Moscow is seeking only a lasting solution to resolve the crisis for good, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said
Russia will not accept a “temporary ceasefire” as a solution for the Ukraine conflict, since it will only be used by the collective West to reinforce the “Kiev regime” and its military before the hostilities break out again, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.
Moscow is seeking only a lasting solution to end the ongoing crisis for good, Zakharova said on Thursday during a regular press briefing.
“A temporary ceasefire or, as many say, freezing the conflict, is unacceptable,” she stressed. “We need reliable, legally binding agreements and mechanisms that would guarantee that the crisis will not recur.”
Putting the hostilities on hold, one way or another, will only enable the “Kiev regime” to rearm and get ready to resume the conflict at a later date, Zakharova warned. The pause in the fighting “will be used by the West—the collective West as a whole or its individual representatives - to strengthen the military potential of the Kiev regime and, of course, to attempt an armed revanche,” she warned.
Moscow maintains a reserved position on the repeated pledges by the new US administration to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to its end, Zakharova signaled. Thus far, US President Donald Trump and his team made a lot of statements, yet took little to no practical steps, she said.
“Everything will depend on specific actions and on the plans of the new administration, embodied in these very actions. Right now there are a lot of words, a lot of statements. There is no clarity or precision regarding the steps being taken,” Zakharova explained.
Earlier this week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said engagement with Washington has increased since Trump took office. There have been contacts between “certain departments” of the two countries, he said without providing any further detail.
Last Friday, Trump said that communication is ongoing between his administration and the Russian government and reiterated his goal of putting a swift end to the nearly three years-long hostilities.
Moscow has repeatedly signaled its willingness to settle the conflict through diplomacy, rather than on the battlefield, stating the potential negotiations must accept the “reality on the ground.” Russia’s readiness for “tough” negotiations with the US was reaffirmed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, who said the first step should be taken by Washington.
“The first step toward normalizing bilateral relations – based on the principles of mutual respect and equality – should be taken by the United States,” Ryabkov said, adding that the plans hatched by the administration of previous US President Joe Biden to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia have been foiled.
What could Donald Trump and Bianca Censori possibly have in common?
Trump is the US president and bestie of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man wanted by the International Court of Justice (ICC)“for the war crimes of starvation […] and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” Censori is a – very – visual artist and wife of publicly mentally unstable rapper Kanye West.
And yet both Trump and Censori have made a habit of staging attention-grabbing provocations for so long that they now seem to be running out of extremes in outdoing themselves.
For Censori, after full frontal de facto nudity at the Grammys, there’s really only live intercourse left (she may not know she’s long been beaten to that trick by faded Western “freedom/civil-society” favorite Nadya Tolokonnikova from ancient-history “Pussy Riot”). For Trump, you really have to wonder now: He has just delivered such a double whammy of sheer shock value that it’s hard to imagine him topping it again (and yet he will, of course).
While hosting Netanyahu in Washington – as the first foreign leader officially visiting, no less – Trump has declared that the US wants to annex the Gaza strip, ethnically cleanse its entire Palestinian population (he used different terms, of course, but so did the Nazis, and we do not parrot their euphemisms), and then develop the area into a “riviera” of high-end real estate and businesses.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian victims of this plan are supposed to be de facto expelled to neighboring countries – except Israel, of course, which is really Palestine (layers…) – such as Jordan and Egypt, both US “allies,” i.e. vassals, notwithstanding their explicit objections. Let’s note in passing that Trump’s “development” plans prove that Gaza can be rebuilt. The issue is not “technical” but political: Trump suggests rebuilding but only after a very violent mass eviction. Call it the real-estate-with-genocidal-oomph business model.
Yet, while Trump’s insane as well as evil – yes, that’s the word – ideas about Gaza’s future have attracted most attention, there are two scandals here: Even receiving Netanyahu is outrageous. And it remains so, even if the entire US “elite” – in truly bipartisan fashion – pretends it is normal, or even something to celebrate.
Meeting the Israeli leader – for anyone anywhere, really – is such a disgrace because Netanyahu is not “only” the object of an ICC warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is also one of the top perpetrators of Israel’s geocide against the Palestinians (a crime recognized by Amnesty International but that the ICC failed to acknowledge, clearly for political reasons), the leader of Israel’s vicious apartheid regime (as a UN report has long recognized), and a war monger addicted to assaulting neighboring countries via bombing, assassination campaigns, and direct invasions.
Israel is, by far, the worst source of violence and injustice (and thus more violence) in the Middle East. Beyond that region, its relentless settler-colonialist drive to dispossess, ethnically cleanse, and kill Palestinians and its ceaseless aggression toward its neighbors is constantly disrupting global stability.
The second reason American presidents, ideally, should not touch Netanyahu with a barge pole is, of course, exactly why they won’t stop embracing him in sordid reality: money. Israel has run the, by far, most successful foreign influence operation in modern history, even beating those of the US itself. While the whole West has been its target, the American establishment has clearly been the bull’s eye.
Hence, in an ideal world, from which we are very far, Americans would not celebrate Israeli leaders but rebel against them – AIPAC tea party, anyone? – since no other country has ever remotely done so much so successfully to undermine US sovereignty and dismantle what very little democracy has been withering away inside the rusty cage of oligarchy that America really is. None of this is a secret, an “antisemitic” smear, or a “conspiracy theory.” Indeed, the Jerusalem Post, for instance, has boasted of Zionist success in massively influencing US elections as recently as last November.
The US “elite’s” breathtaking, open, traitorous readiness to be corrupted by foreign interests as long as they are Israeli is one obvious reason why, in a sane world, Israeli leaders should find at least all other Americans highly averse.
The other, second scandal about smirking Netanyahu’s visit to Washington is, of course, Trump’s proposal to complete the Israeli campaign of genocidal ethnic cleansing. It makes no difference that Trump pretends not to understand the clear implications of his scheme. Trump’s hypocritical invocation of “humanitarian” intentions to “save” Gaza’s Palestinians from the wasteland that his predecessor Genocide Joe Biden mightily helped the Israelis make is – to say it in plain New York English – for suckers.
The fact is that the US president has publicly announced a plan to engage in an enormous crime under international law, together with Israel. That, in and of itself, is not new. But there are two things about Trump’s current move that make it special.
First, there is the backdrop of mass murderous violence and devastation that Israel has already inflicted since October 2023. Trump himself revealingly keeps referring to “1.7 or 1.8” million Palestinians alive in Gaza now. Yet there is general agreement that before the Israeli genocide campaign, Gaza’s population numbered at least 2.1 to 2.3 million. Clearly, the American president has seen or been told about figures that imply that not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed by bombing, snipers, in mass executions, by blockade and starvation, and illnesses, deliberately promoted by the comprehensive destruction of infrastructure. Such an outcome was predicted in the gold-standard medical journal The Lancet back in July 2024.
All of this – plus the long prior history of Israeli violence and in particular the systematic laying waste of Gaza since 2005 – Trump’s US now intends to reward with success. All that strenuous Western rhetoric about never “rewarding the aggressor”? It really seems to mean: Except when the aggressor is also a certifiable Israeli genocider. In the most immediate context, that American signal can only embolden Netanyahu and friends to break the current, fragile ceasefire which they punctuate with constant killings even now.
That is bad enough. But there is also a wider precedent here: Israel is dependent on American support for its extreme policies of genocide and war. What we are seeing, then, is a perverse tag team game: First the US provides Israel with everything it needs to devastate Gaza, then Israel creates a wasteland, and finally, Washington – “generously” – takes a look and finds that the only way to rebuild said wasteland is by first completing the total dispossession of its Palestinian inhabitants. Think about what a fine recipe that is for the rest of the world: Wreak havoc first, then swoop in to “save” the ruins by annexing them. If we let the US get away with it this time, this time will not be the last time.
That brings us to the one upside to Trump’s brutality: Unlike his predecessor Biden, Trump is not even trying to apply a fig leaf to his imperialism or his complete complicity with Israel. Where the Biden administration accompanied their co-genociding with nauseating hypocrisy, the Trumpists give it to us straight.
Don’t get me wrong: that doesn’t make Trump’s approach morally “better.” If you are still looking for fine distinctions between Trumpist and Democratic viciousness, stop wasting your time. It’s all the same bad old, if increasingly deranged, US establishment. Yet Trump’s frankness has one great advantage: The world needs to finally learn to do the obvious, namely – as they say in International Relations Theory – “balance” against Washington, the most dangerous rogue state on the planet. Trump’s lack of filters should make it easier even for the slowest to finally acknowledge that fact: Multipolarity
At
Reclaim The Net, we don’t rely on invasive advertising that compromises
our values. Instead, we’re powered by those who believe in a freer
internet — people like you. If you stand for free speech, a world beyond
cancel culture, and the fight to reclaim privacy and civil liberties,
join us. Become a supporter today. Gain exclusive access to extra content, tutorials, and guides.
What
happens when so-called "independent" journalism depends on the US
government’s checkbook? For decades, Washington has quietly bankrolled
media outlets worldwide under the guise of promoting press freedom.
But
a sudden freeze on foreign aid has exposed an uncomfortable reality:
without American funding, many of these organizations are struggling to
survive. If true independence means being free from political influence,
what does it say when an entire media ecosystem collapses the moment US
dollars stop flowing?
During
a US Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing
titled "Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America,"
senators and witnesses laid out how Joe Biden's administration,
regulators, overbearing rules, big banks, and more had resulted in
millions of Americans being blacklisted from the banking industry.
The Biden Administration's Role in Debanking
Throughout
the hearing, witnesses and senators noted that Biden regime pressure
was a major contributor to this debanking wave, particularly through
Operation Choke Point 2.0, a Biden-era push that primarily focused on
pressuring banks to refuse to service cryptocurrency companies.
These claims were bolstered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) release of 175 pages of documents before the hearing,
which, according to FDIC Acting Chairman Travis Hill, show that banks
that sought to offer crypto-related products or services were "almost
universally met with resistance" from the FDIC, with some of this
resistance coming in the form of "directives from supervisors to pause,
suspend, or refrain from expanding all crypto- or blockchain-related
activity."
"Under
the Biden administration, we've seen the rise of what many are calling
Operation Choke Point 2.0, where federal regulators exploited their
power, pressuring banks to cut off services to individuals and
businesses with conservative dispositions, or folks aligned with
industries they just didn't like, like the color of one's skin in my
family's history," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC)
said. "I wholeheartedly believe that debanking someone over their
political ideology is un-American and goes against the core values that
our nation was founded upon."
Scott
added that the newly released FDIC documents "further proved that Choke
Point 2.0 was real" and "paint a disgusting and disheartening picture
of abuse."
Senator
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) also showcased a quote from a confidential
Federal Reserve implementation handbook on account actions that she
described as "hard proof of Operation Choke Point." The quote in
question requires Federal Reserve staff to "consider the conduct of the
institution and its leadership and whether association with the
institution poses reputational risk to the Reserve Bank."
One
of the witnesses, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Partner Stephen Gannon, was
shocked by the quote, saying he'd "never seen anything like that
before" and that "it's really quite unusual."
"Who's
to say what is controversial and what is not controversial?" Gannon
added. "It's chilling to me that it's possible that access to the
Federal Reserve payment system might be dependent on whether the
applicant was engaged in some sort of controversial commentary...or
activities...We don't want to be in a place where free speech is chilled
because there's a concern that I might not get access to banking
services."
Senator
Pete Ricketts (R-NE) also slammed the Biden administration for the way
it "weaponized government at all different levels" and targeted the
crypto industry.
And
when Ricketts questioned Gannon on Operation Choke Point 1.0 (a 2013
Obama-era debanking effort that targeted gun dealers, payday lenders,
and other companies considered to be "high risk") and Operation Choke
Point 2.0, Gannon said these efforts had resulted in "many small,
perfectly legal businesses" ceasing operations.
While
the Biden administration and its actions during Operation Choke Point
2.0 were identified as major contributors to debanking, participants
also shone a light on the confluence of other factors that led to
businesses and people losing access to financial services.
Big
banks denying access to customers was one such factor. Senator John
Kennedy (R-LA) asked Mike Ring, the President, CEO, and Co-Founder of the freedom-focused bank, Old Glory Bank,
to name the American banks that "have been discriminating, debanking
customers because of their religious beliefs, because they support the
Second Amendment, or because they hate fossil fuels." Ring responded by
saying Bank of America has "certainly picked and choose [sic] winners"
and also named Chase Bank, Citibank, and KeyBank.
Overburdensome
regulations that lack transparency were also pointed to as a reason
customers are excluded from the financial system.
Ring
said that the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), an anti-money laundering (AML)
law that requires banks to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) for
transactions involving more than $10,000 in cash and Suspicious Activity
Reports (SARs) for transactions they deem suspicious, is "the Trojan
horse for banks to do whatever they want."
Aaron
Klein, a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings
Institution, said that the AML rules have created an exclusionary system
that results in banks excluding low profit customers:
"I
think one of the problems that we have in our anti-money laundering
system is we've created an economic structure where the costs are very
high. And the banks respond by saying, 'If you're a low-profit customer,
we don't want you because of the AML cost, but if you're a high-profit
customer, we'll just pay the AML fine.'"
And
Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) shone a light on the "excessive amount of
reporting" banks have to file and the lack of transparency around SARs,
which are usually filed without customers having any awareness of them
or having the ability to appeal.
Senator
Bill Hagerty (R-AL) summed up the overall sentiment and explained how a
"constellation of problems exists at multiple levels" and that these
problems are created by "partisan ideologues that actually operate
within banks, public affairs divisions, or their so-called reputational
risk committees that are exerting their influence to choke off
disfavored industries," external pressure from political activist
groups, proxy advisory firms, and "activist regulators that have abused
their supervisory authority."
Hagerty
added that this has ultimately created a "de facto debanking" system
where "unelected individuals that are dictating what kind of companies
can exist and thrive in our nation, and with no directive at all from
the American people or from their elected representatives..."
You
subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy.
Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights,
providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote
liberty in the digital age.
Despite
our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute
financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we
can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about
the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.
Consider
making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford.
Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them
about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.
Thank
you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our
operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and
advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Germany's
snap election is just around the corner, and the elites from parties
making up the caretaker government (but not only) continue to exhibit a
high degree of contentious behavior, with X and Elon Musk being a
favorite target.
Now we have two NGOs - Society for Civil Rights (GFF) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) - suing X for allegedly refusing to disclose its data, that would have helped them "track election disinformation."
The
two groups are citing the EU's (online censorship law) DSA, saying that
X is violating it by withholding the data they are demanding to have
access to.
GFF and DRI
have at least one thing in common - according to their websites, George
Soros' Open Society Foundations are among their donors (in DRI's case,
this is through membership in the European Partnership for Democracy
(EPD) network.
But DRI's by far main funding source is the European Commission, with €5.7 million in 2023 alone.
When
it comes to GFF - the group describes its activities as keeping an eye
on elections around the world, as well as "monitoring" social media
regarding "election disinformation" - with offices in Berlin, Lebanon,
Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and, Ukraine.
Other
than getting money from the Soros' outfit, GFF has also been funded,
among many others, by the European Artificial Intelligence Fund
(specifically for "the work on the DSA") - but also, interestingly, the
Mozilla Foundation - and this grant goes to the heart of the lawsuit
that's been announced now.
The Mozilla Foundation felt
generous with its money (a huge majority of which came from Google, via
a search engine deal) in order to "support (GFF) for the enforcement of
research data access based on the DSA."
If you thought that was thought-provoking - how about this: DuckDuckGo is also listed as a donor on GFF's official site.
And now, onto the lawsuit.
"Other
platforms have granted us access to systematically track public debates
on their platforms, but X has refused to do so," said Michael
Meyer-Resende (DRI).
Meanwhile,
Simone Rug of GFF shared with the media the belief that the lawsuit is
"important" - and then "reinvented the wheel" that has been turning for
the last eight years at least: "Platforms are increasingly being
weaponized against democratic elections."
Ruf was doing so well, but then so revealingly for this era, added, "We must defend ourselves."
US
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has written to the EU
Commission's Executive VP for Technological Sovereignty, Security and
Democracy Henna Virkkunen regarding the bloc's censorship law, the Digital Services Act.
Jordan
wants the EU to, by February 13, inform the committee of how it plans
to enforce the law when it comes to US tech companies, and also about
investigations that are at this time underway, against Meta and X.
Jordan,
as usual, doesn't mince words and has no problem with referring to the
DSA as legislation that has "censorship provisions" - to express what he
said was the committee's serious concern over how those might affect
free speech in the US.
Here,
he was referring to the nature of social platforms that are global, and
how they typically use the same set of policies regarding speech -
meaning that if those policies were aligned with the EU's restrictive
legislation, the result could be the setting of "de facto global
censorship standards."
Even
though for a long time criticized by speech and privacy advocates, the
DSA was flying under the radar of the previous White House, now it is
emerging as a significant point, as the two sides clash on a number of
issues.
Under
the DSA, which the EU and the law's supporters treat as a set of
"moderation" rules for the good of the internet - companies can be
forced to pay up to six percent of global turnover or even get blocked.
Elon
Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and President Trump have been among those who
previously publicly criticized the DSA. Previously, Virkkunen denied
that the DSA enabled censorship and even claimed that free speech is "respected and protected" by the law.
Jordan
and the commission he heads have been involved in multi-year efforts to
expose online censorship practices in the US, but this is not the first
time that these investigations have also turned toward the EU.
Last
summer, during the presidential campaign in the US, he wrote to then
Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton because of this EU
official's scandalous warning issued to Musk regarding a live stream of
an interview with then-candidate Trump.
The letter to Virkkunen was reported by Politico, but the EU Commission is yet to publicly comment on its contents.
The government in London is laboring to
get US tech entrepreneur and billionaire Elon Musk designated a "malign
actor" - a label previously reserved for nation-states the UK considers
to be hostile.
Foreign
Secretary David Lammy is reported to be holding "crisis talks" with
British parliament members (MPs) around this issue, with "disinformation
threats" cited as the reason behind these developments.
An
inquiry into this was organized in January by the Foreign Affairs
Committee, whose chair Emily Thornberry, an MP from the ranks of the
ruling Labour, asserted this type of threat against the country and its
interests is now being "weaponized" by both state and non-state actors.
Thornberry
at the same time "named and shamed" Musk as one of the latter, who, in
his role as X owner, allegedly "exploits the platform to spread
disinformation that disrupts and destabilizes."
But,
the more even-keeled members of the government apparatus - namely, its
diplomats - have reportedly advised Lammy against equating influential
individuals with state-backed disinformation campaigns.
The
inquiry is expected to be a topic of conversation as Lammy and
Thornberry meet this week. This particular attack on Musk is linked with
the decision to reinstate the previously banned account of Tommy
Robinson on X, and Musk's support for him was expressed last month.
Robinson
is branded in some reports as a "far-right activist" while his
supporters consider him a "political prisoner" (he has been jailed on
contempt of court charges, while the case against him is essentially
based on "hate speech" accusations).
But
the UK's government troubles with Musk run deeper, including dramatic
reactions to the X owner's criticism regarding the authorities' handling
of last summer's widespread riots, and more recently, of the grooming
gangs scandal.
Thornberry's
arguments - after years of all major platforms "tweaking" their
algorithms and moderation policies to firmly toe government(s) line on a
number of key issues - is that social media (aka, X) "algorithms" have
broken rank, to now allow "more controversial and incendiary content,
furthering disinformation's reach."
Thornberry is also worried about the trend of dropping third-party "fact-checkers."
One
of the inquiry's stated goals is to examine how the UK government can
"coordinate its counter-disinformation work across departments and best
work with private organizations."
The
browser ecosystem, specifically on the mobile side, just got even
smaller and less competitive with the announcement of the imminent
shutting down of the open-source Kiwi browser.
It's
a story as old as the open source developing community: a small number
of people, sometimes a single person, create and develop projects that
later down the line become popular (Kiwi had a million downloads a
month) - but over time prove too overwhelming to update and maintain
(and often, impossible to monetize.)
But
another part of that story is also a constant - since the code is open,
it can be "reused." In this case, the differentiating factor for Kiwi,
and the original reason Arnaud Granal started developing it, is the
extension support.
Google's
Chrome, which resolutely dominates the browser market both on the
desktop and on devices, does not support extensions in mobile versions.
However, Kiwi allowed users to include Chrome's (desktop) extensions,
making it popular among those in need of this functionality.
Given
the open-source nature of the project, where Kiwi's extensions code has
ended up integrated seems a little surprising, from the "ideological"
standpoint: it's Microsoft's Edge Canary.
But
both these browsers are Chromium-based. And, for those who want
extensions in their phone browsers but also want nothing to do with
Microsoft, there are other options - like Firefox, Brave, Vivaldi,
Samsung Internet, etc.
Kiwi,
meanwhile, can still be sideloaded (it has been removed from the Play
Store), but since maintenance is discontinued it will receive no updates
past this January, meaning that it will at some point become unusable
through incompatibility with Android's own updates. The Kiwi code (and
the APK) is available on GitHub.
Those
migrating to Edge Canary will find that user experience has suffered,
as activating Kiwi's extensions is somewhat involved. They will need to
go into developer options (which is accomplished by tapping on the
browser's build number repeatedly) and then enable extensions by pasting
their ID into the appropriate box.
A post on Reddit's Android sub details the steps to achieve this.
