said.

Canary Mission targeted Rümeysa Öztürk before she was arrested by masked police officers on the streets in Somerville, Massachusetts, earlier this year. The Trump administration attempted to expel her from the country over an op-ed she co-authored for a Tufts University student newspaper.

Mahmoud Khalil was another student targeted with deportation that was also blacklisted by Canary Mission.

The Trump administration is not the first to use the Canary Mission in criminal proceedings. “The case of a Palestinian-American law student named Ahmad Aburas provides a particularly disturbing portrait of Canary Mission tactics in action,” Max Blumenthal wrote in 2018. “While Aburas was enrolled at Seton Hall Law School, Canary Mission contacted school administrators to suggest that statements he made on social media expressed support for terrorism. Seton Hall then called the FBI, Aburas was taken out of class and subjected to interrogation by federal agents over his political views.”

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US Sanctions On UN Official For Criticizing Israel Highlight Human Rights Double Standards

Sputnik – 10.07.2025

“The United States’ decision to sanction Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for denouncing human rights violations committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip clearly illustrates a political hierarchy of the principle of human rights on the part of Washington,” Tiberio Graziani, head of the Rome-based think tank Vision & Global Trends, tells Sputnik.

“Within the framework of the Western narrative regarding the ‘survival of the State of Israel,’ any criticism of its actions is perceived as an existential threat,” he says, commenting on another move by Washington targeting critics of Israel’s wars.

The rights of Palestinians are thus subordinated to the “special relationship” that binds the US to Israel — a strategic, military, and ideological alliance well documented by scholars such as John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Israeli historian Ilan Pappé.

The principle of human rights, meant to be universal, becomes selective and is used to target adversaries but ignored when it comes to allies, even when they commit grave crimes. This undermines the moral credibility of US foreign policy, reinforcing the Global South’s view that “Western values” are merely rhetorical tools.

Graziani adds that Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement that Albanese’s campaign against the US and Israel “will no longer be tolerated” seems aimed at undermining the UN’s independent mechanisms, particularly when their findings contradict US interests. His suggestion that reporting human rights violations could obstruct peace talks wrongly views justice as a barrier to peace.

The UN is in a delicate position, needing to protect its officials’ independence, especially in sensitive areas like Palestine. Failing to defend Albanese could set a dangerous precedent, signaling that UN representatives can be intimidated for doing their job impartially.

The UN may issue a balanced response, but countries in the Global South could push for stronger solidarity, seeing the Palestinian issue as symbolic of Western double standards.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Punished for the truth: US sanctions UN official for exposing Israeli atrocities, Washington’s complicity

Press TV – July 9, 2025

The United States has decided to impose sanctions on a noted and outspoken UN rights official over her outright criticism and exposure of the Israeli regime’s acts of deadly aggression and Washington’s unstinting support for the atrocities.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had decided to impose punitive measures against Francesa Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories.

Rubio accused Albanese of having tried to prompt the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants against Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the regime’s former minister for military affairs Yoav Gallant.

The tribunal issued the warrants last November over the duo’s war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip, where the regime has been waging a strongly-US-supported war of genocide since October 2023.

Prior to the court’s issuance of the warrants, Albanese had authored a landmark report to the UN Human Rights Council, stating that the regime’s military operations in Gaza displayed “prima facie evidence of an intention to systematically destroy Palestinians as a group.” The atrocities, she had added, effectively indicated genocide under the UN’s Genocide Convention.

The run-up to authorization of the warrants also saw her propose that the UN consider suspending the regime’s membership for its deadly violations.

She has consistently used the term genocide in multiple reports, including by condemning the regime for carrying out one of “the cruelest genocides in modern history,” and declaring Gaza a “laboratory” for Israeli weapons.

During a UN session last month, she urged a full arms embargo, plus sanctions and divestment against state and corporate supporters of the regime.

She specifically named scores of companies, including Lockheed Martin, Palantir, Caterpillar, Volvo, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Pimco, and Vanguard, denouncing them for facilitating an “economy of genocide”

Rubio further claimed that Albanese had been trying to instigate punitive action by the court against American officials and companies, calling the alleged efforts “illegitimate and shameful.”

“Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated,” he added.

The American official, meanwhile, vowed that Washington would keep standing by the regime in its “right to self-defense.”

The United States has poured billions of dollars in military aid into the regime’s coffers to be used towards reinforcement of the genocide that has so far claimed the lives of nearly 57,700 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

Washington has also been lending the genocide unwavering political support by shielding Tel Aviv against punitive UN action.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

This is a long war, and it’s not just about Ukraine

By Dmitry Trenin | RT | July 9, 2025

The trademark style of the current US president, Donald Trump, is verbal spectacle. His statements – brash, contradictory, sometimes theatrical – should be monitored, but not overestimated. They are not inherently favorable or hostile to Russia. And we must remember: Trump is not the ‘king’ of America. The ‘Trump revolution’ that many anticipated at the beginning of the year appears to have given way to Trump’s own evolution – a drift toward accommodation with the American establishment.

In that light, it’s time to assess the interim results of our ‘special diplomatic operation’. There have now been six presidential phone calls, several rounds of talks between foreign ministers and national security aides, and sustained contact at other levels.

The most obvious positive outcome is the restoration of dialogue between Russia and the United States – a process that had been severed under the Biden administration. Crucially, this revived dialogue extends beyond Ukraine. A range of potential areas for cooperation have been mapped out, from geopolitical stability to transportation and sport. These may not carry immediate strategic weight, but they lay the groundwork for future engagement. Under Trump, the dialogue is unlikely to break off again – though its tone and pace may shift.

One visible result of this diplomacy was the resumption of talks with the Ukrainian side in Istanbul. While these negotiations currently hold little political substance – and the recent prisoner exchanges occurred independently of them – they nonetheless reaffirm a core tenet of Russian diplomacy: we are ready for a political resolution to the conflict.

Still, these are technical and tactical achievements. The strategic reality remains unchanged.

It was never realistic to expect Trump to offer Russia a deal on Ukraine that met our security requirements. Nor for that matter would Russia accept one that compromised its long-term security interests. Likewise, any notion that Trump would ‘deliver’ Ukraine to the Kremlin, join Moscow in undermining the EU, or push for a new Yalta agreement with Russia and China was always fantasy.

So the page has turned. What comes next?

Trump will almost certainly sign the new US sanctions bill into law – but he’ll try to preserve discretion in how those measures are applied. The sanctions will add friction to global trade, but they will not derail Russian policy.

On the military front, Trump will deliver the remaining aid packages approved under Biden, and perhaps supplement them with modest contributions of his own. But going forward, it will be Western Europe – especially Germany – that supplies Ukraine, often by buying US-made systems and re-exporting them.

Meanwhile, the United States will continue to furnish Kiev with battlefield intelligence – particularly for deep strikes inside Russian territory.

None of this suggests the conflict will end in 2025. Nor will it end when hostilities in Ukraine eventually wind down.

That’s because the fight is not fundamentally about Ukraine.

What we are witnessing is an indirect war between the West and Russia – part of a much broader global confrontation. The West is fighting to preserve its dominance. And Russia, in defending itself, is asserting its sovereign right to exist on its own terms.

This war will be long. And the United States – with Trump or without him – will remain our adversary. The outcome will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of Russia itself.

Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

This article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

David Gibbs: The “Good War” Illusion – A History of Proxy Warfare

Glenn Diesen | July 9, 2025

David N. Gibbs is a professor of history at the University of Arizona. Prof. Gibbs outlines how the US fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then the Yugoslav Wars laid the foundation for the illusion of the good war.

US Provoked the 1979 Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: Parallel to the Ukraine War?: https://original.antiwar.com/david-gi…

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

Support the channel:

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng

Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

July 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Western strategists launch a new war doctrine against Eurasian powers

By Lucas Leiroz | VT Uncensored Foreign Policy | July 7, 2025

In recent months, a wave of publications by Western think tanks and military-affiliated media has revealed a significant shift in how the West views conflict with global powers like Russia and China.

Institutions such as the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Military Review have laid out what they consider the foundations of future warfare.

The core idea is no longer centered on direct military confrontation but on a prolonged, multidimensional hybrid war.

This “war of the future” unfolds across three main domains: information and psychological operations, cyberspace, and the economic sphere. Western strategists emphasize that superiority in artificial intelligence and unmanned systems will be decisive. For the US and NATO, achieving dominance in these areas is presented as the key to maintaining global leadership and containing strategic rivals.

This form of warfare is not expected to deliver fast results. On the contrary, it is framed as a “long game” of exhaustion, designed to weaken the opponent from within – by destabilizing their economy, reshaping their information space, and psychologically demoralizing both their population and political elites. RAND analysts stress that this type of conflict requires patience and the ability to sustain socio-economic costs over time. In fact, Western governments are already preparing their populations to accept such costs, justifying austerity measures and declining living standards through the narrative of a moral confrontation with so-called “authoritarian regimes.”

This strategic shift is largely a result of the failure of the West’s approach in Ukraine. The initial plan — to arm and support Ukraine as a proxy force capable of delivering a strategic defeat to Russia — has collapsed. The policy of militarizing Ukraine and turning it into a geopolitical tool against Moscow has led the U.S. and its allies into a dead end. Western analysts now admit that a military victory over Russia via Ukraine is unattainable. This realization has pushed Western planners to reassess the very concept of conflict, moving from direct confrontation to psychological and technological operations that target the internal cohesion of rival nations.

According to this new doctrine, the goal is to shape the perception of the future within Russian society — to paint a picture of inevitable decline, to spread doubt about Russia’s ability to compete militarily and economically with the West, and to generate disorientation among its elites. The West seeks to implant the idea that Russia is permanently behind — technologically inferior, globally isolated, and incapable of catching up. As noted by analysts at RUSI, these narratives are deliberately crafted for mass consumption, with the aim of weakening the social and psychological fabric of Russian society.

Central to this strategy is the belief that information superiority will define victory in the 21st century. Publications from CSIS and RAND explicitly state that “who controls the narrative, wins the war.” Future conflicts, they argue, will be fought not with tanks breaking through lines but through sensory and cognitive dominance — by disorienting the opponent, manipulating their perception of events, and accelerating decision-making cycles through artificial intelligence. This is not just about warfare; it is about psychological supremacy.

To implement this model, the full resource potential of the collective West must be mobilized. Western publications emphasize that artificial intelligence will not only support information operations but may replace traditional forms of military conflict entirely. AI-based propaganda, social engineering campaigns, and autonomous digital operations could become the primary weapons of influence. RAND’s vision also includes a technological race with China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where AI superiority is expected to define the balance of power.

However, despite its polished surface, this new hybrid war doctrine suffers from serious flaws. It neglects historical experience and cultural realities. Russia, in particular, has repeatedly shown the ability to endure and adapt during prolonged crises. Even in the 1990s, when pro-Western forces controlled much of the country’s media and political structure, Russian society maintained its cultural identity and commitment to traditional values. Western analysts seem to overlook this fundamental resilience. The failure of Western sanctions is a clear example. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy adapted to the conditions of modern conflict, restructured itself rapidly, and even entered a phase of military-industrial expansion.

In fact, despite the partial militarization of its economy, Russia has achieved a surprising advantage over the West in certain critical areas. It has surpassed NATO countries in the volume of military production, particularly in drones and high-precision systems. Developments such as the Lancet UAVs, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and advancements in satellite technologies have placed Russia ahead of Ukraine, even though the latter was initially supported by a powerful Western-Turkish alliance in the drone sector. Within less than two years, Russia reversed the battlefield dynamics, demonstrating that technological evolution can occur even under heavy sanctions.

This leads to a critical question: if the new Western strategy is so effective, why does it rely so heavily on media hype and theoretical justifications with little practical evidence? Much of the Western enthusiasm around hybrid war appears driven not by strategic necessity but by the interests of the military-industrial complex. Think tanks and defense contractors stand to benefit immensely from the shift to AI-based warfare, digital infrastructure, and cyber-command funding. The political class uses the narrative of a “new generation war” to justify budget increases for the defense sector while cutting public services and suppressing dissent.

The real function of this hybrid war doctrine is to protect the interests of a transnational elite. Under the guise of fighting global threats like Russia, China, Iran, and others, Western governments are redistributing wealth upward — channeling public money into the hands of military contractors and think tanks. Ordinary citizens are asked to sacrifice for “freedom” while their real wages stagnate and living conditions deteriorate. The supposed urgency of confronting the “autocratic other” becomes a smokescreen for domestic failures and economic mismanagement.

The media’s role in this operation is essential. Just as the Western press exaggerated the likelihood of Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, it now inflates the potential of hybrid war and AI supremacy. But the track record of these predictions is poor. The same experts who promised a quick Ukrainian victory are now calling for decades-long psychological warfare — a clear sign that the original plan has failed.

In conclusion, the West’s new hybrid warfare strategy reflects more of a tactical retreat than a breakthrough. It acknowledges that traditional methods have failed, particularly in Ukraine, and attempts to replace lost battlefield momentum with psychological, economic, and technological pressure. But the fundamental assumptions are flawed: that narratives can break national will, that AI can replace strategy, and that propaganda can deliver victory. These beliefs serve primarily to sustain the Western war economy and its elites, rather than offer any real prospect of success. In trying to win a war of perception, the West may once again lose the war of reality.

Lucas Leiroz is a 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.

July 9, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment