Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Collateral Damage or Calculated Strategy? EU Feels the Heat from America’s Yemen Military Operation

By Henry Kamens – New Eastern Outlook – April 26, 2025

One must stop and ask that if the US was aware that its operations in Yemen would have such limited results, why would it undertake such a risky and expensive operation in the first place?

It is more involved than just opening up the straits of the Red Sea for international shipping, especially for the benefit of Israel or the United States.

In the fog of war and diplomacy, clarity often lies not in what’s said—but in who suffers. Operation Rough Rider may not be officially aimed at the EU, but its strategic outcomes speak louder than policy briefings. Ironically, the name, according to the Atlantic, is very name is meant to evoke Theodore Roosevelt’s vainglorious 1898 cavalry charge up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War.

As European trade chokes and Washington insiders mock their so-called allies, it’s fair to ask whether the Houthis were ever the real target—or merely a convenient excuse. Either way, the operation isn’t working as officially claimed. In the broader Great Game of global power, Yemen may be the battleground, but Europe looks increasingly like the economic casualty. The layers run deep, and we’re only beginning to peel them back.

Is the EU the Real Target of US Military Operations against Yemen?

Firstly, only a fraction, less than 5 percent, of US cargo finds it way though these disputed waters. This begs the question, why then would the US start an operation that has resulted in shutting down transit for all flags, not only those coming and going from Israel?

But motivations are different, and there is no having a small country doing the right thing, and at the right time. Yemen may go down in history as one of the few countries that were morally responsible enough to stand up for human rights, and for having taken a principled stance against genocide in Palestine when the real history is written.

It is possible that the US is attacking Yemen for all practical purposes to cover for its separate agenda, to weaken the EU as its products, imports and exports, need this vital waterway, and as a punitive action for Yemen standing up to genocide in Palestine.

A recent Mondoweiss article titled “Yemen is acting responsibly to stop genocide and the U.S. is bombing them for it” presents a perspective that Yemen’s actions in the Red Sea are legally justified responses to international law violations, especially in terms of the crisis situation in Gaza.

The piece presents a convincing position that Yemen’s blockade of ships destined for Israel through the Red Sea port of Eilat is a lawful measure aimed at preventing further human rights violations and genocide against the Palestinian people, which may soon expand to the West Bank.

Genocide, Geopolitics, and the Price Europe Pays

The Houthis have clearly stated that they will continue retaliating against shipping of any flag that supports Israel and turns a blind eye to blatant genocide. But who is really suffering, other than the US taxpayer?

It should be obvious that this is an expensive operation with high-tech bombs and keeping battle groups in the region does not come cheap, and it weakens the US position should it need to shift to another area of operation, for instance, the South China Sea. Likely, the operation has already exceeded 1 billion dollars for the US, and with little to show for it.

The Houthis are still able to launch attacks; the costs of the mission are mounting, which would require the Pentagon to ask for more funds from Congress. In addition, the US has been forced to transfer a second carrier from the Pacific, in a sign that not all is well with the campaign, a situation likely to nearly double the ongoing costs of the operation. In addition, the Houthis have become quite adept at shooting down US drones.

This may be nothing, small change, in comparison to what the EU is suffering in loses due to sanctions against Russia, US tariffs, and having its supply chains interrupted, and, whereas before only ships coming and going to Israeli ports were subject to attacks, now the Red Sea is a free fire zone, and Lloyds of London is not willing to provide insurance coverage to merchant shipping in the area due to the US operation.

America’s Bombs, Europe’s Losses: The Hidden War Behind Operation Rough Rider

One could even fathom that the US was well aware of this fact, and knew that there would be externalities, and this would hurt another one of its purported friends, and “real rival” who has gotten rich as a result of US trade policies over the years and the American taxpayer’s subsidy to the defense of old Europe.

One has to listen to the news, with a smile and tongue in cheek, how National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who inadvertently added a journalist to a group chat that discussed Yemen strike plans, speaks as he sits with U.S. President Donald Trump during an Ambassadorial Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington.

This comes as close to Machiavellian as possible, due to the potential fallout, economic impact, and the fear it spreads to allies, and especially those most economically affected—as in the case of the EU.

