It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser in the Trump administration, sparked online backlash Tuesday night when he told Fox News the Democratic Party "controls its members through blackmail."
Miller joined Jesse Watters on his eponymous show to discuss the fallout of the resignations of Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who were both accused of sexual misconduct with staffers.
"Couldn't have happened to a better person," Miller quipped over Swalwell's "bad week."
Miller then lobbed a wild theory.
"The most important part about this story — and look, Swalwell is a scumbag, he is a terrible person, the worst of the worst, the lowest of the low, the most dishonest of the most dishonest — but the real story here," Miller said, pointing a finger, "is how the Democrat party controls its members through blackmail."
"It's got a blackmail file on all of its politicians and it uses them to leverage and control them until it's time to release it," Miller declared. "That is how sick and twisted the Democrat Party is."
The bizarre theory echoes similar conspiracies that have followed the Epstein case.
And the internet predictably had thoughts about the comments.
Stephen Miller's aggressive immigration policy has led to disastrous outcomes and criticism, forcing him to change course, an analyst explained on Tuesday.
The White House deputy chief of staff has had to develop a new strategy for the Trump administration's immigration policy, according to a new New York Times report and video featuring White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
Miller's different approach involves zeroing in on social services fraud and placing less emphasis on deportation raids. He recently joined Vice President JD Vance at a White House event on the anti-fraud task force centered on the administration's crackdown on immigrants who were abusing benefits and allegedly committing fraud, Kanno-Youngs reported.
"The people at this table are all united in absolute determination to stop this plague of fraud, criminality and abuse," Miller said at the event.
This move has been on Miller's mind all along, Kanno-Youngs explained.
"Miller has long tried to establish a link between immigrants and fraud, but there was a legitimate case of fraud in Minnesota that presented an ideal opportunity to ramp up these attacks," Kanno-Youngs said.
"However, the anti-fraud task force is also just one piece of a much broader effort that Stephen Miller is pursuing to make the lives of immigrants without legal status so uncomfortable that they end up leaving the country voluntarily," Kanno-Youngs explained. "This shift is largely the result of the political backlash that the administration faced after the deportation raids in Minneapolis. Stephen Miller is now focused on advancing policies that can target how immigrants access public housing."
Miller has also started questioning how immigrants use credit cards and has started working with different state officials, including Tennessee, to try and limit how immigrants access hospitals and social service agencies. In Texas, he's been asking how children of immigrants access public schools.
"These less visible policies are incredibly impactful," Kanno-Youngs added.
America is better than Trump and his chief bigot
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 26, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Trump’s chief bigot, Stephen Miller, said on Fox News that immigrants to the United States bring problems that extend through generations.
“Not only is the first generation unsuccessful,” Miller claimed. “You see persistent issues in every subsequent generation. So you see consistent high rates of welfare use, consistent high rates of criminal activity, consistent failures to assimilate.”
Bullshit. The children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of most immigrants are models of upward mobility in America.
In a recent paper, researchers found that immigrants today are no slower to move into the middle class than immigrants were a century ago. In fact, no matter when their parents came to the U.S. or what country they came from, children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers.
Stephen Miller’s great-great-grandfather was born in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl in what is now Belarus. He came to America in 1903 with $8 in his pocket and spoke no English. Three generations later, little Stephen was born in 1985 to American parents but somehow developed a visceral hatred for immigrants.
Miller and Trump have been dealing with immigrants the same way Pete Hegseth and Trump have been dealing with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz — inflicting pain on both them and the United States, in the hope their pain will be worse than the pain we endure.
Today’s Tax Day was supposed to be a big PR boon for Trump, in which he touts his “no taxes on tips” and other ersatz tax “cuts” for average working Americans (while hiding that his Big Ugly bill actually gave most of its benefits to the wealthy and big corporations, and paid for them by taking money from Medicaid and food stamps and other programs the working class and poor rely on).
But the war in Iran has made everything — even Stephen Miller’s war on immigrants — feel like the Strait of Hormuz.
Consider that before Miller ordered the Internal Revenue Service to give ICE officials the addresses of people subject to deportation, undocumented immigrants had been paying roughly $60 billion annually in federal taxes, much of it going into Social Security and Medicare — programs from which they don’t benefit.
Now, tax experts fear many immigrants won’t file returns, and those who formerly had their taxes withheld in every paycheck will shift into under-the-table jobs. The Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan research center, projected lost tax revenue of about $300 billion over a decade.
Meanwhile, Miller’s vast, sadistic crackdown on undocumented workers is causing significant pain for the U.S. economy. There aren’t enough workers in construction, hospitality, and agriculture to keep these sectors going. Another Strait of Hormuz situation.
Let’s be clear. Apart from Native Americans, we are all immigrants — all descended from “foreigners.” Some of our ancestors came here eagerly; some came because they were no longer safe in their homelands; some came enslaved.
As Ronald Reagan put it in a 1988 speech, You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won’t become a German or a Turk. But … anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American. A person becomes an American by adopting America’s principles, especially those principles summarized in the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Reagan understood that America is a set of aspirations and ideals more than it is a nationality.
Miller and Trump, on the other hand, want to fuel bigotry. Their entire project depends on hate. Like dictators before him, Trump’s road to tyranny is paved with stones hurled at “them” — whether “they” are immigrants, Iranians, or anyone else who doesn’t fit the white Christian nationalist mold.
America is better than Trump and his chief bigot.
Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Saturday, April 11, 2026
Opposing Western intervention and the Iranian regime
As the United States and Israel escalate their military campaign against Iran, the war is being justified through a familiar vocabulary: security, deterrence, and the elimination of existential threats. Yet beyond official rhetoric, the conflict is also unfolding as a battle over narratives — one shaped by media framing, digital propaganda, and deeply divided political communities.
Among the most striking features of this moment is the fragmentation of the Iranian diaspora. While some voices have openly supported military intervention in the name of “liberation,” others warn that such positions risk legitimizing a destructive external project with long-term consequences for Iranian society. At the same time, attempts to oppose both the Iranian regime and Western intervention are often marginalized, reduced to simplistic binaries that leave little room for nuance.
In this interview, award-winning Iranian-Canadian journalist and producer Samira Mohyeddin offers a critical perspective on the narratives surrounding the war, the role of social media and organized messaging, and the internal contradictions shaping diaspora politics. Drawing on historical context and contemporary developments, she challenges dominant assumptions about Iran, questions the logic of external intervention, and reflects on the political and ethical difficulties of sustaining a principled anti-war position in an increasingly polarized environment.
In his televised address on April 1, Donald Trump defended the war against Iran primarily in terms of security and stability — particularly the need to prevent nuclear escalation and eliminate perceived threats. Similar justifications have appeared across official statements and much of the media coverage. How do you interpret this narrative, and what does it obscure or leave out?
I think the primetime address that Donald Trump gave to the American public was primarily an attempt to sell this war. As you noted, he framed Iran as an imminent threat and emphasized the need to eliminate its nuclear capabilities. But what is consistently missing from media coverage is crucial context.
Back in June, during the 12-day war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, the US used a weapon it had never deployed before in this context — a 30,000-pound bomb. Following those strikes, Trump himself stated that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated.”
So, the question is: are we really expected to believe that within just a few months, Iran was able to fully recover from that supposed “obliteration” and reconstitute its nuclear program? That claim simply does not hold up.
We know this in part because Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated just days after the latest escalation that Iran posed no imminent threat and was not developing a nuclear weapon. According to the IAEA, Iran was not even close to having that capability. Yet this context is largely absent from mainstream coverage.
Instead, what we are seeing is a process of manufacturing consent. The United States and Israel need to justify this war to their domestic audiences — to convince Americans why they should be paying $4 a gallon for gas. When Trump tells Americans that this war is “a great investment” for them, their children, and their grandchildren, it reveals the extent of that effort. Quite frankly, the statements he was making were laughable.
There is also a broader historical dimension that is often overlooked. Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq — a conflict in which Iraq was backed by major Western powers, including France and Germany. Despite that, Iran did not concede even a small portion of its territory.
What people don’t understand about Iranians is that they will fight to the end. They don’t care how much infrastructure is ruined or anything. They will not give up this war to America and Israel.
Now, this next question is a little bit personal. You have also been the target of online attacks, including from pro-Israel and Zionist voices. More broadly, how do you assess the role of Zionist and pro-Israel advocacy networks and institutions in shaping media narratives about Iran in Canada and other Western contexts?
I think it would be a mistake — and a dangerous one — to dismiss the role that social media has played, both in this specific conflict and over the past decade.
Let me break your question into two parts, because the impact of propaganda directed at Iranians inside the country is crucial to understanding what is happening.
First, Israel operates a significant number of Persian-language social media accounts that are explicitly targeted at Iranians. What kind of messaging are people hearing? They are hearing messages from Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials claiming, “We are coming to rescue you. We are the only country that cares about you.” At times, Netanyahu has even delivered these messages in Persian, including through AI-assisted translation.
Alongside this, there are satellite television channels such as Iran International and Manoto TV, which for decades have pushed and promulgated a certain ideology into the country. So, there is a long-standing ecosystem of messaging that predates the current war.
And then, on the other hand, we know — from outlets like The Times of Israel and Haaretz, Israeli media outlets — that Israel has spent, this year alone, up to $250-million on social media campaigns, including paying influencers $7,000 per post. Netanyahu met with them in New York — we have the photos. These are not conspiracies; these are facts.
And they have really pushed an agenda to try and get Iranians to agree with the dropping of bombs on their heads.
You mentioned the threats I have received. When I look at many of these accounts, they are not real people. They may have two posts, ten followers — clearly inauthentic profiles. But there are so many of these accounts pushing the same messages that people stop asking basic questions: Is this a real person? Or is this a bot?
Instead, a narrative takes hold — that Iranians support the war, that they welcome these attacks. But the reality is far more complex. These campaigns rely precisely on the assumption that most people will not investigate the sources of what they are seeing.
How do you interpret the fact that parts of the Iranian diaspora, including in Canada, frame external military intervention as “liberation”? What does this reveal about diaspora politics, and what consequences might it have for struggles inside Iran?
These are great questions — really excellent questions — because I think, first of all, we are dealing with a very dangerous diaspora.
And I use the word dangerous on purpose, because they are wholly delusional. And they don’t quite understand the impact, which brings me back to the propaganda we were talking about — the effectiveness of the messaging that Israel has directed at Iranians, both inside and outside the country.
Right now, we are seeing members of the diaspora waving Israeli flags, gathering outside embassies, and thanking Donald Trump for what he is doing. Many people excuse this behavior as desperation. I disagree. I don’t think it is desperation.
I think that within parts of the community, there is a mode of thinking that is deeply authoritarian, even fascistic. And there is also a latent form of racism that is rarely acknowledged. What has emerged, in some cases, is a kind of homo-nationalism that is very fascistic at its core.
There is also a recurring idea among some Iranians that they are the exception. You hear statements like: “We are not Syria. We are not Afghanistan. We are not Iraq. We are much more sophisticated.” But what does that imply? It reflects a hierarchy — it reflects racism.
It suggests that, regardless of what external powers such as the United States or Israel want, Iranians somehow stand apart from the rest of the region. We are much more sophisticated than these people.
You also hear figures like Mark Levin saying that people in Iran are “Persian,” that they are “Western,” and that they are not like the rest of the Middle East. And some Iranians internalize and reproduce this message because it offers a sense of distinction or superiority.
A lot of Iranians get angry at me for pointing this out because there’s this idea of airing our dirty laundry in public. But I think it’s really important to call this stuff out because we’re going down a very dangerous road — very, very dangerous.
In your view, why has it become so difficult in public debate — particularly in Canadian and Western public debate — to sustain a position that both opposes Western military/imperalist intervention and critically engages with the Iranian regime? How should such a position be articulated?
It’s hard to maintain this position because it is, quite simply, a messy one.
In the media and in public discourse, there is a tendency to reduce everything to black and white. We operate in binaries. If you are against the Iranian government, then you are expected to support the war. And if you support the war, then you are aligned with Israel and the United States. There is very little room for people who reject both positions — for people like me, and what I believe is actually a silent majority.
People are afraid to speak out. It is not just about holding a principled position — it is about the consequences of doing so. People are attacked, threatened. I receive death threats and racist abuse on a daily basis. I mean, these aren’t imaginary things, right?
To take a principled stance against the decimation of your country’s infrastructure, while also recognizing that the Iranian government is authoritarian and repressive, is a very difficult balance to maintain right now. But it is one I refuse to abandon.
This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, anyone who has opposed war against Iran has been labelled “pro-regime,” accused of being paid or acting on behalf of the state. I myself have been accused of taking money from the Iranian government. It is absurd — it is almost a parody — but it remains a persistent tactic, especially within parts of the diaspora, to discredit dissenting voices.
Even when someone has consistently criticized the authoritarian nature of the Iranian government — as I have, including in publications like The Globe and Mail — it makes little difference. If you are operating within any space that has nuance or exists in shades of grey, you will be labelled as such. And the people who do this are, I’m sorry to say, very ignorant, and I don’t trust them.
There is a Persian expression — hezb-e baad, the “party of the wind” — which describes those who simply follow whichever direction the wind is blowing.
And the wind has shifted. Just a few months ago, it was strongly pro-war. But in recent days, some of those same voices have reversed their positions, as the consequences of the war become more visible.
A lot of people who were pro-war have now completely done a 180 because they’re starting to realize that with every bridge that gets bombed, with every pharmaceutical company that gets bombed, the United States, and Israel are only concerned with decimating the country of Iran.
Decimating its domestic capabilities and creating a servile client state, like they have in Syria — one that Israel can come and bomb from time to time, and that has no ability or capability to protect itself or its citizens.
You have emphasized that meaningful political change in Iran must come from within. Why do external interventions — despite being framed as supportive — tend to undermine that possibility?
There are historical precedents for this — and it has never worked. If you take a long view of Iran’s socio-political history, going back even to the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1906, you can see that change has often emerged through internal dynamics and transnational connections within the region. People were learning from each other.
For example, in the early 1900s, Iranian women were in contact with women in India who were organizing boycotts of British cotton. Iranian women learned from that and organized boycotts of British sugar and tea. These kinds of regional exchanges were taking place, but they were never welcomed by external powers such as Britain, Russia, or later the United States.
We have also seen the consequences of external intervention elsewhere. Iraq is a clear example. The country has still not recovered from the US invasion and occupation. Do I think Saddam Hussein was a good person? Of course not. But change should have come from within Iraqi society, not through foreign intervention. It is delusional to think that meaningful change in Iran can come from the outside.
If the United States believes it can engineer transformation, we should already have seen evidence of that. We have repeatedly heard figures like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu call on Iranians to take to the streets. But how do you expect a civilian population to mobilize when 1000kg bombs are falling on them? It is simply not realistic.
What is often forgotten is that internal change has been happening. During the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in 2022–23, significant social transformations were taking place. These social changes — made by women — were incremental — step by step — but they were real.
More broadly, Iran today is not the same country it was in the 1980s. Despite the constraints of the political system, there have been important advances, particularly driven by society itself. Iranian women, for example, have made substantial gains. Iran ranks among the leading countries in terms of women graduating in STEM fields. And figures like Maryam Mirzakhani — the only woman to have won the Fields Medal — reflect these developments.
These changes have often occurred in spite of the state, not because of it. Yet there is a tendency in public discourse to erase them, to present Iran as a static, unchanging society. That is simply not accurate.
