Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 64
June 2, 2025
Bayer Considers Bankruptcy for Monsanto as Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Mount
By Paul Anthony TaylorIn a major escalation of its ongoing legal and financial crisis, Bayer is reportedly preparing to settle thousands of lawsuits involving its controversial Roundup weedkiller – and is even considering bankruptcy for its Monsanto subsidiary if these efforts fail. News of this development, revealed by the The Wall Street Journal, preceded a Missouri appellate court delivering a crushing blow to the company: the upholding of a $611 million verdict for three plaintiffs who developed cancer after using the weedkiller.
Bayer, which for $63 billion in 2018, has already paid out roughly $10 billion to settle earlier claims linking glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – to cancer. But the German pharmaceutical and chemical giant still faces around 67,000 unresolved lawsuits across state and federal courts in the United States. The latest ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals’ Western District rejected Monsanto’s attempt to overturn the verdict in a case that had consolidated the claims of three individuals who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposure to Roundup.
The Missouri court dismissed Monsanto’s argument that the jury should not have been allowed to hear about a 2022 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s positive assessment of glyphosate’s safety lacked scientific backing. Bayer had leaned heavily on the EPA’s controversial stance as a central defense. The Missouri court, however, determined that judicial opinions are not automatically inadmissible at trial and upheld the award of $61.1 million in compensatory damages and $549.9 million in punitive damages.
Bayer has vowed to appeal the Missouri ruling, insisting that the inclusion of the 9th Circuit opinion unfairly prejudiced the jury. But the tide appears to be turning against Bayer. Plaintiffs have won over $4 billion in verdicts thus far, and another Roundup trial is currently underway in St. Louis.
In an attempt to contain the damage, Bayer has hired top-flight lawyers and consultants to assess its options, which include a potential Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Monsanto. This move, if enacted, would freeze pending lawsuits and could pave the way for a sweeping bankruptcy court resolution of Roundup liabilities. Critics point out that this would allow the company to dodge full accountability while continuing to profit from a product with serious health risks.
A Moral ReckoningAdding to this legal onslaught, Bayer is also awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which it has petitioned to restrict the scope of cancer claims tied to Roundup. The company hopes for a favorable ruling as early as next month that could limit the financial exposure from future cases.
But these mounting legal battles are only part of Bayer’s broader unraveling. Since the Monsanto acquisition, the company has seen a crash in its share price and growing pressure from shareholders to break up or restructure its business.
And behind all this lies a grim historical context. Bayer was a core member of IG Farben, the infamous Nazi-era cartel that manufactured the deadly Zyklon B gas for use in extermination camps and conducted criminal medical experiments on camp inmates. At the postwar Nuremberg Trials, several of its executives were convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Today, with thousands of people saying they’ve been poisoned by the firm’s flagship weedkiller product, it finds itself once again accused of prioritizing profit over human life.
As Bayer scrambles for legal shelter, the larger moral reckoning remains: How many more lives must be compromised, and how many more verdicts sidestepped or buried in bankruptcy court, before a company with a legacy of war crimes and toxic profits is finally held fully accountable?
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/bayer-bankruptcy-monsanto-cancer-lawsuits/5888958
John Deere to Invest $20 Billion in New Assembly Lines, Factories and US Steel
By Samuel Short
A major announcement from John Deere is giving more hope for a future with a prosperous economy.
According to the company website, John Deere will invest $20 billion in the United States over the next decade, with hometowns where these investments will go seeing a projected $25 billion impact.
Factories in Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois will see new expansions, new assembly lines, or new factories altogether. Additionally, the company boasted a majority of the raw steel used in these factories will be from the United States.
A more specific breakdown showed new assemble lines in Waterloo, Iowa; an expansion to the factory in Greenville, Tennessee; a new excavator factory in Kernersville, North Carolina; a 60,000-square-foot expansion to the factory in Moline, Illinois; and a 120,000-square foot expansion in Missouri.
John Deere included in their release that 75 percent of all products sold domestically are manufactured here, as well, with a workforce of 30,000 people in 60 factories with offices or factories in 16 states.
According to USA Today, John Deer eliminated its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies last July.
The company announced via social media platform X it would not “participate in or support external social or cultural awareness parades, festivals or events.”
It further promised efforts would focus on the workforce with recruiting, hiring, networking, mentoring, and professional development.
That is to say, John Deere has reversed course with DEI and plans to invest further in America. It’s all for the better.
In the bigger picture economically, this is not a one-off victory for a recovering economy under President Donald Trump.
Memorial Day saw the lowest gas prices when adjusting for inflation since 2003.
Egg prices recently saw the steepest monthly drop in forty years.
John Deere is not alone in its decision to invest at home as companies like Johnson & Johnson and Apple announced $55 billion dollar and $500 billion dollar investments respectively, according to a March report in Newsweek.
[…]
June 1, 2025
Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans
Alex Karp, a co-founder and the chief executive of Palantir, at a forum in Washington in April. The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government.Credit…Caroline Gutman for The New York Times
By Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik
The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work with the government, spreading the company’s technology — which could easily merge data on Americans — throughout agencies.
In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.
Mr. Trump has not publicly talked about the effort since. But behind the scenes, officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm.
The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)
Representatives of Palantir are also speaking to at least two other agencies — the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service — about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees with knowledge of the discussions.
The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said.
Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status.
Mr. Trump could potentially use such information to advance his political agenda by policing immigrants and punishing critics, Democratic lawmakers and critics have said. Privacy advocates, student unions and labor rights organizations have filed lawsuits to block data access, questioning whether the government could weaponize people’s personal information.
Palantir’s selection as a chief vendor for the project was driven by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, according to the government officials. At least three DOGE members formerly worked at Palantir, while two others had worked at companies funded by Peter Thiel, an investor and a founder of Palantir.
Some current and former Palantir employees have been unnerved by the work. The company risks becoming the face of Mr. Trump’s political agenda, four employees said, and could be vulnerable if data on Americans is breached or hacked. Several tried to distance the company from the efforts, saying any decisions about a merged database of personal information rest with Mr. Trump and not the firm.
This month, 13 former employees signed a letter urging Palantir to stop its endeavors with Mr. Trump. Linda Xia, a signee who was a Palantir engineer until last year, said the problem was not with the company’s technology but with how the Trump administration intended to use it.
“Data that is collected for one reason should not be repurposed for other uses,” Ms. Xia said. “Combining all that data, even with the noblest of intentions, significantly increases the risk of misuse.”
Mario Trujillo, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, said the government typically collected data for good reasons, such as to accurately levy taxes. But “if people can’t trust that the data they are giving the government will be protected, that it will be used for things other than what they gave it for, it will lead to a crisis of trust,” he said.
Palantir declined to comment on its work with the Trump administration and pointed to its blog, which details how the company handles data.
“We act as a data processor, not a data controller,” it said. “Our software and services are used under direction from the organisations that license our products: these organisations define what can and cannot be done with their data; they control the Palantir accounts in which analysis is conducted.”
The White House did not comment on the use of Palantir’s technology and referred to Mr. Trump’s executive order, which said he wanted to “eliminate information silos and streamline data collection across all agencies to increase government efficiency and save hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”
Some details of Palantir’s government contracts and DOGE’s work to compile data were previously reported by Wired and CNN.
Palantir, which was founded in 2003 by Alex Karp and Mr. Thiel and went public in 2020, specializes in finding patterns in data and presenting the information in ways that are easy to process and navigate, such as charts and maps. Its main products include Foundry, a data analytics platform, and Gotham, which helps organize and draw conclusions from data and is tailored for security and defense purposes.said the company’s role was “the finding of hidden things” by sifting through data.
Palantir has long worked with the federal government. Its government contracts span the Defense Department and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the pandemic, the Biden administration signed a contract with Palantir to manage the distribution of vaccines through the C.D.C.
Mr. Trump’s election in November boosted Palantir’s stock, which has risen more than 140 percent since then. Mr. Karp, who donated to the Democratic Party last year, has welcomed Mr. Trump’s win and called Mr. Musk the most “qualified person in the world” to remake the U.S. government.
At the I.R.S., Palantir engineers joined in April to use Foundry to organize data gathered on American taxpayers, two government officials said. Their work began as a way to create a single, searchable database for the I.R.S., but has since expanded, they said. Palantir is in talks for a permanent contract with the I.R.S., they said.
A Treasury Department representative said that the I.R.S. was updating its systems to serve American taxpayers, and that Palantir was contracted to complete the work with I.R.S. engineers.
Palantir also recently began helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s enforcement and removal operations team, according to two Palantir employees and two current and former D.H.S. officials. The work is part of a $30 million contract that ICE signed with Palantir in April to build a platform to track migrant movements in real time.
Some D.H.S. officials exchanged emails with DOGE officials in February about merging some Social Security information with records kept by immigration officials, according to screenshots of the messages viewed by The New York Times.
In a statement, Tricia McLaughlin, a D.H.S. spokeswoman, did not address Palantir’s new work with the agency and said the company “has had contracts with the federal government for 14 years.”
Palantir representatives have also held talks with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Education to use the company’s technology to organize the agencies’ data, according to two Palantir employees and officials in those agencies.
The Social Security Administration and Education Department did not respond to requests for comment.
The goal of uniting data on Americans has been quietly discussed by Palantir engineers, employees said, adding that they were worried about collecting so much sensitive information in one place. The company’s security practices are only as good as the people using them, they said. They characterized some DOGE employees as sloppy on security, such as not following protocols in how personal devices were used.
Ms. Xia said Palantir employees were increasingly worried about reputational damage to the company because of its work with the Trump administration. There is growing debate within the company about its federal contracts.“ rrent employees are discussing the implications of their work and raising questions internally,” she said, adding that some employees have left after disagreements over the company’s work with the Trump administration.
She posted on LinkedIn that she was departing the company because of its expanded work with ICE.
“For most of my time here, I found the way that Palantir grappled with the weight of our capabilities to be refreshing, transparent and conscionable,” she wrote. “This has changed for me over the past few months. For me, this is a red line I won’t redraw.”
MAHA Movement Faces Uphill Battle as Trump Administration Wages War on Organic Agriculture
[…]
The chemical industry’s playbook: Liability shields, legal immunity, and the erosion of rights
The policy pattern is clear: First, preemption of local authority over pesticide restrictions. Second, the pursuit of liability protections for manufacturers of toxic substances. Third, the normalization of harm with no recourse. This is not theoretical. It is a real-time shift in the balance of power between public interest and private industry.
A coordinated effort is unfolding in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill to grant legal immunity (liability shields) to agrochemical manufacturers. This means Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Seed can hurt you, even kill you, and not just get away with it, but profit from it!
