Harvard Medical School has cancelled a planned lecture and panel discussion featuring patients from Gaza, following complaints that the session would present only one side of the conflict, amid growing concerns about academic freedom after the university’s adoption of a highly controversial definition of anti-Semitism which conflates criticism of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism with anti-Jewish racism.
According to the Harvard Crimson, the medical school’s Dean, George Q Daley, cancelled the 21 January events just hours before they were scheduled, citing objections that students would hear from Gazans receiving care in Boston without also hearing from Israeli perspectives. The session was to include a lecture on wartime healthcare by Tufts Professor Barry S. Levy, followed by discussions with Gaza patients and their families.
HMS and HSDM Student Council President Anna RP Mulhern said she was “deeply disheartened” by the cancellation. “Respect for all patients and their stories is a fundamental tenet of the medical profession. This principle was not upheld yesterday,” she stated.
The cancellation came shortly after Harvard agreed to adopt the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism as part of settling a discrimination lawsuit brought by Jewish students who claimed harassment during pro-Palestine protests. IHRA is favoured by Israel and advocates of the apartheid state as it grants special privileges to the political ideology of Zionism and apartheid state. No other political ideology or state is granted protection from criticism in the same way.
HMS Professor David S Jones, who helped develop the course curriculum, reported receiving 50 emails from students questioning the cancellation. He noted that Arabic-speaking medical students who had served as interpreters for Gazan patients in Boston had requested the session.
Critics argue the decision reflects a broader assault on academic freedom and free speech rights. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, discussing Harvard’s adoption of the IHRA definition, warned it represents “an outright systemic assault on the Free Speech rights of American citizens on the academic freedom that is supposed to prevail in our institutions of higher learning.”
Greenwald highlighted how the IHRA definition prohibits various forms of criticism of Israel that would be perfectly acceptable if directed at other nations. He noted that under these new rules, Harvard students remain free to describe any country, including the US, as fundamentally racist – except Israel. “You can say that the United States and its existence is a racist endeavour, that you’re allowed to say… nobody tries to censor that,” Greenwald explained.
Pick any country in the entire world at Harvard and you are totally free to call the existence of that country a racist endeavour except one country where you fall into the crime of hate speech and that is the state of Israel.
The combination of event cancellations and adoption of the IHRA definition has raised concerns about the chilling effect on academic discourse. Critics argue that medical education, which relies on hearing directly from patients about their experiences, could be particularly impacted if geopolitical considerations begin to override educational ones.
“This is nothing more than an outright systemic assault on the Free Speech rights of American citizens on the academic freedom that is supposed to prevail in our institutions of Higher Learning,” Greenwald concluded, arguing that such restrictions serve “not to protect our own country, our own culture, our own government, the security of our own people but to protect this foreign country.”
A Financial Times interview with Alex Soros, now the head of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, revealed some interesting takes.
FT editor Roula Khalaf was all praise for the younger Soros, stating, as quoted by a review of the article in Mandiner, “History matters to him” and lauding the $32 billion given by his family to “promote democracy and human rights in Central and Eastern Europe.”
Khalaf also lamented that Soros senior has been “demonized by the right as the head of a global conspiracy, a characterization that is laced with anti-Semitic overtones.”
The paper noted that the Soroses were huge supporters of Kamala Harris, spending more than $85 million on the 2024 elections. On this front, Alex surprisingly told the paper the U.S. should regulate campaign funding as they do in Europe: “I would be happy if money didn’t play a role in politics, let’s do it, let’s do it tomorrow!”
Alex Soros also spoke about what he believes to be Trump’s fixation on his father. His current treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, and his former treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, both previously worked for Soros’ fund manager, and Alex says Trump hires these people “because he always wanted to get into this club” or “maybe destroy it.”
Touching on OSF making massive cuts back in 2017, shrinking staff from 1,700 to 500, Alex said this was to eliminate excessive bureaucracy. Regarding rumors that OSF is turning away from Europe, he said this is not true at all and that the foundation is actually expanding in Ukraine.
He then predicted that Trump’s administration “will be very bad and tragic for a lot of people,” lamenting what he says is the new reality under the new president.
“I remember walking down the street in Rome and seeing the American embassy with the rainbow flag on it, and thinking how proud I am of my country,” he said, calling those now in charge “tyrants” and stating, “I hope Marx was right that tragedy comes first, and then farce. But I fear it will be the other way around.”
Although a jab was taken at Orbán in the article, noting Trump’s admiration for his campaign against the Soros network of NGOs, it was Musk who took a real hit. Referencing a meeting that was supposed to take place between Musk and Soros in November, Alex blamed the X CEO for missing it, saying, “I think he’s much more interested in trolling than meeting.”
President Trump claimed that Russia stole the design for hypersonic missiles during the Obama administration, stating in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “some bad person gave them the design,” while also boasting that the US would have even better super hypersonic missiles.
Yury Knutov, military expert and historian of the Air Defense Forces, refuted Trump’s claim, explaining to Sputnik that:
First, there’s no need for Russia to steal US technology since it showcased the first hypersonic device back in 1991.
“The Soviet Union always outpaced the US in terms of resistance of materials-related work [vital for hypersonic missiles]. While the US focused on electronics and microchips,” Knutov told Sputnik.
This led to the creation of the first-ever hypersonic laboratory, Kholod (lit. Frost).
A model of the S-200 missile fitted with a Kholod was bought by the Americans in the 1990s, who thoroughly studied the relevant documentation.
Russia now has hypersonic missiles in three domains: air-based Kinzhal, sea-based Zircon, and land-based Oreshnik missiles. “Something no other country in the world has. This is why we outstrip the US in this regard.”
“The country that was the first to launch a hypersonic vehicle cannot steal anything from the US, which only last year successfully tested a hypersonic missile.”
“As for Trump’s claims, he was either misled or made up a story to compensate for the failures of the US military-industrial complex. On the other hand, Trump apparently needs an argument in Congress to increase funding for the US hypersonic weapons program,” Knutov concluded.
MOSCOW – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that he is ready to talk calmly with US President Donald Trump on all areas that are of interest to both countries.
“We should meet, based on today’s realities, to talk calmly about all those areas that are of interest to both the US and Russia. We are ready, but, I repeat, this depends first of all on the decisions and choices of the current US administration,” Putin said during his visit to Moscow State University.
Russia can have many points of contact with the US administration, including economic issues, Putin said, adding that Russia and the United States have a lot to talk about on economy and energy issues.
“What is typical for the Russian and American economies? We are not only one of the largest producers of energy resources, but we are also the largest consumers of them. This means that for both our economy and the US economy, too high prices are bad, because it is necessary to produce domestically. Using energy resources, it is necessary to produce other goods within the country. And too low prices are also very bad, because it undermines the investment opportunities of energy companies,” he said.
Putin remarked that he has always had businesslike and pragmatic relations with Trump, noting that Moscow welcomes Trump’s statements about a willingness to work together and remains open to it.
“Even if we hear about the possibility of imposing additional sanctions on Russia, I doubt that he will make decisions that will harm the US economy itself,” Putin said.
Trump is “not only an intelligent person, he is a pragmatic person,” Putin added.
The previous administration of US President Joe Biden refused to contact with Russia, and it is not Moscow’s fault, Putin noted. Furthermore, Russia has never refused to use the US dollar in foreign trade transactions.
“We did not abandon the dollar. It was the former US administration that made it impossible for us to use it as a currency for settlements. I think that decision has caused significant harm to the United States,” Putin said.
Ukraine Crisis
Russia is ready for talks on the Ukraine conflict, but there are issues that need attention, the Russian president added. The problem is that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has banned himself from holding peace talks with Russia.
“It is well-known that the current leader of the regime in Kiev, when he was still fairly legitimate, signed a decree banning negotiations. How can negotiations be resumed now if they are forbidden?” Putin said.
