Why Epstein’s Links to the CIA Are So Important
The word unclassified potentially gives Trump and the CIA wide latitude to hold back Epstein-related materials that they claim are too sensitive to release.
We won’t know the full truth about his crimes until the extent of his ties to US intelligence are clear.
Jeet Heer, January 2026, https://www.thenation.com/article/society/jeffrey-epstein-cia-ties/
On November 18, Donald Trump suffered a major political defeat when the House of Representatives passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by a nearly unanimous vote: 427–1. But while emphatic, the House measure included a significant proviso that might yet prevent a full reckoning with Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
Trump had fought for months against the bill, which was drafted by a bipartisan coalition created by California Democrat Ro Khanna and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie. In the end, the strong public revulsion for Epstein’s crimes made opposing the bill untenable. But the final version specified that the Department of Justice must make public “all unclassified” documents on Epstein
The word unclassified potentially gives Trump and the CIA wide latitude to hold back Epstein-related materials that they claim are too sensitive to release. In this, they have the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson, who insisted that US intelligence agencies be allowed to “protect their critical sources and methods. It is incredibly dangerous to demand that officials or employees of the DOJ declassify material that originated in other agencies and intelligence agencies.”
Johnson’s words stand in stark contrast to the remarks by Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of four dissident House Republicans who forced Trump to abandon his opposition to the Epstein bill. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files, or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” she asked in a November 18 press conference. “Will the CIA release the files?” Greene—perhaps feeling too bruised by the clash with Trump, who attacked her repeatedly over her Epstein heresy—subsequently announced that she will be retiring from Congress. But her words still cut to the heart of why getting……………………………………..[Subscribers only]
The Israeli Government Installed and Maintained Security System at Epstein Apartment
Security equipment and alarms were installed by the Israeli government at a notorious Manhattan residence frequented by former PM Ehud Barak.
Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain, Feb 19, 2026 https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-government-surveillance-epstein-apartment-66th-street-ehud-barak
The Israeli government installed security equipment and controlled access to a Manhattan apartment building managed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a set of emails recently released by the Department of Justice. The equipment was installed starting in early 2016 at 301 E. 66th Street—the residence where former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak frequently stayed for stretches at a time.
The security operation at “Ehud’s apartment” was in place for at least two years, emails from the DOJ disclosure show, with officials from the Israeli permanent mission to the United Nations corresponding regularly with Epstein’s staff regarding security. The apartment was technically owned by a company connected to Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, but was effectively controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. Units in the building were frequently loaned out to Epstein’s contacts and used to house underage models.
Rafi Shlomo, then-director of protective service at the Israeli mission to the United Nations in New York and head of Barak’s security, corresponded with Epstein employees to arrange meetings to discuss security and coordinate installation of specialized surveillance equipment at the 66th Street residence. Shlomo personally controlled access to the apartment for guests and even conducted background checks on cleaners and Epstein’s employees.
Under Israeli law, former prime ministers and other high ranking officials typically receive security services after they leave office. According to the emails, Epstein personally approved the installation of the equipment and authorized meetings between his staff and Israeli security officials.
Ehud Barak and the Israeli mission to the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment.
At the time of Epstein’s death in 2019, Barak downplayed his connection to the disgraced financier, stating that while he had met with Epstein several times, he “didn’t support me or pay me.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently suggested that Epstein’s close ties to Barak, a longtime Labor Party official and rival of Netanyahu, undermine rather than strengthen the case for Epstein’s ties to Israel. “Jeffrey Epstein’s unusual close relationship with Ehud Barak doesn’t suggest Epstein worked for Israel. It proves the opposite,” Netanyahu said. “Stuck on his election loss from over two decades ago, Barak has for years obsessively attempted to undermine Israeli democracy by working with the anti-Zionist radical left in failed attempts to overthrow the elected Israeli government.”
A January 2016 email exchange between Barak’s wife, Nili Priell, and an Epstein employee—whose name is partially redacted but appears from other communications to be his longtime assistant Lesley Groff—discussed installing alarms and surveillance equipment at the residence, including six “sensors sticked to the windows,” and the ability to remotely control access to the premises. Priell informed Epstein’s staff that, “They can neutralize the system from far, before you need somebody to enter the appartment. the only thing to do is call Rafi from the consulate and let him know who and when is entering.”
The correspondence also indicated that the work done by the Israeli government was significant enough that it required Epstein to personally approve it. “Jeffrey says he does not mind holes in the walls and this is all just fine!” Groff wrote to Barak and Priell.
The mission was in regular touch with Epstein’s representatives over multiple visits by Barak and his wife throughout 2016 and 2017.
In a January 2017 email to Shlomo—with the subject line “Jeffrey Epstein RE Ehud’s apartment”—an Epstein assistant provided Israeli officials with a list of employees who would need access to the apartment, adding, “I understand from you already have a copy of her ID from awhile ago…she is the maid and has been going in and out of the apartment for a long time now!” A few weeks later, they wrote to Epstein himself that, “Rafi, the head of Ehud”s security, is asking if I could meet him at 4pm on Tues. 14th at his office (800 2nd Ave and 42nd) re Ehud’s apartment.” Epstein approved the meeting.
The correspondence continued throughout that year—in August an assistant for Epstein reached out again to Shlomo to inform him of yet another stay by Barak and his wife at the Epstein residence. By November 2017, Shlomo had been replaced by another Israeli official who managed security and surveillance for Barak.
Barak’s longtime aide Yoni Koren, who died in 2023, was another frequent guest at Epstein’s 66th Street apartment. Koren stayed at the apartment on multiple occasions—including in 2013, while he was still actively serving as “bureau chief” for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, according to calendars released by the House Oversight Committee investigation into Epstein and emails released by Distributed Denial of Secrets. Email correspondence from Barak’s inbox also showed Koren exchanging information with Epstein for a wire transfer, as previously reported by Drop Site.
New emails released by the Department of Justice showed that Koren continued to stay at Epstein’s apartment while receiving medical treatment in New York up until the second arrest and death of the financier in 2019.
Epstein, Yermak and Zelensky
Comment: The primary recipient of Epstein blackmail information is Israel, the country that ‘produced Epstein’. It will remain ‘useful’ for decades.
At this stage, 25 of Epstein’s targets have negotiated with the federal prosecutor. They have paid substantial sums to avoid prosecution and to ensure their names are not published. In the first 3 million documents released, all references to them have been redacted, while those of their victims appear in full.
Thierry Meyssan, voltairenet.com, Tue, 17 Feb 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/504755-Epstein-Yermak-and-Zelensky
While Epstein may have seemed to enjoy committing his crimes, we must not forget that he worked for a secret service, Mossad. The horrors he perpetrated were primarily a means of blackmailing his associates. Although, for the moment, no Ukrainian figure has been directly implicated, numerous elements compel us to investigate who in Ukraine supplied children to the Epstein network.
The Epstein affair has shaken all developed nations. To summarize the facts: billionaire Jeffrey Epstein organized a network of informants for Mossad and the Franco-Swiss branch of the Rothschilds. In order to gain leverage over them, he gradually drew his targets (scientists, financiers, and politicians) into a series of increasingly atrocious games. Initially, he offered them extramarital affairs, then relationships with increasingly younger partners, and finally, he involved them in torture, murder, and cannibalism.People who rise to positions of power in society may feel the need to test the extent of their influence. They can only measure it by the magnitude of their transgressions, engaging in universally condemned practices with impunity.
This type of blackmail is not new. In France, we saw the Doucé affair (1990), and in Belgium, the Dutroux affair (1995-1996). The targets of this blackmail were never brought to light. A few names of prominent figures were merely mentioned, but the high-ranking criminals were never arrested. What is new in the Epstein case is that the US justice system has 9 million pages of documents, a third of which it has already released to the public.
The Doucé and Dutroux cases were blackmail schemes perpetrated by NATO intelligence services. Their targets were not limited to France and Belgium, but extended throughout the European Union. Those targeted were left unmolested and available for future operations.
At this stage, 25 of Epstein’s targets have negotiated with the federal prosecutor. They have paid substantial sums to avoid prosecution and to ensure their names are not published. In the first 3 million documents released, all references to them have been redacted, while those of their victims appear in full.
We don’t know how the US Department of Justice chose the order in which to release the documents it possesses. For the moment, they only implicate European figures and spare its targets in the United States. Perhaps this is a coincidence, perhaps it’s a way to destabilize allies while waiting for public opinion, disgusted, to tire of the situation.
We know, however, that former and current heads of state and government are implicated. Some have leaked economic, financial, or commercial data; others, political, military, or diplomatic secrets. All have committed acts that fall under criminal law and betrayed their country.Each time, unbeknownst to them,the recipient of this information was the State of Israel, or at least a faction within its government.
On a recurring basis, informants, some of whom were manipulated witnesses, others mentally ill and sometimes – much more rarely – genuine witnesses, denounced the participation of personalities in satanic cults.
To date, the only known head of state whose entourage practices black masses characteristic of this type of cult is the unelected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. For several years, appalling rumors have circulated about him without any possibility of verification. However, on January 31, Yulia Mendel, Zelensky’s former press secretary, revealed that his trusted confidant, Andriy Yermak, the former head of his now-disgraced administration, practices black masses [ 1 ] . He brought in Chabad magicians from Israel, Georgia, and Latin America. According to her, “Yermak burned herbs and collected bodily fluids to make dolls.” Within two weeks, the Ukrainian internet was flooded with caricatures and jokes about “Yermak the Magician,” who had predicted to Zelensky that Russia would never intervene in Ukraine. Under the pseudonym “Ali Baba”, Yermak was also at the head of a vast corruption network, revealed during Operation Midas [ 2 ] .
Since his suspension, Yermak has resumed his work as a lawyer. According to the Ukrainian press, he goes to the gym every morning and then to his office in the afternoon. Journalists, who follow him everywhere he goes, have observed him visiting the homes of Oleksandr Kamyshin, the director of the railways, and Rustem Umierov, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, who is currently under investigation in the Midas case. Most notably, he visited Yevgen Korniychuk, the controversial former Minister of Justice who served as ambassador to Israel (2021-2023). Korniychuk is the son-in-law of Vasyl Onopenko, the president of the Supreme Court. Finally, Yermak’s lawyer, Ihor Fomin, and Yevgen Korniychuk went together to see Timur Mindich (Volodymyr Zelensky’s business associate, now a fugitive) in Herzliya (Israel) [ 3 ]
Among the third of Epstein’s known documents are several Ukrainian passports, but the Justice Department has redacted the names, addresses, and photos of the holders with whom Epstein associated. Furthermore, other documents attest that Epstein traveled to Kyiv several times and tasked the Frenchman Jean-Luc Brunel with shopping there. Brunel was the director of the modeling agencies Karin Models (Paris) and E=MC2 (Miami). He was indicted in France for pimping and had the good sense (like Epstein) to “commit suicide” in La Santé prison. Timur Mindichwas also the director of the Fire Point modeling agency (Kyiv). It remains unknown, however, how many young Ukrainian men and women fell victim to their schemes.
It is in this context that Mr. Volodymyr Vatras, a member of the Legal Commission of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament), submitted, on February 6, 2026, a draft reform of the Ukrainian Civil Code [ 4 ] .
Besides protecting the reputation of those prosecuted for corruption until their final conviction, this bill lowers the age of marriage to 14. Let’s be clear about what this means: consequently, any prosecution for child abduction or rape of children aged 14 to 18 will become impossible under other Ukrainian laws. The Ukrainian press is calling it “state-sponsored pedophilia” [ 5 ] . Many Ukrainians, citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have launched petitions against this regressive reform [ 6 ] . You still haven’t grasped what this means: this reform will be retroactive and will apply to all acts committed after 2014 (i.e., the Maidan coup). This reform abolishes the provisions of the Ukrainian Criminal Code against pedophilia [ 7 ] .
Do you know of any state in the world, today or in the past, that has retroactively lowered the marriage age? No, obviously not.
It is worth recalling that the Ukrainian government accuses Russia of abducting 900,000 children. Moscow, which disputes this figure, maintains that it did not capture them, but rather collected them from the battlefield and brought them to Russia to protect them from the war. To date, Ukraine has only released a list of 339 children whose names the Zelensky administration is demanding. Where are the thousands of others?
The answer lies somewhere in the still-secret 6 million pages of the Epstein case. Hunter Biden’s medical experiments on Ukrainian soldiers outraged you; the Zelensky clique’s abductions of Ukrainian children will make you sick.
Speaking before the Verkhovna Rada on February 11, MP Inna Sovsun declared:
“The standard that the members of the Law Commission are trying to pass, regarding marriage with 14-year-olds, is pure barbarity. It contradicts common sense and European standards. We don’t know how many other problems this code contains. Therefore, I join the demands of lawyers to remove the draft Civil Code from consideration, to examine it carefully again in committee, to discuss it in society, and only then to submit it to Parliament.”
Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and ideologue of the Servant of the People party (Zelensky’s party), was heavily involved both in drafting this Civil Code and in defending it before his assembly. He is a scientist and educator who has long worked with children. He, too, is implicated in the Midas case. But all the experts have pointed out that his statements do not correspond to the text as presented.Stefanchuk was in Washington last week. On February 7, he met with Riley M. Barnes, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Rights. He explained at length that no Ukrainian children had disappeared, but that 900,000 had been captured by Russia.
Back in Kyiv, Ruslan Stefanchuk faced a public outcry. He admitted that he could not, in its current form, submit the draft of the new Civil Code to a parliamentary vote. But the problem that this reform clumsily attempted to bury remained.
We currently know only a third of the Epstein case. When we have more information, we will need to inventory the information he possessed and examine how Israel used it.
References:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Beijing moves to contain Mossad’s expanding reach in Iran
Israeli intelligence operations inside Iran have alarmed Beijing, which saw them as a new model of intelligence warfare, prompting deeper technological, security, and strategic cooperation with Tehran.
Nadia Helmy, The Cradle, FEB 17, 2026
Chinese military experts and intelligence agencies increasingly describe Mossad’s deep infiltration into Iran as opening a “Pandora’s box” of global security risks.
