Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan Says YouTube is a “Bastion of Free Speech”

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025

If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.

This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”

It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.

Moderation or Muting?

Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.

Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.

Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.

The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain

Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.

Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.

Oops.

But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.

Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only

The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.

While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.

What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.

YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship

Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.

And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.

The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Louisiana Man Who Had Bird Flu Dies — But Cause of Death Is Unclear

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

A Louisiana man in his 60s who was hospitalized with the first severe case of bird flu in the U.S. has died, the Louisiana Department of Health announced Monday. According to STAT News, it’s the first bird flu-related death in the U.S. — and all of North America.

The man, who has not been named, was older than 65 and had underlying medical conditions not specified in the health department’s announcement. He was hospitalized with severe respiratory illness after contracting the H5N1 bird flu virus last month from exposure to wild birds and a backyard flock of birds.

Louisiana health officials didn’t provide details about when the man died or what treatment he received. According to the health department, no other bird flu cases have been identified in Louisiana.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains its position that bird flu poses a low risk to public health.

In a statement published by The Washington Post, the CDC said, “While tragic, a death from H5N1 bird flu in the United States is not unexpected because of the known potential for infection with these viruses to cause severe illness and death.”

According to STAT News, 67 cases of bird flu have been recorded in the U.S. since last year. The Post reported that in almost all cases, the patients experienced “mild illnesses” such as respiratory symptoms or pink eye, and all except the Louisiana man recovered. Most who became ill are poultry or dairy farmworkers.

Media reporting on bird flu ‘reminiscent of the fearmongering’ during COVID

Mainstream media has widely attributed the Louisiana man’s death to bird flu, but experts who spoke with The Defender struck a note of caution.

“We do not have details on the type of hospital he was in for many weeks, treatment received, and what the ultimate cause of death was in his case,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender.

“This is not the same as saying the patient died of bird flu. [The Louisiana Health Department] conspicuously stops short of making that claim. If the health department reporting the case is not willing to declare bird flu to be the cause of death, it is irresponsible for anyone else to draw this conclusion,” internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker told The Defender.

Baker said such messaging on the part of some media outlets “is reminiscent of the fearmongering that was so prevalent during COVID-19, where numerous patients who actually died ‘with COVID’ were classified as ‘COVID deaths.’”

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher told The Defender that, because there are few details about the Louisiana man’s death and the underlying conditions he previously experienced, “it’s entirely possible that this patient died because of his other conditions, with bird flu infection pushing him over the edge.”

“Regardless, we can expect the biopharmaceutical complex to use this case as a tool to fear-monger and push for bird flu vaccinations,” Hulscher said.

Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Dec. 29, 2024, Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for more testing — and for the Biden administration to approve the bird flu vaccine before leaving office.

“There actually is a vaccine developed already against H5N1,” Wen said. “The Biden administration has contracted with manufacturers to make almost 5 million doses of the vaccine. However, they have not asked the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to authorize the vaccine.”

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, questioned the need for a bird flu vaccine. “Why would you use a vaccine in humans that has not been shown to work or be safe, for a disease that has only killed one elderly sick person and does not spread person-to-person?” Nass asked?

In October 2024, New York City health officials held a tabletop simulation of a bird flu outbreak.

Existing bird flu vaccines not designed for current bird flu variant

According to CNN, a genetic analysis the CDC performed last month determined that the virus that infected the Louisiana man mutated, enhancing its ability to infect the upper airways of humans.

“Those same changes were not seen in the birds the person had been exposed to, officials said, indicating that they had developed in the person after they were infected,” CNN reported.

According to the Post, “Bird flu viruses normally attach to a cell receptor that is rare in human upper airways,” making it difficult for most strains of bird flu to spread from person to person.

The mutated version of the virus found in the Louisiana man does not appear to have spread. “Genetic analysis of the virus in wild birds and poultry in Louisiana, including poultry on the patient’s property, and in other parts of the United States, did not detect similar viral changes,” the Post reported.

According to the Post, “Such changes would be more concerning … if they were also found in animals or within a few days of the start of symptoms, because that would suggest the virus was already acquiring these mutations.”

Nass said that the “longer a virus is able to reproduce inside a body, the more mutations you will find, and some are sure to improve its ability to infect human cells. The same thing occurred with COVID. It had no clinical significance then, either,” Nass added.

CNN reported that the Louisiana man was infected with the D1.1 clade of the bird flu virus — a strain that is currently circulating in wild birds and poultry, but not in dairy cattle that have been infected with bird flu. In November 2024, a teenager in the Canadian province of British Columbia was infected with this strain but recovered.

“Since we only have the Louisiana elder and the British Columbia teen who have come down with this particular strain of bird flu, it is not possible to say anything about the clinical illness, the propensity to infect others due to contact with wild birds, or even the risk of death,” Nass said.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the mutation seen in the Louisiana man may be man-made.

“The type of mutation seen in the man’s H5N1 isolates is reminiscent of research that is being done by Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin and Jessica Belser, Ph.D. at the CDC. Both researchers are attempting to humanize the virus so it can spread via respiratory droplets,” Hooker said.

Kawaoka and Belser are known for their involvement with gain-of-function research, where the transmissibility and virulence of pathogens are enhanced.

Dr. Richard Bartlett, an emergency room director and former Texas Department of Health and Human Services advisory council member, told The Defender that existing bird flu vaccines have not been designed for the D1.1 clade. He said:

“My understanding is that this is a different clade than bird flu vaccines that have already been purchased by governments around the world. In other words, they missed the mark. With vaccines it’s all or nothing. The winning treatment strategy will be early treatment.

“The question is, will the National Institutes of Health, CDC, World Health Organization [WHO] and government leaders — that are not doctors or scientists — repeat their mistakes? Will they push one option only? Vaccinate or bust? Are they slow learners? In 2009, we had the H1N1 pandemic with a highly contagious and very dangerous flu virus. Not one person was vaccinated, and the pandemic was over in nine months.”

According to the WHO, there have been nearly 900 human bird flu cases worldwide since 2003, and roughly half of those patients died. But according to CNN, “Because severe cases are more likely to be reported than mild ones, mild illnesses probably aren’t being factored into that figure.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.

The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.

However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”

DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”

The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.

That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.

Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.

CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

Holland added:

“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.

“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”

CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.

The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.

Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:

“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.

“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”

National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”

Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :

“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.

“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”

Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X

Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.

The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.

Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.

The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.

Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”

Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.

However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.

Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”

He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Will Meta’s policy changes stick?

Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”

Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.

Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”

If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.

“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

Algeria Parliament accuses French President of ‘blatant interference’ in internal affairs

MEMO | January 7, 2025

The Algerian Parliament accused French President, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday of “blatant interference” in the North African country’s internal affairs, Anadolu Agency reports.

Macron, on Monday, criticised Algeria, calling the detention of Franco-Algerian writer, Boualem Sansal, at Algiers Airport in November a “disgraceful matter”.

In a statement, the People’s National Assembly, the first house of parliament, called Macron’s remarks “irresponsible” and represented an “affront to Algeria’s sovereignty and dignity” in a case currently under judicial review under Algerian law.

The statement termed Macron’s comments an “overt attempt to tarnish the image of Algeria and its sovereign institutions.”

The Assembly emphasized Algeria’s firm rejection of any foreign interference, particularly regarding issues related to human rights and freedoms.

“Algeria, which endured horrific violations during the French colonial era, will not accept external lessons on these matters,” the statement said.

Such actions are “unacceptable to the Algerian people and will not deter Algeria from its independent path. Instead, they strengthen its resolve to protect its sovereignty and dignity,” it added.

The Assembly called on French authorities to respect the principles of international relations, including mutual respect.

During his meeting with French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace on Monday, Macron claimed that Algeria “prevented a seriously ill man from receiving treatment” and called for Sansal’s release.

“We who love the people of Algeria and its history urge its government to release Boualem Sansal,” he said.

Two weeks earlier, Algerian President, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, accused France of “sending an illegitimate figure” – an apparent reference to Sansal – to claim that parts of Algeria’s territory once belonged to another country.

Sansal, a former industry ministry official dismissed in 2002, had previously asserted in French media that large parts of north-western Algeria historically belonged to Morocco.

The Algerian authorities arrested Sansal on 16 November at Algiers Airport upon his return from France.

Local media reported that he was charged under Article 87 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of undermining national unity and territorial integrity, according to his defence team.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Zionism: The colonial plague of Western Asia

Zionism is a colonial ideology, enabled through alliances with imperial powers like Germany and Britain, that thrived on suppression of coexistence.

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2025 

In August 1914, when the fire of the First World War had already broken out in Europe, a now-forgotten event took place in Berlin. Max Bodenheimer, one of the leaders of the World Zionist Organization, paid a visit to officials of the German Empire. Bodenheimer proposed to Kaiser Wilhelm to create the so-called “League of Eastern European States”.

According to this project, after the occupation by German troops of part of the western lands of the Russian Empire, a new state was to appear on this territory. The Zionist leaders wanted to rule this land and its local population with the forceful support of Berlin (Baltic peoples, Poles, Russians, Belarusians and Jews lived in this territory). To put it bluntly, it was a plan of colonial occupation, fully developed by influential Zionist ideologues.

This project was not implemented because the Kaiser’s government questioned its effectiveness. However, for some time, Bodenheimer received support from both the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military-political establishment.

What does this historical example say? That Zionism has always been a colonialist ideology. And the Zionists tried to spread their colonial ambitions not only in Palestine. During the First World War, they were ready to participate in joint expansionist actions with the German Empire, which then owned numerous colonies (for example, in Africa and New Guinea) and wanted to seize even more land.

And of course, this is not the only example of the close interaction of the ideologists of Zionism with the colonial powers in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. At the same time, the Zionists actively sought British assistance in obtaining colonial territories for them in Uganda, and negotiated with Portugal on a similar territorial acquisition in Angola.

This is not surprising. Since the Basel program, adopted in 1897 by the First Zionist Congress, territorial conquest has been the main goal of Zionist ideologues. It was in the Basel program that the Zionists directly put forward their claims to the territory of Palestine. They disregarded the fact that this land belonged to the Arab people, the indigenous population. They had already begun planning the occupation of Palestine. Unconcerned with whom they partnered in their colonial ambitions, some Zionist leaders, like Bodenheimer, cultivated relationships with Germany’s political elites, while others lobbied in London, engaging with the British government to advance their goals.

Every colonial policy has its own mythologemes. It is a complex of narratives and verbal manipulations by which colonialists justify their expansion. Belgium in the late 19th and early 20th century is a striking example of this phenomenon. During the seizure of the Congo, King Leopold II tried to justify his colonial conquests with a “civilizing mission”, and also promised to take care of the Congolese people and develop infrastructure, which he declared his “private domain”. In reality, this hypocritical myth of “beneficial colonial influence” turned into a brutal exploitation of the indigenous population of Congo. Not only had the Belgian administration plundered other people’s natural resources, but they also organized brutal persecution against the indigenous people (mass executions, torture, destruction of villages, forced labor).

Zionist colonialism has similar false mythologemes. One such idea is the claim that Zionism aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people.

Let’s try to reason logically. What is a “national home”? This is a place where a particular nation can live, observing its traditions, culture, and religion, and speak its own language.

Let’s turn to history again. In 1934, the Soviet government created a new region in the Russian Far East. This region was named the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, with the administrative center in the city of Birobidzhan.

Yiddish was introduced as the official language in this region. The Jewish population has received the widest opportunities not only to move to a new area, but also to develop its culture, language, literature, and traditions. Many thousands of Jews moved to the new region, including from foreign countries.

It was a national Jewish autonomy. Jews were invited to live in their own autonomous region in the neighborhood of the rest of the country’s peoples. Preserving their culture, they could live and work in peace. They got their national home, which they talked about so much. However, the Zionists never supported this project and even opposed it.

What’s the matter? Why did the Zionist circles in every possible way prevent the resettlement of Jews to this autonomous region?

The answer lies in their goals. The Zionists were not interested in living peacefully within an autonomous region inside a larger country. They disregarded the fact that such autonomy could offer their people extensive opportunities for preserving and developing their national culture. Instead, their focus was directed elsewhere, driven by a different set of ambitions.

The Zionists initially wanted to create their own colonial center in Western Asia in order to further occupy the territories of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. They wanted domination over the Middle East and full control over the local rich natural resources.

Therefore, they considered any alternative project as a threat to their colonial ambitions. They needed hundreds of thousands of loyal supporters willing to participate in their Middle Eastern expansion as settlers and colonizers. Therefore, they were extremely afraid that Jews from different European countries might refuse to participate in the colonial invasion of Palestine.

Let’s recall historical examples again. The famous Jewish philosopher Abraham ibn Ezra, who lived in the 11th – 12th centuries, was born in the Muslim state of Taifa of Saragossa, located on the Iberian Peninsula. He wrote some of his works in Arabic, actively read the works of Muslim scholars, and had the opportunity to travel quietly to many cities, from Zaragoza and Cordoba to Damascus and Baghdad.

Even earlier, in the 10th – 11th centuries, the Jewish philosopher and poet Samuel ibn Nagrillah became a vizier at the court of the Emir of Granada, Qaboos al-Muzaffar.

Another famous Jewish philosopher and translator, Saadia Gaon, in the 9th – 10th centuries lived first in Egypt, then in the Iraqi city of Baghdad. He became famous especially for his translations and works written in Arabic.

What do the above examples reveal? That historically, since the earliest times, the Jewish population has lived peacefully and freely in Muslim countries, having the opportunity to preserve their customs and culture. In the 19th century in Palestine, according to the Ottoman censuses, 95 percent of the population were Arabs. This is a well-known fact. Palestine was, is, and will be an Arab land. However, a Jewish community also lived there, many of whom later actively opposed Zionism and settler colonialism.

The Arab inhabitants coexisted peacefully with the Jewish community, maintaining a harmonious and neighborly relationship. This harmony in Palestine was disrupted with the onset of Zionist expansion. It was the Zionists who began to systematically violate the rights of the indigenous Arab population, unlawfully seizing their land.

Zionism is inherently an aggressive and destructive ideology. We can also recall the campaigns that the Zionist regime staged in the middle of the 20th century against the Yiddish language (restricting the rights of the Jewish population to use this language in public life and literature). This is a typical example that shows that Zionist ideology is a form of racism (including linguistic), tyranny, and mass discrimination.

History confirms that the Palestinian Resistance is a national liberation movement against colonialist, misanthropic, barbaric, hypocritical, bloodthirsty Zionism. That’s why the battle for the freedom of Palestine is legitimate, just, and truly great in the context of historical development.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Iran Accuses US of Violating UN Charter Over Nuclear Facilities Strike Discussions

Sputnik – 07.01.2025

TEHRAN – US threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are a gross violation of international norms, the UN Security Council must hold the US accountable internationally, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei said.

Three days earlier, US media reported, citing three informed sources, that incumbent US President Joe Biden had discussed with his team, in particular with White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, plans to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Biden ultimately made no final decision on the issue. The discussion was not prompted by new intelligence, but was aimed at working out possible scenarios, the publication’s sources noted.

“This issue has been raised repeatedly. From the point of view of international law, threats to use force by any country are a gross violation of international law and the UN Charter. This issue is doubly a violation of international agreements,” Baghaei said.

This US threat is a threat against the country’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure, he stressed.

“The UN Security Council should intervene and hold the United States internationally accountable for these statements,” Baghaei added.

On January 4, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the Iranian authorities were ready to immediately enter into constructive negotiations with Western countries on their nuclear program if they lead to a new agreement. According to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi, a new round of consultations between Iran and Europe on the nuclear deal will take place on January 13.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

FBI Is Still Hiding Details of Russiagate, Newly Released Document Shows

By Aaron Maté | RealClearInvestigations | January 6, 2025

As Donald Trump re-enters the White House on a pledge to end national security state overreach, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is still hiding critical details on the Russia conspiracy investigation that engulfed his first term.

In response to a Freedom of Information request filed by RealClearInvestigations in August 2022, the FBI on Dec. 31, more than two years later, released a heavily redacted copy of the document that opened an explosive and unprecedented counterintelligence probe of the sitting president as an agent of the Russian government.

The Electronic Communication, dated May 16, 2017, claimed to have an “articulable factual basis” to suspect that Trump “wittingly or unwittingly” was illegally acting on behalf of Russia, and accordingly posing “threats to the national security of the United States.” The FBI’s “goal,” it added, was “to determine if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation.” It additionally sought to uncover whether Trump and unnamed “others” obstructed “any associated FBI investigation” – a reference to Crossfire Hurricane, the initial FBI inquiry into the Trump campaign’s suspected cooperation with an alleged Russian interference plot in the 2016 election.

While Crossfire Hurricane, which was formally opened on July 31, 2016, had by that point focused on members of Trump’s orbit, the May 2017 probe was specifically targeted at the president himself during his fourth month in office. The investigation of Trump was undertaken at the behest of then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, one week after Trump had fired his former boss and mentor, James B. Comey.

According to the declassified document, McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, where he backed  the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation.

FBI via RealClearInvestigations
Shown, the first two pages of a newly released document that opened an FBI probe of Donald Trump in May 2017. The remaining four pages are completely redacted, leaving unstated the FBI’s “articulable factual basis” on Page 1.
FBI via RealClearInestigations
FBI via RealClearInestigations
As with Crossfire Hurricane, the May 2017 case was opened as a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, and also deemed a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” to reflect Trump’s status as the nation’s top public official. The FBI document indicates that it was launched as a full investigation, which would have granted investigators targeting Trump with sweeping surveillance powers.

While the declassified document records the FBI’s theory that then-President Trump might be involved in illegal – and potentially treasonous – behavior, the “articulable factual basis” for this suspicion is redacted. Only a few paragraphs of the six-page document have not been withheld.

Along with Crossfire Hurricane, the May 2017 counterintelligence probe was folded into the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller, who was appointed just one day after the FBI began portraying Trump internally as a possible Russian agent or conspirator. Mueller’s final report “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Asked about his reasoning for opening the probe and related matters, McCabe, who now works as an on-air commentator at CNN, did not respond to RCI’s emailed questions by the time of publication.

Details about the FBI’s motivation can be gleaned, however, from other public disclosures.

According to a January 2019 account in the New York Times, which first revealed the FBI’s decision to investigate Trump, the Steele dossier – a collection of conspiracy theories funded by Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton – was among the “factors” that “fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns.”

Just two days before McCabe opened the May 2017 probe, the FBI, via Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, renewed contact with dossier author Christopher Steele despite having terminated him as a source back in November 2016. As RCI’s Paul Sperry has previously reported, this sudden outreach to Steele right before the opening of a new Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation indicated that the FBI was seeking to re-engage the Clinton-funded British operative to help it build a case against the president for espionage and obstruction of justice. At the time, the FBI was still relying on Steele’s fabrications for its surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The following month, the FBI filed the last of its four FISA court warrants based on Steele’s material. The Justice Department has since invalidated two of those warrants on the grounds that they were based on “material misstatements.”

The FBI re-enlisted Steele despite possessing information that thoroughly discredited him. Five months before it newly sought Steele’s help to investigate the sitting president, the FBI interviewed Igor Danchenko, whom Steele had used as his dossier’s key “sub-source.” In that January 2017 meeting, Danchenko told FBI agents that corroboration for the dossier’s claims was “zero”; that he had “no idea” where claims sourced to him came from; and that the Russia-Trump rumors he passed along to Steele came from alcohol-fueled “word of mouth and hearsay.” The FBI had also been unable to corroborate any of Steele’s incendiary claims.

A previously disclosed document also shows that former CIA Director John Brennan – who insistently advanced the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory – informed then-president Barack Obama in July 2016 that the Clinton campaign was planning to tie Trump to Russia in order to distract attention from the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. By that point, the Clinton campaign was already paying for the fabricated reports produced by Steele, who made contact with the FBI as early as July 5.

Although the newly declassified document attempts to suggest that the FBI had actionable intelligence to suspect Trump of being a Russian agent, McCabe’s subsequent comments indicate that there was no such evidence on offer. Instead, McCabe has said his counterintelligence probe of Trump was primarily motivated by the president’s firing of Comey. In a February 2019 interview with CBS News, McCabe explained his thinking as follows: “[T]he idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counter intelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would a president of the United States do that?’ So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia.”

McCabe therefore had no evidence that Trump had a “connection” to Russia, and in fact could only “wonder” if there was one. Yet because Trump had fired Comey, whose FBI was already investigating Trump’s campaign for Russia ties and relying on the Clinton-funded Steele dossier in the process, McCabe decided that he had grounds to order an espionage investigation of the commander in chief.

With the official predicate for that May 2017 investigation still redacted by the FBI, McCabe’s public statements offer the only insider window into why it was opened. In all of the investigations related to alleged Russian interference to date, the Justice Department has pointedly avoided the question.

Despite inheriting McCabe’s probe – and debunking claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy related to the 2016 election – Special Counsel Mueller made no mention of the Trump as Russian agent theory in his final report of March 2019. Without informing the public, the FBI closed down the Trump counterintelligence investigation the following month. The case’s closing Electronic Communication, which has previously been declassified in redacted form, states that the McCabe probe “was transferred to FBI personnel assisting” the Mueller team, and entailed the use of “a variety of investigative techniques.”

An inquiry led by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz of the FBI’s conduct during Crossfire Hurricane also ignored McCabe’s decision to investigate Trump as an agent of Russia. And in a footnote in his final report of May 2023, John Durham – the Special Counsel appointed to launch a sweeping review of the Russia investigation – claimed that McCabe’s May 2017 probe was outside of his purview.

By contrast, when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane, Durham’s report concluded that the FBI did not have a legitimate basis to launch that investigation, repeatedly ignored exculpatory evidence, and buried warnings that Clinton’s campaign was trying to frame Trump as a Russian conspirator.

While the original Trump-Russia investigation has been discredited, the public remains in the dark about why the FBI launched a follow-up counterintelligence probe that targeted Trump while he was newly in the White House – and what ends it took to pursue it.

With Trump set to be inaugurated this month after vowing to clean up the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, the FBI will have a fresh opportunity to break its longstanding secrecy on the decision to investigate the sitting, and newly returning, president as an agent of Russia.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Georgia’s PM slams Macron claims of Russia election meddling as ‘lies’

Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2025

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has dismissed French President Emmanuel Macron’s allegations that Russia meddled in Georgia’s recent election as “lies”.

Macron accused Russia on Monday of increasing its aggression and shifting its hostility “toward Europe and other regions,” by “destabilizing electoral processes and manipulating ballot boxes” during the October election in Georgia.

The French president presented no evidence to support his claim.

Reporters questioned Kobakhidze about Macron’s assertion on Tuesday, and his response was he could not “comment on lies,” adding, “I am commenting on the problem that everyone faces today, which is a devastated Ukraine.”

“The French president should better follow the events in Ukraine, which has been sacrificed with the aim of destroying it,” the prime minister told reporters.

In November, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova firmly rejected allegations of meddling in Georgia’s internal affairs, which were made by the Georgian opposition, stating at a briefing that such actions are characteristic of the West.

On October 26, the ruling Georgian Dream party won 53.93% of the vote and 89 of the 150 seats in the assembly. Last week, Mikheil Kavelashvili officially assumed the role of president of Georgia during an inauguration ceremony held in parliament. The event, accompanied by protests outside, highlighted ongoing political divisions in the country.

Protests in Tbilisi have persisted for over a month, fueled by dissatisfaction with the government’s decision to delay EU accession negotiations and reject EU financial aid until 2028.

Like many other post-Soviet states, Georgia remains highly susceptible to instability due to a combination of Western influence and narratives opposing Russian policies. These factors have historically fueled mass protests and calls for a more pro-Western policy, aiming to distance Georgia from Russia and align its political and economic trajectory with Europe.

Kavelashvili won the presidency after a parliamentary vote on December 14 in which he secured 224 out of 300 votes as the candidate of the ruling Georgian Dream party.

Zourabishvili, who vacated the presidential palace following Kavelashvili’s inauguration, has continued to challenge the election’s legitimacy, though without providing proof. She described the parliament as “illegal” and announced on inauguration day that while leaving the residence, she would persist in advocating for new parliamentary elections.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Europe isn’t the real threat to Ukraine peace but UK

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | January 7, 2025 

The Biden Administration has not given up on Ukraine war. A meeting of the Ramstein Format Meeting is scheduled to take place in Germany on Thursday, chaired by the outgoing US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, to address Ukraine’s defence needs, which the Ukrainian President Zelensky will also address. 

Meanwhile, Kiev typically launched an attack in the Kursk region on the eve of the Ramstein Format event as the “curtain-raiser”. The operation, although played up in the British press, is spearheaded by just 2 tanks and fifteen armoured carriers and will no doubt be crushed by the Russian drones and its highly lethal Ka high-performance combat helicopters with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power. 

Typically, Zelensky won’t give up on any occasion for grandstanding in front of the Western audience. He hopes to display on Thursday that there is still some spunk left in the Ukrainian armed forces. Tragically, he is sacrificing a few dozen Ukrainian soldiers in this melodrama which may distract some attention from the front-line as Russian forces have entered Chasiv Yar and reached the suburbs of Pokrovsk in an operation to surround that city. 

With the fall of Chasiv Yar and Pokorovsk, the Battle of Donbass is nearing home stretch. It sets the stage for a massive Russian push to the Dnieper River if the Kremlin is left with no other option but to end the war on its terms. (See a recent article on the future map of Ukraine by the top Moscow strategic analyst Dmitry Trenin titled What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory.)

Indeed, the hopes of Donald Trump bringing the war to an end in the first day of his presidency on January 20 have withered away. The Ramstein meeting is a defiant act by Zelensky and his European associates, as Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon.  

On December 18, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO chief Mark Rutte and huddled with several European leaders to discuss war strategy. His European interlocutors are also seeking to develop their own plans if Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the war, pulls the plug on the Kiev regime or forces it to make concessions. 

The key topic of the Brussels meeting was security guarantees, Zelensky’s office said. Zelensky highlighted his “detailed one-on-one discussion” with French President Emmanuel Macron that focused on priorities to further strengthen Ukraine’s position “regarding the presence of forces in Ukraine that could contribute to stabilising the path to peace.”

Prior to the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that the priority was to secure the “sovereignty of Ukraine and that it will not be forced to submit to a dictated peace.” But, he cautioned, any discussion of boots on the ground would be premature. 

Rutte himself counselled that Kiev’s allies should focus on ramping up arms supplies to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength. Rutte estimated that Ukraine needs 19 additional  air-defence systems to protect the country’s energy infrastructure. 

Interestingly, Rutte announced that the proposed new NATO command in the German city of Wiesbaden is now “up and running” which will henceforth coordinate Western military aid for Ukraine as well as provide training for Ukraine’s military. Trump is unlikely to preserve the Ramstein Format. 

Simply put, Europe, including the U.K., lack the capacity to replace the US military assistance to Ukraine. For the EU to replace the US, it would need to double its military aid to Ukraine. But the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, makes this an impossible objective. (See an analysis, here, by Samantha de Bendern at the Chatham House.) 

Germany, Europe’s largest military donor to Ukraine, has plunged into political chaos with the collapse of the Scholz-led coalition. Macron, a staunch defender of Ukraine, has lost control over France’s domestic politics since the June parliamentary elections, where he lost his majority. Elsewhere in Europe, political parties on the far right and far left, with pro-Russian sympathies, are rising.  

Europeans are running around like headless chickens. The surprise visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Florida to meet Trump and watch a movie with him at this critical juncture of the Ukraine war shows that the smart lady has no confidence in the likes of Macron. 

Meloni has a warm equation with Trump’s close aide Elon Musk and is seeking to strengthen business ties with the US. “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy,” Trump told the Mar-a-Lago crowd and added expansively, “She’s really taken Europe by storm.” 

Italy, an important NATO power that overlooks the Mediterranean is a vociferous supporter of trans-atlanticism, and pursues a nuanced policy on the Ukraine war that may be of use to Trump to build bridges with Europe. Meloni is positioning herself. 

Italy resolutely condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s subsequent involvement in Eastern Ukraine and joined the EU sanctions against Russia. It demonstrated its military support for Ukraine with significant military aid packages within the framework of an agreement on security cooperation (under a previous government headed by Prime Minister Mario Draghi). 

That said, Rome has often sought to balance EU responses with its national interests towards Russia. Thus, Meloni’s foreign minister reaffirmed recently, even as Biden authorised Ukraine to deploy long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, “Our position on Ukraine’s use of (Italian) weapons has not changed. They can only be used within Ukrainian territory.” 

In the final analysis, it is the course of the war that will decide the terms of peace in Ukraine. Europe’s swing toward right-wing governments — Austria is the latest example — may help Russia. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the spy agencies of Britain and US work in tandem to manipulate the governments in power in White Hall — Labour and Conservative alike — the Trump administration has a serious problem on its hands. 

Of course, Trump is well aware of the UK’s pivotal role in hatching the “Russia collusion” plot, which hobbled his presidency. Downsizing Britain’s role can be a game changer for peace in Ukraine. 

But the MI6’s capacity to influence the Kiev regime is not to be underestimated. Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson played a seminal role in torpedoing the Russia-Ukraine deal negotiated at the peace talks hosted by Turkey in March-April 2022 just weeks into the conflict. Even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin, which in itself is highly problematic as things stand, London is sure to undermine it one way or another at the first available opportunity, given its Russophobic obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.  

Possibly, Trump is savouring Elon Musk’s relentless assault on the British government. “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government,” Musk wrote on X. But British politicians have the skin of rhino. Sir Keir Starmer is giving as good as he gets. Trump’s challenge lies in mothballing the special relationship with the UK.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU scoops up record amount of Russian LNG – Bloomberg

RT | January 7, 2025

The volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipped by Russia to the European Union hit a record high in 2024, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing ship-tracking data for key EU buyers. The surge occurred before Kiev’s suspension of gas transit through Ukraine to the bloc.

Ukraine opted not to prolong a five-year transit contract with Russian energy giant Gazprom beyond the end of 2024, halting the flow of natural gas from Russia to Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Italy, and Moldova.

The data tracked by the news agency showed that last year, exports of Russian gas to the bloc totaled some 30 billion cubic meters of gas, with more than half of that volume going via the pipeline system running through Ukrainian territory.

At the same time, the amount of super-chilled LNG shipped from Russia to the region in 2024 soared to an all-time high of 15.5 million tons, the news outlet reported, noting a significant surge in shipments compared to 2020, when the EU imported some 10.5 million tons of the fuel.

“Europe will still need gas as all its efforts to wean itself from Russian gas have not been successful,” Tatiana Orlova, an economist at Oxford Economics, told the news agency. “It will probably end up buying more Russian LNG to make up for the drop in natural gas imports from Russia.”

Moscow also exports gas to Europe through the TurkStream pipeline, which runs from Russia to Türkiye via the Black Sea and then to the border with EU member Greece. Two lines of the route provide gas supplies for the Turkish domestic market and supply central European customers, including Hungary and Serbia.

Supplies via the Yamal-Europe pipeline were halted back in 2022, after Poland terminated its gas agreement with Russia and Moscow blacklisted EuRoPol GAZ, a joint venture between Gazprom and Polish gas company PGNiG (which operates the route), in response to Western sanctions.

Despite a significant reduction in pipeline gas imports from Russia due to the Ukrainian conflict and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022, EU member states continued to purchase record amounts of the country’s LNG. The chilled fuel has only partially been targeted by the latest sanctions introduced by the bloc.

In June, Brussels banned ships from obtaining Russian LNG by engaging in re-loading operations, ship-to-ship transfers, or ship-to-shore transfers with the purpose of re-exporting it to third countries. The sanctions have a nine-month transition period.

