Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Could Have Triggered a Nuclear War: Here’s Why
Sputnik – 30.12.2025
The 91-drone attack on the presidential residence in Novgorod region was an extremely dangerous provocation. And one that “could not have been carried out without the participation of European hawks” because “Zelensky would not have dared to plan or carry out such an operation on his own,” military expert Alexey Leonkov told Sputnik.
Intricate planning was required, and the timing – while Zelensky was in the US for talks with Trump, was designed to give him an alibi, “which he is now using, claiming Ukraine had nothing to do with it,” Leonkov said.
The provocation “wasn’t simply an attack on the president,” the observer emphasized. “It was a strike on a nuclear weapons control center, as each such residence contains communications nodes through which the head of state can issue the command to use the country’s nuclear forces.”
“It was intended to provoke a conflict between the US and Russia,” Leonkov said. “This was precisely the calculation: at worst, provoking a global conflict; at a minimum, disrupting the negotiation process between the US and Russia. And it’s clear that European hawks favor only this scenario,” particularly Britain.
While he issues denials now, Zelensky essentially blabbed about the attack ahead of time twice in the past two weeks: a press conference on December 18, when he said “politicians change, somebody lives, somebody dies,” and on Christmas eve, when he openly called on Ukrainians to wish for Putin’s death.
“All this suggests Zelensky was aware of the impending attack, but was playing his assigned role – pretending he had nothing to do with it and ‘advocating for peace’,” Leonkov emphasized.
Analyzing Moscow’s public reaction carefully, Leonkov said two things are certain: first, Russia will respond appropriately, and the targets and time of the response have already been determined; second, the response will be carried out in such a way as not to affect the negotiation process between Russia and the US.
Ukraine’s Escalation May Be Aimed at Prolonging Conflict as Talks Advance — Ex-Pentagon Analyst
Sputnik – 30.12.2025
Someone in Ukraine’s command structure is escalating “at any phase where a step towards peace is being made,” with responsibility unclear — from Zelensky and commanders to Western intelligence, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force and former analyst for the US Department of Defense, told Sputnik.
Kwiatkowski argued the attacks complicate negotiations and that Ukraine is fighting “from a position of great weakness.”
On Russia’s likely reaction, she said Moscow “does not need to tolerate Ukrainian assassination attempts and drone barrages,” arguing that those who want the conflict to continue may be seeking “a Russian over-reaction… as a way of continuing the war.” She also said Russia has “so far preserved the moral high ground by focusing on military targets” and the stated objectives of the special military operation.
“In a very basic sense, none or very few US or other weapons should be transferred to Ukraine, based on our own laws governing foreign military sales to unelected dictators without a mutual defense treaty, and the recent track record of Ukrainian corruption and lack of accountability,” Kwiatkowski emphasized, arguing that sending more weapons with a “collapsing and poorly trained Army” amounts to wasting them.
The analyst also said US intelligence and targeting support has been “a major aspect” of assistance, and argued that removing it would end the conflict sooner.
“This sharing of US intelligence, targeting coordination, and even selection of targets has been a major aspect of US aid to Ukraine, and while Trump stopped some and slowed other aid to Ukraine, it appears he never stopped this crucial aspect. This assistance is, in my opinion, the sole reason this war has continued over the past few years, when it could have been ended long ago,” Kwiatkowski stressed.
Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Planned by Forces Trying to Torpedo Ukraine Peace Push: Expert
Sputnik – 29.12.2025
“They do not consider it possible to step back and allow the situation on our border region to be stabilized. Therefore, they are making gradual attempts to torpedo the negotiation process,” military analyst Alexander Stepanov told Sputnik, commenting on the attack on Putin’s residence in Novgorod region by 91 drones Sunday night.
“We’ve seen this attitude in the openly-stated positions of key EU leaders. Now, we’re seeing it in the intentions of intelligence agencies, mostly likely British, who are clearly continuing to develop plans to launch terrorist strikes on strategically significant targets, to carry out targeted terrorist attacks against high-ranking Russian military personnel, de facto transforming the war into permanent proxy-hybrid mode using the tools of state terrorism,” Stepanov, an expert from the Institute of Law and National Security at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, explained.
Naturally, these efforts serve to further “delegitimize” the Kiev regime, Stepanov said. They make it clear that Ukraine’s authorities are “war criminals and, more broadly speaking, international terrorists, who have neither the right to govern this territory nor the right to control the lives of its citizens.”
Negotiating with such actors is “impossible, and does not fit into any normative framework of international relations,” the observer stressed.
Stepanov expects a “maximum reduction” in US-Ukraine military-technical and intelligence cooperation, including for navigation and targeting systems, in the wake of Sunday’s attack.