From Beijing’s perspective, Israeli and US intelligence operations – particularly those expanding after 2015 and accelerating through 2025–2026 – mark the evolution of a new battlespace. Mossad’s ability to embed agents, compromise sensitive databases, disable radar networks, and facilitate precision strikes from inside Iranian territory is interpreted as a shift toward what Chinese analysts call ‘Informationized and Intelligent’ Warfare.
This represents the convergence of cyber sabotage, internal recruitment, technological penetration, and operational coordination – a hybrid model in which intelligence operations hollow out defensive infrastructure before kinetic action begins.
For China, the implications extend well beyond Iran.
Intelligence warfare as a precursor
Within Chinese security discourse, Israel’s operations in Iran are frequently cited as evidence that intelligence warfare now precedes kinetic engagement.
Military expert Fu Qianshao, a former analyst in the Chinese Air Force, characterized Mossad’s success in planting agents and disabling Iranian radar and air defense systems from within as a “new pattern of intelligence warfare.” The June 2025 Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic, which reportedly faced minimal resistance due to compromised systems, reinforced this assessment.
Fu argued that such tactics transcend traditional battlefield engagement. Instead of confronting air defenses externally, Mossad undermined them internally – neutralizing deterrence before aircraft entered contested airspace.
Another Chinese military expert, Yan Wei, echoed this concern, emphasizing that the penetration of sensitive Iranian facilities exposed structural weaknesses rather than merely technological gaps. Legal safeguards and routine security protocols, he suggested, are insufficient against intelligence operations that exploit bureaucratic vulnerabilities and internal access points.
Professor Li Li, a Chinese expert on West Asian affairs, has pointed to Israeli cyber operations targeting research centers and infrastructure as evidence of intelligence warfare functioning as a force multiplier. Unlike conventional attacks, these operations blur the line between espionage and sabotage, complicating retaliation.
Tian Wenlin, director of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at Renmin University, warned that sustained intelligence incursions could pressure Tehran to accelerate its nuclear capabilities as a defensive countermeasure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://thecradle.co/articles/beijing-moves-to-contain-mossads-expanding-reach-in-iran
The global elite in the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein
17 February 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/the-global-elite-in-the-shadow-of-jeffrey-epstein/
The mainstream media is largely ignoring the real scandal in this story.
By Antony Loewenstein
For years, I mostly ignored the Jeffrey Epstein story. Not because it wasn’t interesting and relevant but there was a distinct lack of hard evidence backing the (often) wild conspiracy theories connecting Epstein to the global political and financial elites, and Israel.
It’s now undeniable that Epstein was incredibly close to Israeli intelligence, a fact that remains largely ignored in the Western media. What this says about the nature of Epstein’s vast criminality, against children and women, speaks volumes about the wilful blindness expressed by legacy media outlets.
The US outlet, Drop Site News, have produced many stunning stories on how Epstein became a key power broker connecting Israel and its defence/surveillance sectors to innumerable nations from Mongolia to the Ivory Coast.
One of the writers of these investigations, Murtaza Hussain, explains both the significance of the revelations and the reticence of corporate media to explore it:
Because of elite capture of many institutions, the coverage of Epstein’s activities by establishment news outlets feels a lot more like damage control than accountability. Despite his extensively documented political influence and even his role in shaping frontier research in AI and biotechnology, Epstein himself has attempted to be quarantined as merely a “con-man” and “dead pervert.” What is being covered up here are not his sexual abuses, but what his role and activities reveal about how power actually operates today.
With some notable exceptions, the general public has had to read independent mediato really understand the Epstein scandal while outlets like the New York Times produce huge amounts of coverage and mostly ignore the late paedophiles’ ties to global intelligence networks.
On my recently launched weekly podcast series, I examined how Epstein, Israel and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak were key nodes in an international campaign to deepen the Jewish state’s influence:
Uranium Neo-colonialism in Mongolia: Crime but No Punishment
The unexplained illnesses and deaths of animals, a desert veterinary clinic run by a uranium mining corporation, and its attempts to ignore the troubling facts are perplexing.
Orano has set a stark precedent, demonstrating that even lenient mining laws are no real constraint. According to activists, the company simply ignored the required environmental impact assessment for some of its ISL mining projects in Dornogobi Aimag. Coincidentally, Orano was also bribing officials to secure mining licenses during this same period.
Environmentalists square off against a French mining company.
By Tatyana Ivanova | February 12, 2026, https://fpif.org/uranium-neo-colonialism-in-mongolia-crime-but-no-punishment/
On a warm April 1st day last year, Budee Khekhee, head of local non-profit The Power of Unity for the Sake of Our Homeland, led a team into the Gobi Desert to investigate reports of a mysterious illness causing the death of wild and domestic animals, which he obtained from the local herders. A former resident who’d assisted his father’s veterinary work, Budee knew the terrain and knew authorities had ignored previous alarms.
In Zamyn Ud, they spotted numerous white-tailed gazelles lying on the ground, unable to get up, and twitching their legs convulsively. The activists livestreamed their discovery. “My heart was overwhelmed with despair,” Budee later testified. “I realized I couldn’t just abandon them here to die.”
Suspecting that the epidemic was caused by French uranium company Orano’s in-situ leach operations, he loaded four gazelles aboard a truck and drove to the corporation’s clinic gate, broadcasting on Facebook. Orano had built and was operating a veterinary clinic in the mining area. Budee didn’t trust them a lot, but he hoped that the staff would assist in rescuing the animals. Those hopes were dashed when, after two hours of standing outside the locked clinic doors, no one appeared, and the animals died. Left with little choice, the activists dissected the gazelles’ bodies and took tissue samples for independent analysis. They livestreamed their actions to Facebook.
For many Mongolian herders, resource neocolonialism is not an abstract concept. They have resulted in tangible losses, illness, and deaths. Descendants of the Mongol Empire now face uranium mining invaders. After the Soviets departed—leaving behind a legacy of toxic mining—the “clean” French uranium industry arrived, reproducing similar patterns of corruption while poisoning the land. At the same time, these colonialists have participated in the persecution of environmental activists.
Should they be held accountable before domestic and international communities?
The Revenge
In official reports, human rights defenders often refer to the persecution of activists as “unjust” or “disproportional punishment.” However, what happened in the case of the Mongolian herders was closer to pure revenge. Unidentified individuals made police reports accusing Khekhee of illegal hunting. He was subjected to repeated questioning for several months after the criminal investigation began.
The local prosecutor’s office then reclassified the matter as an administrative offense. The state’s Environmental Protection Office determined that Khekhee illegally pursued and killed four gazelles. They penalized him $1,200, a substantial sum for an average Mongolian. His July appeal was denied in full in September, but the court of first instance postponed the sentence for three months, thereby conceding that the case lacked merit.
Neither the investigation nor the court determined why Budee Khekhee allegedly needed to kill the gazelles. However, a local journalist discovered the “motive,” writing in August 2025 that it was done “to mislead the public about the consequences of uranium mining by the joint Mongolian-French enterprise ‘Badrakh Energy’ LLC.”
Prosecution for Independent Dosimetry
The unexplained illnesses and deaths of animals, a desert veterinary clinic run by a uranium mining corporation, and its attempts to ignore the troubling facts are perplexing. Especially when combined with the absurd accusation of poaching directed at an environmental activist whose action was widely livestreamed. When connected to other similar events, a pattern emerges.
In mid-August 2025, the same non-profit invited Russian nuclear physicist Andrey Ozharovskiy to conduct dosimetry measurements. Their focus on radioactive pollution was encouraged by groundwater assessments, which had revealed high uranium and arsenic levels in the area. Ozharovskiy, who had extensive experience in identifying radioactive sources, agreed to come. He entered Mongolia legally with his dosimetry and spectrometry equipment for “business purposes.”
On August 15–17, activists drove him along dirt roads in the Gobi Desert to Orano’s pilot ISL uranium extraction wells, where locals reported trucks carrying pregnant solution or liquid waste. It didn’t take the Russian expert long to discover three dried-up puddles emitting gamma radiation 20-50 times above background levels. Spectrometry identified uranium decay products—radium-226, bismuth-214, and lead-214, which, according to Ozharovskiy, was consistent with mining spills rather than natural radiation. The activists published their finding on social media, and this is how the Mongolian authorities learned about the expedition.
The group later traveled across Mongolia along similar dirt roads to Maradai. On August 19, while measuring radiation near abandoned Soviet mining sites, the group was detained by a border officer and some people in plain clothes. According to the activists, the authorities used drones to spot them in the desert. After spending a day or two in several offices, Ozharovskiy was transferred to the Main Intelligence Directorate in Ulaanbaatar. There, after being questioned, he was told that he was suspected of espionage and immigration violations.
Although the authorities released Ozharovskiy, they took his passport so that he couldn’t leave the country. A few days later he was taken again, forced to admit administrative violations, including using unregistered dosimetry devices, and to pay a fine. Then they brought him to the border with Russia and expelled him without his belongings but with a 10-year entry ban. The local activists, meanwhile, have spoken of intimidation, police reporting requirements, smartphone searches, and non-disclosure agreements.
In the same days the Mongolian Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a formal statement, where accused Ozharovskiy of spreading false information about radiation background. Some media labeled the activists foreign agents undermining Franco-Mongolian projects in Russia’s interest.
A System That Favors Abuse and Distrust
Mongolian law prohibits radiation measurements using devices that haven’t been registered with the country’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission. After his first detention, Ozharovskiy donated some of his measuring devices to the non-profit. Activists brought them to the NRC but were denied certification with no clear explanation. The only reason provided, though invalid, was that the devices belonged to a Russian citizen.
The activists explained why they hadn’t registered the devices beforehand: they didn’t want authorities to know about their survey in advance. “If they knew about the devices, they wouldn’t let us measure anyway,” one activist said. “We don’t trust them,” Khekhee added.
This distrust is entirely justified given the broader context documented by prominent human rights organizations. Mongolia has earned a reputation for cracking down on critics and human rights defenders, particularly those challenging the mining industry. Amnesty International’s 2024 report documents that criticism of authorities and mining corporations has become effectively criminalized. According to the report Our Land, these corporations commit massive environmental violations, causing significant environmental pollution and deterioration of public health, and undermining traditional Mongolian livelihoods. To attract investors, Mongolian mining lobbyists even managed to pass corporate-friendly legislation. According to Our Land, in 2006 and again in 2013–2015 they weakened environmental safeguards, reducing water protection zones and allowing mining on private and even protected lands.
Another Face of the French Republic
Continue readingUK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.
Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.
JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/
The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX.
The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.
RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025.
The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.
Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations.
The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.
Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.
The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions.
This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.
The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.
In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.
This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.
It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.
The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.
Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.
Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.
The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.
“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.
Moog
The issue is not unique to RTX.
Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.
The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.
However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.
Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024.
Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.
Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred.
According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials.
“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.
Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.
This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.
Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.
Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.
Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.
University of Cumbria, Nuclear Waste, AI / Bitcoin and a Strange Tale of Tapping Epstein for Money.
On By mariannewildart, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2026/02/05/university-of-cumbria-nuclear-waste-ai-bitcoin-and-a-strange-tale-of-tapping-epstein-for-money/
The University of Cumbria is playing a “central role in a new £4.9 million nuclear robotics and AI cluster,” part of a consortium with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, University of Oxford and University of Manchester to develop a new nuclear robotics and AI cluster, linking Cumbria and Oxfordshire.
Awarded £4.9 million, the cluster is the largest of seven new research projects supported through an overall funding package of £22 million. This is from the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Place Based Impact Acceleration Account (PBIAA) scheme. The robotics will of course end up as nuclear waste with the ultimate plan to dump the radioactive doggy robots in a big hole under the Lake District coast. The University of Cumbria has never made any comments that there should be no nuclear waste dump under the Lake District coast or that there should be no new nuclear waste, no new nuclear build. This latest nuclear complicity means that they are now hugely compromised and it would be a brave university professor (we do live in hope) to speak out against using the Lake District coast as a giant heat sink in which to dump hot nuclear robots.
Some years ago I was stood outside Gail Bradbrook’s (XR Leader) talk in Kendal leafletting against the (now rejected) coal mine near Sellafield with a nuclear waste barrel costume on. Professor Bendell walked past with his head down clearly not wanting to take a leaflet from a person in a nuclear waste barrel. When I did a bit of research I found that Professor Bendell is known is some circles as “Professor Bitcoin.” The University of Cumbria where he is “Professor of Sustainability Leadership” was the first in the world to accept student’s tuition fees in bitcoin. Whats wrong with that?Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies use enormous amounts of energy and are also the key to AI.
Prof Bendell has written long-winded deflections online regarding his connection to Epstein. Prof Bendell said he was introduced to Epstein through the Gates Foundation which does seem to be the case. Telling Epstein that his past was a problem in 2013 however does not seem to be reflected in the released files. Correspondence continues over several years.
The explanation above has been accepted by Jem’s followers of whom there are many.
A closer look reveals that Prof Bendell was keen to tap Epstein for money on behalf of the University of Cumbria in order to fund the Professor’s and the Uni’s interests in Bitcoin. This keenness for Epstein funds went so far as to the Professor sourcing a 5013c ( a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association, or organisation exempt from federal income tax) through which to accept “donation/s from Epstein.
This was in 2012 a full four years after Epstein pleading guilty in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution, amongst other things. Epstein was convicted of only two crimes as part of a controversial plea deal agreed by the U.S. This was widely reported in 2008 but in 2012 was not a red flag for Bendell despite the University of Cumbria’s safeguarding policy.
Bizarrely, one of the exchanges between Jem and Jeffrey includes both men saying they would not want to go to jail for the sake of “alternative exchange systems’ ie digital currency.
As Trump Threatens Weekend Strike on Iran, Albanese Pretends Pine Gap Isn’t Complicit
1 February 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra
Albanese’s Iran Illusion: How Australia Sleepwalks into Someone Else’s War
While our federal government waffles on about rules based order, Iran is rewriting the rules of modern warfare. Trump is threatening regime-change. The Strait of Hormuz has become a kill box where $13 billion aircraft carriers play sitting duck to lethal, glorified speedboats, where cyberattacks double as deterrence, and where Australia, ever the loyal deputy, pretends it’s all someone else’s problem. Labor’s silence isn’t prudence. It’s complicity in a US strategy that’s already unravelling, and we’ve got the scars to prove it.
Trump already bombed Iran once. In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer saw seven B-2 stealth bombers drop bunker-busters on three nuclear facilities while Pine Gap provided the targeting data. Iran’s face-saving response, a telegraphed missile strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, fooled no one. But it burned through 25% of America’s total THAAD interceptor stockpiles, missiles the US produces at a rate of roughly one per month. Now Trump’s threatening round two, this time with explicit regime-change goals, and Albanese still won’t acknowledge that Australia’s uncritical alignment has painted a target on our own facilities.
The real damage? Washington’s isolation campaign isn’t weakening Tehran. It’s shoving Iran into Beijing and Moscow’s arms, locking in an anti-Western axis that thrives on American blunders, while teaching every threshold nuclear state that compliance buys nothing but bombs. Why won’t Labor admit the scale of the mess? Because doing so would mean confessing its own role in a policy already fraying at the seams.
Iran’s Budget Warfare: Turning American Strength into Liability
Iran isn’t trying to match the US ship for ship. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has crafted a playbook that turns American firepower into dead weight: coastal swarms, cyber harassment, proxy deterrence. The goal isn’t winning a war. It’s making escalation so unpredictable, expensive, and politically toxic that the US thinks twice before starting one.
In the cramped waters of the Strait, even Iran’s modest fleet of fast-attack craft becomes a force multiplier. The IRGC doesn’t need a knockout punch, just enough chaos to trap US commanders in a no-win scenario. Push ahead and risk humiliation. Retreat and signal weakness. Dither in the middle while morale drains away. So far, the Pentagon has mostly chosen door number three, proving you can outspend your opponent by billions and still lose the initiative to speedboats and audacity.
The Strait of Hormuz: Where Geography Beats Firepower
The USS Abraham Lincoln isn’t just another, elderly ship in the Strait. It’s a floating monument to American overreach, now redeployed for what Trump calls an “armada larger than Venezuela,” the latest regime-change operation on his scorecard. Iran’s swarm tactics don’t need to sink a nuclear-powered carrier to succeed. They just need to make every transit a gamble, every patrol a potential disaster.
The IRGC’s speedboats may look like dinghies, but in these confined waters where 20% of the world’s oil flows, they’re a constant reminder: geography, not firepower, decides who blinks first. Tehran isn’t trying to win a shootout. It’s turning the Strait into a quagmire where the US loses whether it escalates or backs down, and every crisis burns through irreplaceable defensive systems while China takes notes.
Cyber Jihad: How Iran Turned Hacking into Deterrence
Iran may not match Russia or China’s cyber prowess, but it doesn’t need to. Its campaigns against US, Israeli, and Gulf targets aren’t about knockout blows. They’re about raising costs, sowing doubt, ensuring any strike on Iranian soil comes with a digital counterpunch. From disrupting Saudi oil facilities to probing Israeli water systems, Tehran’s message is simple: hit us, and we hit back, not just with missiles, but with chaos in your backyard.
At home, the regime has weaponised the internet itself, using imported surveillance tech and homegrown censorship to crush dissent. Since January 8, Iran’s internet connectivity has been throttled to 1% of normal levels, a digital blackout designed to hide what appears to be one of the bloodiest crackdowns in modern Iranian history. It’s crude, effective, and one more layer of deterrence the Pentagon now factors into every war plan.
The Massacres Under the Blackout: What Trump’s “Humanitarian” Intervention Ignores
Here’s what Trump won’t mention when he frames the next strike as protecting Iranian protesters: his administration is planning regime change in a country already reeling from mass killings. Since late December, Iran has experienced its largest uprising since 1979, sparked by currency collapse and spreading nationwide. The regime’s response has been catastrophic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Pine Gap Paradox: Australia’s Uncritical Complicity
Australia isn’t a neutral observer. Through Pine Gap, we provided the intelligence backbone enabling the June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, operations now drawing genocide allegations at the ICJ given the broader context of US-Israeli coordination. That makes us complicit, and Tehran has noticed.
Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia was explicit in his warning: if the US strikes again, “the scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region… From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.” That’s not bluster. That’s a direct threat to Australian facilities, delivered after we’d already enabled one round of strikes.
The Herzog visit crystallises Labor’s paralysis. Albanese frames it as “solidarity” with Jewish Australians, but the timing, amid ICJ hearings, domestic protests, and credible reports of an “imminent” second US strike aimed at regime change, screams political theatre. Hosting an Israeli president while Pine Gap’s data flows unrestricted into contested operations isn’t tone-deaf. It’s a neon sign for Iranian retaliation: cyberattacks, grey-zone harassment, or worse.
Yet Albanese won’t acknowledge the risks, because doing so would mean admitting our uncritical alignment with Washington has made us a target. So we get silence, deflection, empty platitudes about “shared values,” while senior US military officials tell Middle Eastern allies that Trump may strike Iran “as soon as this weekend.”
Greg Moriarty, our ambassador in Washington, saw this coming. His warnings about blowback from sanctions and military-first strategies should be shaping the debate. Instead, they’ve been sidelined, because realism doesn’t win elections, and admitting the Pine Gap Paradox would require honesty this government doesn’t possess.
The Nuclear Cascade: What Comes After Trump Bombs Iran Again
If Trump follows through, the consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. Every regional power watching this crisis is recalculating. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring the kingdom would pursue weapons if Iran did. Riyadh’s deepening defence cooperation with nuclear-armed Pakistan isn’t coincidence. It’s a hedge against American unreliability and regional instability……………………….
Crossroads: The Choice Albanese Won’t Make
Australia still has options, but the window is closing fast. We can deepen our operational integration with the US, provide targeting for regime-change strikes, and hope Iran decides we’re more trouble than we’re worth. Or we can use our position inside the American security ecosystem to argue for de-escalation, regional guarantees, diplomacy over another roll of the dice with irreplaceable defensive systems and global proliferation architecture.
The second path means telling a distracted superpower our support has limits, that we won’t sign a blank cheque for a strategy multiplying our exposure while delivering only drift. It means acknowledging publicly that Pine Gap’s role in the June strikes has already made Australia complicit, and that a second round aimed at regime change crosses a line we should never have approached.
But if Albanese won’t level with the public about the stakes, we risk sleepwalking into a conflict shaped by other people’s decisions, on other people’s timelines, with Australian facilities providing the targeting data that helps trigger a regional war and global nuclear cascade.
Drop Site News reports the strike could come “as soon as this weekend.” Common Dreams notes 56% of Americans already believe Trump has gone too far with military interventions. Even many Iranian protesters warn the US will exploit their struggle rather than support it. The pieces are in place for a catastrophic escalation, one that makes the June strikes look like a warning shot.
The question isn’t whether Australia can afford to speak plainly about these risks. It’s whether we can afford not to, and whether Albanese has the courage to admit that our “shared values” with Washington don’t extend to enabling regime-change operations that will make us targets while accelerating nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.
The silence from Canberra isn’t prudence. It’s complicity. And if Trump pulls the trigger this weekend, Albanese’s refusal to acknowledge our role will look less like diplomacy and more like dereliction.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES, https://theaimn.net/as-trump-threatens-weekend-strike-on-iran-albanese-pretends-pine-gap-isnt-complicit/
Australia: HRF, Jewish Council and ANIC Demand Arrest or Entry Ban of Israeli President
January 30th 2026, https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/posts/australia-hrf-jewish-council-and-anic-demand-arrest-or-entry-ban-of-israeli-president
In a historic joint action, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), have lodged a formal legal complaint to have Israeli President Isaac Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia. The groups, represented by renowned barrister Robert Richter KC, allege that Herzog has incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.
The 30-page submission, sent yesterday to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), warns that the President’s visit is “highly inflammatory”.
The groups are calling on the AFP to initiate a criminal investigation of Herzog under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The urgent request details a “sustained pattern of incitement and hate speech” by the President, specifically citing:
- The “Entire Nation” Declaration: Herzog’s October 2023 statement that there are no “uninvolved” civilians in Gaza, which the groups argue stripped 2.3 million people of their protected status under international humanitarian law and urged the IDF to treat the entire population as a military target.
- Famine Denial: Herzog’s August 2025 claims that images of starving Gazan children were “staged”—a statement made while famine was setting in and which the brief describes as a “conscious effort to obscure war crimes”.
- Endorsement of Military Operations Involving War Crimes: A December 2023 visit to the Nahal Oz military base where Herzog reportedly “encouraged” troops 48 hours before the “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the Palestinian town of Khuza’a.
The submission rejects any claim that Herzog has diplomatic immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law to argue that heads of state have no shield against charges of genocide or war crimes. The groups warn that if the government fails to act, it would signal “acquiescence to genocidal rhetoric”.
“If the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate,” the complaint states, referencing the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab Foundation:
“When a head of state publicly denies civilian protection, dismisses famine, and encourages military operations marked by widespread civilian harm and destruction, those acts carry legal consequences everywhere. No country — including Australia — should become a safe haven for individuals credibly accused of inciting genocide or aiding and abetting war crimes. Australia has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect its communities from such threats.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia:
“President Herzog represents a state found to be committing genocide in Gaza. His presence in Australia would identify this state with Australian Jews, which risks exacerbating social division and endangering Australian Jewish communities. We stand firmly against all forms of racism, and President Herzog’s statements attributing collective guilt to an entire people are a textbook manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism and Israel’s ongoing campaign of dehumanisation.”
Bilal Rauf, Senior Advisor, Australian National Imams Council (ANIC):
“In recent times, Australia’s social cohesion has been under threat. Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly our political leaders, to seek to protect our social cohesion as a country and society and ensure that individuals who may inflame the situation by their very presence, are not permitted into our country. The proposed visit by the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a highly controversial foreign head of state accused of serious international crimes, risks inflaming social tensions, undermining Australia’s hate-speech protections, and placing Australian communities at risk. ANIC calls on the Government, which has hurriedly passed laws in the name of social cohesion, to refuse or cancel any visa held by President Herzog. In pursuing this, among other outcomes, ANIC joins with the Jewish Council of Australia and the Hind Rajab Foundation, in pursuing the complaint.”
‘We are back in the Middle Ages’: How the EU literally starves dissenting experts like Jacques Baud.
No one is safe from the ‘Russian propaganda’ sanctions – even those who never touch Russian sources. Baud is one of nearly 60 public figures under sanctions from the EU
Eva Karene Bartlett, Jan 29, 2026
On December 15, 2025, the European Union slapped sanctions on former Swiss intelligence officer and ex-NATO employee Jacques Baud. No day in court, no charges filed, just abrupt, suffocating, sanctions.
Why did the EU sanction Baud? For “Russian propaganda,” of course, although many of the sources he cites in his reports on the West provoking war with Russia years prior to Russia’s military operation are Western and Ukrainian – including the SBU and Aleksey Arestovich, a former adviser to Vladimir Zelensky.
Welcome to the latest EU insanity.
Widely respected for his deep knowledge and analysis, much of which is based on his own research while working with NATO, Baud has grown increasingly popular over the years, appearing on numerous podcasts and interviews, authoring numerous books and articles as well.
Since Russia began its military operation in Ukraine, Western media have been howling about an “unprovoked invasion.” Baud has written and spoken extensively about realities which counter this claim: facts on the ground prior to February 2022, going back (unlike most legacy media who have developed selective amnesia) to even before the 2014 Maidan coup.
What is interesting about Baud is he does not use Russian sources to back his claims and he has not taken a public position in favor of either Russia or Ukraine.
He has simply analyzed the situation, based on information he had access to. How did he have access to this information? In 2014, when working for NATO in charge of countering proliferation of small arms, he was tasked with investigating accusations of Russia supplying arms to Donbass resistance.
He wrote of this in 2022, noting, “The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not ‘fit’ with the information coming from the OSCE – despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.”
“The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists.”
As a result of his research, he was also able to unequivocally debunk accusations of Russia sending military units into Donbass, by quoting the SBU (Ukrainian security service) itself as well as other Ukrainian sources.
In a September 2024 interview I did with Baud, he spoke of this.
“I can categorically say no, there were no Russian forces in Donbass. The guy you encountered (I had mentioned meeting one sole Russian former soldier when I went to the Donbass in 2019) represents exactly the kind of Russian presence that was at that time, recognized by the SBU and recognized also by the Ukrainian Chief of Staff.
“In a public interview in 2015, just after the signature of the Minsk Agreement 2, the head of the Ukrainian General Staff said publicly that there were no Russian military units fighting in Donbass; that there were only individual soldiers exactly the same case as the one you just mentioned.”
It is clear he is not citing Russian information (or “propaganda”) but Ukrainian and Western sources. An even better illustration of this is what he had to say about the prelude to Russia commencing its Special Military Operation in February 2022.
Referring to a March 2021 decree by Zelensky (to take back Crimea and the south of Ukraine), Baud spoke of an interview two years prior with Zelensky’s former adviser, Arestovich.
“He says in order to join NATO, we had to have a war with Russia. When the interviewer asked him when would this conflict happen, Arestovich says end of 2021 or 2022.” A position, Baud noted, which aligned with a March 2019 300-page document published by the Rand Corporation, “that explains how to defeat and to destabilize Russia.
The EU is almost certainly pissed off that Baud likewise demolished the Western propaganda claims about Russia invading Crimea in 2014. He told me, “The Ukrainian army at that time was a conscript army, meaning that within the Ukrainian army you had both Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers. When the army was ordered to shoot or to fight against demonstrators, those who were Russian speakers just defected, they just changed side. They just went to support the protesters and they became in fact those the famous ‘little green men’.”
Keep in mind that Baud was working for NATO then. “There was absolutely not the slightest indication that Russia brought new troops to Crimea. Based on the status of force agreement signed between Russia and Ukraine, you had up to 25,000 Russian troops stationed in the Crimean peninsula. At that time they were not even 25,000, there were 22,000. A Ukrainian lawmaker on Ukrainian TV said that out of the 20,000 (sic) Ukrainian soldiers that were deployed in Crimea, 20,000 defected to the Russian-speaking side.”
As for “Russian propaganda,” it is a term bandied about quite easily by legacy media and NATO mouthpieces to taint reputations or lead to censorship of voices. The war backers are upset that their own “Russia started it” propaganda isn’t working
Sanctions prevent Baud from even buying food
Baud lives in Brussels, and now as a result of the sanctions is unable to even buy food for himself. Nor can well-intending people do so on his behalf. In an interview on Dialogue Works at the end of December, 2025, Baud said:
“Yesterday, a friend of mine tried from Switzerland to buy food for me, to be delivered to my home (in Belgium). She could order, but the payment was blocked. Any delivery to my home is prohibited, even if the funds come from Switzerland.”
People who are aware of his unjust situation have been physically bringing him food, to alleviate his inability to purchase it himself.
In a more recent interview on Judging Freedom, Baud highlighted that his case was a foreign policy decision, denying him due process.
“This is not a decision that has been taken by any court. I was not judged by anybody. In fact I was not in front of a jury. I could not present my case. I could not defend my case. This decision was not taken by a court but by the council of the foreign ministers of the European union.”
The most he can do, Baud explained, is, “go to the European Court of Justice and try to make my case saying that the decision was not just, and the court of justice may then study the case and have an assessment on that.” Even if the court concludes the sanctions are not justified, all it can then do is “advise the council of foreign ministers to change their mind.”
Given that the sanctions against Baud are punitive for his not toeing the line, it is unlikely minds will be changed.
A growing list of EU sanctioned voices
Jacques Baud isn’t the first to be sanctioned by the EU. Many journalists and public figures have been sanctioned for their writings or words on the Donbass, Crimea, corruption in Ukraine, and so on…………………………………………………………………………. https://evakarenebartlett.substack.com/p/we-are-back-in-the-middle-ages-how?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3046064&post_id=185812458&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Australia’s New AUKUS Protest Police, and the Quiet Redefinition of Dissent
28 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
AUKUS protest police: FOI documents reveal the AFP’s Orcus Command and how protest is being treated as a national security issue in Australia.
Introduction
Public discussion of AUKUS has focused on submarine delivery dates, strategic alignment, and cost blowouts. Far less attention has been given to how the Australian government is preparing for domestic opposition to the agreement.
Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reported by Michael West Media reveal that the Australian Federal Police has quietly established a new unit, Orcus Command, dedicated to protecting AUKUS-related defence facilities. The documents show this unit is also planning for public order management, including protest and political dissent connected to Australia’s growing role in US and UK military operations.
This matters because protest is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. When dissent is framed primarily as a security risk, the balance between public order and civil liberties shifts in ways that deserve close public scrutiny.
What has received far less attention is how the government is preparing to manage Australians who oppose it.
Internal link: “Australia’s AUKUS agreement”.
Editor’s note:
This analysis is based on Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reporting by Michael West Media. All claims in this article are drawn from released documents, budget papers, and publicly available statements. Care has been taken to distinguish between documented facts, lawful policing powers, and broader democratic implications.
What Is Orcus Command
Orcus Command is a specialised AFP unit created to provide protective security for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program, particularly at strategically significant defence bases such as HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
FOI documents show that:
- The unit was created with minimal public disclosure.
- It has a mandate extending beyond physical asset protection.
- It is embedded within the Department of Defence, not a civilian oversight body.
- Its planning includes public order and protest activity.
This institutional placement is significant. By situating Orcus Command within Defence rather than a civilian agency, protest management around AUKUS is treated as a national security issue rather than a matter of routine democratic policing.
Internal link: “Defence influence in Australia”.
Protest and Dissent as a Security Issue
Internal AFP documents explicitly reference the monitoring and response to political opposition and protest activity linked to AUKUS and the expanding US military presence in Australia.
This reflects a broader shift in Australian governance. Over recent years, most states have introduced or strengthened laws restricting protest, increasing police powers, and imposing harsher penalties for disruption.
Rather than being framed as a democratic expression to be facilitated and protected, protest is increasingly framed as a risk to continuity and order.
The Orcus Command documents indicate:
- Planning for escalation scenarios
- Proactive monitoring of protest groups
- Coordination with state police
- Anticipation of increased protest intensity
Internal link: “right to protest in Australia”
Why is Protest Being Framed as a National Security Issue Under AUKUS?
The documents state that Orcus Command has Commonwealth responsibility for protecting the nuclear submarine program under existing legislative powers.
This places protest activity in the same conceptual space as counterterrorism and critical infrastructure protection. While such powers are lawful, their application to political dissent raises difficult questions.
When a protest is absorbed into a national security framework:
- Thresholds for intervention are lowered.
- Decision-making becomes less transparent.
- Oversight mechanisms are weakened.
- Civil liberties are more easily subordinated to strategic objectives.
This does not mean that protest is automatically criminalised. It does mean that the lens through which protest is viewed has changed.
Internal link: “national security frameworks”.
One of the most sensitive revelations in the AFP briefing material is the inclusion of lethal force within Orcus Command’s armed protection planning.
Lethal force authorisations are standard in many armed federal policing and counter-terrorism contexts. Their inclusion alone is not unlawful or unusual. However, the context matters.
These provisions appear within documents that also discuss protest and public order management. This signals that scenarios involving political dissent are being contemplated within a framework that allows for the highest level of force available to federal police.
This does not suggest protesters will routinely face lethal force. It does show that dissent around AUKUS is being planned for within a security paradigm where extreme outcomes are legally contemplated.
That distinction is important, but it should not be dismissed.
Reassuring Allies, Managing Citizens
FOI emails reveal that Australian authorities are keen to show to the United States and the United Kingdom that protest activity will not disrupt or delay AUKUS operations.
This highlights a core tension: Australian policing resources are being used not only to keep domestic order, but also to reassure foreign military partners.
The documents emphasise:
- Proactive responses to identified protest risks.
- The importance of continuity for allied operations
- Minimising disruption to US and UK interests
Internal link: “Foreign policy dependence“.
Budget Allocations Signal Long-Term Expansion
Funding figures reinforce the seriousness of the operation.
- $73.8 million allocated to Orcus Command in late 2025.
- Funding rising to $125.2 million in 2026.
This near doubling suggests the government expects expanded responsibilities and sustained operations, rather than a short-term security task.
Budgets reflect priorities. In this case, substantial public funds are being committed to a policing unit designed to manage both infrastructure security and anticipated dissent.
Internal link: “public money priorities”.
Secrecy, FOI, and Democratic Oversight
AUKUS is one of the most secretive projects in Australia’s modern history. While some confidentiality around defence capabilities is legitimate, secrecy has expanded far beyond technical details.