While the operation is not explicitly targeted at the European Union (EU), at least openly, it has far-reaching implications for European interests. The Red Sea is a critical maritime route for global trade, including that of EU member states. Houthi attacks on shipping lanes have disrupted international commerce, affecting European economies which are too reliant on these trade routes. ​

Some U.S. officials have expressed concerns about the operation’s focus, suggesting that the benefits may accrue more to European allies than to the United States itself. For instance, a U.S. senator reportedly remarked, “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” highlighting a sentiment that the U.S. is bearing the operational costs while Europe reaps the benefits of secured trade routes.​

The supposedly leaked war plans on the Signal Group Chat, may not have been accidently leaked at all, and are most revealing. To put it simply, it not only exposed U.S. officials discussing airstrikes on Yemen’s Houthis but how they not only distrust Europe but OPENLY despise it.

We can glean how VP JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio weren’t just discussing military strategy, but were ranting about the freeloading of the Europeans, how they would be benefiting more from the planned US strikes, and how it was the Americans who were bailing out the Europeans.

Even Trump shared similar views a month ago, and in a nutshell, he claimed the EU was “formed to screw the United States.” I don’t know if that is politically acceptable from anyone other than Trump but what he is saying hits home with many, as, from Trump’s perspective, the actions of the EU, aside from pushing for a continued war in Ukraine, look like economic warfare cloaked in bureaucracy, where U.S. wealth is siphoned off through unfair trade practices.

Who is Screwing Who?

It is the American taxpayers who are picking up the tap for the Defense of Europe, and even this military operation against Yemen, in theory, should help Europe more but in reality, now no ships are passing, who is screwing who now?

Operation “Rough Rider” may be framed in the guise of protecting international shipping lanes and addressing regional instability, but its true impact—and likely intent—appears far more strategic.

Though publicly justified as a response to Houthi aggression, the disruption of Red Sea trade routes has hit the European Union hardest—not Israel or the United States. Israel had already suffered from earlier Houthi blockades. Whether by design or fortunate consequence, the operation has undermined a key economic rival under the guise of humanitarian aid and security enforcement.

As U.S. political elites openly mock European allies and leak plans with startling candor, the lines between defense, deception, and economic warfare blur further. If the goal was to punish the Houthis, it has failed. But if the deeper aim was to pressure Europe—economically, politically, and symbolically—then Operation Rough Rider may be succeeding more than it appears.

The real question is not why the U.S. is bombing Yemen, but who they really wanted to hit. Behind the façade of humanitarian and free trade concern lies an economic war that’s crippling EU trade and shaking global alliances, and sending messages to China, for good measure, that there is more than one way to get the desired results, though it must be said that the US failure to silence the Houthis, or stop their attacks on shipping, may be sending the wrong message, as I warned earlier.

While the U.S. chips away at a European rival, its struggle against the Houthis exposes the limits of American military power against a determined adversary. In the process, Washington may be weakening its own position. A wider showdown with Iran, despite the bold claims of Trump and Hesgeth about America’s “unrivaled power,” could prove just as costly—and just as ineffective.

April 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky demands ‘at least’ Israel-style support from US

RT | April 26, 2025

Kiev expects Washington to provide long-term security assistance modeled on the US relationship with Israel, Vladimir Zelensky has claimed, after Ukraine’s European backers reportedly rejected several significant points of President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan.

Washington presented its draft deal to end hostilities between Kiev and Moscow during talks in Paris last week. At a follow-up meeting in London on Wednesday – which was downgraded at the last minute after Zelensky publicly rejected key US suggestions – Ukrainian officials and their NATO European counterparts reportedly tabled a counterproposal.

Speaking to journalists on Friday, Zelensky insisted that any future peace arrangement with Moscow must be backed by sustained US military, financial and political support.

“Discussions in London have focused on security guarantees from the United States. We hope them to be at least as robust as those provided to Israel. Additionally, we anticipate support from our European partners and are actively developing the infrastructure necessary for these guarantees,” Zelensky said.

Deliberations about an “Israeli model” of support for Ukraine first emerged during the presidency of Joe Biden, when Western officials began to acknowledge that Kiev was unlikely to be granted NATO membership. In lieu of collective security guarantees, they sought ways to at least ensure a long-term, uninterrupted flow of Western arms.

