Munich Security Conference and the U.S. elephant in the room
Strategic Culture Foundation | February 13, 2026
Cosmetic cover-up of Western elite corruption and crimes is no longer possible.
The annual Munich Security Conference opens this weekend with the theme: “Under Destruction… The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics.”
The use of euphemism and blandishment is out in force this year as the Western elite gather in Bavaria.
However, absurdly, the conference, as usual, shies away from calling out the main source of global threat… the United States of America.
This is absurd but not surprising. Because the MSC has always been about rationalizing Western imperialist violence with the euphemistic spin of couching it as “security challenges”.
The Munich gathering is the world’s largest corporate conference on global security. It has been described variously as “Davos with guns” and “the Oscars for security policy experts”. The forum began meeting in 1963 and is dominated by Western perspectives, closely aligned with Western governments, the NATO military alliance, and think tanks like the Washington-based Atlantic Council, the London-based Chatham House, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Soros’ Open Society.
Sponsors of the MSC event include Western weapons manufacturers, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Rheinmetall, as well as Wall Street and European banks, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Commerzbank, and Big Tech like Microsoft and Palantir.
It is thus a conclave of Western global elites who come together in Bavaria every year to work out policies and arrangements to expedite the domination of the planet by Western capital. One might well ask: “Security for whom?”
This year, the global elites are facing acute problems arising from two sources: the fallout from the Epstein transnational pedophile network that has implicated the entire Western ruling class in systematic corruption and sordid, horrific crimes of sex trafficking children for the heinous gratification of the elite.
As with much of the Western establishment’s response to the Epstein scandal, the order of the conference will be an attempt to cover it up, if it is even mentioned.
The second source of acute challenge is the descent into rampant imperialist violence by the United States. This is not merely a symptom of Donald Trump as the 47th president in the White House. The descent into barbarism has been underway for decades. It has only accelerated under Trump (a partying friend of Epstein) as the U.S. moves desperately to shore up its declining global hegemony. That desperation is motivated by the emergence of a more equitable multipolar world and the inherent failing of American-led Western capitalism. The existential struggle for preserving U.S. domination has resulted in an explosion of international violence and lawlessness, which also threatens the privileges of supposed American allies.
A survey of barbarism under Trump over the past year includes:
- Bombing Iran and ongoing threats to annihilate the country
- Attacking Venezuela and kidnapping its president, Nicolás Maduro
- Seizing oil tankers from Russia and China in international waters
- Blockading Cuba and shutting down vital public utilities
- Continuous bombing of Somalia; at least 30 times in 2026 alone
- Bombing Nigeria and dispatching U.S. troops there
- Threatening aggression against Canada, Greenland, Colombia, Mexico, and Panama
- Threatening illegal trade sanctions on numerous countries
Needless to say, these are all criminal violations of the United Nations’ Charter and international law. And yet Trump thinks he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. The disconnect speaks of insanity. How perverse that this could all be a deliberate distraction from the association with child rapist and Mossad asset Epstein.
But the truth is, the U.S. has always ordained itself the right to violate international law and use violence for regime change and wars of conquest. This has been going on for decades. The Western allies and media have pretended that this criminal imperialism did not exist and indulged in an illusion of “rules-based order”, as the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney candidly admitted last month at the Davos forum.
What is new is that the lawlessness of U.S. imperialism has now become transparent and not camouflaged with pretexts about “defending democracy and the free world” and other deceptions. What is new, too, is that Western allies are also being threatened in the American rush to shore up its failing global power.
Laughably, the Munich forum this year is all about trying to delicately approach the subject without spelling it out.
In the Foreword to the conference’s introductory report this year, the chairman, Wolfgang Ischinger, writes:
The Munich Security Conference 2026 is taking place at a moment of profound uncertainty… a result of the changing role of the United States in the international system. For generations, U.S. allies were not just able to rely on American power but on a broadly shared understanding of the principles underpinning the international order. Today, this appears far less certain, raising difficult questions about the future shape of transatlantic and international cooperation.
Given the significance of this recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, we decided that this year’s Munich Security Report should address the elephant in the room head-on… the United States’ evolving view of the international order.
Addressing the elephant in the room is exactly what the Munich conference is not doing by using euphemisms to cover up what is out-and-out U.S. imperialist violence.
In the Executive Summary of the report, the MSC authors continue:
The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics.
Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current U.S. administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the U.S.-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
Again, this is the sort of odious cover-up that one would expect from a forum that is sponsored by the Western capitalist elite.
The only time that the Munich conference got a taste of the truth was 19 years ago when Russian leader Vladimir Putin delivered a still-memorable speech in 2007. Putin caused uproar among the Western elite and media when he condemned the unilateral use of “hyper military force” by the United States and its lack of respect for international law, which he said was leading to chaos and destruction.
Putin said in his 2007 address:
We see growing disregard for international law’s basic principles. One state – the United States – has overstepped its national boundaries in every sphere.
And, of course, this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.
Nearly two decades later, Putin’s condemnation has only grown ever more relevant to describe today’s world of unbridled U.S. barbarism. “The vampire’s ball is over,” he added in a 2024 interview with Dmitry Kiselev.
A major part of the problem has been the impunity and vassalage that Western states have afforded the empire. As with the Epstein scandal and its evil, the West has indulged to the point where the system is out of control and is a threat to all.
The Munich conference, like Davos, the G7, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other gatherings of the Western elite, is all about suppressing the truth so that there is no accountability for the crimes and sins of Western capitalism and its imperialist violence.
But a day of reckoning is coming as the obscenities of Western power become increasingly exposed.
Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 10, 2026
In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill Gates and key figures from the Gates Foundation regularly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, discussing ways to finance and develop a global pandemic preparedness and vaccination network.
The communications between Gates and Epstein were included in the “Epstein Files” released Jan. 30 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Last year’s passage of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act prompted the release.
Sayer Ji told The Defender the files show that Epstein “functioned as a switchboard” connecting “hedge funds, central banks, billionaires, academic institutions and global health initiatives.”
Ji published his analysis of health- and medical-related information in the files in a series of Substack articles and posts on X.
Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said the files revealed the workings of a network of “Controligarchs on steroids, but with shocking new receipts.”
Bruner said the files showed that Epstein helped develop “the architecture for pandemic profiteering” years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
The documents largely date from the 2010s — after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting underage sex and his inclusion on a registry of sex offenders.
Ji noted that months before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the same actors who appear in the Epstein files participated in Event 201 — a simulation of a global pandemic caused by a coronavirus.
The pandemic preparedness infrastructure built in the years before the pandemic helped lead to this simulation, Ji wrote.
According to The Hill, members of the U.S. Congress began reviewing unredacted versions of the documents on Monday.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), told The Defender the documents’ release is about justice, not politics.
“Rep. Ro Khanna and I have tried to keep the Epstein files from being political. The Democrats want to make it about Trump, and the Republicans want to make it about the Clintons. We want to make it about the survivors and getting them justice and transparency,” Massie said.
Gates, Epstein and the ‘architecture behind pandemics as a business model’
Ji’s series of Substack posts revealed what he described as “a 20-year architecture behind pandemics as a business model — with Bill Gates at the center of the network,” along with multinational financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase.
The documents, dating from 2011 to 2019, illustrate an “architecture whose foundations predate the COVID-19 era by more than a decade,” Ji wrote. He said they constitute evidence of “a major Wall Street bank asking a convicted sex offender to define the architecture of a Gates-linked charitable fund.”
The documents included several emails outlining the development of a Gates-led charitable fund. A Feb. 17, 2011, email from JPMorgan Chase’s Juliet Pullis to Epstein included questions from the “team that is putting together some ideas for Gates.”
Epstein’s reply outlined how this fund could be structured. The proposal would be developed further in the following months.
In a July 26, 2011, email from Epstein to JPMorgan Chase executive Jes Staley, on which Boris Nikolic, Gates’ chief science and technology adviser, was copied, described a “silo based proposal that will get bill [Gates] more money for vaccines.”
By Aug. 17, 2011, Staley and Mary Erdoes, then-CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management, were discussing more details of the proposed fund, including developing “an offshore arm — especailly for vaccines” and projecting “billions of dollars” in donations within two years.
In a response later that day, Epstein said Gates was “terribly frustrated” at the slow pace of establishing the fund. He said Gates was insistent that “additional money for vaccines” be included in an upcoming presentation about the fund.
By Aug. 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase had apparently developed a proposal called “Project Molecule,” where the bank would partner with the Gates Foundation to develop a perpetual charitable fund for pandemic preparedness and surveillance, vaccine promotion and disease eradication.
According to Ji, the proposal contains many of the ideas Epstein had previously discussed with JPMorgan Chase executives. It also contained plans to spend millions of dollars to purchase oral polio vaccines for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a rotavirus vaccine for Latin America, and a meningitis vaccine for Africa.
The proposal suggested that Melinda Gates chair the fund’s strategic program/grant and distribution committee and that Erdoes, Warren Buffett, Jordan’s Queen Rania and Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, also participate. The Gates Foundation funded Gavi’s launch in 1999 and holds a permanent seat on its board.
Ji wrote that while Epstein’s name does not appear in the Project Molecule proposal, it acts as the “institutional translation of the architecture he was sketching informally.”
By 2013, these efforts appear to have led to the launch of the Global Health Investment Fund. A confidential Sept. 23, 2013, briefing described the fund as “the first investment fund focused on global health drug and vaccine development.” The fund promised investors annual returns of 5%-7%.
Among the attendees at the fund’s September 2013 launch were JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and representatives of Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK).
