|
Christian Parenti

L’histoire réelle derrière Signalgate


mars 28, 2025
Loading video...

Description

Christian Parenti rejoint Emily pour discuter de son dernier article pour UnHerd, soutenant que la véritable histoire de Signal-gate est la volonté de Donald Trump de donner son feu vert à des frappes sur des cibles houthies malgré sa campagne contre les guerres éternelles. Parenti avertit que les politiques de Trump pourraient rapidement plonger dans une guerre plus large avec l’Iran.


Discussion

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
S’abonner
Notification pour
guest


0 Comments
Le plus populaire
Le plus récent Le plus ancien
Commentaires en ligne
Afficher tous les commentaires
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
11 months ago

“The party passed a highly controversial foreign agents law, under which any NGOs or media outlets receiving more than 20% of their funding from overseas would have to register as ‘organizations serving the interests of a foreign power’.”
Actually, could we borrow that? I kind of like it. How about adding a stipulation if more than a quarter of your funding comes from governments, you’re not a “nongovernmental organization” and will be treated as nothing more than a government funded lobbying group? I’m sick of the NGO hustle.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Totally agree. Far from promoting democracy, these NGOs are a cancer, eating away at democracy.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Depending on where you live, odds are that law is already on the books.
It’s just further proof of Putin’s uncanny and all-pervasive power to undermine western civilisation!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

The law doesn’t only cover “registration” (which would be entirely appropriate), it also has some pretty sinister clauses that would de facto allow the government to shut down NGOs it does not like. A good example of the perils of commenting on a law you haven’t read.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I would like to read the text,in English. I know, Google.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Since NGOs are typically funded by govts, biting the hands that feed them might not be the brightest move to make.

El Uro
El Uro
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

What about Russian-funded NGOs in Europe or the US?

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Like many I thought the law did not sound unreasonable and, personally, I don’t think NGOs should be allowed to get any of their money from governments.

What was missing from this article was any details as to why this law would be bad.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

What’s wrong with that? The Open Society has destroyed vast tracts of the US on multiple levels and should have been shut down. Our liberal democracies are very weak and have been hijacked by extremists in the guise of NGOs.

Steve White
Steve White
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

At stake is either Georgia will maintain sovereignty or become a US hegemon puppet sending it’s sons to die so the Victoria Nuland type of NeoCons can feel like this one will be the “game changer” they are looking for in the long list of potential “game changers”.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
11 months ago

How many divisions does the EU have?

A D Kent
A D Kent
11 months ago

 “Protesters have compared the law to Russian legislation used by the Kremlin to punish dissenters and force opposition non-profits to close.“

Yes, but supporters of these Georgian laws point out that they also draw heavily from, and are very similar to, legislation enacted in…wait for it…the USA. What is it about the threat of foreign NGOs in the US that isn’t the case in Georgia Mr Kranz?

As for Georgia ‘gazing Westwards’ that might seem nice, but then they were gazing Westwards in 2008 when they started their war with Russia (as confirmed by an EU report). If there hadn’t been all the RAND, CSIS and other Neocon nutjob think-tanks blandly discussing using Georgia to ‘overextend’ Russia over the last two decades then I might be more open to the view that these NGOs are all the very best of people doing the very best things for the Georgian population – but the bitter experience of Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond give us absolutely no reason to be generous to them now.  

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
11 months ago

Can we stop being melodramatic and spread falsehoods?

Moscow … which invaded the country in 2008

The EU’s own investigation determined that Georgia started the war in 2008. Then-president Saakashvili, emboldened by G W Bush’s embrace of Georgia, started the shooting, confident the US would ride to his rescue. True to form, the US didn’t, and Russia withdrew after inflicting a painful lesson.
One has to admire Putin’s long reach. The Georgian law is modelled after the US FARA, passed in 1938, and is on the books in the EU as well. It is a very common and common-sense piece of legislation. Why Putin would want one in Georgia is a mystery, since it would reveal the extent of Putin’s pernicious influence in the country. But I’m sure that Putin, master of three-dimensional chess and consummate KGB-trained plotter of the callow West’s downfall, has it all figured out!
In the meantime, draconian censorship laws proliferate in Europe.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

I lived in Georgia for six years and wrote my PhD on the country.The author writes that “riding on their shoulders is the fate of millions of others across the Eurasian heartland.” Well, no, it isn’t. What is at stake here is the future political alignment of a beautiful country with high symbolic value that is however very small and has very limited strategic significance.
The strategic value of Georgia (to both Russia and the West) has consistently been overhyped. For example, excluding Abkhazia which is already in the Russian camp, Georgia’s Black Sea shoreline is extremely short. The Caucasus mountains divide it from Russia, so Georgian NATO membership poses far less of a threat to Moscow (literally) than Ukrainian NATO membership does.
Georgia does act as a corridor for transit routes and pipelines, but these all also require active cooperation from Azerbaijan, which has arguably moved far closer to Russia than Georgia in recent years. This does not seem to have endangered any of these projects, whose % contribution to European energy supplies are and will remain miniscule.
(Does anyone remember the years when the West convinced itself that Afghanistan was strategically significant?)
As for the supposed “devastating loss for the cause of global freedom”, let’s zoom out. Georgia’s population is around 4 million. Contrast that with the ongoing slide into authoritarianism by India with its over one billion people.
What happens in Georgia does matter – but largely only to Georgians.

Peter Buchan
Peter Buchan
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Well put – and refreshing to have such deep and cogent analysis (for a change).
There is a perspective that “meta-data is (often) more useful than data”. Set against this simple observation:
An analysis of ONLY the main article headings and sub-headings on UnHerd stand testament to the emotionally driven, un-anchored and (often) ahistorical perspectives held across the West in general, and the Anglo-sphere “5-Eyes” countries in particular. Oh, the hand wringing!To wit: even just this edition of UnHerd has 2 competing hair-on-fire propositions: Europe’s future will now seemingly be determined either by Hungary or Georgia. Well, which is it?
Whatever the case, Georgia seems to be on the brink of its – second – “Maidan moment”. These idealistic, haute morality, haute politico-couture (yes, I made these up) Western interventions have proven so very…useful…for “target nation states”, haven’t they?

Sayantani G
Sayantani G
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Buchan

Deleted

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Agree, the article sounds more like agenda driven western interference and pro NATO expansionism. No wonder Russia gets paranoid, the agenda is the evertighening encirclement and isolation of Russia . Georgia needs to be very careful here, or they will end up in conflict like in Ukraine, in a geopolitical proxy war, the people will suffer, not the outsiders manipulating them.

ChilblainEdwardOlmos
ChilblainEdwardOlmos
11 months ago
Reply to  Dave Canuck

Neocons gonna neocon…

Sayantani G
Sayantani G
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That comment about India was unnecessary. It’s a silly canard and is not true.
The only ” slide into authoritarianism ” is in fevered and jealous Western MSM fed by Soros.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
11 months ago

I hope this platform doesn’t go the same way as The Neocon Times (of London), and The Spectator too for that matter.
All the evidence of this article is that if at all possible, Washington will try to disseminate propaganda via every British media outlet available in terms of controlling the destiny of the post-Soviet bloc.

Ian Folkins
Ian Folkins
11 months ago

This is a fundamentally silly, hyperbolic article. It is the foreign funded NGO’s trying to foment a colour revolution that are antidemocratic. Why don’t Georgians have the right to self determination like other countries? The NGO’s possess all the usual western obsessions about trying to spread transgender ideology on behalf of Big Pharma. And attempting to join NATO would be path to self destruction, just like it has been for Ukraine.

Andrew Morbey
Andrew Morbey
11 months ago

If you have been following the news, western media have been covering protests in Georgia over a proposed law which critics say is anti-democratic. The law calls for NGOs and other organizations working in Georgia that receive a certain percentage of foreign funding to be registered as foreign agents. Further it is claimed that this law will somehow benefit Russia.
There are several things to note. The protests are largely funded and supported by foreign agents, specifically American and European NGOs and related organizations. There are western voices – recently Francis Fukuyama! – calling for open and explicit intervention in Georgia ‘to save democracy’.  
It must be understood that what ‘democracy’ means in these arguments is a very particular progressive notion of democracy, and that it is the goal of these NGOs and other organisations and the governments and elites behind them to use protest and ultimately financial blackmail to enforce and embed a socially progressive agenda in Georgian society.
The proposed law, by the way, makes no exception for Russian money. Russian funded programs would also be registered. It is important to note how widely – if unevenly – unpopular Russia is in Georgia. Georgians are naturally suspicious of Russia. That Russia is a threat is both very true and in this case a distraction. There is a kind of switch and bait tactic being played by American and European groups in Georgia.
Finally, if you come across someone who thinks that insisting on financial transparency for organizations funded from the abroad is anti-democratic, remind them that American NGOs typically have to report foreign income if they receive funding or generate revenue from sources outside the United States, and must comply with relevant tax laws and regulations, including those related to reporting foreign income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States.
An indeed: an American NGO may be identified as a “foreign agent” under certain circumstances, typically in the context of foreign influence or lobbying laws. Here are a few scenarios where an American NGO might be classified as a foreign agent:
Foreign Funding with Strings Attached: If an American NGO receives significant funding from a foreign government or entity with the expectation that it will promote the interests of that foreign entity, it may be considered a foreign agent. This designation could apply if the NGO is perceived as advancing the agenda of the foreign entity rather than pursuing its own Activities on Behalf of Foreign Interests: If an American NGO engages in activities such as lobbying, public relations, or advocacy on behalf of a foreign government, political party, or organization without proper disclosure, it could be classified as a foreign agent. This might include activities aimed at influencing U.S. policy or public opinion in a manner that aligns with the interests of a foreign entity.Legal Definitions: The term “foreign agent” may also have specific legal definitions and implications under U.S. law, particularly in the context of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). FARA requires individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to register with the U.S. Department of Justice and disclose their activities and relationships

c donnellan
c donnellan
11 months ago

‘Democracy’ aka the rule of Big Money behind the scenes.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
11 months ago

Maybe the Western-focused binary is not the way for every other country. Perhaps Georgia sees a benefit in an “and” approach rather than an ‘or.’ Someone is also going to have to explain why the measure about NGOs is controversial. Those organizations are not the touchy-feely do-gooders their supporters claim them to be. Stateside, NGOs are pocketing billions of American taxpayer dollars to facilitate an invasion of the country.

Peter B
Peter B
11 months ago

Who writes these article titles ? Russia already has access to the Black Sea.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Probably AI-generated…

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
11 months ago

The Georgian opposition parties are being funded from outside the country. No western country would allow that. After witnessing the destruction of Ukraine, it must be very clear to a Georgians that a dalliance with NATO would mean the end of their country.

Kevin Dee
Kevin Dee
11 months ago

My pattern recognition was triggered by the news of “organic” protests in favour of the EU, further confirmed to hear the place is being flooded with foreign NGO’s.

David Stewart
David Stewart
11 months ago

Georgia isn’t even in Europe, it’s on the Asian side of the Caucasus Mountains.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

Nothing wrong with that law whatsoever. It’s not remotely controversial … Georgia must never join NATO … stop antagonising Russia! Stop it!

Russia is not our enemy but the warpig neocons in DC want them to be thought of as such partially to continue to milk the tax base but eventually to bring down Putin in order to access Russian commodities on our terms. Then break the country up. Job done. Game over.

The US will be responsible for 1 million Slavs deaths by the time the Ukraine war is over, they must not be allowed to repeat that in Georgia.