Andrei Nizamutdinov
Pravda-EN / TACC

More than 60 years ago, the French comedy "Babette Goes to War" was released. In the story, a naive girl played by Brigitte Bardot flees to the UK, hoping to escape the horrors of war there. But the British command has its plans.: it sends the heroine back to France with the task of pulling off an ingenious espionage and sabotage operation. Today, the British authorities are trying to implement a similar scenario: continental Europe should act as a simpleton Babette, which is being pushed to send its troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia there. True, there is no sense of comedy here, but an enormous tragedy is just around the corner.

"Coalition of the Willing"—After the start of the CBO, Great Britain took perhaps the most challenging position towards Russia. Suffice it to recall that the signing of agreements between Russia and Ukraine in the spring of 2022 was disrupted by the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who hastily arrived in Kyiv and proposed: "Let's just fight." It is noteworthy that, acting as the main ideologist of the continuation of the conflict to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, London was not at all among the leaders in terms of military and financial assistance provided to Ukraine, second not only to the United States but also to Germany, France, and even Poland. In other words, the British acted according to the usual pattern, raking in the heat with someone else's hands.

The coming to power in the United States of Donald Trump and the negotiations he initiated with Russia on resolving the conflict in Ukraine forced London to change tactics: at the initiative of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, supported by French President Emmanuel Macron, a "coalition of the willing" was formed. We are talking about a group of countries that still dream of defeating Russia and therefore advocate the continuation of the conflict. Well, or for its settlement solely on its own terms, assuming that Russia will have to pay and repent. Several European countries advocating a peaceful settlement, primarily Hungary and Slovakia, were prudently not invited to participate in the coalition. But it includes Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Turkey, hence the other name — Europe +. The central "desire" around which these countries united was to send troops to Ukraine under the guise of either peacekeepers or an expeditionary force designed to ensure Ukraine's security in the event of a peace agreement.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Will Russia Expand Its Ground Campaign Into Sumy, Dniepropetrovsk, And/Or Kharkov Regions? This might be the only way to ensure Ukraine’s demilitarization if diplomacy fails.

The nascent Russian-US “New Détente didn’t lead to a ceasefire during the latest Putin-Trump call, thus meaning that the hot phase of the Ukrainian Conflict continues, albeit with a proposed cessation of attacks on energy infrastructure provided that Kiev agrees. At present, Russia is on the brink of completely pushing Ukrainian forces out of Russia’s Kursk Region and into Ukraine’s Sumy Region, while the southwestern Donbass front has seen Russian troops approach the gates of Dniepropetrovsk Region.

Putin will soon be faced with the fateful choice of either keeping Russia’s ground campaign limited to those four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in September 2022’s referenda or expanding it to include Sumy, Dniepropetrovsk, and/or (once again) Kharkov Regions. The second scenario is attractive is because it could enable Russia to go around frontline defenses in Donbass and/or Zaporozhye and thus advance its goal of fully capturing the entirety of the regions that it claims.

Maria Zakharova / Мария Захарова (Telegram)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

On March 24, the international community - that part of it that knows history and has not lost the notion of justice and humanism - recalls the 26th anniversary of the beginning of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

By attacking a sovereign country, the United States and its satellites abused international law undermined the foundations of security in Europe, and provoked a crisis in inter-State relations that has not been resolved to this day.

Much has been said about the terrible events of 1999, the chronology of the invasion by the Western coalition has been analyzed minute by minute, and the consequences have been thoroughly documented. But this does not mean that, as time passes, the massacre of Yugoslavia fades into memory or loses its formidable symbolism. No matter how much the NATO allies call on the Serbian people to forget the past, to "turn the page", the memory of that bloody spring lives on.

NATO's so-called "humanitarian intervention" is an example of modern barbarism (and of the "rules-based" world order), of the unfounded belief in one's superiority. Even before the strikes on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Western propaganda was turned on full blast to make Serbs feel guilty, to make them perceive the bombing as a "deserved lesson". The alliance presented the case as bringing the values of freedom and democracy to the Balkans along with depleted uranium munitions.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Europe’s Reported Plan To Replace The US In NATO Ignores The Interests Of Five Key Countries. It’s strongly implied that Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania prefer to remain under the US’ security umbrella.

The Financial Times (FT) cited four unnamed European officials to report that “European military powers work on 5-10 year plan to replace US in Nato”. The UK, France, Germany, and the Nordic nations are named as those that want to present this proposal to the US during the next NATO Summit in June.

They also reported that some countries have refused to participate in these talks either out of fear that this could encourage the US to move faster in this regard or due to their belief that it won’t abandon Europe.

FT is likely referring to Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, the most important countries on NATO’s eastern flank, all of whom prefer to remain under the US’ security umbrella. Poland’s recent flirtation with France could herald a full-blown pivot if the ruling liberal-globalists win May’s presidential election, but for now it functions as an attempt to rebalance ties with the US amidst uncertainty over its future plans. It can also be seen as a misguided negotiation tactic to keep and expand the US’ military presence. As for the Baltic States, they have a diehard pro-American elite, and they’ll only realign towards the EU in the event that they’re forced to do so by Trump unilaterally curtailing or even totally removing US troops from their territories as part of a grand deal with Russia.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The sequence of events that would have to transpire in order to turn this into a reality are that: the next NATO leader and his team end up being hawkish on this issue; Polish policymakers overcome their differences and agree that it’s worth the risks; and the US gives them the greenlight.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Financial Times in an interview earlier this week that “Membership in Nato does not trump each country’s responsibility for the protection of its own airspace — it’s our own constitutional duty. I’m personally of the view that, when hostile missiles are on course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defence [to strike them] because once they do cross into our airspace, the risk of debris injuring someone is significant.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Pawel Wronski clarified that these was Sikorski’s own personal views and don’t reflect Poland’s official ones, elaborating that “If we have the capability and Ukraine agrees, then we should consider it. But ultimately, this is the minister's personal opinion.” Nevertheless, their comments still suggested that this scenario might once again be in the cards under certain conditions despite having earlier been rebuffed by the US, UK, and NATO. Here are three background briefings:

● 17 April: “It Would Be Surprising If Polish Patriot Systems Were Used To Protect Western Ukraine”
● 18 July: “Ukraine Likely Feels Jaded After NATO Said That It Won’t Allow Poland To Intercept Russian   Missiles”
● 30 August: “Poland Finally Maxed Out Its Military Support For Ukraine”

The last of these three included Zelensky’s most recent demand at the time to shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine. He said that “We have talked a lot about this and we need, as I understand it, the support of several countries. Poland ... hesitates to be alone with this decision. It wants the support of other countries in NATO. I think this would lead to a positive decision by Romania.” That same analysis also cited Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz’s response to him too.

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

This was written on Reidar’s Norwegian blog on April 5, 2024

The Israeli regime has exhibited ugly psychopathic behavior lately. The regime is probably beyond treatment, the madness has gone so far that there is no hope for change. If Norwegians carried on as Israelis are now doing, they would be locked up for the rest of their lives.

In this madness, Israel uses rhetoric that shows a frightening lack of self-awareness, as expected of psychopaths. In their wake are lots of people who have been killed and injured. The psychopaths elegantly rise above all criticism by saying that it is everyone else who is wrong. And to emphasize the madness, they claim that "it is God's will".

Israel is not alone. Israel has gained acceptance and support for its policy. This applies to the US, which actively supports and participates in the genocide with money, weapons, and bombs, and it applies to Jonas Gahr Støre, who still sees no reason to introduce diplomatic reactions and is helping to prolong an untenable situation.

Here I'm going to poke a little at Israel's rhetoric to show how bad things have become, the order is random.

James Howard Kunstler
James Howard Kunstler's Substack

“The notion that Europe is able to pose a military threat to Russia does not even qualify as trashy propaganda for sub-zero IQs.” — Pepe Escobar

“The left became hideously, ostentatiously, unapologetically corrupt (as ruling parties tend to do). They sold out bigtime and got bigtime rich. You want to know why none of them want to cut waste anymore? because they’re the ones stealing it.” — El Gato Malo on Substack

Garsha Vazirian
Tehran Times

In a seismic shift from mainstream media’s hawkish rhetoric, American journalist Tucker Carlson has become an unlikely catalyst for rethinking U.S. policy toward Iran.

The former Fox News host’s Sunday post on X, which has amassed over 5.8 million impressions as of this writing, critiques the exaggerated portrayal of Iran as a “terror sponsor.” This analysis has sparked bipartisan scrutiny of Washington’s persistent war-mongering tactics.

As U.S. President Donald Trump, echoing the warmongers and anti-Iran neoconservatives in Washington DC, escalates threats against Tehran, Carlson’s data-driven critique and growing public skepticism signal a turning point in the debate over America’s priorities—domestic crises versus foreign interventions.

‘Compare the Numbers’—Carlson’s post cut through decades of fearmongering with a simple question: “How many Americans have been killed by Iran on U.S. soil in 20 years? Compare that to drug ODs, suicide, or car accidents. Still think Iran is the greatest threat?”

Backed by stark statistics—over 108,000 overdose deaths in 2022, 49,000 suicides, and zero Iran-linked fatalities on U.S. soil—the tweet challenges the logic of prioritizing regime change over healthcare or infrastructure.

Alexey Belov
Pravda-EN
fondsk.ru (ФСК)

Brussels is currently waging war with those European leaders who support US President Donald Trump.

Reading colleagues' publications and posts in various tg-channels on the topic of the recent summit of European militarists held in Brussels, I noticed that the discussion of this event revolved mainly around two questions:

Will the EU find the 800 billion euros it is looking for for the highly ambitious ReArm Europe project, and will the member states eventually reach a consensus on the topic of aid to Ukraine (read: support for the Zelensky regime) and, first and foremost, sending Euro-NATO troops to Ukraine?

At the same time, no one (practically) tries to imagine an ideal situation for warmongers, when money was found and a common army was created, and how, in fact, will the current rulers of Europe persuade the European philistine to take part in another potentially disastrous Drang nach Osten? By force? And if by force, then by what?

But in fact, the answer to this question is crucial for understanding whether it will be possible to unleash a new big war on the continent. Well, let's take things in their proper order.

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

In connection with the war in Ukraine, the USA owes several apologies to the Russians. Once they are given, it will be pretty clear who should do what with whom to achieve lasting peace, even though the war in Ukraine wasn't started on Donald Trump’s watch.

Paal Steigan
steigan.no

”The markets are starving for EU war bonds” (Politico)

The European Union is getting ready to tap markets for up to €150 billion to help finance military spending. If they do, they should have no trouble finding buyers.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday announced plans to raise new funds that countries can use to boost their defenses as the United States withdraws from its longstanding security guarantees.

The plan still needs approval from EU capitals — but if it goes through, the Commission will raise money through bond auctions and pass it on to member states for defense spending. They would then have to pay back to the Commission to cover the funding.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday unveiled a plan to mobilize around €800 billion ($843 billion) for Europe's defense — and help provide “immediate” military support to Ukraine after Washington suspended aid.

💬 "Europe faces a clear and present danger on a scale that none of us has seen in our adult lifetime,” the European Commission President said in a letter to EU leaders.

The move came hours after US President Donald Trump announced the aid suspension, intensifying Washington's push for a peace deal with Russia and confirming its pivot away from Kyiv and its European allies.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia would remove what the interim Syrian authorities consider to be a “problem” from their hands, it could more quickly settle its new regions, and their ongoing base talks would no longer be overshadowed by these atrocities.

The latest sectarian violence in Syria killed almost 1,000 members of the Alawite minority at the minimum, with many of them still sheltering in place or hiding somewhere outside of their homes due to their fear of being murdered like their co-religionists just were if they step into the street.

RT published a detailed report about what one of the survivors described as this “safari hunting Alawites”, while the UN confirmed that “entire families, including women and children, were killed” over the past week.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that around 9,000 Syrians – presumably mostly Alawites – sought shelter at her country’s Khmeimim airbase to escape the violence that she very strongly condemned. On that topic, Reuters cited two sources who were briefed on last week’s closed-door UNSC meeting on Syria to exclusively report that Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzia “lambasted” what happened by comparing it to the Rwandan Genocide.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

There are five compelling arguments for either scenario.

Ukraine just agreed to a month-long ceasefire after talks with the US in Jeddah, but it’s conditional on Russia agreeing to the same, which remains uncertain. Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to pay his second trip to Moscow in just as many months later this week, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz plans to speak to Russian officials soon, while Trump said that he hopes to talk to Putin by Friday. All three will try to convince Putin to silence the guns. Here’s why he might not agree to do that:

1. Russia Wants To Liberate All The Occupied Territories—Putin declared last June that he’d only agree to a ceasefire if Ukraine withdrew from the entirety of the four regions that voted to join Russia in September 2022 and publicly abandoned its plans to join NATO. That was shortly before Ukraine invaded Russia’s universally recognized Kursk Region. Agreeing to a ceasefire now with no guarantee that it’ll lead to the liberation of those five regions could result in the indefinite occupation of at least some of them if the front lines harden into a Korean-DMZ.

2. The Front Lines Might Soon Collapse To Russia’s Benefit—It’s obvious that one of the primary reasons why Ukraine agreed to a month-long ceasefire conditional on Russia agreeing to the same, apart from resuming the US’ previously cut military and intelligence aid, is to prevent the front lines from soon collapsing to Russia’s benefit. Aware of this, Russia might decide to carry on – perhaps advancing while negotiating additional terms to the proposed ceasefire – in order to take full advantage of this, thus raising the chances of speedily liberating all the occupied territories.

3. Russia Wants To Scare Away Western Peacekeepers—European peacekeepers might enter Ukraine during the month-long ceasefire, or some of their “mercenaries” who are already there might simply switch uniforms to then take on this role instead, which Russia already said would be absolutely unacceptable and make them legitimate targets. Keeping the conflict going might therefore scare them away from this and thus ensure that de facto NATO forces are kept as far away from Russia’s western border as possible.

Terje Hansen
Foreningen Lov og Helse

In January this year, a report was released that evaluated Canada's handling of the so-called Covid-19 (C19) pandemic. The full report is 269 pages long and can be read here.

In Part 1, I showed some of the evaluation reports commissioned by the health authorities in the Province of Alberta in Canada. This report concluded with a rather scathing review of the authorities' C19 policy. Canadian statistician Regina Watteel has discussed the report. She also offers some criticism of the report, focusing on certain shortcomings it has. Dr. Watteel highlights several fairly important elements that I will address below. Among other things, she points out that:

The all-important question regarding the implication of failing to clean up what happened is raised by Dr. Watteel quite precisely:

Terje Hansen
Foreningen Lov og Helse

In January this year, a report was released that evaluated Canada's handling of the so-called Covid-19 (C19) pandemic. The full report is 269 pages long and can be read here.

This report carries weight for several reasons. Firstly, it is an evaluation that the provincial authorities in Alberta commissioned themselves, so you could say that this is partly the public sector butchering itself. The Task Force group consisted of 12 people with broad interdisciplinary backgrounds in statistics, medicine, research, law, and other areas relevant to such an evaluation, and they appear to have done some serious work. In many ways, this group's work and report are the antitheses of the Norwegian Corona Commission, whose sole task was to whitewash the authorities' C19 policy, i.e. a cover-up operation.

Canadian Dr. Regina Watteel, who holds a PhD in statistics and who reviewed the Norwegian vaccine study from the NIPH, has also discussed and summarized the findings in the report from the provincial authorities in Alberta. For those who find it a bit difficult to read a 269-page report, I will extract some of what is stated in the report and also what Dr. Watteel has written about this.

NB I must first emphasize that it is not the actual findings in the report that are sensational. Anyone with at least some independently functioning ability to think critically will have figured out most of this on their own a long time ago.

In this sense, much of the content of the report is old news to many, but the important element here is that these things are confirmed by a government-appointed commission in the West.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russian Spies Warn That The UK Is Trying To Sabotage Trump’s Envisaged “New Détente”. Trump 2.0 must become aware of the threat that the UK poses to its plans, and respond accordingly to defend the US’ interests.

Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) accused the UK of trying to sabotage the nascent Russian-US “New Détente” for self-interested geopolitical reasons. According to their sources, the success of their talks could break the Brits’ regional containment of Russia, which is why they’re employing a dual-track policy for preventing this. The first part involves information warfare fearmongering about Trump’s ties with Russia while the second seeks to escalate the Ukrainian Conflict through a conventional intervention.

SVR’s report lacks any bombshells since everything that they revealed was already self-evident to astute observers, but it’s still important that they lent credence to what others before them had already picked up on and the timing with which they did so. “France, Germany, & Poland Are Competing For Leadership Of Post-Conflict Europe” while the UK plans to divide-and-rule the continent like usual, to which end it’s expected to rely more on Poland and/or Ukraine with whom it’s been colluding since February 2022.

Few either saw it at the time or still remember, but the UK forged an informal trilateral alliance with Poland and Ukraine exactly one week before the special operation began, which was leveraged shortly after to convince Zelensky to abandon spring 2022’s peace talks with Russia as was explained here. In the three years since, Poland and the US have taken harder stances towards Ukraine, the first initially for domestic political reasons and the second due to Trump’s eagerness to “Pivot (back) to Asia” pronto.

Tracy Turner
The People's Voice

Nikola Tesla was not just an inventor. Tesla was a visionary whose inventions and ideas transcended the limits of space and time, shaping our modern world in ways that most people might not even be aware of.

Born on July 10, 1856, in the Croatian village of Smiljan, Tesla’s early life was marked by gifted intellectual energy, the type of genius that would define him for the rest of his life. Tesla's fame as an inventor, engineer, and physicist earned him recognition. Still, his accomplishments were set against the r of his resistance with government and corporate interests determined to thwart his vision reality.

Corporate powerhouses and the government were threatened by Tesla’s vision of free energy as open and accessible. Instead of celebrating him, people who could benefit from proprietary rigid frameworks sabotaged him. Full of speculation, myths, and legends, Tesla’s life is a testament to the reality of living in a world where innovation often meets oppression. However, one cannot deny the inspiration that his triumphs bring, showcasing how genius and innovation can surpass the deepest-seated forces of the status quo.

Early Life and Inspiration—Only a few discerned the magnitude of beauty in Tesla’s early life. The modest means of his Serbian Orthodox minister and author father, Georg, and his wife Georgina, an engineer, artist, and his mother, who was later to become so important, formed his mindset. Tesla’s photographic memory allowed him to remember details and information throughout his life, ranging from the subjects of his extensive readings in Mathematics, Physics, and Engineering to the many other details he would learn over the years.

Graham Hryce
Daily Telegraph
(New Zealand)

The much-maligned ideology is not “radical” or “left-wing” – it’s a tool of elitist control

In a recent post, right-wing social commentator and former academic Matt Goodwin announced that he had “just exposed how the British Psychological Society (BPS) had been captured by ‘anti-racist racists’.”

This post is the latest in a series in which Goodwin reveals that various institutions in the UK (including the BBC and the NHS) had been “fully captured by radical if not extreme ideologies.”

One might nitpick over the term “radical” – but if Goodwin is saying that most powerful institutions in Britain are dominated by woke postmodern ideologies, one can readily agree with him.

Goodwin’s latest post – by citing numerous telling passages from BPS publications – shows beyond a doubt that the BPS has adopted wholesale the postmodern ideology known as “critical race theory.”

Goodwin appears shocked by his discovery – but it should not surprise anyone interested in the development of the ideology of critical race theory over the past five decades to find that a professional institution like the BPS has been infected by it.

The march of various postmodern ideologies through universities and other institutions in the West commenced in the late 1960s in the United States, and has intensified exponentially since then – and the literature analyzing this phenomenon (both academic and popular) is vast.

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

Image: © Bob Moran / Bob Moran Art

"The white man, him speak with forked tongue." – Anon.

March 1, 2025: As [Minister of Foreign Affairs] Espen Barth Eide said on nrk.no: "The West is criticized for having double standards in the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. We must take active steps to avoid this perception." But there are two standards out there—one for Russia and one for the US.

A murder and an attempted murder

Sergei Skripal—In March 2018, an attempt was made on Sergei Skripal's life in England. The Russians were suspected but did not admit to the crime. The condemnation from the West was harsh and massive, the language was coarse, and as many as 153 Russian diplomats were sent home, one of them from Norway. In addition, various sanctions were introduced.

Jamal Khashoggi—In October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi was allegedly brutally executed and dismembered in Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul. The murder was carried out by a commando group of five men from Saudi Arabia, probably ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. There was no reaction from Western countries, no diplomats were expelled, no sanctions were imposed and arms exports from the USA continued as usual. The language used here was mild or completely absent.

Conclusion: An anti-Russia campaign—There is little doubt that the Skripal incident served to discredit Russia to such an extent that there is reason to believe it was designed and carried out by MI6 and the CIA for this purpose. Below we will take a closer look at the background to the war in Ukraine, and show that there is "a rule for them" and "a rule for us". The duality is not due to incompetent politicians. It is because an "Anti-Russia campaign" is still going on, many years after the end of the Cold War. The US and the UK are leading the campaign, and Norwegian politicians are participating uncritically.

Harold Turner
Hal Turner Show

The Russian Government has completely rejected proposals for a one-month halt in fighting in Ukraine. This rejection also includes a proposed pause in aerial and naval attacks. The fighting will continue.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova made it clear: Russia won’t accept a “respite” without firm agreements on a final settlement.

Turkey ready to deploy troops to ukraine if needed

The government of Turkey, NATO’s second-largest military power, has indicated it is willing to join a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine to ensure regional stability.

The move, still conceptual, would follow a ceasefire and involve non-combat units to monitor peace. The proposal was made despite Moscow’s full rejection of NATO forces entering Ukraine for __any__ military purpose, though U.S. President Donald Trump believes Russia might agree.

Turkey, balancing ties with both Kyiv and Moscow, has mediated past deals like the Black Sea grain export agreement.

For Russia, none of these proposals make sense for multiple reasons. First, Russia is winning. If they agree to a "halt" or a "pause" or even the entry of "peacekeepers" both Ukraine and teh collective West, operating as NATO, have proven they simply cannot be trusted. The Russians believe any halt to the combat would be immediately used to re-supply, re-arm present Ukrainian troops, and add more troops, for a continued fight, later.