Zelensky’s comments come amid increasing friction with Washington, as Trump pushes Kiev to accept what media outlets have described as his “final offer” to end the conflict. Reports indicate that Washington’s framework includes freezing the conflict along current front lines and recognizing Crimea as Russian territory – a condition Zelensky has firmly rejected.

Trump stated that “Crimea will stay with Russia” in an interview with Time Magazine on Friday. He argued that Kiev would never have enough weapons or manpower to retake the peninsula, which “was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired.” Crimea officially joined the Russian Federation in 2014 after a referendum held following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

“Our position is unchanged,” Zelensky reiterated on Friday, despite acknowledging Kiev’s dependence on continued American support.

Trump and other senior US officials have warned that if progress is not made soon, Washington may reconsider its role as a mediator and shift its focus to other global priorities. According to reports, Ukrainian officials are already bracing for the possibility of reduced American support should negotiations collapse.

Moscow has consistently expressed willingness to engage in negotiations, conveying its gratitude for Trump’s peace initiatives. However, the Russian leadership has repeatedly stressed that it seeks a lasting solution to the crisis, saying a temporary halt in the hostilities would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military. Any peace deal must acknowledge the territorial reality and address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Russia has insisted.

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Opposition Is Trying to Turn Back the Wheel of History

By Veniamin Popov – New Eastern Outlook – April 25, 2025

In the American and broader Western press, as well as in select media outlets from certain Global South countries, a vigorous campaign is underway to paint Donald Trump as the embodiment of universal evil. Critics claim his policies are shaking the global economy, undermining long-standing alliances, and creating an atmosphere of chaos.

U.S. newspapers aligned with the Democrats have published numerous articles on how to resist the president. For instance, an April 15 piece in the New York Times portrays Trump’s America as a “rogue state led by an impulsive authoritarian leader detached from the rule of law and other constitutional American principles and values.”

Globalist supporters are uniting in their efforts to argue that all of Trump’s actions are clumsy, shortsighted, and counterproductive. Notably, current Western European leaders—seeing the U.S. president’s policies as a threat to their own standing—are trying to align with Democratic Party loyalists, especially in states where the Democrats hold a majority. Meanwhile, discontent is being deliberately stoked within the U.S. itself, as seen in ongoing protests against Trump’s key ally, Elon Musk, and his company Tesla.

Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, along with progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has launched a fierce campaign under the slogan, “Down with Billionaire Power!” Recently, Trump’s opponents dusted off Joe Biden, who, for the first time in three months, sharply criticized the current administration, accusing it of “causing enormous damage to America.” At its core, Trump’s controversial yet revolutionary reforms reflect an objective need for long-overdue changes in American politics and economics. 

Growing Divisions in the West

The U.S. president’s push to normalize relations with Russia and seek a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict has drawn particularly harsh criticism. The current leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, closely cooperating with Zelensky, are doing everything they can to block efforts to establish a formula for ending hostilities and securing long-term peace.

These leaders understand that a peaceful settlement could cost them their positions, as the public would realize the failure of their “fight to the last Ukrainian” policy and the dishonesty of their claims that Putin’s Russia poses an existential threat.

Trump is by no means a pro-Russian politician—he defends U.S. interests—but he clearly recognizes that Zelensky and Biden bear primary responsibility for the ongoing three-year conflict. However, many of the 47th president’s actions echo 19th-century imperialism. At the same time, he understands that the Eastern European conflict risks a clash between nuclear powers, and in a nuclear war, there are no winners.

Recent polls show that most Americans view Trump’s policies favorably.

As for Russia, the U.S. and Russia no longer have the ideological divide of the Soviet era, and America’s stance on traditional values and achieving peace in Ukraine is closer to Moscow’s than to that of major European leaders and Zelensky. The U.S. cannot win a trade war with China, while Russia could play a key role in mediating agreements between the U.S. and China, as well as the U.S. and Iran. Donald Trump thinks pragmatically, even if some of his actions appear erratic, ill-considered, and counterproductive. Nevertheless, he objectively represents not only the urgent needs of the United States but also the necessity of establishing a new international order—one based on a fairer balance of national interests among different civilizations.

