The Black Sea Straits: Turkey balances between the US and Russia
By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – 22.02.2024
The territory of modern Turkey has economic-geographical and military-strategic advantages due to its control over the Black Sea Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. Control of the Black Sea Straits has always been strategically important to the great powers in world geopolitics and trade.
Great Britain and Russia often clashed over the right to control the Straits. In August 1914, German ships, including the cruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau, attacked Russian ports after passing through the Black Sea Straits. This led to the Ottoman Empire joining World War I on the side of Germany against Russia. One of the tasks of the Nazi German Ambassador to Ankara, Franz von Papen, in the late 1930s was to obtain Turkish consent for the passage of German ships through the Straits to the Black Sea to participate in the war against the USSR. Stalin later described Turkey’s policy during World War II as “hostile neutrality.”
In the 19th century, Russia’s successful wars against the Ottoman Empire enabled Russian control over the Black Sea Straits. However, Emperor Nicholas I of Russia, for some reason, decided to let in Britain and France in resolving the fate of the regime of shipping in the Black Sea Straits, while this issue could have become a subject of relations between solely Russia and Ottoman Turkey.
As a result, on July 3, 1841, the Straits Convention was signed in London, with the consent of the Russian Tsar, between Turkey, on the one hand, and Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and France, on the other. It stipulated that as long as Turkey was not at war, the Straits would be closed to military ships of any nation. During the war, Turkey was granted the right to let ships through the Straits belonging to states with which it wished to reach an agreement. The London Straits Convention in fact buried the decisions of the Russian-Turkish Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi of 1833, according to the secret articles of which Turkey undertook not to allow warships of any European countries to enter the Black Sea. Russia’s political and military positions have been significantly strengthened by the latter.
Following the results of the First World War, the Versailles Conference of the victorious countries again returned to the topic of the Black Sea straits, which continued with long negotiations, sharp discussions and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923, based on a project of Great Britain. The representatives of the Soviet delegation were actually blocked, and the head of the Russian delegation, Vatslav Vorovsky, was not even officially informed about the resumption of the conference and was not allowed to take part in the negotiations (on May 10, 1923, Vorovsky was assassinated in Lausanne by Russian White émigré named Maurice Conradi).
The Lausanne Treaty was signed between Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Turkey. The USSR did not ratify the convention because its terms violated legal rights and did not guarantee the security of Black Sea countries. In particular, this convention provided for the demilitarization of the Straits Zone, with the Straits themselves coming under the control of a special international commission. In other words, the right to station military units near the straits was taken away from Turkey, through whose territory the straits passed. Simultaneously, all commercial and military vessels from any country in the world were granted free passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, with only minor restrictions. The latter created problems for the Black Sea countries, especially for the main Black Sea powers – Turkey and Russia.
The events of 1936 in Spain, the growth of Fascist militarism in Italy and Germany reopened the issue of the Black Sea Straits. Britain was concerned about losing control over Turkey, its naval bases, and its broad interests in the Mediterranean and the Arab East, including the restoration of the German-Turkish alliance. Therefore, London considered it appropriate to make concessions to Ankara on the issue of changing the regime of the Black Sea Straits and replacing the International Special Commission with Turkish control, including the abolition of Turkey’s demilitarization in the Straits Zone.
Consequently, following months of discussions, a new convention on the Black Sea Straits regime was signed on July 20, 1936, in the Swiss city of Montreux. This convention is seen as a compromise in international practice. In times of peace and war, merchant ships of all nations were granted the right of free passage through the Straits. Warships of non-Black Sea states are restricted in transit through the Bosporus and Dardanelles by class, total tonnage, total number and period of stay in the Black Sea not exceeding three weeks. In the case of Turkey’s taking part in a war, and if Turkey considers itself directly threatened by war, it is given the right to authorize or prohibit the passage of military ships through the Straits. Accordingly, the demilitarization regime was abolished, and Turkey was granted the right to station its military garrisons in the Straits Zone. The USSR’s demands for limitations on the military presence of non-littoral states in the Black Sea were mostly taken into account. London and Paris obtained the right to adjust the ratio of naval forces between Turkey and the USSR in the Black Sea.
Overall, the Montreux Convention can be viewed as a compromise that helped stabilize the situation in the Straits Zone. The Convention has been extended twice for 20 years. It remains in force as of now. The issue of the Black Sea Straits is currently being discussed in international diplomacy. This is especially true in times of crisis, when relations between major Black Sea countries, such as Russia and Turkey, become contentious.
With the start of the Russian Special Military Operations in Ukraine, hostilities have been resumed in the Black Sea basin waters. The Collective West, led by the United States, is attempting to alter the international legal norms that regulate the passage of warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.
According to US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander, Washington plans to collaborate with Ankara regarding shipping in the Black Sea. The Pentagon spokesperson emphasized the need to create a favorable environment in the region, ensuring that the Black Sea is fully accessible for commercial shipping.
Meanwhile, the United States is attempting to use merchant shipping as a cover to alter the regulations for the passage of non-Black Sea NATO warships through the Dardanelles and Bosporus to the Black Sea. For this purpose, the Black Sea Grain Initiative became a convenient opportunity.
The United States and the United Kingdom assert that Russia’s decision to withdraw from the agreement violates international humanitarian law. They propose the formation of an operational group under the convoy of NATO air and naval forces to transport Ukrainian grain through the Straits to foreign markets.
Retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis announced in July 2023 that a convoy would be created under the control of the United States or NATO. A year earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported that Joe Biden Administration was considering new rules for the passage and navigation of warships in the Black Sea. The North Atlantic Alliance plans to deploy more military aircraft and ships to the Black Sea, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
In November 2023, US Congressmen Mike Rogers and Mike Turner urged President Joe Biden to deploy US military forces in the Black Sea to provide military support to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Commander Brian Harrington of the US Navy stated that conducting military exercises outside the scope of the Montreux Convention would undermine Russia’s dominance in the Black Sea. Perhaps these appeals and statements are intended more for the Turkish president.
The British and Norwegians have initiated a program to enhance Ukraine’s capabilities in the Black Sea. However, Turkey refused to allow two Sandown-class minehunters which were conditionally transferred by Great Britain to the Ukrainian Navy in June 2021, to pass through the Bosporus. According to Article 19 of the Montreux Convention, Turkey considers the ships of Russia and Ukraine as belonging to belligerent powers and therefore, they are not permitted to pass through the Black Sea Straits. London officials attempted to pressure Ankara, but were unsuccessful.
As for the warships of the US and other extra-regional countries that used to regularly enter the Black Sea using the right of peaceful passage, Turkey has announced within NATO that it will not allow naval exercises or visits for other purposes as long as the conflict continues. Ankara argues that violating the provisions of the Montreux Convention in the current situation will inevitably trigger retaliatory actions by the Russian Navy, leading to a new military escalation. Despite the dissatisfaction of NATO allies with Turkey’s position, Ankara does not intend to change it, showing the firmness and stubbornness typical of Turks.
The Montreux Convention does not allow the unimpeded passage of warships of non-littoral states in the Black Sea. However, after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, NATO gained an advantage in the Black Sea. In other words, prior to 1991, all Black Sea countries except for NATO’s Turkey were members of the Warsaw Pact and allies. Right now, the situation in the Black Sea is reversed. Namely, Russia on the one hand and NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and the North Atlantic Alliance candidates Georgia and Ukraine on the other.
The US is not a signatory to the Montreux Convention at all and can therefore afford to violate its terms. Every five years since the signing of this convention in 1936, changes to its provisions may be proposed, provided that the initiative is supported by a two-thirds vote of the Montreux signatories. However, currently, all signatory countries except Russia are NATO members, and Japan and Australia are strategic partners or allies of the United States.
In this situation, Turkey’s opinion remains key as it still holds the role of “host of the Straits” under the Montreux Convention and maintains an independent policy. A change in the provisions of the convention would be a change in Turkey’s own status quo in the region. This is obviously not what Ankara wants. Crimea is now under Russian control, which could pose a threat to the same straits.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the Turkish authorities will not change the rules of entrance in the Black Sea for NATO warships under Pentagon’s pressure. However, Russia cannot rely on Turkey’s guarantees forever, as Ankara has shown a willingness to make sudden political reversals.
The US and Turkey are discussing the issue of closing the Bosporus to Russian warships, according to Iranian journalist Hayal Muadzin. In particular, there is information circulating that the US has offered to cede some areas in northern Syria, apparently Kurdish-populated provinces, to Turkey as a gift to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in exchange for active cooperation against Russia in the Black Sea.
In January, Turkey ratified Sweden’s NATO status in exchange for the delivery of 40 modernized F-16 fighter jets from the US. Washington is prepared to address the matter of F-16 Block 70 fighter jets for Turkey. Additionally, Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland stated in Ankara that the US is willing to involve Turkey in the production program of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets and provide them with a Patriot air defense system. This offer is contingent upon Turkey’s refusal to use the Russian S-400 Triumf SAM system. The Americans may be willing to provide soft loans to support the struggling Turkish economy, but only if Turkey refrains from actively cooperating with Russia in trade and economic matters and strictly adheres to the sanctions regime.
It is evident that Turkey faces numerous temptations. However, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is aware that excessive improvisation towards Russia could jeopardize Turkey’s Great Turan project and its access to Azerbaijan and Turkic countries in Central Asia through the Zangezur corridor. For the time being, therefore, Ankara is trying to keep the “Russian side” of the fence. Turkey refuses to revise the provisions of the Montreux Convention in exchange for the “Swedish case.”
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed that Ankara will continue to use the Montreux convention and stated that it is not up for debate. With the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine, Turkey exercised its powers under the Montreux Convention and prohibited the passage of warships through the Black Sea Straits. The Turkish Defense Ministry aims to prevent further escalation of military tensions in the Black Sea basin, especially in the Straits area. The Straits pose not only an economic issue for Turkey, but also a security concern. Ankara has the right to charge for the passage of ships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, which covers expenses for lighthouses, evacuation, and medical care.
In the rapidly evolving situation of the Ukrainian conflict, it is crucial for the Turks to maintain their key positions. There is a domestic political consensus on this issue: the provisions of the Straits Convention must remain unchanged. Turkey’s accession to Western sanctions against Russia is inadmissible; otherwise, Turkey will lose the opportunity to play a mediating role.
US Tells UN Court Israel Must Be Allowed to Continue Occupation of Palestine
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 21, 2024
A State Department official speaking before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) urged the body not to order Israel to end the occupation of Palestine. The court is currently hearing arguments in a case that calls on Israel to end the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The ICJ will hear arguments from more than 50 countries over six days. On the third day of the trial, State Department legal adviser Richard Visek argued to the ICJ that Israel needs to continue the occupation of Palestine for security reasons. “The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory,” Visek said.
“Any movement towards Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs.” He continued, “We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7, and they persist.”
Visek did not mention the security needs of the Palestinians, who have suffered under decades of occupation and apartheid at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Since October 7, 29,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations in Gaza. Tel Aviv has prevented aid from reaching the children of Gaza, putting one in six at risk of death due to starvation.
The case moving through the ICJ is separate from the genocide charges brought by South Africa in December. Last month, the court issued a primary ruling that Israel was plausibly committing genocide in Gaza fueled by the rhetoric of the country’s leadership. The ICJ ordered Israel to end military operations in Gaza that endanger civilians. Tel Aviv and Washington have said they will ignore the court’s decision.
The second ICJ trial is examining the Israeli military occupation of Palestine, which has been ongoing since 1967. Several international and Israeli human rights organizations have concluded that the occupation amounts to apartheid.
For decades, Washington has underwritten the Israeli occupation of the West Bank by preventing the UN Security Council from condemning Tel Aviv’s oppression of the Palestinians and giving Israel over $250 billion in aid. On Tuesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that called for a ceasefire in Gaza.
The US claims that by giving Israel billions of dollars in weapons every year, it was establishing the conditions for a two-state solution. Visek told the ICJ that ruling Israel to end the occupation of Palestine will prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. “It is important that the court keeps in mind the balance the [UN] Security Council and the General Assembly have determined is necessary to provide the best chance for durable peace,” he told the ICJ on Wednesday.
However, Tel Aviv has deliberately worked to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted he has been able to thwart the emergence of a sovereign nation for the Palestinians during these past decades. “Everyone knows that I am the one who for decades blocked the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger our existence,” Netanyahu said, according to The Times of Israel.
Yemen says in talks with EU over Red Sea shipping safety
Press TV – February 21, 2024
Yemeni authorities have held “constructive talks” with the representatives of the European Union (EU) to ensure the safety of shipping in the Red Sea, Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein al-Ezzi says.
The Yemeni minister said on Wednesday that his country had ensured EU authorities during bilateral talks that the Red Sea is safe for international transit.
“We once again reiterate that the Red Sea is absolutely safe. Only passage to ships linked to three parties, namely the US, Israel and Britain, are blocked,” al-Ezzi was quoted as saying by Yemen’s al-Masirah TV channel.
Yemeni forces started carrying out attacks on Israeli-linked ships weeks after the regime launched the bloody hostilities in the besieged Gaza Strip in early October.
The strikes later expanded to target ships linked to the United States and Britain. The two countries have carried out airstrikes and naval attacks on Yemen’s territory in the recent past.
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement says attacks on ships will continue until Israel ends the campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 29,000 people since early October.
The Yemenis have sought to ensure international shipping companies that their vessels can safely sail in three major regional waterways of the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Gulf of Aden if they have no connection to Israel, the US or Britain.
Ezzi said some 283 commercial ships had sailed in the Red Sea with complete safety this week despite claims by Washington that the waterway is not safe for commercial shipping.
“Unfortunately, shipping companies have been deceived by the US propaganda and reduced passage through the Red Sea because of US efforts to militarize the region,” he said.
Red lines: Will Iran enter the regional war?
By Farzad Ramezani Bonesh | The Cradle | February 21, 2024
On 14 October 2023, Iran issued a stern public ultimatum to Israel, cautioning that unless it ceases its genocidal assault on Gaza, significant repercussions will ensue, likening them to “a huge earthquake.”
Tehran’s envoy to the UN later clarified that the Islamic Republic would only intervene in the Gaza war if the occupation state were to jeopardize Iranian interests or citizens.
Given the events of the past four months, this raises the question: What are Iran’s red lines, and at what point would Tehran opt for direct confrontation?
The red lines
To grasp Iran’s motivations and reactions, it’s critical to understand its red lines—those non-negotiable boundaries it staunchly defends. At the heart of this lies the survival of the Islamic Republic itself, which recently celebrated its 44th anniversary. Any encroachment on Iran’s territorial integrity or vital interests triggers a defensive response to deter potential threats.
Foremost among these red lines are any broad attacks on Iran’s maritime assets, energy infrastructure, and strategic interests. Assaults on vital economic nodes like oil refineries or shipping lanes will likely prompt swift and resolute reactions from Iran’s leadership, signaling a readiness to safeguard national assets at any cost.
Previously, the Iranian government denied involvement in the Hamas-led resistance Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. While ideologically aligned with Palestinian resistance factions, Tehran insists on their autonomy, wary of direct involvement that could destabilize its domestic front. Nevertheless, support for other allies in the Axis of Resistance like Hezbollah remains unwavering, serving as a deterrent against external aggression targeting Iran’s strategic depth.
‘De-Americanization’
So far, Tehran has moved to influence Israel’s war in Gaza on the level of diplomacy, demanding the immediate cessation of killings, the lifting of the blockade on humanitarian aid, and the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip. The key aims of the Iranians are to prevent a serious blow to the Palestinian resistance and its military capabilities and to prevent another mass displacement of Palestinians from their lands.
From Iran’s perspective, resistance against Israel and the US represents a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic’s strategic vision – part of its wider anti-imperialist struggle in West Asia, and ambition to force the US out of the region.
Many in Tehran believe the Gaza war is orchestrated in Washington, with the US serving as Israel’s primary advocate in global arenas like the UN Security Council. As such, Iran aims to undermine US influence by exacerbating divisions between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Despite Israel’s resolve to continue its campaign of ethnic cleansing, Iran’s strategy hinges on exploiting this discord, using diplomatic channels to influence US policy without resorting to direct confrontation. In essence, Tehran’s approach is to apply pressure on Washington via non-aggressive methods – without entering the war.
Israel’s covert attacks continue
Last week, a major attack was carried out on Iran’s national gas transmission pipelines. Iranian Oil Minister Javad Oji called the pipeline explosions in three regions “sabotage and terrorist attacks” and said the enemy’s plan was to disrupt gas supply to several cities and main provinces during the winter to ignite social and political unrest across the country.
While no country has claimed responsibility, a New York Times report names Israel as the culprit, citing several western official sources. Despite the severity of the attacks, Iran’s critical gas transmission capacity was safeguarded, preventing widespread energy crises.
Yet even these attacks didn’t cross Iran’s red lines because this act of vandalism – intent on destroying about 40 percent of the country’s gas transmission capacity and creating an energy crisis – was immediately thwarted.
These incidents mark another chapter in the covert conflict between Iran and Israel, which spans air, land, sea, and cyberspace. While such attacks have become somewhat routine, the frequency, intensity, and scale of destruction in this latest round may signal a material escalation that crosses Tehran’s established red lines.
Iran’s strategic response
As its support for Palestine is a top Iranian foreign policy priority, President Ebrahim Raisi has stated that the ongoing situation in Gaza raises the possibility of expanding the conflict to other regional fronts.
This is of great concern to the US. Since the beginning of Israel’s aggressions, the US has repeatedly warned Iran and its allies about “opening new fronts” in the war. These warnings have not had the desired impact: more than four months later, it is clear the Resistance Axis has responded proportionately from Lebanon, Syria, Iran, to Yemen with measured retaliations aimed at curbing Israel’s options.
Moreover, if Israel pushes Iran’s Palestinian allies to the limit, it appears that Tehran would pursue a relative, restrictive, short-term, and mid-term response.
In the interim, the assertive military reactions from Iranian allies – including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, factions operating in Iraq and Syria, and the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces in Yemen – serve as a stick to confront Israel’s aggressive stance autonomously, even in the absence of direct instructions from Iran.
While Washington and Tel Aviv claim they wish to avoid opening new fronts, on the ground, they are gearing up for military confrontation and have already escalated on various fronts.
In response, the Axis of Resistance refuses to remain passive, aiming to disrupt Tel Aviv’s crucial lifelines while refraining from fully engaging its forces in the conflict. The baseline is to keep pressure on the US so that it urges restraint from Israel in Gaza.
Logic is its finest weapon: protracted war in Gaza appears to be at odds with European and western interests, particularly in areas such as energy security, geoeconomics, overall regional stability, and public diplomacy.
As such, Tehran may perceive an opportunity to exploit this misalignment to further drive a wedge between the US and its European allies, potentially leading to increased pressure and sanctions against Israel.
The bigger picture
Today, Iran’s adversarial stance seems to be more focused on the US rather than Israel. Via regional intermediaries, Tehran hopes to broker agreements with Washington to secure a ceasefire and alleviate Israel’s pressure on Gaza. A common view among Iranians is that the pursuit of “legitimate defense” is preferable to engaging in a wider regional conflict, as prolonged internal crises within Israel could ultimately work in Iran’s favor.
Drawing from past conflicts, particularly the Hezbollah–Israeli battles in south Lebanon, Iran sees potential in eroding both Israel’s internal power and external support. This strategy intends to gradually force the occupation state to retreat from its aggressive posture in the region.
Furthermore, Iran envisions leveraging the war in Gaza to bolster its reputation and influence among Arab states. Tehran hopes to capitalize on the situation to undermine existing peace agreements, such as the Camp David Accords, and halt the normalization process initiated in 2000 between Israel and Arab states. Iran also aims to rally international support against Israel through platforms like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Although a “preemptive attack” has already been proposed if Israel continues its assault on Gaza, Iran’s strategic partners in Moscow and Beijing have not declared their full support for direct war. Therefore, Tehran is likely to avoid divergence with Russia and China in the event of major international crises.
Gaza gambit
When considering the possibility of direct intervention in the Gaza conflict, it’s crucial to recognize the formidable challenges Iran would confront. These include the risk of casualties, economic repercussions, and a decrease in oil exports.
The option of direct Iranian military involvement will only be on the table if Israel and the US cross Tehran’s red lines, though any military action against Iran would be a clear violation of international law. As the Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in January, although Iran is not seeking war, it will not leave any threat unanswered.
It must be noted that Iran sees the war in Gaza through a realist, long-term lens and not an ideological point of view. This highlights a critical reality: while Iran makes efforts to maintain a delicate balance of threats without plunging into direct warfare, the potential for direct actions and reactions to spiral out of control remains ever-present.
Iran has thus far calculated that neither Washington nor Israel would risk direct attacks on its territory. However, the mutual risk of miscalculation on both sides could lead to a gradual escalation into direct warfare.
How The Courts Could Decide Who Controls Congress
By Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox | Knowledge is power! | February 6, 2024
Most voters don’t pay too much attention to the judicial candidates when they head to the polls to cast their vote. Honestly, I can understand their thought process. There’s nothing sexy about courts, judges, judicial panels, and so on. Most voters probably feel like they will never end up in a court of law. If they keep their nose clean, and live a life of lawfulness and piety, then they probably feel that they won’t ever be at the mercy of a judge, or a panel of judges, to decide their fate.
However, there is a grave danger in this method of thinking. Even if you personally never have the need or the occasion to sue someone, or be sued by someone, judges are rendering decisions in cases that affect your life, whether or not you are a direct party to a lawsuit. A golden example of that notion is my “quarantine camp” lawsuit against Governor Kathy Hochul and her Department of Health. Most New Yorkers are (unfortunately) blissfully unaware of this epic legal battle, and yet, five judges sitting in an appellate court in Rochester, New York may have sealed the fate of 19 million New Yorkers in determining whether or not unelected bureaucrats in the DOH can throw you into a quarantine detention center, with the force of police, for however long they like, without any proof that you are sick. (For more on that, you can read one of my many articles about that lawsuit, or other media content on it, here, or here, or here).
So, judges are every bit as powerful and noteworthy on the ballot as the vote you cast for your governor, or president, or senator, etc… My quarantine lawsuit is just one example. Another example which I’d like to delve into in more detail in this article is how judges may very well end up deciding who controls Congress.
With a very close margin in the House of Representatives, quite literally, every seat counts. (My standard disclaimer applies: I am not Republican. I am a Constitutionalist and believe the power of the people over the power of the political elites must prevail). So let’s set the stage… the Republicans control the House currently by only 4 seats. The Democrats control the US Senate, and the White House. If the Republicans lose control of the House, then Americans will be subjected to a very toxic one-party-rule. Remember my motto on this – I don’t care which party it is, when one party has total control, they go totally out of control! Here’s the article I wrote on that last year.
Most people think of New York as a “deep blue” state that is full of radical left-wing voters. That is terribly wrong. If you look at a map of New York state after the last couple of presidential elections, you’ll see that the vast majority of the state votes “red,” and it’s only a couple of our cities that vote “blue.” New York is the reason the Republicans took control of the House when the 2022 elections yielded a net gain of 5 seats for Republicans. In other words, in 2022, New Yorkers flipped 5 of our Congressional seats from Democrat to Republican, and that gave the Republicans the majority in the House.
So, it’s no surprise that many talking heads say New York is the pathway for the Democrats to regain control of the House next year after the elections this November. And here is where the courts come in. When one political party controls a state legislature, if they are empowered to draw the Congressional districts within their state, then this opens the door to gerrymandering. As a result, the party that is not in control will then usually bring a lawsuit to defend their right to have districts that are not gerrymandered. This happens in lots of states, and it is 100% happening here in New York. I am the spokeswoman for a non-partisan organization called Stop NY Corruption, and as such, I am fully familiar with the redistricting saga that has been taking place here since the 2022 election.
I wrote an article with the history and back story, which you can find here. If you prefer audio/visual, you can check out one of the number of press conferences or interviews I’ve done on this topic, some of which are posted on the Stop NY Corruption website. Most recently, I just spoke at a presser yesterday up in Albany together with former Congressman Lee Zeldin, State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt, and Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar. Check out the video of our press conference here or double click on the thumbnail below.
So when these lawsuits over Congressional lines are brought in the courts, no matter which state, it is the decision of the judges that determines whether or not We the People will decide our elected representatives in Congress, or whether the political party bosses will choose what districts we live in, and who our Congressional reps will be. In a recent poll of likely New York voters, 81% of voters believe that gerrymandering is a form of cheating. According to that same poll, 78% of voters believe that gerrymandering leads to more corruption. If you want to see the full poll results, you can find that on the Stop NY Corruption website here.
To add another layer of concern, citizens really need to understand where their judges are coming from. What I mean by that is, in some states (like here in New York), the voters elect our trial court judges, but our appellate court judges and our Court of Appeals judges (New York’s highest court) are all appointed… by our governors. Ugh! So you cannot vote off the bench any “higher court” judges here in New York, and any other state that has this same judicial structure. Remember that the next time you vote in a gubernatorial election. Depending on how your state courts are designed, you may not be voting for just a governor, you could also be voting for the person who appoints your state’s appeals court judges.
Same goes for federal courts… the president appoints all federal judges, no matter what level of court they preside over (trial court, appeals court, United State Supreme Court). So you aren’t just voting for a president this November, you’re voting for the person who will place judges in the federal courts throughout our entire country. Extremely powerful authority.
Trampling on a Symbol of Liberty
By James Bovard | Future of Freedom | February 21, 2024
Last August, 12-year-old Jaiden Rodriguez was kicked out of a public-school classroom in Colorado Springs after school officials decreed that the Gadsden flag patch on his backpack was “disruptive to the classroom environment.” Those Colorado officials didn’t know the meaning of “disruptive.”
Thanks to savvy, thoughtful retorts by Jaiden’s mother in a video showdown at the school, the incident spurred a fierce backlash around America. Less than a week later, the school district raised the white flag on its assault on the Gadsden flag.
The flag’s real history
That flag, with its yellow background and coiled rattlesnake, helped rally Americans to vanquish the British Army and Navy almost 250 years ago. As the Encyclopedia Brittanica noted, “The rattlesnake symbol originated in the 1754 political cartoon “Join, or Die” published in Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette. The cartoon, which depicted the colonies divided as segments of a cut-up snake, exhorted the colonists to unite in the face of the French and Indian War (1754–63). The symbol was later used to represent unity during the Revolutionary War.” The flag became one of the most iconic symbols of the American Revolution, venerated far and wide until recent years.
Where did the Gadsden flag go wrong? Tea Party activists waved the “Don’t Tread on Me” banner during anti-Obama protests. According to the liberal media, regardless of Obama’s oppressive, intrusive policies, any opposition to his presidency was automatically racist. Thus, the Gadsden flag was irrevocably tainted by association.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added fuel to this fire:
On January 8, 2014, a U.S. Postal Service maintenance mechanic in Denver, Colorado filed a complaint of discrimination based on race (African American) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) beginning in the fall of 2013, a coworker repeatedly wore a cap to work with an insignia of a flag with a rattlesnake ready to strike and slogan “Don’t Tread on Me,” (2) the coworker continued to wear the cap after management had assured Complainant that they would tell the coworker not to, and (3) on September 2, 2013, a coworker photographed him on the work room floor without Complainant’s consent. According to the federal sector process, that complaint was filed with the employing agency — the U.S. Postal Service.
On January 29, 2014, the U.S. Postal Service dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim of discrimination. On June 20, 2014, the EEOC Office of Federal Operations reversed the agency’s dismissal, determining that Complainant had raised a cognizable claim of harassment, and ordered the agency to investigate the claim…. The U.S. Postal Service argued that the previous decision clearly erred because the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations.
But the EEOC insisted that the flag could justify a harassment complaint. The EEOC decreed that
while the Gadsden Flag originated in a non-racial context, it has since been “interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts,”… Importantly, the Commission did not find that the Gadsden Flag in fact is a racist symbol. Rather, the Commission found only that the complaint met the legal standard to state a claim under Title VII, and therefore should have been investigated by the agency rather than dismissed.
The EEOC has a long history of knuckle-headed decrees, including its 2012 ruling that made it a federal crime not to hire ex-convicts. (The chief of the EEOC repeatedly publicly denounced my articles in the 1990s, but I don’t hold a grudge.)
The EEOC’s prattle was “close enough for government work” for commentators to howl that the Gadsden flag had been condemned by federal civil-rights watchdogs.
The flag ain’t woke
The Gadsden flag was further vilified by the New York Times–spurred 1619 campaign to paint the American Revolution as a vast conspiracy to perpetuate slavery. This notion is popular with journalists who have never read a book that was published before 2010. Denouncing the Founders as racists absolves wokesters from having to learn anything about the “slavery by Parliament” that Britain sought to impose — the mass confiscation of firearms and other private property, the sweeping censorship, the total destruction of privacy, and the suppression of jury trials.
The Colorado Springs school district declared that the flag was an “unacceptable symbol” linked to “white-supremacy.” It further claimed that the Gadsden flag had its “origins with slavery” because it was designed in 1775 by a South Carolinian who owned slaves. By the same standard, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights could all be condemned since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason were slaveowners. Do the wokesters want to condemn and expunge all of American history prior to the creation of the LGBT rainbow flag?
The Colorado hubbub occurred because many school officials and students are even more ignorant of American history than freshmen members of Congress. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor groused in 2014 that fewer than 20 percent of high-school seniors “can say what the Declaration of Independence is, and it’s right there in the title.” Americans’ ignorance of history helps explain their docility nowadays.
The Massachusetts colonists rebelled after the British agents received “writs of assistance” that allowed them to search any colonist’s property. Modern Americans submit passively to endless government intrusions at the airport, online, and on the nation’s highways and sidewalks. Virginia revolted in part because King George imposed a two-pence tax on the sale of a pound of tea; Americans today are complacent while Congress imposes billions of dollars of retroactive taxes — even on people who have already died. Connecticut rebelled in part because the British were undermining the independence of judges; nowadays, federal agencies have the power to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in suits against private citizens. New Hampshire revolted in part because King George claimed that he automatically owned every Pine Tree in the Colonies; modern Americans are largely complacent when the federal government asserts a right to control every acre of private land that is wet for more a few weeks each year.
Many astute Americans are mystified at the retroactive demonization of this cherished symbol of liberty. Olivia Rondeau, co-host of a Foundation for Economic Education online program, scoffed, “No one ever told my black family that the Gadsden flag was racist. I grew up seeing it around the house all the time. 2023 is something else.”
The Colorado ruckus was popular with pundits who know only enough history to hiss and boo on cue. Two months before the Colorado uproar, the Washington Post published a piece headlined: “The disgraced Confederate history of the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag.” Since a Confederate ship had hoisted that flag in 1861, that meant that the flag was forever damned. And anyone who showed or countenanced that flag was collectively guilty for all the crimes of American history.
But the Gadsden flag became increasingly vilified even before the Tea Party protests. The real objection by officialdom is to the flag’s message: “Don’t Tread on Me.”
That flag got swept up in the vilification of dissent after the 9/11 attacks. The Department of Homeland Security warned local law-enforcement agencies in 2003 to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.” DHS pushed to treat the Gadsen flag practically as a terrorist warning signal. DHS-funded Fusion Centers attached the “extremist” or potential terrorist tag to the individuals and groups displaying the Gadsden flag — as well as to individuals who assert a “right to keep and bear arms,” individuals “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” (like many Founding Fathers did), people who were “reverent of individual liberty,” and anyone with a “Know Your Rights or Lose Them” bumper sticker.
Law-enforcement agencies have come a long way since targeting Deadhead stickers on Cadillacs in the 1970s. The FBI Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide included the Gadsden flag as one of the “commonly referenced historical imagery or quotes” used by violent militia extremists. Maybe the feds should formally announce that “distrust of government” is now a hate crime?
Jaiden, an honor roll student, watched wide-eyed as his mother lured the school official to become a nationwide laughingstock. The mother justified Jaiden’s patch: “The Founding Fathers stood up for what they believed against unjust laws, and this is unjust.”
The school official glowered: “I am here to enforce the policy that was provided by the district” after repeating the vexing phrase: “Don’t tread on me.” Did Jaiden threaten the public-school system’s divine right to tread on students and scorn parents’ values?
A victory for free speech
Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute in Utah, helped publicize the case. After the school conceded, he declared on Twitter: “Let this be a lesson — document your encounters w/ government employees. Had Jaiden’s mom not recorded the video, this wouldn’t have got nearly the attention that it did.” Jaiden was a reader of the Tuttle Twins — the pro-freedom series written by Boyack.
Permitting wokesters to turn the Gadsden flag into the moral equivalent of the Nazi swastika will only encourage more demolitions of American heritage. Will a Babylon Bee headline prove prophetic?: “FBI Seizes Jaiden’s Backpack in Predawn Raid.” Colorado’s liberal governor Jared Polis sought to end the lunacy when he endorsed the Gadsden flag for providing an “iconic warning to Britain or any government not to violate the liberties of Americans.”
The school board backed down but with a huge caveat: Jaiden could express his values only as long as no school staffer or student caterwauled. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) objected, “So long as the school district maintains that Jaiden may wear the Gadsden flag patch only if no student or staff member complains, this controversy is not over.” FIRE warned the school district: “The First Amendment does not allow the ‘heckler’s veto’ as envisioned by the district’s assistant superintendent, where anybody can suppress a student’s speech or viewpoint simply by objecting to it.” The heckler’s veto is especially perilous when domineering government officials are seeking any pretext to suppress whom they please.
Ironically, students would face no official pushback if they came to school wearing t-shirts and backpacks decorated with the logo of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (despite its crimes at Ruby Ridge and Waco), the Drug Enforcement Administration (despite DEA’s persecution of peaceful citizens), the National Security Agency (despite its preemptive destruction of privacy online and beyond), the Centers for Disease Control (despite their falsehoods and fear-mongering during the Covid pandemic), the Food and Drug Administration (despite the shenanigans it used to give full approval to dubious Covid vaccines), the Transportation Security Administration (despite their endless molesting of hapless travelers), the Department of Homeland Security (despite its secret censorship regimes seeking to suppress dissent), and even the Internal Revenue Service — which has wrongfully pilfered legions of Americans.
The Gadsden flag will be needed as long as government officials keep trying to trample Americans’ rights and liberties. None of the pundits who condemned that flag have offered any evidence that politicians nowadays are less perfidious than they were 250 years ago.
Ukraine’s Corruption has Poisoned America
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | February 21, 2024
The U.S. Congress is working towards a bill which would fund Ukraine into 2025. This, of course, is into the next presidential term. As Senator JD Vance recently explained to Tucker Carlson, the idea behind this is that if Donald Trump is again elected it will obligate him to continue supporting Ukraine and bring about an opportunity to impeach him if he does not.
Many have wondered why the U.S. political class is so obsessed with Ukraine, but I believe the answer is simple: money. I used to have a relatively elegant theory of NATO’s grand strategy, developed over a long period of observation, regarding the geopolitics of containing Russia’s sea access. However, since the outlandish and forgotten “Hunter Biden funded biolabs in Ukraine” story of early 2022, something different has become clear: our political class has been driven mad by the wages of corruption in Ukraine. When you look at the way that one ramshackle country has driven our politics both foreign and domestic, it is perhaps a defining feature of our era.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet states, already poor from the collapse of communism, became what many have described as a sort of neoliberal hell, with state resources looted by newly wealthy oligarchs and sold to the West for pennies on the dollar. It is generally considered that Russia began to emerge from this as the time Putin took power and confronted some of the oligarchs who then fled the country—seemingly his original sin with the Western powers.
Though Russia remained corrupt, it has still shown a lot of economic growth, whereas corruption has absolutely crippled post-Soviet Ukraine. It was fake concerns about corruption that led the United States to support the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2004 in Ukraine. However, more cynical observers know such actions are thin excuses for Western governments and financial interests to send hordes of attendants described as employees of “NGOs” to pick a country apart, prevent independent government, and ensure the enormous flow of funds in both directions. Though many genuine experts as well as the conventional wisdom knew it was treacherous for the United States to get involved in Ukraine because of the country’s historic, cultural, and economic ties to Russia, the opportunities for graft were too great to be resisted.
When the United States promoted the “Maidan Revolution” in 2014, they were able to remove a corrupt, pro-Russian president and replace him with a genuine oligarch willing to sell the country to the West. At this point, any sense of caution had completely gone out the window. There was a determination to pull Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit despite Barack Obama’s later admission that Ukraine would always be a core interest to Russia but not the United States.
The late Justin Raimondo wrote a 2017 article entitled, “Adam Schiff: Grifter, Racketeer, Warmonger” which gives unique insight into what has consumed our political class. In a feat of blatant corruption, Congressman Schiff of California had a fundraiser hosted at the house of a Ukrainian-born arms dealer, and then proceeded to call everyone who didn’t want the U.S. taxpayer to buy that guy’s equipment and send it to Ukraine a traitor. This didn’t even become a scandal: as far as I know, only Raimondo even noticed.
The Russiagate hoax which defined much of Trump’s term was when things became even more egregious. Many remember that long-time Trump associate Paul Manafort ultimately went to prison, in part relating to his lobbying for a Ukrainian political party. Fewer remember that the Podesta Group, those reliable Democrat courtiers, also had to shut down over the same thing. In both instances, those men were lobbying for groups seen as “Pro-Russian,” which is to say, both Republicans and Democrats have been profiting off of both factions in Ukraine. Then, of course, there was Trump’s phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, where he asked him to investigate Hunter Biden’s activities in the country. Trump was impeached over the premise that he threatened to shut off the aid bonanza; even if it was untoward to bring it up regarding the son of a political rival, cooperating on international corruption cases is the sort of thing which governments commonly do.
The broader Hunter Biden scandal is what really showcases the extent to which corruption associated with Ukraine has poisoned our domestic politics for at least ten years. Note that Hunter’s business partner was John Kerry’s stepson, and that family members of the political class and retired politicians commonly do these things. We just learned about Hunter’s activities because he happens to be a whoremongering crackhead. Joe Biden, of course, bragged about getting an anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, directly tying this to their receipt of foreign aid, something much more blatant than Trump’s phone call.
What is more notable is the Hunter Biden biolabs story, which I called “The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories” at the time. Everything was wrong with what was going on there, perhaps most of all that these lunatics couldn’t help but to fund biolabs right near the Russian border while constantly convincing us the whole region was under threat. What else have we still not learned about what our political class has done in this impoverished and deeply corrupt country which has now haunted three consecutive presidencies?
The journalist Lily Lynch recently highlighted an incredible passage that Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most important architects of American power, wrote in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard. He warned that the biggest fear of the United States should be that Russia, China, and perhaps Iran, form a sort of “antihegemonic” grand coalition based on “complementary grievances” against the United States. He said that no matter how remote this possibility is, our country must display geostrategic skill in Eastern Europe to prevent this from happening. Of course, through extraordinary efforts, our foreign policy class has managed to bring about the exact scenario which Brzenziski feared, despite viewing it as “remote.”
Incompetence doesn’t cover the series of decisions which brought us here, and neither does some grand strategy which is not working out. What has happened is that our rulers saw the perfect morass of corruption in Ukraine and waded in. Ukraine proved an incredible racket where they got paid in Ukraine to lobby for U.S. funding and profit off of the acquisitions in the United States, and then profit off of the corrupt misdirection of the funds and materials when the “aid” arrived in Ukraine. By racketeering, they have burnt the candle at both ends, and it seems that in no time it shall run out of wax and burn everything to the ground.
But damn has it been a good grift, if you were able to get in on it.
Euromaidan Was Part of West’s Proxy War Against Russia – CIA Veteran
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 21.02.2024
Exactly ten years ago, former President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the Euromaidan opposition to resolve the political crisis in Ukraine. The very next day, the opposition tore up the agreement and seized power by force.
Months of Euromaidan riots ended with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych agreeing to reform the constitution, form a “government of national unity,” and hold early elections in December 2014. The then-Ukrainian president also agreed to pardon rioters and launch investigations into violent acts by law enforcement officials.
Although the agreement guaranteed by the EU powers appeared to be solid, it barely lasted 24 hours: on February 22, 2014, the buildings of the presidential administration, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers were seized by violent protesters. The Maidan leaders appointed Oleksandr Turchynov as head of the Verkhovna Rada in violation of the country’s constitution, effectively ousting Yanukovych.
Speaking to US journalist Tucker Carlson on February 9, 2024, President Putin insisted that the coup was “unnecessary” because Yanukovych had agreed to meet the demands of the Maidan leaders.
Yanukovych went on the air from Kharkiv on February 22, 2014, and insisted that he would not resign: “I am a legally elected president. What is happening is fragrant vandalism and banditry and a coup d’etat,” he said.
Nonetheless, EU leaders openly signaled that they would work with the “new government” of Ukraine, thus destroying the agreements they had previously supported.
Real Puppeteers Were American Policy-Makers
“Officially the opposition was backed primarily by Europeans,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview for a documentary “Crimea: Way Back Home” in March 2015. “But we knew perfectly well that the real puppeteers pulling the strings were our American partners and friends.”
In early February 2014, a conversation between individuals believed to be then-US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the future composition of the Ukrainian government was leaked online. They talked about bringing opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk to power, while keeping Tyahnybok and Klitchko “outside”. In a passage that caused embarrassment to Washington, Nuland was heard to dismiss European partners with the phrase “F**k the EU.”
The scenario described in the leaked conversation came to fruition the same month: on February 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk was appointed as the Ukrainian prime minister. Klitschko was sworn in as mayor of Kiev on June 5, 2014. Tyahnybok stayed out of the de facto Ukrainian government but nonetheless visited the White House and met with then Vice President Joe Biden.
Russia Was the Target
In the wake of the coup, the Ukrainian junta resorted to brutal persecution of their political opponents, promoting an openly Russophobic agenda, and launched nothing short of a war on Donbass civilians who did not accept the illegitimate ouster of Yanukovych.
However, the real target of the US-backed regime change in Kiev was Russia, according to Larry Johnson, a retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official.
“What I think really, what it boils down to is that the West had simply decided that they wanted to take Russia,” Johnson told Sputnik. “At the core of it, they were looking for a long term strategy to isolate Russia. And the key to this was to get Ukraine into the western camp, to bring Ukraine into NATO, to bring Ukraine into the EU, and therefore to completely isolate, at least they thought they could isolate Russia. Because I think at least there was some recognition in some of the government circles that Russia has enormous wealth, natural resources. And it’s better for us to have it than for Russia to have it. I think it was the attitude.”
How Euromaidan Triggered Ukraine’s Nine-Year War on Donbass
The CIA veteran drew attention to the fact that the Euromaidan coup d’etat “ignited a civil war in Ukraine” and “ended up elevating Ukraine into a frontline priority” for the West.
“So prior to 2014, you didn’t get a lot of NATO exercises, featuring Ukraine. After 2014 Ukraine, even though it was not a formal member of NATO, was regularly featured in these joint annual exercises and that meant that Ukraine then became a proxy for a Cold War,” Johnson said.
“It became a proxy for the West to fight against Russia. And I think that’s why they were slowly building up Ukraine. The annual training was one thing, but also there was the desire, you know, persistent request to send more weapons to Ukraine. Again with nobody sitting back and saying, why? What are we trying to do? They tried to create the myth that it’s Russia that’s trying to attack Ukraine,” the former CIA veteran continued.
For its part, Russia made efforts to stop the bloodshed in Donbass through the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements. The accords envisaged cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, and a constitutional reform in Ukraine to grant self-governance to breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
However, in 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande admitted that the Minsk Agreements were seen by the West as an opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian Army.
For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in an interview with Spiegel in February 2023 that he actually had not been intended to observe the Minsk accords and informed his European counterparts about that. So, the accords were thrown down the drain in the same manner the Ukrainian opposition and the West shredded agreements with Yanukovych on February 22, 2014.
Hostilities Could be Stopped Many Times, West Just Didn’t Want to Do It
There were plenty of opportunities to avoid armed conflicts in Ukraine, highlighted Johnson.
“I mean, all the United States had to do is to say look, we’re not going to expand NATO into Ukraine,” the CIA veteran said. “We will cease conducting annual military exercises with Ukraine. And let’s reopen talks about reigniting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, the INF. And let’s begin looking at ways that we can cooperate and work together. But no, it was you know, the threats about the Nord Stream pipeline, for example, that had evolved.”
Russia has always been open to negotiations, President Vladimir Putin told the press on February 20, during a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.
Moscow maintained dialogue with the governments of Poroshenko and Zelensky to implement the Minsk Agreements in order to respect the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speakers while at the same time preserving the nation’s territorial integrity.
It remains neglected by the Western mainstream press that before launching the special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine Moscow sought to conclude agreements with the US and NATO to ensure common European security. The draft agreements which envisaged NATO’s guarantees of eastward non-expansion and Ukraine’s neutral status were snubbed by Washington, Brussels and NATO leadership.
Just a month after the beginning of the special military operation, Russian and Ukrainian representatives inked preliminary peace agreements in Istanbul in March 2022. Davyd Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation during the March 2022 Istanbul talks with Russia, told Ukrainian broadcaster 1+1 in November 2023 that Moscow was ready to end the conflict if Ukraine committed to neutrality and refused to join NATO. However, it was then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who encouraged President Volodymyr Zelensky to pick the battle and fight to the bitter end, the Ukrainian politician said.
“When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘We won’t sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight’,” Arakhamia recalled.
However, ex-PM Johnson was not alone in derailing the deal. “This war will be won on the battlefield,” European Union top diplomat Josep Borrell tweeted in April 2022, pledging hundreds of millions of euros for Kiev.
The same month, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin claimed that Washington wanted to see “Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done” in launching the special military operation. The US has spent over $100 billion in support for Ukraine’s military effort since then.
“The Western governments don’t want anything good to happen to Russia. They’re not willing to do anything to improve the lives of the Russian people. In my view, it’s genuine evil. And I’m watching this horrific policy that’s implemented by my government and there’s going to be an accounting someday. This is wrong,” the CIA veteran said.
“You know, I could understand it if this had happened 40 years ago when the Soviet Union with the ideology of communism, of Marx and Lenin was dominant. And the attempt to, you know, destroy churches and exclude religion, if that was the case, so, okay, I can understand religious people wanting to rise up and throw that off, but that’s not the case. It’s just the opposite. What we’ve got going on in Ukraine is almost, it’s demonic. It’s satanic. They literally embrace anti-Christian views under the guise of being Christian,” Larry Johnson concluded.
Google To Start Running “Prebunk” Ads and Quizzing YouTube Viewers To Fight So-Called “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 20, 2024
Prebunking – until relatively recently it was just one of the fringe concepts in the relentless “war on misinformation industrial complex.”
A short way to describe it is as a dystopian version of debunking false or incorrect information. But here the idea is to stop users (“help them identify”) unwanted content, before they can even see it.
A short way to describe what’s wrong with the “war on misinformation” is that it all too easily turns into a smokescreen for plain censorship of lawful and factually correct speech.
And now, prebunking is moving from ideations pushed by murky “fact-checking” and similar outfits, to the very top of the mainstream – Google.
The company that in effect controls the search market and some of the largest social platforms in the world (outside China) has announced that its latest anti-misinformation campaign will incorporate prebunking.
No doubt with an eye on the US election later in the year, Google’s attention is now on Europe, specifically the EU ahead of the European Parliament vote in June.
Google is acting in unison with the EU and its Digital Services Act which require tech giants to act on whatever is chosen to be considered “misinformation” and suppress it. Much of this is (at least they say so) driven by “Russia Scare,” and so both Google’s Jigsaw unit and the EU are talking about “democracy at risk.”
As for Google’s version of “prebunking,” it, at least in Europe, comes in the form of animated ads, reports say. They will play not only on YouTube but also other platforms like TikTok, and target Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland – the EU countries with the largest number of voters.
Jigsaw says prebunking bypasses “polarized debates” and “works equally effectively across the political spectrum.”
User experience may suffer at the expense of this “pre-reeducation.”
“Viewers watching the ads on YouTube will be asked to fill in a short multiple-choice questionnaire, designed to gauge what they have learned about misinformation,” Reuters describes Google’s prebunking technique.
These days, agencies like Reuters describe Jigsaw as an internal Google unit “which operates to tackle threats to societies.”
How noble of Jigsaw, and obliging towards Google of Reuters – but in 2016, reports were still talking about Jigsaw as rather what it really is – a rebrand of Google Ideas.
And, The Guardian explained at the time, this was “the web giant’s controversial diplomatic arm, founded in 2010 and headed by ex-US State Department policy wonk Jared Cohen,” adding – “Jigsaw’s stated mission is to use technology to tackle geopolitics.”
(Geo)politics may these days have been rebranded as “misinformation.”
But otherwise, little has changed.
Tucker Carlson Says Boris Johnson Wants $1Mln to Discuss Ukraine Conflict
Sputnik – 21.02.2024
WASHINGTON – US journalist Tucker Carlson said that former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants $1 million from him to talk about the Ukraine conflict in the wake of Carlson’s recent interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“It gets out that we’re doing it [interviewing Putin], and I’m immediately denounced by this guy called Boris Johnson … So I put in a request for an interview with Boris Johnson,” Carlson said in an interview with TheBlaze. “Finally, one of his advisers gets back to me and says, ‘He will talk to you, but it’s going to cost you a million dollars.’ He wants a million dollars.”
Johnson’s adviser said the former prime minister would be willing to explain his position on Ukraine for the six-figure fee, Carlson said.
In November 2023, Ukraine’s former chief negotiator with Russia, David Arakhamia, said Johnson talked Kiev out of signing an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict in spring 2022. Johnson has previously denied the accusations.
Johnson could not have traveled to Ukraine without consulting the United States, Putin said earlier this month.
Putin did not request $1 million to participate in an interview, Carlson noted, adding that Johnson is “a lot sleazier” than Putin.
The U.S. Is Planning for the Aftermath of Ukraine War
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 20, 2024
The prominent think tank for U.S. policymaking recently published a long report on the so-called aftermath of the war in Ukraine.
Washington and its NATO allies have to admit that the U.S. is losing another proxy war together with its satellite states of Europe. Previously they lost in Afghanistan (after more than 20 years, a second Vietnam), also recently in Syria and Iraq, and now in Ukraine.
Even so-called “Russia experts” in Europe admit that Ukraine is losing.
“I do not rule out that Ukraine will lose the war this year. Europe has misjudged the Russian army,” says Belgian “Russia expert” Joris van Blade to De Standaard.
Russia has the initiative again and the Russian people are not going to stop the war, he thinks. “We have missed historic opportunities to make Europe safer.”
According to the Rand study, two scenarios are possible: a so-called “hardline” or a “softline” postwar. Of course, the U.S. prefers a softline postwar outcome, where they still have room for manipulation and possible coup d’état and Balkanization (partition) of Russia just like they did in former Yugoslavia. According to Rand, the U.S. military presence in Europe has increased to around 100,000 personnel since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation in February 2022.
The United States deployed attack aviation from Germany to Lithuania; Patriot air defense systems from Germany to Slovakia and Poland; and F-15 tactical fighters from the United Kingdom to Poland. In addition, European countries are sending F-16s to Romania, as the Netherlands recently indicated. These F-16s are capable of attacking Russian cities. Washington characterized these deployments as part of a wartime surge to deter Russia from expanding its aggression beyond Ukraine to attack U.S. allies in Europe.
Leaders in Europe are almost hysterical. One after another, they proclaim that Russia is going to invade Europe, starting with Moldova, the Baltic States, and Poland. The Netherlands, Germany, and France are warning their people to expect an attack from Russia, as is Sweden, which recently joined NATO.
The population is being frightened by the unhinged rhetoric of their politicians. Conscription must be reactivated and Germany even has a concept ready to recruit migrants (about 1.5 million serviceable men) and entice them to get a passport.
European leaders are also concerned about the upcoming elections in the U.S. after Republican contender Donald Trump made comments suggesting he would quit NATO and let Europe fend for itself. They are worried that the U.S. might abandon them.
During a recent NATO conference in Brussels, a lot of war rhetoric was spoken. “We live in an era where we have to expect the unexpected,” said Dutch NATO Admiral Rob Bauer. Meanwhile, the Danish and German defense ministers have warned of a potential war with Russia within five years.
The U.S. and European leaders assume the “hardline” scenario is likely in the next few years. They proclaim through their mouthpieces in the corporate-controlled news media that Russia is becoming much more “risk-acceptant”. Therefore, it is calculated that a hardline approach may increase NATO’s ability to deter purported Russian aggression.
It’s that time of year again for the hawkish Munich Security Conference, in Bavaria, Germany. This is the forum where President Putin provoked alarm when he gave his famous speech in 2007, making it clear that the unipolar world was over and a multipolar world would emerge in the foreseeable future. Putin’s prognosis caused much chagrin for Western leaders.
This year’s theme at Munich is animated by Trump’s supposed undermining of NATO. The appeal for support from the U.S. has become more urgent among some European politicians. Ukraine lacks weapons and ammunition, they openly say. Russia is sometimes five times superior on the battlefield. In addition, a U.S. support package worth around $60 billion was approved by the Senate last week but the Republican-dominated House of Representatives could reject it – and so far it looks like it will.
Europe, in turn, would not be able to fill this gap and, therefore, Ukraine will lose the proxy war for the U.S. and the West.
In addition to the presence of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, the European leaders and lobbyists will also use the opportunity in Munich to lobby Republican Senators and Representatives to support Ukraine (with money). Nowhere outside the U.S. can you find as many American politicians in one place as at the Munich Security Conference this year.
Zelensky’s participation in the conference had been expected for some time but had not yet been officially confirmed.
Last year, he opened the most important meeting of Western politicians and experts on security policy via video address. Now he is taking part in person for the first time since the Russian Special Military Operation began almost two years ago. He is afraid for his position; he is losing the proxy war on behalf of the U.S. and EU/NATO.
The actor-President of Ukraine Zelensky desperately wants to secure future European support.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is attending the Munich conference instead of Joe Biden. Rumors are circulating in the Western media that Biden’s cognitive condition has deteriorated even more and he is unable to come. If Biden wins the November presidential election, will Harris become the next president upon his inevitable retirement during a second term? That’s probably the intention.
As President Putin said, he would rather have Biden than Trump as the winner. In his diplomatic way, he said that Biden is an “old school” politician, meaning of course that a Democratic government with Biden/Harris is easier to understand and estimate than Trump, who is capricious and unpredictable.
These are the facts: the presumed hegemony of the Western states is falling to pieces. The “Collective West” is losing its wars. Their status and economies are in a downward spiral, even before the Special Military Operation.
The politicians and the elites who stand behind them, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other semi-international organizations (usually Western-oriented) want to compensate for this historic loss of the unipolar world with a new system, away from fossil energy, ostensibly for the climate, but actually to try to weaken and isolate Russia by destroying its economy based on copious oil and gas resources.
European so-called leaders, in fact, “vassals” of the U.S., have slavishly followed the agenda of creating a new Cold War, which could turn into a hot war. Instead of betting on diplomacy, they have chosen the path of war, in contradiction to the (Western) UN Agenda 2030, where Western countries have forced this agenda on the Global South. This agenda also states that we must strive for peace and prosperity for everyone. So it is yet another lie from the Global West, or rather the empire of lies, which is now submerged in its own lies.
Featured Video
MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Neocons confess: “We did 9/11-anthrax”
By Kevin Barrett | Press TV | September 6, 2014
As the 13th anniversary of the crimes of September, 2001 approaches, the neoconservatives are shrieking from the rooftops – and effectively confessing that they were the real perpetrators of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation. (The neocons, you may recall, openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in September, 2000 – and got one exactly one year later.)
Every year at this time, the neocons orchestrate and hype a series of public relations stunts designed to magnify fears of “radical Islam” and reinforce their crumbling 9/11-Anthrax cover story. But this year’s propaganda campaign is so extreme that it represents a tacit confession: The neocons know that the truth about the 9/11-Anthrax operation is slowly closing in on them; so they are over-reacting by desperately trying to stoke the dying embers of the so-called War on Terror, in order to maintain the myth that Muslims (rather than neoconservative Zionists) attacked America in the autumn of 2001.
When a hysterical person exhibits guilty demeanor by trying too hard to blame a crime on someone else, that person is almost certainly the real perpetrator. As the neocons try much too hard to blame Islam for 9/11 and “terrorism” in general, their hysteria inadvertently reveals their own culpability. Like Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth, the neoconservative movement has blood on its hands and “doth protest too much.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties
- Israel Brings The War Rhetoric Towards Türkiye
- The Swiss summit of imperial humiliation
- Iran to continue IAEA cooperation under existing framework, SNSC decision: Baghaei
- Report highlights US munitions crisis: Missiles cannot be replenished quickly even with al the money in the world
- Iran’s Oil Spigot Could Open Soon But Hurdles Remain
- Trump’s Attempt to End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty
- First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements
- What Is Hay Fever?
- IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
- If Americans Knew
- The Republican & Democratic Politicians Trying to Scuttle Iran Agreement
- Israel’s continued targeting of civilians in Lebanon renders ceasefire meaningless
- U.S. intelligence warns Israel is likely to undermine Iran peace deal, officials say
- In Gaza, Fathers Can’t Promise Their Children Food, Safety, or Even Survival
- This baby joins thousands of Gazans in need of medical evacuation
- Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist & Beloved Ecologist: 2 Articles
- Promoters of Israel: Leo Terrell, Ghana, Floyd Mayweather, Van Jones
- Gaza Soccer Player Who Dreamed of Competing in World Cup Can Now Barely Watch It
- Gaza baby loses mom and a leg; Palestinian prisoner tortured to death – Daily Update
- JNS Policy Summit to kick off in Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
Aletho News 
