Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić told “Epilogue” viewers on TV Insider that U.S. President Donald Trump directly mentioned Serbia as a place where USAID wanted a regime change, reports Blic.
“Someone was only waiting for additional tragedies, meanwhile preparing different types of scenarios for some new riots and for some new attacks on the state. And that is nothing new, and it can be seen through the words of President Donald Trump. Donald Trump directly mentioned Serbia yesterday, the president of the United States of America directly mentioned Serbia as a place where they wanted a political change of government. Those who received American money to overthrow the government,” said Vučić in the Epilogue show on TV Insider.
In July of last year, the government of Serbia issued a joint statement with USAID regarding $18 million of new funds for a “development partnership,” and outlets have pointed out that the government has thanked the U.S. for such money in the past.
The July statement noted that the new “funds will be used, among other things, to improve public procurement procedures in Serbia, improve access to justice for citizens, improve environmental protection and energy security, promote a stronger media environment, improvement of economic opportunities for vulnerable groups, as well as for greater competitiveness of the Serbian economy.”
Vučić admitted during his TV interview that money has been received and used, but primarily for “senseless projects that were supposed to cover the eyes,” while the real intent of most funding was to overthrow the government. Asked about the “many videos” of himself and other officials thanking USAID for funding projects, Vučić said that “when someone gives you 1,000 euros, it is up to you to still politely say ‘thank you.’”
He then indicated that money was spent on equipping Serbian courts with various recording devices, microphones and many other things. But far larger amounts were being handed to NGOs such as Trag and CRTA.
“In the last four years, there were 400 million (dinar), of which not even 10 million went to the state. Everything went your way for the non-governmental sector,” said Vučić.
Oddly, in April of 2024, a few months before USAID’s additional $18 million was announced, Trag and CRTA jointly announced a USAID competition for grants under what they called a “Mobilization Fund program.”
“Trag Foundation and CRTA, with the financial support of the American Agency for International Development (USAID), invite you to apply for the competition for the Mobilization Fund program.”
Listed activities that could receive grants included: “local community development, human rights, anti-discrimination, women’s rights and women’s empowerment, youth empowerment, inclusion, solidarity economy, environmental protection, socio-economic development, rule of law, accountability of public institutions, fight against corruption, urbanism and public spaces and all others in which activists recognize challenges.”
Former prime minister and president of the National Assembly of Serbia Ana Brnabic has been called out as well for her gratitude in the past for USAID funds that had presumably “improved” the country. Now, with Trump in office, she is changing her tune, saying the “investigative media outlets” financed by USAID had systematically harmed Serbia, according to Tanjug.
“In the past 10-11 years, they have been implying that anyone who engages in politics is, in a way, corrupt or wants to be corrupt. That has made it impossible for the many quality people who wanted to help, or were perhaps helping from the background all the time, to get involved as state secretaries or ministers because they would, in fact, immediately be targeted by various media such as Krik,” Brnabic said on Pink TV.
Brnabic further let the cat out of the bag, noting there is no such thing as independent media, which merely implies reliance on U.S. money from special interest groups.
“You can see that those media outlets and the people working there were quite dependent. It is just that they were dependent on the American administration and, to make things worse, not on a U.S. administration elected by American citizens, but on what is referred to as the deep state,” Brnabic said.
According to Tanjug, Serbia will further investigate the spending of USAID funds if the U.S. asks.
Regarding the media portal Kric, mentioned above. President Vučić had a recent spat with one of its journalists who tried, again, to corner Vučić with supposed information on his brother at the opening of the International Tourism Fair in Belgrade.
The journalist said that Andrej Vučić’s name was brought up in recorded messages, indicating he held power over state contracts in Novi Sad and also regarding police appointments.
Vučić called the allegations “a notorious lie,” reiterated his brother holds no political office, and then turned on the journalist, asking, “I am interested in you answering the question of how much money you received from USAID, how much from NED? How much money did these two criminal organizations, both one and the other, transfer to you? How much, as the American president and one of the most famous secular, one might say, businessmen, Elon Musk, who calls these criminal organizations? How much money did they give you for this?
Making fun of the allegations from third parties, Vučić said, “Many people also write that I told them I would jump from the Smilovica lookout, but I haven’t jumped yet.” He then pointed out that, on the other hand, the funding Kric has received from the U.S. is a fact.