At this very moment, across America, a new wave of legislation seeks to provide legal immunity to chemical companies — removing the right to recourse for harm their products have caused. This “shield” is not just for a niche set of chemicals, but for all pesticides and chemicals regulated under federal law.
The chemical industry has created an unlivable future. Their legacy is one of ecocide and the destruction of public health.
Chemical companies are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. These are not innocent corporations. They have paid billions of dollars in damages for contaminating water, poisoning land and causing cancers, birth defects and lifelong disease.
Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits linking Roundup (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned company through ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims and is working to settle more cases.
Paraquat has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2007, in China for domestic use and in other countries due to its extreme toxicity.
DuPont, 3M and Chemours (a DuPont spin-off) have collectively paid billions for contaminating water supplies with per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), the so-called “forever chemicals,” which the EU is now moving to comprehensively ban.
Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences) has stopped producing chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to neurodevelopmental harm in children and banned in the EU and many other countries.
Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide, remains in use in the U.S. despite being banned in the EU since 2004 and in over 35 other countries due to groundwater contamination risks.
Koch Industries, through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, has been implicated in PFAS contamination and paid penalties for related violations.
At the same time, the industrial meatpackers such as Smithfield, owned by China’s WH Group, and JBS, a Brazilian conglomerate, are driving demand for pesticide-intensive feed crops while benefiting from billions in U.S. taxpayer subsidies.
Georgia recently passed Senate Bill 144, which limits liability for PFAS contamination, linked to cancer, reproductive harm and immune system dysfunction. At least five additional states have introduced similar bills.
At the federal level, the 2024 draft of the U.S. House Republican Farm Bill included language that would preempt state pesticide laws and restrict legal pathways for victims of agrichemical exposure to seek damages. The provision has not advanced, but it signals a strategic and escalating trend.
Just last week, Republican Agriculture Committee Chair, Rep. Glenn Thompson (Pa.), was quoted stating that provisions in the new stand-alone Farm Bill would protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits if products meet federal labeling requirements, and would prevent states from setting animal production standards that other states must follow, such as California’s Proposition 12 requirements.
These efforts come despite growing scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, atrazine, dicamba and chlorpyrifos, to a host of health and environmental impacts.
Independent research has shown that low-level, chronic exposure to some of these chemicals may contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, endocrine disruption, developmental neurotoxicity and certain cancers.
Agrochemical companies argue that these liability shields are necessary to ensure continued access to “essential crop protection tools” and to prevent “frivolous litigation.”
But legal accountability is not a threat to agriculture. It is a cornerstone of a functioning market and a free society. When companies cannot be held liable for harm, there is no incentive to innovate toward safer alternatives and the costs of that harm are externalized to the public.
While the international community moves to ban or has banned many of these chemicals, the U.S. liability shield being pushed by the chemical industry and their allies in Congress is designed to protect a wide range of hazardous chemicals and the corporations that make them, likely driving further use.
Specifically, it aims to cover:
Glyphosate (Roundup), the world’s most widely used herbicide, is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is manufactured by Bayer/Monsanto. Banned or restricted in Austria (attempted), Germany (phase-out replaced by restrictions), Luxembourg, France (partial bans), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Widely used with genetically modified organism (GMO) crops engineered for glyphosate resistance, including soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. Annual U.S. usage: 280-290 million pounds.Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, sold by Syngenta (a Chinese state-owned company). Banned in over 70 countries, including the EU, China (domestic use), Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and the U.K. Often used in weed control rotations. Annual U.S. usage: 8 million pounds.PFAS, a class of over 12,000 compounds used in firefighting foams, non-stick coatings and industrial processes, are linked to cancer, thyroid disease, immune system suppression and birth defects. Subject to a proposed EU-wide ban; already banned or restricted in France (consumer products by 2026, textiles by 2030), Denmark (food packaging) and New Zealand (cosmetics by 2026). Used in agricultural seed coatings, irrigation systems, chemical containers and food packaging, contaminating soil, water, food and consumers.Neonicotinoids, insecticides that kill pollinators and are associated with neurological harm in humans. Banned or restricted in the EU (outdoor use of three neonicotinoids since 2018), France (all outdoor use) and Slovenia. Used as seed coatings on both GMO and non-GMO crops, especially corn and soybeans. Annual U.S. usage: 4 million pounds.Dicamba, a herbicide known for widespread crop damage and environmental contamination. Banned in the U.S. for over-the-top applications on soybeans and cotton (2024 federal court decision); classified as “very dangerous” in Brazil but still permitted. Used with GMO dicamba-resistant crops such as Xtend soybeans and cotton. Annual U.S. usage: 9 million pounds.Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide linked to birth defects, reproductive harm and amphibian population collapse. Banned in the EU (since 2004) and in Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden; also banned in Hawaii and U.S. territories. Heavily used in conventional corn, which is tolerant through selective breeding. Annual U.S. usage: 70 million pounds.This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the MAHA mandate, remember the liability shield granted to vaccine manufacturers and the consequences of a closed compensation system, leaving injured individuals without meaningful recourse and protecting corporations from accountability.
Liability shields, once confined to a few controversial areas like vaccine injury claims, are now being extended to the producers of herbicides, pesticides and industrial contaminants. These chemicals have been linked in peer-reviewed studies to cancer, endocrine disruption, infertility and developmental harm.
These largely foreign-owned corporations are actively working to undermine state-level food safety standards, including California’s Prop 12, through federal preemption efforts like the EATS Act (Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act).