Putin added that it was difficult to talk seriously about any dialogue with Kiev while this ban was still in place.
“However, as long as this ban isn’t lifted, it is hard to say that these negotiations can be properly started and, the most importantly, concluded. Of course, it is possible to make some preliminary outlines, yet it is quite difficult to consider any serious negotiations under the conditions of the ban on the Ukrainian side,” Putin said.
Putin added that the authorities in Kiev receive hundreds of billions from their sponsors, and he believes the same sponsors of the Kiev regime should force Zelensky to lift the ban on talks.
The Russian president also added he agreed with Trump that if he had been reelected US president in 2020 the crisis in Ukraine could have been avoided.
“I cannot but agree with him on that if he were president, if the victory had not been stolen from him in 2020, then the crisis that broke out in Ukraine in 2022 would have possibly never happened,” Putin suggested.
MOSCOW – The conflict in Ukraine is taking place because of a threat to Russia’s national security, as well as the West’s complete refusal to listen to its concerns, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
“This conflict is taking place because of a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, because of the threat to Russians who live in certain territories, because of the unwillingness and complete refusal of Americans and Europeans to listen to Russia’s concerns,” Peskov told reporters.
The conflict in Ukraine does not depend on oil prices, Peskov added.
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he would ask Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to lower the oil price and it would end the conflict in Ukraine “immediately.”
Trump stated that “right now the price is high enough that that war will continue.”
“You’ve got to bring down the oil price. You’ve got to end that war, they should have done it long go,” the US president said.
The Ukraine conflict cannot be resolved within 100 days unless the US adopts a more realistic approach, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said. Both Moscow and Washington have recently signaled a willingness to engage in talks on the issue.
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that US President Donald Trump had tasked Keith Kellogg, his special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, with ending the conflict within 100 days.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Ryabkov said the White House must adopt a realistic approach to resolving the conflict, and that the pace of any such process is still “difficult to project.”
“I would first like to understand what basis the US side intends to use to move toward a settlement,” Ryabkov said, as cited by TASS. “If they are based on the signals we have heard in recent days, then it won’t work, neither in 100 days nor even longer.”
Trump, who began his second term as president earlier this week, repeatedly vowed during his campaign that he would end the fighting within 24 hours if returned to office. Several weeks prior to his inauguration, Trump adjusted the timeline, saying he expected to negotiate peace within six months.
Speaking to reporters in the White House on Thursday, the US leader said he was ready to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as quickly as possible to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict.
During a teleconference address to the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, Trump announced plans to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down global oil prices, suggesting that this would help end the conflict by stripping Russia of revenues.
In an interview with Fox News aired one day previously, Trump threatened to impose more sanctions on Russia “if they don’t make a settlement fast.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that Putin is ready to speak with his US counterpart, adding that Moscow is “waiting for signals.”
Moscow has stated throughout the three-year conflict that it is ready for peace talks, accusing Ukraine of refusing to resume negotiations. Russian officials have also repeatedly criticized the West for providing military aid to Kiev, arguing that this merely prolongs the fighting. Moscow has warned that deeper Western engagement in the conflict increases the risks of a direct clash between Russia and NATO.
Moscow wants to resume disarmament negotiations with the US as soon as possible, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Friday.
He stressed that the legal framework for arms control has been “significantly undermined,” and that this is not the fault of Russia, but of the United States – which has unilaterally severed all contacts with Moscow.
“In the interest of the entire world and of our countries’ people, we are interested in starting a negotiation process as soon as possible,” Peskov stated.
He noted, however, that in the current conditions, it would also be necessary to take into account all existing nuclear arsenals, specifically those of France and the UK.
“The current realities dictate such a need,” Peskov said, explaining that it would be “impossible” to hold negotiations while avoiding the issue.
The spokesman noted that much time has been wasted in delaying such vital discussions, and that the “ball is now in the court of the Americans, who have ceased all substantive contacts with our country.”
Peskov’s comments came after US President Donald Trump stated at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that he hopes to hold talks with Russia and China on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Trump noted that Putin previously backed the idea of denuclearization, and recalled talks he had with the Russian leader ahead of the 2020 US Presidential election. “I can tell you that President Putin wanted to do it, he and I wanted to do it.”
Trump argued that maintaining America’s nuclear arsenal comes at a great expense and that “tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about.”
Russia and the US were previously bound to an arms control pact called New START that required them to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads, but Moscow suspended its participation in 2023 due to Washington’s military support for Ukraine. Russia has nevertheless said that it will continue to abide by the limits set out in the treaty, and President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the use of nuclear weapons is a “last resort.”
Apparently, the illegitimate Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is beginning to admit the possibility of a “deal” to disguise his political and military humiliation. In a recent interview with a Western newspaper, Zelensky stated that he could engage in direct negotiations with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to reach peace terms. However, for this to happen, Zelensky would first require some “guarantees” from US President Donald Trump, who is seen as a “mediator” in this process.
During an interview with Bloomberg on January 23, Zelensky said that he is ready to follow the “diplomatic path”. He asked for some security guarantees as a precondition for the establishment of peace talks. Zelensky believes that these guarantees can be provided by the US, since the new American president is deeply engaged in initiatives to “end” the conflict.
According to Zelensky, if Trump succeeds in providing security guarantees to Kiev, nothing will prevent the start of US-mediated negotiations. Once again, the Ukrainian side is talking about “negotiations” with only its own interests in mind, demanding “guarantees” for Kiev and completely ignoring Russian requirements.
“The only question is what security guarantees and honestly, I want to have understanding before the talks. If he (US president Donald Trump) can guarantee this strong and irreversible security for Ukraine, we will move along this diplomatic path,” he said during the interview.
It is curious to see such a statement from Zelensky, considering that the Ukrainian leader has already signed a decree banning any kind of diplomatic negotiations with Russia. Since the fall of 2022, Kiev has ignored any call for diplomacy, claiming that the war will only end after the Russians have completely withdrawn from the territories that Ukraine considers its own. Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly stated that the legislation banning negotiations is still in force, which contradicts Zelensky’s words.
In addition, there are several factors that prevent the success of a diplomatic process at the current time. First, the Russian side does not recognize the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. Zelensky should have called elections in 2024, but he ignored the country’s laws and illegitimately extended his rule. Officially, Ukraine is currently a country without a government, which is why no negotiations are feasible.
In the same sense, Trump and the US are not in a position to mediate a deal. Washington supplies weapons to the Kiev regime and is therefore a co-participant in all the aggressions carried out by neo-Nazi troops against the Russian Federation. Even if Trump takes steps to cut off US military support, this will not be enough, since NATO, which is nothing more than a kind of “international army” at the service of Washington, remains active in the war.
Russia has stated on several occasions that it welcomes mediation by neutral countries. Putin has said, for example, that Saudi Arabia would be a good mediator, considering that it is a country with strong ties to both Russia and the West, and that it has no involvement in the conflict. However, an agreement mediated by the US, even with Trump, would in practice be an agreement mediated by one of the sides participating in the war, which does not seem reasonable.
Another factor that is hindering the possibility of negotiations is the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk. Since the launching of its offensive in southern Russia, Ukraine has been massacring civilians, constantly committing war crimes and human rights violations in the villages of Kursk. Moscow has already stated that as long as there are enemy troops on recognized Russian territory, there will be no diplomacy. So, if Zelensky really wants to follow the diplomatic path, the first thing he should do is stop the attacks on Kursk.
However, Russia is indeed ready to negotiate. As Putin said recently, Moscow is ready to take any necessary measures to prevent a Third World War. There is no impediment on Russia’s part to the diplomatic process, as long as certain demands are met. The Kiev regime, illegitimately led by Zelensky, is not in a position to actively negotiate, and mediators must be neutral in the war. Furthermore, Kiev must stop its activities on Russian recognized sovereign territory.
It is the winning side that sets the conditions for negotiations in a war. Ukraine is not in a position to demand anything simply because Kiev is being defeated on the battlefield. Only Moscow can say when hostilities will actually end.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Halford Mackinder developed the theoretical framework for the divide-and-rule strategy of maritime hegemons, which was adopted by the British and thereafter the Americans. Mackinder argued that the world was divided into two opposing forces – sea powers versus land powers. The last land-power to connect and dominate the vast Eurasia continent was the nomadic Mongols, and their collapse was followed by the rise of European maritime powers in the early 16th century linking the world by sea.
The UK and US both pursue hegemonic strategies aimed at controlling the Eurasian landmass from the maritime periphery. Island states (the US being a virtual island) do not need large standing armies due to the lack of powerful neighbours, and they can instead invest in a powerful navy for security. Island states enhance their security by dividing Eurasia’s land powers so a hegemon or an alliance of hostile states do not emerge on the Eurasian continent. The pragmatic balance of power approach was articulated by Harry Truman in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as possible”.[1] A maritime power is also more likely to emerge as a hegemon as there are few possibilities of diversifying away from key maritime corridors and choke points under the control of the hegemon.
Railroads Revived the Rivalry Between Sea-Powers and Land-Powers
Russia, as a predominantly landpower, has historically been contained and kept weak by limiting its access to reliable maritime corridors. However, Russia’s weakness as a large landpower could become its strength if Russia connects the Eurasian continent by land to undermine the strategic advantage of the maritime hegemony.
The invention of intercontinental railways permitted Russia to emulate the nomadic character of the Mongols and end the strategic advantage of maritime powers. Russia’s development of railroads through Central Asia from the mid-19th century resulted in the Great Game as Russia could reach British India. In the final decade of the 19th century, Russia developed the trans-Siberian railroad that challenged British imperial interests in East Asia. In 1904, Mackinder warned:
“A generation ago steam and the Suez canal appeared to have increased the mobility of sea-power relatively to land-power. Railways acted chiefly as feeders to ocean-going commerce. But trans-continental railways are now transmuting the conditions of land-power, and nowhere can they have such effect as in the closed heart-land of EuroAsia, in vast areas of which neither timber nor accessible stone was available for road-making”.[2]
Mackinder warned about the possibility of a German-Russian alliance as it could establish a powerful centre of power capable of controlling Eurasia. Mackinder thus advocated for a divide-and-rule strategy:
“The oversetting of the balance of power in favour of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit of the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia”.[3]
US Hegemony from the Periphery of Eurasia
Mackinder’s ideas were developed further with Nicolas Spykman’s Rimland Theory in 1942, which stipulated that the US had to control the maritime periphery of the Eurasian continent. The US required a partnership with Britain to control the western periphery of Eurasia, and the US should “adopt a similar protective policy toward Japan” on the eastern periphery of Eurasia.[4] The US thus had to adopt the British strategy of limiting Russia’s access to maritime corridors:
“For two hundred years, since the time of Peter the Great, Russia has attempted to break through the encircling ring of border states and the reach the ocean. Geography and sea power have persistently thwarted her”.[5]
The influence of Spykman resulted in it commonly being referred to as the “Spykman-Kennan thesis of containment”. The architect of the containment policies against the Soviet Union, George Kennan, pushed for a “Eurasian balance of power” by ensuring the vacuum left by Germany and Japan would not be filled by a power that could “threaten the interests of the maritime world of the West”.[6]
The US National Security Council reports from 1948 and onwards referred to the Eurasian containment policies in the language of Mackinder’s heartland theory. As outlined in the US National Security Strategy of 1988:
“The United States’ most basic national security interests would be endangered if a hostile state or group of states were to dominate the Eurasian landmass- that area of the globe often referred to as the world’s heartland. We fought two world wars to prevent this from occurring”.[7]
Kissinger also outlined how the US should keep the British strategy of divide and rule from the maritime periphery of Eurasia:
“For three centuries, British leaders had operated from the assumption that, if Europe’s resources were marshaled by a single dominant power, that country would then resources to challenge Great Britain’s command of the seas, and thus threaten its independence. Geopolitically, the United States, also an island off the shores of Eurasia, should, by the same reasoning, have felt obliged to resist the domination of Europe or Asia by any one power and, even more, the control of both continents by the same power”.[8]
Henry Kissinger followed the Eurasian ideas of Mackinder, as he pushed for decoupling China from the Soviet Union to replicate the efforts to divide Russia and Germany.
Post-Cold War: America’s Empire of Chaos
Less than two months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US developed the Wolfowitz doctrine for global dominance. The leaked draft of the US Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) of February 1992 argued that the endurance of US global primacy depends on preventing the emergence of future rivals in Eurasia. Using the language of Mackinder, the DPG document recognised that “It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to US and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come”.
To sustain global primacy, the “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”, which included preventing allies and frontline states such as Germany and Japan from rearming. The DPG also argued for preserving economic dominance as “we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order”.[9]
The US abandoned the agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture based on “indivisible security” to mitigate security competition and replace it with alliance systems to divide the world into dependent allies versus weakened adversaries. Zbigniew Brzezinski authored the Mackinderian post-Cold War policies of the US to sustain global hegemony: “America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”. The strategy of preserving US dominance was defined as: “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”.[10]
If Russia would resist American efforts, the US could use its maritime dominance to strangle the Russian economy: “Russia must know that there would be a massive blockade of Russia’s maritime access to the West”.[11] To permanently weaken Russia and prevent it from connecting Eurasia by land, Brzezinski argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union should ideally be followed by the disintegration of Russia into a “loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic”.[12]
The Rise of Greater Eurasia
The US has become reliant on perpetual conflicts to divide the Eurasian continent and to preserve its alliance systems. US efforts to sever Russia and Germany with NATO expansionism and the destruction of Nord Stream have pushed Russia to the East, most importantly toward China as the main rival of the US. The cheap Russian gas that previously fuelled the industries of America’s allies in Europe is now being sent to fuel the industries of China, India, Iran and other Eurasian powers and rivals of the US. The efforts by China, Russia and other Eurasian giants to connect with physical transportation corridors, technologies, industries, and financial instruments are anti-hegemonic initiatives to balance the US. The age of Mackinder’s maritime hegemons may be coming to an end.
[1] Gaddis, J.L., 2005. Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.4.
[2] Mackinder, H.J., 1904, The Geographical Pivot of History, The Geographical Journal, 170(4): 421-444, p.434.
[4] Spykman, N.J., 1942. America’s strategy in world politics: the United States and the balance of power. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, p.470.
[6] Gaddis, J.L., 1982. Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of postwar American national security policy. Oxford University Press, New York.
[7] White House 1988. National Security Strategy of the United States, White House, April 1988, p.1.
[8] Kissinger, H., 2011. Diplomacy. Simon and Schuster, New York, pp.50-51.
[9] DPG 1992. Defense Planning Guidance. Washington, 18 February 1992.
[10] Brzezinski, Z., 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives. Basic Books, New York, p,40.
[11] Brzezinski, Z., 2017. How to Address Strategic Insecurity In A Turbulent Age, The Huffington Post, 3 January 2017.
US President Donald Trump has said he hopes to hold talks with Russia and China about reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles. According to Trump, the idea of denuclearization was previously backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump made the remarks on Thursday during an address via video link to the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.
Recalling talks he had with Putin ahead of the 2020 US election about denuclearization, Trump said “I can tell you that President Putin wanted to do it, he and I wanted to do it.”
“We had a good conversation with China, they would have been involved, and that would have been an unbelievable thing for the planet,” he added.
Trump also pointed to the expense of keeping up America’s nuclear arsenal as a motivating factor behind the idea to limit how many weapons are deployed.
“Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about,” he said.
In May 2019, Trump told reporters he and Putin had discussed the possibility of a new accord limiting nuclear arms that could eventually include China, in what would be a major deal between the world’s top three atomic powers.
That meeting was held as the ‘New START’ treaty – the only arms control pact between Moscow and Washington that required them to cut their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to the lowest level in decades – was about to expire in February 2021. The treaty was extended for five years to expire in 2026.
However, Russia formally suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023 due to Washington’s military support for Ukraine. Moscow then said it would continue to abide by the limits set out in the treaty.
Since then, the Kremlin has warned that a continued US military buildup near its borders and the deployment of nuclear-capable missiles globally could trigger a proportional response.
Moscow has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, though Russian officials, including Putin, have repeatedly stated that they consider the use of such weapons to be a “last resort.”
Last year, Russia announced updates to its nuclear doctrine after the US and several Western nations allowed Ukraine to use foreign-made long-range weapons for strikes deep into Russia. The revised doctrine now states that aggression by a non-nuclear state or by a group of states supported by a nuclear state, could be viewed as a “joint attack” on Russia.
Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States. It is therefore imperative for all that their views be based on sound science, and if not, these societies should change their statements.
A recent publication and podcast have examined the scientific organization’s climate statements, and have found numerous errors, errors which are easy to find by simply comparing the societies’ statements with data from such reliable sources as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Here is one example. The AGU states “Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life from space, and measurements of crop production, have shown that if anything, increasing CO2 has increased both plant life and crop production. After all, CO2is a vital nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we have experienced, possibly in part due to the increased CO2, has increased the growing seasons in the temperate latitudes.
As another example, the ACS statement asserts: “Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts… are increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being.”. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is measured by what is called NOAA’s Palmer drought index and this index is displayed as a graph vs of index versus year. It shows clearly, that in the United States the worst sustained droughts in the U.S. were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were in the 1970s through the 1990s.
Tens of thousands of scientists, including over 10,000 with Ph.Ds., have critically examined the evidence, and have concluded that a CO2-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They have willingly and publicly asserted this, by adding their names to document such as, the Oregon petition, Clintel Climate Petition, and the CO2 Coalition. Among other things, the societies should not ignore these, professional conclusions of many of their members.
Accordingly, and with humility, I suggest that these societies do the following:
Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.
By changing their statements to ones that are more moderate and scientifically correct, these societies will not only be helping the professions they serve, but more important, will ultimately be aiding humanity. On the other hand, if they keep their statements as they are, they will remain on the wrong side of history, and posterity will not look kindly on them. And posterity may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “green new scam,” these society presidents may find themselves hauled before Congress to receive the university president treatment.
After all, the APS statement says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.” What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater? Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today. Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed. Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
There are many such statements that Congress can quote, to very publicly humiliate these society presidents. As a committed life fellow of the APS, I hope these societies will change their statements now, before the roof collapses on them.
For many years, Joe Biden’s corruption has been as well known as his dementia to anyone remotely out of the Democrat Party and MSNBC messaging zone. Throughout his half-century career as an unimpressive politician, his family has accumulated enormous wealth through influence peddling.
This, of course, came to the fore with his son Hunter’s laptop whose authenticity was denied by “51 former intelligence agents,” claiming it was a Russian operation. The truth is Hunter Biden’s corruption is fairly routine. It’s just that other family members of politicians aren’t whoremongering crackheads and are thus able to avoid notice. Despite this, we were constantly demanded to believe that Joe Biden was a portrait of public service who believed deeply in the rule of law. This was also supposed to present a contrast between the entire Democrat and Republican machines, including Donald Trump.
Then, shortly before leaving office, following his legally dubious blanket amnesty granted to Hunter in December, Biden granted amnesty to Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, the January 6 Committee, and worst of all, the rest of his own family. All of this was done with a professed beleif in a fair justice system, claiming none of them had done anything wrong. As I like to say, we live in unsubtle times.
The history of heads of state holding the power of pardon is ancient. The most famous example in Western culture is of course Pontius Pilate—as Augustus Caesar’s representative—freeing Barabbas while condemning Jesus (notably, after getting feedback from the people).
While the public generally loves to see justice, they also like to see mercy from their leaders. It’s something which makes a king beloved. In the United States, it is technically the people who have the power to convict and execute while the executive, both federally and in states, has the power to overturn these convictions for any reason. This is also a “check” on corruption within the judiciary, and the risk that this may itself be used corruptly to assist family members or other cronies was well known. However, the concept of amnesty is also ancient, and if the president had the power to grant amnesty, as opposed to pardons for convictions, this would have been made clear in the Constitution.
It was expected, among those not brain-broken by the Democrats, that Joe Biden would pardon his son. On a human level, one can’t fault him. While I wouldn’t destroy my son’s character by making him earn corrupt profits for my family, had it come to that point and had I the power, I would pardon my son without hesitation. As president, Biden’s power to pardon Hunter’s convictions was absolute; whether or not he should do it was simply a moral and political question. However, his grant of amnesty had no legal justification. But, it being his son people were willing to let it lie. The only prior modern example was President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, which was controversial at the time but had a much stronger justification as a necessity to move forward with the nation’s political life.
Though modern Democrats are a profoundly shameless political faction, I did not imagine that Biden would take his amnesties as far as he did, and thought the whole thing was idle speculation. Biden only acknowledged that his son had problems with drugs and generally irresponsible behavior, not that he was engaging in corrupt political activities. It should be noted that while Biden’s brother James was deeply involved in the corruption business, the other Biden family members he felt compelled to grant amnesty were not even known to be “in the mix.” We are left wondering what guilt Biden is admitting with these pardons, and it is imperative to find out.
More concerning than the dangerous corruption of what can fairly be called the “Biden Crime Family,” are the pardons of those engaged in official government work. With people like Anthony Fauci and Mark Milley, we are supposed to believe these selfless public servants have done no wrong. This is also true of the January 6 Committee, who were ostensibly only taking part in legally protected political activities within Congress.
I may hate Liz Cheney, but it’s not clear what prosecutable activities she would have taken part in. The choice of a retroactive ten year amnesty for all of these people probably has less to do with any specific activities they were engaging in, and more to do with that being the maximum statute of limitations for almost all non-violent crimes. That said, it sure seems convenient that it covers anything any of them would have done since the beginning of Donald Trump’s rise to power, and also the beginning of Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. This covers, of course, not only any laws Fauci broke during COVID, but the entire process of funding labs doing dangerous research. Granting amnesty to the January 6 Committee is meant to prevent uncovering any anti-democratic conspiracies to keep Trump from returning to power.
January 20, 2025 was an incredible day in American political life in that the January 6 Committee was granted amnesty while the January 6 protesters were mass pardoned. It is inspiring because it shows elections do matter. But at the same time, this is all very “Banana Republic” and not the way things would ideally work in a mature, free country. Eight years of using every anti-democratic means to remove Trump and keep him out of power seem to be over, but in attempting to amnesty all of the worst participants—as well as his own family—Joe Biden has has set an insane precedent for protecting every type of corruption. These amnesties must be challenged in the courts and by Congress, because this is completely unacceptable and it’s likely this precedent will haunt our country for decades or even centuries.
On the bright side, with the ultimate, “respectable” Democrat establishmentarian behaving this way, the mask has been pulled back for all to see. Further, we can and should tell the people who write op-eds about “democratic norms” to shut up.
Beirut – During his visit with US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Lebanese President Michael Aoun reportedly received a US-Israeli document detailing plans for creating a civil war in Lebanon with covert false flag operations and possible Israeli invasion.
Although the source of the document is Israeli and created in partnership with Washington, no one knows who presented it to Aoun. The Lebanese TV station, Al-Jadeed, initially reported the document on Lebanese TV and a video on its website. Geopolitics Alert translated the report for this article. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
