UN says US must lift restrictions on Iranian diplomats
Press TV – December 11, 2025
The United Nations says the US must allow accredited Iranian diplomats to carry out their work freely, affirming the world body’s position that Washington, as host country, is obligated to permit the unrestricted movement of all UN-based diplomatic personnel.
UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq made the remarks at a press briefing on Thursday when asked whether the world body had received a formal communication from the Islamic Republic regarding tightened restrictions on its Permanent Mission.
“Whenever countries have faced restrictions on their diplomatic personnel, they raise that with us, and then we remind the host country of its obligations under the Host Country Agreement to allow the free movement of diplomats accredited to the United Nations,” he said.
Haq reiterated the organization’s “consistent stance,” noting, “Our standpoint with all nations, not just Iran, is that we want to make sure that the host country allows their diplomats to go about their work freely, once they’ve been accredited here.”
Tehran has sharply criticized the United States for escalating pressure on its UN Mission.
In a statement issued earlier in the day, the Foreign Ministry denounced Washington for abusing its “host-country status” by imposing extensive restrictions on the residence, movement, banking access, and even daily purchases of Iranian diplomats.
It said these measures had been designed to disrupt the normal and lawful functions of Iranian representatives.
According to the statement, Washington’s decision to bar three members of Iran’s UN Mission from continuing their work marked “the culmination” of US violations of the Host Country Agreement.
The ministry condemned the move as illegal, politically motivated, and a breach that raised questions about the United States suitability to host the UN Headquarters.
It warned that such actions undermined the UN’s effectiveness, damaged the credibility of the world body’s secretary-general, and violated the principles of the UN Charter.
The statement urged the UN chief to take action to prevent further infringements of the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic rights and cautioned against allowing the normalization of host-country violations.
Tehran emphasizes that it would continue seeking accountability from Washington and defending its sovereign rights under the Headquarters Agreement.
The latest dispute follows Iran’s earlier complaint in September, when its UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani protested US-imposed movement restrictions on President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and other senior officials attending the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly.
The Great European Asset Heist Will Fail
By Leanna Yavelskaya | Ron Paul Institute | December 12, 2025
Let’s stop pretending Brussels is engaged in noble statecraft. The EU’s rush to steal more than €180 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets held at Euroclear is the most reckless gamble Europe has taken in decades. Moscow’s central bank is not wrong to call the move unlawful; its lawsuit against Euroclear merely underscores a simple truth: weaponizing sovereign reserves violates long-standing norms that have protected global capital flows for half a century. Brussels may dress this up as “solidarity with Ukraine,” but using immobilized reserves as collateral for massive loans crosses a line that Western institutions once treated as sacrosanct.
The political sales pitch — that these are merely Russia’s “war chest” — deliberately ignores an uncomfortable reality: sovereign reserves ultimately underpin a nation’s entire economy, including its citizens’ savings and pensions. Seizing or leveraging them sets a dangerous precedent: any country deemed objectionable by a majority of EU governments could one day see its wealth confiscated. That is not rule-of-law liberalism; it is discretionary power cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric.
Euroclear, one of Europe’s critical financial arteries, now finds itself caught between Brussels’ political ambitions and Moscow’s threats of counterclaims. Belgium knows the danger intimately — its own officials have repeatedly warned that breaching sovereign-immunity doctrines could expose the country to massive liabilities. When even EU member states start raising alarms, you know the legal ground is shaky.
What is truly astonishing is the European Commission’s refusal to confront the broader consequences. Financial systems run on trust, not idealistic speeches. Undermine the principle that sovereign reserves are untouchable, and investors everywhere — not just in Moscow — take note. China, which holds substantial euro-denominated assets, has already condemned the EU’s approach as destabilizing. Beijing may not dump its euro holdings tomorrow, but the EU is actively encouraging major powers to question Europe’s reliability as a financial partner. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about the euro’s long-term viability.
The internal politics are equally explosive. Hungary, Slovakia, and even Belgium itself have raised serious objections on both legal and risk grounds. If Brussels forces the plan through regardless, it will only strengthen the already potent narrative in several member states that the EU is willing to trample national interests and established law in pursuit of ideological crusades. This is the kind of overreach populists dream of — an elite-driven project that can be portrayed, not entirely unfairly, as prioritizing geopolitical theater over the economic security of European citizens.
Then there is the Ukraine question itself. For many Europeans, supporting Kiev is neither a moral nor a strategic imperative. Ukraine’s deep governance problems are real and have been acknowledged by its own officials and Western auditors alike. Pouring unprecedented sums into the country without ironclad safeguards invites legitimate criticism that Brussels is acting on emotion rather than sober judgment.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Washington has every incentive to watch Europe stumble. If investors lose confidence in the euro, the dollar benefits. If European financial institutions face turmoil, American ones expand their reach.
Europe could still choose a wiser path. Instead of prolonging an unsustainable conflict by stealing sovereign Russian assets — a move that virtually guarantees escalation and risks spilling the war into the Eurozone itself, with unimaginable and utterly destructive consequences — European leaders could support genuine peace efforts.