These companies know exactly what they have done and what they are doing. They are seeking legal immunity because they fear the consequences of accountability. They are distorting American democracy to serve corporate profits, not the public good.
If a business is too dangerous to operate without legal immunity, it should not be allowed to operate at all and it certainly should not be subsidized.
So why is Washington providing liability shields and working to overrule higher production standards for foreign corporations to poison the American people?
The EATS Act and the budget battle: Stripping states’ rights and starving organic agriculture
The Prop 12 provisions referred to by Chairman Thompson relate to the so-called EATS Act, now reintroduced as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S.1326). It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Despite its new name, the bill’s core objective remains unchanged: To override state and local laws that set higher standards for food, farming and animal welfare, nullifying regulations like Prop 12, which sets basic humane standards for confined farm animals.
This bill is the biggest fight of our generation for farmed animal welfare. Further, this “food security and farm protection” bill would strip states of the right to protect their farmers and all citizens, as well as environments, from harmful agricultural practices, cementing federal control in favor of the largest chemical and agribusiness interests.
Amidst all this, Washington is rapidly advancing President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known as H.R. 1, in the form of a budget reconciliation package.
This budget reconciliation package increases already bloated subsidies to high chemical-intensive and GMO crops by 64% or $75 billion over 10 years.
In the meantime, the administration has frozen funding and is delaying payments essential to the National Organic Program and the Transition to Organic Partnership Program. Those $75 billion are needed to get farmers off the chemical treadmill.
Chart source (and spelling): FarmdocDaily.
The House Agriculture Committee’s draft farm bill proposes cutting $290 billion from SNAP over the next decade, with $60 billion of those funds diverted to increase subsidies for farm programs that benefit the industrial commodity system: Corn, soy, cotton and the chemical giants and GMO companies that profit from it.
At the same time, the administration has cut $754 million from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the very program that provides essential technical assistance and cost-sharing to farmers working to improve on-farm resilience, increase soil health, reduce erosion and protect water quality.
NRCS is the front line for farmers seeking to reduce chemical inputs and build long-term resilience, yet its funding has been slashed.
This is a policy direction that prioritizes corporate profit over public health, while stripping low-income families of the means to access the very food they need to survive.
This is the antithesis of the MAHA movement.
The scale of this betrayal is staggering.
The real cost of corporate control: Subsidies, greenwashing and a war on life
The National Organic Program, which safeguards organic standards and ensures consumer trust, operates on a modest $23.2 million annual budget.
In stark contrast, chemical-intensive industrial agriculture is a monster created by the government.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently funneled over $10 billion in direct payments to commodity agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program alone, supporting industrial monocultures like genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton that depend on heavy pesticide and fertilizer use.
These funds overwhelmingly benefit the chemical giants and GMO seed companies driving the industrial agricultural system, and further line the coffers of political supporters.
No wonder there is a battle. This has nothing to do with feeding America healthy food, and everything to do with profit at all cost!
The business model relies on government subsidies and crop insurance payments. Its approach weakens the resilience of the farm system, and gives handouts which ensure that the American people are forced to eat the products that have become the basis of obesity and disease.
Now add liability shields into the mix, and we are truly on the path to environmental and human health collapse.
[…]
May 31, 2025
The Neanderthals: Tracking Our Ancestors
The Neanderthals: Tracking Our Ancestors
DW (2021)
Film Review
Neanderthals were an important human species that covered Eurasia for 300,000 years and disappeared. Like modern humans, they had a culture and social systems and mastered their environment. When their skeletal remains were first discovered in the 19th century, they were mistakenly believed to be non-human ape-like creatures.
They were extremely ingenious in adopting to an Ice Age environment, where temperatures plummeted to -20 degrees Celsius. Paleontologists believe their faces were specially adopted to withstand the cold, with a large nasal cavity that served to warm and humidify air around them. They also had large lungs and a barrel chest that facilitated burning energy to stay warm.
They were highly skilled tool makers, fashioning tools from flint and antlers. They hunted large mammals in coordinated groups, which they used for food and clothing.
Some of the best Neanderthal remains are found on the island of Jersey, which was connected to the European mainland between from 240,000-40,000 BC. They navigated inland via streams, and caught some of the more dangerous animals (eg the woolly rhinoceros) on the soft mud adjoining stream. These animals were too dangerous to hunt on hard ground.
Recently discovered remains reveal European Neanderthals were nomadic, living in bands of 20-30 individuals and repeatedly revisiting specific sites for planned hunting and butchering activities. It’s estimated that there were only 10 to 40 thousand in all of Europe when Homo Sapiens arrived.
Neanderthal artifacts from 80,000 years ago have been found in the Mondran caves in France and the Sedron caves in Spain. These artifacts suggest different Neanderthal bands gathered together in specific locations once a year to engage in specific activities, which included finding mates.
Their vocal apparatus was similar to that of modern humans, and it’s assumed organizing their complex activities required some rudimentary language.
Evidence of artistic activity has been found in striking arrangements of animal bones in the Brunelow cave in France, and discrete circles built from stalagmites. A Neanderthal hastag has been found on a rock in Gibraltar. There’s no evidence they made jewelray or beads.
50,000 years ago, Homo sapiens arrived in Europe for the first time. The first wave was a scouting party with advanced flint tools, and they seemed to vanish after ten years.
Around 42,000 years ago a second wave of Homo sapiens migrated to Europe via the Rhone Valley. There’s evidence that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed and interbred over 2000 years. Many modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA.
How Donald Trump Discovers the Art of Political Negotiation
by Thierry Meyssan
Donald Trump knew nothing about the history of Russia and Ukraine, but he’s learning quickly. He no longer believes the Western delusions that Moscow wants to invade Ukraine, and then the rest of Europe. Nor does he believe the delusions of Kaja Kallas and the Balts, for whom Russia is a “prison of peoples” that must be dismembered.
We don’t understand the negotiations in Ukraine and the Middle East because we don’t understand the difference between wars and civil conflicts. We approach peacemaking as if it were a matter of dividing up common property during a divorce, after a few years of living together. But wars are of unparalleled intensity and are rooted in long-standing conflicts, often spanning several generations. Generally speaking, material conditions, suffering, and violence are of secondary importance compared to injustices.
Furthermore, the negotiating method of this business leader turned head of state, like Donald Trump, is dizzying. He strives to evoke incoherent positions and maintain none, simply to shake up his partners in the hope of getting their assets out of their pockets. This method, which has nothing diplomatic about it, ignores the underlying causes of conflicts. It only acknowledges what each side complains about. Ultimately, it can lead to agreements that some signatories might accept at the moment, but later regret.
In any case, we must act quickly. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, even though they have diminished in intensity, continue to kill and destroy. The sensational announcements that this or that war could have been resolved in a few days have already run up against harsh realities.
True diplomats and true warriors don’t aim to win over others, but to live with them. They can’t get along with business leaders who want to be the best, but they can solve problems with the help of those who intend to produce what can be useful to others. Donald Trump is of this ilk.
However, the current problems are not Russian, but primarily American. This could also be the case with Palestine and Iran. Making progress on the Ukrainian conflict requires, first and foremost, not changing the Russian point of view, but addressing the unconditional support of some Westerners for the “integral nationalists,” historical allies of the Nazis. It quickly became clear to the Trump team that the Russian claim to “denazify” Ukraine was not a war propaganda invention [1]. There are several hundred monuments to the glory of Reich collaborators in Ukraine, not to mention buildings and avenues bearing their names [2]. Reading the works of Dmytro Dontsov, particularly his book Націоналізм (Nationalism), is now mandatory in the Ukrainian armed forces; a work equivalent to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (My Struggle) [3]. The most important church in Ukraine was banned because it recognizes the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow.
Several million books were burned because they were written in Russian, that evil language, or because they were written by Russian authors, such as Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) or Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). All opposition political parties have been banned, and the current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has banned new elections by extending the martial law that prohibits them every three months.
To address this issue, Donald Trump must give the Ukrainians something in return. He chose to question the savagery Russia displays when it is certain it is right, which it is. The Western press chose to focus only on the passage where the US president wonders if Vladimir Putin has gone mad. But in the same post, he also denounced Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech. He thus equated the Russian president’s cruelty with the Ukrainian leader’s bad faith. It is important to realize that while emotionally he gives the Ukrainians the upper hand, politically he gives it to the Russians.
It turns out that we belong to a civilization where emotion has replaced reason. We mourn with the fundamental nationalists, believing we share the suffering of the Ukrainians. However, in time, we will recognize the facts and turn against the fundamental nationalists we support today, or even against Ukrainians in general, because we will be ashamed of our current positions. This is the way of history: we always return to positions we can be proud of.
Vladimir Putin has already anticipated our reversal. According to him, the European Union’s unilateral coercive measures will not last. We will eventually return to our former loves, when we celebrated Franco-Russian friendship. This is why he is holding back his army, whose military superiority would have allowed him to capture Odessa long ago and thus complete the reconstruction of the old Russia.
This is what’s at stake now. Territorial boundaries matter little compared to relationships between people. Material issues are always secondary to individual freedom. The people living in Ukraine will have no trouble accepting the partition of their country once they are freed from the pressure exerted on them by the fascists who massacred their great-grandparents.
Donald Trump knew nothing about the history of Russia and Ukraine, but he’s learning quickly. He no longer believes the Western delusions that Moscow wants to invade Ukraine, and then the rest of Europe. Nor does he believe the delusions of Kaja Kallas and the Balts, for whom Russia is a “prison of peoples” that must be dismembered.
Similarly, Donald Trump knew nothing about the history of Israel and Iran, but he learned that the revisionist Zionists of Yitzak Shamir organized SAVAK, the political police of the Shah, Reza Pahlevi, and his Prime Minister, the Nazi General Fazlollah Zahedi, who had just left British jails after the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh [4]. It is difficult to admit, but yes, the terrible SAVAK was organized by Israeli Jews, “revisionist Zionists,” in the service of a Nazi general [5], just as it is difficult to admit that the Ukrainian integral nationalists killed many more of their compatriots than foreign enemies. Donald Trump and his negotiator, Steve Witkoff, have understood that what is at stake in the Middle East is not military nuclear power (even if it is Israel and not Iran that has the bomb), but the second round of crimes committed by the Shah’s regime with the discreet support of certain Israelis.
[…]
Israel to block rare Saudi-backed ministerial delegation to West Bank
Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud attends the Cairo Ministerial Conference to Enhance the Humanitarian Response in Gaza. (Photo by AP)
Press TV
Israel says it will not allow an Arab ministerial delegation led by Saudi Arabia to visit the occupied West Bank, according to a report.
An Israeli official told CNN on Friday that the Zionist regime will “not cooperate” with plans from the Palestinian Authority (PA) to host the Saudi-led delegation.
The Israeli official claimed that the meeting is “provocative” and said that “Israel will not cooperate with such moves aimed at harming it and its security.”
Ministers from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey led by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan were planned to arrive in Ramallah on Sunday to meet PA President Mahmoud Abbas, according to Hussein Al-Sheikh, vice president of the PA.
It would have been the highest-level Saudi visit to the area since it was occupied by Israel in 1967.
Palestinian ambassador to Saudi Arabia Mazen Ghoneim told Saudi state-run media that “The ministerial visit… is considered a clear message. The Palestinian cause is a central issue to Arabs and Muslims.”
The visit would come as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman pushes for international recognition of Palestinian statehood as the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza drags on for 603 days, resulting in the deaths of more than 53,000 Palestinians.
Bin Salman has made efforts to convince Western states, particularly the US, to recognize Palestinian statehood. The kingdom is confident that France will be among the states that will do so in June.
In his initial term, US President Donald Trump had made efforts to normalize ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, leading to a plan by Saudi Arabia to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and in exchange receive a lucrative defense treaty with Washington, including the possibility of a nuclear program in the kingdom.
However, the brutal massacre of Palestinians since October 7 infuriated the Saudi public and the Arab world, forcing Bin Salman to tell US officials that it would not normalize relations unless Israel agreed to a pathway for a Palestinian state and “calm in Gaza.”
Bin Salman has also doubled down in his criticism of Israel, saying it is committing genocide in Gaza.
On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron said the eventual recognition of a Palestinian state was “not only a moral duty but a political necessity.”
He warned that Israel has “hours or days” to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza or face a “tougher” European stance.
[…]
New York Times claims Elon Musk is addicted to drugs
Elon Musk at the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. © Kevin Dietsch / Getty ImagesRT
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, a major ally of US President Donald Trump, has been consuming an alarming amount of drugs, the New York Times alleged on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The report came out shortly after Musk announced that he would step down from his leadership role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force aimed at cutting wasteful US federal spending.
Although the CEO of SpaceX, Tesla, and X had admitted in the past to taking ketamine prescribed for depression about every two weeks, the NYT wrote that he has “developed a far more serious habit,” as his drug consumption “went well beyond occasional use.”
The Times cited its sources as saying that Musk had been using ketamine “often, sometimes daily,” and mixing it with other drugs, as well as taking ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms.
The businessman reportedly travels with a daily medication box that contains about 20 pills, including ones marked as Adderall, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He has also been warned in advance about random drug tests of SpaceX employees, the Times said.
In 2018, the Times reported that some board members at Tesla were worried about his use of the sleep drug Ambien. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that senior executives at SpaceX and Tesla were also concerned about Musk’s consumption of drugs, including LSD and cocaine.
Musk dodged a reporter’s question about his alleged drug use at a press conference with Trump at the Oval Office on Friday, dismissing the Times as “the same publication that got a Pulitzer Prize for false reporting on Russiagate.”
He said in 2024 that “not even trace quantities were found of any drugs or alcohol” in his system over the three years of tests at SpaceX.
Musk said that his departure is “not the end of DOGE,” whose team will grow over time. “I will continue to be visiting here and be a friend and adviser to the president,” Musk said at the White House.
[…]
What is Trump’s game in Syria?
Syria’s Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa shakes hands with US President Donald Trump in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 14, 2025. © Bandar Aljaloud/Palacio Real saudí vía APBy Murad Sadygzade
US President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he intends to lift all sanctions on Syria stands as one of the most unexpected and controversial foreign policy moves Washington has made in the past decade.
Declared during Trump’s Middle East tour at the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, the decision marks a dramatic shift in America’s approach to the region – one that could reshape the strategic landscape for both allies and adversaries.
The sanctions on Syria, first imposed in 1979, were progressively tightened over decades in response to accusations of sponsoring terrorism, human rights abuses, and close ties with Iran. Their full repeal is an unprecedented gesture, especially considering that Syria’s current president, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, was until recently regarded by the US as a senior figure in Al-Qaeda – with a $10 million bounty once placed on his capture.
In return, Damascus has made a series of strategic commitments. According to Trump, al-Sharaa has pledged to prevent the resurgence of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), bring all jihadist detention camps under state control, and expel all foreign terrorist formations from Syrian soil. This latter promise is particularly significant, as these militant units – many of them composed of fighters from Central Asia – played a pivotal role in the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and the rise of the current leadership.
Many of these same groups are also responsible for large-scale ethnic purges, including the massacres of Alawites and other religious minorities earlier this year. Thus, Trump’s proposal does more than legitimize al-Sharaa’s regime – it places on it the mantle of a regional stabilizer, albeit one whose legitimacy remains heavily disputed.
The decision to lift sanctions cannot be divorced from Washington’s broader economic and strategic interests. That the announcement came in Saudi Arabia is no coincidence – it signals a broader understanding with Riyadh, which is eager to deepen its footprint in post-conflict Syria. From the US perspective, the Syria deal is a building block in a new Middle Eastern architecture – one dominated by pro-Western governments and designed to neutralize Iranian influence.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have long viewed Syria’s reconstruction as an opportunity to entrench themselves politically and economically. US sanctions had previously prevented them from acting overtly, and the lifting of restrictions may now be part of a grander bargain: Riyadh receives a green light to invest in Syria, while Washington secures massive financial commitments. On May 14 – the day of Trump’s announcement – Saudi Arabia signed a $142 billion arms deal with the US and pledged an additional $600 billion in American investments.
At first glance, Trump’s move might appear as a betrayal of Israeli interests – an accusation made in several media commentaries. Yet in practice, Israel gains a neighbor that, while unpredictable, is now positioned to suppress Islamist radicals within its borders. This allows it to refocus on countering Iran and Hezbollah without the added distraction of threats emanating from Syria.
The lifting of sanctions also aligns with Türkiye’s strategic goals. President Erdogan, just prior to the Trump-al-Sharaa meeting, personally urged the US president to dismantle the sanctions. Türkiye is a key partner of Syria’s new leadership but has been constrained by its own economic crisis. Moreover, the sanctions hindered Ankara’s allies – particularly Qatar – from taking part in Syria’s postwar reconstruction.
In sum, Trump’s Syrian deal represents more than just a diplomatic maneuver; it is a bold attempt to reengineer the regional balance of power. Whether it brings long-term stability or fuels new fault lines remains to be seen – but its impact on the Middle East is already unmistakable.
What lies behind this move?The developments unfolding in Syria following the rise to power of Ahmed al-Sharaa increasingly evoke the atmosphere of 2011 – the era of the Arab Spring, when the Middle East fractured into two ideological and geopolitical camps. At the time, Türkiye and Qatar actively championed the cause of ‘political Islam’, seeking to expand their influence through the emergence of Islamist-oriented governments. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates perceived Islamist forces as a direct threat to regional stability and the survival of their monarchical order.
Today, under al-Sharaa’s leadership, Syria once again reflects that same fault line. A sense of déjà vu looms: The region’s main players find themselves navigating renewed tensions, caught between the desire to preserve influence and the necessity of adapting to a rapidly evolving reality.
Ankara and Doha, both instrumental in al-Sharaa’s ascent, view his leadership as an opportunity to reclaim their diminished standing in the Levant. Despite its internal economic turmoil, Türkiye continues to position itself as a regional arbiter, relying on a network of loyal political and military actors within Syria. Qatar, for its part, is providing financial and diplomatic support, effectively replicating the strategy it previously deployed in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia.
Yet the current landscape differs markedly from that of 2011. Al-Sharaa, though buoyed by Turkish support, has signaled a desire for greater autonomy from the outset. His first official foreign visit was not to Ankara, but to Riyadh – a symbolic gesture toward Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose economic power is now essential for Syria’s reconstruction. It was also a clear signal that Damascus is open to dialogue, even with those who once backed the opposing side in the civil war.
For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the resurgence of politically motivated Islamist forces is a source of deep concern, though their response has remained deliberately muted. Rather than overt confrontation, these Gulf monarchies have opted for economic engagement, believing that financial leverage will grant them influence while curbing radicalization.
They also see the new Syrian leadership as a potential partner in shaping a new Middle Eastern order – provided that Damascus does not become an instrument of Turkish expansionism. This explains al-Sharaa’s active display of ‘independent maneuvering’, as he skillfully balances between centers of power – from the Gulf to Ankara, from Washington to Moscow.
Amid this geopolitical mosaic, the US has crafted a new strategic vision. Under Trump’s leadership, US policy increasingly focuses on economic leverage and security cooperation while moving away from direct military engagement in the Middle East. Trump proposes a new model: ‘Regional self-sufficiency’ under an American umbrella.
The essence of this model is to arm and equip regional actors, enabling them to maintain stability independently, with the US acting as a supplier of advanced technology and a guarantor of balance. In return, Washington demands loyalty, political restraint, and – crucially – substantial financial contributions. This underpins the strategic alignment with Gulf monarchies, who possess the means and motivation to counterbalance Iran.
At the same time, Trump is attempting to bridge the divide between Türkiye and Israel, laying the groundwork for an economic partnership despite ideological differences. The goal is to prevent friction among US allies and to forge a unified front against Iran and other hostile forces.
Syria, in this context, becomes a testing ground for America’s new security architecture – a controlled regional equilibrium maintained without the Pentagon’s direct footprint. If successful, this model could be replicated in other crisis zones.
A potential next step is the normalization of relations between Syria and Israel – a previously unimaginable prospect, now discussed as part of a broader settlement. In parallel, Trump plans to introduce a new Middle East peace framework that includes recognition of Palestine in exchange for diplomatic and economic incentives from Arab states. This scenario may also presage political change in Israel: If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists the plan, centrist alternatives like Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz – more amenable to compromise – could come to the fore.
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a fundamental reordering of US global priorities. Washington is increasingly pivoting toward the containment of China, its primary strategic rival in the 21st century. The Middle East is no longer seen as a vital sphere; the new approach favors balance over expansion, mediation over presence, partnership over intervention.
Thus, US regional strategy is evolving from rigid control to a more adaptive configuration – one in which local actors are granted greater autonomy, though still within an overarching framework engineered in Washington. Syria may well serve as the first case study of this new era – an era in which the return to the logic of 2011 unexpectedly becomes the launchpad for a very different Middle East.
Will things get better in Syria?The US decision to lift sanctions on Syria following the rise of al-Sharaa to power marks a pivotal moment for a country that has endured over a decade of devastating war, international isolation, and socioeconomic collapse.
This move not only removes one of the most significant external constraints on the Syrian leadership, but also opens a window of opportunity to construct a new model of governance – one grounded in pragmatism, economic rationality, and cautious multilateralism.
Al-Sharaa now faces a critical choice: To use this opportunity to consolidate centralized authority and restore effective governance – or, through missteps or weakness, to allow Syria to fragment further into a collection of ethno-regional entities devoid of a unifying national project.
The World Bank has cleared over $15 million of Syrian debt, once again making the country eligible for participation in international financing programs. This development was made possible through targeted financial contributions from the Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – signaling their intention to take the lead in Syria’s reconstruction. Following this, the IMF expressed its readiness to provide technical assistance, while the Syrian authorities issued a series of statements inviting investment in agriculture, energy, transportation infrastructure, and tourism.
These actions indicate the new regime’s ambition to craft an economic model that not only addresses the war’s legacy but also generates employment, stabilizes the currency, boosts public revenues, and – most importantly – restores public trust in the institution of the state.
However, economic recovery is only feasible if accompanied by the genuine restoration of governance.
Syria remains deeply fragmented. Kurdish regions in the northeast are governed by a de facto autonomous administration with its own armed forces and international channels. In the south, the Druze community in Suwayda exhibits growing political and organizational independence, alongside protest movements and local defense initiatives. Along the coastal regions – home to significant Alawite and Christian minorities – distrust toward centralized power continues to grow, especially amid persistent ethno-sectarian tensions. These communities, should the center weaken, may gravitate toward political separatism or at least self-organization into autonomous administrative structures.
If the al-Sharaa government fails to propose a coherent model of political integration – one that includes power-sharing, resource distribution, and the participation of regional elites in governance – Syria could enter a new phase of ‘soft disintegration’: A de facto federalization where unity is maintained in name only.
In this context, foreign policy becomes critically important. Fully aware of the dangers of unilateral alignment, Ahmed al-Sharaa is pursuing a balanced external strategy. Unlike the previous era, which was defined by dependence on a narrow circle of allies, Syria’s new president is embracing a diversified diplomatic approach. He seeks to build relations with the West and the US – especially in the context of economic recovery and Syria’s international rehabilitation – without abandoning existing strategic ties. It is within this framework that Russia remains a key partner to Syria across several strategic domains.
Russia continues to play a central role in Syria’s security architecture and diplomatic positioning, including defending Syrian interests at the UN Security Council and engaging in technical, military, and energy cooperation.
Its presence in Tartus and Khmeimim, involvement in humanitarian initiatives, and potential contributions to infrastructure reconstruction ensure its continued relevance in any long-term settlement scenario.
At the same time, Damascus under al-Sharaa is also looking to build stronger ties with other non-Western power centers – including China, India, and Brazil – while deepening economic engagement with the Arab world. This will help Syria avoid overdependence on any single actor and enhance its strategic flexibility amid global uncertainty.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/618363-trump-syria-sanctions-game/
HHS cuts funding to ‘undertested’ mRNA technology
By Alec Schemmel
President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is terminating awards totaling more than $750 million dollars that were provided to pharmaceutical manufacturer Moderna to help facilitate its production of mRNA-based bird flu vaccines.
During President Joe Biden’s final week in office, his administration awarded $590 million to Moderna to help speed up its production of mRNA-based vaccines. The $590 million award followed a separate $176 million award Biden gave to Moderna earlier last year for mRNA vaccine technology.
Messenger RNA vaccines are a newer type of vaccine technology, which was utilized by companies like Moderna and Pfizer to develop their COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccine technology was at the center of a lot of criticism amid the coronavirus pandemic for potentially being associated with adverse side effects in some people who took them, such as myocarditis.
Trump administration officials previously hinted at the potential that this funding could be terminated, citing a lack of oversight during the Biden administration pertaining to vaccine production.
“After a rigorous review, we concluded that continued investment in Moderna’s H5N1 mRNA vaccine was not scientifically or ethically justifiable,” HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon said. “This is not simply about efficacy — it’s about safety, integrity, and trust. The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public.”
The announcement reflects a larger shift in federal vaccine priorities, after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced earlier this week that COVID-19 vaccines would be removed from the federal government’s list of recommended vaccines for children and pregnant women.
Meanwhile, a report from Senate Republicans released earlier this month suggested the Biden administration withheld critical safety data and downplayed known risks tied to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, the Senate report focuses on HHS’ awareness of, and response to, cases of myocarditis — a type of heart inflammation — following COVID-19 vaccination.
“Rather than provide the public and health care providers with immediate and transparent information regarding the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration waited until late June 2021 to announce changes to the labels for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines based on the ‘suggested increased risks’ of myocarditis and pericarditis,” the Senate report states. “Even though CDC and FDA officials were well aware of the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration opted to withhold issuing a formal warning to the public for months about the safety concerns, jeopardizing the health of young Americans.”
In response to the Trump administration’s funding termination, Moderna put out a press release acknowledging the move, but also touting the “safety profile” observed amid its work on a new mRNA bird flu vaccine.
“While the termination of funding from HHS adds uncertainty, we are pleased by the robust immune response and safety profile observed in this interim analysis of the Phase 1/2 study of our H5 avian flu vaccine and we will explore alternative paths forward for the program,” said Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. “These clinical data in pandemic influenza underscore the critical role mRNA technology has played as a countermeasure to emerging health threats.”
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