Look, we also need to have a long view of what democracy is. Europe had four or five hundred years to get to where it is today. How many revolutions did France go through before developing the system it has now? And we expect Iranians to catch up in 50 years? How is that possible? It’s impossible.
Iran was never left alone to do what it needed to do in order to make these advances — especially in the last few years. And now, we are going to see everything that Iranians were able to build over the past 50 years start to disappear because of this war.
At this moment — given the intensity of the war, the media environment, and the divisions within the diaspora, including in Canada — what do you see as the most dangerous misconception shaping public understanding of Iran today?
I think one of the most dangerous misconceptions is the idea that all Iranians are in favour of this war. One of the most troubling framings — especially in Western media — is the suggestion that Iranians welcome this war, that it is somehow necessary, or that people are simply helpless and waiting for external forces to intervene.
There is also this implication that Iranians themselves wanted this outcome. This is a very dangerous narrative. It’s very dangerous to say that, and it’s because, you know, as I said, we have this diaspora that, unfortunately, is going through this collective psychosis and delusion that somehow Israel and the United States are coming to help it when all they really want to do is destroy the country.
Samira Mohyeddin is an award-winning Iranian-Canadian journalist and producer. She posts on instagram/smohyeddin.
Baris Karaagac teaches international political economy and economic development at Trent University and researches European social democracy, state theory, and Turkish political economy. He is the editor of Accumulations, Crises, Struggles: Capital and Labour in Contemporary Capitalism (2013).
Saturday, April 04, 2026
How a Russian influence network is spreading anti-Ukrainian propaganda in Ivory Coast
The Company – a network of Russian agents specialised in disinformation operations – has been carrying out a vast propaganda campaign against the Ukrainian embassy in Ivory Coast. When the pan-African media outlet The Continent received a trove of leaked documents about this operation, the FRANCE 24 Observers team joined forces with a consortium of international journalists to investigate the inner workings of this network.
Ghanaian news site Ghana Web published an article on July 12, 2024 that sparked controversy in Ivory Coast. As a segment of the Ivorian public opinion looks to distance itself from the Russia-Ukraine war, the article claimed that Ukraine was trying to recruit Ivorian citizens for the Ukrainian armed forces. The article, written under what appears to be a pseudonym, claims that recruitment posters were spotted in the streets of the Ivorian capital, Abidjan. These posters, coloured yellow and blue like the Ukrainian flag, were said to lay out a lucrative offer: the Ukrainian army would offer Ivorian volunteers a $3,000 bonus and “European residency” if they signed up to fight in the conflict.
It turns out, however, that these flyers were not created by the Ukrainian authorities, whose identity was stolen. When we contacted the Ukrainian Embassy, they formally denied any connection to the flyers.
“Since we opened in April 2024, the Ukrainian Embassy has not carried out any such activity. The Embassy does not recruit [army volunteers]: an activity like this does not fall under its auspices. As a result, the Ukrainian Embassy cannot be behind the printing or the ordering of these materials,” said the Ukrainian Embassy in Abidjan.
Moreover, it remains to be verified whether these posters actually appeared on the streets of Abidjan. The Ukrainian Embassy said that it had not seen them.
Our team worked with a consortium of investigative media outlets, including The Continent, Forbidden Stories, All Eyes On Wagner and RFI, to investigate this fake news story targeting Ukraine and Ivory Coast. We determined that it was seeded by a shadowy network known as the Company that is tasked with carrying out pro-Russian disinformation operations.
Our investigation focused on 76 leaked internal Company documents, shared anonymously with the team at the pan-African media outlet The Continent.
The Company was initially run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of private military organisation the Wagner Group. After Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash in August 2023, the disinformation network slowly came under the auspices of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR. The network appears to be made up of around 90 specialists who organise influence operations in nearly 30 countries in Africa and Latin America. The organisation is headquartered in St. Petersburg.
The leaked documents – which include financial reports, documents detailing global strategy, operational plans for disinformation campaigns and even invoices – offer a detailed vision into the inner workings of the Company.
Why Ivory Coast is seen as ‘a promising country’ for The Company’s operations
In a 2023 document, the Company lays out an influence campaign aimed at the entire African continent – what it calls its “Africa Project”. Its stated aim is to provide support to “political leaders loyal to Russia”, to work against Western influence and protect Moscow’s interests.
The Company began its operations in the Central African Republic in 2018 and in the countries that are part of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), which – since 2023 – has included Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. As part of its expansion strategy, the Ivory Coast is listed as a “promising country in which to launch operations”, as indicated by a map of Africa that was part of these documents.
The Company clearly has designs on Ivory Coast, which it believes is part of the “sphere of Western influence". The Company’s stated aim is to shift public opinion in Ivory Coast by discrediting French and American influence. The organisation also criticises the international diplomatic position that Ivory Coast has taken, saying that it sides with the European Union “on all international resolutions concerning the Ukrainian question".
Ukraine appears as one of the Company’s primary targets. Between May and September 2024, Russia carried out four operations targeting Ivory Coast on social media and in traditional media outlets – both influence operations designed to promote pro-Russian narratives and disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading fake news. Three explicitly targeted the Ukrainian Embassy.
“Since it was created in April 2024, the Ukrainian Embassy has regularly been the target of these attacks. The first campaign began in May 2024 – less than a month after it opened,” the Ukrainian Embassy in Abidjan said.
In May 2024, the fake news story about the Ukrainian Embassy’s alleged drive to recruit Ivorian soldiers started to spread on social media. An image of a fake recruitment ad was also widely circulated on Facebook. The Ukrainian Embassy has denied that it is behind its creation. This disinformation campaign continued in July 2024 with the publication of the Ghanaweb article claiming that the Ukrainian Embassy’s recruitment flyers had been spotted in the streets of Abidjan. In that case, the Ukrainian chancellery denied that they were behind these posters and added that they had seen no sign of them in Abidjan.
The Ukrainian Embassy denounced on May 29, 2024, the publication of fake recruitment posters. Source: Facebook
In September 2024, the photo of a fake invitation to a cultural event supposedly organised by the Ukrainian Embassy in Abidjan was widely circulated on Facebook and WhatsApp. The event was portrayed on Ivorian social media as an attempt to enlist African citizens in the conflict in Europe. The Ukrainian Embassy also formally denied the authenticity of the document.
On September 3, 2024, the Ukrainian Embassy denounced the publication of a fake flyer about a fake musical event. Source: Facebook
A campaign to place articles in the media
Along with the sharing of misleading content on social media, the Company also financed the placement and publication of news articles in African media outlets that reflect its language of propaganda. The documents that we obtained detail what is called Project Magadan, an influence campaign originally launched by Prigozhin’s teams. As part of this project, the Company organised the publication of 49 articles aimed at Ivorians in 22 media outlets between May and October 2024. One Ivorian media outlet was also used for the publication of 14 articles targeting other African nations.
The organisation says that it spent $39,800 USD (around 34,430 euros) to get these articles published or roughly $631 dollars (or 545 euros) per article. While the Company might have directly paid some journalists and media outlets, it also functioned more discreetly and in a more concealed manner.
The Ghanaweb article about the fake recruitment campaign supposedly being carried out by the Ukrainian Embassy in the Ivory Coast wasn’t written by journalists with the Ghanaian news site, as is made clear in the warning on the article. It was published in a paying space reserved for promotional content – for which GhanaWeb charges a fee of $250 USD (215 euros) – or outside contributors. Our team contacted Ghanaweb to ask about the publication of this article in particular, but they had not responded to our questions at the time of publication.
However, the Company’s financial documents indicated that they spent $700 USD on the publication of the Ghanaweb article.
The Company also appears to have developed another model for getting articles placed: providing free articles to newsrooms.
A recognised Ivorian media outlet published 18 articles sent to them by the Company between May and October 2024. The documents say that the Company spent $10,200 on these articles.
The journalist from the Ivorian media outlet who published these articles – who spoke to our team on condition of anonymity – told our team that he had no idea that they had been written by a Russian intelligence service. He further said that he was not paid for their publication:
“At my level, I didn’t receive the sums that you are talking about. Perhaps an intermediary received this money, but I often published these articles in good faith without wanting to participate in Russian propaganda and even less so in a campaign that was anti-Western or anti-French.
By the way, I didn’t publish all the articles that they sent my way. Especially when the information they contained was hard to verify.”
The journalist explained that the articles attributed to the Company were not written by journalists on his team but by “special correspondents”, which is noted in the signature of the authors of these 18 articles. This title refers to outside contributors who write on a voluntary, unpaid basis for the publication.
“They are authors who want to write for us about an event, for example. They send us pitches, which we edit. They are not paid. But I do not personally know these authors. All of them introduced these articles through an intermediary who supplies content. Maybe these authors deal with him [about payment],” said the Ivorian journalist.
Marc-André Boisvert, an analyst with communications and digital services company Cronos Europe, explains how these free articles were used in certain Ivorian media outlets.
“In Ivory Coast, some newspapers are dedicated to the promotion of one politician in particular. Once they’ve promoted the politician they support, they will take pretty much any other articles to fill their pages. That’s where these disinformation networks work well in Ivory Coast. They often send these newspapers free articles.”
While not all of the articles by unpaid contributors are misleading, this practice is easy to abuse.
Even though independent contributors are not paid by the media outlets that publish their articles, they are often paid by outside sources for placing articles promoting certain topics or figures. We delve into the media outlets used by the Company in the second part of our investigation.
Polarising debates
One of these articles written by one of these so-called correspondents, published on September 4, 2024, was about a fake musical event being organised by the Ukrainian Embassy in Abidjan. The article claimed that the organisation of this (fake) event angered some social media users, who saw it as foreign interference.
While the spreading of this rumour was a disinformation operation launched by the Company – as indicated in its internal documents –, the article seemed to spark real concern among some Ivorian social media users about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
“The feeling – I wouldn’t say dominant but often expressed by Ivorians on social media – is captured in this article. People want to distance themselves from this war,” said the Ivorian journalist who published this article. We also spoke to Boisvert, who warned that it was important not to exaggerate the amount of time that most Ivorians spend thinking about Ukraine.
Not all of the Company’s publications feature flagrant disinformation – often, they promote pro-Russian or pro-AES narratives. They also aim to polarise debates within the Ivorian population, which is already fertile ground for divisions. Mohamed Kebe, an Ivorian journalist and factchecker, explains:
“Ivory Coast is divided politically. When you are part of the opposition, you are likely to criticise anything that those in power do, whether good or bad. Similarly, those on the side of the government often reject any position held by the opposition.
The result is that, today, there are narratives fed by one part of the population. Because some don’t like the government, they might connect more with pro-Russian content, especially content shared by pro-AES accounts, and then share it.”
‘Sort of botched’ campaigns
So, how effective are these campaigns aimed at discrediting Ukraine in Ivory Coast?
The experts we interviewed had mixed feelings. For example, Ivorian journalist Mohamed Kebe said that there was “a lot of noise” on social media about the fake news story about the Ukrainian Embassy trying to recruit Ivorians.
In the leaked internal documents, the Company also brags about carrying out disinformation campaigns in the real world, not just on social media and in media outlets – like hanging up the fake recruitment posters in the streets of Abidjan. However, as for the actions supposedly carried out in the real world – as it remains to be seen if they actually were carried out – they seem to have had a very limited effect.
“I didn’t see any of these flyers in Abidjan,” said Mohamed Kebe. The Ukrainian Embassy in Abidjan also said that they had not seen the flyers in the streets of the Ivorian economic capital.
For his part, expert Boisvert says that the disinformation campaigns about Ukraine carried out in Ivory Coast provoked “very little reaction” and had no significant impact on Ivorian opinion.
“The attacks on the meeting between President Alassane Ouattara and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky [in June 2024] were shared, but without any real political impact.
Increasingly, we feel like these campaigns are not specifically targeting Ivorians. They seem, more like an attempt to try and convince an outside public – like AES countries – that the Ivorian government is on the wrong path and too aligned with the West. Often, there seems to be underlying narratives about French conspiracies [Editor’s note: against AES nations].
Ivorians are more immune to these kinds of campaigns, which are sometimes sort of botched.” This article has been translated from the original in French by Brenna Daldorph.
INVESTIGATION
Leaked files reveal Russia's blueprint to expand African Sahel alliance
Russian-linked consultants worked to strengthen and widen a pro-Moscow alliance in the Sahel region, using media campaigns, political pressure and cultural events to influence governments and public opinion, according to leaked internal documents seen by RFI and its partners.
The leaked files form part of the “Propaganda Machine” investigation, led by the pan-African media organisation The Continent and the journalism network Forbidden Stories, of which RFI is a member.
The investigation is based on more than 1,400 pages of internal records from a group known as Africa Politology, set up by Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Russian paramilitary group Wagner, which operated in several African countries.
Africa Politology was later taken over by Russian foreign intelligence services, after the Wagner Group was dismantle following a failed mutiny attempt and the death of Prigozhin in 2023.
The documents show how the group aimed to reinforce the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger and extend the alliance to neighbouring countries, while promoting Russian interests across the region.
It also set out a broader strategy to weaken Western influence, secure new economic opportunities and gain support at the United Nations.
The files identify the Sahel as a key focus of Russia’s return to Africa, alongside the Central African Republic, where Russia provides security support, has access to natural resources and promotes anti-Western messages.
In an August 2023 report titled “Global South”, strategists from Africa Politology called for a “confederation of independence” to counter what they described as a Western-built “belt of instability”.
They said the aim was to reshape a vast region stretching from Senegal and Guinea to Sudan and Eritrea. This vision developed alongside the emergence of the AES.
Military coups in Mali in May 2021, in Burkina Faso in September 2022 and in Niger in July 2023 opened the way for closer ties with Moscow, as French troops withdrew from counter-terrorism operations in the region.
The documents present this as a narrative of sovereignty – portraying jihadist groups, political opposition and critical civil society as internal threats backed by Western powers and their regional allies.
The objectives set out in the files closely match those of Russia, including weakening the West’s image as a reliable security partner and disrupting US military logistics across Africa.
They also aim to open new markets for hydrocarbons, weapons and agricultural products, and to secure diplomatic support.
Internal budgets reveal spending on communication campaigns, including $51,300 in Niger in May 2024 and $64,500 in September. Hundreds of sponsored articles and social media posts are listed, each linked to payments of several hundred dollars.
Africa Politology consultants also claimed credit for political developments, incasing the creation of the AES.
“A large information campaign was launched in the media and on social networks. The result of these actions was the agreement of the leaders of the three countries to sign a memorandum creating the Confederation of Sahel States,” they wrote.
That confederation was formalised at a summit in July 2024 between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
In Niger, the documents describe efforts in 2024 to strengthen the military government and cut ties with the United States.
The consultants said they played a role in disrupting contacts with Washington. “Under the influence of the company’s contractors, negotiations with the American delegation were hindered in March 2024,” they wrote.
They added that Abdourahamane Tiani refused to meet a visiting US delegation, while protests saw American flags burned.
According to the files, more than a dozen meetings took place with senior figures in the regime.
Alongside political actions, cultural and social initiatives were used to build influence. These included opening a Russian cultural centre in Niamey in June 2024, organising a motorbike rally with more than 300 participants for “Russia Day”, and holding football tournaments and other sports and cultural events.
The documents also describe efforts to push Niger out of the CFA franc, a regional currency used in several West African countries, and promote a unified banking system across AES countries, with a roadmap said to have been presented to the three governments.
The documents recommend linking sabotage attacks by the Patriotic Liberation Front – an armed group in Niger – to France, as well as tensions with Benin, and promoting claims that “France trains terrorists to invade Niger”, a narrative later repeated by the authorities.
“The result of our campaigns allows for greater cohesion between citizens of the three countries,” the consultants wrote.
Mali is described as “the driving force of the anti-Western movement in the Sahel”, with the Africa Politology group claiming to support that role.
A work plan for May and June 2024 included an objective to “block the work of religious figures whose actions aim to weaken the established order”.
The same documents say regulations on religious organisations were tightened and that the Coordination of Movements, Associations and Supporters, known as CMAS, a movement linked to influential imam Mahmoud Dicko, was dissolved in March 2024.
Dicko had helped mobilise protests before the 2020 overthrow of president Ibrahim Boubakar Keïta but later fell out with the authorities and went into exile. The documents describe him as a “jihadist imam”.
Africa Politology also claimed to have led campaigns against foreign mining companies. Campaigns also targeted Orano and GoviEx, two foreign companies mining uranium in Niger.
“A vast information campaign was conducted to discredit foreign companies that own mines. Demonstrations in favour of the nationalisation of extractive industries were organised,” the documents state.
However, a specialist described this as an exaggeration, noting that changes to mining rules were driven by other actors and that disputes were often resolved through negotiation.
The files also highlight a youth forum held in Bamako in September 2024 to mark the first anniversary of the Liptako-Gourma Charter, the mutual defence pact that came before the confederation. Delegations from Senegal, Guinea and Chad attended.
Ousmane Sonko Junior, a member of the Patriotic Youth of Senegal, a group linked to the ruling Pastef party, told Forbidden Stories he was surprised by the conclusions.
“The round tables were supposed to be about youth political engagement, growth and so on. When the conclusions came, we saw topics in the minutes that we had not discussed,” Sonko said, adding he refused to sign the document despite pressure.
“Our position as young members of Pastef is African integration and unity. We do not interfere in AES politics or alliances, but we refuse to be drawn into cooperation where we would submit to one foreign power or another."
Participants later learned their travel had been funded by the Russian House in Bamako, and reported the presence of two men conducting interviews, Maksim Kovaliev and Nikolay Laktionov, identified in the documents as Africa Politology employees.
The leaked Africa Politology documents also detail a $3,000 campaign against Ukraine, described as “a country supporting terrorists in Africa”.
The campaign coincided with Mali cutting ties with Kyiv on 4 August, 2024, after comments by a Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman suggesting Ukraine had shared information with northern Mali rebels involved in an attack near Tinzaouatène the previous week.
The attack was devastating for the Russian mercenaries backing the Malian army, with several dozen killed.
The documents said they organised a conference in Dakar in October 2024 with Guinean singer Élie Kamano.
“I want to make my voice heard through this tour, to encourage AES member countries in their drive to establish the true foundations of African unity and to fight these terrorist groups financed by French and Ukrainian lobbies,” Kamano said.
The files say the conference cost $12,000 and that his remarks were repeated in 43 media articles.
Kamano confirmed to RFI that he made the comments but denied receiving any payment. “My fight in engaged music did not start yesterday. I give conferences wherever I go, in Dakar and elsewhere, and I am not concerned by your claims, not in any way."
He did not explain how the Dakar event was organised or the conditions of his wider AES tour, during which he filmed several clips praising the military governments allied to Moscow.
Kamano, who lives in exile in France, also said four members of his family, including two of his children, were abducted in Conakry in late November 2025 and blamed the Guinean authorities.
Satigui Sidibé, founder of the Malian news site Bamada.net, told RFI's sister TV channel France 24 he had not received any payment to publish related articles and had no contact with any Russian entity.
Expanding the AES was a central objective, with Chad identified as the main priority and several other countries also targeted.
In Guinea, Africa Politology consultants said they were approached in 2019 by allies of then-president Alpha Condé. After his overthrow in 2021, they described the new authorities as a target for “reorientation towards Russia and the AES”.
Frustrated by limited progress, they said they launched a campaign portraying the leadership as a “puppet of France”.
Political analyst Kabinet Fofana told RFI that Guinea had little reason to join the bloc. “The opposition and civil society supported the coup at the start, so Guinea had nothing to gain in an AES-type approach,” he said.
“We did not have the same political, social or security context, and France was quite cautious.”
The documents also mention efforts to influence Senegal’s leaders, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko. “The priority objective is to correct diplomatic positioning towards a sovereignist path, facilitating rapprochement with the AES,” the documents said.
Four campaigns launched between May and September 2024 pushed for closer ties with the AES, the departure of French troops and the expulsion of the Ukrainian ambassador. One campaign reportedly reached more than 8 million people.
Togo was identified as another key target, particularly its port of Lomé, described in the documents as a vital logistics hub. They say 35 campaigns were carried out between February and April 2024 to influence the country’s geopolitical direction.
The campaigns coincided with legislative elections held in a tense climate, alongside constitutional changes allowing Faure Gnassingbé to remain in power as president of the Council of Ministers. The campaigns accused the US of destabilising the country and the opposition of being backed by foreign actors under the pretext of restoring democracy.
The plans also involved cooperation in phosphate mining and security operations against terrorism and piracy in the Gulf of Guinea.
Togo later signed a defence agreement with Moscow and Gnassingbé travelled to Russia. In early March 2026, he discreetly received the Russian defence minister, according to specialist media.
A recent deserter from the Africa Corps, the paramilitary group linked to the Russian defence ministry, also described Togo as the group’s “new destination”.
Posts on Telegram channels linked to Russian authorities, including the widely followed Rybar account, a pro-Russian channel, raised the question: “Why do we need Togo?”
Benin and Côte d’Ivoire are also cited as future targets. The documents say contacts were made in July 2024 with figures close to former Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo’s party and with former prime minister Guillaume Soro, now based in the AES.
Despite the scale of the operations described, their real impact remains unclear.
“These documents are full of bold claims about their achievements,” said Lou Osborne of All Eyes On Wagner, a partner in the investigative consortium.
“They do not show a deep understanding of local dynamics, and sometimes the same strategies are applied across different countries without adapting to local realities,” she said.
Osborne added that while the work may appear successful from Moscow, “the reality on the ground is much more nuanced and requires the action of a multitude of local actors”.
The documents also suggest that promotion of Russia as a security partner may be weakening, as the US increases its engagement in the region.
A detached observer who wants to assess where countries stand on fundamental issues of human rights, international law, peace, development and multilateralism need only look at the voting record of States at the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, Human Rights Council and other international agencies.
Voting is where it’s at. This is the bottom line – a reliable litmus test to discover what countries really stand for, how they perceive international law and morals, who promotes the uniform implementation of norms, who practices exceptionalism[1], who aspires to a multilateral world of cooperation, and who only gives lip service to humanistic values while aggressively weaponizing human rights for confrontational geopolitics. The patterns that emerge are clear: The collective West invokes exceptionalism and systematically undermines the principles and purposes of the United Nations, consistently voting against peace initiatives, demilitarization, economic and social development. I devote a chapter to this phenomenon in my book The Human Rights Industry.[2]
Back in 1984 the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/11, the UN Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace.[3] The vote was adopted by 92 in favour, zero against, 34 abstentions. The collective West and its vassals found themselves in the third category. In 2009 the Human Rights Council asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a workshop on the right to peace, in which I participated as one of the experts[4]. We produced a strong report.[5]
In 2012 the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council adopted a comprehensive draft of a declaration on the right to peace, which incorporated enormous input from civil society, notably the 2010 Declaración de Santiago de Compostela[6], including the creation of a monitoring mechanism. The Human Rights Council then entrusted the final drafting to an open-ended inter-governmental working group, in which I participated in my function as UN Independent Expert on International Order[7]. I watched in disgust how the collective West, notably the United States, eviscerated the text, so that what the General Assembly finally adopted in 2016 was much less than what the world had in 1984[8]. The forces of militarism had grown too powerful in the Human Rights Council and the legal arguments were twisted and distorted beyond recognition. Orwellian newspeak was the rule, not the exception.
Every year the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council adopt resolutions condemning unilateral coercive measures[9] as contrary to the UN Charter, international law, freedom of navigation, the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of States, etc. More than two thirds of the members vote in favour[10], the collective West votes against. It is instructive to read the explanation of vote by the European Union, a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Every year the General Assembly adopts a resolution condemning the illegal embargo of Cuba. On 29 October 2025, the 33rd such resolution was adopted. Who voted against? US, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, Paraguay, North Macedonia, and Ukraine[11]. Who abstained? Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Czechia, Ecuador, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Moldova and Romania. In 2024 the vote had been 187 in favour and only two votes against, the US and Israel. In 2016, the last year of President Obama, the vote was 191 in favour and two abstentions, US and Israel. Instead of lifting the unilateral coercive measures, the United States imposed “maximul pressure” aiming at forcing undemocratic regime change.
On 8 October 2021 the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 48/7, a landmark declaration on the sequels and legacies of colonialism[12]. “Recognizing with concern that the legacies of colonialism, in all their manifestations, such as economic exploitation, inequality within and among States, systemic racism, violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, contemporary form of slavery and damage to cultural heritage, have a negative impact on the effective enjoyment of all human rights, Recognizing that colonialism has led to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and that Africans and people of African descent, Asians and people of Asian descent and indigenous peoples were victims of colonialism and continue to be victims of its consequences, Expressing deep concern at the violations of human rights of indigenous peoples committed in colonial contexts, and stressing the need for States to take all measures necessary to protect rights and ensure the safety of indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women and children, to restore truth and justice and to hold perpetrators accountable, 1. Stresses the utmost importance of eradicating colonialism and addressing the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights; 2. Calls for Member States, relevant United Nations bodies, agencies and other relevant stakeholders to take concrete steps to address the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights.” As expected, the collective West abstained.
On 21 March 2026 the General Assembly adopted a resolution[13] proposed by the government of Ghana on the sequels of the slave trade and the implications for human rights and development today[14]. Who voted against? The United States, Israel and Argentina. The rest of the collective West and their friends abstained. “For more than 400 years, millions of people were stolen from Africa, put in shackles and shipped to the New World to toil in cotton fields and sugar and coffee plantations under scorching heat and the crack of the whip. Denied their basic humanity and even their own names, they were forced to endure generations of exploitation with repercussions that reverberate today, including persistent anti-Black racism and discrimination.” The resolution emphasised “the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity by reason of the definitive break in world history, scale, duration, systemic nature, brutality and enduring consequences that continue to structure the lives of all people through racialized regimes of labour, property and capital.”
Self-serving narratives
Notwithstanding the obvious, the mainstream narrative will have us believe that the “collective West” – the United States, Canada, Australia, and most European States – are the cradle of international law and democracy, that they possess moral superiority over the rest of the world. Is this perception justified and empirically verifiable?
As an American and Swiss citizen, I observe that relentless propaganda and public relations have constructed this self-serving fantasy that schoolbooks and university textbooks dutifully disseminate and reconfirm, not only in the US but also in many European countries. Western culture, folklore, television, movies, internet are all imbued with an almost religious faith that we are “the good guys”, which by implication means that the rest of the world is composed of the “bad guys”, and that we have a mission to bring democracy and human rights to them.
Of course, when we in the collective West use the world “democracy”, we do not mean the correlation between the will of the people and the rules that govern them. There is in fact a glaring disconnect between Western governments and the people. While governments engage in war propaganda and the demonisation of purported “enemies”, the population of the US and most European countries overwhelmingly pleads for peace and prosperity, prefer butter over guns.
Part of the disconnect is reflected semantically in the misuse of terminology. For the “elites” of the collective West, “democracy” actually means our economic system. In many texts the words democracy and predator capitalism are interchangeable. Another problem is one of perception. Average citizens have other priorities and prefer to believe in the honesty and good intentions of our governments, no matter how often they lie to us, no matter how often we have caught them lying. This can be summed up in Julius Caesar’s famous remark quae volumus, ea credimus libenter[15] – we believe what we want to believe. Worse still, we may recall another Latin phrase mundus vult decipi – the world wants to be deceived – ergo decipiatur – therefore let’s continue lying to them[16].
Notwithstanding the rational arguments brought forth by Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Ramsey Clark, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Arundhati Roy, Mia Mottley, Francis Boyle, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs to rebut phoney government narratives, the power of the mainstream media is such that the majority of Americans, Brits, Frenchmen and Germans are honestly convinced of the purported moral superiority of our “democratic” governments and their right to tell others how to run their affairs.
The false image that we in the collective West have of ourselves and our leaders rests on fake news that gradually matured into fake history, subsequently cemented by fake law. Politicians are wont to invent international law as they go along, and this fake law is shaped by government lawyers, who are essentially “pens for hire”, paid to write what the government wants, at least to make a plausible argument in the required legal jargon.
We in the collective West certainly suffer from an underdeveloped faculty of self-criticism. But I fear that this serious human flaw is also shared by many others, including the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, and Russians. Conscientious objectors to groupthink and official narratives are seen as dangerous traitors, as heretics. This is not a modern phenomenon. Socrates, Seneca, Giordano Bruni[17], were eliminated by the very societies they tried to enlighten. Other heretics survived because they recanted at the last minute, e.g. Galileo Galilei[18].
Today’s “heretics” are our whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, John Kirikakou, Daniel Ellsberg and many others. I dedicated my book The Human Rights Industry[19] to forty whistleblowers who have tried to open our eyes to the crimes committed not only by our governments but also by the private sector, by corporations that have profited from war and thus promoted conflict throughout the world. We should honour whistleblowers as heroes of our time, as courageous persons who have risked their lives and careers to tell us truths that our governments have withheld from us.
Today’s “heretics” also include experts like the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, the Italian law professor Francesca Albanese, who has been sanctioned by the US, and the Swiss intelligence officer and academic researcher Jacques Baud[20], sanctioned by the European Council in gross violation of the right of freedom of expression[21], freedom of belief and conviction, freedom of academic research. These draconian punishments were imposed arbitrarily, without due process, and are contrary to national and international laws, incompatible with numerous articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[22], the European Convention on Human Rights[23] and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union[24].
A brief shining moment of hope and optimism: the UN Charter as the world constitution
There have been moments in world history, when rationality appears to have overcome propaganda, brief moments that were quickly ruined by the powerful, whose main concern has always been to consolidate control, increase their power, discredit and demonize potential competitors.
Such a moment occurred in 1945 with the defeat of Nazism and Japanese imperialism, with the adoption of the UN Charter as the new rules-based international order, as the new constitution for the planet, with the International Court of Justice as the world’s constitutional Court. It could have worked if the Security Council and General Assembly had respected the wishes of “We the peoples”, whose principal concern was to spare future generations from the scourge of war.
Political will by the leaders of countries in all five continents could have facilitated the establishment of effective enforcement mechanisms. Indeed, civilization is the ongoing process of establishing rules of the game and strengthening norms by creating effective information and implementation apparatuses. Countries of the North, South, East and West could have elucidated, nurtured and disseminated the spirituality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The national, regional and international human rights courts should have been strengthened, their judgements enforced.
Alas, we are all human, plagued by arrogance, ambition, greed and so many contradictions. Soon the incipient system of peace through law was undermined by the world-wide emergence of what became known as the “military-industrial complex”, denounced by US President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address of 17 January 1961[25]. This monster of our own creation continued to expand and destroy any vestiges of democracy, any spiritual commitment to the Beatitudes (Matthew, chapters V-VII). While we gave lip service to the ideal of peace through social justice, we embraced the old and immoral Latin adage si vis pacem, para bellum[26] – if you want peace prepare for war, and rejected the motto of the International Labour Organisation: si vis pacem, cole justitiam[27] , if you want peace, cultivate justice.
While our leaders in the collective West continued giving lip service to “peace”, they rejected the goal of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)[28] that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”[29] This commitment required pro-active peace-making and education of peace and empathy. I stress this in several of my reports to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly.[30]
This duplicity served the ever-growing military-industrial-financial-media-digital-academic complex. All were making profits, while millions of human beings in the world were dying of famine and disease.
The End of the Cold War
Another brief, shining moment of hope for humanity was 1989, when Mikhail Gorbachev ended the cold war by offering to the United States and Europe East-West cooperation rather than confrontation, when the Berlin Wall fell on 9 November 1989[31], when in 1991 the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The Soviet Union ceased to exist and its republics became members of the United Nations. Here was a moment to build on, to channel the world’s energy and resources toward peace consolidation and genuine multilateralism. Yes, a different world was possible and achievable, as I explained in my 2014 report to the Human Rights Council[32]. It required good faith and international solidarity. The world could have implemented measures to convert military-first economies into human security economies; it could have adopted concrete steps for worldwide disarmament. The World Summit for Social Development[33] was held in Copenhagen in 1995, long before the Millennium Development Goals[34], and the Sustainable Development Goals[35]. There was much hope, inspiring rhetoric, many commitments were made, and very few kept.[36]
The role of academics in supporting war and war propaganda
What were the obstacles to peace and solidarity? There were many obstacles, reflected in the triumphalism of Francis Fukuyama’s infamous simplification The End of History and the Last Man[37]. There was no humanism in this book, but only gloating about defeating a “bad guy” – the Soviet Union, as if that had been the source of world poverty and instability. Fukuyama did not ask whether it was the capitalist philosophy of the collective West that was primarily responsible for causing the confrontation and placing the world in grave danger of nuclear annihilation. Was it not the hegemonic ambitions of the collective West that made peace through multilateralism impossible? But many in the US and elsewhere shared Fukuyama’s black-and-white views. The West had won the final victory against the caricature of the “evil empire”. The western mainstream media applauded this fundamentally flawed and uncharitable worldview.
Another university professor who contributed to the intellectual pollution of the 1990’s was Zbigniew Brzezinski with his arrogant book The Grand Chessboard[38]. But it was not only the triumphalist academics who misread the signs and bore responsibility for destroying the hope for a better world. There were countless politicians and journalists who got it wrong. And they did not listen to better minds that realized that a unique opportunity was being missed. Thus, the world failed to solidify peace and work toward international cooperation and pro-active solidarity. Add to that the megalomaniac Project for the New American Century[39] and the incredibly stupid and short-sighted eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a major breach of trust vis à vis Mikhail Gorbachev, since the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact were inseparably linked with and based on the promise by US President George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand one inch toward the East[40]. The Ukraine war resulted from the breach of these fundamental commitments made to Gorbachev.[41]
In the real-world cheating has consequences. Breaking one’s word destroys trust, and once it is broken, it takes a long time to rebuild confidence. Every breach of good faith, of the rules of the diplomatic game, undermines the prospects of peace. The preponderant guilt falls on one person: US President Bill Clinton, who happily promoted NATO’s eastern expansion[42]. History will remember him for having deliberately broken trust, of having taken advantage of Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, for having ruined the future of generations.
NATO: A criminal organization within the meaning of the Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal
Meanwhile NATO had ceased being a defense alliance, because the enemy had “surrendered” and was prepared to be incorporated into the West, even join the EU and NATO. But no, even though NATO did not have any adversary, it decided to perpetuate itself, like most bureaucracies do. It was necessary to create an enemy – no longer the Soviet Union, but instead the new Russian Federation that wanted nothing more than peace and Perestroika[43].
NATO morphed into a war coalition. This American hubris was condemned by a great American diplomat, George F. Kennan, who warned that the decision to expand NATO was a “fateful error”[44] that sooner or later would lead to war.
And indeed, NATO morphed into a “criminal organization”[45] within the meaning of articles 9 and 10 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal for Nuremberg[46]. If one were to apply the criteria used by the IMT to condemn Nazi organizations as “criminal organizations”, then NATO would also fall in this category, and not only NATO but also other organizations including the CIA, MI6 and Mossad, who are guilty of targeted assassinations[47], false flags and terrorist actions including Israel’s booby-trapping pagers[48].
NATO has also flexed its muscles in a number of illegal “humanitarian interventions”, e.g. in Yugoslavia, engaged in outright aggression against Serbia and Montenegro without any justification under the UN Charter, and absent any approval by the UN Security Council. US and NATO aggressions have continued in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, etc. with tens of thousands of deaths, and have the potential to bring the planet to nuclear Apocalypse.
Terrorism
In a famous 2023 interview, Professor Noam Chomsky stated “I’m in favour of the Iran negotiations, but they’re profoundly flawed. There are two states that rampage in the Middle East, carry out aggression, violence, terrorist acts, illegal acts constantly. They’re both huge nuclear weapon states, and their nuclear armaments are not being considered….The United States and Israel, the two major rogue states in the world. I mean, there’s a reason why in international polls run by U.S polling agencies, the main ones, the United States is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace by an overwhelming margin. No other country is even close.”[49]
In the same vein, Professor Jeffrey Sachs stated in March 2026: “Israel is a terrorist state”[50]. Already in June 2025, Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq condemned Israel’s attack on Iran, saying the Jewish state has become a “rogue state and a huge threat to world peace”. The bombing of Iran by Israel in which many civilians, including women and children, have been killed is condemnable: “perpetuating genocide on hapless Palestinians and getting away with it”, Israel is now putting the whole of Middle East in “peril”[51].
During the Vietnam War Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that the United States is “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”[52]. He added that “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on the military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Many people do not dare think about what is staring them in the face, although the evidence is all over the internet and even in official declassified documents. It can be said that Israel was born in terrorism, as the United States was born in genocide. When the Jewish European colonizers came to Palestine they terrorized not only the Palestinians, evicted them from their homes, forced them to flee for their lives, they also terrorized the Brits, blew up the King David Hotel, killing some 100 Brits. When the UN sent an envoy in 1948, Count Folke Bernadotte, Zionist terrorists assassinated him[53].
If we are looking for countries that practice State terrorism and support terrorist groups, we will have to think of the US. Many people know, but do not want to draw conclusions from the fact that the United States has worked with terrorists in many regions of the world, notably in Syria. Joe Kent, former US counterterrorism chief, stated this quite clearly[54] in his letter of resignation.
The US doctrine of “Manifest destiny” was also a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide. In his famous book Why we can’t wait, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: “Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles of racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its Indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a “noble” crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it.” [55] It is estimated that ten million native Algonquins, Crees, Cherokees, Dakotas, Hopis, Iroquois, Lakotas, Mohawks, Pequots, Sioux, Squamish perished during the 17th-19thcenturies,[56] and not all of them died of European diseases like smallpox, as some second-rate historians would have us believe.
The Zionist project
The Zionist project was an anachronism when first conceived in the nineteenth century. It was a philosophy based on antiquated concepts of racial and/or religious identity, buttressed by an aggressive animus to exclude others. It was not an enlightened, progressive or humanistic project, quite the contrary, it was misanthropic in essence.
The project gained support from the European colonial governments that had an interest in establishing a European colony in the Middle East, a base from which European and American power in the region could be projected. As a purely imperialistic construct, the creation of a “Jewish state” (call it a branch office of European Judaism – with very little genuine links to the Arab or Muslim world), the project was contrary to the philosophy of the League of Nations and incompatible with the UN Charter. However, relentless propaganda and public relations campaigns made it appear just and even somehow historically legitimate. Deep down the Zionist experiment was a European project, ontologically incompatible with human dignity, since it postulated the racial superiority of Jews over the local populations that inhabited the territory of Palestine.
The Zionist project has led to 80 years of violence and war in the Middle East. The US and most European countries are complicit in the imperialist, colonialist violence imposed on the native populations of Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc. Personally, I wonder how much time will elapse until the international community looks at the facts, rejects the pro-Israeli propaganda and finally understands that the colonialist plan to impose a European state on the Arabs and Muslims — (90% of the Israelis are Europeans — neither Semitic nor genuinely Middle-Eastern) was a fatal error and that the experiment has failed. It has led not only to perpetual wars — but even to genocide.
The world awaits the final judgment of the International Court of Justice in the urgent case South Africa v. Israel[57]– pending since 2023 – concerning the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. It is shocking that the judges at the ICJ have been dragging their feet and not given the necessary urgency to this case, bearing in mind that more than a hundred thousand Palestinians have been and continue being killed. Undoubtedly, this is genocide.
Remembering the fate of Socrates, Seneca, Bruni and others, today’s heretics against the Zionist orthodoxy are being defamed as “anti-Semitic”. Among the critics are Professors Jeffrey Sachs[58], Richard Falk[59], Norman Finkelstein[60], Ilan Pappe[61] – all highly respected Jewish academics. None of them are in any way shape or form “anti-Semitic”, they are all proud of their Jewish heritage, and they all condemn the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by the current government of Israel. They call it genocide and publicly protest: “not in our name”.
The responsibility of the United Nations for the creation of the State of Israel and the commitment to a “two state solution”
It is time to go back to the General Assembly Partition Resolution 181[62] and to the decision to admit Israel into UN Membership, which was not gratuitous but conditioned on Israel’s acceptance of the Green Line as its borders and the Israeli commitment to respect the right of self-determination of the Palestinians and their right to have their own state. The “two-state” solution is the only way forward.
The current Israeli government, however, reneges on this obligation and continues to occupy Palestine in contravention of Security Council Resolution 242[63] and three Advisory Opinions by the International Court of Justice[64]. The alternative to the “two-state solution” is the One-State Solution as delineated by Professor Virginia Tilley in her famous book by the same name[65]. However, such a state could not be called Israel and it could not be an Apartheid state[66]. It would have to be a unitary state or a confederation in which both Israelis and Palestinians would have the same rights and obligations. An Apartheid state would be contrary to the UN Charter, to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the crime of Apartheid[67] and to numerous General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions.
Of course, as long as the Unites States continues to support Israel in its genocidal projects, it has become impossible for the international community to put an end to the general criminality. It is for the international community to take concrete action to counter the daily violations of international law and human rights law by Israel, which has degenerated into an outlaw entity that aggresses all of its neighbours. In a very real sense, the United States and Israel have morphed into hostis humani generis: Enemies of mankind and civilization.
In order to make us accept the atrocities being committed by the United States and Israel, we have been fed with fake news and fake history. The Palestinians, the Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah have all been dehumanized and demonized in the old Roman tradition articulated by the Latin historian Tacitus in his book Agricola:Proprium humani ingenii est, odisse quem laeseris. It is proper to human nature to hate those whom we have injured or whom we intend to injure.
Personally, I do not like either Hamas or Hezbollah. I do not endorse but strongly criticize the current Iranian government. But I understand that the Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians have been repeatedly aggressed, that they have suffered casualties in the hundreds of thousands, that they have a right to exist – no more nor less than the Israelis have a right to exist — and that they have an inalienable right to self-determination. The collective West has no right to tell them what kind of government they should have, nor should the collective West engage in regime change conspiracies or attempts to decapitate the governments of sovereign states. The villains here are Israel and the United States[68], with the complicity of many countries in the collective West.
Business as Usual
The reaction to the atrocities by the collective West has been either silence or empty rhetoric. No erga omnes defense of the right to life, of the right to self-determination, of the principle of state sovereignty. This raises the issue of complicity — or at the very least moral responsibility — by virtue of culpable inaction. Qui tacet consentire videtur. It is impossible to remain indifferent to genocide and crimes against humanity.
The reaction of international organizations has been disappointing. The International Criminal Court should have started a thorough investigation of the crimes under articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of Rome. The ICC is failing not only the Palestinian, Iranian and Lebanese peoples, it is failing the international community.
Meanwhile Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, has called for solidarity with the United States and Israel[69]. This confirms what was said above, that NATO has morphed into a criminal organization. How can any UN member state endorse aggression, perfidy, a gross violation of the right to life of a hundred thousand Palestinians and thousands of Iranian civilians? Rutte himself should be the subject of an ICC investigation for complicity in genocide (article 6 of the Statute of Rome, article IIIe of the Genocide Convention).
States have failed to adopt appropriate countermeasures under articles 49 and 50 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Code on State Responsibility[70]. Most States have chosen to do nothing and adopt a “business as usual” approach. This corrodes the authority and credibility of international law.
As one who has devoted more than fifty years of his life to international law and human rights, I am appalled at the inaction of States. One is tempted to think that international law no longer exists, that barbarism and the law of the jungle has taken over. But no, we must all persevere and reaffirm human values and the importance of international law and international institutions. We cannot allow the destruction of the international rule of law by politicians who practice “might makes right” and who claim to be legibus solutus , unbound by any law, as the Roman emperors once claimed. The fact that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu act as if they were above international law does not mean that they are. What we are witnessing is a revolt against civilization and it is our responsibility to push back. The exceptionalist principle quod licet Jovi non licet bovi – what Jupiter is allowed to do is not permitted to the rest of us, the bovines – is irrational, contra bonos mores. No, we must reaffirm the continued validity of international law and demand accountability from all who breach its rules.
Thus, it is imperative that the United Nations General Assembly adopt a “Uniting for Peace” Resolution and assume its responsibilities for international peace and security, because the UN Security Council is currently blocked by the misuse of the veto power through the United States.
The UN General Assembly should impose a total arms embargo on Israel and the United States and urge UN member States to BDS both Israel and the US, to boycott, disinvest, sanction. Concretely said, countries should no longer purchase anything from the United States or Israel. No more purchases of F-16, F-35, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, Raytheon, Carlyle, Caterpillar, General Motors. No more purchases of US Treasury Bonds. Complete divestment of US Treasury bonds and other US and Israeli stocks. Total cessation of sale of “rare earths” to the US and Israel. Indeed, as long as the international community continues to economically support the countries that are at war with international law and civilization, the crimes and atrocities will continue.
There are many precedents of complicity in “business as usual” crimes. Only weeks after the 2003 aggression by the US and the “coalition of the willing” against the people of Iraq, the G-8 rolled out the red carpet for the arch-criminals Tony Blair and George W. Bush in June 2003. Now in June 2026 Evian-les-Bains will be hosting Donald Trump at its new G-7 summit. Have we learned no lessons?
“Business as usual” is nothing but the mantra of criminals and their accomplices.
Conclusion
The track record of the collective West in the fields of compliance with international law and human rights is dismal and getting worse by the day. The artificial image of the United States and Israel as countries respectful of the rule of law is no longer sustainable. Peoples have understood that the collective West is on the wrong side of history.
The cultural colonization of the world by the United States and Europe is a phenomenon of the past. With the enormous advances in technology and the internet, other cultures have freed themselves from the American and European stranglehold and from their purported “values”, from the excessive commercialization and materialism. The American and European pretentions to be leaders in the fields of international law and human rights have collapsed.
In the light of the many wars that the US and Israel have unleashed on the world, it is time to call a spade a spade, a genocide a genocide and to demand accountability. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have formidable tasks ahead of them. As the Roman philosopher Seneca wrote calamitas virtutis occasio (De Providentia 4, 6) – a calamity offers all of us an opportunity to exercise courage and virtue. Let’s tackle the challenge. The Global Majority will soon replace the Western imperialist model. As Arundhati Roy wrote: “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18. He is the author of twelve books including “Building a Just World Order” (2021) “Countering Mainstream Narratives” 2022, and “The Human Rights Industry” (Clarity Press, 2021).