The journalist then accused the president of targeting journalists, again, to which Vučić replied: “How can I target you? I’m just asking how much money you received.”
The United States has reportedly given $937 million to Serbia since 2001. Although the USAID site is no longer online, a Google search still shows entries, with one for Serbia saying this money was meant for “economic and democratic development.”
I disagree strongly with those who seek to exonerate the Trump 45 administration of culpability for the war in Ukraine.
I submit it is indisputable that the trend line of US/NATO preparations of the #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine began to go parabolic during the 2017-2021 period.
Sure, the US/NATO had not yet provided the AFU with artillery, armor, or air defense systems — but the AFU didn’t NEED that kind of stuff at the time. They had, by far, the largest and most potent army and air defense array in Europe (ex-Russia).
They were provided with and trained on the use of US/NATO ATGMs (Javelin / NLAW). And it is obvious, in retrospect, that select AFU contingents were already being trained in the use of systems such as the American M-777 howitzer and HIMARS MLRS, both of which were introduced on the battlefield within about 90 days of the beginning of major warfare.
Most importantly — and I believe many are now conveniently overlooking this crucial element — the AFU was provided with and trained on advanced US/NATO secure communications systems and battlefield management software applications.
AFU command and operations were integrated with the US/NATO command structure, and comprehensive access was provided to US/NATO ISR — satellite, airborne, and “on the ground” personnel.
During the Trump 45 period, US “on the ground” intel bases numbering in the double-digits were operated throughout eastern Ukraine — manned by covert and “volunteer” NATO-affiliated personnel.
As I have argued repeatedly, it was precisely this access to US/NATO ISR capabilities that elevated the AFU from “potent” to “very formidable” in this war. And the training and preparation for this aspect of war-fighting rose in a steady crescendo in the five years preceding February 24, 2022.
Perhaps President Trump himself was “kept in the dark” regarding these preparations. I doubt it, but I consent to that possibility. In any case, it does not alter the fact that these developments occurred during his tenure, and constituted the final stages of the preparation for open warfare against Russia that ultimately commenced in early 2022.
Attempting to mitigate the culpability of the Trump 45 administration while simultaneously heaping all the blame on Biden and Zelensky is not only disingenuous, it is historically erroneous.
The empire carefully orchestrated and choreographed “Project Ukraine” over the course of many years spanning multiple US presidential terms, and there was no discernible diminution of their focus and efforts at any point along the time line.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – an incorporated agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – earmarked $2.6 million to fund a “war on misinformation” contract in 2023, according to data on the usaspending.gov website.
The blanket purchase agreement note lists “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation analysis” as the subjects of the order, with $1.2 million spent, and as much currently listed as the obligated amount.
Screenshot of a USAspending.gov contract summary detailing a completed Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call awarded by the DHS to Guidehouse Inc., located in McLean, VA.
As noticed by Foundation For Freedom Online, the recipient is the consultancy firm Guildehouse, a government contractor owned by Bain Capital. A post on the company’s website that has since been deleted spoke about Guildehouse engaging with social media platforms to report misinformation (including flagging posts for removal).
Guildehouse also “maintained a proprietary internal database” to track content designated as “misinformation,” and a list of “higher risks” sites that might have published such content.
The case looks like another piece in the puzzle that has been the Big Government-Big Tech collusion to suppress speech in the US, unfolding over the last four years.
“$ Award Amounts” chart shows $1.2 million as the outlayed amount, $1.2 million as the obligated amount, and $1.2 million as the current award amount, with a potential award amount of $2.6 million.
This one features some recurring, and some new “characters” – but also, sheds more light on what appears to be the former authorities’ painstaking efforts to obfuscate the ties that bound those actors together.
For example, FEMA is not one of the usual entities brought up in Congressional investigations and lawsuits delving deep into that collusion; but it is a sub-agency of the DHS, notorious for things like the failed attempt to set up the Disinformation Governance Board, and even work, in roundabout ways, with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP).
In 2023, the House Committee on Homeland Security referred to the practice of “delegating” what’s unconstitutional censorship of speech to third parties as, “censorship laundering.”
A group that does often crop up in these probes is the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship group of the “Kill Musk’s Twitter” infamy, which in 2024 organized what reports say was an “exclusive, invite-only” gala.
One of those invited was Erica Mindel – a former member of the Israeli military, a contractor to the US State Department’s envoy monitoring and combating antisemitism – but also, one of Guildehouse’s senior consultants.
Video streaming platform Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, have filed a lawsuit against controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of unconstitutional censorship that violates US law.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that Moraes has engaged in “ultra vires” (beyond his legal authority) actions to silence political dissent and force American companies to comply with extraterritorial gag orders.
At the center of the case are alleged secret directives from Moraes, ordering Rumble to suspend accounts belonging to a US-based Brazilian political dissident, identified in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” Moraes’ orders also prohibit Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and impose strict penalties for noncompliance, including daily fines and a potential shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
According to the complaint, the orders are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple US-based accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident A’s] content,” the plaintiffs state.
The lawsuit further argues that these orders “censor legitimate political discourse in the United States, undermining fundamental constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Impact on American Free Speech
Rumble, a Florida-based video platform, and Truth Social argue that complying with the gag orders would set a dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
“Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit states.
The companies also allege that Moraes has ignored international legal frameworks, such as the US-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive tactics.
“Rather than submitting a formal request through proper channels, Justice Moraes issued orders compelling Rumble, a US-based company with no presence or operations in Brazil, to appoint local attorneys solely for the purpose of accepting service of his censorship mandates,” the complaint states.
Broader Concerns Over Free Speech
Moraes, who has been at the forefront of Brazil’s controversial “Fake News Inquiry,” has drawn international criticism for his aggressive measures against political speech. The lawsuit cites reports that he has ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists, legislators, and other critics of Brazil’s government.
The complaint also references comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, where he denounced global trends of judicial censorship. “We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated. The plaintiffs argue that Moraes’s actions are an example of such overreach.
Rumble and TMTG are asking the court to declare Moraes’s orders unenforceable in the United States, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The lawsuit argues that enforcing the Brazilian orders would “compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political speech,” in direct conflict with US laws protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
They are also seeking an injunction to prevent companies like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble app due to the Brazilian orders. The complaint warns that if tech giants comply with Moraes’s demands, “the shutdown could intensify, depriving American service providers like Rumble and platforms like Truth Social of lawful expression and shutting off millions of US users from robust political debate.”
The case raises significant questions about the ability of foreign governments to impose censorship rules on US-based platforms. If successful, the lawsuit could set a legal precedent reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach.
Moraes has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and it remains unclear whether the Brazilian government will intervene. However, the plaintiffs argue that this case is about more than just one dissident—it is about safeguarding American free speech from foreign interference.
As the complaint puts it: “Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern these US-based companies and their American operations.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has become a central figure in Brazil’s escalating crackdown on political dissent, leveraging his position on the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) to implement sweeping censorship measures. Since assuming his post in 2017, following the death of Justice Teori Zavascki, Moraes has increasingly used his judicial power to suppress speech he deems “anti-democratic” or “misinformation.”
His aggressive stance on censorship gained global attention in 2019 when he spearheaded Brazil’s controversial Fake News Inquiry, an unprecedented investigation that allowed the STF to unilaterally open cases, bypassing the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This move drew widespread criticism, with legal scholars and human rights organizations warning that the STF was acting as both judge and prosecutor, effectively eroding due process and the separation of powers.
Under Moraes’s watch, censorship in Brazil has reached alarming new heights. He has issued secret takedown orders against journalists, conservative politicians, and social media influencers, forcing platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook to remove accounts critical of the Brazilian government. In a 2020 purge, he mandated the removal of 16 X accounts and 12 Facebook accounts linked to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, using vague claims of “disinformation” as justification. By 2022, his censorship efforts had expanded to include nearly 150 targeted account suspensions, effectively silencing opposition voices. Moraes has even gone beyond digital suppression—he has ordered asset freezes, passport revocations, and arrests of individuals accused of spreading so-called “fake news.”
Over the past year, a significant conflict has unfolded between Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, and Justice Moraes. The dispute began when X refused to comply with Brazilian court orders to block accounts accused of disseminating misinformation and hate speech, many of which were supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes responded by imposing substantial daily fines and, in August 2024, ordered the suspension of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk publicly criticized Moraes, labeling him an “evil dictator” and accusing him of undermining democracy.
Despite initial resistance, X eventually complied with the court’s demands, including removing specified accounts and paying accumulated fines totaling approximately $4 million. In October 2024, Justice de Moraes lifted the suspension, allowing X to resume operations in Brazil.
Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY) are once again championing censorship under the guise of election security, objecting to the Trump administration’s decision to sideline several officials within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These lawmakers, both strong advocates for government intervention in online discourse, are alarmed that employees who previously played a role in monitoring and flagging speech for suppression have been placed on administrative leave.
Padilla, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Morelle, the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, are demanding explanations from senior CISA officials, asserting that the removal of these employees threatens election security. However, their concerns conveniently ignore the broader issue — CISA’s troubling involvement in suppressing free speech under the pretext of combating so-called “misinformation.”
In a formal letter, the lawmakers stated, “Election-related mis- and disinformation from domestic and foreign actors continues to threaten the strength and integrity of our democracy by weakening trust in our elections and promoting falsehoods about election officials that have resulted in threats against them and their families.” This rhetoric is a familiar justification for empowering government agencies to police online speech, often silencing dissenting voices and alternative perspectives in the process.
The removals at CISA are part of a course correction to ensure that federal agencies are not overstepping their bounds in surveilling and controlling public discourse. The Trump administration’s actions follow other moves aimed at restoring balance, such as dismantling an FBI task force that engaged in similar activities and removing Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub. Senator Padilla has responded by rallying fellow Democrats to demand the reinstatement of such figures, further exposing their commitment to government-controlled narratives.
Padilla and Morelle also question how CISA determined which employees to place on leave, suggesting that even those who had moved away from overt censorship operations remain essential to their agenda. They also bemoan CISA’s absence from recent election security conferences — gatherings that often serve as echo chambers for expanding government control over online speech.
The lawmakers’ letter demands a range of responses from CISA, seeking details on employee removals, directives from the Department of Homeland Security, and ongoing election security efforts. However, their real aim appears to be ensuring that CISA remains a stronghold for pro-censorship policies.
They have set a deadline of February 28, 2025, for CISA to respond, pushing for continued interference in election-related discourse. As they stated in their letter, “Regardless of party affiliation, all Americans deserve and expect free and fair elections.” Ironically, their persistent advocacy for government-regulated speech only undermines that very principle.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured tyrannical German prosecutors boasting about persecuting private citizens who made comments that officialdom disapproved. Three prosecutors explained how the government was entitled to launch pre-dawn raids and lock up individuals who criticized politicians, complained about immigrant crime waves, or otherwise crossed the latest revised boundary lines of acceptable thoughts.
In a craven slant that would have cheered any mid-twentieth century European dictator, 60 Minutes glorified the crackdown: “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine in an effort to protect discourse.” Nothing “protects discourse” like a jackboot kick aside the head of someone who insulted a German politician on Facebook, right? Mocking German leaders is punished like heresy was punished 500 years ago—though no one has been publicly torched yet.
Do the priggish German prosecutors realize that they are the latest incarnation of nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel? Hegel declared: “Men are as foolish as to forget, in their enthusiasm for liberty of conscience and political freedom, the truth which lies in power.” Hegel bluntly equated government and truth: “For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements.” Hegel probably did more to propel modern totalitarianism than perhaps any other philosopher.
Unfortunately, many Americans favor the US government becoming a Ministry of Truth like the German government. Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” according to a 2023 poll. But other polls show that only 20 percent trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. So why would people trust dishonest officials to forcibly eradicate “false information”? Did some people skip logic class, or what? A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances”—perhaps only when a rascally Republican is president?
Hegelian notions of “Government = Truth” propelled censorship here in recent years. Three years ago, Americans learned they lived under a Disinformation Governance Board with a ditzy Disinformation Czar who boasted of graduating from Bryn Mawr University. A public backlash led to the board’s termination but federal censors quickly and secretly resumed their sway over the internet.
Though American censors rarely invoke Hegel, their schemes tacitly presume that political power is divine, if not in origin, at least in its effect. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), created in 2018, has relied on “censorship by surrogate,” subcontracting the destruction of freedom. CISA partnered with federal grantees to form the Election Integrity Partnership a hundred days before the 2020 presidential election. That project, along with the efforts of other federal agencies, created an “unrelenting pressure” with “the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” according to a 2023 ruling by Federal Judge Terry Doughty.
What standard did CISA use to determine whether Americans should be muzzled? CISA settled controversies by contacting government employees and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source,” Judge Doughty noted. Any assertion by officialdom could suffice to justify suppression of comments or posts by private citizens. But when did government I.D. badges become the Oracle of Delphi?
During the 2020 presidential election campaign, CISA established a “Rumor Control” webpage to deal with threats to the election—including rumors that the feds were censoring Americans. CISA targeted for suppression assertions by Americans such as “mail-in voting is insecure”—despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. Biden won the presidency in part thanks to Democrats exploiting the covid pandemic to open the floodgates to unverified mail-in ballots. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared, “Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over.”
Censors act as if truth and lies are both self-evident. But as an investigative journalist hounding federal agencies, I have seen how government minimizes disclosures of its outrageous conduct. On April 19, 1993, 80 people died in a massive fire during an FBI tank assault on the home of the Branch Davidians. On that day, the FBI was adamant that they had nothing to do with the fire and also claimed to possess audiotapes proving the Davidians intentionally committed mass suicide. They never disclosed that proof. But anyone who suggested that the FBI was connected to the fatal fire was derided as an anti-government nut case, if not a public menace. A Los Angeles Times book reviewer practically blamed my criticism of the feds on Waco and other cases for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But year by year, the FBI’s Waco storyline fell apart. Six years after the fire, a private investigator found proof that the FBI fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians’ home before the fire, obliterating the FBI cover-up.
The same pattern of delayed disclosures or leaks annihilated the US government’s credibility on the epidemic of Gulf War syndrome cases in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the glorious triumph for democracy and women’s rights after the US invaded Afghanistan. The “trickle down” version of truth was also stark in the notorious Duke Lacrosse case. With his persistent, savvy analysis and investigations, Mises editor Bill Anderson heroically helped vanquish a media and prosecutorial lynch mob.
Unfortunately, in Germany, and at least sporadically in the United States, “truth” is whatever the government proclaims. “Disinformation” is whatever contradicts the latest government pronouncements. It is irrelevant how many false statements politicians or bureaucrats make. Government retains a monopoly on truth and on the right to deceive.
Recent censorship schemes vivify how democracy is being turned into a parody: voters choose politicians who then dictate what citizens are permitted to think and say. Censors destroy freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Censorship seeks to force each person to live in mental isolation, with no sparks for their thoughts from fellow citizens. Shortly before Hegel’s rise to prominence, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The external power that deprives man of the freedom to communicate his thoughts publicly, deprives him at the same time of his freedom to think.” By barricading individuals from each other, censors create millions of intellectual Robinson Crusoes, stranded on islands and trying to figure out everything for themselves. Prohibiting citizens from sharing facts of government abuses spawns a bastardized form of sovereign immunity. It minimizes opposition to political power grabs—often until it is too late to resist.
Other European nations are as bad or worse than Germany. Britain is notorious for raiding the homes and arresting anyone who makes allegations about immigrants and crime. According to Irish Senator Pauline O’Reilly, government must “restrict freedoms for the common good” when “a person’s views on other people’s identities” makes them “insecure.”Can I demand that government censor anyone who makes me insecure about my identity by mocking my vintage railroad engineer cap? By vastly expanding the definition of “hate speech,” politicians justify suppressing any views they disapprove.
Faith in officialdom to decree truth and punish error exemplifies growing political illiteracy. In earlier eras, Americans were renowned for heartily disdaining politicians who rose to power by making endless bogus promises.
Why would any prudent person expect bureaucrats to deliver “the truth, and nothing but the truth” like FEMA officials coming to the rescue after a flood? If the government can’t be trusted for reliable mail delivery, why in Hades would anyone trust government to judge and safeguard any thoughts citizens choose to share? Do people honestly expect that turning politicians into censors will evoke their inner sainthood? How can freedom of speech or any other freedom survive if so many people fall for so much BS from Washington?
In an incendiary post on X, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt called U.S. President Donald Trump the “greatest threat” to NATO, marking a sharp escalation in rhetoric, and potentially a threat to Trump himself.
“Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House. Blaming Zelensky for Russia’s war is outright Kremlin’s propaganda. He’s not just betraying the Atlantic alliance—he’s working to dismantle it. Europe, wake up NOW before it’s too late,” wrote Verhofstadt.
The remarks come after an increasing war of words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has now labeled a “dictator.” The U.S. president is seeking a peace deal to end the war in Russia and has sharply turned against Zelensky. Trump said he had “4% support” in the country and needed to call new elections. He has also raised questions about what he says is $350 billion in missing funds.
Zelensky was known to keep offshore accounts before the war and was named in the Pandora Papers. Accusations have swirled about Zelensky’s assets but much of it remains hidden in offshore bank accounts. Officially, he has approximately $4 million in assets.
As for Verhofstadt, the very wealthy left-liberal politician is known for his deep hatred of politicians who oppose his agenda, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán one of his top targets.
In 2022, for instance, Verhofstadt called Orbán a “traitor” for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
However, labeling Trump the “biggest threat” of NATO has borderline militaristic implications and calls into question what Verhofstadt thinks Europe should do about what he believes to be the biggest “threat” to the largest military alliance in history.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly rejected Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s help in brokering a ceasefire or mediating with the new American leadership. However, as Donald Trump now calls Zelensky a “dictator” and demands he step down and hold elections, it looks more and more like Zelensky should’ve taken up Orban’s offer, writes Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has no influence over Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine does not need his mediation in its relations with the United States,” Zelensky said in a speech delivered in December at a session of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Local and Regional Governments.
“Ukraine is a strong country and has proven it on the battlefield throughout Putin’s aggression. Does anyone else in Europe have this experience now? No. Does Orbán have such an army? No. How will he put pressure on Putin? With a joke, a smile? Let him keep it,” added the Ukrainian president.
When Viktor Orbán tried to reach a Christmas ceasefire with the warring parties in December, while Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed open to it, Zelensky flatly refused to help. He did so in a very disrespectful tone.
“We all hope Viktor Orban at least won’t call Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well. It’s absolutely clear that achieving real peace and guaranteed security requires America’s determination, Europe’s unity, and the unwavering commitment of all partners to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
Zelensky has consistently maintained that he has an excellent relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and that everything is in place to ensure they can cooperate well in implementing the Ukrainian president’s so-called “victory plan.”
“I think we agree that the war in Ukraine must end. Putin cannot win, Ukraine must win,” he said after their September meeting.
At a press conference in late January, the Ukrainian president said he supported President Trump’s desire to achieve success in creating a just peace. He added, however, that this could only be achieved together with Ukraine because Russia did not want to end the war. He also noted that Europe should also have a place at the negotiating table.
“I would like the European voice to be present. This is important for us because we will be members of the EU. But I cannot say today what the negotiation process will look like because we do not have a common plan yet,” said Zelensky, adding that Ukraine already has developed plans, the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan.
Now, with Trump in power, it appears Zelensky’s claims that they share the same vision for Ukraine was far from reality. In fact, Trump is now openly calling Zelensky a “dictator” and is looking to settle the conflict as soon as possible, without Zelensky even having a seat at the table.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
US President Donald Trump has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with EU leaders who spoke out against him during the course of the 2024 presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin told media on Wednesday.
During the campaign last year, a number of EU officials spoke out in favor of Trump’s Democrat rival for the White House, Kamala Harris, although most stopped short of endorsing her outright.
Trump, Putin noted, continues to be polite with his European allies, who were quite rude to him at the time.
“I am surprised by the restraint of newly elected US President Trump towards his allies, who behaved, frankly speaking, in a boorish manner. He still behaves quite courteously towards them,” he said.
Last October, Trump accused British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of election interference after UK Labour party helped recruit and deploy activists to help the Harris campaign in key swing states.
In August 2024, the Trump campaign accused the EU of interfering in the US presidential election after a senior bloc official warned Elon Musk against amplifying “potentially harmful content” ahead of his interview with Donald Trump.
“All European leaders, all without exception, essentially directly interfered in the election process in the US. It came to direct insults towards one of the candidates,” according to Putin.
President Vladimir Putin celebrated the talks between US and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia. He said the Kremlin was prepared to engage in bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.
According to Interfax, on Wednesday, Putin lauded the first round of talks between the US and Russia before saying Moscow is willing to engage with Kiev on ending the war in Ukraine. “Yes, I have been informed. I rate them highly, there are results,” he said. “In my opinion, we made the first step to restore work in various areas of mutual interests.”
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Saudi Arabia. Rubio said the two sides agreed to normalize diplomatic relations and work to end the war in Ukraine.
Putin explained while US involvement in talks was required, he was willing to engage with the Ukrainians. “No one is excluding Ukraine,” he said. “We are not imposing anything on anyone. We are ready, I have already said this a hundred times – if they want, please, let these negotiations take place. And we will be ready to return to the table for negotiations.”
On Tuesday, the Kremlin said Putin would be willing to speak with Ukrainian President Zelensky. On Wednesday, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that Zelenksy is a “dictator” who has done a “terrible job.”
While ending the war is a top priority, both Washington and Moscow have indicated that the two superpowers have a range of issues to discuss. Arms control is at a historic low point, and talks on nuclear weapons treaties halted during the latter years of the Joe Biden presidency. The last remaining nuclear arms control agreement, the New Start Treaty, is set to expire in a year.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deeply frustrated by Israel’s behaviour, which he saw as “blowing up” the American foreign policy and “humiliation” of the US, declassified British documents reveal.
The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also indicate that US President Gerald Ford shared Kissinger’s “outrage” over Israel’s approach to negotiations with Arab states.
Kissinger criticised Israel’s strategy of “giving with one hand and taking away with the other” and condemned Israelis’ total “unrealism” and “lack of understanding the Arabs”.
In January 1974, Kissinger brokered the first Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement in just eight days. By May, he had successfully mediated a similar deal between Syria and Israel. In early 1975, he resumed efforts, alongside his deputy, Joseph Sisco, to negotiate a second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement as a prelude to broader peace talks. However, negotiations collapsed in late March.
On his way back to the US, Kissinger met with his British counterpart James Callaghan at London airport, where he blamed Israel for the breakdown of the talks. According to meeting records, Kissinger stated that Israelis “had locked themselves into a more inflexible position than they need have done”. He understood that Israel “seemed intended” to be inflexible from the outset of his mission.
Kissinger described Israeli negotiators as “hopelessly confused” about the military and political aspects of their demand for a formal non-belligerency statement from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He noted that Israel insisted on both military assurances and political concessions, although the main purpose of the negotiations was to reach a deal on non-engagement of forces. He described this confusion as “a Talmudic wrangle”, adding that the Israelis “had shown a total lack of realism”. When the Israelis asked him whether their demands were not unreasonable, he replied they were “disastrous”.
Kissinger’s step-by-step diplomatic strategy aimed at gradually resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, but he warned that if this process stalled, “things would start going rapidly against Israel”. He expressed frustration over Israel’s “extraordinary lack of understanding” of both Arabs and the wider international scene”.
Before negotiations broke down, Ford attempted to push Israel to change its position. Kissinger informed Callaghan that the US president had sent a message to Israel containing “some very stern language” warning that the Israelis “couldn’t expect the Americans to go on financing a stalemate”.
Following the failure of Kissinger’s mediation, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon blamed Egypt for “hardening of attitude” which he alleged “manifested itself only in the concluding phase”.
In a message to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Callaghan, Allon asserted that Egyptians were prepared to concede to Israel “far less than might have been assumed before the talks began” while the Israelis “went substantially beyond that maximum” to which they “had initially considered it possible” for them to go.
He insisted that at every stage of the negotiation the Israelis showed themselves “ready to move closer towards the Egyptian position but without response on their side.”
Kissinger, however, dismissed Allon’s version of events as “weird” and “almost wholly fictitious,” calling Israel’s supposed concessions “an outright lie.”
In late March 1975, Kissinger told British Ambassador in Washington Peter Ramsbotham that there had “never at any times had there been any real movement” on Israel’s side. “What they gave with one hand, they took away with the other,” he said.
During negotiations, Israel presented six key demands, which Kissinger called “conditions”, including an Egyptian pledge of non-belligerency, end to propaganda against Israel in the Egyptian media, allowing Israeli cargos through the Suez Canal using ships of a third country, allowing overflights in Sinai, an end to the economic boycott and an end to actions against Israel in the international forum.
Kissinger revealed that Sadat had not only shown willingness to meet these demands but also offered additional concessions. These included allowing some Israeli crew members on third-party ships passing through the Suez Canal, preventing paramilitary activities, giving Israel private assurances on maritime passage through the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, and establishing a joint Israeli-Egyptian commission under UN supervision to resolve future disputes. Sisco, who accompanied Kissinger in the meeting with the British ambassador, said these concessions “had come as a surprise”.
While Sadat could not agree to a formal non-belligerency statement, he offered a compromise pledging not to use force during the disengagement period. This pledge, Kissinger explained, was not only “to be signed by the Egyptian military and diplomatic personnel” but there would be a provision that the pledge “would remain in force until suspended by some other agreement”. He described these as “substantial concessions” to Israel, and advised the British that it was “totally wrong” for the Israelis to say the Egyptians hadn’t made any real concessions.
However, Israel rejected Sadat’s offer and continued to insist on a formal non-belligerency agreement, prompting Kissinger to “blow up” and tell them “they couldn’t get this”.
Kissinger informed the British of a heated exchange between Sadat and Egyptian Defence Minister, General Abdel Ghani El-Gamasy, on more concessions Sadat was prepared to concede with regard to the control of strategic passes and oilfields in Sinai. The US minister confirmed that the concessions “brought an explosion” from El-Gamassy, who expressed “vehement objections”. But these objections “were brushed aside by Sadat as had his other objections earlier in the negotiations”.
Despite Sadat’s willingness to compromise, negotiations collapsed due to Israeli obstinacy. Upon learning of the breakdown, Ford “immediately” sent a letter “in a very strong language” to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Kissinger, who showed the British ambassador a copy of the letter, noted that he had “never seen President Ford so outraged.” The president felt “personally betrayed” by Israel’s conduct. To emphasise the gravity of the situation, Kissinger arranged for a prominent American Jewish leader to meet Ford. After the meeting, Kissinger remarked that the man had emerged “a shaken man.”
Kissinger also made it clear to the British government that “all along, there was an Arab willingness to negotiate,” but Israel responded only with “intransigence.” He cited King Hussein of Jordan’s stance on the Allon”s plan as an example of Arab flexibility. Contrary to public statements, Hussein had privately told the U.S. that he “was prepared to accept half of the plan” and “half of the West Bank”.
The plan, which was presented by Allon, the then Israeli minister of labour, in July 1967 and was amended over years, aimed at Judaisation of the Palestinian territory especially the West Bank. It would enable Israel to annex most of the Jordan Valley, from the river to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge, East Jerusalem, and the Etzion bloc of settlements. At the same time, the heavily populated areas of the West Bank, together with a corridor that included Jericho, would be offered to Jordan.
Meanwhile, in a meeting with Kissinger, Saudi King Faisal expressed his belief that Israel “shouldn’t remain in the occupied areas” he expressed his “support” to the US efforts to “reach a solution in the Middle East”.
Kissinger lamented that Israel’s actions had “destroyed this support.”
Although Kissinger stressed that it was not in the US interest to be “publicly critical” of Israel, he believed that the Israelis “had to learn to be flexible and not believe that because of their friendly links with various governments, they could always count on support regardless of their behavior.” When British Ambassador Ramsbotham asked whether the Israeli behaviour could have any backlash inside the US, Kissinger said that “it wouldn’t be difficult for the Administration to generate a wave of indignation in the US against Israel”. But, the Americans “would not do so”, he added
Kissinger also stressed that the Israelis “had to realise that they could not blow up the US foreign policy, humiliate the United States in the Arab eyes”. The Ford Administration “felt more and more outraged” by what happened, in a reference to the Israeli behaviour that led to failure of the negotiations.
After the collapse of negotiations, Callaghan considered visiting the Middle East. Kissinger advised him to caution Israel that it “had tried the US patience too far”. He also advised that “it was very important not to give the impression to the Israelis that the British government were sympathetic with the position they had got themselves”.
Kissinger believed that if Callaghan had any new proposals, it would probably be “a mistake at this time for him to put them forward himself”. He asked for any suggestions to be “offered to him in private”.
Despite the impasse, negotiations resumed a few months later, leading to the signing of the Sinai II Agreement on 4 September 1975, in Geneva. The accord allowed Egypt to recover parts of Sinai occupied since 1967. While Sadat saw the deal as strengthening ties with the West, it strained Egypt’s relations with the Arab States, particularly with Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 