The Cradle | April 24, 2025
The Spanish government ordered the immediate termination of a $7.5 million contract to buy ammunition from a company with direct ties to Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems on 24 April.
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez canceled the deal after Sumar, a group of left-wing parties, threatened to leave the governing coalition.
"After exhausting all routes for negotiation, the prime minister, deputy prime minister, and ministries involved have decided to rescind this contract," a government source told Al Jazeera.
Earlier this week, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska formalized a contract with Israeli-owned company Guardian Homeland Security S.A. for over 15 million rounds of ammunition, causing a stir at the Moncloa Palace in light of Sanchez's February 2024 pledge not to purchase weapons from Israel over the Gaza genocide.
Spanish media reports that authorities stressed the commitment of the progressive coalition government parties (PSOE and Sumar) "to the Palestinian cause and peace in the Middle East." They also noted that since the US-backed ethnic cleansing campaign began in Gaza in October 2023, Spain has not purchased or sold weapons to Israeli firms, "nor will it do so in the future."
However, despite the claims from Moncloa Palace, in February, the Progressive International (PI), the Palestinian Youth Movement, and the American Friends Service Committee revealed that over 60,000 weapon parts have been transported to Israel via Zaragoza airport in northern Spain since October 2023.
"The evidence indicates that these flights continue to this day," investigators told elDiario.es, adding that the shipments include "parts and accessories for artillery, rifles, rocket/grenade launchers and machine guns" and "parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols."
In December, The Intercept revealed that Washington sent over a thousand tons of ammunition to Israel on a ship that docked at a US naval base in Spain, despite Madrid's embargo on vessels carrying military cargo bound for Israel.
"Shipments through American military bases in Spain of military materials, which may be used in the commission of international crimes, are harder to detect," Spanish lawmaker Enrique Santiago told the New York-based outlet.
Press TV – April 24, 2025
Japanese authorities have accused two US marines stationed in Okinawa of recently raping and assaulting local women.
Police said on Thursday that the latest incidents inside US military bases were in a string of assault cases that have angered local residents.
One of the US marines accused of rape is also suspected of assaulting another woman.
"A US marine in his 20s is suspected of raping a Japanese woman at an American military base in March, and is also suspected of injuring another woman," a local police official told AFP.
The second marine, also in his 20s, is suspected of raping a Japanese woman at a US base in January, the official said.
Police have referred the two cases to Japan's judicial officials. The US ambassador to Tokyo pledged to cooperate "fully" with Japanese authorities in the investigations.
Japan's top government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi said in a regular briefing on Thursday that any crime by US troops based in Japan is "unacceptable", without making any direct reference to the latest incidents.
Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki has expressed grave concern over the incidents as local authorities struggle to deter sexual and other crimes carried out by the US military personnel based in Japan.
He called the latest cases "deplorable" and said authorities would urge the US military to prevent such happenings.
Relations have long been strained between Okinawans and US marines.
Last year, a total of 80 people connected to the US military were charged in Okinawa for various crimes.
A 21-year-old marine was charged with rape in June last year, just months after prosecutors charged a 25-year-old US marine for allegedly assaulting a girl under 16.
The 1995 gang rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US soldiers in Okinawa prompted a major backlash, with calls for a rethink of the 1960 pact allowing the United States to station troops in Japan.
The United States has around 54,000 military personnel stationed in Japan — mostly on the subtropical southern island of Okinawa, to the east of Taiwan.
The news of the latest sexual assaults came after US troops on Friday joined Japanese officials and residents in Okinawa for a one-off joint nighttime patrol along a downtown street dotted with bars.
The patrol, the first such joint operation since 1973, followed other sexual assault cases in Okinawa involving US marines.
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 24, 2025
Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an 'industrial concern' infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).
The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America's industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.
Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump's support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat's little trip wire for the Trump agenda.
So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the 'debt bomb'; and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump's team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American 'debt knell'.
Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump's mooted 're-balancing' and debt 'solution' cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing 'the dollar in your pocket'. And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.
That is not exactly a popular 'sell'. Which is probably why the 're-balance' has not been well explained to the public.
Trump launched the Liberation 'Tariff Shock' seemingly minded to crash-start a restructuring of international trade relations – as the first step towards a general re-alignment of major currency values.
China however, wasn't buying into the tariff and trade restrictions 'stuff', and matters quickly escalated. It looked for a moment as if the Trump 'Coalition' might fracture under the pressure of the concomitant crisis in the U.S. bond market to the tariff fracas that shook confidence.
The Coalition, in fact, held; markets subsided, but then the Coalition fractured over a foreign policy issue – Trump's hope to normalise relations with Russia, towards a Great Global Reset.
A major strand within the Trump Coalition (apart from MAGA populists) are the neocons and Israeli Firsters. Some sort of Faustian bargain supposedly was struck by Trump at the outset through a deal that had his team heavily peopled by zealous Israeli-Firsters.
Simply put, the breadth of coalition that Trump thought he needed to win the election and deliver an economic re-balance also included two foreign policy pillars: Firstly, the reset with Moscow – the pillar by which to end the 'forever wars', which his Populist base despised. And the second pillar being the neutering of Iran as a military power and source of resistance, on which both Israeli Firsters – and Israel – insist (and with which Trump seems wholly comfortable). Hence the Faustian pact.
Trump's 'peacemaker' aspirations no doubt added to his electoral appeal, but they were not the real driver to his landslide. What has become evident is that these diverse agendas – foreign and domestic – are interlinked: A set-back in one or the other acts as a domino either impelling or retarding the other agendas. Put simply: Trump is dependent on 'wins' – early 'wins' – even if this means rushing towards a prospective 'easy win' without thinking through whether he possesses a sound strategy (and ability) to achieve it.
All of Trump's three agenda objectives, it turns out, are more complicated and divisive than he perhaps expected. He and his team seem captivated by western-embedded assumptions such as first, that war generally happens 'Over There'; that war in the post Cold War era is not actually 'war' in any traditional sense of full, all-out war, but is rather a limited application of overwhelming western force against an enemy incapable of threatening 'us' in a similar manner; and thirdly, that a war's scope and duration is decided in Washington and its Deep State 'twin' in London.
So those who talk about ending the Ukraine war through an imposed unilateral ceasefire (ie, the faction of Walz, Rubio and Hegseth, led by Kellogg) seem to assume blithely that the terms and timing for ending the war also can be decided in Washington, and imposed on Moscow through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats.
Just as China isn't buying into the tariff and trade restriction 'stuff', neither is Putin buying into the ultimatum 'stuff': ('Moscow has weeks, not months, to agree a ceasefire'). Putin has patiently tried to explain to Witkoff, Trump's Envoy, that the American presumption that the scope and duration of any war is very much up to the West to decide simply doesn't gel with today's reality.
And, in companion mode, those who talk about bombing Iran (which includes Trump) seem also to assume that they can dictate the war's essential course and content too; the U.S. (and Israel perhaps), can simply determine to bomb Iran with big bunker-buster bombs. That's it! End of story. This is assumed to be a self-justifying and easy war – and that Iran must learn to accept that they brought this upon themselves by supporting the Palestinians and others who refuse Israeli normalisation.
Aurelien observes:
"So we are dealing with limited horizons; limited imagination and limited experience. But there's one other determining factor: The U.S. system is recognised to be sprawling, conflictual – and, as a result, largely impervious to outside influence – and even to reality. Bureaucratic energy is devoted almost entirely to internal struggles, which are carried out by shifting coalitions in the administration; in Congress; in Punditland and in the media. But these struggles are, in general, about [domestic] power and influence – and not about the inherent merits of an issue, and [thus] require no actual expertise or knowledge".
"The system is large and complex enough that you can make a career as an 'Iran expert', say, inside and outside government, without ever having visited the country or speaking the language – by simply recycling standard wisdom in a way that will attract patronage. You will be fighting battles with other supposed 'experts', within a very confined intellectual perimeter, where only certain conclusions are acceptable".
What becomes evident is that this cultural approach (the Think-Tank Industrial Complex) induces a laziness and the prevalence of hubris into western thinking. It is assumed reportedly, that Trump assumed that Xi Jinping would rush to meet with him, following the imposition of tariffs – to plead for a trade deal – because China is suffering some economic headwinds.
It is blandly assumed by the Kellogg contingent too that pressure is both the necessary and sufficient condition to compel Putin to agree to an unilateral ceasefire – a ceasefire that Putin repeatedly has stated he would not accept until a political framework was first agreed. When Witkoff relays Putin's point within the Trump team discussion, he stands as a contrarian outside the 'licensed discourse' which insists that Russia only takes détente with an adversary seriously after it has been forced to do so by a defeat or serious setback.
Iran too repeatedly has said that it will not be stripped naked of its conventional defences; its allies and its nuclear programme. Iran likely has the capabilities to inflict huge damage both on U.S. forces in the region and on Israel.
The Trump Team is divided on strategy here too – crudely put: to Negotiate or to Bomb.
It seems that the pendulum has swung under intense pressure from Netanyahu and the Jewish institutional leadership within the U.S.
A few words can change everything. In an about face, Witkoff shifted from saying a day earlier that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities, to posting on his official X account that any deal would require Iran to "stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program … A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal". Without a clear reversal on this from Trump, we are on a path to war.
It is plain that Team Trump has not thought through the risks inherent to their agendas. Their initial 'ceasefire meeting' with Russia in Riyadh, for example, was a theatre of the facile. The meeting was held on the easy assumption that since Washington had determined to have an early ceasefire then 'it must be'.
"Famously", Aurelien wearily notes, "the Clinton administration's Bosnia policy was the product of furious power struggles between rival American NGO and Human Rights' alumni – none of whom knew anything about the region, or had ever been there".
It is not just that the team is insouciant towards the possible consequences of war in the Middle East. They are captive to manipulated assumptions that it will be an easy war.
RT | April 24, 2025
Ukraine's government announced on Thursday that it has failed to reach an agreement to restructure some $2.6 billion of its debt. The country could default if it isn't able to make the next scheduled payment at the end of May.
A group of GDP warrant holders held discussions last week and continued face-to-face talks during this week's International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Washington, a source familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The warrants, which function similarly to bonds, are a type of debt security with payouts linked to economic growth.
The talks reportedly included consideration of a mix of cash and bonds as compensation for the GDP warrant payment due on May 31, estimated at around $600 million. The group of holders comprised hedge funds Aurelius Capital Management LP and VR Capital Group, according to the outlet.
"Ukraine indicated that it could not accept the Restricted Holders' Proposal and declined to make any further proposal to the Restricted Holders before the end of the Restricted Period," the Ukrainian government said in a statement following the talks.
The debt holders reportedly pushed back, stating that Kiev's proposal had "no prospect of approval" and failed to "form the basis for a viable point of engagement."
Ukraine's Finance Ministry said that it would "consider all available options" for restructuring the debt, a requirement under its agreement with the IMF.
Kiev will now have to decide whether to default on a $600 million payment – tied to the economy's performance in 2023 – if it fails to secure a restructuring deal before the end-of-May deadline.
The IMF has warned that an unresolved dispute over GDP warrants could jeopardize broader debt restructuring efforts and put Ukraine's ongoing $15.6 billion aid program at risk.
Ukraine's budget depends almost entirely on aid from its foreign backers. Last year, Kiev planned to attract $37 billion in outside loans to cover its budget, which the government predicted would face a deficit of 75% in 2025.
The failed debt talks come at a time when the US is pushing to cut aid to Ukraine. Immediately upon assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump suspended all American foreign development assistance programs for 90 days, including to Ukraine.
By Hans Vogel | April 24, 2025
Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, European elites are shouting once again that the Russians are coming. Why would they bother invading European NATO states when everything that makes life possible in Europe is collapsing?
"The Russians can be here at any moment! The Russians have a huge army, ready to invade. We need to be prepared to fight and resist them, because if we don't, they will destroy our country and kill our families!" That is what our lieutenant used to tell us in the 1970s during military service. I was then stationed somewhere between Bremen and Hamburg in the North German plains. Both cities had been flattened during the Second World War. Not by the Russians, but mostly by the English, our NATO ally. Yet we were constantly being reminded by the officers, noncoms and military and state propaganda that the Russians would do exactly the same and worse. The Russians, always the Russians! At that very moment, the Americans, our NATO bosses, were still busy destroying Vietnam, but that seemed to bother nobody.
"If the Russians are truly so superior as you say they are, why aren't they here yet?" I asked the Lieutenant.
One day we were taken to the nearby exercise grounds to learn how to deal with a nuclear attack. We heard an explosion and saw a convincing mushroom cloud in the distance. "That is a tactical nuclear bomb," we were told as we were instructed to put on an olive-drab handkerchief as a face mask so as not to breath "radioactive particles." Then we were given little brushes to take the "radioactive dust" off our battle dresses. I asked the officers if this would not bring more of those particles into the air we were breathing. Nope, it was protocol, was the answer. At any rate, I thought this entire procedure was so amateurish as to be absolutely ridiculous. Then and there I stopped believing in the existence of nuclear bombs. Why would the Russians use tactical nuclear bombs if they wanted to conquer and occupy Western Europe, as was being claimed? Wouldn't they make the conquered territory uninhabitable for themselves?
The "Russians" (which then was used to indicate the inhabitants of the Soviet Union) were always depicted in the darkest hues (which in those days still was considered unfavorable, even by the politically correct), and with idiotic exaggeration. So much so that, in a dialectical reaction, many of us soldiers were inclined to think those Russians were actually really nice guys. Such can be the unexpected result of fanatical propaganda, when the narrative is just too one-sided and unrealistic. It will eventually produce the opposite of what the authorities and their presstitutes want.
Most soldiers could not care less. The propaganda would enter through one ear, only to leave right away through the other. Each night, they would enjoy their beers, brag about their girlfriends and watch a movie in the 2,000 seat barracks theater. Those movies came basically in two varieties: documentaries on African wildlife, with giraffes and lions parading across the screen, and third-rate action movies from Israel, in which grinning zionist fighters would engage in bloody massacres of Arabs. It was the worst imaginable pornography of violence.
In the end, the Russians never showed up. Nor did they ever plan to come and visit us. A few years later between 1989 and 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down. To the surprise of many, however, NATO was not dissolved. Quite the contrary: many new states were welcomed as NATO members. Yet the Russian "danger" was no longer there. As the remnants of the Soviet Union were cannibalized by Western capitalist raiders and looters, it was obvious there was no longer any Russian threat.
For a brief period, Western elites had a hard time identifying other imaginary dangers with which to keep the citizens subdued. Still during the "Cold War" they came up with acid rain, but it did not quite do the trick. The anthropogenic climate change narrative needed further elaboration. In 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change laid the groundwork for this, strengthened by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, promoted worldwide was a small step for Al Gore, but a big step for the Climate mafia. Clamors by the UN and NGOs demanding sacrifices from the public in order to "save the planet" were becoming ever more obnoxious.
Meanwhile in 2001 after the demolition of three WTC towers in New York City, the US government and its vassals asserted that Arabic and Islamic terrorism were so absolutely terrifying that henceforth all airline passengers worldwide were to be subjected to ridiculous and humiliating security checks. Mind you, it was decided not just to check Arabs or muslims (that would be discrimination!), but ALL passengers, including babies and small children.
Anthropogenic climate change soon replaced the terrorism scare and became the core of official scare mongering. Nevertheless, all those "climate scientists" agreeing that climate change was caused by human activity and trying to convince us that the weather gods needed to be pacified by all sorts of sacrifices, somehow did not convince most of us. The speech that Greta Thunberg gave in the UN in July 2019 was the best speech to the UN General Assembly ever given by a 16-year old autistic girl, but it failed as it did not bring about the expected universal clamor for sacrifices to the weather gods.
Right then, at the end of 2019 the Great Covid Show was launched. Without doubt this was the most successful fear campaign ever, benefiting from the vast reservoir of knowledge gleaned from the MK Ultra program. Billions of people, believing the official narrative and naively trusting their governments and the assembled presstitutes, duly took the "vaccinations" that were pushed in all corners of the planet.
As the Great Covid Show proceeded, which was actually a US Deep State and WHO-sponsored holocaust in entire nations that were turned into "extermination camps," Vladimir Putin launched the Special Military Operation against the Ukraine. Since this was a US neo-colony (just like Cuba was from 1902 to 1959), howls of indignant protest were heard all over the West. Western state media and presstitutes duly enhanced and increased the volume of the howling and wailing to deafening levels.
"You can't just invade another country!" a friend of mine with whom I studied history told me. "Sure you can," I answered, "that is what NATO did in Yugoslavia, and the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. That is what Turkey did in Cyprus in 1980, Morocco in 1975 invading the Sahara. And what about Israel always invading and harassing its neighbors since 1948? That was all fine and dandy. Why would Russia not be allowed to invade the Ukraine?" My friend could not see the logic, but reluctantly shut up, since he had no arguments.
Now that the Ukraine, together with its Western overlords, is facing final defeat, the old myth of an imminent Russian invasion has been dusted off. Putin is the "New Hitler" of the moment while Russia is allegedly the reincarnation of the former Soviet Union.
NATO's hermaphrodite-in-chief, cabinet ministers of NATO member states, an entire armchair army of "experts" and all the state media and presstitutes in the West are repeating constantly that the Russians are coming and that we must all prepare for a war that will come inevitably. They are all repeating what our Lieutenant used to say during the Cold War: "The Russians can be here at any moment! The Russians have a huge army, ready to invade. We need to be prepared to fight and resist them, because if we don't, they will destroy our country and kill our families!"
Yeah, right!
By Farzad Bonesh – New Eastern Outlook – April 24, 2025
Although TAPI has now taken on more of a bilateral partnership between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, its earlier implementation will certainly have greater domestic consequences for Afghanistan.
The Taliban's approach to the TAPI pipeline: challenges, and obstacles
The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, a combination of the first letters of the Latin names of the countries participating in the regional project, runs from Turkmenistan to India. The length of the 1,814-kilometer line is 214 kilometers in Turkmenistan and 816 kilometers in Afghanistan.
The TAPI project is intended to transport 33 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Turkmenistan's The Galkynysh gas field to India.
In 2015, the leaders of the four TAPI participating countries celebrated the groundbreaking ceremony for the gas pipeline in the city of Merv. But apart from the laying of the Turkmen section, virtually no major activity took place.
After the Taliban returned to power, international financial institutions either refused to directly support the project due to legal and political considerations or showed no interest in investing.
The Afghan Taliban is not officially recognized, and international sanctions against the Taliban, political differences between India and Pakistan, and tense relations between Kabul and Islamabad have slowed down the implementation of the project.
However, in September 2024, former President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov and Taliban Prime Minister Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhund jointly launched the TAPI project in 2024 at a ceremony on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan border.
Recently, Hedayatullah Badri, Minister of Mines and Petroleum, and a high-ranking delegation from Turkmenistan, visited the progress of the TAPI gas transmission project in Herat province and emphasized the acceleration of the work process.
Although Pakistan and India have not been involved much in the recent developments of the TAPI gas pipeline, the Taliban, adopting a pragmatic approach, have decided to take this energy transmission project step by step with the cooperation of Turkmenistan.
Political and geopolitical goals and interests of the Afghan Taliban:
From the perspective of TAPI, it is an opportunity to solve the security problem within the country, and Kabul hopes that the opposition will also agree to the construction of this pipeline, considering national interests. During the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan , the Taliban, in a statement, while supporting the TAPI project, saw TAPI as an important economic project and an important element in the country's economic infrastructure.
Gaining greater regional and global support for this pipeline will further link Afghanistan's security with regional and global partners. The passage of the TAPI gas pipeline through Afghanistan will link the tangible and real interests of several regional and global countries, and the neighboring countries will also ensure Afghanistan's security.
The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project has helped increase Afghanistan's geopolitical position and strengthen relations and mutual interests among partner countries. Taliban leaders seem to believe that TAPI has the potential to expand relations between member countries and strengthen common interests. Also, from the perspective of many in Kabul, the pipeline's passage through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India will reduce Pakistan's incentive to play a negative role in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Kabul expects the TAPI project to encourage countries' interests to move away from confrontation with each other in Afghanistan to a policy of tolerance.
In this approach, accurate and efficient management of the TAPI can have important effects on the public opinion of the people, show government efficiency, deal with the opposition, and satisfy nationalist feelings.
Economic goals and benefits:
Of course, this plan cannot pave the way for an economic revolution in Afghanistan, but it can be very useful for other major construction projects, reconstruction, economic development and production, trade, and transit in Afghanistan.
It will also employ about ten thousand people for the next few decades, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs and reducing some of the unemployment problem.
Over the past few years, the Taliban have focused on several projects such as the TAP-500 energy system, the revival of important energy transmission and transit projects, including CASA-1000.
In addition, the Taliban have planned and inaugurated some infrastructure and economic projects, such as solar power generation over the past two years. The Taliban consider energy projects important in the development and self-sufficiency of the country, saving Afghanistan from poverty and dependence on expanding energy production, and managing water resources.
The implementation of TAPI can help transform Afghanistan's energy consumption infrastructure from oil and coal to natural gas, and help increase the country's production and economic growth.
For the first time, Afghanistan can achieve reliable natural gas for domestic and industrial use. For example, the TAPI pipeline passing through Herat province (the economic hub of Afghanistan) could be a driving force for other local industries.
Afghanistan could be an actor in a major transit route for Central Asia and a bridge between Central Asian energy-consuming and exporting countries. South Asian countries are in great need of energy, and Central Asian countries have abundant gas and electricity resources. Afghanistan has the potential to connect the two sides.
Success in this project could accelerate the construction of power transmission lines, railways, fiber optics, etc., in the field of regional cooperation. If TAPI is completed at a cost of more than $7-10 billion, it could also help attract foreign investment to the country. In addition to meeting the gas needs of its growing economy, Afghanistan could also receive $1 billion in gas transit rights annually. This amount could be a major contribution to the economy.
TAPI could be an important step towards strengthening the economic diplomacy of the Kabul government. Apart from the main role of Turkmen Gas Company, with an 85% stake, in July 2024, Pakistan and Turkmenistan agreed to accelerate the progress of the TAPI gas pipeline project.
Kazakhstan also seems to be willing to join the project. Russian companies may participate in the TAPI project, "as soon as the situation in Afghanistan stabilizes".
Challenges and Outlook
TAPI suffers from major challenges, from insecurity to political complications, regional instability, the international isolation of the Taliban, and doubts about the investment capacity.
The TAPI project in the Turkmen section has been completed. The Taliban also plan four phases for construction from the Turkmenistan border to the city of Herat; Herat to Helmand; Helmand to Kandahar; and Kandahar to the Pakistani border. But as of April 2025, just 11 kilometers of pipeline have been laid in Afghanistan.
Large investments require security and stability, and major extremist groups such as ISIS can be a significant threat in Afghanistan.
The Afghan section of TAPI (in Herat, Farah, Nimroz, Helmand, and Kandahar provinces) passes through some of the most unstable parts of the country. The Taliban is not yet a legitimate government, with legal standing as an economic contracting party and a reliable partner. Critics have warned that the Taliban government does not have national legitimacy and international and legal recognition.
Pakistan and India appear to be cautiously refraining from immediately participating in the TAPI gas pipeline, waiting for conditions in Afghanistan to change.
While the Taliban has not been recognized yet, it is also not possible to secure financial assistance or loans from international institutions.
In addition, the full and successful construction and operation of the pipeline requires the political will of the leaders of the four countries and serious bilateral and multilateral discussions with all partners.
However, although TAPI has now taken on more of a bilateral partnership between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, its earlier implementation will certainly have greater domestic consequences for Afghanistan.
By Jefferey Jaxen | April 24, 2025
Corporate media articles are now buzzing about the possibility of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) narrowing, and even reversing, some of its previous Covid vaccine recommendations.
CNN's commentary from health experts give an impression that even a consideration of narrowing the shot recommendations would be a dangerous endeavor. Yet under their article's opening paragraph, they let slip the obvious:
"The change would more closely align the US with guidance given in other countries. Unlike countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, the US alone recommends an annual Covid-19 vaccine for healthy younger adults and children."
The U.S. appears to be the anti-scientific outlier in pushing these shots on adults and children.
The move would be made by the CDC's ACIP committee which is scheduled to meet in June.
POLITICO is warning that the Covid shot may be removed from the childhood vaccine schedule… according to "two people familiar with the discussions."
The Politico-CNN tag team to shape the battle space on this topic ahead of the anticipated June ACIP meeting is weak at best.
In a recent interview with FOX NEWS host Jesse Waters, HHS head RFK Jr responded by stating:
"The recommendation for children was always dubious because kids had almost no risk for Covid-19."
He continued:
"We need to give people informed consent and we shouldn't be making recommendations that are not good for the population."
There is a real, rapidly growing call from the American public to outright ban the mRNA Covid vaccine from use. Much like ending water fluoridation, states have not waited for the federal government to act on this as 11 are now seeking a formal ban.
The removal of recommendations represents a midrange target on the continuum of potential actions concerning this injectable, liability free mRNA product line.
The bottom line effect if CDC makes good on their recommendation removal for health children and/or adults would secure a near guarantee that any form of school or business Covid vaccine mandate would be a nonstarter.
The recommendation removal would not in any way change the broken compensation program surrounding the Covid shot. The mRNA Covid vaccine, along with other 'countermeasures' is covered from legal liability by the PREP Act until 2029.
Currently the 'black hole' program those harmed or killed by the shot are funneled into is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). It has a 1 year statute of limitations, not from the time one recognizes their vaccine injury, but from the day of injection.
Author of Vaccine Court 2.0 The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Wayne Rohde writes of the latest CICP injury payouts:
"Of the 4,111 decisions related to COVID-19, nearly all 4,044 have been denied."
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | April 17, 2025
The national conversation around fluoride in drinking water has shifted and Florida is currently the hotbed of this effort. Hear how the EPA is actively reviewing the recent studies on the dangers of fluoride and the legal changes moving forward on state and federal levels.
RT | April 23, 2025
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has called for an immediate halt to government purchases of Covid-19 vaccines, citing a recent report that found mRNA jabs contain extremely high levels of DNA and substances that were not disclosed by the manufacturer.
Bratislava initially considered outright banning the vaccines when a commission led by Peter Kotlar, an orthopedic doctor and member of the ruling Slovak National Party, published a report in October claiming that the mRNA jabs alter human DNA, have been inadequately tested, and therefore should not be administered until they are proven safe.
Kotlar has also described the Covid-19 pandemic as an "act of bioterrorism" and a "fabricated operation," and has accused vaccine manufacturers Moderna and Pfizer of turning vaccinated people into "genetically modified organisms."
His report, however, was met with significant pushback from opposition parties, as well as former Slovak Health Minister Zuzana Dolinkova, who cast doubt on Kotlar's qualifications with regard to the subject. She subsequently resigned from her position that same month, citing government backing for an anti-vaxxer and insufficient prioritization of health care.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Fico published a video in which he stated that ignoring the findings of the Kotlar-led commission on the quality of the Covid-19 vaccines would be "extremely irresponsible."
Fico noted that in March, he instructed the Health Ministry to establish a working group to address the findings of the expert report submitted by Kotlar, but acknowledged that this may not produce results quickly enough.
The prime minister said he would try to resolve the issue in "a reasonable timeframe" and propose during an upcoming government meeting that apart from the working group, the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) would also be asked to conduct a quantitative analysis of the presence of DNA and other substances in the vaccines.
Fico also suggested that the government should inform the population about the "serious findings" regarding the jabs. "Although Covid-19 vaccination rates are extremely low, people deserve such a warning," he said.
The prime minister went on to propose that Slovakia suspend the purchase of additional vaccines from the unspecified manufacturer, which it is obligated to do under a contract signed by the former government in 2023.
Bratislava is still expected to procure nearly 300,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccines in 2025 and 2026, which is estimated to cost around $6.6 million, Fico said, stressing that "until the results of the additional quantitative analysis are delivered, the government should not procure further vaccines from this manufacturer or pay for them."
RT | April 21, 2025
European aircraft manufacturer Airbus is scaling back its hydrogen-powered jet project after spending nearly $2 billion, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing sources.
The company announced in 2020 that it aimed to launch a zero-emission, H2-powered aircraft by 2035, calling it a potential breakthrough for aviation. Some industry executives had questioned whether the technology would be ready in time.
People familiar with the matter told the WSJ that Airbus had already spent more than $1.7 billion on the project, but concluded over the past year that technical hurdles and sluggish adoption of hydrogen across the economy would prevent it from meeting its target, according to a report on Sunday.
In early February, Airbus informed staff that the project's budget would be cut and its timeline delayed, the sources said. A new schedule was not provided.
Later that month, CEO Guillaume Faury – who had initially described the hydrogen push as "a historic moment" – admitted the effort had not led to a commercially viable aircraft. Engineers would return to the drawing board in a second "development loop," he reportedly said.
Airbus's efforts to enlist a dozen airlines and more than 200 airports to explore hydrogen integration raised eyebrows, with airline and supplier executives privately doubting the 2035 target. At US rival Boeing – long skeptical of hydrogen – executives voiced concerns over safety and the technology's readiness.
The EU has pushed aviation to decarbonize under its Green Deal, which aims to make the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Airbus, partly owned by the French state, was required to channel part of a €15 billion (over $16 billion) Covid-era bailout into green aircraft development.
According to the WSJ report, the hydrogen program had helped Airbus unlock additional public and private green funding.
The retreat comes as wider enthusiasm for hydrogen fades, with companies like oil major BP and Finnish producer Neste scrapping plans for hydrogen projects. Some major European power companies have been rethinking amid high costs and difficulty transitioning away from fossil fuels, according to leading industry magazine Windpower Monthly.