Archives: Articles

By Dr Maisa Al Masri 

“This is a message to the entire Middle East,” Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said after the Israeli airstrike that targeted Hamas leaders in the heart of Qatar’s capital, Doha.

Ohana’s statement is more than a reaction to a military operation—it is a declared strategic message, signaling to the region, and primarily the Gulf, that Israel, partnered with Washington, now controls the decision-making process in the Middle East.

His remarks are an explicit and direct threat, reflective of the new deterrence doctrine adopted by Tel Aviv: no red lines, no geographic immunity, and no Western allies beyond Israeli dictates. In simple terms, anyone who disagrees with Israel becomes a legitimate target—even in the heart of a friendly capital that hosts the largest American military base.

This leads to a dangerous conclusion: Israel no longer sees the Gulf states as partners in stability but, rather, as “open arenas for fiery messages.” Washington is not only silent but complicit, mocking the Arabs.

Naked Dominance

The Israeli attack in the Gulf marks the beginning of a new era of naked dominance. This was not a traditional security operation, but a pivotal turning point in the rules of regional engagement—one that publicly embarrassed Qatar both on the Arab stage and internationally.

Israel has now placed itself in a new circle—no longer concealing its intentions—where bombing and military strikes erase distinctions between political geography and the theater of operations. More dangerously, the heart of the Gulf is exposed to Tel Aviv’s fire. Who can challenge it?

The strike was not an intelligence leak or a covert operation, but a direct airstrike in an area teeming with embassies, schools, and residential neighborhoods, in a country that is both a major Washington ally and a pillar of American security in the Middle East.

The message is clear: No one is above attack—no state, no sovereignty, no partnership.

The US administration, led by Donald Trump, issued a series of conflicting statements regarding its prior knowledge of the operation. Whether it knew and supported it, knew and remained silent, knew too late, or did not know at all, the outcome remains the same: American cover withdrawn, Gulf confidence eroded, billions lost. The US Embassy in Doha merely urged caution for American citizens, while the White House oscillated between “regret over the location” and “understanding the goal of eliminating terrorism.”

Contrary to appearances, Gulf capitals received the opposite message: Your security is not a priority, and your sovereignty does not guarantee a clear position from Washington. The key questions now: Why Qatar? Why now? Why strike Qatar and not Turkey, or Iran? The Hamas leaders were fresh from Istanbul, suggesting Tel Aviv’s choice of target was far from arbitrary.

Tel Aviv did not strike Istanbul, despite the leaders’ recent presence, indicating a deep political calculation. Turkey, with its military, political, and international complexity, is no playground for Israeli aggression; there are red lines even Tel Aviv won’t cross. The risk of Turkish military response, internal upheaval during an election season, and delicate NATO dynamics rendered Turkey “operationally closed” even to Israel’s most radical decision-makers. But when the targets left Istanbul for Doha, the calculus shifted.

Qatar and Arab Grey Zones

In Israeli security minds, Qatar—like other threatened Arab states—is merely an intermediate grey area: not neutral, not quite an enemy, a potentially shocking target at low cost. Arab decision-makers must recognize this.

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, Qatar is juggling contradictory roles, managing mediation, funding aid, and hosting parties that anger Israel—without any real deterrent umbrella. No international consideration could prevent a surgical strike executed within hours. Simply hosting an American base does not immunize Doha; indeed, it may even tempt Tel Aviv, proving that regional decision-making is no longer Washington’s alone but Tel Aviv’s as well.

Israel needed a platform to deliver its biggest message since the Gaza war. In the silence of its strongest ally, it chose the weakest link.

Let’s pause on Ohana’s statement: “a message to the Middle East.” This is no slip of the tongue but a strategic doctrine for future decisions. Israel is telling every country in the region: whoever harbors Hamas, or even engages in dialogue, could be next.

If the Arab states fail to take a firm political stand, the Doha precedent will echo elsewhere. It may not be Hamas mediation at issue, but the concepts of neutrality, balance, and dialogue with parties disapproved of by Tel Aviv, which could become sufficient cause for attack—a punishment policy.

Existential Questions for Arab Capitals

This moment poses existential questions: If Qatar—Washington’s closest Gulf partner—is bombed in broad daylight, after Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, should other capitals await their turn? Iraq? Riyadh? Abu Dhabi? Kuwait? Does the American umbrella truly protect, or only when interests align with Israel?

What is the point of hosting American bases if they do not prevent airspace violations?

The Doha event pushes the region to a crossroads: continue the status quo of dependency and mediation, attempt the unlikely feat of building independent air defenses, or seek alternative alliances (Ankara, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran?) and establish red lines Tel Aviv cannot cross.

Now Qatar faces difficult choices: Will it withdraw from Hamas mediation? Demand real security guarantees? Move toward symbolic deterrence or unconventional partnerships? Or pay the price of protection yet again?

Beware: A war of wills has begun. The Israeli airstrike in Doha was not just a blow to Hamas but a direct attack on Gulf sovereignty and regional prestige, undermining international law and the alleged strategic partnership with America.

This is the dawn of a new era, where Israel and Washington declare that regional security is no longer an Arab decision. The question remains: Will the Arabs awaken before Ohana’s message reaches other capitals?

Perhaps.

Dr Maisa Al Masri is a political writer based in Amman, Jordan.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It’s all part of a stratagem, bleak and brutal.  With Palestinian recognition being promised by France, the UK, Canada and Australia at the 80^th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli aggression is becoming more brazen and panicked.  Time must be bought on one vital front: creating a Greater Israel, involving the annexation of Gaza and extinguishing, as far as possible, the power of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.  What follows from this is the termination of Palestinian statehood altogether, including its political representatives. 

Israel’s efforts have, for that purpose, focused on killing Hamas militants at enormous cost to Palestinian civilians while also attempting to eradicate the diplomatic presence of the organisation.  The attack on a building in Doha, Qatar on September 9 was a case in point.  The intention of the attack by the IDF, involving 15 Israeli fighter jets and an unspecified number of drones, was killing senior Hamas officials involved in discussing a ceasefire proposal advanced by US President Donald Trump.  Were it to be accepted, that proposal would see the release of all Israeli hostages (dead and alive) in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, followed by a ceasefire of 60 days duration and ongoing negotiations towards an agreement concluding the war.  Qatar had been putting pressure on Hamas to accept the proposal.

While Hamas personnel were killed, such senior negotiators as Khalil al-Hayya (who lost his son), Zaher Jabarin, and Khaled Mashal, were spared.  Seven perished in the strike, with Qatar losing two security officers.  Yet again, Israel’s military action demonstrated a reading of international law that tilts towards anarchical self-assurance, indifferent to any sovereignty that is not its own.  As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasoned, Qatar was hosting terrorists. “I say to Qatar and all nations who harbour terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice.  Because you don’t, we will.”

Israeli officials, in keeping with an established, somewhat jaundiced view of international relations, advanced a novel, unhinged reading of the attack on Qatari soil.  Israeli Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, offered his dash of drivel by suggesting that this would “actually advance the efforts for a ceasefire and peace.”  And as for the Hamas leaders, “if we didn’t get them this time, we’ll get them the next time.”

A condemnation of Netanyahu’s comments followed from Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which described them as a “shameful attempt … to justify the cowardly attack that targeted Qatari territory, as well as the explicit threats of future violations of state sovereignty.”

Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, undoubtedly stung that his country’s modernised military had failed to protect the capital, drew the obvious conclusion.  The strike had been motivated by Israel’s desire to eliminate “any chance of peace” in Gaza, and effectively sealed the fate of the Israeli hostages still being held in the Strip.  “Everything in the meeting is very well known to the Israelis and the Americans.  It’s not something that we are hiding.”

He also demanded some “collective response” to the attack.  “There is a response that will happen from the region.  This response is currently under consultation and discussion with other partners in the region,” he explained to CNN.  What that will look like is by no means clear, given the temperamental nature of relations between the various Gulf states.  Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reports that a legal committee is being pooled to consider “all legal avenues to have Netanyahu tried for breaking international law.”

Even Israel’s least conditional sponsor felt that things had gone too far. “I’m not thrilled by it,” stated Trump as he arrived at a restaurant in Washington.  “It’s not a good situation but I will say this: We want the hostages back, but we’re not thrilled about the way it went down today.”  He went further, saying he was “very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect.”  The President had every reason to harbour such sentiments, given the value of US-Qatar relations and the hosting of US forces at Al-Udeid, the largest US airbase in the Middle East.  If Doha can be attacked with impunity, an American military presence becomes less impressive.  This was a point Iran’s state-run Press TV found too delicious to avoid.  “Did you know,” went the network’s post on X, “that Qatar hosts one of the US’s biggest military bases in the Persian Gulf, with many air defense systems present, yet none of the American THAAD systems fired a single shot to defend Qatar against the Israel invasion?”

The Israeli PM’s list of legal woes is further reason time is being bought.  Israel’s strikes across the Middle East this year have been efforts to keep war in the spotlight, peace suspended, and Netanyahu out of jail.  The war in Gaza, the attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities or the targeting of Syria, have all become matters of personal self-interest and prolongation. Were there a serious risk of pacific calm breaking out, if only momentarily, Netanyahu would have to face something he fails to take seriously: the force of the law.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Pon.Chandran

What is the ideological background of Ibrahim Traore, the Head of Burkina Faso, the African Country?

Ibrahim Traoré’s ideological background is characterized by a mix of nationalism, pan-Africanism, and anti-imperialist views. He is a strong verbal opponent of neocolonialism and Western domination, and has worked to increase Burkina Faso’s economic self-sufficiency, notably through the nationalization of gold mines.

During his time as a student at the University of Ouagadougou, he was a member of the Marxist National Association of Students of Burkina Faso (ANEB). He is often compared to Thomas Sankara, a former revolutionary leader of the country, due to his similar anti-imperialist stance, military background, and focus on national self-determination.

What are the policies which he implemented since he assumed the Power?

Since assuming power, Ibrahim Traoré has implemented a number of policies that reflect his nationalist, anti-imperialist, and pan-Africanist ideology. These policies can be broadly categorized into economic, foreign, and domestic/security initiatives.

Economic Policies:

• Economic Self-Reliance: Traoré’s government has focused on achieving economic independence and reducing reliance on foreign aid and institutions. This includes rejecting loans from organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
• Natiolnalization of Gold Mines: A cornerstone of his economic policy has been the nationalization of gold mines.The government has taken control of the country’s gold mining industry, which is a key economic sector. This move is aimed at ensuring that the profits from Burkina Faso’s natural resources benefit its own people and are used to fund national development projects, such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Debt Repayment: Traoré’s government has announced that it has cleared Burkina Faso’s external debt, attributing this to sound financial management and increased earnings from resources like gold.
• Agricultural Development: The government has prioritized agricultural sovereignty, with efforts to boost production through the distribution of tractors, farming equipment, and improved seeds. This has reportedly led to increased yields in crops like tomatoes, millet, and rice.
• Industrialization: Traoré has also supported the development of local industries, including the establishment of new processing plants for tomatoes and cotton.

Foreign and Diplomatic Policies:

• Distancing from France and the West: Traoré has taken a strong stance against former colonial power France. His government has expelled French troops and ended military cooperation agreements with France. French media outlets have also been suspended. This is a clear move to break away from what he and his supporters view as neocolonial influence.
• Strengthening Ties with Russia and Other Nations: In line with his anti-Western position, Traoré has cultivated closer relationships with other countries, particularly Russia. He has referred to Russia as a “strategic ally” and has sought arms and military training from Moscow to assist in the fight against insurgents. He has also explored diplomatic contacts with other countries like Iran and Venezuela.
• Alliance of Sahel States (AES): Burkina Faso, along with neighboring Mali and Niger (both also under military rule), has formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). This alliance is a “collective defense and mutual assistance” pact aimed at addressing security challenges in the region and countering pressure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Domestic and Security Policies:

• Security Focus: Traoré came to power on the promise of improving the security situation and fighting a persistent jihadist insurgency. His government has adopted a military-first approach, rejecting negotiations with militants.
• “Homeland Defense Volunteers” (VDP): The government has massively expanded the recruitment of state-backed civilian militias known as the Volunteers for the Defense of the Homeland (VDP) to assist the military in counter-insurgency operations.
• Authoritarian Consolidation: Critics have noted an increase in pro-government propaganda and a crackdown on dissent. Traoré’s government has been accused of human rights abuses and has taken steps to consolidate power, including extending his mandate for an additional five years, while also allowing him to contest the next presidential elections.
• Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation: The government has introduced a law that criminalizes homosexuality, with punishments including prison sentences and fines. This move is presented as a measure to protect “cultural values.”

He is being eulogised a s Che of Africa. How appropriate it is?

The comparison of Ibrahim Traoré to Che Guevara is a powerful and popular one, particularly among young people in Africa and the African diaspora. It’s a symbolic title that reflects a certain set of beliefs and aspirations. However, its appropriateness is a complex issue, with both strong arguments in its favor and significant counter-arguments.

Arguments for the Comparison

Those who refer to Traoré as the “Che of Africa” often point to a series of parallels and shared ideological ground:

• Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Neocolonial Stance: Like Guevara, who fought against U.S. imperialism in Latin America, Traoré has positioned himself as a fierce opponent of Western, and particularly French, influence in Africa. He has expelled French troops, suspended French media outlets, and openly criticized neocolonial systems, a stance that resonates deeply across the continent.
• Nationalism and Self-Reliance: Guevara was a key figure in the Cuban Revolution’s push for self-sufficiency and socialist development. Similarly, Traoré’s policies—such as the nationalization of gold mines, rejection of IMF loans, and focus on agricultural and industrial self-reliance—are seen as direct and practical steps to reclaim national sovereignty and economic destiny.
• Youthful, Charismatic, and Revolutionary Image: Both figures came to power at a young age and cultivated a charismatic image. Traoré’s simple military attire and direct, unscripted speeches project an image of an authentic, no-nonsense leader dedicated to his people, much like the iconic image of Guevara. This populist appeal has made him a hero for many young Africans who are disillusioned with traditional, often corrupt, political elites.
• Emphasis on Military Action and Counter-Insurgency: Both Guevara and Traoré are military leaders who rose through the ranks in armed conflict. Traoré’s main stated goal is to defeat the jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso, a fight he has framed as a revolutionary struggle for the nation’s survival and a rejection of Western military partnerships that he sees as ineffective.

Counter-Arguments and Criticisms

While the “Che” label has powerful symbolic resonance, critics argue that it is an oversimplification and, in some ways, misleading:

• Authoritarianism and Human Rights Concerns: A significant criticism is that the comparison overlooks Traoré’s authoritarian methods. Critics, including human rights organizations, point to a crackdown on dissent, suppression of free speech, and alleged human rights abuses by his forces, including extrajudicial killings. Guevara’s own record on human rights during the Cuban Revolution is also a subject of historical debate and criticism.
• Lack of a Clear, Developed Ideology: While Traoré has a clear anti-Western stance, his ideology is not as comprehensively defined or as deeply rooted in a specific political philosophy as Guevara’s Marxism. Traoré’s policies are often described as more pragmatic and nationalist than strictly socialist or communist, and his alliances with countries like Russia are seen by some as a shift from one foreign power to another, rather than a true break from external influence.
• Fragile Security Situation: The most significant and concrete criticism is that Traoré’s government has so far failed to deliver on its primary promise: to improve security. Despite his military background and a massive recruitment of civilian militias, the jihadist insurgency has reportedly worsened in some areas since he took power.The government controls less than half of the country, and the number of internally displaced people continues to grow. This stands in contrast to the relative success of the Cuban Revolution in consolidating power.
• Consolidation of Power, Not Revolution: Some observers argue that Traoré’s actions, such as extending his mandate for five years without elections, are less about a popular revolution and more about the consolidation of personal power. The focus on a single, charismatic leader can undermine the development of strong, democratic institutions, a pattern that has often led to instability in post-colonial Africa.

In conclusion, the appropriateness of the “Che of Africa” title depends on the perspective. For his supporters and many young Africans, the label is a powerful symbol of defiance, patriotism, and the hope for a new, self-reliant Africa free from foreign domination. They see him as a bold leader willing to challenge the status quo. However, from a critical standpoint, the comparison is problematic because it glosses over his authoritarian tendencies, the worsening security situation, and the potential for his government to become another in a long line of military regimes that have failed to bring lasting stability and democracy to the continent.

Being an ardent Muslim himself, what are his visions about the Polity of the Islamic world?

Ibrahim Traoré’s vision and policies regarding the Islamic world and the broader polity are not defined by a narrow, religious-centric agenda, but are instead deeply integrated into his overarching nationalist and pan-Africanist ideology.While he is a Muslim himself, his public statements and actions suggest that his priority is the unity and sovereignty of Burkina Faso and Africa, rather than the promotion of a specific Islamic political project.

Here are some key aspects of his approach:

• Religious Unity as a National Security Imperative: Traoré has consistently emphasized the importance of inter-religious harmony, particularly between Muslims and Christians, who make up the two largest religious groups in Burkina Faso. He has publicly warned that religious division is a tool of “the West” and colonial powers to weaken and destabilize African nations. He has made it clear that those who try to sow discord along religious lines will face harsh punishment. This stance is a direct response to the jihadist insurgency, which often targets Christians and seeks to incite religious conflict.
• Rejection of Foreign Religious Influence: A notable example of his policy is his government’s rejection of a proposal from Saudi Arabia to fund the construction of 200 mosques in Burkina Faso. Traoré stated that the country already had a sufficient number of mosques and that the funds would be better spent on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This decision highlights his focus on national development and self-reliance over accepting foreign aid, even if it comes in a religious context. It also suggests a resistance to the influence of specific strains of Islam that may be promoted by foreign powers.
• Pragmatic Alliances over Ideological ones: While he has cultivated closer ties with Russia, Iran, and other nations, his alliances appear to be based on pragmatic interests, primarily for security and economic assistance, rather than a shared Islamic vision. His public remarks and diplomatic engagements focus on strategic cooperation and mutual benefit, not on building a “Muslim bloc.”
• Anti-Imperialism as a Core Principle: His anti-imperialist stance is the central pillar of his foreign policy, which he sees as a shared struggle for all African nations, regardless of their religious makeup. He views the fight against Western exploitation and the quest for African sovereignty as a common cause that transcends religious boundaries. This is evident in his efforts to build the Alliance of Sahel States with Mali and Niger, both of which are also under military rule and share his anti-Western outlook.
• Focus on Internal Stability and Counter-Terrorism: The primary goal of Traoré’s government is to defeat the jihadist insurgency, which is composed of extremist groups that claim to be acting in the name of Islam but are widely condemned by Burkinabé society. His policies, such as the recruitment of civilian militias and a no-negotiation policy with militants, are driven by a security-first agenda to restore state control over the country.

In summary, Ibrahim Traoré’s “vision for the polity of the Islamic world” is not about a specific religious or political project. Instead, it is a vision of a sovereign, united, and self-sufficient Africa where religious differences are not exploited for division. His policies, including the rejection of foreign-funded mosques and the focus on inter-religious harmony, underscore his belief that national strength and stability come from unity and independence, not from external religious or political agendas.

It is rumoured that Ibrahim Traore would face the fate ofGadafi of Lebanon or Saddam Hussain of Iraq very soon by the Western Powers?

The rumors and speculation that Ibrahim Traoré could face a fate similar to Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein are part of a broader discourse surrounding his rise to power and his strong anti-Western stance. This perspective is not based on concrete, verified plans by Western powers, but rather on a historical pattern of Western intervention in countries whose leaders challenge their interests.

Here’s a breakdown of the arguments and context surrounding this rumor:

The Basis for the Rumors

• Anti-Western Rhetoric and Actions: Traoré has been highly vocal in his criticism of France and other Western powers. He has expelled French military forces, ended a key military pact with France, and has actively sought new partners, most notably Russia. This public and decisive break from a traditional Western ally is seen as a direct challenge to the geopolitical order in the Sahel, a region of significant strategic interest for countries like France and the United States.
• Nationalization of Resources: Like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, Traoré has taken steps to assert national control over key resources, particularly the gold mining industry. This policy of “resource nationalism” is often viewed by Western powers and multinational corporations as a threat to their economic interests. The nationalization of assets can create a direct conflict with powerful business and political lobbies.
• Parallels to Gaddafi: The comparison to Gaddafi is particularly potent. Gaddafi was a pan-Africanist who also sought to create a unified African currency (the gold dinar) and challenged the Western-dominated financial system.He was ultimately overthrown and killed in a NATO-backed intervention. Supporters of Traoré see his actions as a modern-day continuation of this pan-Africanist struggle, and they fear that the West will not tolerate a similar challenge to its influence.
• The “Saddam Hussein” Analogy: The comparison to Saddam Hussein is more about the pretext for intervention. Saddam was demonized by the West and his regime was ultimately toppled based on controversial claims of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The argument is that if the West felt it necessary to intervene in a country based on a flimsy pretext, they could find a way to justify an intervention in Burkina Faso if Traoré’s government proves to be too disruptive.
• Coups and Instability: Traoré himself has claimed to have foiled multiple coup attempts, and his government has accused neighboring countries like Côte d’Ivoire of backing these plots. While these claims are difficult to verify independently, they highlight the intense internal and external pressures facing his regime. Critics of the West often interpret these coup attempts as being covertly supported by foreign powers to destabilize governments that are not aligned with their interests.

Counterpoints and Reality Check

While these rumors are widespread, it is important to consider the differences between Traoré’s situation and that of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein:

• Scale and Geopolitical Significance: Burkina Faso, while strategically important in the Sahel, does not have the same global significance as Libya (a major oil producer) or Iraq (a key player in Middle Eastern oil politics). A full-scale Western military intervention in Burkina Faso is far less likely than it was in those countries.
• Western Priorities: The primary Western concern in the Sahel has been the fight against jihadist insurgency. While Western powers are wary of Traoré’s pro-Russian alignment, their immediate goal is often to prevent the region from becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. A military intervention to remove Traoré could potentially worsen the security situation and create further instability.
• Shift in Global Dynamics: The geopolitical landscape has changed since the interventions in Libya and Iraq. The global community is now more fractured, with a rising China and a resurgent Russia. A direct Western military intervention would be far more controversial and would likely face significant opposition from countries aligned with Russia and China, as well as from the African Union.
• Focus on Subtler Influence: Rather than a direct military intervention, Western powers are more likely to use other tools to exert pressure. These include economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, support for opposition groups (both civilian and military), and public relations campaigns to delegitimize the regime. The constant rumors of foiled coups may be a part of this psychological and political warfare.

In conclusion, the rumor that Ibrahim Traoré will face the fate of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein is a powerful symbolic expression of the fears and anti-imperialist sentiments prevalent in Burkina Faso and parts of Africa. While a direct, large-scale Western military intervention seems improbable given the current geopolitical context, the underlying tensions—over resource control, geopolitical alliances, and national sovereignty—are very real. Traoré’s government will likely continue to face significant pressure, both overt and covert, from Western powers, but it is more likely to take the form of economic and political maneuvering than a full-scale military campaign.

Can Ibrahim Traore be described as a Nationalist or a National Socialist?

Based on the available information, Ibrahim Traoré can be described as a Nationalist and a Pan-Africanist. The term “National Socialist” is not used in the provided context to describe his ideology.

His political views and actions are consistently characterized by:

• Nationalism: He is described as a nationalist who advocates for the protection of national interests against external interference and emphasizes self-determination. His policies, such as the nationalization of gold mines, are seen as attempts to reclaim national sovereignty and economic destiny.
• Anti-Imperialism/Anti-Westernism: A central tenet of his ideology is a strong opposition to neocolonialism and Western influence, particularly from France. His government has expelled French troops and suspended French media outlets, and he has spoken out against what he calls “imperialistic pressure.”
• Pan-Africanism: Traoré’s actions and rhetoric have been seen to resonate with and inspire a broader Pan-African movement. He has formed an alliance with neighboring countries Mali and Niger and is seen by some as a symbol of African dignity and resistance against foreign domination.
• Other Influences: He was a member of the Marxist National Association of Students of Burkina Faso (ANEB) during his university years, and some commentators see his policies as influenced by Marxism and pan-Africanism.However, his ideology is also described as pragmatic and a blend of military pragmatism with a focus on stability.

The provided sources do not describe him as a “National Socialist,” a term historically associated with the Nazi Party in Germany. The sources instead repeatedly use terms like “nationalist,” “pan-Africanist,” “anti-imperialist,” and “anti-Western.”

Whether Traore’s friendly stance with Russia and China trigger the Opposition from the West?

Yes, Ibrahim Traoré’s friendly stance with Russia and China has triggered significant opposition and concern from Western powers. This is a central element of the current geopolitical tension surrounding Burkina Faso and the Sahel region.

Here’s why and how this opposition is manifesting:

Why the West is Opposed

• Geopolitical Competition: Western nations, particularly France and the United States, see the growing influence of Russia and China in Africa as a direct challenge to their own strategic interests. The Sahel, in particular, is a key front in this new geopolitical competition. Russia, through military and security partnerships, is seen as using anti-Western sentiment to expand its influence and destabilize a region vital to Europe’s southern flank. China’s growing economic footprint, often through loans and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, is also viewed with suspicion as a form of “debt-trap diplomacy.”
• Security Concerns: Western governments argue that Russia’s presence, particularly through military contractors like the Wagner Group (now rebranded and under direct Kremlin control), is a destabilizing force. They claim that these groups exploit natural resources, commit human rights abuses, and undermine democratic institutions. The West has long been involved in counter-terrorism efforts in the Sahel, and they view a pro-Russian military government as a threat to these operations and regional stability.
• Undermining Democracy: The military coups in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have all been followed by a pivot away from the West and toward Russia. Western powers often frame these coups as an attack on democratic governance. They argue that Russia provides military and political support to authoritarian regimes, thereby undermining the rule of law and human rights in the region.
• Loss of Influence: Traoré’s government has been explicit in its rejection of France’s traditional role in the country.This includes expelling French troops, ending military cooperation agreements, and even suspending French media. This loss of influence, both militarily and diplomatically, is a major source of frustration for France and its allies.

How the West’s Opposition is Manifesting

• Diplomatic Condemnation and Isolation: The U.S. and the European Union have repeatedly condemned the military coup that brought Traoré to power and have called for a swift return to a civilian-led, constitutional government. They have also expressed concern over Burkina Faso’s military and security partnerships with Russia.
• Sanctions and Aid Cuts: While there are no comprehensive U.S. sanctions specifically on Burkina Faso, the country has been suspended from various Western-led initiatives. For example, the U.S. has cut some of its security and development assistance.
• Information Warfare: There is a well-documented information war being waged in the region, with pro-Russian and pro-Traoré narratives often spreading on social media. Western governments and think tanks have pointed to a significant increase in Russian-linked disinformation campaigns aimed at stirring up anti-French and anti-Western sentiment in Burkina Faso and other Sahel nations.
• Supporting Regional Pressure: The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional bloc, has taken a hard line against the military governments in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. While the Western powers are not directly involved in ECOWAS’s actions, they have generally supported the bloc’s efforts to pressure the juntas.
• Shifting Alliances: The West is attempting to counter Russia and China’s influence by building new, more “equal” partnerships with other African nations and by focusing on long-term development and trade as an alternative to military support.

In summary, Traoré’s pivot toward Russia and China is seen by the West not just as a policy choice but as a direct challenge to its influence and a threat to regional stability. This has triggered a response that includes diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and a public relations campaign aimed at discrediting Traoré and his allies while simultaneously trying to mend relationships with other African nations.

Pon.Chandran is a Human Rights Activist, Life Member of PUCL, Coimbatore.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ranjan Solomon

“Power does not part with power voluntarily; it does so only under pressure”

Nepal finds itself in the throes of yet another political earthquake. The Himalayan nation, often romanticized for its mountains and serene landscapes, is today a cauldron of anger, disillusionment, and restless youth. The spark this time was seemingly small: a government decree banning popular social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Authorities defended the move as a temporary “regulation” to curb misinformation. But for millions of Nepalis – especially the young -social media was not only a tool of communication but also a lifeline to the wider world and a vehicle of accountability. To them, the ban symbolized a government intent on silencing voices rather than addressing grievances (AP News, 2025).

Within hours, protests erupted in Kathmandu and quickly spread to other cities. The rallies drew strength from Gen Z, Nepal’s restless generation, long frustrated by unemployment, corruption, and the suffocating grip of political elites. Their slogans, painted on walls and shouted in the streets, went beyond the demand to lift the ban. They called for the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and, more fundamentally, for an end to a system that has failed to deliver either stability or prosperity (Washington Post, 2025).

The Flashpoint and Its Fallout

The government’s response was brutal. Security forces fired on crowds, killing at least 19 protesters and injuring hundreds (Reuters, 2025a). The images that flooded back into the country—ironically via Virtual Private Network (VPNs) and underground networks circumventing the ban – showed young demonstrators drenched in blood, running through tear gas, carrying the wounded on makeshift stretchers. The public fury intensified. Protesters torched the Parliament building, vandalized government offices, and targeted the private homes of political leaders (India Times, 2025).

Tourists, too, were caught up in the chaos: hotels were burned, flights to Kathmandu were diverted, and a nationwide curfew imposed (Times of India, 2025). What had begun as a movement about digital rights escalated into the biggest anti-government uprising Nepal has seen in over a decade. Oli, a veteran politician and repeat prime minister, found his position untenable and resigned, leaving behind a dangerous political vacuum (Wall Street Journal), 2025.

The Deeper Grievances

The unrest has roots far deeper than a social media ban. Protesters consistently spoke of corruption, nepotism, and the arrogance of leaders who treat the state as private property. Ordinary Nepalis point to the lavish lifestyles of politicians, the unending scandals of kickbacks and favouritism, and the daily struggles of citizens to find jobs or affordable services (AP News, 2025).

Youth frustration has been building for years. Nepal’s unemployment rate officially hovers around 11 percent, but among the young it is estimated to be closer to 20 percent or more. Each year, tens of thousands leave to work abroad, sending back remittances that make up nearly a quarter of the national GDP. Migration has become both an economic necessity and an escape route from political paralysis. Those who remain face a sense of exclusion and betrayal.

“Social media was the last place where we felt we had some power,” one 22-year-old protester told reporters. “They tried to take even that away from us. That’s why the streets exploded” (Associated News), 2025.

The death toll has mounted and the numbers been revised upwards to about 30. Injuries are over 1,000 now; many have already been discharged, while others remain hospitalized.

The parliament building (and associated infrastructure) has reportedly been almost entirely destroyed by fire. 

Other public/private buildings (media headquarters, political party offices, etc.) continue to be assessed; many remain damaged. 

Current Security Measures

Curfews / prohibitory orders remain in effect in Kathmandu and other affected areas, at least till Thursday morning. Soldier patrols and checkpoints are stronger. Security forces are detaining people accused of violent acts (arson / looting). What Nepal needs is not more law and order. It needs long term and just political solutions.

A History of Instability

Nepal’s democratic experiment has been fragile since its inception. The abolition of the monarchy in 2008 raised hopes of a new era, but instead, the country has cycled through governments with dizzying speed. Fourteen different administrations have taken office in the past 17 years, few completing a full term (Reuters, 2025b). Coalition collapses, floor crossings, and political betrayals have become the norm.

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Oli’s own faction, has alternated between dominance and internal schisms. The opposition Nepali Congress, meanwhile, has often been too divided to present a credible alternative. This pattern has left citizens with little faith in their representatives. Institutions—from the judiciary to the anti-corruption watchdogs—are viewed as compromised or ineffective.

Against this backdrop, the current protests represent both continuity and rupture. Continuity, because instability is nothing new in Nepal. Rupture, because this time the movement is youth-driven, decentralized, and less beholden to traditional party structures.

Short-Term Prognosis: Vacuum and Militarization

The immediate future looks fragile. Oli’s resignation has created a political vacuum with no clear successor. Protesters are unlikely to accept a simple reshuffle of elites, and the ruling class appears unable – or unwilling—to make concessions beyond the prime minister’s departure.

Curfews remain in place across several cities. The army, already deployed in support of police, could take a larger role if the unrest continues. Analysts warn of the risk of militarization, a scenario that would not only deepen the democratic crisis but also revive painful memories of Nepal’s civil war, which ended only in 2006 (Washington Post, 2025).

Medium-Term Prognosis: Reform or Restoration?

In the medium term, there is talk of an interim government led by technocrats or a cross-party coalition with youth representatives. Such arrangements could provide breathing space, but their feasibility remains uncertain. Nepal’s traditional parties are deeply resistant to sharing power with outsiders.

The likelier scenario is a cycle of negotiations between elites, resulting in yet another short-lived coalition that offers cosmetic reforms while leaving the structures of corruption intact (WSJ, 2025). If that happens, the protests may subside for now—but discontent will fester, returning with even greater force.

Long-Term Prognosis: Renewal or Repetition

The deeper question is whether the current movement can transform into long-term change. There is hope. The protests have mobilized a generation, introducing new voices into the political sphere. If harnessed, this energy could pave the way for democratic renewal, with greater accountability and citizen participation.

But there are also serious risks. Entrenched elites have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to absorb crises and reassert control. Without structural reforms—such as strengthening anti-corruption bodies, guaranteeing media freedoms, and reforming electoral laws—the movement could be co-opted or crushed (Reuters, 2025a). The long-term outcome will hinge on whether Nepal’s youth can translate their anger into sustained political organization, and whether institutions can adapt to a society that is no longer content with empty promises.

A Region-Wide Pattern

Nepal’s turmoil also resonates with regional dynamics. South Asia has recently seen similar youth-led uprisings—from Sri Lanka’s “Aragalaya” in 2022, which toppled a president, to student protests in Bangladesh earlier this year. These movements reveal a generational impatience with corrupt elites and a demand for dignity and livelihood. Whether Nepal joins Sri Lanka in forcing systemic change—or slips back into cycles of unrest like Bangladesh – remains to be seen. Other countries in the region may want to learn some hard lessons about the potency of peoples’ power. 

A Society at a Crossroads

Nepal today stands at a crossroads. The resignation of a prime minister is not the end of the crisis but its beginning. The question is whether this moment will be remembered as just another episode in Nepal’s long history of instability, or as the turning point when a new generation seized the political stage.

For now, the streets remain restive, the young remain defiant, and the old order struggles to reassert itself. The outcome is uncertain – but one truth is clear: Nepal’s future will be determined not by its tired elites, but by the courage and persistence of its youth.

Nepal needs stronger democratization efforts to address ongoing challenges like widespread corruption, political dysfunction, and social inequality, which fuel public frustration and undermine faith in the democratic system. The protests, particularly by Generation Z, highlight deep-seated issues with underdeveloped democratic institutions, rampant nepotism, and a lack of responsiveness from political elites. 

While Nepal has transitioned to a Federal Democratic Republic, achieving true democratic consolidation requires strengthening the rule of law, fostering political accountability, promoting inclusive participation, and addressing the lingering impacts of its feudal past to ensure political stability and equitable growth. 

The protesters and Government have accepted former chief justice Sushila Karki for the post of the interim prime minister of the country amid until fresh elections are held.  Karki will hold the position until fresh elections are held. It remains to be seen if she can restore governance and bring about functionality that meets the urgent challenges to deconstruct Nepal from an awful period of misgovernance and corruption. Most importantly, can this happen without the interference of powers from across the border? India’s Hindutva machinery has shown an inclination for a long while to convert Nepal into a Hindu Kingdom.

Nepal’s peaceful transition to a just, peaceful, and archetypal democratic state requires autonomous decisions and processes. Interference from States in the region with vested interests will create further chaos and retard the search for a new and viable form of government, particular to the aspirations of Nepalese society.

Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator, human rights defender, and argues that Nepal must be allowed to craft a political solution without any external interference that is potentially negative.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ashish Singh

Dear Mr. Rahul Gandhi,

As a citizen of Rae Bareli, I write to you with deep respect for your position and an even deeper concern for the condition of our constituency. Rae Bareli has been entrusted to your family for generations. It has been both a political bastion and a symbol of enduring trust between elected representatives and the people they serve. That trust is precious, but it is not permanent. It must be renewed, not by speeches or ceremonies, but by time, by presence, and by the hard, often unglamorous work of solving the problems that shape people’s daily lives.

Today Rae Bareli stands at a crossroads. It struggles with problems that cannot be resolved through token visits or routine inaugurations. The district hospitals, once a source of pride, now carry a reputation scarred by reports of corruption, inadequate facilities and a shortage of specialists. Villages are still waiting for proper chakbandi, a process that could modernise agriculture and reduce disputes but remains trapped in outdated bureaucracy. Roads are not just deteriorating, many of them are dangerous, unlit at night, uneven in construction and often blocked by unchecked encroachments. The electricity supply remains unreliable; frequent power cuts disrupt homes, businesses, schools and health services. Drainage and sanitation are in disrepair, leaving neighbourhoods flooded even after mild rains, spreading both inconvenience and disease.

Law and order too demands urgent attention. The quiet spread of criminal elements has created an undercurrent of fear. It affects businesses, discourages investment, and erodes civic confidence. Extortion, intimidation and petty violence may not always reach headlines, but they eat into the foundation of public safety. Women and the elderly in particular feel vulnerable, not just on isolated roads at night but even in busy markets.

Our city’s young people, full of ambition, are forced to leave for better education and opportunities elsewhere. Rae Bareli still lacks a modern university that could anchor talent, attract industries, foster innovation and create pride in staying and building here. Without such an institution, the best minds are trained elsewhere and rarely return. The absence of skilled employment opportunities compounds this drain of human capital.

Basic civic amenities remain uneven. Clean drinking water is still a challenge in several wards. Parks and community spaces, which give cities their social heart, are neglected or overcrowded. Waste management is erratic, with garbage piling up near schools and hospitals, undermining both dignity and health. Adding to this is an almost invisible network of civil society organisations. Where active civic groups thrive, they bring energy, accountability and hope to even the most neglected corners of society. Their absence here leaves the needy without a voice, the marginalised without a partner, and public life without the gentle but vital pressure of citizen-driven change. Encouraging such organisations would not only improve service delivery but also create a healthier atmosphere of shared responsibility.

One may argue that many of these matters belong to state authorities. But leadership is not only about statutory power. It is about using one’s voice, influence and authority to make the people’s concerns impossible to ignore. An MP is not expected to single-handedly build roads, clean drains or fill hospital vacancies, but he is expected to demand them, to follow up, to expose delays, to pressure bureaucracies and to turn local frustrations into national priorities. Silence or distance, even if unintended, begins to feel like abandonment.

Rae Bareli can and should aspire to be a model city and district. It has history, political attention and human talent. What it needs now is vision matched with relentless action. Imagine a Rae Bareli where clean streets, safe public spaces, functioning hospitals, reliable electricity, modern schools, digital infrastructure, strong agriculture, active civic groups and thriving local industries stand together as proof that political loyalty can be rewarded not with nostalgia but with progress.

This is not a plea born of impatience. It is a reminder of responsibility. You have been entrusted not merely with a seat in Parliament but with the future of a constituency that has stood by your family through India’s political storms. It deserves more than periodic visits and symbolic gestures. It deserves your time, your listening, your advocacy and your courage to turn promises into reality. Legacy, no matter how deep, cannot carry a city into the future unless it is matched with daily, deliberate, visible care.

Respectfully,
A concerned citizen of Rae Bareli

Ashish Singh has finished his Ph.D. coursework in political science from the NRU-HSE, Moscow, Russia. 

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Palestine updates

For the very first time in history, the United Nations has officially declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Not “possible genocide.” Not “plausible genocide.” Genocide.

The UN’s words are not symbolic. They are binding. Under the Genocide Convention, every signatory state —including America — now has a legal duty to prevent, to punish, and to stop their complicity. That is why this moment matters so much.

For nearly two years, the world has danced around the world. The International Court of Justice said genocide was “plausible.” The leading human rights groups in the world already said this. Scholars of genocide raised alarms. But governments — especially the United States and its allies — refused to admit the obvious. Now the Commission of Inquiry of the United Nations Human Rights Council has issued a declarative report that removes all doubt. Their words are chilling in their clarity:

“The Commission concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, establishing both the underlying acts and the specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part.”

This is not rhetoric. It is not a metaphor. It is a legal determination, backed by exhaustive data. The Commission looked at every category under the Genocide Convention — killings, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction, and preventing births — and found them all satisfied. For decades, “never again” has been the UN’s mantra. Yesterday, the mask slipped: “again” is here. And it is happening in Gaza.

The report lays out the evidence in devastating detail. Between October 7, 2023, and July 31, 2025, Israel killed at least 60,199 Palestinians. The Commission says the numbers alone are enough to demonstrate a pattern, but the methods prove intent.

·       The siege of Gaza created famine conditions. Mothers unable to feed infants. Children wasting away from hunger.

·       Israel destroyed Gaza’s health system, striking hospitals, medics, and ambulances, while denying medical evacuations.

·       Israel demolished homes, schools, mosques, universities — entire neighborhoods levelled with wide-area explosive weapons.

·       They even destroyed Gaza’s largest IVF clinic, wiping out the embryos of parents hoping for children.

The UN’s language is precise: “Israel has deliberately imposed conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, including starvation, destruction of healthcare, and deprivation of essential services.”

And the Commission didn’t stop with deaths. It also documented thousands who lost limbs, children burned beyond recognition, families displaced into endless cycles of bombardment. In the report’s words, “serious bodily and mental harm has been inflicted on a scale consistent with genocidal acts. ”The horror is not just in numbers, but in intent. When you blockade food, bomb bakeries, and bulldoze farmland, starvation is not a byproduct — it is the point.

The Voices of Incitement

The report goes further, documenting not just acts but incitement to genocide at the highest levels of the Israeli government. It names President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. It recalls Gallant’s infamous line calling Palestinians “human animals.” It quotes Netanyahu invoking the Biblical command to “remember Amalek” — the ancient call to wipe out an entire people. It highlights Herzog saying there were no civilians in Gaza, only enemies.

The Commission concluded: “Senior Israeli officials engaged in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and the State of Israel failed to prevent or punish such incitement.”

State Responsibility, Not Just Individuals
Here is why this UN finding is different from any trial of a soldier or commander: it places responsibility on the state of Israel itself.

The report states plainly: “Israel bears State responsibility for committing genocide, for failing to prevent it, and for failing to punish incitement to genocide.” That means reparations. That means accountability at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. That means Israel as a state has crossed the red line into the gravest crime known to law.

And legally, state responsibility is heavier than individual criminal liability. An individual conviction sends one man to prison. A state determination delegitimizes an entire government, its alliances, and its standing in the world. That is what just happened.

What Other States Must Do Now
And here is the part the United States and Europe will try hardest to ignore. The Commission says genocide does not only implicate the perpetrator state. Every other state now has obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The report makes it clear:
–       Stop arms transfers —weapons, ammunition, jet fuel, spare parts.
– Cease any material support that contributes to genocidal acts
– Do not recognize Israel’s unlawful acts or territorial gains.
– Cooperate with ICC prosecutions.
– Use all reasonably available means to prevent genocide.

The UN’s words are not a suggestion. They are law: “States parties have an obligation not only to refrain from aiding or assisting genocide, but to employ all reasonably available means to prevent its continuation.”

If the Genocide Convention means anything, it means American taxpayers are no longer innocent bystanders. We are financiers.

The United Nations may have the loudest megaphone, but it is not the first voice to call this a genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, the leading academic body in the world on the subject, declared it genocide.

Over 50 UN Special Rapporteurs and human rights experts signed a statement in late 2023warning of “a genocide in the making.” Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, has said repeatedly that Israel’s actions meet the definition of genocide. Craig Mokhiber, director of the UN human rights office in New York, resigned in protest in October 2023, writing: “This is a textbook case of genocide.”

Governments — South Africa, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and others — brought genocide charges to the ICJ. Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow have shouted it from the streets. Palestinian organizations like Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights have documented it daily. But now the UN has said it officially. And that changes everything.

The UN has taken away plausible deniability. The next time the Trump administration or anyone else sends weapons to Israel, they cannot say they did not know. They know. We all know.

The Children of Gaza

Nothing in the report is moresearing than its section on children. The Commission documents thousands of child deaths, sniper fire at evacuation routes, starvation, and trauma. Itdescribes how an entire generation has been targeted for destruction.

“At least 18,430 children were killed. Many more suffered amputations, severe burns, and life-long disabilities. The deliberate targeting of children and the conditions imposedon them amount to acts of genocide.” Family, children are the measure of asociety’s soul. And in Gaza, children have been crushed beneath the weight of siege, starvation, and bombs. This is why the report is unflinching: the destruction of children is not incidental — it is central.

And history will remember this. Just as we remember the children of Armenia, of the Holocaust, of Rwanda, of Bosnia — we will remember Gaza’s children. The only question is whether we will remember them as victims we failed to save, or as survivors of a genocide we stopped in time.

The Machinery of Starvation and Disease
The Commission’s report describes how Gaza was turned into a laboratory of starvation. Israel imposed a “complete siege” — cutting off food, water, fuel, and electricity. Convoys of humanitarian aid were blocked, bombed, or turned back. “Israel has employed starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, resulting in widespread hunger, malnutrition, and preventable deaths.”

Famine is not a natural disaster. It is engineered. Gaza’s children wasted away, not because of drought or crop failure, but because trucks full of food were held at the border until the food rotted. Mothers stood in lines for hours, only to return empty-handed. Doctors performed surgery by flashlight, without anesthesia, because fuel was cut off. And the Commission says plainly: these acts were “calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians.” Starvation and disease were not accidents of war — they were weapons.

The report includes eyewitness testimony: infants crying from hunger, parents feeding children weeds and animal feed, bodies weakened by malnutrition until they could not survive even small injuries. These are not conditions of war. They are conditions of extermination.

Preventing Births
One of the most chilling parts of the report is its finding that Israel took “measures intended to prevent births” among Palestinians in Gaza. The destruction of Gaza’s largest IVF clinic wiped out thousands of frozen embryos ,erasing the hopes of families already battered by war. Hospitals that provided reproductive care were deliberately targeted. Pregnant women were denied safe deliveries. Thousands miscarried after being displaced again and again under bombardment.

The Commission’s conclusion is stark: “The destruction of reproductive healthcare, coupled with the denial of medical access, constitutes measures intended to prevent births within the group, as prohibited under the Genocide Convention.” And this connects directly to international law: the Genocide Convention, Article II(d), lists “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” as one of the five genocidal acts. The UN Commission is saying Israel has crossed that threshold, deliberately targeting the future of Palestinians.

Why Words Like Genocide Matter
Some will say: isn’t it just semantics? Mass killing, war crimes, ethnic cleansing — does the word“ “genocide” really change anything? Yes. It changes everything. Genocide is the crime of crimes. It triggers obligations under international law that no state can ignore. It removes the fig leaf of plausible deniability. It places Gaza in the lineage of the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Armenia.

The Commission wrote:
“The crime of genocide carries obligations erga omnes — owed to theinternational community as a whole — to prevent, to punish, and to ceasecomplicity.” And this is why Israel, the U.S., and much of the Western media have resisted the word so fiercely. Because once the word is said, the law is triggered. Once the word is said, complicity can no longer hide in ambiguity.The UN has now said the word. And the world can never unsay it.

America’s Fingerprints
The report is unambiguous: states that aid or assist genocide violate the Genocide Convention.    That means the United States. Billions of dollars in weapons, jet fuel, and ammunition flow from Washington to Tel Aviv. Every bomb dropped on a Gaza school has fragments stamped “Made in USA.” Every tank shell that collapses a hospital wing is funded by your tax dollars.

The Commission warns: “States must immediately cease arms transfers and other forms of support that could contribute to genocidal acts. “Since October 2023, the U.S. has approved over $20 billion in weapons transfers to Israel, including precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and spare parts for F-35 fighter jets. Shipments of jet fuel kept Israel’s air force flying missions over Gaza. U.S. contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics have directly profited from the war machine.

When we pay taxes, when our leaders sign weapons packages, we are not bystanders. We are financiers of genocide. That is the unbearable truth. And history will judge us by whether the west stopped it or ignored it.

Why Silence Is Complicity
Here is what cuts deepest. If any other state were found guilty of genocide by the United Nations, the world would erupt. Sanctions. Emergency sessions. Arrest warrants. Front-page headlines. But because it is Israel, the silence is deafening. Western governments issue platitudes. Media outlets bury the word “genocide” deep in their stories, or avoid it altogether. Politicians dodge, deflect, or change the subject.

The Commission itself anticipated this cowardice. It warned: “The failure to name genocide when it is found to exist contributes to its continuation and emboldens perpetrators.” irresponsibility is to break that silence. And that means you and I saying the word out loud, everywhere, until the silence cracks.

The Weight of History
The UN’s finding places Gaza alongside the darkest chapters of human history. Armenia. The Holocaust. Rwanda. Bosnia. Darfur. “The destruction in Gaza, in scale and severity, constitutes acts of genocide comparable to the gravest crimes adjudicated in international law.” And when our grandchildren ask, “What did you do?” we will not be able to say we did not know. Because now the UN has told us. We know.

And let’s be clear: every genocide is remembered not only for its perpetrators but for the bystanders. History remembers the Turks who denied Armenia, the Europeans who ignored Rwanda, the Serbs who mocked Bosnia. Gaza will be remembered the same way — and America, Europe, and Israel will all bear the stain.

What We Must Do
The UN’s finding is not the end. It is a beginning. It is a demand. Every person, every community, every nation now faces a choice: complicity or resistance.

That means:

·       Boycott institutions complicit in genocide, from weapons manufacturers to cultural whitewashers.

·       Demand sanctions, arms embargoes, and prosecutions.

·       Share the truth — embed the UN’s own words in every conversation, every classroom, every pulpit.

·       Refuse silence.

And it also tells us we have power. Power in what we consume. Power in what we share. Power in who we pressure. Power in how loudly we say the word genocide when others whisper it. If millions of us act, history will remember us as the ones who refused to stay silent in the face of extermination.

16 September 2025

By Mazin Qumsiyeh

The holocaust/genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza strip continues [1]. Calculations show that excess mortality has been much higher than the reported 64,000 violent deaths (71% women and children) [2].

And now the largest push for ethnic cleansing is happening with methodical destruction of any remaining buildings in North Gaza and Gaza city. But my friends there tell me since there is no safe place and death is the same whether in north or south, that they are staying (including the Palestinian Christian community).

But the carnage is not merely in the Gaza strip. Israel also bombed the West Bank (creating tens of thousands of homeless Palestinians) and bombed seven other countries (latest being Qatar, a supposed ally). Israel even wanted to punish a Palestinian village so it destroyed 10,000 of its olive trees [3]. Western Zionist controlled media talk endlessly about the 20 Israeli soldiers still captive in Gaza (calling them hostages). They do not talk about the 12,000-15,000 political prisoners kidnapped [4] and held by Israeli army and being tortured (75 already perished under torture).

The ephemeral Zionist regime added to its long list of international law violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity by attacking yet another country (Qatar, seventh country attacked in the last two years). Somehow US and Qatar “successfully defended” the US military base in Qatar against the Iranian missiles after the US attacked Iran but did not move a finger to defend Qatar against Israeli missiles.

But the primary sponsor of our people’s genocide is the US government which continues to fund, help, and shield the Israeli apartheid regime as it commits the most heinus crimess known in history. All while claiming to want to mediate while giving Israel a green light to kill any negotiations (and negotiators as happened in Qatar). Trump’s 100 word “deal” for the resistance to please his Zionist (Epstein video holders) masters [5].

This US current administration like the previous one is genocidal but the crudity and vulgar arrogance that is exhibited now is beyond belief. The Zionist lobby is using blackmail and bribes to destroy not only Palestine but also US interest for the sake of Zionist fantasies to build a new 21st century colonial power between the Nile and Euphrates.

In the past two years, the world has changed and clearly supporting the genocide is not a winning card so the US “leaders” who succumbed to the lobby are on the wrong side of history. Things are changing. Zionists now try all sorts of tactics. This did not start now but they are pulling all the dirty tools from their history. From false flag operations to labeling human rights activists as “anti-semites” to using legal and financial leverage to crush free speech (e.g. showing support for Palestine Action is considered “supporting terrorism” in the UK) to outright blackmail [6].

None of this seems to make a difference as poll after poll show increase in public support for Palestine even in traditionally well controlled Western Countries [7].

Ordinary US citizens have begged for gun control for decades. At least 20,000 Americans are senselessly killed each year. Ironically, right wing MAGA republican spokesmen Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper while he was advocating for NO gun control! [8]. While he wrote to fame supporting the genocide and dehumanization of our people [9], he was also beginning to change and challenge the Zionist stranglehold of the US politics and thus we would not discount this being a Mossad hit to 1) silence him, and 2) provde yet another false-flag operation (there are many). The shooter was a highly professional sniper who conveniently disappeared (maybe already back in Tel Aviv).

But times as indicated above are changing. The crime syndicate otherwise known as he Zionist project is unraveling. The signs are everywhere and the US cannot even prevent its own collapse to help stop the collapse of Zionism [10]. There is even “Death of the Holocaust Industry” [11].

Western elites reinvented their ugly racist system of control and sold it as a ‘moral’ cause packaged in Zionist propaganda [12]. But the game is up and even among the elites, things are starting to change. Peter Mandelson Jewish Zionist (Israel first) is now sacked as a British ambassador to the USA following revealed connection to Jeffrey Epstein (Mossad agent who obtained videos to blackmail politicians and business people) [13].

We continue to be inspired by the millions on the streets who are making a difference. We are inspired by by both individual actions like confronting Trump [14] and by collective action like the Hind Rajab Foundation pursuing the perpetrators of genocide [15] and the flotilla of boats headed to Gaza [16].

We continue to be inspired by conferences like the People’s Conference for Palestine 2025 [17] and the Second Palestine Health Alliance Symposium, titled “The Gaza Strip in the Grip of Genocide: Death, Starvation and Trauma”. The symposium will take place remotely via Zoom and is scheduled on Tuesday September 30, 2-4 PM, 2025 Palestine/Lebanon time [18].

We continue to be inspired by the BDS movement [bdsmovement.net].

We continue to be inspired by the activities at our Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability ranging from children programs to volunteer work to the seedbank to field work to publications and community service [19].

[1] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/worlds-shame-gaza

[2] Perhaps as much as 600,000 casualties so far inthe genocide not 65,000
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/the-right-to-exist

[3] https://mondoweiss.net/2025/08/israel-wanted-to-punish-a-palestinian-village-so-it-destroyed-10000-of-its-olive-trees/

[4] https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-controls-bodies-minds-palestinian-prisoners-how

[5] https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/exclusive-gaza-ceasefire-proposal-trump-hamas-israel

[6] How Israel blackmails Washington
https://www.youtube.com/live/lGroog6ewJ4

[7] Example
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/29/new-poll-shows-plunging-us-public-support-for-israels-war-on-gaza

[8] Here he is being sniped. https://youtu.be/Cz6tIR-k0k8

[9] https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=758071726851015

[10] See Losing support https://youtu.be/ww3B0u99IAM

Why the American Dream is DEAD. It’s not possible, no matter what you do.
https://youtu.be/2-obt64AI08?si=7JcxIh1iE-xdzQT6

[11] https://x.com/ChrisLynnHedges/status/1966118623136854131

[12] https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-truth-about-western-colonialism-unmasked

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson

[14] https://youtu.be/KHv9G6Bl3-g

[15] https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/perpetrators

bit.ly/3VAF6K1

[17] https://www.youtube.com/live/8yAwocJxas8

[18] To register for the symposium, please use the link below no later than Friday, September 26, 2025:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1tY5J-VbACstkDQklA8az9Dt_Y5RAJDf2nZVouL6fzAM/preview

[19] See our facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/PIBS.PMNH

and do DONATE here https://www.palestinenature.org/donations/

and or volunteer here https://www.palestinenature.org/volunteer/

Stay Humane, act, and keep hope and Palestine alive

Mazin Qumsiyeh
A bedouin in cyberspace, a villager at home
Professor, Founder, and (volunteer) Director
Palestine Museum of Natural History
Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability
Bethlehem University
Occupied Palestine

12 September 2025

Source: popular-resistance.blogspot.com

By Dr Maung Zarni

On September 1, the International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution that told the world what it already knows: Israel is committing genocide in Palestine.

The association declared that Israel is engaged in all the crimes encoded in post-Holocaust international law, specifically, breaching the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, to which Tel Aviv is also a signatory (or “state party”).

The UN adopted the convention the same year Israel was established as an independent state, ironically, by perpetrating a Holocaust of its own, the Nakba, as Palestinians call it.

That the association of scholars finding Israel’s acts – the policy of annihilating Palestinians in Gaza – to meet the legal definition of “genocide” comes as no surprise. But what surprises me is the fact that it took nearly two years for this professional society to belabour this obvious conclusion.

Others had done it 24 years before.

As early as September 3, 2001, representatives of international non-governmental organisations and other civil society groups gathered in South Africa’s Durban had called out Israel for its “acts of genocide”.

Five years later, in 2006, Ilan Pape, a world-renowned German Jewish Israeli historian, had begun calling Israel’s actions against Palestinians “an incremental genocide”, not dissimilar to the criminal policy adopted by my native Myanmar against the Rohingya, which my scholar colleague Natalie Brinham and I call “the slow-burning genocide”.

Irrefutable proof

Since October 2023, Israel has capitalised on the Hamas attack to engage in a combination of Hitlerite liquidation of a primarily civilian population and Stalinist-induced famine in the then-USSR, known as Holodomor (extermination via induced famine).

From a scholarly perspective known as “path dependence”, Israel’s policies and actions against the Palestinian people in Gaza were wholly predictable.

On October 7, 2023, upon waking up to the news of Hamas’s violent jailbreak – similar to Jewish inmates’ violent revolt at the Nazi-run Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp on October 7, 1944 – I chatted via email with my friend, Professor Penny Green, Director of the International State Crime Initiative at Queen Mary University of London.

She responded instantly: “It is going to be an apocalypse (in Gaza).” Her expertly projection has proved prophetic.

This January, the Palestinian liberation theologian Rev. Dr Munther Isaac told a visiting delegation of international scholars that “Israel is a terrorist entity built on the Palestinian land by ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations”.

According to Zochrot, the Jaffa-based organisation that promotes educational tours about Al-Nakba of 1948, the Nakba is “an ongoing process of disfranchisement of the Palestinian people from their land and assets for the exclusive Jewish usage.”

In founding Israel as an ethno-nationalist state, marauding gangs of so-called “liberation fighters” of the embryonic state demolished over 500 native Palestinian villages, 11 cities and roughly 1,000 mosques and churches. These Zionist militia groups, which subsequently became the Israeli Defence Force, perpetrated a series of genocidal rapes and mass killings of unarmed Palestinians in various locations. Deir Yassin near the land-locked Jerusalem and Tantura on the coast are the two most infamous cases.

They slaughtered an estimated 15,000 in the several weeks leading up to the founding of Israel on 14 May 1948. That’s twice the number of Bosnian Muslims (7,000+) mass-executed in Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb troops in mid-July 1995, something which the International Court of Justice ruled as “acts of genocide”.

If anything, the genocide scholars’ official resolution is an attempt to redeem the morally paralysed professional society, reflecting the decisive shift against Israel among the world’s moral majority, including, importantly, in the United States, where 60 percent of Gen Z Americans openly support Hamas over Israel.

On the profoundly moral crisis of the influential Western organisations, the silence of what has been described as the Holocaust industry is most deafening and profoundly troubling.

On July 30, Amos Goldberg, a professor of Holocaust History at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, directed his scathing criticism at a global web of highly connected and influential institutions, including Holocaust museums and scholarly organisations with a specific focus on the study of the Shoah.

He wrote, “Holocaust memory not only failed to generate any criticism of Israel, but it also actively served to justify the genocide in Gaza and blocked any effective critique of it.”

Professor Goldberg’s piece is definitely worth a read for questioning why these Holocaust memorial museums even exist if they are not prepared to embrace the universal fellowship of humans and, perversely, serve as a “discursive iron dome” of Israel.

Here the Hollywood, which has long effectively globalized the Holocaust memory via such box office hit as Schindler’s List, an Oscar winner, is largely complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide. Beyond making box-office hits on the Shoah and Israel (e.g., Munich), Stephen Speilberg has generously patronized the study of genocides, in the form of the USC Shoah Foundation at the University of Southern California. But since Israel has unfurled its own Final Solution in Gaza, with unconcealed intent, since 8 October 2023, the critically acclaimed director has gone completely missing. It is as though Never again! excludes Israel’s principal victims of genocide, apartheid and colonial occupation.

And all the while, the Jewish state and its society behave in the same way Nazi Germany did between 1935, when the Nuremberg race laws were adopted and 1945, when the SS were forcing Jewish and other victims on death marches.

It is no longer perverse – let alone antisemitic – to compare Israel and Nazi Germany. Only three days ago, Katie Halper, the American Jewish talk-show host and journalist, released her 12-minutes video-documentary wherein she pointed out the common features of Nazi genocide 80 years ago and Israel’s ongoing genocide in its 23rd month. In the YouTube which has received nearly a quarter million views, Ms Halper showed a videoclip of ex-General Moshe Ya’alon, former Chief of Staff of IDF and ex-Defence Minister, openly stating, in Hebrew, that his Israel is pursuing “Mein Kempf in reverse” against Palestinians.

Milking the Holocaust

I remember how quick the iconic institution of Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland was in joining other Holocaust remembrance institutions – such as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum – in condemning the Hamas attack on Israel two years ago.

Aren’t they designed to keep alive the painful Holocaust memory while promoting “Never Again!” as a guiding moral light to prevent the repeat of the Nazi genocide anywhere in the world?

I visited Auschwitz four times since I travelled there in March 2017 to make a two-minute video, appealing to Europe to help stop my own native country’s genocide against the Rohingya people.

During the Covid lockdown several years ago, I spoke on the closing panel on genocides – including Rohingya, Bosniak, and Roma – at a conference organised and hosted by the Auschwitz museum and presided over by its director and Polish scholar Piotr Cywinski.

During our pre-conference meeting, the director assured me that Auschwitz is not merely about the past but also seeks to be a force for good in the future.

In other words, Auschwitz was meant to serve as a reminder about the harm that could befall human populations when an ethnonationalist state and Pavlovian public turn genocidal against a vulnerable population.

Alas, Auschwitz and all other holocaust memorial museums worldwide are complete and utter failures in serving as preventive institutions. For they too are anchored in the Jewish supremacy and the Holocaust exceptionalism.

Milan Kundera once observed that “forgetting (of past atrocities and repression) is a crime”.

But he did not live long enough to see that Israel and its appendage of the Holocaust industry have turned an act of remembering into a political ideology, a discursive defence, a (presumed) license to perpetrate exactly the same type of group destruction one has suffered, all in the name of “self-defence” and against the weaker and vulnerable ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

That’s not remembrance, but milking one’s past sufferings while inflicting the same atrocities on a different group.

Dr Maung Zarni is a scholar, educator and human rights activist with 30-years of involvement in Burmese political affairs, Zarni has been denounced as an “enemy of the State” for his opposition to the Myanmar genocide.

10 September 2025

Source: forsea.co

The following statement has been released by the Schiller Institute for immediate circulation internationally. It was written as a rallying call during this period of change and tumult, and individuals are encouraged to endorse it.

At the summit of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) in Tianjin—representing around 42 percent of the world’s population—a new world order has emerged, independent of the West, founded on the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, mutually-beneficial economic cooperation, and peaceful collaboration. It is an event of global historical significance that China and India—the two most populous nations, already representing 35 percent of the world’s population—have now begun to cooperate closely with each other and with Russia. The countries gathered at the SCO, along with the various interconnected organizations such as the BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), ASEAN, CELAC, and the African Union (AU), collectively represent 85 percent of humanity.

The emergence of this new world order is a response to the collective West’s attempt, after the end of the Cold War, to establish a unipolar world under Anglo-American dominance—marked by endless interventionist wars, sanctions, and regime-change efforts—which has ultimately backfired completely. The nations of the Global Majority are now overcoming an era of 500 years of colonialism and asserting their right to independent economic development. This is made possible above all by China’s unprecedented rise, which offers countries of the Global South a model and the cooperation that the West denied them for centuries.

Thus, the world has reached an absolute turning point. We can either continue the geopolitical confrontation against Russia and China, risking a third—and this time final—world war, or we can choose to cooperate with this emerging new economic system. President Xi Jinping has proposed the vision of a “Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” which he emphasized in his Sep. 3 speech commemorating the 80th anniversary of Japan’s defeat: “Humanity will either sink together, or rise together!”

It is in the fundamental self-interest of the nations of the Collective West—no longer truly united—to cooperate with the states of the Global Majority and to jointly address the great challenges facing humankind: overcoming poverty and underdevelopment, ensuring lasting world peace, and securing the right of every person on this planet to fulfill their potential.

For the realization of a shared community for the future of humanity!

Sign the petition here

12 September 2025

By Haider Abbas

The much-hyped recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump has, by now, seemingly ended in a damp squib. The Russia–Ukraine war (ongoing since 2023) continues unabated, with renewed acceleration. Russia reportedly launched more than 800 drones into Ukraine on September 7, shortly after Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China (September 1). North Korean President Kim Jong Un—an anathema to Europe and the US—was also closely aligned.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was present too, in what seemed like a somersault in response to US tariffs and penalties over India’s purchase of Russian oil at heavily subsidized rates, effectively making India a “laundromat” for the Russian economy, as described by US trade advisor Peter Navarro. India did not attend the victory parade in China, whereas Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir did. India and Pakistan had previously been locked in conflict until a ceasefire was brokered by Donald Trump—a fact Modi continues to deny. A growing rift is evident between Modi and Trump. Modi reportedly ignored four phone calls from Trump, after which Trump canceled the QUAD meeting in India. In turn, Modi canceled his UNGA visit, where a rendezvous with Trump had been possible. Modi has also remained silent on Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize—a move supported by Pakistan.

Currently, three wars appear closely aligned: India vs. Pakistan, Israel vs. Iran, and China over Taiwan, all taking place amid the raging Russia–Ukraine war. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israel has continued its genocidal war on Palestine, with around 65,000 people killed so far. The US has stood firmly with Israel, while the US, NATO, and European nations continue to support Ukraine militarily. Russia, on the other hand, is strongly backed by Iran and China. India has momentarily distanced itself from the US but cannot afford to break ties entirely, as Washington and Tel Aviv are deeply intertwined. Meanwhile, Turkey and the 22 Arab states have long abandoned Palestine, aligning instead with the US (and by extension, Israel).

These current and looming conflicts must be understood against the backdrop of earlier flashpoints. The 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2020 saw Turkey and Israel backing Azerbaijan, while Iran and Russia supported Armenia. The war ended only after Russia brokered a ceasefire. Soon after, in May 2021, a 12-day war between Israel and Hamas broke out, which ended in a truce after Putin warned Israel’s ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Ben Zvi, to stop hostilities. Iran supported Hamas, and Russia played a key role in halting the conflict. The common thread: Russia and Iran. This alignment pushed global powers to entangle Russia, setting the stage for the February 2022 Russia–Ukraine war, triggered by Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership—which would have brought NATO to Russia’s doorstep. Azerbaijan remains hostile toward Iran and is almost certain to side with Israel, along with Arab states and Turkey, if an Israel–Iran war breaks out—a scenario that now appears imminent.

The SCO meeting has strengthened Russia–China ties. Both had already agreed during the Beijing Winter Olympics (2023) to support each other’s wars. Over the past two years, the US and NATO have pumped billions of dollars in military aid into Ukraine, though Trump has attempted to place some brakes on this. The US now wants NATO to fund long-range missiles for Ukraine. If President Volodymyr Zelenskyy deploys these against Russia, it could trigger a direct escalation—potentially leading to nuclear war. These ominous signs are increasingly visible on the world stage.

Following the first phase of the Israel–Iran conflict, the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. In response, Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev expressed willingness to supply nuclear warheads to Iran. China, too, has reportedly extended its security umbrella over Iran. Meanwhile, European powers England and France have moved to strengthen their nuclear deterrence by agreeing to coordinate operational aspects of their nuclear arsenals. This step reflects widespread speculation that Russia may retaliate with nuclear strikes if Ukraine deploys long-range missiles.

In its latest offensive, Russia targeted the Ukrainian government headquarters—a major escalation signaling the failure of US and European defense systems. Precision strikes on Ukrainian leadership may follow. Putin is well aware that targeting Zelenskyy could provoke NATO’s direct intervention. Conversely, Zelenskyy may not hesitate to escalate if the opportunity arises.

England has already begun preparing for a possible war with Russia, conducting emergency tests of alert messages across tens of millions of phones. As part of public sensitization, citizens have been advised to stock essential medicines and prepare “go bags” containing torches, phone chargers, warm clothing, blankets, high-visibility gear, jump leads, food, water, snow shovels, and first-aid kits. France has issued similar preparations, instructing hospitals to prepare for treating thousands of soldiers within 10 to 180 days. Medical centers are also being set up at transport hubs to facilitate the rerouting of foreign soldiers back to their home countries.

Another major concern for Europe comes from satellite imagery reportedly showing a fresh Russian military buildup near the borders of the Baltic states and Finland, according to Polskie Radio. The data indicates thousands of Russian troops, aircraft, and naval units stationed roughly 250 km east of Helsinki. If Russia attacks the strategic Suwałki Gap—akin to the “Chicken Neck” corridor on India’s northeast border—it could seize control of the only land route linking Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to the rest of Europe. This is NATO’s most vulnerable land corridor. In response, NATO has drawn up a new defense strategy, including a rapid-reaction force of 300,000 troops ready to deploy within 30 days.

Never since World War II have Europe and the US found themselves in such a precarious situation. The question now looms large: Will this spiral into a Third World War?

The writer is a former UP State Information Commissioner and writes on international issues.

References:

1-https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01160/

2-https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/artykul/3494829,russia-reportedly-eyes-suwalki-gap-satellite-images-show-military-buildup

9 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org