The government has:
- Refused a comprehensive public inquiry.
- Limited parliamentary scrutiny
- Relied heavily on national security exemptions
- Restricted public access to key information
Without FOI requests and investigative journalism, the existence and scope of Orcus Command would remain unknown.
The Broader Democratic Context
The creation of Orcus Command does not occur in isolation. It sits alongside:
- Tightened protest laws across states
- Expanded police powers.
- Increasing surveillance of activists
- Reduced tolerance for disruption
Taken together, these trends suggest a gradual rebalancing of the state’s relationship with citizens, particularly where dissent intersects with powerful economic or strategic interests.
Why This Matters for Democracy……………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/australias-new-aukus-protest-police-and-the-quiet-redefinition-of-dissent/
Leaked Nuclear Secrets: China Arrests Top Military Leader Close to Xi Jinping
Vladislav V., January 25, 2026, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/leaked-nuclear-secrets-china-arrests-top-military-leader-close-to-xi-jinping/
China’s top general has been accused of leaking information about the country’s nuclear program to the United States and of accepting bribes to facilitate official promotions, including that of an officer to the post of defense minister.
This was reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing attendees of a closed briefing on the case.
The briefing, attended by some of China’s senior military commanders, took place shortly before the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China issued a statement announcing an investigation into General Zhang Youxia.
He had previously been considered one of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s closest military allies.
The official statement provided minimal details, only noting that Zhang was under investigation for serious violations of party discipline and state law.
Sources familiar with the undisclosed briefing said Zhang is suspected of forming political cliques — a term in the Chinese system that refers to informal networks undermining the Communist Party’s unity.
He is also accused of abusing his authority in the Central Military Commission, the top body overseeing the PLA’s administration.
Investigators are focusing on the period when Zhang headed the influential department responsible for military research, development, and procurement.
According to sources, the general allegedly received large sums in exchange for official appointments and promotions within the military procurement system, which operates with multi-billion-dollar budgets.
Zhang Youxia’s Removal and Its Consequences
Zhang’s removal makes the purge of the PRC general staff one of the largest personnel reshuffles in the Chinese military since the dispersal of protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Control over the armed forces is widely seen as critical to the power and political survival of Chinese leaders. Historically, internal party struggles have often been won by those with authority and influence over the military.
Zhang’s dismissal highlights Xi’s drive for absolute concentration of power.
As first vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, a role combining responsibilities similar to those of a US defense minister, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and national security adviser, Zhang held exceptionally broad authority.
He oversaw strategy, promotions, and budgets, and reported directly to Xi. Analysts had considered him virtually untouchable due to his combat experience and personal ties to Xi.
Zhang had survived previous purges among the generals, retained significant loyalty within the military, and remained in his top post well past the normal retirement age.
Analysts say his removal reflects Xi’s urgent effort to “restore order” in the military leadership, despite Zhang’s planned retirement at the next party congress in 2027.
Xi’s unprecedented consolidation of military power also narrows the circle of decision-makers on Taiwan and other strategic issues, including control of China’s nuclear arsenal.
Analysts note that the older generation of PLA leaders has historically acted as a moderating influence in military planning.
The reshuffle comes as Xi seeks to rapidly modernize the military and achieve strategic objectives, including the declared ability to conduct operations against Taiwan by 2027.
Australia’s Lack Of Speech Protections Means We Should Be MORE Hostile To Speech Regulation
Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 25, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-lack-of-speech-protections?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=185687870&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A normal, healthy person would look at Australia’s lack of free speech protections and say “Hmm, Australian leaders should be extremely resistant to new laws and policies which restrict speech then, because it would be very easy for those restrictions to become abusive.”
Australian leaders look at our lack of free speech protections and say “See? This means we get to take away your right to protest genocide!”
Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than the repeated statements from New South Wales premier Chris Minns saying it’s fine to silence Australians because we don’t have free speech rights.
Over and over again Minns has defended his promotion of authoritarian speech crackdowns in his state by claiming it’s okay to stomp out dissident speech of Australians because Australians don’t have the same speech protections as Americans, saying “we don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States and I make no apologies for that” and similar statements in recent weeks.
To be clear, Minns is being repulsively tyrannical when he says this, but factually speaking he isn’t wrong.
As Joe Lauria wrote for Consortium News following the passage of Australia’s frightening new “hate speech” bill:
“Unlike the United States, Australia has no Bill of Rights in its Constitution protecting freedom of speech, assembly and other rights. Much as Israel would want it, a law such as this adopted in Australia would still be difficult to pass in the U.S. on paper, despite the Israel Lobby’s hold over the U.S. Congress.”
If Australians had the same speech protections that they have in the United States, we could appeal tyrannical new laws on First Amendment grounds. Because we have no such protections, it is much harder to oppose authoritarian speech restrictions once they are in place.
As I often remind readers, Australia is the only so-called democracy in the world which has no national charter or bill of rights of any kind. A tremendous amount of faith has been placed in state and federal legislators to simply do the right thing, which has proved foolish and ineffective. Professor George Williams wrote for the Melbourne University Law Review in 2006:
“Australia is now the only democratic nation in the world without a national bill of rights. Some comprehensive form of legal protection for basic rights is otherwise seen as an essential check and balance in democratic governance around the world. Indeed, I can find no example of a democratic nation that has gained a new Constitution or legal system in recent decades that has not included some form of a bill of rights, nor am I aware of any such nation that has done away with a bill of rights once it has been put in place.”
It has been clearly and conclusively established that this system does not work. State and federal governments are working frenetically to shred the right of Australians to oppose the actions of the state of Israel, with their assault on our civil rights disguised as an effort to fight “antisemitism” in our country and help Jewish Australians feel more safe. The fact that this happens to advance the information interests of the western power alliance, we are told, is purely coincidental.
The evidence is in and the case is closed. The Australian system does not work. We need a national bill of rights, and we need free speech to be enshrined in our constitution.
In the meantime, we need to be aggressively opposed to laws and policies which assault our freedom of speech. We need to be more aggressive in our opposition than Americans would be, because we have fewer safeguards against tyrannical abuses.
It’s so disgusting how these freaks are telling us right to our faces “Yeah well you guys don’t have any rights, so I’m going to silence you and oppress you and I make no apologies about that.”
That kind of arrogant, abusive authoritarianism deserves nothing but ferocious defiance.
Nuclear lapses overshadow reactor restarts in post-Fukushima Japan.
Power provider admits to manipulating data to downplay effect of large
earthquake. This month, one of Japan’s biggest utilities admitted to
manipulating data to downplay the effect of a large earthquake on a nuclear
power plant under review for reopening.
The admission followed a security
failure at Japan’s nuclear energy watchdog, in which an employee lost a
work phone with contact details of staff involved in nuclear security
during a personal trip to China.
The compliance lapses at Chubu Electric
and the Nuclear Regulation Authority threaten confidence in Japan’s safety
regime as the country tries to reopen its nuclear plants 15 years after a
massive quake caused a tsunami that inundated reactors in Fukushima.
FT 22nd Jan 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/0bb511ab-80dc-44c2-ab06-d0e587c8367e
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 