Gates could ‘work with anyone on earth’ but ‘chose a registered sex offender’
According to Ji, Nikolic’s involvement is significant. In August 2013, Gates and Epstein signed an agreement, in which Gates “specifically requested” that Epstein “personally serve” as Nikolic’s representative. The letter noted Epstein’s “existing collegial relationship” with Gates.
“This agreement was executed five years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution,” Ji wrote. “Gates had the resources to work with anyone on earth. He chose a registered sex offender — and put it in writing.”
The documents showed that a month earlier — on July 18, 2013 — Epstein authored a draft email apparently intended for Gates. It references Epstein’s friendship with Gates, his disappointment that Gates sent him an “unfriendly strongly worded email,” and referenced sordid communications the two apparently previously shared.
“TO add insult to the injury you them implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis,” Epstein wrote.
In a video posted on X, Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, said that while it’s unknown whether Epstein ever sent that email to Gates, “the next month they’re in a contract together.”
“I think Bill Gates got the message,” Kane said.
In November 2023, a federal judge approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and over 100 women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse. The women alleged that JPMorgan Chase continued doing business with Epstein despite internal warnings over a span of several years.
“JPMorgan banked Epstein for years despite clear red flags — over $1 billion in suspicious transactions flagged internally and ignored. They knew. They didn’t care,” wrote The Truth About Cancer.
Did Epstein play role in launch of the ‘biosecurity state’?
According to Ji, the documents provide a roadmap for how a pandemic preparedness infrastructure was developed and how it helped make Event 201 possible.
“By the time Event 201 convened, the architecture … was no longer conceptual. It had been funded, structured, bonded, insured, staffed, and legally papered. What remained was the rehearsal,” Ji wrote.
September 2014 documents show that Gates disclosed his upcoming meeting with President Obama to Epstein, just as an adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak sent Epstein an invitation to a private, off-the-record reception with Obama the following month.
Ji said the communications occurred during “the week Ebola was formally reclassified as a threat to international peace and security.” He said the timing is significant, as this “was the week the biosecurity state was born.”
According to Ji, these developments helped activate the infrastructure outlined in Project Molecule, where Epstein acted as a node for Ebola-related project proposals.
This included Epstein receiving a United Nations (U.N.) diplomat’s proposal for the development of a “Nexus Centre for peace and health” that would take “into account the serious impact of Ebola,” and a proposal by a group of scientists for a pre-symptomatic Ebola detection system using PCR testing.
The scientists behind the proposal — affiliated with a U.S. military biolab at Fort Detrick, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — asked Epstein to send the proposal to Gates and the Gates Foundation.
By October 2014, Epstein was warning Kathy Ruemmler, then White House counsel to Obama, of the political cost if Obama didn’t take action on Ebola. By 2015, Epstein was acting as an intermediary in efforts to convene global experts who would “discuss how we can most effectively address and prevent pandemics.”
The proposal, by the International Peace Institute’s Terje Rød-Larsen, led to the convening of a May 2015 closed-door meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, titled “Preparing for Pandemics: Lessons Learned for More Effective Responses.” The World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank and U.N. were involved with the meeting.
The meeting’s agenda included sessions addressing “how pandemics should be anticipated, how authority should be exercised, how multiple stakeholders should be coordinated, and — critically — what legal, institutional, and financial mechanisms must be put in place in advance to enable rapid, centralized response,” Ji wrote.
According to Ji, the COVID-19 pandemic response has its roots in the 2014 Ebola response, as Ebola “was the first disease to formally justify the suspension of normal political and sovereign constraints on a global scale. … When the next global health emergency arrived — COVID-19 — the playbook was already written.”
“Epstein appears in the background of precisely these formative conversations — serving as a connector between global finance, philanthropic capital, and biological risk governance,” Ji told The Defender.
Epstein involved in ‘strain pandemic simulation’ two years before COVID
By 2017, these conversations led to proposals for pandemic simulations.
In a January 2017 iMessage thread between Epstein and an unidentified physician seeking help in finding a new job, the physician cited “expertise with public health security.”
The physician, who had experience at the U.N., WHO, Gates Foundation and World Bank, said he “just did pandemic simulation,” which could become a “big platform.”
Referring to Gates, the physician told Epstein, “He hates mental health but he’s crazy about vaccines and autism stuff. That could be start to a more broad conversation.”
A March 2017 email chain, which included Epstein and Gates, discussed efforts by the then-bgC3, Gates’ private strategic office, to develop “Follow-up recommendations and/or technical specifications for strain pandemic simulation.”
Ji noted that in 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF), with Gates Foundation funding and a goal of creating “pandemic-busting vaccines” within 100 days. Later that year, the World Bank issued the first-ever pandemic bonds.
Event 201, held just six weeks before the first publicly acknowledged COVID-19 cases were announced, involved the Gates Foundation, WEF and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Global financial institutions, media organizations and intelligence agencies also participated.
The simulation focused on the response to a novel coronavirus outbreak by governments, pharmaceutical companies, media outlets and social media platforms.
Ji said the Epstein Files don’t show that COVID-19 was planned or manufactured, or that Event 201 led to COVID-19. Instead, they prove that “the institutional infrastructure to capitalize on exactly this kind of crisis was already built, tested, staffed, and insured.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ exports Israeli ‘ceasefire’ diplomacy to the world
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026
The new order that is being brought about by the US Trump administration, through his Orwellian-named “Board of Peace,” is simply an Israeli model being exported to the world. It is a desperate attempt to both safeguard America’s position as the dominant superpower while also being a Zionist coup.
Although the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP) was granted legal authorization by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over its proposed purpose in supporting the Gaza ceasefire, the organization’s founding charter fails to mention Gaza or Palestine once. It also has no Palestinians who are part of it.
The BoP itself is very clearly a body that seeks to replace the United Nations, paving the way for a world that no longer considers the Geneva Conventions or International Law. We also see proof of the US moving in this direction through its latest 2026 defense budget, recently passed through Congress. Not only does it direct its mandatory $4 billion to the Zionist entity, but it also bars financing the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Washington actively sanctions UN officials and ICC judges. Additionally, it withdrew from the UN’s Human Rights Council. None of this is random; it is all part of a carefully calculated plot, one that ultimately works to the benefit of the Israelis.
During the Biden administration, the United States adopted what is known as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), something proposed before the G7 nations and is being continued by the Trump administration, with a few Republican policy-leaning tweaks.
The PGII is the US’ vision to combat China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but using precisely the opposite approach. Washington seeks Western multi-national corporations to work under a model of stakeholder capitalism – originally proposed through the World Economic Forum – meaning that the corporations make all the major decisions. Projects driven by shareholders, corporations that direct public relations and shape soft power, also allow them to inject the funds instead of the government. Think of the unofficial role of the East India trading company, yet on steroids.
While the corporations pursue their agendas, shape policy, and are exempt from any real oversight or accountability, here comes the “Board of Peace” that will preside over the entire project. The BoP is a pay-to-play subscription service, a system run by a dictator and filled with billionaires, one that uses the power of the US in order to force the world to bend to its demands.
The BoP is filled with Zionists, UAE stooges, corrupt authoritarians, and Trump’s inner circle of both competent and incompetent business elites. Its first major project, where it will behave just like a replacement UN, is the Gaza Strip.
Forever wars
Such a world order, if this project doesn’t crash and burn, is designed to work on the basis of Donald Trump’s favourite slogan: “Peace Through Strength.” In other words, might makes right, which is exactly the way that conflict management is achieved.
If we look at the way that the Trump administration commits itself to ceasefire diplomacy, spearheaded by Zionist businessmen Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, it becomes clear that the way they work is through imposing impossible scenarios to sustain, instead of solving issues. This is born out of pure arrogance.
The brief exchange between Pakistan and India was not resolved, nor was the dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which are both claimed by US President Trump as wars he ended. Ceasefires may have been concluded, but there are no solid follow-up steps that seek to properly address any root issues. It is just an order issued to both sides that now is the time to bring the fight to a close.
Where this is the most evident and relevant to the BoP is the case of Gaza, the first testing ground for the new alternative UN system. The Gaza ceasefire addresses none of the underlying political issues, doesn’t use any legal framework to find solutions, and is simply an agreement that gives the Israelis everything they want.
If Hamas even appears to have committed a small violation of the ceasefire, the US-led Civil Military Coordination Center (CMCC) – which 20+ US-controlled regimes are member to – the Israelis are given a free hand to commit mass murder. Meanwhile, the Zionist entity has been monitored every step of the way in its slaughter of 600 Palestinians and 1,600+ ceasefire violations.
It’s the same kind of ceasefire diplomacy that gave the world the predicament of Lebanon, where the Israelis have committed over 10,000 violations of the ceasefire since November 2024. The Zionist entity has gained a world record by violating the Lebanon ceasefire more times than any army has ever done in recorded human history.
Despite the clear faulty nature of this kind of businessman, diplomacy by intimidation, strategy, the US regime and its Zionist handlers brag about their successes and the alleged “peace” they have restored. In reality, they are only fanning the flames of forever wars, conflicts which actually become more unsolvable as a result of the ceasefires brought about.
The BoP also hopes to use this same strategy to bring about an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but is dramatically failing to do so. One newer target has also been Sudan, but again, this kind of ceasefire will not solve the underlying issues that caused the conflict to begin with.
The US-Israeli alliance wants a new system under the BoP, one that replaces the UN, but not one that mirrors it. Nations no longer make decisions; corporations and billionaires do, while the Israelis and the US regime are able to operate in any way they choose, without even considering the implications of their actions on anyone else.
Ultimately, this kind of chaotic world order that is being built comes as a result of the UN’s failure, but it demonstrates just why the world valued the United Nations for so long, because it was supposed to stop genocides and war crimes. Unfortunately, the US-Israeli alliance decided that the world that existed prior to the Second World War was a desirable future.
