Can Europe be saved?
Professor Glenn Diesen interviewed by Dimitri Lascaris
Glenn Diesen | December 11, 2024
I was interviewed by Dimitri Lascaris about the future of Europe. I argue that Europe’s decline derives from its inability to adjust to a multipolar international system. Europe can become one of several centres of power by pursuing collective bargaining power based on common interests, diversifying economic partnerships to avoid excessive dependence on the US, and overcoming the Cold War legacy of zero-sum bloc politics.
The Europeans have done the exact opposite. The European security architecture has been built on the premise that expanding a military alliance ever closer to Russian borders would create peace and stability. Relations with Russia have subsequently collapsed and Europe is losing a costly proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear power. Countries in the shared neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova) are destabilised and their democracy undermined to ensure pro-West/anti-Russia governments take power. These deeply divided societies have become the battleground for drawing new dividing lines in the new Cold War.
European economies are deindustrialising as they cut themselves off from the Russian market, and are also pressured by the US to decouple from the Chinese market. The US Inflation Reduction Act offers subsidies to what remains of struggling European industries if they relocate to the US. Excessive reliance on the US means that Europe cannot even criticise the US for destroying its energy infrastructure after the attack on Nord Stream. After centuries of a Europe-centric international system, the Europeans have not realised that they have been demoted from a subject to an object of security.
Governments that do not represent national interests will eventually be swept away, yet the political elites become increasingly authoritarian to keep their power. In France and Germany, their political opposition is pushed aside with undemocratic means. Hungary and Slovakia are punished by the EU for failing to fall in line. The election results in Romania were overturned after the electorate did not vote for the right candidate.
The continent desperately needs course correction, yet power structure and ideology prevent necessary changes from being implemented. More aggressive means to control the narrative also result in declining freedom of speech.
Five Eyes Urges Broader Censorship Under “Protect the Children” Campaign
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2024
A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.
Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.
We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.
And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.
Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.
But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.
Since encrypted platforms provide anonymity, the spies from the five countries (who refer to the state of affairs as, “a large degree of anonymity”) don’t like that either – and again link it to negative scenarios, such as “radicalization to violence.”
The paper is not specific on the exact mechanisms that would ramp up online censorship, but mentions both governments and the tech industry; the first category should “strengthen legislative support for law enforcement,” while the other is urged to “take greater responsibility for the harm done on their platforms.”
Gaming platforms Discord, Instagram, Roblox as well as TikTok are singled out as “seemingly innocuous” – but the way Five Eyes sees it, they make violent extremism content “more accessible.”
The “whole-of-society response” is the proposed solution to the problem of radicalization of minors in these countries. And the documents vow the alliance will continue working with “government agencies, the education sector, mental health and social well-being services, communities and technology companies.”
“It is important to work together early as once law enforcement and security agencies need to become involved, it is often too late,” the paper warns.
And so, a network whose members are likely, in one capacity or another, behind many of the existing attacks on online encryption and anonymity – has now come out as the campaign’s supposedly “latest recruit.”
EU has failed to cut energy ties with Russia – commissioner
RT | December 12, 2024
The EU has failed to overcome its dependence on Russian energy, and needs a new plan to wean itself off Moscow’s supplies, the bloc’s new energy chief told Politico on Thursday.
In his first interview since taking the post, Dan Jorgensen highlighted the growth in Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchases.
The share of Russian LNG on the EU market reached 20% this year, according to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, despite Brussels’ pledge to stop consuming Russian fuel by 2027.
“It’s obvious to everybody that something new needs to happen because… now it’s beginning to go in the wrong direction,” the EU Energy commissioner said, while pledging to present “a tangible roadmap that will include efficient tools and means for us to solve the remaining part of the problem.”
The new measures will target “gas primarily, but also oil and nuclear” and will be formulated by mid-March, Jorgensen said, noting that five EU countries still rely on Russia for nuclear fuel.
The EU declared its intention to end its dependence on Russian energy supplies following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Supplies of higher-cost US fuel have replaced much of the cheap pipeline gas that was previously delivered by Russia.
However, efforts have stalled in recent months, and the EU continues to buy billions of euros’ worth of Russian gas each month. In 2024, the bloc is expected to import 10% more LNG from Russia than in 2023, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.
Politico noted, however, that any plan to sever energy ties with Russia in the next few years would be strongly opposed by EU members that are still heavily reliant the imports, particularly Hungary and Slovakia, whose leaders Viktor Orban and Robert Fico have resisted energy sanctions on Russia.
Jorgensen’s proposal is also likely to come just weeks after a long-term contract for Russian gas transit via Ukraine is set to expire, on December 31. The EU still receives around 5% of its gas from Russia via Ukraine’s gas transit network, according to the latest data.