The EU cannot afford to make the wrong choice. Yet that is precisely what it is doing, and for nothing more than short-term political posturing.
Trump’s Peace Push is Attempt to Save Ukraine From Total Military and Political Collapse: Observer
Sputnik – 11.12.2025
The current moment “is critical for Ukraine as Zelensky’s regime is coming closer to collapse both politically and on the frontline, where Russia is advancing on all fronts,” Armando Mema, a member of the Finnish Freedom Alliance party, told Sputnik.
While Trump inherited the Ukraine mess from Biden, who “provoked this conflict and created this disaster,” he’s trying to prevent “a total defeat of Ukraine” because “it would be a disaster for his administration too,” Mema explained.
But Zelensky “is not interested in peace,” as seen in his recent demands for “security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO, [which] he knows… he cannot get,” the observer said.
Knowing that’s impossible, “he uses as an excuse to continue to be in power despite his mandate [ending]. Zelensky has banned all political opposition parties in Ukraine, arrested opponents, including regular citizens who were simply advocating for peace. Zelensky knows that if a regular election were to be held, he will lose immediately and all his administration will be prosecuted for corruption,” Mema emphasized.
As for reports of a US-mediated push to restore Russia’s access to Europe’s energy markets, Mema predicts this will remain “impossible” to achieve as long as the current crop of leaders are in charge.
“But Trump has started to dismantle the EU leadership (Macron, Merz, Ursula, Meloni and so on)” and over time they will be replaced by leaders who take account of their own countries’ interests, the Finnish politician believes.
Zelensky’s Impossible Demands a Roadblock to Peace
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 12.12.2025
Volodymyr Zelensky is deliberately setting conditions Russia can’t accept to portray it as blocking peace talks, Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, tells Sputnik.
The head of the Kiev regime is also seeking a much-needed breather for his retreating forces.
“In reality, this is Zelensky’s attempt either to buy time or, essentially, to stall the entire process,” Bezpalko explains.
Before his Saturday meeting with French, German and British leaders, Zelensky claimed a ceasefire along the current front line, security guarantees for future elections and a referendum on ceding territory to Russia were needed.
What’s Behind Zelensky’s Ploy?
- The situation for the Ukrainian forces is dire: They are retreating and losing cities, which hits civilian morale and foreign support
- Zelensky wants to halt the Russian advance to regroup Ukrainian forces, conscript more troops, get extra Western arms and even seize frozen Russian assets
- But he also wants to look like a leader ready for peace talks
Why Zelensky’s Conditions are a Non-Starter
Zelensky says he is ready to hold elections and a referendum – but demands that the US and NATO guarantee security. That would effectively mean Ukraine losing its independence, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.
Russia sees no point in freezing the conflict until its demand for a full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass and other new Russian territories is met
Why Europe is Still Backing Zelensky
- European leaders still want war with Russia, but they lack forces beyond their Ukrainian proxies, financial resources and guaranteed backing from the US
- Like Zelensky, they aim to prolong the talks and wait out President Donald Trump—until the mid-term congressional elections or he leaves office
“They are currently in a deadlock,” Bezpalko says.
Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rethinking US Policy on Europe and Russia-Ukraine
By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – December 12, 2025
The new 33-page National Security Strategy document issued by the US government endorses Russia’s stance on Ukraine, rejecting aggressive European policies.
Trump’s Divergence from European Policies on Russia-Ukraine
Since assuming the presidency for a second non-consecutive term, US President Donald Trump has diverged from the European view on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. President Trump has been highly critical of the European Union and NATO allies of the United States over their controversial policies. The new 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) announced by the incumbent US government has once again validated the Russian stance over this conflict and has unambiguously rebuffed the European aggressive and violent designs regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This latest security strategy document acknowledged that the European Union is responsible for prolonging the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The document also condemned the unrealistic expectations of the European officials from this violent conflict, costing hosts of lives on both sides. The US government blamed the EU for blocking several US efforts to end this conflict, stating that the United States has a “core interest” in ending the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Furthermore, the document also accuses the European governments of “subversion of democratic processes” as they remain unresponsive to the desires of their people for establishing peace between Russia and Ukraine. As per the NSS document, it is one of the top priorities of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability with Russia,” which would help stabilize European economies. This new security strategy document is widely seen as the re-evaluation of the US policy towards its European allies.
The Alaska Summit and Peace Negotiations
President Trump has long been critical of European policies. During his election campaigns, he repeatedly claimed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within a day. After assuming the presidential office in January 2025, he engaged with the Russian President Vladimir Putin to establish peace between Russia and Ukraine. The positive engagement between the two leaders led to a summit between them in Alaska in August 2025. After the summit, US President Donald Trump praised President Putin’s positive attitude towards peace negotiations. He also described President Putin’s observations about the conflict as “profound.”
After the summit between the two leaders in Alaska, President Trump stated, “Many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” He further stated that he would talk to Zelenskyy and NATO regarding the discussions in the summit, adding that “It’s ultimately up to them.” However, after consulting with the NATO allies, President Trump realised that the European Union has ulterior motives behind procrastinating this violent conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The European and Ukrainian demand to deploy a NATO-like combined EU force in Ukraine to ensure the latter’s security derailed these peace negotiations. In the past, the European leaders repeatedly thwarted all the peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine to achieve their covert regional strategic interests and to undermine Russian security and sovereignty. The NSS also criticised Europe over “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition.” It further claimed that Europe is confronting the “prospect of civilizational erasure” due to “failed focus on regulatory suffocation” and migration policies. The document also claimed that Europe will be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less” due to its economic issues. The NSS further read, “It is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.”
Implications of the New National Security Strategy
Indeed, the European powers, particularly NATO countries, are heavily reliant on US military power for their survival and security. For years, President Trump has been urging the European nations to pay their fair share in the alliance. However, the European leaders are unable to address US concerns due to the economic issues of their countries. In this new NSS document, the United States has threatened to withdraw its security umbrella from the European nations. It states that the US would prioritise “enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defence, without being dominated by any adversarial power.”
This re-evaluation of the US policies towards Europe and the Russia-Ukraine conflict has astonished many European leaders. Nonetheless, the United States’ new security policy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been widely regarded as commendable. European nations and the broader Western world must address Russia’s security concerns to ensure peace and stability between Russia and Ukraine. Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, expressed support for the Trump administration’s newly unveiled security strategy. He stated, “The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision.” He also encouraged the US to pledge to end “the perception, and prevent the reality, of the NATO military alliance as a perpetually expanding alliance.”
However, he also cautioned that the US ‘deep state’ views the world differently from President Trump. Indeed, the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy document is based on realistic assumptions. However, the mighty US deep state would never allow him to undermine or challenge the long-established status quo in the country. The European Union and Israel have significant influence over the US deep state. Therefore, it would be hard for the Trump administration to diverge from the prior US stance over its alignment with Europe and Israel over the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the Middle East.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
What’s on Trump’s mind as US adjusts to multipolarity
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | December 12, 2025
The world order’s transformation to multipolarity is a work in progress with the variables at work, but its outcome will be largely determined by the alignment of the three big powers — the United States, Russia and China. Historically, the ‘triangle’ appeared as the lid came off the Sino-Soviet schism in the 1960s and a ferocious public acrimony erupted between Moscow and Beijing, which prompted the Nixon administration to moot Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to Beijing to meet up face to face with Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou En-lai and, hopefully, work out a modus vivendii to jointly counter Russia.
Revisiting the Sino-Soviet schism, it is well understood by now that the US-Soviet – China triangle never really ran the course that Kissinger had envisaged. Kissinger’s failure to consolidate the opening of relations with China was partly due to his loss of power by January 1977 and, in a systemic sense, inevitably so, given the complexity of the boiling cauldron of Sino-Soviet schism where ideology mixed with politics and geopolitics — and realpolitik.
While the western mythology was that the US built up the foundations of China’s rise, historiography points in another direction, namely, that Beijing always had in mind the dialectics at work and even as a degree of compatibility of Chinese and American interests in checking the expansion of Soviet power existed, Beijing was determined to avoid military conflict with the Soviet Union and concentrated its attention on improving its tactical position within the US-Chinese-Soviet triangle.
On its part, the Soviet Union also consistently promoted increased exchanges with China despite the bitter acrimony and even military clashes with a view to undercut perceived advantages the US derived from the Sino-Soviet split — and even sought to persuade China to accept the military and territorial status quo in Asia.
In fact, to retard Sino-US cooperation against them in the early 1970s, the Soviets offered at one point to modify their territorial claims along their border, to sign non-aggression pacts and / or agreements prohibiting the use of force, to base Sino-Soviet relationship on the five principles of peaceful co-existence, and to restore high-level contacts, including party ties, in the interests of their common opposition to the US.
If China largely ignored these overtures, it was almost entirely due to the great turbulence in its internal politics. Suffice to say, no sooner than Mao, the Soviet Union’s nemesis, died in September 1976 (and the curtain descended on the Cultural Revolution), Moscow followed up quickly with several gestures, including Brezhnev sending a message of condolence (the first CPSU message to China in a decade), followed by another Party message in October congratulating the newly-elected CCP Chairman Hua Guofeng, and shortly thereafter in November sending their chief negotiator for border talks Deputy Foreign Minister Ilichev back to China in an attempt to resume the border talks. But, again, if nothing came of it, that was because of China’s invasion of Vietnam and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan soon thereafter in 1980.
Indeed, looking back, the main legacy of the 1970s viewed through the prism of the US-China-Russia ‘triangle’ was the reorientation of China’s defence policy and its geopolitical realignment with the West. China made no contribution significantly to weaken the Soviet Union or to aggravate the stagnation and brewing crisis in the Soviet political economy.
Meanwhile, the Sino-US differences over Taiwan and other issues had reemerged by 1980-1982, compelling China to reassess its foreign policy strategy, which manifested in Beijing’s announcement in 1982 of its “independent” foreign policy — plainly put, an attempt to rely less explicitly on the US as a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union — and the move to open “consultative talks” with Moscow, and a growing receptiveness towards the numerous pending Soviet overtures for bilateral exchanges (in sports, cultural and economic areas, etc), the overall direction being to reduce tensions with the Soviets and increase the room for manoeuvre for Beijing within the China-US-Soviet triangle.
Indeed, a broader detente between China and the Soviet Union had to wait till the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan following the Geneva Accords signed in April 1988. Nonetheless, a basic change in the Sino-Soviet relations through the 1980s appeared, which included regular scheduled summit meetings; resumption of cooperative ties between the CCP and the CPSU; Beijing’s acceptance of the pending Soviet proposals for non-aggression / non-use of force; and resumption of Sino-Soviet border questions at vice-foreign minister level.
Washington could sense the shift in Chinese policy directions vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Notably, reviewing the marked shift in the Chinese strategy, a CIA assessment noted:
“More recently, Moscow followed Brezhnev’s call in 1982 for improved relations with China with a halt in most authoritative Soviet statements critical of China. When Sino-Soviet discussions resumed in October 1982, Soviet media cut back sharply on criticism of China. And they have remained restrained on this subject, although occasional polemic exchanges marked Sino-Soviet coverage at the time of Premier Zhao Ziyang’s visit to the United States in January 1984. Moscow has continued to be critical of China through the Soviet-based clandestine radio Ba Yi… China for its part has continued criticism of Soviet foreign policy, although past attention to Soviet “revisionist” internal policies has all but disappeared since China’s own economic policies have been significantly changed after Mao’s death.”
Succinctly put, with CPSU General Secretary Gorbachev consolidating power circa late 1988 by his election to the chairmanship of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet and on a parallel track, Deng had outmaneuvered political rivals and become China’s paramount leader by 1978 — and had launched the Boluan Fanzheng program to restore political stability, rehabilitate those persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, and reduce ideological extremism — the door had opened for the two erstwhile adversaries to enter the rose garden of reconciliation.
Significantly, the timing of Gorbachev’s visit to Beijing to meet up with Deng in 1989 was far from ideal by virtue of the Tiannenmen Square incidents, but neither side proposed to postpone or reschedule the meeting. Such was the intensity of their mutual desire for reconciliation.
Today, the above résumé has become necessary when we assess the future directions of the Trump administration’s China policies. The common perception is that Trump is attempting to create a wedge between Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China with a view to isolate the latter and thwart it from surpassing the US. But there is no shred of evidence available hinting at the potential for decoupling Russia from China.
All the signs are to the contrary in the direction of the steady integration of the two countries. Last week, the Kremlin announced a visa-free regime for Chinese citizens to visit Russia. Interestingly, this was a reciprocal move. FT reported recently that a Chinese businessman has been given equity in Russia’s biggest manufacturer of drones which supplies the military — in the first known collaboration in the area of defence industry.
With the Power of Siberia 2 on the anvil, China’s dependence on Russia for its energy security will increase further. Russia’s foreign trade is undergoing a profound shift, with China replacing the EU as Russia’s main trading partner. Overall, Sino-Russian relations are closer today than they have been in decades.
On the other hand, there is no credible suggestion that the Trump administration is preparing for a war with China. Japan under its new leadership is whistling in the dark.
So, what is on Trump’s mind? In his revolutionary agenda for the remaking of the new world order, Trump aims at a strategic concord between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other. The recent US National Security Strategy strongly points in that direction, too. The implications of this revolutionary thinking for multipolarity are going to be profound — for partners such as India or allies like Japan or Germany alike.
Trump administration denies existence of leaked strategy that calls for pulling EU apart
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | December 12, 2025
The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy was published last week, setting out the U.S.’s broad foreign policy direction for the remainder of his term. It focused on ending what it calls a “perpetually expanding NATO,” establishing “conditions of stability within Europe,” and encouraging European allies to “stand on [their] own feet” in security matters.
The document also warned that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” citing migration, censorship of speech, declining birthrates, and what it described as a loss of national identity and self-confidence.
Days after the official release, however, the Defense One website reported that a longer, unreleased version of the NSS had circulated in Washington. According to the site, the unpublished version contained far more explicit political goals for reshaping Europe’s future and reducing the influence of the European Union. Defense One wrote that the extended draft urged the United States to “Make Europe Great Again,” proposing that Washington realign its attention toward a select group of governments ideologically closer to the Trump administration.
The unpublished version, Defense One reported, stated that Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland were countries the United States should “work more with… with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union].” It also said the United States should support “parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life… while remaining pro-American.”
None of this language appears in the officially released NSS, which focuses instead on broader themes of strategic stability with Russia, the need for Europe to regain its self-confidence, and continued American support for democracy and free expression. The official document argues that Europe’s loss of confidence is particularly visible in its approach to Russia. It states, “Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” It adds that stabilizing the continent will require “an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” to prevent escalation, restore stability, and support Ukraine’s survival as a viable state.
The text also warns that the war has increased Europe’s exposure to external dependencies, particularly Germany’s, and criticizes what it describes as unrealistic expectations held by some European officials. It concludes that despite Europe’s internal crises, the continent remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. America, it says, “encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit,” asserting that the growing influence of patriotic European parties “gives cause for great optimism.”
After the Defense One report appeared, the White House moved quickly to deny the existence of any longer or alternative NSS. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, “No alternative, private, or classified version exists. President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one NSS that clearly instructs the U.S. government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.” She added that “any other so-called ‘versions’ are leaked by people distant from the President who, like this ‘reporter,’ have no idea what they are talking about.” Her reference to leaks suggests that other versions of the report may have been discussed, albeit not endorsed or included in the final publication.
Speaking to the American Conservative website about the strategy report, Krzysztof Bosak, a Polish MP, leader of the right-wing Confederation, and deputy speaker of the Sejm — Poland’s lower parliamentary chamber — said, “I can’t say that I disagree with anything there. It’s a continuation of Vice President J.D. Vance’s Munich [Security Conference] speech, which I agreed with completely.
“Maybe Europe needs a shock from our good old friend America to start a true debate, because there was no debate in the European mainstream. In America, you have both sides of the political spectrum. In Western Europe, there’s only one side. If you have politically incorrect views, you can find yourself in prison, because you said too much, for example, in England or sometimes in Germany,” he added.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica also reported on the Defense One findings, highlighting the claim that the United States planned to use Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Poland “as tools to dismantle the European Union” by drawing them into a broader, ideologically aligned group. It noted Defense One’s summary that the unpublished draft viewed Europe’s immigration policies as driving an “erasure of its civilization,” and that Washington should engage with European actors seeking “sovereignty” and the restoration of traditional ways of life.
La Repubblica separately noted that Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), recently expressed interest in holding a major CPAC event in Italy to promote a sovereignist agenda. While government sources suggested a lack of enthusiasm, Schlapp told the newspaper, “We will get it done.”
CPAC has grown in stature among European conservatives in recent years, most notably in Hungary, where its annual event in Budapest now attracts major players, both from Europe and across the Atlantic.
Thomas Massive Introduces Bill to Withdraw from NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 11, 2025
Representative Thomas Massive has introduced legislation that will end US membership in the North Atlantic Alliance.
“NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries,” the Republican Congressman wrote. “Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership.”
In a statement, Massie argued NATO is a relic of the Cold War and an outdated pact. “NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk US involvement in foreign wars,” he said. “Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket—especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.”
Massie’s bill has companion legislation in the Senate, introduced by Mike Lee. “America’s withdrawal from NATO is long overdue. NATO has run its course – the threats that existed at its inception are no longer relevant 76 years later.” The Utah Senator continued, “If they were, Europe would be paying their fair share instead of making American taxpayers pick up the check for decades. My legislation will put America first by withdrawing us from the raw deal NATO has become.”
NATO was formed in 1949 to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. After the fall of the USSR, NATO has expanded to 32 states, including former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact members.
The US attempted to make Kiev a member of the alliance, provoking Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022. Russia has demanded that Ukraine agree to never join NATO as a condition for ending the war.
Biden, Neocons Didn’t Stop Easily Preventable Ukraine Crisis Because They See War as a ‘Table Game’
Sputnik – 11.12.2025
Former Biden European security policy architect Amanda Sloat’s bombshell admission that the conflict in Ukraine could have been prevented if the US pushed Kiev to drop its aspirations to join NATO reveals a deep rot in Washington, Karen Kwiatkowski has told Sputnik.
“The diplomatic corps increasingly has not experienced war, so many see it completely as a table game,” the retired US Air Force Lt. Col. and former DoD analyst-turned Iraq War whistleblower explained.
Beyond that, “the type and quality of the people advising the decisionmakers is amateurish,” the prolific commentator said. “Biden himself never met a war he didn’t want someone else to die in, as his Senate record bears out.”
Throughout his tenure, “a powerful neoconservative network was in place in the State Department and the National Security Council. Biden himself had several Ukrainian business associates who were enriching his family and friends. So believing in Ukraine as both a US partner and having a powerful military was a case of groupthink, probably fueled by personal friendship and neoconservative contempt for Russia,” Kwiatkowski believes.
As for attempts to pivot on the issue under Trump, these can be attributed to the removal of “many” neoconservative voices from his orbit, and listening to a younger generation of Republicans like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, who understand and reject neoconservatism.
In addition, while Trump is also a “game player,” he’s one “who does not like to lose,” which through his life in business taught him to “seek out better information” and “determine what risks to take and which losing enterprises to disband and sell off.”
In a conversation with Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, Sloat, the ex-special assistant to the president and senior director for Europe at the US National Security Council, let slip that simply getting a “no NATO” commitment from Ukraine would have prevented the Ukraine crisis, and that Washington rejected the idea at multiple stages.
“I was uncomfortable with the idea of the US pushing Ukraine not to do that and sort of implicitly giving Russia some sort of sphere of influence or veto power,” Sloat said. “There is certainly a question…you know, would that have been better to do before the war started? Would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks? It certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life,” she casually admitted, showing no remorse.
Hillary Clinton Says Pro-Palestine Protestors Don’t Know History, While She Distorts The Actual History.
The Dissident | December 3, 2025
Former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, recently emerged from the shadows to give a condescending lecture to pro-Palestine protestors at the “Israel Hayom” conference.
At the Zionist conference, Clinton said, “Students, smart, well-educated young people from our own country, where were they getting their information? they were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok,” adding, “That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7, what happened in the days, weeks, and months to follow. That’s a serious problem. It’s a serious problem for democracy, whether it’s Israel or the United States, and it’s a serious problem for our young people”.
She claimed that pro-Palestine protestors “did not know history, had very little context, and what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda”.
She added, “It’s not just the usual suspects. It’s a lot of young Jewish Americans who don’t know the history and don’t understand.”
Previously, when Hillary Clinton made similar statements, she elaborated on the “history” she claims pro-Palestine protestors don’t understand, namely the claim that her husband, Bill Clinton, when president, gave Palestinians a chance to “have a state of their own” and Palestinians rejected it- a blatant distortion of the actual history.
The Actual History.
In reality, Bill Clinton began negotiating his Oslo agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1993, but as Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada noted:
In 1993, Israel was compelled to accept the Oslo Accords by its failure to violently crush the First Intifada and its inability to cope with international isolation, pressure, and the economic, diplomatic, and political damage resulting from its “breaking the bones”strategy against unarmed civilian protesters and children.
The world hailed Oslo as a new era of peace, but Israel put enough loopholes in the agreement to avoid allowing an end to the occupation. Prime Minister (Yitzhak) Rabin, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for Oslo, made it abundantly clear that it was merely about separation, not Palestinian statehood.
“We do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state,” he said.
Apartheid means ‘separateness’, and this is what transpired on the ground. Israeli settlements grew exponentially, and more settlers moved into the occupied territory during the “peace process” than before Oslo. Palestinians, meanwhile, were forced to police Israel’s occupation and thwart armed resistance, making apartheid cost-free for Tel Aviv.
Furthermore, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was Israeli Prime Minister from 1996-1999, is on video boasting that while Prime Minister, he sabotaged the Oslo agreements and manipulated Bill Clinton into doing so.
In the leaked video, Benjamin Netanyahu boasts that “They (Clinton administration) asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords] I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ‘67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue” adding, “from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords”.
Netanyahu went on to say, “I know what America is, America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way”.
Israeli journalist Gideon Levy noted at the time the video came out, “No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.”
The following year, in 2000, when Netanyahu was out of office, Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat and the newly elected Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak met with Bill Clinton at Camp David in an attempt to resurrect the peace process that Benjamin Netanyahu had sabotaged. Hillary Clinton claims that Israel conceded every Palestinian demand for a Palestinian state, but Arafat rejected it.
This, too, is a complete distortion of history. As Muhammad Shehada noted:
In 2000, Israel made clear at Camp David that the maximum it would offer Palestinians was not a sovereign independent state, but rather three discontiguous Bantustans separated by Israeli settlements and military checkpoints without any right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Israel would retain control over Palestine’s airspace, radio, cellphone coverage, and borders with Jordan, and maintain its military bases in 13.3% of the West Bank while annexing 9% and even keeping three settlement blocks in Gaza that cut the enclave into separate pieces.
Robert Malley, Bill Clinton’s special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, who led the negotiations at Camp David, calls the claim that Yasser Arafat rejected a good deal a “myth,” adding that “the deal nevertheless didn’t meet the minimum requirements of any Palestinian leader”.
Robert Malley in the New York Times wrote that it is a myth that “Israel’s offer met most if not all of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations,” adding that under the offer at Camp David, “Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank”, “While it (Palestine) would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area” and “As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a ‘satisfactory solution,’ leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.”
As Journalist Seth Ackerman reported under the Camp David agreement,
-(Israel) would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank—while retaining “security control” over other parts—that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government
-The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert—about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex—including a former toxic waste dump.
-Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new ‘independent state’ would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
-Israel was also to have kept ‘security control’ for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt—putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
-Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an ‘end-of-conflict’ agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over, and waiving all further claims against Israel.
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, who was a key part of the Camp David negotiations, admitted “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David, as well”.
Following the meeting at Camp David, as journalist Jon Schwarz noted, “Clinton had promised Arafat that he would not blame him if the talks failed. He then reneged after the summit ended. Nonetheless, the Israelis and Palestinians continued to negotiate through the fall and narrowed their differences.”
As Schwarz noted, “Clinton came up with what he called parameters for a two-state solution in December 2000,” and “the Israelis and the Palestinians kept talking in late January 2001 in Taba, Egypt,” but “it was not the Palestinians but (Ehud) Barak who terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections.”
Following the election, as Schwarz notes, “Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon, who did not want a Palestinian state and did not restart the talks. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the Clinton parameters ‘are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.’”
Pro- Palestinian Protestors Do Understand History, Including The History of Hillary Clinton’s War Crimes.
In reality, Hillary Clinton- being the narcissist that she is-has an issue with pro-Palestinian protestors, not because they don’t understand history, but because they understand the history of her war crimes she had committed.
At Columbia University, where Clinton teaches a class on international relations, she has been called out directly by pro-Palestine protestors for her war crimes in the Middle East.
When Hillary Clinton hosted an event at the University with Sheryl Sandberg, laundering the claims from Sandberg’s atrocity propaganda film “Screams Before Silence”, which used misinformation to launder the false claim that Hamas committed mass rape on Ocotber 7th, one student protestor correctly pointed out she was pushing atrocity propaganda, and that she had used the same propaganda to justify the 2011 regime change war in Libya, saying, “You’ve done this before…You exploited sexual violence in Libya so you could justify US militarization. If you were enraged about sexual violence, you’d be talking about the sexual violence in Palestine and the sexual violence that they endure daily”.
Indeed, in 2011, Hillary Clinton pushed debunked claims that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi ordered mass rape against civilians, which was used to justify the U.S.-led NATO regime change bombing in the country, which turned it into a failed state rife with ISIS bases and open slave markets.
While the once-prosperous country was turned into a failed state, Netanyahu cheered the regime change bombing, hoping it would lead to similar regime change in Iran.
Similarly, Sheryl Sandberg’s film that Hillary Clinton laundered has been completely discredited.
The film used supposed confessions from Palestinians as evidence that mass rape happened, but the UN later documented that the “confession” videos were extracted using torture and put out for propaganda purposes, noting, “The Commission reviewed several videos where detainees were interrogated by members of the ISF, while placed in an extremely vulnerable position, completely subjugated, when confessing to witnessing or committing rape and other serious crimes. The names and faces of the detainees were also exposed. The Commission considers the distribution of such videos, purely for propaganda purposes, to be a violation of due process and fair trial guarantees. In view of the apparent coercive circumstances of the confessions appearing in the videos, the Commission does not accept such confessions as proof of the crimes confessed.”
Furthermore, the film’s central “witness”, Rami Davidian, has been discredited even by Israeli media.
Israeli investigative journalist Raviv Drucker uncovered that Rami Davidian- who is featured heavily in the propaganda film claiming to have witnessed “mass rape”- was telling, “stories made up from beginning to end. Hair-raising stories that never, ever occurred”.
In other words, student protestors were correct that Hillary Clinton previously used false stories of mass rape to justify war in Libya and was continuing to use false stories of mass rape to justify genocide- and real mass rape by IDF soldiers- in Gaza.
As the United Nations documented, the fabricated stories of Palestinians committing mass rape on Ocotber 7th were used to justify the continuation of the genocide in Gaza, and “the sharp increase in sexual violence against Palestinian women and men … seemingly fueled by similar desire to retaliate.”
Furthermore, at another Colombia University event, a pro-Palestine protestor called out Hillary Clinton’s support for America’s criminal wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and for continuing to cheer on war crimes and genocide in Gaza, saying, “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, you are a war criminal, the people of Libya, the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, the people of Yemen, the people of Palestine as well as the people of America will never forgive you”.
In reality, Hillary Clinton knows that pro-Palestine protestors are well aware of her past war crimes in the Middle East, well aware of her and her husband’s distortion and lies about the Oslo Accords and Camp David, and well aware of the fact that she is manufacturing consent for genocide- and so in turn smears them.
I was canceled by three newspapers for criticizing Israel
By Dave Seminara | Responsible Statecraft | December 9, 2025
As a freelance writer, I know I have to produce copy that meets the expectations of editors and management. When I write opinion pieces, I know well that my arguments should closely align with the publication’s general outlook. But I’ve always believed that if my views on any particular topic diverged from an outlet I’m writing for, it was acceptable to express those viewpoints in other publications.
But I’ve recently discovered that this general rule does not apply to criticism of Israel.
In fact, it appears that publications I’ve had an ongoing relationship with up until recently have canceled me for articles I wrote in other media outlets that were critical of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby in the United States.
In recent years, I penned more than 100 columns for prominent right-leaning publications, including The Wall Street Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve covered woke corporations, illegal immigration, inflation, foreign policy, the State Department, censorship, Florida politics and a host of other issues. I never once pitched a column concerning Israel to the aforementioned publications because I know the editors and leadership at those outlets are staunch backers of unlimited U.S. aid to Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his merciless assault on Gaza, not to mention President Trump’s efforts to deport foreign critics of Israel, his administration, and other related issues.
I have never seen an opinion column in The Journal, City Journal or The Telegraph expressing compassion for Palestinian victims of Israel’s military assaults. In fact, quite the opposite. For example, Ilya Shapiro, a contributing editor and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, said in a since deleted tweet, “Ethnic cleansing would be too kind for Gaza.” That comment isn’t an outlier. The prevailing wisdom at these publications is to excuse and defend the behavior of the Israeli government, regardless of the situation.
And so, when I wanted to express my disgust at the outrageous number of civilian casualties in Gaza — the Israeli military has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians according to the U.N., including more than 18,000 children — and lament the Trump administration’s efforts to deport people for criticizing Israel, I never considered pitching editors at those three publications.
Between November 2023 and May 2024, I published several columns, including for The Spectator and on my personal Substack, Unpopular Opinions, criticizing Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel. I think my critiques were mild — for example, I never categorized Israel’s actions as a genocide. Given Israel’s flagrant human rights violations, my commentaries were well within the boundaries of how most Americans feel about the carnage in Gaza. For example, in a column I wrote in November, 2023, I noted that:
“I was horrified by the October 7 Hamas attacks. And I was disgusted to see some self-proclaimed pro-Palestine advocates celebrating or justifying the barbaric attack act. This was a horrific act of terrorism, and there’s no excuse for it.”
But I added that I was disappointed with “how many conservative politicians and conservative media refuse to articulate any concern for thousands of innocent Palestinians killed or the more than one million rendered homeless.”
In subsequent columns, I criticized the Republican Party for its fixation on Israel and argued how hypocritical many on the right are in conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism in order to silence critics of the Jewish state.
None of my editors at The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph or City Journal ever said a word to me about what I wrote in these columns. But my relationships with these three outlets deteriorated rapidly and dramatically after I started covering the topic. Prior to being cut off by the Wall Street Journal, I published 34 opinion columns for them since 2017. My relationship with the opinion editor, James Taranto, was good enough that when he visited Tampa, where I live, in 2022, he and his wife took me out to dinner.
I knew where Taranto stood on Israel, having once called Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting Israel’s settlement policy, a “dopey… advocate for terror.” Prior to writing critically of Israel, my success rate in pitching columns to Taranto was roughly 30-40% positive. Since then, he has rejected 12 consecutive pitches, all on topics unrelated to the Middle East. Previously, he would send a generic one-liner when he rejected an idea. “I won’t be able to use this, but thanks for letting me see it.” Lately, my pitches don’t even merit a formal rejection. I went from being a regular contributor and on friendly enough terms to socialize after-hours, to being ghosted.
My apparent dismissal at City Journal, where I contributed 62 columns from 2020-2024, took longer and my editor there, Paul Beston, was kinder, but the result was the same. Rather than ignoring me, Beston would apologetically respond to my pitches weeks or even months later once the idea was too late to publish. He also stopped asking me to write columns for the website. Around the same time, the Manhattan Institute, which produces City Journal, fired prominent conservative economist Glenn Loury for being too critical of Israel, so perhaps there was a purge of Israel critics afoot. At least one other Manhattan Institute fellow who was critical of Israel, Christopher Brunet, was also fired last year.
My seeming dismissal at the rabidly pro-Israel Daily Telegraph, where I contributed 30 columns from 2023-2024, was similar to the City Journal experience. My editor there, Lewis Page, was cordial enough, but he, too, started to ignore my emails and stopped asking me to write for his publication. In one case, he asked me to write a column but then never published it.
Is it a coincidence that these three prominent, pro-Israel publications all stopped publishing me last year as I started to criticize Israel in other outlets? It’s conceivable, but quite unlikely given the zero tolerance for dissent on Israel that now permeates much of conservative media.
RS asked Taranto whether the Journal had stopped publishing me because of my views on Israel. Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot — whom I did not work with — responded that Taranto had passed on our inquiry and said, “I don’t recall ever reading a piece by Mr. Seminara on Israel or Gaza, so I have no idea what his views on those subjects are.”
Lewis Page at the Telegraph said my version of this story is “false” and that neither he nor anyone else at his publication knew that I had been critical of Israel. He added that the paper has not “consciously stopped using” my copy.
A spokesperson I do not know and never worked with at City Journal said that they are unaware of my position on Israel. Of course, I don’t expect any of these publications to say, “We stopped commissioning you because we don’t agree with your position on Israel.”
The bottom line is that my views on Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel are in line with those of the majority of Americans and even of a majority of American Jews. According to a Washington Post poll conducted in October, 69% of American Jews think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe it is guilty of genocide. A Pew Research poll released around the same time revealed that 59% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. And in a September New York Times/Sienna poll, 35% of Americans said they sympathize with Israel, while 36% said they side with Palestinians.
I am not sorry for criticizing Israel even though it has cost me professionally. In fact, I was probably too cautious and diplomatic in my critiques. But I think it’s a very sad statement on conservative media when news outlets that many Republicans trust have so little tolerance for dissent on a critical issue that undermines American national interests and damages our credibility around the world.
During the crazy, cultural revolution days of 2020, when statues were being toppled and progressives were claiming scalps on a weekly basis, I thought it was just the left that embraced cancel culture and silenced enemies through intimidation. Now I know better.
Dave Seminara is a writer and former diplomat based in St. Petersburg, Florida. He’s the author of four non-fiction books, including, most recently, “Mad Travelers: A Tale of Wanderlust, Greed & the Quest to Reach the Ends of the Earth.” He vlogs about his travels on his YouTube channel, @MadTraveler.
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- ‘Britain’s Index of Repression’ documents 964 incidents of anti-Palestinian crackdown
- 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
- 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 