Post-truth war propaganda.

From the horse's mouth ... NATO Chief Rutte:

"If you're sure it's the Russians or *almost sure*, then just pin it on the Russians, plain and simple. Just like Estonia did today."

Oleshky:
A Humanitarian Catastrophe Held Hostage by the Information War

💩 Guardian says fuel from South Korea's ports is reaching Russia aboard Western-sanctioned tankers, raising questions about Seoul’s backing for Ukraine amid public fallout over POWs.

But the most important detail is buried deep in the article:
"While the fuel trade involves vessels sanctioned by some of Seoul’s western partners, it does not appear to breach South Korean law."

South Korea to recall ambassador to Ukraine, one of the options it had been considering in the wake of a dispute between President Lee Jae Myung and Ukrainian President Zelensky over the disclosure of the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war to Seoul.

The news is full of stories about so-called "hybrid attacks" initiated by Russia. But if you look behind the headlines and do some research, you will find out that the vast majority of incidents can NOT be attributed to Russia. This is especially true for the biggest stories!

By LostinEU (X)

https://lostineu.substack.com/p/hybrid-war-its-the-russians-or-not

Slovak MEP Blaha asks, amid top Brussels politicians’ criticism of Russian elections:

“Will you set up a Euro-Gestapo here, Ms Kallas, and lock up all of us who want peace?"
“Ms Kallas, Ms von der Leyen, you may not have noticed, but Spain is out on the streets, France is out on the streets, and here you are dealing with Russian elections. You must be joking.

You criticize the Russians for holding elections, but you do not mind that Zelensky has been governing for a third year without any elections, without a mandate. You hypocrites.”

Peskov on Zelensky’s '40-day campaign' against Russia launched earlier this year:

'Now these '40 days' are coming back to HAUNT Kiev regime'

In today’s Guardian, Gaby Hinsliff warns that Russia, Iran and China are coming for us, and worries we may have to sacrifice our liberal principles and become a “securocracy” to ward off these Eastern malevolents.

Aside from a bit of hand-wringing, the column would sit comfortably in the Telegraph or the Daily Mail. It’s a classic example of the liberal press being used to prepare the public for war, and to justify the erosion of civil liberties at home.

The article is overflowing with inconsistencies and tropes.

US bombers have spent the summer flying from a British airbase to bomb Iran, and the Guardian tells us that Britain “wants no part in the war” but that “we cannot quite escape the consequences”.

Then the alleged plot against RAF Fairford, in which Burnham says there are “strong indications that Iran played a part”. None of these “indications”, of course, have been stated. I rather suspect Tehran has bigger fish to fry right now. But even if the allegation turned out to be true, the substantive point is that Britain is a potential target because of its participation in Trump’s criminal war. Stop that, and any threat disappears instantly.

The same goes for Russia. Britain has spent the last four and a half years as one of the most enthusiastic sponsors of the proxy war in Ukraine, and now feigns surprise that Moscow isn’t terribly favourably disposed to us. Again, stop the war and the threat disappears.

“Russia, Iran and China” are threats to Britain only to the extent that Britain has made them threats. Reviving a George W Bush-style “Axis of Evil” serves solely to justify the drive to war, the vast increase in military spending that Trump is demanding of his NATO vassals, and the erosion of civil liberties at home.

Hinsliff slips in a sentence or two warning against xenophobia, and reminds us that Jewish refugees were interned as “enemy aliens” in 1939. Well done – liberal consciences duly eased. But the whole thrust of the piece is to prepare the Guardian readership for a harsher, more paranoid, more militarised Britain. It accepts the war and the enemy list, and simply asks that the repression come with “safeguards”.

In summary, this is part of a wider attempt to reconcile liberalism with the rising tide of militarism and fascism.

@ agent_of_change (X)

🇺🇸🇺🇦🇷🇺 Don't Buy US-Ukraine "Tensions" (Again)

▪️Ukraine would not exist as it does today without the US overthrowing, then politically capturing Ukraine's government, military and intelligence agencies which the US continues to control to this day;

▪️Ukraine's continued ability to strike targets in Russia is WHOLLY the result of constant daily intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance provided by the United States along with money, weapons, equipment, ammunition, and drones provided to Ukraine by the US itself;

▪️Every strike by Ukraine is thus a strike by the US. Just like with Israel, the US often plays games of public disapproval of actions it doesn't want political ownership of, but actions that couldn't take place without complete and constant US support;

▪️The fact that US-Ukrainian tensions or US-Israeli or US-EU tensions are so emotionally appealing to so many people makes this sort of theater that much more effective no matter how irrational and impossible it is in material reality;

▪️The notion of the US demanding "new leadership" for Ukraine in Kiev when Ukraine is run by Washington is elementary perception management - if Zelensky was never really in charge of anything, what difference does it make replacing him - except in terms of political narratives, plausible deniability, blame-passing etc.?

▪️As long as people keep falling for it though, the US will continue getting away with it, and buying time and space for its wars and proxy wars while doing so;

Tulsi Gabbard warns against the intense war propaganda "to pull the US military into a direct conflict with Russia, which is ultimately what the EU and NATO want".

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦 Regarding US Threats to Cut Intel to Ukraine & Make Deals with Russia... (and for those living in counties blocking Sputnik)

I was recently interviewed by Sputnik who asked about these topics and published parts of my answers. Below are the full questions/answers...

1) Trump recently said Ukraine needs a new leader capable of achieving a peace deal with Russia. Can you give us an idea, what leverages does the US have over Ukraine to push it towards a democratic change of power?

Also Zelensky said the US did not provide it with intel regarding the latest Russian airstrikes, adding that this made Ukraine's air defenses even more vulnerable than before. 

Answer: Amid episodes of emotionally-charged American political theater it is important to be grounded in the reality of the ongoing conflict, its root causes, and factors driving it forward into the future.

The ongoing war in Ukraine is wholly a US proxy war against Russia. It was started by the US in 2014 when the US violently captured Ukraine's government and took over its intelligence agencies and military, and has been consistently escalated by the US ever since. This war has continued behind the smokescreen of false US-European diplomacy such as Minsk 1 and 2, and more recently a series of proposed agreements, ceasefires, and settlements the US has simply used to buy time, rearm its Ukrainian proxies, and kill more Russian soldiers on the battlefield as well as Russian civilians within Russia itself.

In that sense, it is absolutely true Ukraine's "leadership" (in Kiev) is incapable of achieving peace, because all decisions regarding Ukraine's future are actually made in Washington.

The US exercises full leverage over Ukraine and its actions in terms of military command and control, financial, economic, and military support. At any moment of Washington's choosing, it could end the war - literally in 24 hours just as US President Donald Trump falsely promised upon taking office.

However, it has no intention of doing so.

Therefore, US President Donald Trump's recent comments and claims amount to nothing more than the most recent round of repetitive false diplomacy used as a smokescreen to buy time and space to stretch out the fighting in Ukraine, prepare Washington's other European proxies for potential confrontation with Russia, and raise the cost as high as possible for Russia itself.

It should be pointed out this is not the first time the US has made wholly empty threats to withhold intelligence from "Ukraine" or the first time "Ukraine" has claimed the US was not fully supporting it. Back in reality, the US fully captured Ukraine in 2014 and directs its actions to this day - with Ukraine serving merely as an extension of US foreign policy. Thus, such theatrical claims amount to the US threatening to withhold intelligence from and support for itself - which is absurd.

2) In your opinion, why did the US suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine?

Answer: It is almost a certainty that the US has not suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Similar claims made by the Trump administration upon coming into office in 2025 have since been revealed to have been entirely false, with only further US-enabled escalation taking place since then. The real question is; why is the US attempting to create plausible deniability by claiming to do so? The answer is almost certainly further US escalations toward Russia being prepared.

3) Will this force Ukraine to make concessions?

Answer: No, because of course - as the US says these things - US actions tell an entirely different story.

Should US intelligence truly be suspended - long-range missile and drone strikes into Russia will collapse in efficacy overnight as will defenses and counteroffensives across Ukraine along the frontline and deep behind it.