Last month, Bloomberg warned of an imminent energy crisis in Western and Central Europe due to the latest US sanctions against Russia’s Gazprombank, the primary bank for energy-related transactions. The outlet said that rapidly depleting gas reserves and potential supply cuts from Russia threaten to exacerbate an already difficult situation.
Merkel Testing Public Opinion With Recent Praise of Russian Gas, German Politician Suggests
Sputnik – 12.12.2024
The head of the German Council for Constitution and Sovereignty, Ralph Niemeyer commented on national politics in the light of governmental crisis.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent remarks about the benefits of past gas supplies from Russia could have been an attempt to test public opinion on the possibility of resuming such supplies under a future government involving the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the head of the German Council for Constitution and Sovereignty, Ralph Niemeyer, told Sputnik.
Merkel said on Tuesday that she did not consider the years-long gas imports from Russia to Germany a mistake, noting that the arrangement was mutually beneficial.
“It is possible [that the statement was a test of public opinion]. A good quality of Friedrich Merz [CDU leader and chancellor candidate] is pragmatism. If he sees no other way forward, he quickly changes his approach,” Niemeyer said.
Merz could pragmatically disregard earlier promises to Volodymyr Zelensky and work to rebuild relations with Russia, he added.
The German government collapsed in early November after Chancellor Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) leader, citing his unwillingness to greenlight new proposals for the 2025 budget and more aid for Ukraine.
As a result of the government split, February 23 has been set as the potential date for a snap general election. Scholz will submit a written request for a vote of confidence to parliament on December 11, with a vote to be scheduled for December 16.
If Scholz survives the vote of confidence, he will enter coalition talks with rival parties in a bid to prop up his minority government, which consists of the Social Democrats and the Greens. This scenario is considered unlikely due to a near-universal agreement in parliament on the need to hold an early election.
Exposing CIA/MI6 ‘Justice’ Operations in Syria
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 12, 2024
In the immediate wake of the Syrian government’s abrupt collapse, much remains uncertain about the country’s future. While longtime leader Bashar Assad has sought refuge in Moscow, most of his government and its military, security, and intelligence apparatus remains in Damascus. Calls for reconciliation between officials and the predominantly foreign “opposition” abound, but the prospect of show trials for state apparatchiks is high. After all, elements of Anglo-American intelligence have been planning for such an eventuality since before the Syrian civil war even started.
In May 2011, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) was birthed by shadowy NATO state contractors, ARK and Tsamota. Its first act was to train handpicked Syrian “investigators, lawyers, and activists in basic international criminal and humanitarian law… enabling [them] to link state and non-state actors to underlying criminal acts.” Dedicated “teams of investigators according to their regions” – including Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and Idlib – were created, “and equipped with field investigative kits.”
Their objective was to gather evidence of war crimes committed by Syrian government forces, in support of a “domestic justice process in a future transitional Syria.” We must ask ourselves how such a project came to be before the Syrian army was formally deployed by Damascus, in response to the foreign-fomented crisis that commenced in mid-March that year. Particularly given bringing officials to trial in a “future transitional Syria” was wholly contingent on all-out regime change.
The timing of CIJA’s launch is a palpable indication foreign actors were laying foundations for that eventuality from the very first days of Syria’s “peaceful revolution”, before full-blown civil war had erupted. Given the affiliations of ARK and Tsamota, the pair were well-placed to know in advance of plans by Western governments to topple the Assad government via brute force. Now that has come to pass, it may be time for their long-standing plan to at last be put into action.
‘Regime Change’
Founded by MI6 journeyman Alistair Harris, ARK was one of a constellation of contractors, staffed by military and intelligence veterans, employed by British intelligence at a cost of many millions to conduct covert psychological warfare campaigns in Syria, from the initial days of the crisis. The aim was to destabilise Assad’s government, convince the domestic population, international bodies and Western citizens that genocidal CIA and MI6-backed militant groups pillaging the country were a “moderate” alternative, and deluge media the world over with pro-opposition propaganda.
Under this operation’s auspices, ARK founded and ran numerous ostensibly independent opposition media outlets targeting Syrians of all ages, while tutoring and equipping countless local “citizen journalists”, teaching them “camera handling, lighting, sound, interviewing, filming a story… video and sound editing… voice-over, scriptwriting,” and “graphics and 2D and 3D animation design.” The firm’s students were also instructed in practical propaganda theory, such as “target audience identification, media narrative analysis and monitoring, behavioral identification/understanding, campaign planning, behavioral change, and how communications can influence it.”
Such was ARK’s intimate proximity with anti-Assad elements, it boasted in leaked submissions to the Foreign Office of being entrusted by Western governments to develop a dedicated Office for Syrian Opposition Support. This entity identified the most promising groups for the proxy war’s sponsors to finance, in turn “[helping] present them to international donors, and provide access to networks that could deliver assistance.” These efforts intensified “as the conflict deepened and it became apparent that regime change would not occur in the short term.”
Tsamota’s primitive official website describes the company as “a security and justice sector consultancy which provides rule of law, forensics and natural resources advisory services,” working in “in politically, legally, socially and logistically challenging environments” for Western governments. The firm is not a compelling candidate for holding government officials anywhere accountable for war crimes. Tsamota has since inception offered guidance to major corporations on how to maximise profits in the Global South, while limiting their local and international legal liabilities.
In 2013, Tsamota director William Wiley gave a scandalous presentation to Canadian consortium MineAfrica Inc. In it, he set out a series of hypothetical scenarios in which mining companies operating in countries such as the Congo and Mali employed private security firms to crack down on striking workers, or deal with “local militias” interfering with their operations. Wiley outlined a number of means by which companies could be insulated from repercussions of heavy-handed responses to such incidents, up to and including murder.
That presentation described Tsamota as composed of “experts” drawn from “national police, military and intelligence forces.” Wiley is no exception, having served in the Canadian military for almost two decades. Subsequently, he turned to international law, among other things overseeing the trial of Saddam Hussein October 2005 – December 2006, for crimes against humanity. Mainstream accounts acknowledge Wiley was imposed on the former Iraqi leader’s defence team without consent – a major breach of basic legal norms – by the US embassy in Baghdad’s Regime Crimes Liaison Office.
After capture, Hussein was initially interrogated by the CIA. Contemporary media reports note there was significant concern within the Agency that “their questioning could become public during his eventual trial,” raising issues around “how to conduct the questioning and record the conversations.” The reasons why were unstated, although a likely explanation was Washington wished to avoid awkward disclosures in court about Hussein’s long-running relationship with the CIA, and active US complicity in many of the most heinous crimes of which he was accused.
To say the least, this was a sensitive role indeed. Even prominent Iraqi supporters of US invasion and occupation charged Baghdad’s “interim” puppet government was seeking “show trials followed by speedy executions” of Hussein et al to boost its credibility. That Wiley was entrusted with this mission speaks volumes about his reliability from the US government’s perspective. It also raises obvious questions about the nature of his relationship with the CIA, and whether that bond influenced CIJA’s creation half a decade later.
‘Moving Documents’
A series of leaked ARK files on CIJA’s activities authored in the years immediately following its creation make grand claims about its achievements. One declares the Commission “innovated in the field of transitional justice… aiding the collection of evidence to document war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of International Humanitarian Law” in Syria. Another states its work represented “a landmark development in international justice: the contemporaneous gathering of evidence of violations of international humanitarian law conducted by regime forces”:
“[CIJA], through expert training, effective equipment provision and a commitment to the truth were able to ensure that when the conflict ends, the raw material of a post-conflict war crimes process is ready for trial, in turn providing a key contribution to truth telling, reconciliation and the future of Syria.”
Elsewhere, ARK boasted how CIJA had seized thousands of kilograms of “contemporaneous documentation”, hundreds of thousands of pages of “evidential material” and thousands of videos from Syria, “all of which had to be hand carried” out of the country. Cut to February 2021, and Commission chair Stephen Rapp, a US diplomatic warhorse, bragged to CBS about the sheer volume of evidence CIJA collected. He claimed the papertrail exposed a systematic strategy of Assad government-directed executions of opposition activists, along with ensuing coverups:
“Now we have 800,000 pages of original documents, signed and sealed with original signatures going all the way up to Assad that document this whole strategy…We see reports back about ‘well, we’ve got a real problem here, there are too many corpses stacking up, somebody’s gonna have to help us with that’… Everything is handled in this sort of totalitarian system where they frankly think they can get away with things… they were almost stupid… they created evidence.”
If such damning, incontrovertible proof was bagged at any stage by CIJA, it has never emerged publicly. Still, throughout the Syrian dirty war, the Commission enjoyed glowing profiles in Western media, while providing journalists and rights groups with multiple scoops supposedly exposing Syrian government atrocities. At no point did any mainstream reporter or NGO question, let alone raise concerns about, the manner in which the Commission garnered the material upon which its cases against government officials in Damascus was “hand carried” out of the country.
CIJA chief Wiley acknowledged in 2014 that his organisation smuggled evidence from Syria by working with every opposition group “up to but excluding Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.” However, a 2019 investigation by The Grayzone amply indicates that CIJA was frequently in extremely close quarters with both groups. Moreover, they were paid handsomely for their assistance in securing documentation. This included material seized in Raqqa after its January 2014 capture by ISIS, right when the ultra-extremist group was massacring Alawites and Christians.
In a 2016 New Yorker profile of CIJA, Wiley detailed the practical hassles and financial drain inherent in “moving documents [over] international borders” and opposition-controlled “checkpoints”, while relying on “rebel groups and couriers for logistical support.” He described how bundles of government files “typically” arrived at the Commission’s offices “in a dizzying array of crappy suitcases.” Wiley lamented, “we burn enormous sums of money moving this stuff.”
Accordingly, CIJA received tens of millions of dollars for its efforts from a variety of Western governments, including those at the forefront of the Syrian dirty war. Despite the vast windfall, the Commission’s work produced zero prosecutions for many years. This changed in late 2019, when Anwar Raslan and Eyad Gharib, two former members of Damascus’ General Intelligence Directorate, were indicted in Germany for crimes against humanity.
‘Many Contradictions’
Raslan headed the Directorate’s domestic security unit, while Gharib was one of his departmental subordinates. The pair defected to the opposition in December 2012. Raslan and his family fled to Jordan, where he played “an active and visible role in the Syrian opposition.” He was part of the anti-Assad delegation at the Geneva II conference on Syria in January 2014, and in July that year, was granted asylum in Germany.
After his escape from Syria, Raslan told numerous lurid tales of abuse and atrocities perpetrated by his unit, and the Assad government more widely, during his 20 years of state service. He claimed his defection was spurred after learning an apparent opposition attack in Damascus that he was charged with investigating was, in fact, staged by security forces. Significant doubts about his accounts, and whether his defection was principled or just cynical opportunism, have been raised in many quarters.
Artist’s rendition of Raslan’s trial
In a perverse irony, Raslan’s loudmouth propensity was his undoing. His assorted claims post-defection provided grounds for arrest by German authorities, and were used against him and Gharib in their prosecutions. These legal actions heavily relied on documents seized by CIJA, including Central Crisis Management Cell records. This unit was created in March 2011 by Damascus, to manage responses to mass rioting that erupted this month. These documents have been widely described as the “linchpin” of the Commission’s case against “the Syrian regime.”
Yet, as this journalist has previously exposed, the Central Crisis Management Cell files in fact show the Assad government explicitly and repeatedly instructed security forces to protect protesters, prevent violence, and keep the situation under control. The documents also detail how from inception, many “peaceful” demonstrators were extremely violent, while opposition fighters systematically murdered security service operatives, pro-government figures, and demonstrators to foment catastrophe, in a manner eerily similar to many CIA/MI6 regime change operations old and new.
In February 2021, Gharib was found guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. He received four-and-a-half years in prison. A year later, Raslan was given life for crimes including mass torture, rape, and murder. The pair were not convicted for personally perpetrating these horrors, but serving in the General Intelligence Directorate at the time they were allegedly committed. “Expert” witness evidence provided at their trials left much to be desired.
For example, judges and prosecutors alike expressed disquiet at “many contradictions” in the testimony of “P3”, a Syrian government operative who purportedly worked in a security service “mail department”, and was central to Gharib’s conviction. P3 professed to seeing sensitive documents “related to the transfer of corpses” of opposition activists “to burial sites.” They “provided contradictory information” in statements to German police and the court, and were “visibly nervous” while testifying. Throughout, their seemingly aghast attorney sat nearby “putting his hands behind his head.”
Meanwhile, during Raslan’s prosecution, “P4” – a nameless individual who claimed to have been detained in a Syrian prison, and bribed his way out – testified he saw 500,000 corpses buried via a “bulldozer and a truck” next to his house, in an area which was previously “a desert”. Reports of the trial indicate there “was a feeling” among those present in court, including “the public”, that these numbers were greatly “exaggerated.”
The sense that Gharib and Raslan were prosecuted because they were within easy reach, and CIJA needed something to show for all its well-remunerated efforts, is ineluctable. The Commission had strong grounds to be anxious about failing to fulfill its founding objective. In March 2020, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) formally accused the organization of “submission of false documents, irregular invoicing, and profiteering” relating to an EU “Rule of Law” project it ran in Syria.
Fast forward to today, and The Guardian reports that “the abrupt implosion of the infrastructure of state terror” in Syria “has made available a huge volume of evidence.” The outlet quoted CIJA chief William Wiley at some length. He compared Assad’s fall to “a situation much like Germany in 1945 or Iraq in 2003,” with “a sudden availability of all state records” making prosecution of state officials a fait accompli:
“It’s a very unusual situation, and its suddenness creates challenges and opportunities in simply dealing with the material… If there’s any security intelligence guy that rocks up in Europe, there’s typically going to be enough material already to hand.”
Lessons from Syria, Lebanon: Resistance is the only guarantor of sovereignty
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | December 12, 2024
On the heels of thinly veiled threats from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that deposed Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was “playing with fire,” and seizing the opportunity presented by the sudden collapse of the Syrian state, the occupation army invaded Syrian territory for the first time in 50 years.
The pretext of establishing a “buffer zone” was a transparent attempt to conceal Israel’s historic regional agenda: the weakening and fragmentation of Arab states to facilitate Tel Aviv’s regional domination.
Exploiting the power vacuum that ensued from the fall of Damascus, Israel launched hundreds of air strikes to cripple Syria’s already weakened military capabilities, and patted itself on the back for what it called the largest air blitz in its history. Its land forces and armored vehicles now lay a few kilometers from the Syrian capital, having literally driven through border terrain without a single challenge by opposing troops.
For many observers in neighboring Lebanon – and perhaps Iraq and other regional states – the Israeli rout answered a critical question: if they relinquished the will or capacity to defend themselves, would this too be Lebanon’s fate?
A legacy of expansionism
The concept of ‘Greater Israel’ is deeply rooted in Zionist ideology. From Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, to revisionist figures like Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and even Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, expansionist ambitions have been a consistent theme.
Oded Yinon’s plan, A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties, further solidified this vision. First made public in the magazine Kivunim (Directions) of the World Zionist Organization in February 1982, the plan was based on the vision of Herzl, and the founders of the Israeli state in the late 1940s, among them Polish-born, US Zionist leader Jacob Fishman.
From North Africa to the Levant to the Arabian Peninsula, Yinon advocated a strategy of breaking up and chronically weakening Arab states in order to ensure Israel’s long-term security.
“Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority … The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front … Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria … The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia … Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt.”
This destructive and expansionist drive is not confined to historical Israeli figures. Current Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly stated his desire for Israel to control territory extending to Damascus and including Jordan. In a 2016 interview, he is quoted as saying: “Our great religious elders used to say that the future of Jerusalem was to extend as far as Damascus.”
More recently, following the fall of Damascus, Smotrich pressed: “It is time to seize control of Gaza and strip Hamas of its civilian authority, cutting off its lifeline,” and to launch an all-out offensive in the occupied West Bank.
Such pronouncements, far from being isolated incidents, reflect a core Zionist principle that resurfaces with increased intensity during times of conflict.
The ongoing war in Gaza exemplifies this. Nearly 10 months after the start of the war, Netanyahu said of the Occupied Palestinian Territory: “It is part of our homeland. We intend to stay there.” Smotrich’s display of a ‘Greater Israel’ map encompassing all of historic Palestine and Jordan during a 2023 visit to Paris further illustrates these ambitions.
Historically, these far-right expansionist fantasies are rooted in religious beliefs that the ‘Promised Land’ stretches from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq. These beliefs have been seeded and advanced by the leaders of the Zionist movement since its inception more than 120 years ago.
Breaking up West Asia
Their expansionist fantasies are not merely ideological. The Yinon Plan outlined a strategy for breaking Arab states into weak, sectarian ones, each dependent on Israel for survival. Iraq is to be divided into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia states, Lebanon reduced to fragments, and Syria obliterated. This is not a theory – it’s a Zionist roadmap for domination, and the occupation state’s aggression in Syria is a direct implementation of these sinister goals.
Israel’s actions in Syria lay bare the insatiable greed of the occupation state. Without resistance movements in neighboring Lebanon, Israeli tanks would undoubtedly have rolled deep into Lebanese territory, seizing lands far beyond the south of the Litani.
The evidence is clear. Since the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon took effect on 27 November, the Israeli occupation army has violated Lebanese sovereignty at least 195 times. These violations include airstrikes, drone incursions, artillery bombardments, and the destruction of homes – acts of terror meant to keep Lebanon on its knees.
The Lebanese government and armed forces, shackled by limited capacity and international neglect, have been unable to halt this aggression. International mechanisms like the five-member committee – comprising the US, France, Lebanon, Israel, and UNIFIL – are nothing more than diplomatic theatrics.
Resistance: The barrier against occupation
A day after the committee meeting on 9 December, the Israeli army committed 12 violations of the ceasefire agreement.
They meet, they talk, but they fail to act. While these parties dither, Tel Aviv tightens its grip, proving time and time again that the only language it understands is the language of force. This is why Lebanon’s resistance remains the only genuine national safeguard against Israeli aggression.
Southerners in Lebanon know this truth intimately: without the resistance, Israel’s greed knows no bounds. Every incursion, every violation, is a reminder that resistance is not just a choice – it’s a necessity.
The unrelenting aggression of the occupation state reveals a harsh reality; in a world dominated by power, weakness invites exploitation. Realists in international relations argue that power is the only currency that matters, and Lebanon’s experience validates this view.
Resistance movements have demonstrated that the balance of power is the sole way to curb Tel Aviv’s appetite and ambitions. Israel’s expansionism will not end with Syria or Palestine. It eyes every vulnerable nation in the region, seeking to carve it up and dominate.
The lesson is clear. Only through resilience and force can sovereignty be defended. Resistance is not just a shield – it is the only path to survival against an entity that thrives on destruction and occupation.
IOF storm Quneitra countryside villages, residents defy evacuations
Al Mayadeen | December 12, 2024
Israeli occupation forces stormed Wednesday evening the towns of Ruwaihinah and Umm Batna in the central countryside of Quneitra, local sources in southern Syria told Al Mayadeen.
According to the sources, the Israeli incursion involved tanks and infantry units, during which several houses were searched and various weapons and ammunition were seized.
The occupation forces later withdrew from Umm Batna after stationing at a military site, west of the town, which they subsequently detonated, before redeploying in the town of al-Ajraf in the central countryside of Quneitra.
Media sources also told Al Mayadeen that the residents of Quneitra have refused to evacuate their villages.
A couple of days ago, a delegation of locals and community leaders engaged in negotiations with Israeli occupation forces, facilitated by the coordination of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), in a meeting that lasted over 10 hours.
The sources indicated that the meeting concluded with an agreement to construct a road west of the village of Kwdana to prevent occupation forces from entering the village, while ensuring services for the villagers, allowing residents to move freely within the villages and carry out their daily activities.
It was also agreed to reopen the governorate building in the coming days and for the occupation forces to retreat to the al-Mashtal Bridge. However, any gunfire or carrying of weapons would risk the re-entry of the occupation forces into the village.
The community leaders and residents unanimously agreed to remain in their homes and not evacuate the villages where Israeli forces had advanced. It was also agreed to turn in specific weapons in each village—such as RPG launchers and machine guns—through local community mediation to the provincial police leadership, with a strict prohibition on any gunfire in the villages.
In the same context, media reports on Thursday highlighted further incursions by Israeli forces in the Quneitra province, where residents of some villages were forcibly displaced to “annex” these areas into a buffer zone, which has reached a depth of five kilometers in certain regions.
Additionally, local sources indicated that Israeli forces carried out a forced evacuation of the residents of the village of Rasem al-Ruwadi in Quneitra. Meanwhile, a UN source reported that Israeli forces have been obstructing the operations of peacekeeping forces in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
Netanyahu says occupied Syrian Golan Heights Israeli ‘for eternity’
On Monday, a UN official said Israeli occupation forces (IOF) moving into the buffer zone on the border of the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights “violate” the 1974 disengagement agreement between “Israel” and Syria.
The UN peacekeeping force in the Golan Heights, known as UNDOF, “informed the Israeli counterparts that these actions would constitute a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement,” according to Stephane Dujarric, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s spokesperson.
Dujarric explained that the IOF had invaded the zone and were still there in at least three sites.
He explained that the IOF “have entered the area of separation and have been moving within that area where they remain in at least three locations throughout the area of separation,” adding that there should be no military or activities in that area and “Israel and Syria must continue to uphold the terms of that 1974 agreement, and preserve stability in the Golan.”
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech said the occupied Syrian Golan Heights are Israeli “for eternity”.
Netanyahu further underscored that Israeli occupation forces’ control of the high ground “ensures our security and sovereignty.”
Events in Syria and Future Prospects
By Mikhail Gamandiy-Egorov – New Eastern Outlook – December 12, 2024
The tragic events in Syria have clearly demonstrated that internal betrayal is one of the greatest challenges for any sovereign state. This is particularly true when such betrayal serves the interests of those seeking to destroy sovereign nations.
Terrorist groups
Terrorist groups, following a brief advance across several fronts and battles in which the government army effectively refused to engage, managed to capture the Syrian capital, Damascus. Initially, it seemed that this was merely a temporary disarray caused by years of complacency. However, it soon became evident that a large-scale betrayal had occurred within Syria’s political and military apparatus, favouring forces long intent on dismantling the country as a unified state.
Events in Syria as a Lesson
The recent takeover of power in Syria by overt Salafist terrorists is undoubtedly a tragedy, both for Syria itself and for all advocates of a multipolar world. However, it is likely that many representatives of Syria and other Arab nations have not yet fully grasped the far-reaching consequences of what has happened. These consequences are likely to be deeply tragic, both for Syria and for the broader region.
In reality, an undeniable fact remains: an outright terrorist affiliated with ISIL or al-Qaeda—no matter how his true masters might now attempt to portray him—has seized power in one of the world’s oldest nations. This was achieved, of course, not without the involvement of various regimes and intelligence agencies, ranging from the United States and Britain to Israel and Turkey. Furthermore, given the presence of sleeper cells linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL in nearly every Arab country, the future implications for Arab states could be catastrophic. Yet even now, many seem either unaware of this or, like the terrorists themselves, are merely executing the orders of their Western and Israeli patrons.
Nevertheless, no matter how certain hostile forces attempt to discredit Russia and Iran for their alleged failure to assist their ally, the reality lies elsewhere: when internal traitors in a given country gain the upper hand with the tacit approval of part of the population, external intervention becomes utterly futile.
This became clear to Russia—whose Aerospace Forces continued striking advancing terrorist positions—to Iran, which was reportedly ready to deploy a significant military contingent to Syria, and to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, whose fighters performed admirably in battles, including those near the Syrian city of Homs. Meanwhile, Syrian troops abandoned their positions and retreated in haste, despite Hezbollah still recovering from intensive clashes with the Israeli regime, which could reignite at any moment. In such circumstances, it became increasingly apparent that it would be entirely illogical for Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah to continue fighting terrorist forces if the Syrians themselves no longer wished to resist.
Necessary Conclusions and Prospects
There were, of course, evident mistakes at the level of Syria’s leadership. Mistakes that Moscow and Tehran had repeatedly pointed out in private discussions. The necessary reforms were not implemented in recent years, even though the opportunity was certainly there — thanks to the relative peace in Syria and the lull in hostilities. Notably, this peace was largely achieved through the efforts and support of Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. These reforms were essential in the military sphere and many other areas, but they never materialised.
That said, despite these significant unresolved problems, the situation could not have unfolded as it did without mass betrayal. This is clearly evidenced by footage taken by Russian forces stationed in Syria, which not only confirm the lack of proper preparation among Syrian troops at the onset of the terrorist offensive but also highlight the betrayal by certain members of Syria’s political and military elite.
Who were the external players involved? It is almost certain that the Anglo-Saxons, the Israeli regime, Erdogan’s Turkey, and possibly some Arab states played a role. However, this has become a secondary issue. What truly matters now is that advocates of a multipolar world must closely monitor any attempts at betrayal within their own countries and eliminate them at the very earliest stages of destabilisation attempts—by the harshest means necessary. Furthermore, all necessary reforms across key sectors must be implemented without delay.
As for the enemies and rivals of a multipolar world order, their problems are only beginning. Engaging in a multi-front conflict against Russia across different parts of the globe, the representatives of the Western planetary minority and their agents aimed to provoke a new hot front for our country. They failed — the plans were clearly understood by Russian leadership. Consequently, all new Syrian problems now fall squarely on the enemies of multipolarity. The reemergence of al-Qaeda and ISIL terrorists will likely lead to another massive wave of refugees, increasing security threats. The West and several other nations still fail to understand that controlling terrorists indefinitely is impossible. Eventually, these groups slip out of control, bringing with them inevitable consequences.
So, to all the initiators of this campaign: best of luck in your “successes”, especially as former allies are already turning on each other. Pro-Turkish militants are clashing with pro-American Kurds from the so-called “SDF”, with the direct involvement of al-Qaeda, ISIL, and the US and Israeli regimes. Meanwhile, we will calmly observe from our side. Particularly as Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, is now in Russia and has avoided the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. As for those Syrians who are pleased with the “improvements”, they can fully immerse themselves in a world of total chaos and lawlessness — or, excuse me, democracy, freedom, and progress. Finally, regarding internal traitors: they always meet a grim end.
Al-Qaeda Rides Again… in Syria
By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | December 11, 2024
As Christians around the world prepare to celebrate Christmas, a hell has been unleashed inside Syria with the seizure of the country by the re-named “al-Qaeda in Syria” now called Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Its leader is a former deputy commander of ISIS, Abu Mohammed al-Julani.
While neocons and the mainstream media in the US and Europe celebrate the overthrow of the Assad government – a priority since the Obama Administration – as with previous US “liberations” in Libya and Iraq the outcome is proving to be anything but liberating. Christian churches are being ransacked and believers abused.
Sharia law has been announced by the new justice minister, Shadi Alwaisi.
Public executions of those who oppose the rule of al-Julani – who still has a $10 million bounty on his head from the US State Department even as he is funded by the CIA – have begun across the country. (Extremely graphic link here).
Just today, Christian Churches in Syria were warned not to hold Christmas services, not to hold Christmas parades, and not to even display the image of St. Nicholas! This is what the mainstream media told us was the new “inclusive” government in Syria.
State Department to Shut Down Controversial Censorship Hub but Critics May Call It a Rebrand
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2024
The US State Department looks set to shut down the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which has for a long time faced accusations of deviating from its stated role abroad, and instead engaging in, and facilitating censorship at home.
This has been revealed in a filing in the Daily Wire v. US Department of State case, in which the latter informed the court that members of Congress were told last Friday about the upcoming move.
However, even though GEC as such is “substantially likely” to cease operations on December 24, the idea seems to be a simple reshuffle – as both the funding and the staff would continue their work in other State Department offices and bureaus.
According to a spokesperson, this development is the result of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) not providing for an extension of GEC. And now the State Department is “hopeful that Congress extends this important mandate through other means before the December 24 termination date,” said the spokesperson.