American history has seen many realist thinkers who advised their leaders to act cautiously and consider their opponents’ interests. Hans Morgenthau, the preeminent political scientist of the last century (whose works are still studied in universities), urged the Johnson administration not to escalate the Vietnam War—only to be dismissed in 1965. George Kennan, one of the architects of U.S. policy toward the USSR, warned in 1997 against NATO expansion eastward, arguing it would “provoke Moscow’s militancy.”

No one listened. Similarly, Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to George H.W. Bush, insisted that invading Iraq would be a grave mistake. Afterward, he was treated as an outsider. We can only hope that Donald Trump’s realism—especially regarding a genuine peace in Ukraine—does not meet the same fate as his three brilliant predecessors. Today, a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict has become a bifurcation point that will shape the course of history and reveal who is truly on the right side of it.

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO Chief to Lobby Trump Not to Pressure Ukraine to Make Peace with Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 24, 2025

The head of the North Atlantic Alliance is traveling to the US for meetings with top officials in the Donald Trump administration. Secretary General Mark Rutte is expected to push the White House not to force Ukraine into a peace deal with Russia.

According to the Financial Times, “Rutte will urge President Donald Trump’s administration not to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal against its will,” during meetings with embattled Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz on Thursday.

Trump and Rubio recently stated that they expect both Russia and Ukraine to quickly move towards a peace agreement. The White House proposed a deal that would require Kiev to recognize Moscow’s permanent control over Ukrainian territory held by the Russian military, including the Crimean Peninsula.

On Wednesday, Trump slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for rejecting the idea of Ukraine. “This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“[Zelensky] can have Peace, or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” he added. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,”

A NATO official told FT, “The key message is making the Americans understand what’s at stake.”

Throughout the conflict, Western and NATO leaders have claimed that they are defending the international world order by arming and supporting Ukraine. However, many Western countries, primarily the US, have engaged in a number of unlawful invasions in recent decades. Additionally, NATO states have backed Israel as it conducted a genocide in Gaza.

Trump has not raised the issue of international law, and said his priority is ending the war to stop people from dying.

Rutte is not the only European leader planning to lobby Trump to continue the proxy war against Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen plans to speak with Trump at Pope Francis’s funeral on Saturday.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha responded to Trump’s recent peace proposals by saying Kiev cannot make concessions and the US must increase pressure on Russia.

On Thursday, Trump denounced a Russian strike on Kiev. “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing,” he wrote on Truth Social. “Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Circus in Ukraine – Part 27 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | April 24, 2025

President Donald Trump entered office in January 2025 with a promise to end the Ukraine war in one day. No one was surprised that he failed, but Trump did shock everyone by ordering the end of American aid to Ukraine. The United States provided most of the military and economic aid that Ukraine needs to continue its losing war with Russia. Within a few weeks, Ukraine would be forced to accept inevitable defeat and begin peace negotiations with Russia. For unknown reasons, Trump quickly resumed aid and began an idiotic effort to convince Russia to accept a ceasefire and stop winning the war so Ukraine’s army can recover as NATO “peacekeepers” deploy to Ukraine. This devolved into a circus.

_____________________________________

Related Tale: The Anglo-American War on Russia – Part Thirteen (Putin’s Special Military Operation);    • The Anglo-American War on Russia – Pa…  

Related Tale: The Anglo-American War on Russia – Part Fourteen (Biden Blocks Peace);    • The Anglo-American War on Russia – Pa…  

“Military Summary” channel; YouTube:    / @militarysummary  

“Scott Ritter Documented Zelensky’s 6 Residences and Control by UK’s MI6”; Eric Z; The Duran; April 16, 2025; https://theduran.com/scott-ritter-doc…

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Spain terminates multimillion deal with Israeli weapons maker

The Cradle | April 24, 2025

The Spanish government ordered the immediate termination of a $7.5 million contract to buy ammunition from a company with direct ties to Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems on 24 April.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez canceled the deal after Sumar, a group of left-wing parties, threatened to leave the governing coalition.

“After exhausting all routes for negotiation, the prime minister, deputy prime minister, and ministries involved have decided to rescind this contract,” a government source told Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska formalized a contract with Israeli-owned company Guardian Homeland Security S.A. for over 15 million rounds of ammunition, causing a stir at the Moncloa Palace in light of Sanchez’s February 2024 pledge not to purchase weapons from Israel over the Gaza genocide.

Spanish media reports that authorities stressed the commitment of the progressive coalition government parties (PSOE and Sumar) “to the Palestinian cause and peace in the Middle East.” They also noted that since the US-backed ethnic cleansing campaign began in Gaza in October 2023, Spain has not purchased or sold weapons to Israeli firms, “nor will it do so in the future.”

However, despite the claims from Moncloa Palace, in February, the Progressive International (PI), the Palestinian Youth Movement, and the American Friends Service Committee revealed that over 60,000 weapon parts have been transported to Israel via Zaragoza airport in northern Spain since October 2023.

“The evidence indicates that these flights continue to this day,” investigators told elDiario.es, adding that the shipments include “parts and accessories for artillery, rifles, rocket/grenade launchers and machine guns” and “parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols.”

In December, The Intercept revealed that Washington sent over a thousand tons of ammunition to Israel on a ship that docked at a US naval base in Spain, despite Madrid’s embargo on vessels carrying military cargo bound for Israel.

“Shipments through American military bases in Spain of military materials, which may be used in the commission of international crimes, are harder to detect,” Spanish lawmaker Enrique Santiago told the New York-based outlet.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Two US marines accused of raping Japanese women in Okinawa

Press TV – April 24, 2025

Japanese authorities have accused two US marines stationed in Okinawa of recently raping and assaulting local women.

Police said on Thursday that the latest incidents inside US military bases were in a string of assault cases that have angered local residents.

One of the US marines accused of rape is also suspected of assaulting another woman.

“A US marine in his 20s is suspected of raping a Japanese woman at an American military base in March, and is also suspected of injuring another woman,” a local police official told AFP.

The second marine, also in his 20s, is suspected of raping a Japanese woman at a US base in January, the official said.

Police have referred the two cases to Japan’s judicial officials. The US ambassador to Tokyo pledged to cooperate “fully” with Japanese authorities in the investigations.

Japan’s top government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi said in a regular briefing on Thursday that any crime by US troops based in Japan is “unacceptable”, without making any direct reference to the latest incidents.

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki has expressed grave concern over the incidents as local authorities struggle to deter sexual and other crimes carried out by the US military personnel based in Japan.

He called the latest cases “deplorable” and said authorities would urge the US military to prevent such happenings.

Relations have long been strained between Okinawans and US marines.

Last year, a total of 80 people connected to the US military were charged in Okinawa for various crimes.

A 21-year-old marine was charged with rape in June last year, just months after prosecutors charged a 25-year-old US marine for allegedly assaulting a girl under 16.

The 1995 gang rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US soldiers in Okinawa prompted a major backlash, with calls for a rethink of the 1960 pact allowing the United States to station troops in Japan.

The United States has around 54,000 military personnel stationed in Japan — mostly on the subtropical southern island of Okinawa, to the east of Taiwan.

The news of the latest sexual assaults came after US troops on Friday joined Japanese officials and residents in Okinawa for a one-off joint nighttime patrol along a downtown street dotted with bars.

The patrol, the first such joint operation since 1973, followed other sexual assault cases in Okinawa involving US marines.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

A ‘Trump deal’? Juggling war, ‘easy war’ and negotiation

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 24, 2025

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat’s little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the ‘debt bomb’; and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump’s team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American ‘debt knell’.

Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump’s mooted ‘re-balancing’ and debt ‘solution’ cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing ‘the dollar in your pocket’. And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.

That is not exactly a popular ‘sell’. Which is probably why the ‘re-balance’ has not been well explained to the public.

Trump launched the Liberation ‘Tariff Shock’ seemingly minded to crash-start a restructuring of international trade relations – as the first step towards a general re-alignment of major currency values.

China however, wasn’t buying into the tariff and trade restrictions ‘stuff’, and matters quickly escalated. It looked for a moment as if the Trump ‘Coalition’ might fracture under the pressure of the concomitant crisis in the U.S. bond market to the tariff fracas that shook confidence.

The Coalition, in fact, held; markets subsided, but then the Coalition fractured over a foreign policy issue – Trump’s hope to normalise relations with Russia, towards a Great Global Reset.

