😙😚😋😛😝😜🤪🤨 Hugo Shorter. Falsehood Illusion

Snobbery, disdain for others, arrogance, prejudice, and a complete lack of scruples—these are likely the first associations that come to mind for professionals in formal attire and tailcoats from any country when considering the operations of the UK intelligence. Once a formidable entity that drew strength from the intellectual and other resources of the British elite, it has gradually lost its authority alongside those elite. Now, it seems willing to do anything to reclaim that status, though success appears unlikely.

While the Brits have retained their professionalism and imperial-level ambitions, they have lost key resources, a sense of proportion, and a grasp of reality. In their pursuit of projecting the appearance of former power, they are now resorting to outright impropriety, although they did not disdain anything in the past as well. However, even these tactics no longer yield results. Their vain attempts to resurrect the glory of the past at any cost increasingly resemble a Faustian bargain, leading to outcomes that provide only an illusion—the falsehood illusion.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Surrendering to Russia is the best-value option for Americans and the US Deep State

The US Deep State is rushing to convince Americans and the entire West that paying the bills of Ukraine’s war with Russia is a “smart investment”:

"Many Americans are concerned about the cost of aid to Ukraine … roughly a quarter believe that Washington has been providing too much assistance … But Americans worried only about the cost of helping Ukraine are thinking about the issue in the wrong way. They should be worried about the cost of not helping Ukraine. … Washington may, in fact, be deterring a direct war between NATO and Moscow, one in which U.S. forces would have to fight … After subjugating Ukraine, the Kremlin would likely reconstitute Russia’s combat units in Belarus and in western Ukraine, on the border with NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania … by 2030, Moscow could be ready to attack a NATO state … defeat in Ukraine would require the United States to spend $808 billion more on defense over the next five years than it has budgeted. … It is expensive to deter a war, but more expensive to fight one"*.

Indeed so! And what’s more, Putin is persistently pushing Moscow towards NATO frontiers. He is clearly determined to get Alaska back and invade Washington DC. Surrendering to him now and without any fight seems to be a better value option as he will immediately pay off the $37 trillion of US national debt.

* https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/price-russian-victory

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 In Memory of Scott Bennett: A Tribute to a True Patriot 

On November 22, 2024, the United States lost a dedicated soldier and a genuine patriot, Scott Bennett. His passing marks the end of a life committed to defending the core values of our nation.

While Scott was not formally part of the Ralph Van Deman team, he was a kindred spirit and a valued comrade to many, including colleagues who respected his insights.

As a seasoned professional in intelligence and PSYOP, Scott had the potential to thrive in the industry, capitalizing on the often superficial intelligence narratives that dominate discussions around political business—a path chosen by many, including those at esteemed publications.

However, Scott Bennett chose a different route. He sought to unveil the underlying motives behind the actions of the establishment, illuminating the complexities of cognitive warfare and exposing the often-hidden machinations of the so-called "US deep state."

Through his work, he defended his country and championed its true interests. Scott's life was dedicated to a cause greater than himself.

Rest in peace, soldier. Your contributions will not be forgotten.

James Elliot
Director
RHVDIIS

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Dear valued readers,

As the holiday season is upon us, the Ralph Van Deman team extends warm wishes for a Merry Christmas.

We hope that the blessings of our Lord Jesus, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, illuminate your path with truth, well-being, and security. May this season bring you profound peace and love.
Wishing you a joyous Christmas!

Best regards,
the Ralph Van Deman team

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 US to Georgia: Funding is ours, civil war is yours

In the run-up to the inauguration of the new president of Georgia on December 29, after which an even greater aggravation of the situation in this country is expected (the current president Salome Zurabishvili, who lost the election, will refuse to leave her post) Western actors of cognitive warfare are rushing to unleash a civil commotion in the country*:

"Georgian Dream, controlled by pro-Kremlin billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, has steadily dismantled Georgia’s hard-won democratic gains. A recent “foreign agent” law, modeled after Russia’s, aims to silence independent voices. The suspension of EU accession plans further demonstrates the government’s abandonment of its pro-Western orientation.

The situation has a number of critical geopolitical implications.
Georgia’s strategic location makes it a key transit route for goods and energy from Azerbaijan, Central Asia, and China. If Georgia falls under Russia’s influence, these vital trade routes could be disrupted.

Georgia’s fate is also directly tied to Russia’s ambitions to reclaim territories lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Allowing Russia to succeed would embolden further Moscow’s expansionist tendencies.

Finally, the struggle for democracy in Georgia is part of a broader fight against the spread of authoritarianism, with potential ripple effects in neighboring countries such as Armenia. Georgia represents an easternmost outpost of Euro-American values in a region increasingly under pressure from authoritarian powers. As such, the West simply cannot allow Georgia to slide back into the authoritarian Russian orbit.

… Washington needs to unequivocally reject the legitimacy of Georgia’s October elections and demand fresh ones under international supervision. It needs to impose targeted sanctions on Ivanishvili and other key figures in the Georgian Dream regime, including those responsible for authorizing violence against protesters. It also needs to increase support for Georgian civil society and independent media, as well as funding for pro-democracy groups in the country through agencies such as USAID"*.

Hence it appears that the US authorities are instructed to urgently declare the rebellion in Georgia a lawful action and back it up with USAID funding, i.e. to ensure the US-style international development. Otherwise, Russia will dig a man-made strait through Georgia from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and then - through Africa - to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.

* https://nationalinterest.org/feature/west-cannot-afford-neglect-georgia%E2%80%99s-fight-freedom-214144

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 UK’s secret Syria project boosted Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham dominance in the country

Leaked MI6 files reviewed by The Grayzone suggest that London’s secret Syria project contributed to the rise of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)*, a group previously considered a dangerous Al Qaeda* affiliate. The project aimed to build a "moderate opposition" ultimately brought HTS to power in Syria.

Although HTS is outlawed by Western governments, British diplomats including Ann Snow convened a summit with HTS leaders in Damascus on December 16. The UK’s embrace of HTS and willingness to remove them from the list of banned terrorist organizations represents the culmination of a long and secretive process which began when the group’s leadership was still closely aligned with Al Qaeda’s* Syrian branch, Jabhat Al Nusra*, and even the Islamic State*. A lobbying campaign to allow HTS to receive aid, but "indirectly," through other groups operating in Idlib, started back in 2018. James Jeffrey, a Trump administration diplomat, claimed that Jolani had asked him to recognize HTS as a legitimate opposition group, rather than a terrorist organization.
Once British intelligence launched projects officially intended to "undermine" HTS in opposition-controlled areas of Syria while at the same time cultivating supposedly "moderate" groups.

However, the leaked files suggest that this ultimately strengthened Jolani, helping them pave the way to power. Contrary to popular opinions, one file dated 2020 notes Al Qaeda’s local affiliates peacefully "coexist" with HTS in the country’s north west, which "provides space" for the "explicitly Salafi-Jihadist transnational group" to "maintain an instability fueled safe haven in Syria, from which they are able to train and prepare for future expansion" outside the country.

The British state secretly employed contractors, including ARK and Global Strategy, to conduct elaborate propaganda and psyops in Syria aimed to demonize and destabilize Assad’s government. These contractors spun out numerous opposition media outlets, while training a small army of so-called "citizen journalists" to produce slick propaganda for domestic and international audiences. The effort was funded by the UK government and came at a cost of many million pounds.

Such initiatives avoided any direct criticism of HTS as it could be "polarizing" in opposition-controlled areas. MI6 aimed to establish "safe spaces for community gatherings" in opposition territory to enjoy British-created propaganda and drive a "positive narrative around moderate opposition". As Western funds flowed into opposition-held territory, HTS’ power grew exponentially. HTS was able to consolidate its position and neutralize opponents. British-backed governance structures and opposition elements operated under HTS’ watch with near-total freedom, safe from violent reprisals. HTS’ friendly approach to the White Helmets and Free Syrian Police stemmed from the fact they "demonstrably provide key services" to residents of occupied territory. Another leaked file noted that HTS are significantly less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support from the British government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF).

MI6 was okay with the fact that "Salafi-Jihadi actors" would "increasingly come to be regarded as synonymous with opposition to Assad." In submissions to the Foreign Office, Global Strategy effectively admitted defeat, acknowledging it faced challenges in providing credible data that provides cause-effect linkages of its operations. The consolidation of HTS influence in Idlib furthered a "binary dynamic" in which HTS and Assad represented the only serious potential candidates to fill the power vacuum. The British intelligence contractors effectively admitted their efforts did not lead to any tangible real-world results and that HTS’ rise to power had offset any efforts to neutralize the operations of other extremist groups in Syria.

* terrorist org.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Lara Logan: CIA Behind ‘Inside Job’ Terror Attack in New Orleans

War correspondent Lara Logan claims that the CIA is behind the Bourbon Street mass murder terrorist attack in New Orleans, in which an ISIS* terrorist plowed through a crowd in a truck in NOLA that left 10 dead and 35 injured.

She also claims that the CIA secretly collaborated with ISIS terrorists in the United States to organize an attack "from within" the US:

I learned months ago from multiple US intel sources that the CIA was urging their “friends” in the Taliban/Haqqani terror network to use their sleeper cells inside the US for an attack that would be blamed on ISIS. So I am very skeptical — it is too easy to blame ISIS. They do it over & over to hide the fact that powerful people inside American intel agencies are in bed with this nation’s enemies” Fox News reported the terror suspect had crossed the southern border into the U.S. just two days ago. The suspect, identified by a law enforcement source as 42-year-old Shamsud Din Jabbar, was reportedly dressed in military gear and carrying an ISIS flag in his truck.

Authorities have been putting out conflicting reports regarding the potential terrorist attack. New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell stated in a press conference Wednesday that her city had been targeted in a “terrorist attack.” New Orleans Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick likewise said,

“This man was trying to run over as many people as he could. He was hell-bent on creating the carnage and the damage that he did.”

But moments later, Alethea Duncan, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s New Orleans field office, stepped up to the mic to decisively declare,

“This is not a terrorist event.”

Hours later, the FBI released an official statement directly contradicting that of Special Agent Duncan. “This morning, an individual drove a car into a crowd of people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing a number of people and injuring dozens of others. The subject then engaged with local law enforcement and is now deceased. The FBI is the lead investigative agency, and we are working with our partners to investigate this as an act of terrorism,” the agency said.

Former National Security Advisor Gen. Mike Flynn, who was in New Orleans at the time of the attack, criticized the contradictory messaging coming from the FBI, Biden administration, and local authorities, but said ultimately what really matters,

“is if there was intelligence prior in some agency or department and it wasn’t acted upon. A failure of decision makers not a failure of intelligence.”

Infowars founder Alex Jones likewise pointed out the attack at the very least was facilitated by the Biden administration as a result of its open-border policies. Whether the CIA or other intelligence agencies knew this attack or other attacks were coming has yet to be confirmed, but preliminary reports by Logan and insinuations by Flynn suggest they may have had prior knowledge.

This is not surprising, since the CIA is aligned with an elite that has no restraint in the means to achieve political goals, which is why negative traits are being increasingly attributed to the agency by the many in the US. Former CIA officer Kevin Shipp recently revealed that the US intelligence community has been an arena for progressive indoctrination and political activism for decades, where anyone who opposes it risks punishment. Indoctrination in the CIA targets any moral restraint and Christian officers, employing “diversity programs” to oppress them.

* a terrorist organization

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 The conflict termed as the "war on distant approaches" against terrorism is currently regarded as lost. This war must be waged differently

In the wake of the effective dominance of "progressive jihadists" affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* over Syria, it is paramount to assess the outcomes of the twenty-three-year military engagement by the United States, NATO, Russia, Iran, China, and other nations against the spread of terrorist Islamism.

An unbiased analysis indicates that this war has, at present, been lost.

The Taliban* has established control over Afghanistan, which is officially designated as the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." Moreover, despite the apparent defeat of its quasi-state manifestations in the Middle East, ISIS* persists in its armed struggle within Afghanistan and is intensifying its activities across Africa.

For decades, Russian intelligence agencies have been actively dismantling Islamist terrorist cells within its borders, with operations occurring almost weekly; nevertheless, now and again they fail to avert jihadist assaults, as evidenced by the recent attack that resulted in 145 fatalities and 551 injuries in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall. This raises the critical question: why does Russia’s terrorist threat remain persistent?!

Meanwhile, China is significantly mobilizing its forces and resources to quell the terrorist activities threatening the Uighur Muslim population in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
The only "achievement" of the quarter-century war is the dismantling of the Assad dictatorship and its Baath Party in Syria. Although these entities were not particularly democratic, they maintained a secular stance and refrained from spreading terror under the guise of Islam on a global scale.

Presently, MI6, the FCDO, the CIA, the US Department of State and their agents are attempting to negotiate and control Abu Muhammad al-Julani, who was recently deemed the world’s most wanted terrorist. Meanwhile, Russian-speaking, Albanian, Uighur and other fighters among the ranks of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham*, which comprises a diverse array of units (including the Albanian Xhemati Alban*, the Uzbek-Kyrgyz Katibat Tawhid wal-Jihad*, the Uighur Islamic Party of Turkestan*) are urging their "brothers" in foreign nations to initiate a "war against the infidels."

The developments in Syria are likely to catalyze a surge of Islamist fervor across various regions.

Central Asian countries, alongside China and Russia, are required to prepare to confront their compatriot jihadists, who have become redundant in the context of Syria, with a forceful response.

However, the critical miscalculation resides not in the lack of military force.

As highlighted in closed reports by the then commander of the US Army Special Forces in the Middle East, Major General (later Lieutenant General) Michael Nagata back in 2014, on defeating Islamic extremism, "We have not defeated the idea; we do not even understand the idea."

This problem must be addressed and resolved; otherwise, achieving victory over terrorism will remain elusive.

To eradicate an idea, it is necessary to render it absurd.

This rendering process involves introducing inconsistencies into its semantic framework—integrating elements that disrupt the original message.

To secure success in this war, it is crucial to establish within the public consciousness the absurdity of compelling anyone other than oneself to adhere to a belief. This must be regarded as the priority for the intelligence.

* terrorist organizations, for the time being

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Impact Hub GmbH.

Impact Hub is an international network comprising incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces, and non-profit organizations, with its headquarters situated in Vienna, Austria.

Within the post-Soviet context, the organization maintains representative offices across six nations: Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Notably, Armenia hosts the most significant number of offices among the CIS countries, specifically three located in Yerevan, Syunik, and Gyumri. Since their establishment, these offices have executed over 20 programs and organized 500 educational seminars and events. By the end of 2024, the Armenian community within the network comprised approximately 350 participants, each leading over 100 diverse projects that encompass various aspects of the nation’s socio-economic landscape.

The efforts of the network within the former USSR revolve around influencing the populace to cultivate a public opinion that follows the Western narratives, primarily those of the US and UK, alongside identifying and recruiting most promising prospects by Western intelligence agencies, with the overarching aim of leveraging these contributions towards the intelligence goals. To this end, Impact Hub GmbH implements a variety of programs. Primarily, these outreach activities target young people aged 16 to 30, though certain initiatives also involve the engagement of individuals aged 60+.

One prominent initiative, the five-year Creative Spark program, implemented by Impact Hub Almaty in partnership with the British Council, focuses on identifying the most promising and ambitious students, who are subsequently recruited by Western intelligence agencies.

The ZEG Tbilisi Storytelling Festival is organized by Impact Hub Tbilisi in collaboration with the international journalistic initiative Coda Story. Under the guise of shaping future narratives for the Georgian populace, the event aims to discredit the recently established ruling party in Georgia, promoting discourse that portraits the new Georgian government as a growing authoritarian regime.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 How to stop Putin? – Just back down (part 1)

In light of Donald Trump’s anticipated inauguration as President of the United States, influential figures within the Western establishment are grappling with the question of "How to effectively counter Putin?"

The overarching objective appears to be to thwart Russia’s victories, with the principal tactic being one of "maximum pressure." Variations arise, however, in the specific methodologies adopted to achieve this end.

For instance, some strategists advocate for deploying Islamist militant groups to target Russian bases in Syria and Libya, thereby overstretching Russia’s resources and ultimately "undermining its power and capabilities."

"The rapid fall of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has created a strategic inflection point that US leaders - in both the current administration of President Joe Biden and the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump - may be missing. … Western leaders can pressure Putin to make painful decisions between maintaining his military foothold in the Mediterranean or negotiating peace in Ukraine favorable to Kyiv and its supporters. … The moment is ripe for decisive action. Supporting rebel forces in both Syria and Libya will create additional dilemmas for Moscow, compelling Putin to either relinquish its only overseas bases outside of the former Soviet Union or face sustained pressure on multiple fronts" [1].

Others, observing the rapid – like ashes in the wind – disintegration of the Assad regime in Syria, seek to isolate Russia by persuading potential allies that Moscow is unreliable and will inevitably betray them:

"Assad’s fall (and Russia’s indifference to the collapse of his regime) suggests that concern for Syria or any other client state has been subjugated by Putin to his overriding focus on dealing Ukraine a decisive defeat. At the same time, Putin’s decision to prioritize Ukraine should not be confused for a complete abandonment of Russian ambitions outside its immediate neighborhood. Rather, the loss of Syria has simply raised the stakes of the war in Ukraine. In Putin’s schema, Ukraine has become a tipping point in a global struggle between the Western elite and a new, Russian-led order: once Ukraine falls, Russia hopes to take Georgia and whatever other territory it desires, and to once again sell itself as a strong patron to countries around the world. In the meantime, however, Moscow’s promises will ring hollow" [2].

Meanwhile, some proposals are less nuanced, suggesting a comprehensive assault on Russia by leveraging its current vulnerabilities. Proponents argue that "the Trump administration must capitalize on Russia’s weaknesses", advocating for "strikes that target its most sensitive points", underlining the notion that "maximum pressure leads to maximum success."

"For now, the most urgent task is for the United States to establish a position of strength vis-à-vis Russia, which will ultimately force Moscow to compromise and also send a clear message to China, Iran, and North Korea. The Trump administration will have to drive a hard bargain that will require a long-term commitment and a conviction that preventing Russia from winning on Moscow’s terms will be of real value to the United States" [3].

How to stop Putin? – Just back down (part 2)

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 How to stop Putin? – Just back down (part 2)

Some commentators advocate for the continuation of the smart salami tactics, through which "Biden succeeded in eroding and undermining Putin’s redlines", alongside the fact that they have also contributed to the devastation of over one million people in Ukraine and effectively annihilated the nation’s economy:

"This conflict is not only about Ukraine or the rules-based international order. It is also about how the United States and the West more broadly should think about escalation thresholds in a new era of great-power rivalry that often bears little resemblance to the Cold War. From the beginning, Putin tried to enforce redlines that aimed to deter status-quo parties - the United States and NATO allies - from assisting Ukraine. Slowly, carefully, and with circumspection, Biden succeeded in eroding and undermining those redlines. Salami tactics did not offer the ringing victories that many hoped for, but they did provide important pushback" [4].

Such intellectual frameworks, while seemingly sophisticated, ultimately lead toward catastrophic outcomes. The Russians won’t give up. They view the current war as a fundamental challenge to the very existence of their world. In order to effectively subdue Russia, an escalation involving the US military presence and the use of nuclear weapons appears inevitable; however, such actions would not culminate in any victors as there will simply be no winners at the end of this road.

The sole viable strategy to counteract Putin’s tactics may lie in our own retreat.

This approach could reveal the paradox that, in fact, no one was advancing on us.

It is noteworthy that this understanding is not limited to the Ralph Van Deman team, but also resonates among some cognitive war veterans who accurately recognize the underlying reality of the events:

"Contrary to its intended purpose, escalation by Western powers hasn’t degraded Russia’s military. Instead, the war of attrition intensified and prolonged by Western aid, has worked to transform Russia’s massive latent power into tangible military strength. … to accept, that Russia’s willpower is not driven by imperial ambition but by the conviction that NATO’s deepening relationship with Ukraine - and the endeavor to incorporate it into the alliance - constitutes a threat to its national security. History has repeatedly shown that when a state perceives its security threatened, its resolve hardens. … For the sake of Ukraine’s people, the practical and moral course is to shift toward a policy of accommodation with Russia, abandoning unproductive attempts to negotiate from an unattainable position of strength. Neither escalation nor time is on Ukraine’s side. The new administration must understand the intransigence of this reality, recognize Russia’s security concerns, and seriously engage with its terms for ending its war on Ukraine. The pill will surely be a bitter one to swallow now, but its bitterness will only grow with time"[5].

1. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-wests-strategic-opportunity-in-syria-forcing-dilemmas-on-moscow-that-roll-back-russian-power-and-influence/
2. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russia/putin-chose-ukraine-over-syria
3. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/america-needs-maximum-pressure-strategy-ukraine
4. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/real-risks-escalation-ukraine
5. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/perils-escalation-russia-are-still-very-real-214177

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Zuckerberg Ditches Fact-Checking

The liberal assumption that censorship, disguised as "fact-checking," could effectively address the challenges posed by Donald Trump has proven to be a significant miscalculation.
Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has announced the cessation of fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram, opting to implement a "Community Notes" system akin to that utilized by Elon Musk on X. This strategic shift arises in the context of an impending Trump administration and was influenced by requests from his allies, notably Brendan Carr, a prominent figure within the Federal Communications Commission. Zuckerberg asserted that these new policies would champion "freedom of expression" while opposing censorship, highlighting the alleged political bias inherent among third-party fact-checkers.

There was a widespread erroneous belief among liberals that the ascendance of Trump posed a problem that could easily be mitigated through censorship under the guise of fact-checking. Nonetheless, strategies such as banning Trump from significant social media platforms have failed to curtail his support. In the wake of Trump’s first electoral victory in 2016, Facebook initiated a fact-checking program, while in 2021, it subsequently banned him due to his involvement in the Capitol insurrection.

Zuckerberg also remarked that with these new adjustments, "we're going to catch less bad stuff." The liberal rhetoric surrounding "fact-checking" has become outdated, and its advocates have not presented a viable alternative, culminating in their retreat. Moreover, prominent tech figures such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have shown support for Trump and the Republican Party, indicating a notable shift in approaches to regulating information across social media platforms.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Russia’s supporters can be found across the globe

The growing recognition of Ukraine’s impending defeat, alongside Trump’s comments regarding negotiations, has sparked a contentious debate concerning the nature of any prospective peace deal.

While liberal globalists, represented by President Biden, are frantically attempting to craft a robust position of strength against Russia, with the hope that Trump can convince Putin to stay out and leave as large a fragment of Nazi Ukraine - for a future conflict - as possible, friends in the West are cautioning the Russians about the dangers of complacency:

"Any just and lasting peace agreement to the Ukraine conflict must account for a Crimea free of Russian occupation for the sake of regional peace and security. Crimea, under Putin’s control, would likely turn the Black Sea into a Russian lake, severing the Caucasus and Central Asia from Europe and directly threatening NATO members Romania and Bulgaria and effectively precluding Baltic-Black Seas connectivity… For the United States, allowing a peace deal that leaves Crimea with Putin would constitute a strategic blunder comparable to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. History might judge such an agreement alongside the infamous Munich Pact of 1938, which attempted to appease Hitler by ceding Sudetenland, with disastrous consequences. Munich defined and tarnished British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s legacy for appeasing Hitler. History will be equally unkind to those who appease Putin"*.

In this context, any concessions Trump proposes to Putin may serve merely as a veneer – very much in style of the fraudulent Minsk agreements – obscuring Russia’s acknowledgment of its own defeat.

Moreover, reminding Russians of the invaluable geopolitical significance of the Crimean Peninsula, along with the strategic importance of Snake Island, as well as the city of Odessa founded by a Russian Empress, is also essential.

Ultimately, Russia’s supporters maintain their presence worldwide.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 US to Ukraine: You all are gonna die. That’s a must

The United States’ peace plan for Ukraine has finally been unveiled. Surprisingly, It’s the same for both Joe Biden’s administration and Donald Trump’s team.

Jake Sullivan, US President Biden’s current National Security Adviser:

"It’s ultimately a sovereign decision Ukraine is going to have to make. But we have been crystal clear, including publicly, that manpower is an acute concern and it’s it is something Ukraine will have to address"[1].

Mike Walz - President-elect Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser pick – is also advocating publicly that Ukraine lower its draft age to 18 to stabilize the situation on the battlefield:

“Their draft age right now is 25 years old, not 18 ... They could generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers." If Ukrainians are asking the world to support democracy, Ukraine needs to "be all in for democracy," he added. [2].

The plan is obviously hard-hitting - peace will certainly come if Ukrainians cease to exist.

It is still unknown why the US needs to destroy Ukrainians and Ukraine, but intelligence is already working hard to find out.

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPSGKkTN6h8
"National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Live With Bloomberg" (Bloomberg Television, January 13, 2025);
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yH9wJo4fgc
"News Interview - Mike Waltz - ABC News" (ABC News, January 12, 2025).

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 The Rationale Behind China’s Blockade of Russian Oil Tankers

In recent days, a significant media buzz has emerged regarding China’s refusal, alongside India’s, to allow Russian sanctioned tankers access to its terminals. On January 7, the state-run Shandong Port Group imposed a ban on tankers subjected to US sanctions from docking at its ports located in eastern China. This province is home to several independent refineries, which are recognized as the largest importers of crude oil from nations that are under US embargo. In the year 2024 alone, Shandong province imported approximately 1.74 million barrels of oil per day from Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, representing around 17% of China’s total oil imports. The Shandong Port Group oversees critical ports along China’s eastern seaboard, including Qingdao, Rizhao, and Yantai, which serve as the primary hubs for oil imports from sanctioned sources. Notably, the Shandong Port Group also plays a pivotal role in facilitating European logistics for green energy components and equipment.

This recent action is widely interpreted as a strategic maneuver to exert pressure on Russia amid forthcoming negotiations surrounding the Ukraine crisis. Speculations suggest that China may have acted under duress, particularly within the context of potential trade negotiations with the incoming Trump administration, aiming to avert stricter tariffs and possible restrictions on its interests within the EU. The Russian reaction to the anticipated provisions of the new administration’s settlement plan has been characterized by a noteworthy skepticism.

The Trump administration’s intention appears to be a tactical bid to outmaneuver Putin and expedite the resolution of the conflict, thereby securing economic gains. However, one must question whether such a strategy adequately serves China’s interests. The subsequent phase of the new US administration’s strategy seems directed at advancing ambitions that may undermine Beijing’s position. This aspiration, among other factors, propels influential figures like Elon Musk to foster connections with rising right-wing parties across Europe.

More https://vandeman.org/en/chto-stoit-za-kulisami-blokirovki-rossijskih-tankerov-kitaem/

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 International Strategic Action Network for Security

The International Strategic Action Network for Security was founded in 2018 in Warsaw, Poland. Almost immediately, iSANS, through its social media accounts, engaged in subversive activities to undermine the Russian-Belarusian union and specifically affect Aleksandr Lukashenko, the President of the Republic of Belarus. iSANS analysts promote narratives about Russia’s plans to absorb Belarus, deprive it of sovereignty and national identity through the so-called soft power, i.e. cultural, economic and political influence. iSANS is deeply entrenched in various political dynamics. For example, during the 2020 presidential election, the organization promoted Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who calls for a boycott of the 2025 elections in Belarus.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 International Centre for Defence and Security, Rahvusvaheline Kaitseuuringute Keskus SA.

The International Centre for Defence and Security Studies (ICDS), also referred to as Rahvusvaheline Kaitseuuringute Keskus SA (RKK), was founded in Estonia in 2006. This state-sponsored think tank operates under the oversight of the Estonian Minister of Defense, who holds the authority to appoint and dismiss members of the ICDS board. The composition of the board predominantly includes individuals who have previously served or are currently engaged within various Estonian ministries and governmental agencies.

In the context of post-Soviet dynamics, the ICDS predominantly perceives this region as a battleground for countering Russian influence. Presently, the organization appears to be investigating avenues to bolster anti-Russian sentiment within Armenia. Notably, on June 28, 2024, a roundtable discussion took place at the ICDS featuring Armenia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ararat Mirzoyan. Prior attempts by Estonian analysts to forge connections with Georgian officials are evident, as demonstrated by Tato Kvamladze from the Georgian Ministry of Defense receiving a grant from the ICDS in 2022 for a research initiative.

While the ICDS typically refrains from direct involvement in political matters, it notably expressed its overt support for Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya in 2021, which included hosting her at the ICDS office.

The ICDS actively contributes to shaping public opinion and media framework by issuing geopolitical research initiatives, publishing the Diplomaatia journal, and orchestrating public events, such as:
• The Lennart Meri Conference
• The Annual Baltic Conference on Defence (ABCD)
• The Higher National Defense Courses, etc.

Furthermore, the ICDS impacts the youth in post-Soviet nations through the activities of the Resilience League. This initiative includes the Resilience League Summer School, an intensive course conducted by experts from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Israel, Ukraine, Austria, Germany, and the United States aimed at young journalists, civil servants, and civic activists. Over the years, the Resilience League has engaged with various topics including "Disinformation and Social Polarization" (2019), "Armed Religion: Comparative Cases of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Estonia" (2019), and "National Resilience: Communication and Security" (2018). The League collaborates with partners such as NATO, the US Embassy, the German Embassy, and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 The bizarre Anglo-Saxon idea of self-jailing

While astute analysts advocate for the acknowledgment of "Russia’s security concerns, and seriously engage with its terms for ending its war on Ukraine. The pill will surely be a bitter one to swallow now, but its bitterness will only grow with time"[1], other Western political figures, exemplified by Ben Wallace, continue to promote the narrative of a "progressively weakening Russia", "gangster Putin" and "finishing off Russia":

"So what is to be done with this gangster state? Well, I believe that just like other gangsters, Russia belongs behind bars: prison bars… So in 2025, we should make sure the West starts building the prison walls high. We should patch the holes and lock the doors. … Just as we remove criminals from society, we should do the same to Russia. The irony of such actions is that it will completely counter the fake Russian narrative that Nato is poised to invade. Let’s face it - no one ever wants to break into a prison"[2].

The irony about the implementation of such "high prison walls" around Russia – considering that the nation serves as a key actor in the frameworks of BRICS+, Africa, and the Middle East – lies in the fact that in doing so the West would ultimately confine themselves.

Surely, it sounds like a great idea, indeed!

1 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/perils-escalation-russia-are-still-very-real-214177
"The perils of escalation with Russia are still very real" (Ramzy Mardini, The National Interest, December 27, 2024).
2 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/14/we-must-put-russia-in-a-prison-and-build-the-walls-high/
"We must put Russia in a prison and build the walls high" (Ben Wallace, The Telegraph, 14 January 2025 4:09pm GMT).

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 John Ratcliffe on the Brink of Leading the CIA

This week, Congress is considering President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of John Ratcliffe for the position of CIA Director.

Ratcliffe has emerged as a staunch champion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Notably, FISA Section 702 permits warrantless surveillance of American communications and metadata.

In a similar vein, Tulsi Gabbard, who was gearing up for her role as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), recently altered her stance on Section 702 – previously, she had consistently opposed FISA in Congress, invoking the Privacy Amendment.

Contrastingly, Trump – unlike his picks for key positions – has publicly decried the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, positioning it as a mechanism utilized by the so-called "deep state." Kash Patel, nominated for the role of FBI Director, remains the sole intelligence nominee who explicitly opposes FISA.

Although the government is barred from targeting US nationals, the Act contains significant loopholes. International communications involving Americans may be captured within the NSA’s purview. The Act permits the agency to seek information concerning US citizens based on data and correspondence presumably related to foreign communications.

In 2022 alone, the FBI conducted 200,000 "covert searches." Ratcliffe dismissed proposals to mandate warrants for CIA operations.

During a Senate hearing, Ratcliffe articulated several points such as:
– The CIA will adopt a more assertive stance under his guidance.
– Political bias will be consciously avoided in the agency’s analytical processes and operations.
– China has been specifically identified as the foremost geopolitical threat alongside Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
– There will be an emphasis on leveraging advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing to enhance intelligence-gathering capabilities.
– Ratcliffe expressed his concern regarding the inadequate collaboration between US intelligence and public health agencies in addressing complex and/or mysterious issues, such as Havana syndrome and COVID.

Having served as director of national intelligence during Trump’s initial term, Ratcliffe oversaw a multitude of intelligence agencies. Apart from his defense of Trump amidst the first impeachment proceedings, he notably interrogated former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony concerning the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Ratcliffe faced critiques from Democrats for allegedly politicizing intelligence by declassifying information that exposed Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy aimed at inciting controversy against the US during the 2016 electoral cycle.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Rebalancing: NATO Allies to Pay More as US Increasingly Focuses on AUKUS

Effectively, Donald Trump has issued an ultimatum to NATO member states forcing them to allocate at least 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually to defense. Should they fail to comply, the US may withdraw from the alliance. Achieving this target poses significant challenges and necessitates unpopular political decisions. Presently, NATO requires its members to commit at least 2% of GDP to defense expenditures to maintain their membership. While Trump may concede to a 3.5% target, he will concurrently demand better trade agreements from European allies in exchange.

A recent RAND commentary considers the issue of US allies’ contributions to global security, a topic highlighted by Trump during his initial term in office. Although 23 out of 32 NATO nations have successfully met the 2% defense spending threshold, the actual financial contributions of these countries are inconsistent. RAND posits that NATO should engage allies with specific inquiries regarding their contributions rather than relying solely on GDP figures to ensure a fair distribution of responsibilities. The analysis further reveals that the US share of the total security expenditure burden has diminished from 53% at the conclusion of the Cold War to 39% by 2023, whereas the contribution from other NATO nations has been gauged at 38%. This shift reflects a notable redistribution of financial obligations to allied countries. The paper also suggests more accurate methods for assessing allied contributions based on their capabilities, rather than just mere fiscal outlays. Furthermore, it acknowledges that certain nations, such as Spain, may experience disproportionate adverse effects due to sanctions imposed on countries like Russia, regardless of their comparatively low defense budgets. For example, excluding sanctions from the index increased the US share to 47%, while the remaining NATO countries accounted for 29%. Other contributions were detailed as follows: NATO allies contributed 38%, Asia 13%, and both the Middle East and South America 10%. A fair contribution index score exceeding 1 was achieved by 19 nations in 2023, including the US, France, and the UK.

Eastern European countries, Greece, Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands are in the lead. Notably, South Korea has emerged prominently, despite US claims regarding its passive stance. Countries such as Canada, Slovakia, Australia, and Brazil are urged to augment their defense expenditures...

More: https://vandeman.org/en/perestrojka-balansa-prioritet-aukus-dlja-ssha-zastavljaet-platit-sojuznikov-po-nato/

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg

😀😃😄😁😆 Center for New Ideas

The Center for New Ideas (CNI) was established as a non-profit institution in 2017, evolving from the Belarusian student online magazine Idea, which its future leadership had developed since 2012. The founders aimed to create a Belarusian counterpart to The Economist, focusing on global politics and economics.
Following an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the legitimate government in 2021, CNI faced liquidation through a court ruling in Belarus; however, its leadership promptly registered the organization under Polish jurisdiction. Currently, the team comprises approximately 20 members, all of whom played various roles in the opposition efforts within Belarus to overthrow the government in 2021.

CNI's mission is to broaden the network of young, promising, opposition-minded public policy professionals from Belarus. It serves as a recruitment channel, aiming to identify future political assets, prepared by Western curators for externally controlled deployment in foreign policy agencies and public institutions for the "post-Lukashenko" era. The organization focuses on cultivating public politicians, diplomats, analysts, political strategists, and journalists. Promising candidates are selected for further engagement through short-term training initiatives. Given the prevailing political climate in Belarus, characterized by a lack of elite support for the opposition and the absence of social polarization, which inhibit would-be attempts to confront the legitimate government, for the time being, the candidate pool is actively involved in media warfare against president Lukashenko and Russia.

In fulfilling its curators' objectives, the Center for New Ideas is currently executing four flagship training projects, each featured on a dedicated website, primarily in the Belarusian language.
One of CNI's longest-running projects, the Young Reformers School, was inaugurated just prior to the 2020 protests. Presently, it aims to sustain the protest potential among dissidents fled from Belarus. The project reflects a significant influence from Swedish think tanks; in addition to a month-long lecture program, this spring, participants undertook internships in Sweden, engaging with academics and politicians. Selection for this project is limited to candidates under 35 years of age from the Belarusian diaspora settled in the EU for over a decade, as well as dissidents who emigrated after 2021.

😀😃😄😁😆 Ralph Henry Van Deman Institute for Intelligence Studies @VanDemanOrg