That mandate, on paper, is supposed to be directing, leading, and coordinating the US government’s “countering of foreign propaganda and disinformation” – in foreign countries. And the State Department continues to maintain that this is in fact the role of GEC and that it is critically important for that work to continue.
But critics say that the office, which was created in 2016, in reality, represents a central component of partisan censorship targeting Americans – particularly conservative and “disfavored” voices.
As evidence of this kept mounting, Republican members of the House of Representatives first investigated the activities of this office, particularly the way it was handing out grants (the suspicion is that GEC “delegated” censorship to third parties in order not to openly violate the Constitution).
Now, House Republicans have decided not to approve the planned 8-year extension of GEC. One of those controversial grants, worth $100,000, went to the Global Disinformation Index – a UK-based group accused of compiling a list of conservative media that advertisers were supposed to boycott and thus deprive of revenue.
But even if GEC will no longer exist as such, the intent is clearly to reassign employees and keep funding their work. What that work will actually be going forward, should depend on the incoming administration’s new State Department.
Strikes deep into Russia ‘big mistake’ – Trump
RT | December 12, 2024
US President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Ukraine’s strikes deep into Russia using Western-supplied weapons, saying that they only escalate the conflict between Kiev and Moscow.
Trump made the statement on Thursday in an interview with Time magazine, which named him the 2024 Person of the Year.
“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?” he asked rhetorically.
According to the president-elect, such attacks are “just escalating this war and making it worse.”
“That should not have been allowed to be done… And I think that is a very big mistake, very big mistake,” he said of strikes deep into Russia’s internationally recognized territory.
Trump returned to the issue later in the interview, saying that “the most dangerous thing right now” is the fact that “[Ukrainian leader Vladimir] Zelensky has decided, with the approval of, I assume, the President [Joe Biden], to start shooting missiles into Russia.”
“I think that is a major escalation. I think it is a foolish decision,” he stressed.
The US president-elect’s comments came a day after the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had fired six US-supplied ATACMS missiles at a military airfield near the southern city of Taganrog.
Two of them were shot down and the rest were diverted using electronic warfare during the attack, the ministry said. The fallen debris resulted in some injuries and minor damage to two buildings and several vehicles, it added.
On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia’s response to the strike on Taganrog “will follow at the time and in the way that will be deemed appropriate. But it will definitely follow.”
In late November, Russia used its new Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile system for the first time, striking the Yuzhmash military plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr.
According to Moscow, the deployment of the state-of-the-art weapon was a response to Washington and its allies allowing Ukraine to target internationally recognized Russian territory with the long-range weapons they supply to Kiev.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned at the time that if Ukraine’s attacks deep inside Russia continue, Moscow reserves the right “to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow the use of their weapons against our facilities.”
Bipartisan Push to Shield Free Speech Targets Abusive Lawsuits
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 9, 2024
A new bipartisan bill – the Free Speech Protection Act – has been introduced in the US Congress with the goal of improving ways to fight what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Congressman Jamie Raskin and Kevin Kiley are behind the House proposal, while “companion” legislation in the Senate is sponsored by Ron Wyden.
SLAPPs are described as serving to chill both free speech and political action through litigation that is both frivolous in nature – and burdensome for those targeted by such lawsuits.
“Though many such suits often prove meritless, they are nonetheless effective at silencing, intimidating, and discouraging dissent,” a press release said.
The proposed legislation would prevent “Goliath triumphing over David,” as Congressman Raskin put it, by those with more money and power essentially abusing the judiciary and wearing down their opponents with huge legal costs and “prolonged invasive discovery.”
If the Free Speech Protection Act becomes law, its sponsors hope to rein in “the rich and powerful” both from draining those with fewer resources of money and in the process silencing people whose political views they consider “incorrect.”
Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists are likely to be subjected to meritless SLAPP lawsuits, the lawmakers note in their press release.
The legislative effort, which is supported by a number of civil rights groups, is meant to extend similar state laws to the federal level.
Although two-thirds of US states already restrict SLAPPs, in cases involving First Amendment free speech violations these laws do not apply – since they are tried in federal courts.
And those (ab)using the judicial system to their own end are aware of this and tend to file their SLAPPs in those courts, Institute for Free Speech President David Keating remarked, adding that this is why his group has supported the bipartisan and bicameral proposal.
The Free Speech Protection Act seeks to provide federal courts with a new mechanism to control SLAPPs, including by letting judges act quickly to identify when a SLAPP is going after constitutionally protected speech and dismiss such lawsuits.
Another provision is to prevent those filing SLAPPS from treating the discovery process as a privacy-invasive tool, and lastly, federal judges would be able to deter these lawsuits by awarding attorney fees to the victim – “to reduce the cost burden and deter future exploitation of this tactic.”