A major strand within the Trump Coalition (apart from MAGA populists) are the neocons and Israeli Firsters. Some sort of Faustian bargain supposedly was struck by Trump at the outset through a deal that had his team heavily peopled by zealous Israeli-Firsters.

Simply put, the breadth of coalition that Trump thought he needed to win the election and deliver an economic re-balance also included two foreign policy pillars: Firstly, the reset with Moscow – the pillar by which to end the ‘forever wars’, which his Populist base despised. And the second pillar being the neutering of Iran as a military power and source of resistance, on which both Israeli Firsters – and Israel – insist (and with which Trump seems wholly comfortable). Hence the Faustian pact.

Trump’s ‘peacemaker’ aspirations no doubt added to his electoral appeal, but they were not the real driver to his landslide. What has become evident is that these diverse agendas – foreign and domestic – are interlinked: A set-back in one or the other acts as a domino either impelling or retarding the other agendas. Put simply: Trump is dependent on ‘wins’ – early ‘wins’ – even if this means rushing towards a prospective ‘easy win’ without thinking through whether he possesses a sound strategy (and ability) to achieve it.

All of Trump’s three agenda objectives, it turns out, are more complicated and divisive than he perhaps expected. He and his team seem captivated by western-embedded assumptions such as first, that war generally happens ‘Over There’; that war in the post Cold War era is not actually ‘war’ in any traditional sense of full, all-out war, but is rather a limited application of overwhelming western force against an enemy incapable of threatening ‘us’ in a similar manner; and thirdly, that a war’s scope and duration is decided in Washington and its Deep State ‘twin’ in London.

So those who talk about ending the Ukraine war through an imposed unilateral ceasefire (ie, the faction of Walz, Rubio and Hegseth, led by Kellogg) seem to assume blithely that the terms and timing for ending the war also can be decided in Washington, and imposed on Moscow through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats.

Just as China isn’t buying into the tariff and trade restriction ‘stuff’, neither is Putin buying into the ultimatum ‘stuff’: (‘Moscow has weeks, not months, to agree a ceasefire’). Putin has patiently tried to explain to Witkoff, Trump’s Envoy, that the American presumption that the scope and duration of any war is very much up to the West to decide simply doesn’t gel with today’s reality.

And, in companion mode, those who talk about bombing Iran (which includes Trump) seem also to assume that they can dictate the war’s essential course and content too; the U.S. (and Israel perhaps), can simply determine to bomb Iran with big bunker-buster bombs. That’s it! End of story. This is assumed to be a self-justifying and easy war – and that Iran must learn to accept that they brought this upon themselves by supporting the Palestinians and others who refuse Israeli normalisation.

Aurelien observes:

“So we are dealing with limited horizons; limited imagination and limited experience. But there’s one other determining factor: The U.S. system is recognised to be sprawling, conflictual – and, as a result, largely impervious to outside influence – and even to reality. Bureaucratic energy is devoted almost entirely to internal struggles, which are carried out by shifting coalitions in the administration; in Congress; in Punditland and in the media. But these struggles are, in general, about [domestic] power and influence – and not about the inherent merits of an issue, and [thus] require no actual expertise or knowledge”.

“The system is large and complex enough that you can make a career as an ‘Iran expert’, say, inside and outside government, without ever having visited the country or speaking the language – by simply recycling standard wisdom in a way that will attract patronage. You will be fighting battles with other supposed ‘experts’, within a very confined intellectual perimeter, where only certain conclusions are acceptable”.

What becomes evident is that this cultural approach (the Think-Tank Industrial Complex) induces a laziness and the prevalence of hubris into western thinking. It is assumed reportedly, that Trump assumed that Xi Jinping would rush to meet with him, following the imposition of tariffs – to plead for a trade deal – because China is suffering some economic headwinds.

It is blandly assumed by the Kellogg contingent too that pressure is both the necessary and sufficient condition to compel Putin to agree to an unilateral ceasefire – a ceasefire that Putin repeatedly has stated he would not accept until a political framework was first agreed. When Witkoff relays Putin’s point within the Trump team discussion, he stands as a contrarian outside the ‘licensed discourse’ which insists that Russia only takes détente with an adversary seriously after it has been forced to do so by a defeat or serious setback.

Iran too repeatedly has said that it will not be stripped naked of its conventional defences; its allies and its nuclear programme. Iran likely has the capabilities to inflict huge damage both on U.S. forces in the region and on Israel.

The Trump Team is divided on strategy here too – crudely put: to Negotiate or to Bomb.

It seems that the pendulum has swung under intense pressure from Netanyahu and the Jewish institutional leadership within the U.S.

A few words can change everything. In an about face, Witkoff shifted from saying a day earlier that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities, to posting on his official X account that any deal would require Iran to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program … A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal”. Without a clear reversal on this from Trump, we are on a path to war.

It is plain that Team Trump has not thought through the risks inherent to their agendas. Their initial ‘ceasefire meeting’ with Russia in Riyadh, for example, was a theatre of the facile. The meeting was held on the easy assumption that since Washington had determined to have an early ceasefire then ‘it must be’.

“Famously”, Aurelien wearily notes, “the Clinton administration’s Bosnia policy was the product of furious power struggles between rival American NGO and Human Rights’ alumni – none of whom knew anything about the region, or had ever been there”.

It is not just that the team is insouciant towards the possible consequences of war in the Middle East. They are captive to manipulated assumptions that it will be an easy war.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine debt talks fail

RT | April 24, 2025

Ukraine’s government announced on Thursday that it has failed to reach an agreement to restructure some $2.6 billion of its debt. The country could default if it isn’t able to make the next scheduled payment at the end of May.

A group of GDP warrant holders held discussions last week and continued face-to-face talks during this week’s International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Washington, a source familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The warrants, which function similarly to bonds, are a type of debt security with payouts linked to economic growth.

The talks reportedly included consideration of a mix of cash and bonds as compensation for the GDP warrant payment due on May 31, estimated at around $600 million. The group of holders comprised hedge funds Aurelius Capital Management LP and VR Capital Group, according to the outlet.

“Ukraine indicated that it could not accept the Restricted Holders’ Proposal and declined to make any further proposal to the Restricted Holders before the end of the Restricted Period,” the Ukrainian government said in a statement following the talks.

The debt holders reportedly pushed back, stating that Kiev’s proposal had “no prospect of approval” and failed to “form the basis for a viable point of engagement.”

Ukraine’s Finance Ministry said that it would “consider all available options” for restructuring the debt, a requirement under its agreement with the IMF.

Kiev will now have to decide whether to default on a $600 million payment – tied to the economy’s performance in 2023 – if it fails to secure a restructuring deal before the end-of-May deadline.

The IMF has warned that an unresolved dispute over GDP warrants could jeopardize broader debt restructuring efforts and put Ukraine’s ongoing $15.6 billion aid program at risk.

Ukraine’s budget depends almost entirely on aid from its foreign backers. Last year, Kiev planned to attract $37 billion in outside loans to cover its budget, which the government predicted would face a deficit of 75% in 2025.

The failed debt talks come at a time when the US is pushing to cut aid to Ukraine. Immediately upon assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump suspended all American foreign development assistance programs for 90 days, including to Ukraine.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Battle Space Advancing To Decide Fate of America’s Covid-19 Shot

By Jefferey Jaxen | April 24, 2025

Corporate media articles are now buzzing about the possibility of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) narrowing, and even reversing, some of its previous Covid vaccine recommendations.

CNN’s commentary from health experts give an impression that even a consideration of narrowing the shot recommendations would be a dangerous endeavor. Yet under their article’s opening paragraph, they let slip the obvious:

“The change would more closely align the US with guidance given in other countries. Unlike countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, the US alone recommends an annual Covid-19 vaccine for healthy younger adults and children.”

The U.S. appears to be the anti-scientific outlier in pushing these shots on adults and children.

The move would be made by the CDC’s ACIP committee which is scheduled to meet in June.

POLITICO is warning that the Covid shot may be removed from the childhood vaccine schedule… according to “two people familiar with the discussions.”

The Politico-CNN tag team to shape the battle space on this topic ahead of the anticipated June ACIP meeting is weak at best.

In a recent interview with FOX NEWS host Jesse Waters, HHS head RFK Jr responded by stating:

“The recommendation for children was always dubious because kids had almost no risk for Covid-19.”

He continued:

“We need to give people informed consent and we shouldn’t be making recommendations that are not good for the population.”

There is a real, rapidly growing call from the American public to outright ban the mRNA Covid vaccine from use. Much like ending water fluoridation, states have not waited for the federal government to act on this as 11 are now seeking a formal ban.

The removal of recommendations represents a midrange target on the continuum of potential actions concerning this injectable, liability free mRNA product line.

The bottom line effect if CDC makes good on their recommendation removal for health children and/or adults would secure a near guarantee that any form of school or business Covid vaccine mandate would be a nonstarter.

The recommendation removal would not in any way change the broken compensation program surrounding the Covid shot. The mRNA Covid vaccine, along with other ‘countermeasures’ is covered from legal liability by the PREP Act until 2029.

Currently the ‘black hole’ program those harmed or killed by the shot are funneled into is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). It has a 1 year statute of limitations, not from the time one recognizes their vaccine injury, but from the day of injection.

Author of Vaccine Court 2.0 The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Wayne Rohde writes of the latest CICP injury payouts:

“Of the 4,111 decisions related to COVID-19, nearly all 4,044 have been denied.”

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

FIGHT OVER FLUORIDE HEATING UP IN FLORIDA

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | April 17, 2025

The national conversation around fluoride in drinking water has shifted and Florida is currently the hotbed of this effort. Hear how the EPA is actively reviewing the recent studies on the dangers of fluoride and the legal changes moving forward on state and federal levels.

 

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

NSF terminates hundreds of “misinformation”-related grants, impacting research tied to online speech flagging

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 23, 2025

A large wave of funding cancellations from the National Science Foundation (NSF) has abruptly derailed hundreds of research projects, many of which were focused on so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Late Friday, researchers across the country received emails notifying them that their grants, fellowships, or awards had been rescinded; an action that stunned many in the academic community and ignited conversations about the role of the government in regulating research into online speech.

Among those impacted was Kate Starbird, a prominent figure in the “disinformation” research sphere and former Director of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public.

The Center, which collaborated with initiatives like the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project, both known for coordinating content reporting to social media platforms, had ties to federal agencies and private moderation efforts.

Starbird expressed dismay over the NSF’s move, calling it “disruptive and disheartening,” and pointed to a wider rollback in efforts to police digital content, citing reduced platform transparency and the shrinking of “fact-checking” operations.

Grants that were cut included studies like one probing how to correct “false beliefs” and another testing intervention strategies for online misinformation. These projects, once backed by taxpayer dollars, were part of a growing field that often overlaps with content moderation and speech policing; a fact acknowledged by even Nieman Lab, which admitted such research helps journalists “flag false information.”

The timing of the cancellations raised eyebrows. The NSF’s action followed a report highlighting how the Trump administration was reevaluating $1.4 billion in federal funding tied to misinformation research. That investigation noted NSF’s involvement in these programs but did not indicate the impending revocations.

The NSF stated on its website that the grants were being terminated because they “are not aligned with NSF’s priorities,” naming projects centered on diversity, equity, inclusion, and misinformation among those affected.

A published FAQ further clarified the agency’s new direction, referencing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump. It emphasized that NSF would no longer support efforts aimed at combating “misinformation” or similar topics if such work could be weaponized to suppress constitutionally protected speech or promote preferred narratives.

Some researchers, like Boston University’s Gianluca Stringhini, found multiple projects abruptly defunded. Stringhini, who had been exploring AI tools to offer users additional context about social media content; a method akin to the soft content warnings platforms deployed during the pandemic—was left unsure about the full scope of consequences for his lab.

Foundational to many early studies in this space, the NSF had long played a key role in launching initiatives that shaped how digital discourse was studied and potentially influenced. According to Starbird, about 90% of her early research was NSF-funded. She cited the agency’s vital support in forging cross-institutional collaborations and developing infrastructure for examining information integrity and technological design.

The mass termination of these grants signals a pivotal shift in the federal government’s stance on funding initiatives that blur the lines between research and regulation of public speech. What some see as necessary oversight to prevent narrative enforcement, others view as a dismantling of essential tools used to navigate complex digital environments. Either way, the message from Washington is clear: using federal dollars to police speech, even under the guise of scientific inquiry, is no longer a priority.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »