USA Willing to Give Occupied Regions to Russia?
The Telegraph wrote on November 28:
“The United States is poised to recognise Russia’s control over Crimea and other occupied Ukrainian territories to secure a deal to end the war… Donald Trump has sent his peace envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner to make the direct offer to Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
The plan to recognise territory, which breaks US diplomatic convention, is likely to go ahead despite concerns among Ukraine’s European allies.
One well-placed source said: ‘It’s increasingly clear the Americans don’t care about the European position. They say the Europeans can do whatever they want.’…
“Washington’s apparent offer of recognition has caused concern amongst its European allies, who have repeatedly ruled out backing a peace deal that condones borders being redrawn by force… Until now, the US and Europe have refused to recognise Russia’s control over Crimea, the peninsula that Putin illegally annexed in 2014…
“In recent days, leaked phone calls showed how Mr Trump’s lead negotiator, Mr Witkoff, was found to have coached Russian officials on how to court the White House… Open source intelligence experts have suggested a European agency could have disclosed this information to expose the blossoming relationship between the presidential aide and the Kremlin…”
Risk of Major Split
The Daily Mail added on November 28:
“The move would mark the most dramatic shift in US policy toward the conflict since Russia seized Crimea in 2014, and risks a major split with European governments that have repeatedly rejected any peace plans involving territorial concessions…
“European concern has intensified further after leaked recordings revealed Witkoff coaching Russian officials on appealing to the Trump administration. In those calls, he referred to Ukraine needing to give up Donetsk, prompting questions about whether US envoys had already signalled willingness to support Russian demands…”
Europeans would view such an “agreement” with Russia as an American betrayal. No good would come out of it, and the result would be increased anti-American sentiments.
Preemptive Strikes on Russia?
The Sun wrote on December 1:
“RUSSIA has accused Europe of gearing up for ‘major war’ after a top Nato chief claimed the defence pact could launch ‘pre-emptive strikes’ on Vladimir Putin. Moscow hit back at the suggestion, blaming the West for ‘moving towards escalation’…
“Speculating on Nato’s ability to hit Russia first, [Admiral Giuseppe Cavo] Dragone, [chair of Nato’s Military Committee] said: ‘We are studying everything […] On cyber, we are kind of reactive. Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about.’
“Dragone added that revenge cyber-attacks would be the simplest option, because many Nato member nations hold the capabilities to launch them. Retaliation for physical sabotage or drone incursions would be more complex – but not out of the question. The admiral said that a ‘pre-emptive strike’ could, under certain circumstances, be classified as a defensive action…
“Nato has already been urged to abandon its reactive stance by several member states – particularly those in eastern Europe which bear the brunt of Russia‘s aggression.”
Ultimately, this is exactly what will happen, according to biblical prophecy.
Putin: “If Europe Wants War…”
Newsmax wrote on December 2:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia did not want a war with European powers but that if Europe did want a war, then Russia was ready right now to fight. Putin said that European powers were making demands on a possible peace settlement for Ukraine that Moscow considers absolutely unacceptable. Putin accused Ukraine’s European allies Tuesday of sabotaging U.S.-led efforts to end the war that have gained momentum in recent weeks… thus ‘blocking the entire peace process,’ only to blame Russia for it. ‘That’s their goal,’ Putin said.
“… European leaders, who fear Russia’s future territorial ambitions and are trying to figure out how they can fund Ukraine’s fight beyond this year, are trying to make their voices heard after being largely sidelined by Washington…”
Europe Plans “Nuclear Option”?
Express wrote on December 1:
“Trump has fuelled fears among European politicians that the White House is preparing to sacrifice the continent’s security in exchange for US economic gain.
“European states are considering adopting the ‘nuclear option’ of sinking the US economy, if Donald Trump sells out Ukraine and endangers security on the continent… European leaders remain suspicious that Trump is rushing towards a geopolitical deal with Vladimir Putin while paying little heed to the security concerns of NATO allies.
“The Wall Street Journal reports a European intelligence service has circulated internal assessments about ‘commercial and economic plans’ the Trump team has been exploring with Russia behind closed doors… Sources told the WSJ that European leaders are considering adopting extreme countermeasures in retaliation, designed to unleash economic chaos in the US.
“The alleged plan involves dumping trillions in US government debt owned by European states. A rapid sell off would likely cause a crash in the value of the US dollar, create a liquidity crisis across the banking system and cause a huge spike in borrowing costs. It would also lock the American financial sector into a paralysis more severe than the 2008 crisis.
“A leading European economist [described]… the plan as a potential financial whiplash that could hit the US harder than any external shock in modern history. The political consequences would likely be disastrous for Trump and the Republicans as the midterm elections approach next year.
“The EU and the UK are among the largest holders of US Treasury securities (US debt), which gives them significant potential economic leverage.
As of December 2024, the United Kingdom holds an estimated $722.7 billion in US debt. The European Union member countries collectively hold an estimated $1.62 trillion. Combined, this is approximately $2.34 trillion, making the EU/UK bloc one of the single largest foreign holders of US debt.”
This would cause an incurable permanent rift between the two power blocs.
EU Tells Trump: You Can’t Pardon Putin For War Crimes
Politico wrote on December 1:
“Donald Trump’s drive to secure peace in Ukraine must not let Vladimir Putin off the hook for war crimes committed by Russian forces, a top EU official has warned, effectively setting a new red line for a deal… Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, said negotiators must ensure the push for a ceasefire does not result in Russia escaping prosecution.
“His comments reflect concerns widely held in European capitals that the original American blueprint for a deal included the promise of a ‘full amnesty for actions committed during the war,’ alongside plans to reintegrate Russia into the world economy. The Trump team’s push to rehabilitate the Kremlin chief comes despite international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians….
“Ukrainian authorities say they have opened investigations into more than 178,000 alleged Russian crimes since the start of the war… The EU and others have worked to set up a new special tribunal for the crime of aggression with the aim of bringing Russian leaders to justice for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022… In March 2023, judges at the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin…”
The different positions between the USA and the EU become more and more obvious.
Germany to Take Over NATO?
Newsweek wrote on November 30:
“Comments by President Donald Trump’s envoy to NATO suggesting that Germany take over the American role of the alliance’s European commander signal Washington’s disengagement from European security affairs…
“[U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew] Whitaker’s comments follow rumors the U.S. wants to step back from the role and suggest the Trump administration would like to see Germany replace the U.S. as Europe’s main security guarantor.”
Europe to Hit Back?
Politico wrote on November 27:
“Russia’s drones and agents are unleashing attacks across NATO countries and Europe is now doing what would have seemed outlandish just a few years ago: planning how to hit back…
“After Russian war drones were shot down over Poland, NATO said it would boost the alliance’s drone and air defenses on its eastern flank — a call mirrored by the EU. Even that is enraging Moscow.
“Europeans ‘should be afraid and tremble like dumb animals in a herd being driven to the slaughter,’ said [deputy Kremlin Security Council head Dmitry] Medvedev in early October. ‘They should soil themselves with fear, sensing their near and agonizing end.’…
“So far, countries like Germany and Romania are strengthening rules that would allow authorities to shoot down drones flying over airports and militarily sensitive objects.”
Too early yet, but ultimately, Europe will be destroyed by Russia and its Far Eastern allies.
“Germany Raised Its Citizens to Hate War. Now It Wants Us to Enlist in the Army – But We Say No”
On November 28, the Guardian published the following opinion by Mithu Sanyal, author, academic and broadcaster based in Düsseldorf:
“After we lost the second world war – or, as we prefer to say, after we were liberated by the allies – we swore ‘never again’: never again to war, and never again to Auschwitz. Admittedly, Germany rearmed in 1955, but just as ‘citizens in uniform’… For most of my life, the German army didn’t venture beyond our borders. Then came reunification in 1990, and during the first sitting of the all-German Bundestag, the then chancellor, Helmut Kohl, announced that we had to step up internationally: in 1994, the law was changed accordingly to allow the Bundeswehr to be deployed ‘out of area’ again.
“Nonetheless, Germans remained squeamish about the idea that our soldiers might actually do what they have been trained for… That all changed in 1999. I always try to convey to people outside Germany the seismic shift that occurred that year, when our then foreign minister Joschka Fischer declared we had to let go of ‘never again to war’, in order to honour ‘never again to Auschwitz’ – because Serbia was planning what Fischer called a ‘new Auschwitz’ in Kosovo. Invoking the Holocaust was the only way to get the German public to accept our participation in international wars again.
“So now we’re bringing back conscription – only we call it voluntary conscription… Even Germany’s Protestant church has been re-evaluating its stance on war and the atom bomb this month… with the following conclusion: in these troubled times, ‘Christian pacifism is ethically not justifiable.’ [What blasphemy!]
“It is scary how fast this is moving – and some of the details are mind-boggling… A few months ago a prominent German feminist pointed out it was against equal rights that our sons had to go into the army… she went on to ask for conscription for our daughters as well…
“If we enter the Ukrainian war with manpower…, Patrick Sensburg, president of the Bundeswehr Reservists Association, warned that 1,000 soldiers would die or be seriously maimed every day… One of his main concerns was how to replace 1,000 dead human beings each day. The solution: conscription…
“Likewise, Chancellor Merz knows he is helping to reconstitute the national mood and set a new agenda when he says: ‘We are not at war. But we are no longer at peace.’ So does nearly every politician and… nearly every journalist in Germany. They are participating in what propaganda researchers call cognitive warfare…
“I agree the war in Ukraine is a crime – so why aren’t we doing everything in our power to end it?… a country that isn’t doing everything to prevent wars has lost the right to ask its citizens to participate in them.
“Most Germans under 30 are against conscription– and it’s only Germans that are too old to go to war that are in favor…”
Very important and CORRECT article. Yes, Germans are being induced by the political establishment and the mass media to love to go to war again… slowly but surely.
Defense Talks Between Britain and EU Break Down
Vocal Media wrote on November 28:
“For months, the United Kingdom and the European Union have tried to build a new foundation for defence cooperation. Both sides hoped that, even after Brexit, they could still work together on issues that affect the entire continent—security, technology, and military readiness. But this hope took a serious hit when Britain officially announced that talks to join the EU Defence Fund (EDF) had broken down…
“Billions of euros are set aside for this fund, and companies from member states can apply for major contracts. If Britain had joined the EDF, its defence industries could have benefited from these opportunities… However, joining the EDF as a non-EU country is complicated. Unlike NATO, the EDF is tightly controlled by the EU, and it requires strict adherence to the bloc’s regulations, data-sharing rules, and research guidelines. This is where the talks began to fall apart…
“The most important disagreement was about control and decision-making. The EU wanted Britain to follow its rules without giving the U.K. much influence over how the fund operates…
‘Another conflict involved technology sharing. EU leaders were cautious about allowing a non-member state access to sensitive military research. They worried that sharing information widely—even with a trusted partner—could weaken security or give other countries an advantage.
“The third major issue was political trust, which still hasn’t fully recovered after Brexit…
“In the end, neither side was willing to compromise enough to reach an agreement. As a result, the talks officially collapsed… many analysts believe the U.K. has lost a valuable chance to shape Europe’s defence future… the breakdown marks a disappointing moment in post-Brexit security efforts…”
“Britain Quits EU Rearmament Deal After £5.7 Billion Demand from France”
Express wrote on November 29:
“The programme is set to provide up to €150 billion (£130 billion) in long-term loans to member states for defence spending and large-scale investments.
“SAFE [“Security Action for Europe”] is based on EU loans, and French President Emmanuel Macron insisted that the UK must make high contributions to participate in the scheme. A source claimed that the UK was not prepared to pay significantly into the programme and offered a figure lower than £1 billion…
“It is reported that 19 of the 27 EU countries have applied for SAFE loans so far… The money is expected to be issued early next year, with Poland set to receive the highest share with €43.7 billion. Meanwhile, Romania will receive €16.6 billion, with Hungary and France each given €16.2 billion.”
SAFE and EDF refer to multiple different programs and entities, but they are generally not the same program. The acronyms have distinct meanings in different contexts.
The European Defence Fund (EDF) is an EU initiative to fund cooperative defense research and capability development, which builds on earlier initiatives. The Security Action for Europe (SAFE) is an EU financial instrument providing support to Member States for urgent defense investments.
Costco Sues Trump Over Tariffs
CNBC wrote on December 1:
“Costco sued the Trump administration [on Friday] to get a full refund of new tariffs it paid so far this year, and to block those import duties from continuing to be collected from the retail warehouse club giant as a Supreme Court case plays out… Costco said that it risks losing the money it has already paid to satisfy the tariffs even if the Supreme Court eventually upholds earlier lower court rulings that found President Donald Trump did not have the legal power to impose those duties.
“The company noted a looming Dec. 15 deadline that could prevent the tariffs that it has already paid on an estimated basis from being refunded… Dozens of other companies have filed similar lawsuits to protect their right to potential refunds in case the Supreme Court rules against the [tariffs]…
“The Trump administration has warned of the potential fallout of having to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in tariffs if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings that Trump did not have authority… to unilaterally impose those duties.’
Trump Is Going Way Too Far
On November 28, the Ron Paul Institute published the following article by Eric Margolis:
“President Donald Trump threatens to hang military officers who have the audacity to tell their troops not to obey unlawful orders. Trump called them ‘traitors’ and suggested they be locked up. The president just crossed the Rubicon… after these threats, he has gone way too far. Americans should be alarmed.
“I enlisted in the US Army in 1969 to become an infantry officer and served in Vietnam… In basic and advanced infantry training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, we were educated in the military code of conduct… The most important single lesson that I vividly recall was the order to refuse any orders seen as illegal – that is, in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions. This command did not come out of the blue. It was promulgated as a result of the Nuremberg Trials after World War II in which much of the senior German elite was found guilty of war crimes, and many sentenced to death.
“Most of the German officials and soldiers being tried for assorted war crimes claimed they were simply following orders from senior commanders… The Nuremberg Trials were in many ways legalized revenge on a defeated enemy. Particularly so when the victorious allies included the US Air force and RAF who had killed millions of civilians in Europe and Japan, and the Soviets who had killed millions more innocent civilians.
“Nuremberg was a gigantic kangaroo court, and legalized revenge killings. But the one good thing that came out of it was the rejection of the ‘I was only following orders’ defense. All wars are a crime, but this new statute slightly reduced some of the horrors and murder involved.
“President Trump now wants to sweep this protection away because he feels his regal authority powers have been challenged. This is a violation of our constitution and laws… It’s too bad Donald Trump managed to evade military service… or he would have a better understanding of this important issue and the legal and customary restraints imposed on his noble office.”
But what about those under him, supporting him, who served in the military? They undoubtedly should know better.
Trump’s Mental Decline?
Mediaite published on November 28 the following opinion by Michael Luciano:
“President Donald Trump’s spiral into a vicious – and malicious – mental decline continued apace on Thanksgiving, capping off an especially erratic month in which he somehow managed to be even less ‘presidential’ than before.
“Trump, 79, has displayed increasingly antisocial behavior. This month, he called a reporter ‘piggy’ to her face. Last week, he claimed that six Democratic lawmakers who urged soldiers to ‘refuse illegal orders’ had committed sedition… [He] reposted a post stating, ‘HANG THEM.’ On Wednesday, the president ranted about ‘Somalians’ after an Afghan national… was arrested in connection with the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members in Washington, D.C., one of whom has died.
“… he erupted at another female reporter… Trump told the reporter, ‘You’re a stupid person.’
“… Trump took to Truth Social, where he railed against Somalis again and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), whom he called ‘seriously retarded’ and claimed that the country’s foreign-born population is composed mostly of people who ‘are on welfare, from failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, or drug cartels.’ The president also baselessly claimed that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), an immigrant who is one of a notable contingent of Somalis in Minnesota, ‘probably’ entered the U.S. illegally and married her brother: ‘… her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of Government, Military, Police, schools, etc…’
“Trump’s… actions of late… are well beyond the pale. And this is to say nothing of his actual policies, which have had disastrous and deadly consequences for millions of people in the U.S. and abroad.”
However, according to India Today, dated November 28, “There is… no proof that Omar, the first Somali-American in Congress, ever married a relative or committed immigration fraud. Trump… also did not elaborate on his bizarre claims… A report in the UK’s Daily Mail claimed that Omar confided to her friends that Elmi was actually her biological brother and the marriage was a scam for immigration purposes.”
The Huffington Post wrote on November 28:
“Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) hit back pointedly at Donald Trump on Thursday, responding to the president’s latest online attack of him with a four-word challenge: ‘Release the MRI results.’… Walz’s response referenced the recent presidential medical mystery of Trump’s MRI scan in October that neither he nor the White House have fully explained.”
Trump’s MRI Not About His Brain
Daily Mail wrote on December 1:
“The White House has provided details of Donald Trump’s MRI scan carried out last month amid mounting speculation about the president’s health… after it was revealed in July that he had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency… Trump’s cognitive health has also been called into question…
“However, Trump’s scans were focused on the president’s heart and abdomen [not his brain], the White House confirmed on Monday…. Trump’s scan revealed no abnormalities and confirmed that he is in ‘excellent health.’ MRI scans are a standard preventative procedure for men his age, the doctor said.”
As we pointed out in last week’s Current Events, there is great concern, shared by some of Trump’s relatives, that he might be suffering from increasing dementia.
Attack on Two National Guard Members
MSN wrote on November 28:
“The man suspected of shooting two National Guard members near the White House this week — one of them fatally — is an Afghan national who came to the United States in September 2021 because of his work with the U.S. government, including the CIA…. [He] was among tens of thousands of Afghan nationals who came to the U.S. as part of Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden-era program, following the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal… [He] was granted asylum this April [under the Trump administration]…
“CIA Director John Ratcliffe said [the suspect] had been a member of a partner force in Kandahar, a province in southern Afghanistan that saw significant fighting during the war. [He] was part of one of the CIA’s ‘Zero Units’ that were involved in combat missions to seize or kill suspected terrorists… The Zero Units, also known as National Strike Units, were involved in dangerous and often deadly night raids and other missions to kill or capture members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. The CIA and U.S. military provided intelligence and logistical support to the squads.
“The CIA has never publicly acknowledged its work with the Zero Units, which have been shadowed by allegations of human rights violations, including a 2019 Human Rights Watch report that found they had conducted summary executions and other abuses. [The suspect] and other Afghan paramilitary members would have undergone extensive vetting before joining the Zero Units and were supposed to be monitored closely once in service, people familiar with the matter said.
“U.S. officials have said the Zero Units were effective fighters and that they played a critical role in assisting with the chaotic American evacuation from Afghanistan in late August 2021, probably saving U.S. lives.”
CIA’s Zero Units
The New York Times added on November 28:
“Zero Units, which were formally part of the Afghan intelligence service but operated outside the usual chain of command, were largely recruited, trained, equipped and overseen by the C.I.A., according to Human Rights Watch. These units specialized in night raids and clandestine missions; Taliban officials and human rights groups described them as ‘death squads.’
“Human Rights Watch said it had documented several instances in which the units were responsible for ‘extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, indiscriminate airstrikes, attacks on medical facilities, and other violations of international humanitarian law.’
“A childhood friend, who asked to be identified only as Muhammad because he feared Taliban reprisals, said that [the suspect] had suffered from mental health issues and was disturbed by the casualties his unit had caused.”
Trump said about the suspect that he had turned “nuts.” And Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said that authorities believe the suspect might have been radicalized after he arrived in the United States.
npr wrote on November 27:
“Those people came on two-year grants of parole, then later had to apply for other ways to stay in the country permanently, like asylum, and go through rigorous screening.
“Roughly 200,000 Afghan immigrants and refugees came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. Some of them have since received green cards or even U.S. citizenship, but many have more tenuous legal status, such as humanitarian parole.”
The Blame Game Continues
New York Post wrote on November 27:
“An enraged Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted ‘progressive left idiots’ for fueling hatred towards National Guard troops — as she vowed to probe whether they encouraged the Thanksgiving eve shooting ambush.
“Bondi tore into the scores of liberal lawmakers and media commentators who have criticized President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops to Washington, DC, suggesting the ‘disgusting’ and ‘despicable’ rhetoric is to blame for any ensuing violence.”
In the case of the suspect, such “rhetoric” was hardly the motive, from everything we know so far. Bondi seems to try to gloss over her unpopularity, by “seizing the moment.”
Trump’s Announcement of Further Immigration Restrictions
ABC News wrote on November 28:
“President Donald Trump said he will ‘permanently pause migration’ from some countries following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., earlier this week… Trump did not specify which countries the pause would affect, saying it would apply to ‘Third World Countries.’…
‘He said the U.S. would ‘terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions… and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.’”
If this is meant to be taken seriously, these would be extremely dangerous and troublesome announcements by an irate and out-of-touch President. If attempted to be carried out, a flood of lawsuits would be the consequence, and the world would turn even more hostile toward America. Pretty soon, Trump would have been successful in making America void and empty… no more foreign-born non-citizens; no more birthright citizenship; denaturalization of everyone who dares to disagree with Trump’s view of compatibility with Western Civilization; and so on.
Immigration Applications on Hold
The New York Post wrote on December 3:
“The Trump administration formally halted immigration applications from 19 countries deemed to be a high risk for producing terrorists and other national security threats — hours after a source told The Post that list could grow to 30 nations or more…
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)… also announced a hold on ‘all pending asylum applications, regardless of the alien’s country of nationality.’”
Killings of Alleged “Drug Smugglers” to Be Investigated
The Washington Post wrote on November 29:
“The head of the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee has pledged ‘vigorous oversight’ after a Washington Post report that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave spoken order to kill crew members during the first U.S. strike against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean earlier this year.
“A live drone feed showed two survivors from the original crew of 11 clinging to the wreckage of their boat following the initial missile attack on Sept. 2, The Post reported on Friday afternoon. The Special Operations commander overseeing the operation then ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation, killing both survivors. Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
“Late Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), the committee’s ranking Democrat, issued a statement saying that the committee ‘is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels.’ The committee, they said, ‘has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.’
“Following the publication of The Post’s report, Hegseth wrote on X that ‘these highly effective strikes are designed to be “lethal, kinetic strikes,’” adding: ‘Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.’ ‘Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command,’ he said…
“In some closed-door briefings to lawmakers, the Pentagon has declined to bring lawyers who could help explain the legal rationale behind the strikes. There has been extensive frustration among some members of Congress — including some Republicans — at the lack of detail provided to Capitol Hill, ranging from the intelligence to support the strikes to the identities of the people killed.
“Last month, Wicker and Reed made public two letters they previously sent to the Pentagon, requesting the orders, recordings and legal rationale related to the strikes. The Defense Department, they wrote in the rare public warning, had surpassed the time required by law to provide some of the materials. That information would have included Hegseth’s order to kill everyone in the first strike and the video of the attack… some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution…
“The Joint Special Operations Command had said in briefing materials provided to the White House that the purpose of the ‘double-tap’ strike was to sink the boat to avoid any navigation hazard to other vessels, according to one person who saw the report. Lawmakers received a similar explanation in two closed-door briefings, according to two congressional aides. ‘The idea that wreckage from one small boat in a vast ocean is a hazard to marine traffic is patently absurd, and killing survivors is blatantly illegal,’ Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts) wrote… ‘Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder.’”
Some even question whether these attacks on boats take place, calling it “fake news.” How ignorant can one be!
Second Strike in “Self-Defense”?
The Independent wrote on December 1:
“The White House has confirmed that the admiral overseeing U.S. military operations against alleged drug-carrying boats had issued the order for a second strike that killed two survivors, an attack that has intensified legal scrutiny into the Trump administration’s lethal campaign…
“Asked to clarify whether [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth had ordered the second strike on the boat, [White House press secretary Karoline] Leavitt told reporters that [Admiral Frank] Bradley — not Hegseth — gave the order and stressed that the veteran naval officer was ‘well within his authority and the law’ when he did. ‘He directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat from narco terrorists was eliminated,’ she said… The strike on September 2, the first among more than a dozen attacks that have killed more than 80 people in recent months, ‘was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans’ and ‘vital United States interests,’ she said… When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, Bradley issued an order to comply with Hegseth’s alleged instructions to ‘kill everybody’…
“According to the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual, people who are ‘wounded, sick, or shipwrecked’ on the high seas are supposed to be ‘respected and protected in all circumstances’ by U.S. forces, even during hostilities. The Defense Department’s manual specifically states that ‘making them the object of attack is strictly prohibited.’”
Acting in self-defense? This is the most ridiculous “justification” anyone could come up with.
“Hegseth Throws Admiral Under the Bus”
Mediaite wrote on December 1:
“Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made clear that he believes Admiral Frank ‘Mitch’ Bradley is the man responsible for a U.S. attack on the survivors of a boat bombing in the Caribbean.
“On Sept. 2, the U.S. bombed an alleged drug boat off the coast of Trinidad. According to The Washington Post, Hegseth ordered everyone aboard killed, according to sources familiar with the situation. After the first strike, which was conducted by the Navy, two survivors remained, clinging to the wreckage. Heeding Hegseth’s directive, the Post said Bradly deemed the survivors valid targets and ordered that Hegseth’s directive be carried out. The Navy conducted a second strike and killed the survivors…
“On Monday night, Hegseth tweeted ‘support’ of Bradley while also making sure to say that the admiral was responsible for ‘combat decisions’… Fox News Chief Political Analyst Brit Hume… wrote: ‘How to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him.’… Hume said on Fox News that the story could be ‘a big problem’ for the Trump administration.
“Over on CNN, Ryan Goodman, former general counsel for the Department of Defense, stated that if Hegseth ordered everyone on the boat killed, the secretary is ultimately responsible for the second strike, regardless of Bradley’s involvement…”
He certainly would be.
It was also pointed out that during his time in office, President Barack Obama significantly expanded the use of drone strikes for targeted killings against suspected terrorists, particularly in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa.
How can something like this be possibly justified?
Prosecuting Hegseth?
Mediaite wrote on December 2:
“Newsmax’s senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, argued on Tuesday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should be prosecuted for a war crime over his order to kill everyone aboard an alleged drug smuggling boat in early September…
“‘Well, I wish the White House would reveal to us the laws on which the president is relying. He says he has an opinion from the Justice Department, but neither the Justice Department nor the White House will offer it for public scrutiny… The killing is out of hand. And this last one, in which Pete Hegseth first denied that he gave the order, and then the White House said he did give the order, and then the White House said it was in self-defense. Self-defense! You got two people in the ocean clinging to a burning boat to stay alive, and they’re gonna be killed for self-defense? That doesn’t make any sense.
“‘… the law of armed conflict says survivors have to be rescued. They can’t be killed. That’s very clear. It’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it’s in federal law… narco terrorist is not a legal term. It’s a political term and using that political term does not justify [killing them]… only if they’re engaged in violence can the military kill them…’
“When asked whether they act violently ‘if they’re coming here with drugs that could kill Americans,’ Napolitano replied, ‘Well, they’re fifteen hundred miles from the United States on a speed boat with a fifty-mile distance. It’s inconceivable it could reach the United States.’”
ABC News added on December 3:
“The family of a Colombian fisherman who died in a U.S. military boat strike in September has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging the U.S. government illegally killed him… While the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights can investigate the complaint and issue findings, any ruling it makes would not be legally binding on the U.S….
“The filing comes after [far-left] Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. government of committing murder… ‘Fisherman Alejandro Carranza had no ties to the drug trade and his daily activity was fishing… The Colombian boat was adrift and displaying the distress signal due to having an outboard motor…’”
No Evidence
Breitbart wrote on December 2:
“During an interview aired on Tuesday’s broadcast of Bloomberg’s ‘Balance of Power,’ Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stated that there isn’t any evidence of fentanyl coming from Venezuela… ‘All these people [are] going off saying, oh, fentanyl’s killing people, I know people who died of fentanyl. I have a great deal of sympathy. I know a family that lost two sons to fentanyl. I have sympathy for that. There’s no evidence there’s any fentanyl on this boat. There’s no evidence that any fentanyl comes from Venezuela, zero.’
“He continued, ‘There is fentanyl coming up [from] Mexico, but since we’re blowing these boats up, maybe we’re taking our eye off the border in Mexico. So, the whole thing is a pretense and a prelude to war in Venezuela, and I hope it doesn’t happen.’”
He also said this in regard to pardoning former President of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández:
“‘if they label you a narcoterrorist, they can kill you without trial, but if they say you’re not a narcoterrorist, you can be given a pardon, even though you have been convicted, even though he’s gloated over all the people he’s loaded with drugs, including some who have probably and inevitably have died in our country… you get into the lunacy of, well, Orlando Hernández is not a narcoterrorist, but these guys, who we don’t know their name, and we’ve presented no proof, they’re narcoterrorists.’”
Pardoning Drug Smuggler, While Attacking “Drug Smugglers”
The Ron Paul Institute wrote on December 1:
“Trump’s South America policy is getting more ridiculous by the day. Yesterday he announced a pardon for the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who is serving a 45-year sentence for partnering with drug traffickers who had allegedly shipped 400 tons of cocaine to the United States…
“While pardoning a convicted drug smuggler on one day Trump uses the next one to threatening Venezuela for alleged drug smuggling for which there is no evidence… All Trump assertions about Venezuela, its alleged ‘terrorist gangs’ and drug smuggling are completely bogus. This is not at all about drugs but about stealing the huge oil reserve Venezuela has: ‘[Oil] is at the heart of the matter,’ Colombian President Gustavo Petro told CNN in an interview published Wednesday… ‘He’s not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,’ added the South American president, who last month was sanctioned by the Trump administration…
“Meanwhile the U.S. military continues to strike random fisherman [sic] near Venezuela… with drones and missiles… Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution. Hegseth had overruled the most senior military lawyer of the U.S. Southern Command who had called the strikes illegal…
“Eleven people in a boat is by the way a sure sign that these were not drug smuggler [sic]… The boat in question, a go-fast vessel with four motors, is common in the region and would typically be manned by a small crew — perhaps one mechanic, a driver or two, and another person focused on security… More people on board means less room for drugs to sell…’”
US Attack on Venezuela Imminent?
The Telegraph wrote on November 29:
“Donald Trump has told all airlines to consider the skies above and surrounding Venezuela closed, as the threat of US air strikes intensifies. The US president declared Venezuelan airspace ‘closed in its entirety’ in an early-morning post on social media, two days after suggesting he would launch military strikes on the country [“very soon”] to stop drug traffickers.
“The US does not have the authority to close another country’s airspace, but the threat is likely to panic airlines, cause travel uncertainty in Venezuela, and worry Nicolas Maduro, its leader, whom the Trump administration has labelled a ‘narco-terrorist’….
“Despite the president’s declaration, US authorities have not banned American aircraft from entering Venezuelan airspace and flights were still going ahead as of Saturday morning… Since September, the Trump administration has been massing the most significant US military force in the southern Caribbean region for generations, while conducting deadly strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in international waters…”
China To Invade Taiwan?
The Daily Mail published on November 29 an article by Ian Williams, author of “The Rise And Fall Of The Chinese Economy”:
“If China attacked its neighbour, [Taiwan] the threat to the global economy and to the bruised Western alliance would make Russia’s long war in Ukraine look like a picnic. And although it is half a world away, the UK could be drawn more directly to a conflict in Taiwan than to the muddy fields of the Donbas.
“Taiwan is a vital cog in the global high-tech economy. It produces more than 90 per cent of the world’s most advanced semi-conductors. One Taiwanese company, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, also known as Foxconn, is the world’s biggest electronics manufacturer, including of most Apple products. Bloomberg Economics has estimated that a war over the island would cost the global economy around $10trillion (£7.56trillion) – about 10 per cent of the world’s GDP.
“For years, America has been supporting Taiwan’s defences and bolstering regional alliances to deter Chinese aggression. Now, not only has Donald Trump ushered in a new era of unpredictability, but his counterpart Xi Jinping is growing increasingly impatient, stepping up his military intimidation of the democratic, self-ruled island, which China claims as its own.
“Xi sees taking Taiwan as a key part of his mission to restore national greatness, an eerily similar mission to that of his ‘good friend’ Vladimir Putin, which drives the Russian dictator’s aggression on Ukraine. Xi is closely watching the West’s faltering resolve in Ukraine. If Putin is rewarded with territory for his aggression, that will factor into Beijing’s calculations.
“This is why a phone call between Xi and Trump this week attracted so much attention and raised questions about America’s commitment both to the defence of Taiwan and to its regional alliances. The Americans say the call came from Xi, while Beijing claims Trump initiated it. The US President says ‘many topics’ were discussed, while China insists the focus was Taiwan… According to Chinese reports, Xi reminded Trump that the US and China had jointly fought ‘fascism and militarism’ during the Second World War. The message was clear: if Trump wants better relations with Beijing, he should… allow China to have its way with Taiwan.
“No doubt Xi will also have watched Trump’s attempts to wash his hands of Ukraine by foisting on Kyiv a peace plan that largely gives Moscow what it wants. Xi must be calculating that this transactional American President could similarly be persuaded to abandon Taiwan as part of a mutually beneficial trade deal…
“Xi will have noted the way Putin has been able to play Trump like a fiddle, and there should be no surprise that the Chinese leader wants to join that orchestra.”
Levites Sing Psalms on the Temple Mount
Israel 365 News wrote on November 28:
“The silence that has hung over the Temple Mount for nearly two thousand years was broken Thursday morning when three Levites ascended Judaism’s holiest site and sang the daily psalm. The moment marks an unprecedented restoration of an ancient Temple service that ceased with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE…
“The Bible assigns the Levites a specific role in Temple worship. In the book of Chronicles, King David organizes the Levitical singers: ‘David and the commanders of the army set apart for the service the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, who prophesied with lyres, harps, and cymbals’ (1 Chronicles 25:1). This wasn’t merely ceremonial music. The Sages teach that Levitical song was an essential component of the Temple service itself, so integral that sacrifices offered without it were considered incomplete…
“The Levites performed various functions in the Temple including guarding and serving all the musical needs.
“Jewish communities are scrupulous about perpetuating the status of the Levites, which is passed from father to son. Only Jewish men whose fathers were Levites are considered eligible. Comprising about 4% of the total Jewish population, they are recognized for conspicuous honors in religious services and their status as Levites is inscribed on their gravestones…”
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer:
These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.