If US statements “are backed by real will, it would be possible to remotely disable the control systems of virtually all weapons supplied through Western channels, including American ones, and to end the presence of US military specialists who, at certain stages, support the operation of both sophisticated Patriot air defense systems and long-range HIMARS tactical systems,” Stepanov said.
Same goes for Starlink, which could leave Ukraine’s military blind “within a few hours.”
As far as Russia is concerned, Sunday night’s attack on Putin’s residence will “likely entail reclassifying” those held responsible “as terrorists, subject to capture or elimination,” Stepanov believes.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 3, Those friends in the Secret Service
Someone has to do the dirty work
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 28, 2025
One piece of information that emerged from the declassified material is seemingly marginal, but nonetheless colorful: a T-shirt from Mossad, one of Israel’s secret services. The press immediately began to label dear Jeffrey a secret agent, without further exploring the reasons for a T-shirt in the closet. While waiting for the next documents to be made public, we will now outline some interpretations regarding that ambiguous T-shirt.
Let’s start with some historical context. The idea that Epstein was connected to Mossad first arose in the 2000s in investigative and alternative circles, but it gained strength after his arrest in 2019 and, above all, after his death in prison, when the public struggled to explain how he had been able to operate almost undisturbed for decades. Commentators and journalists note that, historically, Israeli intelligence has used economic and political networks of influence, creating a context in which Epstein—rich, with access to global elites and involved in sexual blackmail—appears plausible as an “asset.”
Towards the end of 2025, several investigations based on the analysis of leaked or recently released documents—including House Oversight Committee materials and email archives—were revisited and discussed as evidence of repeated contacts between Epstein and Israeli circles, as well as travel patterns and financial flows considered atypical. CNN reported that journalists sifted through more than 23,000 pages of documents and thousands of email threads as part of this broader examination. According to commentators and newspapers that have republished these materials, they reveal “extensive collaboration with Israeli intelligence” or, at the very least, frequent interactions with figures linked to intelligence circles.
Numerous articles refer to personal and financial ties—meetings, communications, and alleged references to money transfers—between Epstein and high-level Israeli figures, particularly former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as entries in diaries and emails that investigators say warrant attention. Common Dreams and some investigative series have highlighted recurring patterns of interaction between Epstein and Barak and have claimed that Israeli operatives or collaborators were long-time visitors to Epstein’s properties; however, the exact origin and interpretation of these documents remain disputed.
Proponents of the Mossad connection hypothesis describe Epstein as a recruited asset or honey trap operative tasked with gathering compromising material for leverage. This narrative, long present in various articles, has been further amplified by partisan commentators and media outlets. Some websites and opinion makers explicitly claim a connection to Mossad, arguing that Epstein’s network of relationships and the alleged presence of Israeli operatives in his residences are typical of intelligence practices.
Prominent Israeli figures have strongly rejected these claims. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—who has stated that he had the Mossad under his direct command during his term—has called the idea that Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad” “categorically and totally false.” Mainstream publications such as Newsweek and Times of Israel have highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence indicating that Epstein was a formal Mossad agent and have warned against conspiracy theories, which are sometimes intertwined with anti-Semitic stereotypes.
The resonance of the issue has been uneven and often linked to different political orientations: some progressive investigative outlets have insisted on pursuing the story, while conservative figures and commentators have sometimes exploited the accusation for political purposes. Critics warn that this encourages conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic narratives to be used opportunistically. It should also be noted that Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have on some occasions emphasized media coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel for domestic political messages, making it more difficult to analyze the motivations.
But that’s not all.
Funds for all
On September 2, 2025, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna shook public opinion with explosive statements made after meeting with some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors during a press conference in Congress: “After speaking with Epstein’s victims today, it is clear that this story is much bigger than anyone could have imagined: rich and powerful people must go to prison. It is possible that Epstein was an asset of a foreign intelligence service.” Her words, captured on video, sparked a media storm: Was Epstein just a predator or something more? Was he perhaps an agent of the Israeli Mossad, tasked with ensnaring global elites for Zionist political purposes? The clues are disturbing and form a picture too coherent to be ignored. In 2025, amid leaks, transcripts, and denials, the time has come to address the issue openly.
The apparatus built by Epstein may still exercise influence on the upper echelons of power today. Steven Hoffenberg, his partner in the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, went even further. Before his death in 2022, he told reporters that Epstein had confided in him about direct links to Mossad, attributing his wealth and access to high society circles to these contacts. Hoffenberg, who ended up in prison while Epstein remained free, had nothing to gain by lying, if anything, a score to settle.
Then there is the testimony of Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s first victims (identified as Jane Doe 200 in court documents). Farmer described Epstein’s network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail scheme linked to the Mega Group, a private circle of pro-Israel billionaires. She also recounted episodes of racial abuse, pointing to Les Wexner as a central figure. Three independent voices—Ben-Menashe, Hoffenberg, and Farmer—all converge on the Mossad. Coincidence or hidden agenda?
The source of Epstein’s fortune remains unclear. How can a former college student become a billionaire with only one known client? Following the financial flows, the connection to Israel appears clear. Les Wexner, magnate of Victoria’s Secret and co-founder of the Mega Group, gave Epstein a $77 million New York mansion — equipped with a sophisticated surveillance system — as well as large sums of money. The Mega Group, created by Wexner and Charles Bronfman, is known for financing pro-Israel causes. Epstein’s financial career began in 1976 at Bear Stearns, thanks to Alan Greenberg, also a member of the Mega Group, despite Epstein having no credentials other than a background as a physics teacher. We are talking about $77 million.
Court documents indicate that Epstein received over 7,000 wire transfers, some linked to arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who in turn was associated with Mossad networks. Ben-Menashe claims that Epstein was involved in Israeli arms trafficking. A 2025 private investigation, conducted by hedge funds linked to the Epstein case, speculates that a substantial portion of his wealth came from Israeli funding. Not charity, but the financing of an intelligence operation.
Epstein’s circle looks like a list of intelligence targets. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak visited Epstein’s residence dozens of times between 2013 and 2017, as records and photographs show. The two were also involved in founding Carbyne, a technology company with numerous former members of Israeli intelligence. Leaked emails show Epstein connecting Barak with Russian and Israeli figures. In 2004, Barak received $2 million from the Wexner Foundation for unspecified “research” activities. Barak denies any wrongdoing but admits that it was Shimon Peres who introduced him to Epstein.
Epstein possessed multiple passports—a typical feature of clandestine operations—and took refuge in Israel after the 2008 charges, before obtaining an extremely favorable plea bargain. In 2025, Tucker Carlson, during a very harsh speech, openly accused him of being a Mossad agent. Why would so many Israeli officials associate with a sex offender if he were not a strategic asset?
The 2008 plea bargain, which secured Epstein a lenient sentence, is perhaps the most revealing element. Former prosecutor Alexander Acosta later stated, “I was told that Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and that I should drop it.” The agreement also protected accomplices in several states, safeguarding a network that victims, such as Virginia Giuffre, have described as a kompromat factory, with hidden cameras ready to record politicians and powerful figures in compromising situations. This practice is reminiscent of techniques attributed to Mossad, as in the Robert Maxwell operations (which we will discuss in the next “chapter” of our Epstein Saga).
Epstein’s death in 2019, officially classified as suicide, appears to many to be a cover-up, with speculation of unofficial involvement by Israeli intelligence services. In 2025, the DOJ and FBI’s statement on the absence of a “client list” under the Trump administration — which had promised revelations that never came — only reinforced suspicions.
The pieces fit together: Epstein, introduced through Zionist networks, built a blackmail system aimed at influencing political and media decision-makers in a pro-Israel direction. Alleged links to PROMIS software (according to some sources modified by the NSA and Mossad for monitoring) and Palantir, an advanced surveillance company, add further layers of unease. Journalist Whitney Webb speaks openly of a “joint CIA-Mossad operation.” Ian Carroll goes even further, linking this network to events such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, identifying a common thread in the Israeli services.
It is true: Epstein’s network also involved Russia and Saudi Arabia. However, the Israeli connections—Wexner, Barak, Maxwell, Mega Group—appear predominant. Is there a lack of definitive evidence? Perhaps. But the smoke is so thick that it is difficult to ignore the fire.
Epstein’s survivors have just announced their intention to publish their own list of names: “We know who abused us. We saw who came and went. This list will be led by survivors, for survivors.”
The state hesitated. The victims did not.
Of course, Israeli authorities reject all accusations. Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer and a well-known supporter of Zionism, claims that Epstein would have laughed off the espionage allegations, arguing that he would have used such connections to get an even better deal. But these denials appear fragile in the face of testimony, financial flows, and political connections that all lead to the same conclusion: the Epstein operation has the flavor of an intelligence operation, and the trail leads straight to Tel Aviv.
The most damning evidence comes from those who knew Epstein from the inside, people who risked everything to speak out. Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence officer, claims that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a Mossad “honey trap” aimed at blackmailing the world’s elite. He claims to have met them in the 1980s while they were working in arms trafficking under the supervision of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father and a known Mossad collaborator who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Several Israeli prime ministers attended his funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy. A mere coincidence? Hard to believe.
Venezuela under siege: Why US escalation could destabilize an entire region
By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | December 28, 2025
Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela has entered a dangerous new phase. What began years ago as sanctions aimed at pressuring President Nicolás Maduro’s government has now escalated into naval interdictions, oil tanker seizures, and open discussion of military action — a shift that risks destabilizing not only Venezuela but much of Latin America.
In recent weeks, the United States has intensified its campaign by intercepting Venezuelan oil shipments at sea, effectively enforcing what officials describe as a “blockade” of sanctioned vessels. Caracas has denounced the move as piracy and a violation of international law, while Washington frames it as a legitimate enforcement of sanctions and a counter-narcotics operation.
Yet behind the legal arguments and political messaging lies a deeper strategic shift, one that signals a return to a more coercive US posture in Latin America, with potentially profound consequences.
To understand the implications of this escalation, alngside current regional developments and historical precedents, this article draws on an in-depth interview with veteran journalist and leading Latin America expert Richard Lapper.
A sharp escalation at sea
The most visible sign of Washington’s new approach has been its actions in international waters. US naval forces have seized and disabled Venezuelan oil tankers accused of violating sanctions, while additional vessels remain under surveillance. These measures go beyond financial penalties and diplomatic pressure, marking one of the most forceful uses of maritime power against Venezuela in decades.
Caracas has condemned the seizures as an illegal blockade and accused Washington of weaponizing sanctions to strangle its economy. Venezuelan officials argue that the actions violate international maritime law and set a dangerous precedent for global trade.
Legal experts remain divided. While the US claims it is acting within the scope of sanctions enforcement, critics argue that interdicting vessels in international waters — especially without multilateral backing — risks undermining established norms of freedom of navigation.
Richard Lapper, also an author of several books, including Lula!: The Man, The Myth and a Dream of Latin America, is blunt in his assessment. “This is a breach of international law,” he says. “But I don’t think that really matters for the Trump administration. This is about exerting power.”
The return of the Monroe Doctrine
According to Lapper, Washington’s Venezuela policy reflects a broader reassertion of hemispheric dominance reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century principle that Latin America falls within the United States’ exclusive sphere of influence.
For decades, US policy toward the region oscillated between overt intervention and softer approaches centred on democracy promotion and economic reform. That balance now appears to be tilting decisively toward coercion.
“This is a fairly clear restatement of a traditional US approach,” Lapper explains. “It says: this is our region, and we are going to exert our power.”
He points to recent US involvement in Honduras as emblematic of this shift. Washington strongly backed political actors aligned with its interests, even when they carried significant legal and ethical baggage. In doing so, the US signalled that strategic loyalty now outweighs democratic credentials.
From sanctions to military pressure
For years, sanctions were Washington’s primary tool against Venezuela. Initially justified as a way to pressure the Maduro government toward democratic reforms, the measures expanded to target the country’s oil industry — the backbone of its economy.
While sanctions inflicted economic pain, they failed to dislodge Maduro. Instead, Venezuela’s political system hardened, opposition forces fragmented, and millions of citizens left the country.
Now, sanctions are being reinforced by overt military pressure.
Trump has publicly refused to rule out armed conflict with Venezuela. While a full-scale invasion remains unlikely, Lapper, warns that limited military escalation is a real possibility.
“I don’t think war in the sense of large ground troop deployments is likely,” he says. “But significant military escalation — including drone strikes or targeted attacks on government assets — could happen.”
Such an approach would mirror recent conflicts elsewhere, where technologically advanced militaries sought to degrade adversaries without committing troops on the ground.
Yet Venezuela is not a small or easily controlled state. It is geographically vast, with difficult terrain and powerful non-state actors operating in rural areas.
“Venezuela is a big country,” Lapper cautions. “It would be very difficult for any external power to secure control of the entire territory.”
Drugs, terror labels, and political framing
Washington has justified some of its actions by framing Venezuela as a major hub for drug trafficking, alleging links between senior officials and organized crime networks such as the so-called “Cartel of the Suns.”
There is little dispute that narcotics pass through Venezuela en route to North America. The question is whether this justifies the current escalation — or whether it serves as political cover.
“You have to take the drug stuff with a pinch of salt,” Lapper says. “A lot of drugs do go through Venezuela, but to what extent Maduro himself is at the centre of this is highly contested.”
He notes the inconsistency of US drug policy, pointing to cases where Washington has quietly abandoned its tough stance when political interests demanded it.
“It’s a convenient wrapper for the policy,” Lapper argues. “But the real objective is regional domination.”
A changing political landscape in Latin America
The escalation against Venezuela is unfolding amid a broader political realignment across Latin America. After the so-called “pink tide” of left-wing governments in the early 2000s, the region has swung sharply to the right.
Conservative and far-right leaders now dominate in countries such as Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, while left-wing governments face mounting pressure elsewhere.
“These are the leaders setting the regional mood,” Lapper says, pointing to figures like Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele. “Not the Lulas and Chavezes of the past.”
This shift has two implications. First, it reduces regional resistance to US pressure on Venezuela. Second, it creates an environment in which hardline security approaches are politically fashionable.
Ironically, however, overt US intervention can still backfire. In Brazil, for instance, perceived external interference has boosted nationalist sentiment and temporarily strengthened President Lula’s standing.
Venezuela’s economic collapse: Sanctions
One of the central debates surrounding Venezuela concerns responsibility for its economic collapse. Washington argues that sanctions are a response to authoritarianism and corruption. Caracas insists that sanctions themselves are the root cause of suffering.
“Sanctions make things worse, Venezuela was producing three million barrels a day in the late 1990s,” Lapper notes. “Now it produces around a million. It used to be a major force in OPEC. It isn’t anymore.”
However, he also pointed out that even without sanctions, Venezuela would face deep structural challenges. With sanctions, those challenges have become existential.
Humanitarian fallout and migration pressures
The human cost of Venezuela’s crisis is staggering. Roughly one-fifth of the population has left the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in modern history.
Escalating sanctions and blockades are likely to worsen this trend.
Within Venezuela, reduced oil revenues mean fewer imports, higher inflation, and deeper reliance on informal and illicit economic activities. Outside the country, neighbouring states struggle to absorb waves of migrants.
Brazil, which shares a long land border with Venezuela, has a direct interest in preventing further destabilisation. It has attempted to mediate politically, but with little success.
“Brazil wants stability,” Lapper says. “But its soft diplomacy hasn’t been effective.”
As conditions deteriorate, migration pressures are likely to intensify — not only toward neighbouring countries, but eventually toward the United States itself.
International allies and a shrinking safety net
Venezuela is not entirely isolated. Cuba remains its most important security ally, receiving subsidized oil in exchange for intelligence and political support.
Russia and China provide diplomatic backing, but neither appears eager to dramatically escalate its involvement.
“I don’t see Russia or China rushing to Venezuela’s aid,” Lapper says.
If US pressure cuts off oil supplies to Cuba, the effects could be destabilizing across the Caribbean. Cuba is already facing severe economic strain, with blackouts and protests becoming more frequent.
The risk, analysts warn, is a cascading crisis affecting multiple states simultaneously.
Lessons from past US interventions
History offers sobering lessons. US military interventions in Latin America have had mixed results at best. While short operations in Panama and Grenada succeeded tactically, longer engagements — such as Haiti — produced prolonged instability.
Elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East, US interventions over the past three decades have often exacerbated conflict rather than resolving it.
“The US does not have the staying power,” Lapper says. “There isn’t domestic support for long, messy interventions.”
That reality limits Washington’s options.
Sanctions alone have failed. Full-scale invasion is politically untenable. High-tech, limited strikes remain a temptation — but one fraught with risk.
What lies ahead for Venezuela?
Looking toward 2026, Lapper sees no easy resolution.
“I don’t see the end of the Maduro regime at the moment,” he says. “Escalation would have to be quite significant for that to happen.”
The most likely scenario, he argues, is continued stalemate: a current government clinging to power, an economy under siege, and a population increasingly forced to flee.
“There’s a lot of explosive material piled up in Venezuela,” Lapper observes. “But right now, there’s nothing to blow it up.”
Whether Washington’s escalating pressure will eventually trigger change — or simply deepen chaos — remains an open and deeply consequential question.
US Arms Sales to Taiwan Push Region Toward Conflict – Chinese Embassy
Sputnik – 28.12.2025
WASHINGTON – The arms supply from the United States to Taiwan is pushing the region closer to conflict, the Chinese Embassy in Washington told RIA Novosti.
“Such moves will not reverse the inevitable failure of ‘Taiwan independence,’ and will only push the Taiwan Strait into the danger of military conflict at a faster pace,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said, commenting on the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcement of $11.1 billion worth of weapons, equipment, and military services approved for sale to Taiwan.
Specifically, the US arms shipment includes Javelin systems, ALTIUS-700M and ALTIUS-600 unmanned aerial vehicles, spare parts for AH-1W SuperCobra helicopters, HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, M107A7 self-propelled artillery units, and TOW anti-tank missile systems.
“For the US, assisting the ‘independence’ agenda by arming Taiwan will only backfire,” the spokesman added.
China has repeatedly called on the United States to stop selling arms to Taiwan and creating tension in the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Foreign Ministry noted that military interaction between the United States and the island, as well as the US leadership’s arms sales to Taiwan, grossly violated the “one China” principle and the three joint Sino-American communiques, causing great harm to China’s sovereignty and security interests and threatening stability in the Taiwan Strait.
Official relations between the central government of the People’s Republic of China and its island province were severed in 1949 after the Kuomintang forces led by Chiang Kai-shek, defeated in the civil war with the Communist Party of China, relocated to Taiwan. Business and informal contacts between the island and mainland China resumed in the late 1980s. Since the early 1990s, the two sides have been in contact through non-governmental organizations.
HHS/CDC Fund Online Game ‘Bad Vaxx’ to ‘Psychologically Inoculate’ Vaccine Resistance
Ironically, the game uses the very techniques it claims to train users to detect.
By Jon Fleetwood | December 27, 2025
U.S. taxpayer funds are being used by federal health agencies to develop and test online psychological games designed to condition how people—especially younger audiences—interpret and respond to vaccine skepticism.
An August Nature Scientific Reports study reveals that the project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through a CDC award administered by the American Psychological Association.
The paper states that the funding totaled “$2,000,000 with 100% funded by CDC/HHS.”
The grant supporting the project is titled “COVID—INOCULATING AGAINST VACCINE MISINFORMATION,” award number 6NU87PS004366-03–02.
That award has already handed out over $4.3 million in taxpayer funds since its activation in 2018.
The project language mirrors the study’s conceptual framework: dissent is treated as exposure to a pathogen, and resistance to dissent is treated as immunity.
The government-funded study centers on the creation and evaluation of an online game called Bad Vaxx.
According to the authors, the purpose of the game is not to examine disputed vaccine claims or to compare competing evidence, but to reduce what they define as “vaccine misinformation” by shaping how players cognitively process vaccine-critical content.
This is despite the CDC’s own VAERS data confirming over 2.7 million injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to vaccines since 1990.
The study authors explain their premise at the outset:
“Vaccine misinformation endangers public health by contributing to reduced vaccine uptake.”
From this premise, the study moves directly to intervention design.
“We developed a short online game to reduce people’s susceptibility to vaccine misinformation.”
The paper frames this approach as a form of psychological prevention, borrowing language from immunology rather than education or debate.
“Psychological inoculation posits that exposure to a weakened form of a deceptive attack… protects against future exposure to persuasive misinformation.”
The Bad Vaxx game operationalizes this concept by training players to recognize four specific “manipulation techniques”: what it refers to as emotional storytelling, fake expertise, the naturalistic fallacy, and conspiracy theories.
These techniques are treated as characteristic of vaccine misinformation as a category.
“The game trains people to spot four manipulation techniques, which previous studies have identified as being commonly used in the area of vaccine misinformation.”
The study does not include a corresponding examination of whether similar persuasive techniques may be used in vaccine-promoting messaging, government communications, or pharmaceutical advertising.
Ironically, the Bad Vaxx project itself relies on the same persuasive architecture it claims to neutralize—emotional framing, authority cues, and repetition—embedded in a gamified format designed to shape intuition rather than invite scrutiny.
The classification of “vaccine misinformation” is established in advance and applied only to information critical of injectable pharmaceutical products.
Throughout the paper, vaccine skepticism is framed as a behavioral and social risk rather than as a possible response to uncertainty, evolving evidence, or institutional error.
The taxpayer-funded authors write:
“Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 predicts lower compliance with public health regulations and lower willingness to get vaccinated.”
The choice of a game as the delivery mechanism is emphasized as a strength of the intervention.
The authors repeatedly describe the format as “entertaining,” “immers[ive],” and scalable, highlighting its ability to shape intuition rather than deliberation.
“A practical, entertaining intervention in the form of an online game can induce broad-scale resilience against manipulation techniques commonly used to spread false and misleading information about vaccines.”
Games function by rewarding correct pattern recognition, reinforcing desired responses, and reducing analytical friction.
The study’s outcome measures reflect this design: discernment scores, confidence ratings, and willingness to share content, rather than independent evaluation of claims or evidence comparison.
The researchers also emphasize the potential reach of such interventions.
“The Bad Vaxx game has the potential for adoption at scale.”
This matters because the funding source is not an academic foundation with no policy stake.
The CDC is the primary federal agency responsible for vaccine schedules, promotion, and uptake.
Yet the study does not address how this institutional role shapes the definition of misinformation used in the intervention, nor does it acknowledge the conflict inherent in a public health authority funding psychological tools aimed at managing disagreement with its own policies.
The dystopian nature of the project emerges from the structure itself: state funding, psychological conditioning, asymmetric definitions, and a delivery system designed to bypass debate in favor of intuition.
What the paper documents, in concrete terms, is the use of taxpayer funds to develop and validate a behavioral intervention—delivered through a medium optimized for psychological conditioning—that trains users to reflexively distrust a predefined category of speech, while exempting vaccine-promoting institutions from equivalent scrutiny.
US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025
American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has sharply criticized British and European speech regulators for attempting to extend their laws to US-based platforms, calling it a direct challenge to the First Amendment.
Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are… trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage… about American political controversies… and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
More: EU Launches New Push For Digital ID Age Checks and Big Tech Probe Under Digital Services Act
Moscow accuses Bloomberg of spreading ‘fake news’
RT || December 26, 2025
Bloomberg is spreading “fake news” by claiming to have inside access to Kremlin information, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
The senior diplomat criticized the news agency after it relayed what it claimed to be Moscow’s attitude toward a 20-point peace proposal presented this week by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The story cited an anonymous source described as “a person close to the Kremlin.”
“This purported news outlet has no reliable sources close to the Kremlin. Only unreliable ones. And the wording ‘close to the Kremlin’ serves only as a cover up for fake news,” Zakharova said on Telegram.
Kiev’s proposal, which Zelensky claimed was discussed with US officials as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict, envisions an 800,000-strong Ukrainian army backed by NATO members and an immediate ceasefire with the current front line frozen.
Moscow has declined to make its position public, saying sensitive diplomacy must be conducted privately. Publicizing one’s negotiation stance is “inadvisable” under the circumstances, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian presidential envoy involved in normalization talks with the US, suggested a “US/UK/EU deep-state-aligned fake media machine” is waging a pressure campaign to undermine Trump’s agenda, including on Ukraine.
Previously, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused Reuters of peddling “propaganda” about Russia after the agency alleged that a US intelligence assessment had reported that Moscow sought to “capture all of Ukraine and reclaim parts of Europe that belonged to the former Soviet empire.” Russia said the claim was false regardless of whether or not such a US document exists.
Nigeria rebuffs Trump’s persecution narrative despite US coordination
Press TV – December 26, 2025
The United States has launched airstrikes in northwest Nigeria, with President Donald Trump casting the attack as a response to alleged anti-Christian violence—an assertion Nigerian authorities and analysts have long rejected as a misleading pretext for military action.
The strikes, which Trump announced late Thursday, were presented as a blow against an African branch of Daesh, which he said had carried out large-scale violence against Christians in Nigeria.
“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even centuries!” Trump said on social media.
Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the attacks targeted Sokoto State and were carried out in coordination with Nigerian authorities.
“This has led to precision hits on terrorist targets in Nigeria by airstrikes in the North West,” the ministry said in a post on X, while not confirming Washington’s claim of persecution of Christians.
Last month, Trump had spoken about his country’s intention to attack Nigeria, saying the US “may very well go into that now-disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities” against his “cherished Christians!”
The cooperation comes despite repeated objections from Nigerian officials to framing the country’s security crisis as religious persecution.
Authorities have said armed groups target both Muslims and Christians and that US claims of systematic anti-Christian violence oversimplify a complex conflict driven by criminality, local grievances and long-standing instability.
Last month, Nigeria’s president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, said the characterization of Nigeria as a religiously intolerant country did not reflect reality.
“The characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians,” he said.
Nigeria is roughly divided between a mostly Muslim north and a mostly Christian south. Analysts say Nigeria’s situation has long roots in the region’s history. In some parts of the country, Muslim herders and Christian farmers compete over land and water.
Another pretext for the US conducting strikes against Nigeria is the increasing kidnappings of priests and pastors for ransom. However, experts suggest this trend is motivated more by criminal gain than religious discrimination, as these religious leaders are seen as influential figures whose followers or organizations can quickly raise funds.
While human rights groups have urged the Nigerian government to do more to address unrest in the country, which has experienced deadly attacks by Boko Haram and other armed groups, experts say that claims of a “Christian genocide” are false and simplistic.
Trump, who positioned himself as the “candidate of peace” in 2024, campaigned on the promise of extraditing the US from decades of “endless wars”. However his first year back in the White House has been notable for the number of military interventions overseas, with strikes on Yemen, Iran, Syria and others, as well as a huge military buildup in the Caribbean targeting Venezuela.
Fuel rationing chaos looms in New York State
By David Wojick | CFACT | December 22nd, 2025
Rationing gasoline and diesel under the Climate Act is a predictable prescription for chaos. It is the mobility these motor fuels provide that guarantees rationing to meet the 2030 emissions target will not work.
First a little background. When the Climate Act was passed back in 2019, the utopian assumption was that a massive switch to EVs would quickly occur. So, they set a very aggressive 2030 emission reduction target of 40%. Getting rid of internal combustion exhaust was thought to be beneficial, so the law actually specifies that poor communities should be targeted for the biggest cuts.
Of course, the EV switch never happened. Emission reductions overall have only gone down 10%, mostly from switching from coal to gas in power generation. So, under the Climate Act, the State faces an incredible mandatory 30% emission reduction to be achieved in just four years.
The proposed draconian mechanism for achieving this reduction is by rationing the sale of fossil fuel, including gasoline and diesel. This is to be done under the “Cap and Invest Program,” which I explain here.
Reducing emissions by rationing motor fuel simply does not work, for several reasons, all due to mobility.
First and foremost, the people living or working relatively close to the state line can just drive over to fill up where their fuel is not rationed. In New York State, this is a large fraction of the folks. In New York City, you can walk to New Jersey. In this case, the amount of driving actually goes way up, which increases emissions. This has to be factored into modeling how to meet the ridiculous Climate Act 2030 target.
Second, note that if the New York gas stations near the borders lose enough business to other states they might then have a lot more fuel to sell to those further interior. This too could increase driving and hence emissions.
Third, there are the huge numbers of people that drive into New York and back out again, using less than a tank of fuel in the process. Some are visitors, others just passing through. These drivers simply have to buy their fuel in another state. Their driving does not increase, but their emissions do not go down.
These three cases taken together strongly suggest that emissions cannot be significantly reduced by rationing the sale of motor fuel. They certainly cannot be reduced by 30%. But the fuel distribution system could take a big hit financially.
Some other adverse behavioral changes are also likely to occur. The first is people carrying a trunk full of jerry cans full of fuel, especially if they have to drive a long way to get it. This practice can increase the number of people who can go out of state to tank up.
The second is one we saw in the 1970’s gas shortage scare. This is likely in the deep interior where the rationing actually works. Fearing a shortage, people keep their tanks full by topping off after using just a few gallons. This creates long lines at the pumps with a lot of anger.
And, of course, where there is rationing, there is bootlegging. An additional feature of the Cap and Invest scheme is that the price of fuel is to be driven way up as an “inducement” to using less. This hits the poor especially hard. If the price is a lot higher than in neighboring states it will pay people to put big tanks in their pickups and run fuel like it was moonshine. They might even buy tank trucks.
In summary, the idea that New York State can significantly reduce emissions by rationing gas and diesel is ridiculous. The Climate Act assumed massive sales of EV’s which did not happen. The answer is not rationing; it is to change the law.
Featured Video
Prof. Ted Postol: US–Iran War? Israel’s Fatal Gamble
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Still No End in Sight of the Murder and Mayhem Wrought by the 9/11 Culprits
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 17, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Fourth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
Back in 2006 all but a prescient few, such as Christopher Bollyn, perceived it as premature to try to identify and bring to justice the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 crimes. There was still some residue of confidence that responsible officials in government, law enforcement, media and the universities could and would respond in good faith to multiple revelations that great frauds had occurred in interpreting 9/11 for the public.
Accordingly, the main methodology of public intellectuals like Dr. Kevin Barrett or, for instance, Professors David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, John McMurtry, Michael Keefer, Richard B. Lee, A.K. Dewdney, Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, and Michel Chossudovsky, was to marshal evidence demonstrating that the official narrative of 9/11 could not be true.
The marshaling of evidence was spurred on by observations coming from government insiders like Eckehardt Wertherbach, a former head of Germany’s intelligence service. In a meeting in Germany with Christopher Bollyn and Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Wertherbach pointed out that, “an attack of this magnitude and precision would have required years of planning. Such a sophisticated operation would require the fixed frame of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a loose group like the one led by the student Mohammed Atta in Hamburg.”
Andreas von Bülow was a German parliamentarian and Defense Ministry official. He confirmed this assessment in his book on the CIA and 9/11. In the text von Bülow remarked that the execution of the 9/11 plan “would have been unthinkable without backing from secret apparatuses of state and industry.” The author spoke of the “invented story of 19 Muslims working with Osama bin Laden in order the hide the truth” of the real perpetrators’ identity. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Prof. Ted Postol: US–Iran War? Israel’s Fatal Gamble
- UK prosecutors drop aggravated burglary charges against 24 Palestine Action activists
- Unidentified drone downed over Lebanon airbase, US forces block authorities from crash site
- Peeling Back the US Information Operation in Iran
- Israel ‘dictating terms’ to US – Turkish professor
- US ramps up nuclear claims against China
- Erdogan wants nukes: What a Turkish bomb would mean for the Middle East
- Ukrainian disruption of Russian oil pipeline triggers emergency in EU state
- Kaja Kallas: an uncomfortable figure useful to the EU’s Russophobic purposes
- German state blacklists right-wing party for first time
- If Americans Knew
- Compliant aid: Who are the Israel-approved NGOs scaling up in Gaza?
- Why won’t Trump’s “Board of Peace” bring peace? – Not a ceasefire Day 131
- Help end the injustice against Shadi
- Israel’s Favorite American President
- Israel’s “Yellow Line” Is a Death Trap for Palestinians. We Drove Into It.
- Why Israel’s expanding occupation in Syria presents a critical legal test
- Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is the victim of genocide enabled by global inaction
- Netanyahu’s plan to “end” US aid to Israel is to give even more money under a different name
- Israel ceased firing on Gaza for just 15 days of the “ceasefire” – Not a ceasefire Day 130
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- No Tricks Zone
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
Aletho News 