Europe creates a ‘Russian government-in-exile’, consisting of a bunch of losers
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 14, 2026
The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), part of the Council of Europe (not the European Union), established in October 2025 a platform for Russians in exile called the Russian Democratic Forces, which is intended to represent a new Russian government-in-exile in Europe.
With little media attention, Europe is attempting to elevate the status of the Russian opposition, while openly admitting that the new, so-called opposition lacks the structure and power to make a significant difference. Above all, they admit that the selection of members for this so-called government-in-exile was fundamentally undemocratic.
Following the formation of a so-called representative delegation of Belarusian democratic forces, the Assembly recently decided to appoint a Russian delegation as well – again, without democratic consultation.
Regarding the Russian Democratic Forces, some individuals were invited to participate in hearings organized by Assembly committees. During these hearings, the discussions focused solely on how these figures could help end what they call “Russia’s war of aggression” and on ways to strengthen sanctions against Russia.
The most absurd claim is their desire to guarantee Russians access to free and independent media in order to counter Russian disinformation. This is reminiscent of the sanctions Europe has imposed on Russian media outlets such as RT, Sputnik, Channel One Russia, etc., and, of course, this geopolitical website, the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article is published. The new media outlets they propose to establish are, naturally, funded by Europe itself – a platform for the so-called Russian government-in-exile.
They will rely exclusively on European disinformation articles opposing the current Russian government. The Russians in exile, out of fear, will write articles filled with anti-Russian propaganda and criticism, afraid of losing their European residence permits or visas should they write anything positive about Russia.
The absurdity of it all, of course, is that Europe itself has been censoring its own media and journalists since new legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), was approved. Since February 2025, the EU has officially implemented the 2022 law to combat disinformation, particularly what they call “fake news” originating from Russia.
Or take the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA): This law came into effect in May 2024 and supposedly protects media pluralism and ensures that journalists can work without state interference or abuse of legal process. An example of this absurdity – and the exact opposite of what the EMFA advocates – is the case of German journalist Hüseyin Dogru, who has been completely cut off from funding due to European Union sanctions and can no longer provide for his family’s basic needs while living in Germany. He is accused of spreading disinformation about Russia and Israel.
Another initiative is the so-called European Democracy Shield, presented in November 2025. This initiative aims to protect the EU’s democratic information space from foreign interference and information manipulation. Yet this initiative is now being violated by Europe itself. As they state: “The European Democracy Shield initiative aims to strengthen information integrity in Europe by addressing issues such as disinformation and election interference.” But this is exactly the opposite of what the EU is doing by establishing – by Europeans – a so-called Russian government-in-exile, which, by their own admission, may not have been entirely democratic in its establishment or candidate selection.
After all, it is the European Union itself, through the European Commission, that has established an undemocratic Russian government-in-exile, as they themselves admit. The president of the so-called committee that approves the candidates and the structure of the platform is German, and other committee members come from Spain and Cyprus. Not a single Russian sits on the Assembly’s board.
They even prepared a list of so-called “democratic” candidates promoting the new Russian government-in-exile – a list of “Participants of the Russian Democratic Forces” for the platform. This list is approved exclusively by the Bureau of the Assembly – the European Union, or in this case, the European Commission – based on a proposal from the President of the Assembly, who, as mentioned, is a European citizen of German nationality. The list of potential candidates is submitted to the President of the Assembly in consultation with organizations of the Russian Democratic Forces whose members meet the criteria, and is approved by them.
This is, of course, utterly absurd. Imagine the reverse situation: Russia establishes a committee for, say, Dutch or German citizens in exile, appoints them as the opposition government for the Netherlands and/or Germany, and recognizes them as a government-in-exile in Russia. Perhaps Russia should do this as counter-propaganda – to show Europe and make it clear that their behavior is absurd, undemocratic, and, above all, insane. I can just imagine the headlines in European media and the outrage from European politicians and journalists – full of words like “undemocratic and criminal” – if Russia were to do this!
Among the members of the so-called Russian government-in-exile are names such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch once convicted in Russia for fraud and theft, who has already served time in a Russian prison, and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, who has a far stronger connection to modern-day Azerbaijan or Armenia, having been born and spent his entire childhood in Baku, present-day Azerbaijan.
Another well-known opponent is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who claims to have been poisoned by Putin – similar to the Skripal and Litvinenko cases, or more recently, the allegation that Navalny was poisoned in a Russian prison. He is described as a Russian-British political activist, journalist, author, filmmaker, and a former political prisoner. He is the vice-chairman of Open Russia, an NGO founded by the convicted former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which promotes civil society and democracy in Russia. In essence, they promote the interests of the US and Europe and advocate for Russia’s subordination to them, running as puppet presidents and governments for the West.
Also part of the new Russian government-in-exile are the deranged members of the provocative punk rock group Pussy Riot, such as Nadya Tolokonnikova. These individuals, eager to attract attention with provocative actions against the Russian Orthodox Church – actions bordering on Satanism (in Europe they are called feminists) – have been condemned in Russia for their behavior. Wikipedia (a Western propaganda tool) even acknowledges that public opinion in Russia is not sympathetic to the band members. They have been labeled an extremist organization in Russia. These are just a few candidates; the rest of those chosen are even less significant or unknown to the Russian people.
Europe is also using ethnic minorities in Russia – such as the Bashkirs, Chuvash, Tatars, Chechens, and many others – to sow division and thus break up Russia, following the example of the Balkanization of the former Yugoslavia. A good example of the propaganda machine targeting ethnic minorities in Russia is the German Center for East European and International Studies, called ZOiS, located in Berlin, Germany.
For instance, a certain PD Dr. Sabine von Löwis has written an article there on “Conflict Dynamics and Border Regions,” which discusses: “The disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the creation of not only the fifteen successor states but also a series of de facto states and peoples.” The goal is likely to drive a wedge between the various groups living in the Russian Federation.
The Russian government-in-exile, as the EU calls it, was established following the example of the Americans, who have appointed puppet presidents and governments worldwide to destabilize the countries they effectively occupy and thus plunder their resources. Russia itself is rich in resources such as gas, oil, and minerals. Some members of Russia’s indigenous peoples, as mentioned above, are also on the list of the so-called Russian government-in-exile. This is a blatant provocation by the EU to drive a wedge between Russians – or at least that is the intent. In recent years, entire sessions have appeared on YouTube proposing to divide Russia along ethnic lines, just as was done with the former Yugoslavia, which is now under the control of Europe and the US.
Recent examples of US regime change, with European assistance, include Syria, Venezuela, the blockade against Cuba, the ongoing destabilization of Greenland, and, of course, the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s neighbors, such as Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, have also fallen victim to provocations involving regime change and destabilization. This task is now largely reserved for the Europeans – particularly in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia – with US assistance behind the scenes.
But do not think for a moment that Ukraine will be completely abandoned to Europe. The Americans, together with the Europeans, are eyeing the riches, natural resources, and rare earth metals found primarily in the Donbas, which are now largely in Russian hands. Leaving Ukraine to the Europeans is merely a pretext for so-called peace talks.
Times are growing dangerous these days, with an American administration that talks about peace while simultaneously attacking countries, kidnapping presidents, and throwing them in jail. It supports terrorist leaders in Syria and transfers thousands of ISIS terrorists from the Kurdish-controlled al-Hawl camp to Iraq. What will they do with them? Release them for a potential coming war against Iran – an ally of Russia? Hopefully not, but these days, we cannot be sure. The West is in free fall, without rules or morals.
Munich, 2007: The Day the West Was Told No
The Islander | February 13, 2026
They like to pretend it came out of nowhere.
They like the bedtime story: Europe was peacefully humming along in its post-history spa — open borders, cheap energy, NATO as a charity, Russia as a gas station with a flag… and then, one day, the barbarian kicked the door in for no reason at all.
That story is not just dishonest. It’s operational. It’s the propaganda you tell yourself so you can keep the addiction going without ever admitting how self-destructive it is.
Because the truth is uglier and far more incriminating:
In Munich, on February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin stood on the most flattering stage the Atlantic system owns — the Security Conference where Western officials applaud themselves for maintaining “order” and he laid out, to their faces, the skeleton of the coming disaster. He didn’t whisper it in a back channel. He used the microphone to deliver some much needed medicine, however hard it would be for the Empire to swallow.
He even signaled he wasn’t going to play the usual polite theatre — the kind where everyone agrees in public and stabs each other in classified annexes. He said the format allowed him to avoid “pleasant, yet empty diplomatic platitudes.”
And then he did the unforgivable thing, (gasp!) he described the empire as an empire.
He named the unipolar intoxication — that post–Cold War hallucination that history had ended, that power had found its final owner, that NATO could expand forever without consequences, that international law was optional for the enforcer class and compulsory for everyone else.
Putin’s core argument was brutally simple: a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, it’s impossible.
Not “unfair.” Not rude. Impossible.
(Because in a world with) “one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making” is a world where security becomes privatized — where the strong reserve the right to interpret rules (with exemptions for themselves), and the weak are told to accept it as morality. (And yes, he put it in exactly those terms — one center, one force, one decision — the architecture of domination.)
And when you build that kind of world, everyone else does the only rational thing left: they stop trusting the wall of law to protect them, and they start arming for survival.
Putin said it outright: when force becomes the default language, it “stimulates an arms race.”
This is where the Western client media — professionally disengious as ever, clipped one or two spicy lines and missed the larger point: Munich 2007 wasn’t “Putin raging.” It was Russia publishing its redlines in front of the class.
And then came the part that should have frozen the room. Putin named it – NATO expansion.
Putin didn’t argue it as nostalgia. He argued it as provocation — a deliberate reduction of trust. He asked the question no Western leader ever answers honestly:
“Against whom is this expansion intended?”
And then he drove the blade in: what happened to the assurances made after the Warsaw Pact dissolved? “No one even remembers them.”
That line matters because it goes well beyond grievance — it’s a window into how Russia saw the post–Cold War settlement: not as a partnership, but as a rolling deception. Expand NATO, move offensive infrastructure, then call it “defensive.” Build bases, run exercises, integrate weapons systems, and insist the other side is paranoid for noticing.
Putin’s formulation was clean: NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”
Now pause and look at the psychology of the West in that room. They didn’t hear a warning. They heard audacity. They didn’t hear “security dilemma.” They heard “how dare you speak like an equal.”
That’s the cultural glitch at the heart of the Atlantic project: it believes its own core lie and cannot process sovereignty in others without treating it as aggression.
So Munich 2007 became, in Western memory, not the moment Russia told the truth — but the moment Russia “showed its hand.” The implication: Russia’s “hand” was evil, and therefore any response to it was justified. Which is exactly how you sleepwalk into catastrophe.
The real prophecy: not mysticism — mechanics
What was prophetic about Putin’s speech isn’t that he had a crystal ball.
It’s that he understood the West’s incentive structure:
- A security system that expands by definition (NATO) needs threats by definition.
- A unipolar ideology needs disobedience to punish, otherwise the myth collapses.
- A rules-based order that breaks its own rules must constantly produce narrative cover.
- An economic model that offshore-outs its industry and imports “cheap stability” must secure energy routes, supply chains, and obedience — by finance, by sanctions, by force.
Putin was saying: you can’t build a global security architecture on humiliation and expect it to be stable. Russia had lived through the wreckage of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and that this playbook would be used again and again, with Georgia, with Syria, Libya, Iran and Russia itself if Putin did nothing.
He was also saying and this is where the Russophobic mass hysteria accelerates — that Russia would not accept a subordinate role in its own neighborhood, on its own borders, under a wannabe hegemon’s military umbrella.
This is where the Western catechism kicks in: “neighborhood” is called “sphere of influence” when Russia says it, and “security guarantees” when Washington says it. And so the hysteria machine warmed up.
You saw it in the immediate reception: Western elites, including Merkel and McCain treating the speech as an insult rather than a negotiation offer. You saw it in the years that followed — the steady normalization of the idea that Russia’s security concerns were illegitimate, and therefore could be ignored with moralistic lectures, free of consequences.
Ignore, expand, accuse, repeat.
That loop is your road to 2022 and to today, in Munich 2026. Groundhog day without learning the vital lessons to end the loop of utter madness.
Munich, Feb 13 (2026): Merz admits the order is dead — and calls it “uncertainty”
Fast forward. Same city. Same conference. Same Western liturgy, just with more panic in the eyes and the nucleus of a terrifying realization.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz using his best perfomative courage, murmured that the world order we relied on is no longer there. Framing the post–Cold War “rules-based order” as effectively crumbled and almost begging for a reset in transatlantic relations.
He goes further: he talks up a stronger European defence posture, and pointed to discussions with France about a European nuclear deterrent concept, a “European nuclear shield.”
And then comes the line that should be carved into the marble of the Munich conference hall as Exhibit A: Merz argues that in this era, even the United States “will not be powerful enough to go alone.”
Read that again.
The BlackRock chancellor on NATO’s spiritual home turf is effectively saying: the empire is overstretched, the illusion of old certainties are gone, and Europe will be left hung out to dry. Talk about strategic vertigo!
And it is exactly what Putin was talking about in 2007: when one axis tries to act as the planet’s owner, the cost accumulates — wars, blowback, arms races, fractured trust, until the system starts to wobble under its own contradictions.
Merz also reported begged the U.S. and Europe to “repair and revive” transatlantic trust. Repair trust with what currency?
Because trust isn’t repaired by speeches. Trust is repaired by reversing the toxic and suicidal behaviors that destroyed it.
And those behaviors were precisely what Putin named in 2007:
- expanding military blocs toward another power’s borders,
- treating international law as a menu,
- using economic coercion as a weapon,
- and then pretending the consequences are “unprovoked.”
Europe is now gasping at the invoice for that policy set: industrial stress, energy insecurity, strategic dependency, and a political class that can’t admit how it got here without indicting itself.
So instead of confession, you get moral performance. Instead of strategy, you get hysteria and cartoon slogans.
Instead of peace architecture, you get escalation management — the art of walking toward the cliff while calling it deterrence.
Merz’s remarks underscore that Europe is being forced to contemplate a harsher security environment and greater responsibility, all of its own suicidal making — but it still frames the Russia question in the familiar moralizing register.
Which is the whole tragedy: they can feel the tectonic plates shifting beneath them, yet they keep reciting the same old prayers that summoned the earthquake.
Why we’re here: the Western addiction to expansion — and the manufactured Russophobia that lubricated it
Russophobia is more than just bloodthirsty prejudice. It’s the (failed) policy tool of choice of the last few empires against Russia.
It’s what you pump into the Mockingbird media bloodstream to make escalation feel like virtue and compromise feel like treason.
You don’t have to love everything Russia does to see the mechanism: a permanent narrative of Russian menace makes every NATO move sound defensive, every EU economic self-harm sound righteous, and every diplomatic off-ramp sound like appeasement.
It creates a psychological environment where:
- NATO expansion becomes “freedom,”
- coups become “democratic awakenings,”
- sanctions become “values,”
- censorship becomes “information integrity,”
- and war becomes “support.”
And once you install that operating system, you can torch your own industry and still call it moral leadership.
That’s the dark comedy of Europe since 2014 — accelerating post 2022: self-sanctioning, deindustrializing pressure, energy price shocks, and strategic submission to Washington’s delusion of carving up Russia, sold as “defending democracy.”
Meanwhile, Moscow reads the West’s behavior the same way it read it in 2007: as a hostile architecture closing in, dressed up as virtue.
Putin’s Munich speech — again, not mysticism — warned that when the strong monopolize decision-making and normalize force, the world becomes less safe, not more.
So what did the West do?
It made the “rules-based order” a brand — while breaking rules (international law) whenever convenient. Exceptionalism at almost biblical levels, God’s chosen people.
It expanded NATO while insisting the expansion was harmless.
It treated Russian objections as evidence of Russian guilt — which is circular logic worthy of an inquisitor.
And it nurtured a media culture that could not imagine Russia as a rational actor responding to a pattern of ugly regime change behavior — only as a cartoon villain driven by pathology. Not analysis but theological warfare.
The punchline Munich won’t say out loud
Here’s the line Munich still cannot speak, even in 2026, even with Merz admitting the old order is gone:
The West didn’t misread Putin’s warning. It rejected it because accepting it would have meant limiting itself.
Munich 2007 was a chance — maybe the last clean one — to build a European security architecture that wasn’t just NATO with better PR. A chance to treat Russia as a Great Power with legitimate interests, not a defeated adversary to be regime changed and broken apart.
And now, in Munich 2026, they stand amid the wreckage and call it “uncertainty,” as if the storm blew in from nowhere. The BlackRock Chancellor calls for resets, for revived trust, for Europe to become stronger, for new deterrence ideas.
But the reset Munich needs is the one it refuses:
- reset the premise that NATO will remain a viable alliance beyond the war in Ukraine,
- reset the premise that Russia must absorb strategic humiliation and accept the inverse, the reality as it is – where it’s in fact Western Europe that is wearing the humiliation.
- reset the premise that international law is a tool of the powerful,
- reset the premise that Europe’s role is to be the forward operating base and European sovereignty sacrificed to buy the Empire time .
Until that happens, Munich will keep happening — every year, more anxious, more militarized, more rhetorical, more detached from the material reality its own disastrous policies created.
And Putin’s “prophecy” will keep looking prophetic — not because he conjured the future, but because he correctly described the machine.
At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy
The Dissident | February 13, 2026
Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently appeared at the Munich Security Conference- supposedly to showcase her foreign policy knowledge- in what many believe may be the lead up to an eventual presidential run in 2028.
Unfortunately, what AOC showcased was that, while being critical of aspects of U.S. foreign policy, she gets it dead wrong on issues ranging from NATO to USAID to Iran to Ukraine.
Calling To Fund A CIA Cutout
While AOC called out some U.S. hypocrisy around the claim of a “rules-based international order”, she still gave credence to the idea that such a thing even exists, or that the U.S. is concerned with human rights and democracy around the world.
At one panel, she said , “That does not mean that the majority of Americans are ready to walk away from a rules-based order and that we’re ready to walk away from our commitment to democracy.”
This apparently includes support for so-called U.S. “democracy promotion” initiatives such as the CIA cutout USAID, which AOC called to support at two different conferences.
When asked at the aforementioned panel, “Are there any particular institutions that a democratic administration would want to save?”, AOC replied, “ first and foremost, I think we need to revisit our commitments to international aid not just USAID but the the dozens of global compacts that the current secretary of state and President Trump have withdrawn from” adding, “They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarianisms of authoritarians that can carve out the world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox where Putin can saber rattle around Europe and and try to bully around our own allies there.”
At another panel, AOC complained that the Trump administration was playing “hokey pokey with USAD”.
In reality, USAID and other “aid organizations” such as the National Endowment for Democracy are used to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries that do not bow down to U.S. demands, including by attempting to undermine democratically elected governments.
Foreign Policy magazine wrote in 2014 , “Foreign governments have long accused the U.S. Agency for International Development of being a front for the CIA or other groups dedicated to their collapse. In the case of Cuba, they appear to have been right.”
The magazine added, “In an eye-opening display of incompetence, the United States covertly launched a social media platform in Cuba in 2010, hoping to create a Twitter-like service that would spark a ‘Cuban Spring’ and potentially help bring about the collapse of the island’s Communist government” adding, “It was a digital Bay of Pigs, but it was funded by USAID, an arm of the government dedicated to doing good work in bad places, not by the CIA.”
The outlet noted that this was far from the only time USAID has been used as a tool of U.S. regime change, writing:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez frequently and famously accused the United States of covertly trying to overthrow him, but only after his death did evidence emerge to support his seemingly paranoid claims. A WikiLeaks cable released in 2013 outlined the U.S. strategy for undermining Chavez’s government by “penetrating Chavez’s political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” and “isolating Chavez internationally.” The strategy was to be carried out by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives, the same office responsible for developing “Cuban Twitter,” and involved funding opposition organizations in Venezuela.
USAID has also played a role in funding the 2004 coup against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the 2014 coup against Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych, the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, and the 2024 judicial coup against Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu.
Claiming NATO Stops Regime Change Wars
At one of the Munich Security panels, AOC claimed that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, later clarifying that she meant transatlantic partnership, i.e., alliances like NATO would somehow stop, “the installation of regional puppet governments”.
AOC claimed, “it actually is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is our global alliances that can be a hard stop against authoritarian consolidation of power, particularly in the installation of regional puppet governments.”
In reality, the “transatlantic partnership” through NATO, since the end of the Cold War, has done nothing but regime change wars to overthrow unfriendly governments and install puppets.
In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia and Kosovo in what was billed as a humanitarian intervention to save Albanians in Kosovo from the Serbian authorities, but in reality, it was an orchestrated regime change war against Slobodan Milosevic.
As James Bissett, the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, explained , “Media reports have revealed that as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization with a reason for its continued existence.”
Following this, NATO intervened in Afghanistan and did exactly what AOC claimed it would prevent: it occupied the country and propped up a puppet government.
Journalist Seth Harp meticulously documented in his book “The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces” that the NATO propped up government led by CIA asset Hamid Karzai was “the world’s leading narco-state, with an economy almost entirely dependent on the drug trade”.
NATO then overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, one of the key planks in the greater Zionist/Neo-Con clean break plan for greater Israel.
While the intervention was billed as a humanitarian intervention to stop Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering innocent civilians and to support moderate rebels, a 2015 UK parliament report later admitted that “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence” and “It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards”.
The CIA then used Gaddafi’s weapons stockpile to further the next regime change war on the “clean break” hit list in Syria with journalist Seymour Hersh reporting that following the fall of Gaddafi, the CIA “authorised a rat line in early 2012” which was “used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” noting that, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.
Repeating CIA/Mossad Talking Points About Iran
While AOC did oppose bombing Iran at the behest of Israel, she repeated CIA and Mossad talking points without giving vital context before doing so.
When asked, “Would you support direct U.S. military strikes on Nuclear facilities if direct negotiations fail with Iran?” AOC responded, “I think that that is a dramatic escalation that no one in the world wants to see. Right now what the Iranian regime is doing particularly with respect to protesters is a horrific slaughter of some estimates have tens of thousands of people.”
The claims of “tens of thousands of people” killed by the Iranian government during protests comes from biased sources openly supporting war with Iran, such as Amir Parasta a German-Iranian eye surgeon who is a lobbyist for the Israeli opposition puppet Reza Pahlavi and the outlet Iran International, which Israeli journalist Barak Ravid said , “the Mossad is using… quite regularly for its information war”.
In other words, AOC opposing war with Iran but repeating the claim of “tens of thousands dead” is akin to saying in 2002, “I oppose war with Iraq, but Saddam definitely has WMDS”.
Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to give some vital context on the protests in Iran.
For one, she did not mention that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent twice boasted that the protests in Iran were caused by U.S. sanctions on the country’s economy, saying:
President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.
What we can do at treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country, at a speech at the Economic club in New York in March I outlined the strategy, it came to a swift -and I would say grand- culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under, there was a run in the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.
(Emphasis: Mine)
Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to list the mountains of evidence that the CIA and Mossad infiltrated the protests to turn them in a violent and pro-regime change direction.
This includes:
- A Mossad-connected X account in Persian boasting, “Let’s all come out to the streets. The time has come. We are with you. Not just from afar and verbally. We are also with you in the field.”
- Former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo wishing a “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
- Israel’s Channel 14 reporting that “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.”
- Former head of the Military Intelligence Directorat in Israel, Tamir Hayma, saying, “There is currently a very significant influence operation by the US” in Iran.
- The Financial Times reporting that, “Another witness in western Tehran told the FT he saw about a dozen fit men, ‘looking like commandos’, dressed in similar black clothing, running through the area and calling on people to leave their homes and join the protests. ‘They were definitely organised, but I don’t know who was behind them,’ he said.”
- Mossad connected Israeli journalist Yonah Jeremy Bob cryptically writing , “Only after the air is clear will the full story of the Mossad’s involvement likely be cleared to be told. But when it comes to the Mossad and Iran, there is always far more than meets the eye”.
- Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu boasting , “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.
Supporting The Ukraine Proxy War
When asked about the proxy war in Ukraine, AOC said, “there’s no conversation about Ukraine that can happen without Ukraine, and so they of course lead in terms of setting their terms on this, but I think that overall as a principle, we shouldn’t reward imperialism. And I don’t think that we should allow Russia to continue or any nation to continue violating a nation’s sovereignty and to continue to be rewarded”.
This was a strong signal in support of continuing the proxy war in Ukraine.
At no point did AOC mention that in 1997, veteran diplomat George F. Kennan warned that NATO expansion eastward would “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking” a view he said was “not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters.”
Nor did she mention that former U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, warned in 2008 that, “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.
AOC did not mention the Maidan coup in 2014, which, as Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko noted, was carried out because “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia this was why Western politicians, diplomats, and civil society representatives actively supported the Euromaidan (coup against Yanukovych) as a mechanism for overthrowing Yanukovych, even going as far as providing financial support for the ‘revolutionary’ process”.
She similarly ignored the recent bombshell admission from Biden Administration official Amanda Sloat, who said :
We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done.
I guess if you want to do an alternative version of history, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January of 2022, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we will stay neutral.’ Ukraine could have made a deal around March/April of 2022 around the Istanbul talks
There is certainly a question, almost three years on now, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks, it certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life.
Nor did AOC mention the fact that Russia and Ukraine agreed to end the war in April of 2022, but the deal was blocked by then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the behest of the collective West.
Through all of her answers, AOC showed she is not serious about being anti-war and will undoubtedly give in to the foreign policy establishment on many issues.
Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026
In late January, the US Department of Justice dumped millions of documents detailing the criminal activities of US oligarch and serial paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including his vast rolodex of paedophilic celebrities, financiers, politicians and public figures. The tranche is so vast, independent journalists and researchers have barely scratched the surface yet. But preliminary investigations amply demonstrate Epstein was centrally enmeshed with multiple foreign spy agencies. First and foremost, the Zionist entity’s notorious Mossad. The horrors wrought on West Asia as a result are incalculable.
A recurrent phenomenon in the newly-released documents, emails and text messages is Epstein and his grand global nexus seeking to profit from Western-inflicted misery the world over. On March 18th 2014, in the Maidan coup’s immediate, violent aftermath, he emailed Ariane de Rothschild, a French banker and CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group since March 2023, due to her marrying into the famous, powerful Jewish family. Epstein was exhilarated. “Ukraine upheaval should provide many opportunites [sic],” he wrote.
De Rothschild was drained after a “very long day sitting on bank board,” but delighted to hear from her close friend. “Miss our talks and hope you’re well,” she gushed. “Will be at home tomorrow night, will you be free? And let’s discuss Ukraine.” The “opportunities” Epstein perceived in the shattered post-coup country, as it plunged into Western-sponsored civil war, ranged from an untapped reservoir of young girls and vulnerable women to pimp out to high-ranking ‘clients’, to pillaging the country’s vast resources.
In July 2011, Epstein emailed associate Greg Brown, declaring “the Libyans now are legit, but need real help,” adding “they must be careful there will be many claims on that money.” He was referring to Tripoli’s frozen overseas assets, seized by Western powers in March that year, after the country plunged into insurrectionary violence. Epstein fired off this missive right when NATO’s bombing of Libya graduated from striking government forces to actively supporting rebel advances, as foreign fighters closed in on the country’s capital.
Brown excitedly responded, “there are already $80 billion in frozen funds/assets internationally,” and perhaps “three to four times this number in sovereign, stolen and misappropriated assets.” He was working with MI6 and Mossad veterans to “identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” If they could “identify/recover 5% to 10% of these monies and receive 10% to 25% as compensation,” the Anglo-Israeli private spying network could reap “billions of dollars”.
However, this paled in comparison to gains to be had once the Western-sponsored National Transitional Council unseated Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. “The real carrot is if we can become their go-to guys because they plan to spend at least $100 billion next year to rebuild their country and jumpstart the economy,” Brown salivated. He reminded Epstein the country was “rich”, with a small population but “the ninth largest crude oil & natural gas reserves on the planet.” Gaddafi was murdered by rebel forces that October.
‘Secret Weapon’
Numerous declassified materials amply indicate Epstein was a journeyman intelligence asset, with connections to several ostensibly separate spying agencies. Tellingly, some heavily redacted communications contain references to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). These buildings are used by US intelligence and government agencies to exchange top secret information, and access requires the highest security clearance. In a secret January 2018 discussion with political strategist Steve Bannon, Epstein bragged that his sprawling New York mansion was “similar to a SCIF.”
Bannon was one of many right-wing figures Epstein courted. Another was Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of shadowy data harvester Palantir. In June 2014, Epstein emailed to say he increasingly lent credence to Thiel’s “‘intentionality’ argument” – the proposal that the “mess” unfolding across the Arab and Muslim world over recent years was what then-US President Barack Obama “really wanted”. Epstein remarked, “we would have to admit a strategy brilliantly executed.” Thiel fired back:
“The ‘intentionality’ argument would center on making sure the US gets less involved with the rest of the world (I think that’s the ‘plan’). The more of a mess, with just lots of bad guys on different sides, the less we will do.”
Thiel was well-placed to know this was the Obama administration’s strategy. Birthed with seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir made vast sums serving as the War On Terror’s “Secret Weapon”. It was used to hunt “bad guys” at war with the US, and “Israel” – the key beneficiary of West Asia being set on fire during this period. Not coincidentally, the Zionist entity has for years employed a variety of Palantir products. Thiel commented in July 2024, the Gaza Holocaust well-underway:
“My bias is to defer to Israel.”
Accordingly, Epstein was clearly in the employ of both US and Israeli intelligence. In a February 2016 email exchange with Thiel, he declared, “as you probably know I represent the Rothschilds.” The banking dynasty was instrumental in “Israel’s” creation, funding construction of colonial settlements in Palestine from the late 1800s onwards. Epstein’s own ties to the Zionist entity were deep and coherent. From September 2010 to March 2019, he formally met with prominent Israeli politician and military veteran Ehud Barak over 60 times.
Barak was a repeat visitor to Epstein’s private island, Little St James. On at least one occasion, in January 2014, Barak visited with his wife, and specifically left his security detail behind. In June that year, Epstein arranged for Barak to meet Thiel. The Israeli politician was such a frequent guest at Epstein’s New York apartment on 301 East 66th Street, his staff referred to the lodgings internally as “301.”
‘Terrorism Financing’
In January, Barak sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming he “deeply regret[s] having any association with him.” However, their bond was intimate, warm, and long-running. Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex offences didn’t dim their connection, and come November 2018, Barak referred to Epstein as a “great friend” in discussions with Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani, a businessman and member of the Qatari royal family. An FBI investigation was opened into Epstein on June 12th 2018.
That same day, Epstein lodged an order for six 55 gallon drums of sulfuric acid, “with fuel and insurance charge for transport,” with now-defunct, Florida-based Gemini Seawater Systems. It would be unsurprising if he’d been tipped off about the Bureau probe. Someone within the FBI, or a foreign spying agency keeping a close eye on the agency, could’ve alerted him. Just as Epstein maintained ties between different foreign services, he enjoyed relations with high-ranking state figures the world over.
Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani was but one Gulf royal who the paedophile financier counted as a close confidante. Epstein was evidently considered a go-to figure when Qatar was seeking to communicate with “Israel”. In February 2010, Al Thani wrote to Epstein that the “Israeli operation… doesn’t help anyone.” He referred to the brazen assassination of Palestinian Resistance fighter Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai the previous month by Mossad. A day earlier, local authorities formally blamed Mossad for the killing, triggering a media firestorm.
In July 2017, following the UAE and Saudi Arabia leading Arab states in severing diplomatic relations with Qatar, and imposing a US-supported land, air and sea blockade on the monarchy in advance of a planned land invasion, Epstein wrote to Al Thani, offering him advice on how Dubai could rescue herself. “I think Qatar should stop kicking and arguing,” and make nice with the Zionist entity, he proposed. “Let the heat come down a bit.”
In reference to the monarchy’s support for Hamas, he suggested “Qatar needs to come out against terrorism,” as “the smell of terrorism financing will be around for years.” Epstein went on to reference Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent international jaunt, where he’d met Trump in June, before becoming the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit the Zionist entity. Modi also snubbed the Palestinian Authority, eliciting condemnation from PA officials. Epstein reported:
“Modi took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US president [Donald Trump]. They had met a few weeks ago. IT WORKED!”
Troublingly, Epstein’s filial alliance with Ehud Barak overlapped with Barak serving as Tel Aviv’s security minister, raising the obvious question of whether Epstein in any way directly influenced Israeli policy during this time, or acted as an advocate and broker for the Zionist entity with other countries in West Asia and beyond. Barak solicited Epstein’s input with his public writing, including a draft of his book My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel, Searching for Peace, which was released in May 2018.
That month, Barak’s wife emailed Epstein while visiting New York demanding an “urgent short meeting” between Epstein and her husband. One day later, Donald Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement, in favour of a “maximum pressure” campaign. In July 2018, Barak’s private surveillance firm Toka broke cover publicly for the first time, announcing it had raised $12.5 million in seed funding from investors including venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
Andreessen Horowitz invested in several ventures also backed by Jeffrey Epstein, including CoinBase. It is unknown whether Epstein invested in Toka, although his interest in such a company would be clear. The firm is stacked with former Israeli cyber spies, and has patented technology capable of locating security cameras and webcams, hacking into them, then altering their live feeds without trace. Such a resource removes any need for real-life individuals to oversee “honey trap” operations, and targets to take the bait.
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
Tales of the American Empire | February 12, 2026
Tales of the American Empire produces short historical videos about the American empire, like the “Sordid History of the CIA”, which is linked below. Most viewers are interested in the American CIA, so this is another episode about videos detailing the evils of the CIA. Some CIA officers work with murderous dictators and criminal organizations involved in the drug trade, arms dealing, and government contract fraud. These evil deeds are sometimes uncovered by the media but receive little attention.
There are YouTube videos that provide insight into covert CIA operations. This is far too much material to condense into a short video. Here is a quick review of more great YouTube videos about the CIA with a link to them below. If the link no longer works, the content has been removed. Two videos from the first part of this series have since disappeared. They may be found on smaller video hosting websites like Rumble, Bitchute, or Odyssey.
• The Sordid History of the CIA • The 1964 CIA Coup in Brazil • The CIA, Money Laundering, and Organized C… • The CIA’s Cocaine Corridor • The U.S. Plan to KILL Its Own Citizens: Op… • The Empire’s 2021 Coup in Guinea • Hector Berrellez (Unreleased Full Interview) • The CIA in Angola • Story of a Whistleblower Jailed for Exposi… • The 1954 CIA Coup in Guatemala • Part 1: Kevin Shipp, CIA Officer Exposes … • The Empire’s 2009 Coup in Honduras • Max Blumenthal exposes CIA-cartel connections • The CIA ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
By Fuad Walid Itayim | The Cradle | February 12, 2026
Early last month, the forces of the ‘new’ Syrian army flooded across north and east Syria. The troops seized key cities and major oil fields, effectively ending a decade of US-backed Kurdish autonomy – with Washington’s blessing.
One of those cities was Raqqa, the former capital of ISIS’s self-proclaimed ‘caliphate’ in Syria and a symbol of sectarianism, bloodshed, and iron-fist rule.
Raqqa remembers
It was in Raqqa where scores of soldiers from the now-dismantled Syrian Arab Army (SAA) were executed in cold blood by ISIS militants. Many of these soldiers had their severed heads impaled on pikes on the city’s outskirts.
It was also in Raqqa where countless young girls and women, many of them Yezidis abducted from Iraq in 2014, were sold into slavery in what ISIS called Souq al-Sabaya – the ‘market of female captives.’
As Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani) armed forces entered the city in early 2026, his soldiers were gleeful, excited, and reminiscent. Many of them had been there before.
A closer look at the officers leading this offensive reveals a stark reality: ISIS has not been defeated. It has been absorbed, rebranded, and redeployed across Syria, reclaiming its ‘caliphate.’
ISIS reborn under Turkiye’s shadow
The Violations Documentation Center in Northern Syria (VDCNY), a Manbij-based human rights organization that monitors abuses against Kurds, released a report in August 2024 identifying dozens of extremist militants formerly affiliated with ISIS who were later incorporated into the Turkiye-backed Syrian National Army (SNA).
The SNA was formed by Ankara in 2017 and for years served as the Turkish military’s arm in northern Syria. Turkish forces had invaded Syria in 2016 to carry out an operation against the US-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), whose dominant component is the People’s Protection Units (YPG) – which Ankara regards as the Syrian extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Turkiye went on to occupy swathes of Syrian territory and maintains that presence today.
Free Syrian Army (FSA) factions that assisted Turkiye’s 2016 intervention were reorganized into what became the SNA. After Raqqa fell to the SDF in 2017, this coalition absorbed scores of fleeing ISIS members. Over time, the SNA continued integrating former ISIS fighters into its ranks.
The ISIS ‘caliphate’ seemed defeated at a certain point. In reality, much of the heavy fighting against ISIS across Syria had been carried out by the former Syrian army, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, allied Iran-backed factions, and the Russian air force. The credit, however, went to Washington and the SDF – which today has been abandoned once again by the US military.
But ISIS was regrouping and reestablishing itself under a new name, with direct Turkish backing and under the watchful eye of US forces.
As VDCNY bluntly stated: “ISIS grew on the shoulders of the Free Syrian Army.”
Below is a partial list of former ISIS figures who were later absorbed into the SNA:
Abu Mohammad al-Jazrawi
According to the August 2024 VDCNY report, Abu Mohammad al-Jazrawi – born Abdullah Mohammad al-Anzi – is a Saudi national who joined ISIS in 2015 after arriving in Syria illegally via Turkiye – like tens of thousands of others from various parts of the world who did the same.
During his time with ISIS, he participated in battles against the Syrian army in the Syrian Desert and Homs countryside. He ended up becoming a military commander in Ahrar al-Sham, a notorious, sectarian extremist group responsible for many war crimes and atrocities.
Ahrar al-Sham had previously fought alongside Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front before eventually being embedded into the SNA. The extremist group is responsible for numerous war crimes, including the deadly shelling of civilians in the Shia-majority towns of Nubul and Zahraa in Aleppo, during the early years of the war.
Bashar Smeid
Nicknamed Abu Islam al-Qalamouni, Smeid joined ISIS in 2014 and participated in fighting in the Palmyra desert, Damascus countryside, and near Al-Tanf Base – where US forces were training extremist militants.
In 2016, he took command of a security detachment that oversaw the infiltration of three car bombs into Damascus’s Sayyida Zaynab area. He ended up moving to northern Syria’s Idlib in 2017 and worked with his group to funnel ISIS leaders into Turkiye.
A year later, he joined the SNA’s Ahrar al-Sharqiya faction – another criminal sectarian organization that was happy to take in ISIS leaders. In March 2023, members of Ahrar al-Sharqiya murdered four Kurdish civilians celebrating Newroz (Kurdish New Year).
Sabahi al-Ibrahim al-Muslih
Known as Abu Hamza al-Suhail, Muslih was a leader in ISIS’s Shura Council and oversaw trials on charges of apostasy and blasphemy that resulted in dozens of executions. He ended up joining the SNA’s 20th Division. While reports said he was killed in a US drone strike a few years ago, he remains a prime example of the type of characters who were joining the SNA.
Awad Jamal al-Jarad
Jarad joined ISIS in 2015 and commanded a battalion within the organization. He later entered the SNA’s Hamza Division in 2018, participated in Turkish offensives in Afrin, and subsequently joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya.
By August 2024, he was leading a unit of 30 men and had transformed the city of Tal Abyad’s post office into his personal headquarters and command center, according to VDCNY. The Hamza Division is responsible for sectarian violence, sexual assault, and other war crimes.
Majid al-Khalid
Khalid, nicknamed Hajj Abu Omar al-Ansari, formed Liwa al-Haq in Hama during the early years of the war, before incorporating his organization into ISIS in 2014. He was considered one of the founders of ISIS in Hama city.
He ended up becoming the Emir of Hama during his time with ISIS and took command of the suicide (‘Inghimassi’) battalions – which sent thousands of young men to blow themselves up in holy sites and civilian areas. In 2017, he joined the Hamza Division and became a battalion commander in the group.
Salem Turki al-Antari
Antari, nicknamed Abu Saddam al-Ansari, joined ISIS in 2014 in the Badia desert region, where he served as a commander and led extremists in battle against the former Syrian army in Palmyra and near Al-Tanf Base.
He went on to become the Emir of Palmyra. Antari later joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya in 2017 and took part in Turkish-backed assaults against Afrin, Tal Rifaat, and Ras al-Ain. He was also implicated in the roadside execution of Kurdish politician Hevrin Khalaf in 2019. In 2024, the ex-ISIS chief was appointed as the commander of the US-backed Syria Free Army (SFA), which was formed by Washington in 2022 and trained in the Al-Tanf Base.
SFA now operates under the Syrian Defense Ministry. Between 2015 and 2017, Antari took part in the ISIS takeover of Palmyra and the battles with the Syrian army that ensued. The terrorist organization’s assault on Palmyra destroyed some of Syria’s most cherished cultural heritage. In 2015, ISIS notoriously publicly beheaded renowned 83-year-old Syrian archeologist Khaled al-Asaad for refusing to reveal the locations of hidden antiquities.
Raad Issa al-Barghash
Also known as Abu Zainab, Barghash pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2013. He fought with the group in Ain al-Arab (Kobane) and elsewhere, and was responsible for the killing of many civilians. In 2017, he fled to Aleppo and entered the ranks of Ahrar al-Sharqiya, eventually becoming a top security chief in the group.
Thamer Nasser al-Iraqi
An Iraqi citizen, he joined ISIS in 2013 in Homs and then served as the military fortifications Emir in the Al-Shaddadi area until 2015. In 2016, he became the Emir of the armaments department in Raqqa, and then an advisor to the ISIS Security Office No. 011 in Raqqa.
Iraqi participated in the Battle of Mosul in 2014. Three years later, he fled towards the city of Jarablus, east of Aleppo. In November 2017, he joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya and participated in Operation Olive Branch and Operation Peace Spring, launched by the Turkish army in 2018 and 2019. He also participated in bombings and summary executions of Kurdish civilians in the Jindires district of Afrin.
Sayf Boulad Abu Bakr
Abu Bakr, now a dual Syrian-Turkish citizen, had defected from the old Syrian military to join the FSA in 2012. These defections were encouraged by foreign intervention and funding. The FSA never maintained the status of a unified opposition force, quickly splintering into different factions that aligned themselves with extremist groups.
He joined ISIS in 2013 and was appointed governor of Al-Bab during the organization’s control over the city. A few years later, he ended up as commander in the Hamza Division, taking part in several Turkish-backed offensives against Kurdish forces.
During his time with ISIS, he appeared in a propaganda video where another member of the group is heard demanding “repentance” from around a dozen prisoners kneeling before them. The prisoners are identified in the video as members of the PKK.
Abu Bakr was also associated with Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, an FSA commander who publicly praised ISIS following the capture of Menagh Air Base in 2013.
Abu Bakr is now a senior commander in the Syrian army. In May 2025, the EU imposed sanctions on him, including asset freezes and a travel ban, citing “serious human rights abuses in Syria, including torture and arbitrary killings of civilians.”
Washington’s ‘partner’ in fighting ISIS
These are only select examples.
In 2025, the entire Turkish-backed SNA was formally integrated into the Syrian Defense Ministry. Following the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the SNA – effectively ISIS in new attire – became a core pillar of the current Syrian army, alongside Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), previously the Nusra Front. HTS itself contains numerous former ISIS members and has a long record of war crimes.
After the SDF was thrown under the bus by Washington in early 2026, Syrian forces swept across the north and captured key oil fields and cities. Soldiers were jubilant upon their entry into Raqqa, charged with nostalgia for ISIS’s glory days.
During the assault on northern Syria, tens of thousands of ISIS militants and their families were set free as troops entered Al-Hawl Prison Camp, which was previously run by the SDF.
Videos on social media showed government troops arriving at Al-Hawl and allowing the prisoners to leave. During the fighting days earlier, hundreds of ISIS prisoners escaped from Al-Shaddadi Prison. The SDF lost control of the facility and accused the US of ignoring its calls for help. Two kilometers away from the prison is a US coalition military base.
“The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS], we are proud of this,” video footage showed one Iraqi woman, dressed in a niqab, saying as she was leaving Al-Hawl.
The new Syrian army is saturated with former ISIS commanders and fighters – yet Washington now describes it as a “partner” in combating ISIS.
This is the same army that massacred Alawites and Druze in March and July of 2025, and committed heinous war crimes against Kurds during attacks against the SDF in January 2026.
President Sharaa, the former ISIS and Al-Qaeda leader behind deadly sectarian suicide bombings in both Iraq and Syria, (as well deadly attacks in Lebanon and the occupation of the country’s border with Syria) has vowed to protect minorities, and claims he is leading a campaign to rid Syria of extremism.
This is impossible with an army made up of ISIS and a political leadership made up of violent warlords.
An investigation released by The Cradle last year reveals that since Sharaa came to power, Syria has witnessed a government-linked campaign of mass abduction and sexual enslavement targeting young Alawite women. Syrian government forces also committed massacres targeting minorities, including Druze and Alawites.
In a new video from the assault on the north, a Syrian soldier films two female Kurdish fighters captured during battle. As he drives around with the two women in the back of his vehicle, he brags about how they will make a “perfect gift” for his commander.
ISIS is very much alive. And it now rules the entirety of Syria under the protection and sponsorship of the US and Turkiye.
Why ARE the US and Israel Obsessed With Eliminating Iran’s Ballistic Missiles?
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | February 11, 2026
It appears the main topic of discussion at Wednesday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu was Iran’s ballistic missile program. It really was not a discussion… Instead it was Bibi, with his advisers, trying to sell Trump and his team on the necessity of ending Iran’s ballistic missile capability. Why the emphasis on those missiles when, until recently, the big concern was whether Iran could build a nuclear bomb? The US and Israeli narrative about Iran’s missile and drone strikes in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 insists that Iran did little damage and that the combined might of US and Israeli air-defense systems knocked down 90% of the Iranian ballistic missiles. If that was true, why is Netanyahu pressing Trump touting on the need for Iran to eliminate its ballistic missile force?
I have the answer… We need only look at the damage Iran’s ballistic missiles caused in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 — based on reporting and independent analyses of the conflict (much of the detailed damage was initially censored or not fully disclosed by Israeli authorities, but independent and foreign sources have provided information).
Iran launched more than 1,000 ballistic missiles toward Israel over the 12 days, often in large salvos that overwhelmed the Israeli and US air defenses. Israel’s multilayered missile defense systems intercepted some, but a significant number still penetrated and struck targets. Hundreds of buildings in major cities such as Tel Aviv suburbs (Bat Yam, Ramat Gan) were damaged — with some buildings so badly hit they were later demolished. In Tel Aviv alone, analysts mapped damage to around 480 buildings across multiple strike sites.
Iranian missiles damaged key public facilities, such as the Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva, which was hit by an Iranian missile, causing structural damage and chemical leaks; the affected wing was evacuated. Power and water infrastructure also were hit, contributing to service disruptions.
Iran’s ballistic strikes hit high-value facilities as well. The Weizmann Institute of Science (a major research institution in Rehovot) was severely damaged — with an estimated 90% of structures affected, destruction of dozens of labs, and suspension of about 25% of its operations.
Independent radar data and reporting showed that Iranian missiles directly hit around five Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) facilities, including an air base, intelligence center, and logistics base. Israeli authorities did not publicly confirm these hits at the time, due to military censorship. Israeli oil refining infrastructure — especially in Haifa Bay — also suffered direct hits and damage from Iranian missiles, including to critical units and pipelines at the Bazan refinery and associated casualties. The strike on the Bazan oil refinery complex in Haifa Bay, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities, heavily damaged the power generation unit and other infrastructure critical for operation.
Wednesday’s meeting between Trump and Netanyahu lasted nearly three hours (longer than scheduled) and, according to Israeli media, also included US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Israel’s ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, Military Secretary Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman, acting director of the National Security Council Gil Reich, Michael Eisenberg, Ziv Agmon, and advisor Ofir Falk.
So what did President Trump and Bibi talk about on Wednesday. According to the Jerusalem Post :
[T]he prime minister presented intelligence on Iran’s military buildup, including developments related to its ballistic missile program. He also conveyed the message that if Trump decides to strike Iran, the operation should include targeting the ballistic missile project as well.
Haaretz echoed the Jerusalem Post’s report, but also noted that Netanyahu is worried that Trump will strike a deal with Iran that ensures Iran does not and will not have a nuke. Netanyahu thinks that would be bad for Israel:
Messages from the Prime Minister’s Office indicate that such a deal would be bad not only for Israel but for the entire Middle East. Netanyahu was expected to attempt to thwart an agreement that does not include significant restrictions on ballistic missile production in Iran, while at the same time avoiding being perceived as encouraging the United States to go to war with unpredictable outcomes.
Remember all the times that Bibi showed up at the UN and the US Congress with pictures of an imaginary Iranian nuclear bomb? The bomb is no longer the Israeli priority… Eliminating Iran’s ballistic missiles is now number one on the hit list because Israel took a severe beating last June and Netanyhu fears what Iran could do if Iran makes good on its threats to unleash its missile force if attacked.
Trump tried to placate Bibi by announcing that he has ordered the Navy to PREPARE to deploy another carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea. The key word is PREPARE… Preparing is not the same as a Deployment Order. I am happy to say that I was wrong about the US launching an attack this week. Based on Trump’s account of the session with Bibi, there is going to be at least one more round of talks in Oman between the US and Iran before a new attack on Iran is unleashed.
Despite Trump’s constant boasting about the mighty prowess of the US military, the US lacks the capability to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile force. For starters, the Iranian missiles are stored below ground in hardened tunnels that are scattered across Iran. The US military embarrassed itself last March when it failed to destroy the Houthi ballistic missiles during the seven weeks of Operation Rough Rider… Finding and destroying a mobile missile launcher is damn hard. Unlike Yemen, which did not have an integrated air-defense system or an air force, Iran has both. The lack of air supremacy by the US complicates the task of locating and destroying ballistic missiles in Iran. And that is assuming that Iran is not also using decoys in order to deplete the US inventory of missiles it would use to destroy the Iranian capability.
Iran is willing and ready to make a deal that will assure Trump that it is not building a nuke. And, based on Rick Sanchez’s recent interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi, Iran is willing to make concessions on the enrichment of uranium. While Trump will be loathe to admit it, if he accepts Iran’s offer then he is in effect reviving the JCPOA.
Populations in key NATO nations balk at sacrifices for military spending – poll
RT | February 13, 2026
People in key NATO nations are reluctant to tighten their belts to fund increased defense spending, despite believing that the world is “heading toward global war,” according to a Politico poll published on Friday.
The poll, which surveyed at least 2,000 people from the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany each, found that majorities in four of the five countries think “the world is becoming more dangerous” and expect World War III to break out within five years.
Nearly half of Americans (46%) consider a new world war ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ by 2031, up from 38% last year. In the UK, 43% share this belief, up from 30% in March 2025.
French respondents matched British levels at 43%, and 40% of Canadians expect war within five years. Only Germans remain skeptical, with a majority believing that a global conflict is unlikely in the near term.
The survey suggested a stark disconnect, however, between the growing alarm and willingness to pay for a defense buildup. While respondents support increased military spending in principle, support fell dramatically when specific trade-offs were mentioned.
In France, support dropped from 40% to 28% when those being surveyed were told about the potential financial and fiscal consequences. In Germany, it fell from 37% to 24%, with defense spending ranking as one of the least popular uses of money.
The survey also suggested significant skepticism about creating an EU army under a central command, with support at 22% in Germany and 17% in France.
While the poll suggests that Russia is perceived as the ‘biggest threat’ to Europe, Canadians view the administration of US President Donald Trump as the greatest danger to their security. Respondents in France, Germany, and the UK rank the US as the second-biggest threat – cited far more often than China.
The findings come after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged members states in December to embrace a “wartime mindset” amid the stand-off with Russia. This also comes amid Western media speculation that Russia could attack European NATO members within several years. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” while accusing EU countries of manufacturing anti-Russia hysteria to justify reckless militarization.
40 State Attorneys General Want To Tie Online Access to ID
The bill’s supporters call it child protection; its architecture looks more like a national ID system for the internet.
Reclaim The Net | February 12, 2026
A bloc of 40 state and territorial attorneys general is urging Congress to adopt the Senate’s version of the controversial Kids Online Safety Act, positioning it as the stronger regulatory instrument and rejecting the House companion as insufficient.
The Act would kill online anonymity and tie online activity and speech to a real-world identity.
Acting through the National Association of Attorneys General, the coalition sent a letter to congressional leadership endorsing S. 1748 and opposing H.R. 6484.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
Their request centers on structural differences between the bills. The Senate proposal would create a federally enforceable “Duty of Care” requiring covered platforms to mitigate defined harms to minors.
Enforcement authority would rest with the Federal Trade Commission, which could investigate and sue companies that fail to prevent minors from encountering content deemed to cause “harm to minors.”
That framework would require regulators to evaluate internal content moderation systems, recommendation algorithms, and safety controls.
S. 1748 also directs the Secretary of Commerce, the FTC, and the Federal Communications Commission to study “the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”
This language moves beyond platform-level age gates and toward infrastructure embedded directly into hardware or operating systems.
Age verification at that layer would not function without some form of credentialing. Device-level verification would likely depend on digital identity checks tied to government-issued identification, third-party age verification vendors, or persistent account authentication systems.
That means users could be required to submit identifying information before accessing broad categories of lawful online speech. Anonymous browsing depends on the ability to access content without linking identity credentials to activity.
A device-level age verification architecture would establish identity checkpoints upstream of content access, creating records that age was verified and potentially associating that verification with a persistent device or account.
Even if content is not stored, the existence of a verified identity token tied to access creates a paper trail.
Constitutional questions follow. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized anonymous speech as protected under the First Amendment. Mandating identity verification before accessing lawful speech raises prior restraint and overbreadth concerns, particularly where the definition of “harm to minors” extends into categories that are legal for adults.
Courts have struck down earlier efforts to impose age verification requirements for online content on First Amendment grounds, citing the chilling effect on lawful expression and adult access.
Despite this history, state officials continue to advocate for broader age verification regimes. Several states have enacted or proposed laws requiring age checks for social media or adult content sites, often triggering litigation over compelled identification and privacy burdens.
The coalition’s letter suggests that state attorneys general are not retreating from that position and are instead seeking federal backing.
The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental health risks and point to evidence suggesting firms are aware of adverse consequences for minors.
Multiple state offices have already filed lawsuits or opened investigations against Meta and TikTok, alleging “harm” to young users.
At the same time, the coalition objects to provisions in H.R. 6484 that would limit state authority. The House bill contains broader federal preemption language, which could restrict states from enforcing parallel or more stringent requirements. The attorneys general warn that this would curb their ability to pursue emerging online harms under state law. They also fault the House proposal for relying on company-maintained “reasonable policies, practices, and procedures” rather than imposing a statutory Duty of Care.
The Senate approach couples enforceable federal standards with preserved state enforcement power.
The coalition calls on the United States House of Representatives to align with the Senate framework, expand the list of enumerated harms to include even suicide, eating disorders, compulsive use, mental health harms, and financial harms, and ensure that states retain authority to act alongside federal regulators. The measure has bipartisan sponsorship in the United States Senate.
The policy direction is clear. Federal agencies would study device-level age verification systems, the FTC would police compliance with harm mitigation duties, and states would continue to pursue parallel litigation. Those mechanisms would reshape how platforms design their systems and how users access speech.
Whether framed as child protection or platform accountability, the architecture contemplated by S. 1748 would move identity verification closer to the heart of internet access.
Once age checks are embedded at the operating system level, the boundary between verifying age and verifying identity becomes difficult to maintain.
The internet would be changed forever.
Featured Video
US Marines Seized Panama in 1903
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Precedents for Pizzagate
Marc Dutroux, Belgian pedophile, sadist, and serial killer with friends in high places
By Aedon Cassiel | Counter – Currents | December 23, 2016
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump stalls over Iran strike plan, Iran holds all the aces
- Zelensky’s Ceasefire for Elections is Strategic Gambit, Not Democratic Move
- US and Dutch pilots flying F-16s for Ukraine – Western media
- West’s Claims of Non-Involvement in Ukraine Conflict ‘Epitome of Hypocrisy’ – Expert
- Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’
- The Depth Charge in the Womb
- ‘Fox guarding the henhouse’: AMA, Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct their own vaccine safety and efficacy reviews
- Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen Defend Expanded Speech Controls
- Keir Starmer-tied think tank paid PR firm to target The Grayzone
- ‘Israel’ threatens to genocide Gaza if Hamas refuses disarmament
- If Americans Knew
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
Aletho News 