The bloc has vocally committed itself to eliminating its reliance on Russian energy, but has continued to purchase LNG from Russia, which accounted for 15% of total imports of the fuel as of June, according to data tracked by commodities data provider Kpler.

Russia was ranked the second biggest supplier of LNG to the European continent after the US in the first half of 2024, according to data compiled by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which noted that the country’s share amounted to 21%.

In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow is planning to continue to increase the share of Russian LNG on world markets, highlighting that the fuel is one of the top-requested energy products globally.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU does not benefit from Ukraine shutting down gas transit from Russia, says energy expert

Remix News | January 7, 2025

While the countries supporting sanctions and the European Commission welcome the Jan. 1 termination of Ukrainian gas transit due to the reduction in Russian gas purchases, those representing a more moderate position warn of the economic and social consequences, says energy market expert Olivér Hortay, president of the Századvég Economic Processes Research Institute, in an interview with Magyar Nemzet.

“The former argue that the halt in transit is a positive development, because the EU will no longer buy Russian gas on this route, and they also repeatedly state that the EU is prepared for the cessation of transit. In contrast, representatives of the more moderate position emphasize that the halt in Ukrainian transit will have harmful consequences for the entire European community,” Olivér Hortay said.

“The former group typically approaches the issue from the quantity side, and in this sense they are right that in the short term, the transit stoppage will not cause an acute supply problem. After all, the reserves of all EU member states, together with alternative procurement routes, make it possible to replace the missing quantity during this year’s heating season. It is true that there are challenges in the case of Slovakia and Austria, but the situation can also be solved there with the help of the relatively large amount of stored energy sources and alternative procurement,“ explained the energy market expert.

However, this does not mean that the EU is actually benefiting from the closure of Ukrainian gas transit taps. “On the first trading day of this year, European gas exchanges opened above last year’s highest price, which immediately showed how harmful the supply shortage is,” Hortay pointed out.

Moreover, the gas markets of the member states are highly interconnected, meaning that the negative consequences affect all countries. The states most affected will have to face additional disadvantages.

“(Slovak PM) Robert Fico previously said that the new sources of supply are much more expensive for Slovakia, simply because it will have to buy natural gas via a longer route, through more countries, and therefore at higher transit costs. According to Fico, the Ukrainian president’s move will increase costs for the entire European Union, as a result of which EU member states may face a total of €60 billion to €70 billion in additional expenses due to higher gas and electricity prices,” said the expert.

This is also due to competitiveness.

“The fact that the transit shutdown will cause economic difficulties for the European community is important because the EU’s most serious competitiveness problem, as stated in the Draghi report, is the high price of energy carriers. Today, European companies pay four to five times as much for natural gas as Americans. This disadvantage could only be overcome if much more gas than currently arrives comes into the region, so that the expansion of supply would depress prices,” Hortay continued.

Speaking about the longer-term prospects regarding how the affected countries will make up for the lost volumes, Hortay said that Austria will probably increase its purchases from the West and may deplete its stored gas reserves at a faster rate, and Slovakia may also do this. From Hungary’s perspective, however, the unfavorable situation may present an opportunity in that the loss of Ukrainian transit may accelerate the trend that has been developing for several years whereby Hungary shifts to the role of a regional gas distributor.

In recent years, Hungary has shifted its Russian gas purchases from the Ukrainian direction to the south, built its trade relations with other eastern partners, and built and developed its cross-border capacities, thus becoming a gateway for gas coming from the East.

This is beneficial for Hungary for two reasons. On the one hand, due to transit revenues, Ukraine, for example, loses over $1 billion a year by closing its gas taps, and on the other hand, its geopolitical position is strengthened: the energy supply of neighboring countries will depend on energy shipments passing through Hungary.

This role previously belonged to Austria, but if the Ukrainian transit still does not start, Austria may lose this position permanently, according to the expert.

Olivér Hortay also recalled that Hungary sold a record amount of natural gas to Slovakia last year, and in contrast to the situation a few years ago, gas typically flowed eastward on the Hungarian-Ukrainian border. Capacities in the northern direction have been increased with various technical solutions in the recent period, and the really big question going forward will be whether the capacity of the TurkStream can be increased, and if so, when. All of the countries involved, including Hungary, have indicated on several occasions that they would support such an investment.

The European Commission has also contributed to the shrinking supply, making natural gas more expensive overall, says Hortay. Hungary, on the other hand, is in favor of so-called diversification, meaning that it believes that as many suppliers and as many routes as possible should be allowed to bring natural gas to the European market, allowing players to compete with each other, thus driving prices down.

In order for all of this to happen, capacity expansions are necessary, and in recent years there has been significant progress in this area, and the trend is likely to continue, concluded Olivér Hortay.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment