Tusk Cries ‘Russian Interference’ As Opposition Pushes No-Confidence Vote For Court Takeover

Recent days have seen Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk thrust into the international spotlight after what’s been widely dubbed a forced takeover of what’s supposed to be an independent top court, the Constitutional Tribunal.

Another key official, Poland’s Supreme Court First President Zbigniew Kapiński, has joined the growing chorus of those condemning Tusk’s actions as tantamount to orchestrating a coup d’état.

“These actions bear the hallmarks of a coup d’état,“ Kapiński declared Monday, in reference to the chaotic events kicked into motion Friday night.

According to more of Kapiński’s remarks as quoted in The Hungarian Conservative:

Kapiński insisted that Bogdan Święczkowski remained the legitimate president of the Tribunal and warned that the government could attempt a similar takeover of the Supreme Court itself. Appointed to his current position by President Karol Nawrocki in May, he argued that nothing comparable had happened since the introduction of martial law in communist Poland.

The Supreme Court chief has also convened an extraordinary General Assembly of judges for Tuesday, 3 November, to discuss threats to Poland’s constitutional order and adopt an official position on the crisis.

When The Economist notes that democracy is being blown up…

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal is supposed to embody democratic stability, but has spent the past decade as a battleground for fights between populists and liberals. The latest conflict looks like a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Keep reading

Korybko: Germany’s Attempted Takeover Of Poland By Proxy Is To Prepare Europe For War With Russia

Just like Nazi Germany seized Czechoslovakia’s gold and its robust military-industrial complex in the run-up to World War II, so too is today’s Germany plotting to seize Poland’s gold and subordinate European NATO’s largest army to Berlin ahead of a possibly upcoming war with Russia by 2030.

Polish conservative firebrand Dominik Tarczyński recently explained liberal Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s attempted judicial coup as being driven by him then wanting to seize control of the Central Bank, introduce the euro, and then finally transfer Poland’s gold to the European Central Bank (ECB) in Germany. As it turns out, Poland has the world’s 10th-largest gold reserves, and its 550 tonnes as of 2026 are more than the ECB’s 506.5. The ECB would therefore more than double its reserves in that scenario.

That’s a significant motivation for what was assessed here to be Germany’s attempted takeover of Poland by proxy through Tusk’s armed seizure of the Constitutional Tribunal with all that could follow. It could also at least temporarily rejuvenate the euro amidst the rapid militarization that most of its members, the vast majority of whom use the euro, are engaging in to prepare for war with Russia by 2030. The bloc’s de facto German leader is far ahead of everyone with a planned €800 billion program.

Poland commands European NATO’s (E-NATO) largest military, and conservative President Karol Nawrocki is opposed to the EU’s “Security Action For Europe” (SAFE) loans that would also obligate that most of the equipment be purchased from the bloc’s members, not Poland’s American and Korean partners. He accordingly proposed the “Polish SAFE 0%” program for 185 billion zloty (~$46 billion), the equivalent of the loan that the EU is extending, which Tusk’s government agreed to despite Nawrocki’s disapproval.

If the ongoing attempted German takeover of Poland by proxy succeeds, and Poland joins the euro prior to more than doubling the ECB’s reserves by transferring all of its gold there, then Germany could much more easily advance its plot of federalizing the EU with itself as the most dominant force therein. Coupled with the rapid militarization of the EU as a whole, with the largest army in E-NATO then subordinated to Germany, the 1941-like threat that Dmitry Medvedev warned about would materialize.

The seizure of the Poland’s gold reserves is central to this scenario, ergo why Tusk is expected to support that through the introduction of the euro if his judicial coup succeeds, and there’s an historical precedent for his suspected German patron to pursue this policy that’s actually against Russia. Hitler seized Czechoslovakia’s gold reserves and its robust military-industrial complex in the immediate run-up to World War II, both of which were considered by historians to be indispensable to his war effort.

Likewise, in the run-up to the EU’s possible clash with Russia by 2030, today’s Germany is attempting to seize Poland’s gold reserves and subordinate the largest army in E-NATO to Berlin in dual moves that would be indispensable in the aforesaid scenario. Unlike back then when Germany led the invasion of the USSR from the front, it might instead task its Polish subordinate with sending Poles to die in Ukraine for perpetuating the NATO-Russian proxy war there or starting another one after the latest conflict ends.

Considering what’s at stake, namely the materialization of another 1941-like threat to Russia brought about by the German-dominated European Federation that could follow Berlin’s attempted takeover of Poland by proxy through Tusk’s judicial coup, Poland’s political crisis is of global significance. Its outcome could mean the difference between war and peace, without any exaggeration, since it’ll shape the post-war European order for years to come.

Keep reading

All Hell Breaks Loose at the United Nations: Waltz Spokesman Assaulted

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz took the floor of the General Assembly hall on Tuesday to expose the wealth Cuba’s communist rulers have taken for themselves. He ended up in a shouting match with the regime’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla.

The assembly was debating a non-binding resolution demanding an end to the U.S. economic, commercial, and financial embargo on Cuba, with a vote set for Wednesday. According to a report from the New York Post, Waltz used his time to show the room who actually benefits from the system that resolution seeks to prop up.

He started with the perks of Cuba’s political elite: real estate, luxury watches, and private jets, all enjoyed while ordinary Cubans sit through blackouts and shortages. Waltz then held up a photo of Che Guevara wearing a Rolex watch valued at roughly $40,000.

“According to the regime’s own statistics, that would pay for 55 years of an average Cuban wage,” Waltz said.

He also accused Fidel Castro’s government of sending “thousands of people, homosexuals, Christians, Afro-Cubans and others to concentration camps.” Then Waltz produced a second photo, this one of Cuba’s current president, Miguel Díaz-Canel.

“It didn’t just start with Castro,” Waltz said. “This is the current Cuban president, also with a Rolex on.”

The Cuban delegation wasn’t happy about this and banged on their desks. Rodríguez got out of his seat, walked up to the podium, and asked General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman to call Waltz to order under Rule 71. Waltz turned to the delegates as Rodríguez closed in.

Keep reading

SOUTHCOM Commander Urges Cubans To Seize The Moment Alongside CIA Recruitment Pitch

The commander of Southern Command, Marine Corps Gen. Francis L. Donovan, posted on the command’s official X account on October 24. He urged Cubans to push for political change. “Cuba’s future belongs to those who act. Seize the moment and build the change you want to see,” he wrote. He claimed Cubans should be fed up with the broken promises, the huge corruption, and the small elite that lives in luxury while ignoring the majority of the population. Donovan’s message amplified a Spanish-language message from the CIA inviting Cubans to open up a confidential contact with the agency.

This is highly unusual for a combatant command. A senior operational commander does not normally post a message to help an intelligence agency recruit citizens of another country to be an agent.

This unusual proposition was posted on SOUTHCOM’s social media account on October 24, as the third of a series of messages from senior US officials to Cubans seeking to engineer positive change to engage in a “discrete partnership” with the CIA. The CIA messages — a brief Spanish-language solicitation and a video explaining how Cubans could contact them — included tips on how to use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), to use private browsing and throwaway email addresses to contact them.

At a South Florida rally, President Trump said that warships returning from operations related to Iran would pass Cuba and stop about 50 yards off the coast. Rubio would then be sent in to finish the deal, the President said. In late September Trump said an agreement with Havana could be reached without military intervention. Rubio said September 29 that Cuba had already fallen.

Measures to pressure Cuba in 2026 include an oil blockade, additional economic restrictions, and interdiction of fuel shipments to the island by the Coast Guard which have contributed to fuel shortages and electricity blackouts. Furthermore, a dedicated task force on Cuba has been established by the CIA, and military options for dealing with Havana under review. All of this, according to ClashReport, has increased in recent months in light of the January operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and a rare meeting earlier this year with senior Cuban military officials held by Donovan at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

Havana dismissed the campaign as desperation, as Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío characterized the CIA’s attempt to publicly reach out to Cubans for contact. He compared it to the marketing of toothpaste, according to ClashReport.

Keep reading

US Official Threatens: We Can Overthrow ‘Any Country We Want’

The US ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, threatened to overthrow the government in Athens if it didn’t follow orders from Washington.

Referring to the contemporary collapse of Romania’s government, Guilfoyle told a Greek minister, “We can do that to any country we want. We can do that here”.

The US ambassador reportedly said this at a dinner in Athens this March, which was attended by multiple US and Greek officials, according to the Washington Post.

Guilfoyle’s remarks recalled a notorious comment from the world’s richest oligarch, Elon Musk.

In 2019, the US government backed a coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected socialist president, Evo Morales.

Musk strongly supported the putsch. On Twitter, a critic responded to the oligarch and accused the US government of “organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there”.

Musk replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it”.

Keep reading

Force the CIA to Disclose Its Chile Records

For some odd reason, the CIA steadfastly refuses to disclose all of its records relating to the 1973 Chilean coup, which the CIA ardently supported. The CIA says that “national security” will be jeopardized if its records are disclosed to the American people.

That’s ridiculous. What do they think will happen — that the United States will fall into the ocean or be taken over by the communists, the terrorists, the Muslims, or some other scary boogeyman?

The disclosure issue is more relevant than ever, given that September 21 was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington, D.C.

Letelier had served in the administration of Salvador Allende, a socialist who was democratically elected president of Chile in 1970. U.S. officials, especially those in the U.S. national-security establishment, concluded that Allende posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” Therefore they set into motion the events that would ultimately lead to the violent 1973 coup, which resulted in one of the most brutal military tyrannies in history — one supported by the U.S. government.

Letelier and Moffitt were driving to work that September 21 morning when a car bomb exploded and killed them both. Moffitt’s husband, who was also in the car, survived. It was a knowing, deliberate, intentional act of murder and terrorism here in the United States.

It was ultimately determined that the person in charge of planting the bomb was a man named Michael Townley. He confessed to traveling from Chile to the United States and organizing a team of Cuban exiles that assisted him in planting the car bomb.

It has always been assumed that Pinochet ordered the bombing, in large part because the CIA conducted an investigation that concluded that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing. That conclusion has become an important part of the historical case against Pinochet. In fact, some people are demanding the release of the CIA’s long-secret Chile records to help establish that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing.

That’s, of course, a distinct possibility. Letelier was living here in the United States and working for a think tank that was actively working in opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship, including trying to convince Congress to cut off aid to the Pinochet regime. Thus, it stands to reason that Pinochet certainly had a motive to kill Letelier.

However, there is something else to consider. Pinochet was not a dumb man. He had to realize that if a major terrorist attack on American soil could be traced to his regime, his good, solid relationship with the U.S. government, including foreign aid to Chile, would be finished. It is very difficult to believe that he would have been willing to take that chance just to silence a prominent critic of his regime.

There is another possibility, one that the U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are loathe to consider. That possibility is that it was the CIA, rather than Pinochet, that ordered the hit on Letelier.

Yes, I know what U.S. supporters of the CIA will respond. They’ll point to that CIA investigation that concluded that it was Pinochet who ordered the hit. But isn’t that sort of like saying that the Gestapo investigated one of its murders and concluded that someone else did it? If the hypothesis being investigated is CIA involvement in the assassination, how can the CIA’s own official conclusions be treated as dispositive, especially given the CIA’s longtime expertise in covering up its assassinations?

Keep reading

The Long Road to War

If you’re wondering why the United States and Iran have been bitter antagonists for more than a half century, and why they are now at war, you won’t find the answer in today’s media coverage where the conflict is portrayed as a dispute over terrorism and nuclear weapons. To truly understand what underlies this ongoing conflict you need to look back much further to a history that has been forgotten, or ignored.

Known for most of its history as Persia, Iran is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, with human habitation dating back more than seven millennia.  Despite this foundational history, by the early twentieth century Persia had become a semi-colonial state dominated by British and Russian influence. A rising nationalist movement arose determined to restore the country’s political and economic independence.

The 1953 Coup

A crucial turning point came in 1953. Iranian oil resources had been controlled by the British, who kept most of the vast profits and left little to the Iranians. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a popular reformist who resisted foreign domination, took the bold step of nationalizing his country’s oil industry in 1951. In response, the CIA working with British intelligence organized a successful coup that overthrew his government. Although most citizens of the US and UK have little if any knowledge of this event, the 1953 coup and its consequences remain deeply embedded in Iran’s national memory, even today.

The Shah’s Iron Rule

In Mossadegh’s place, they installed a brutal dictatorial regime headed by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s monarch who ruled the country ruthlessly for the next 26 years. To protect his new-found power, the Shah condemned Mossadegh to three years of solitary confinement, then kept him under house arrest until his death in 1967. In the years following the coup, the Shah and his CIA-trained secret police, Savak, became notorious for their vicious murder, imprisonment and torture of political dissidents. Much of Iranians’ growing hatred of the Shah was focused on the United States, since the Shah was viewed as a puppet of the Americans who put him in power. 

CIA Audacity

The overthrow was considered a resounding success by the CIA, which then became emboldened to undertake a series of regime change operations in other parts of the world. This newfound bravado also influenced America’s decision to undertake its disastrous involvement in the Vietnam War starting in 1954.

A partial list of the countries destabilized and overthrown by the United States following the 1953 coup includes Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), and later Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Regime change is now considered an accepted instrument and goal of US foreign policy. Destabilizing and supporting the overthrow of unfriendly governments has become a central function of the CIA and the State Department. 

The Islamic Revolution

Resistance to the Shah and his totalitarian rule grew over the years, and finally culminated with the Islamic Revolution in January 1979. The Shah was driven into exile, eventually settling in Egypt. His government was replaced by a theocracy headed by the previously exiled religious figure Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who became Iran’s Supreme Leader. Although Khomeini was revered among religious conservatives, he was a ruthless tyrant who executed thousands of political prisoners, often hanging his victims in public from construction cranes for everyone to see. Nonetheless, his anti-Americanism resonated with many Iranians as he stirred up further hatred and a desire for vengeance, calling America the “Great Satan.”

The Embassy Takeover

When the Shah was admitted to the United States for cancer treatment in October 1979, Iranians demanded that he be returned to Iran to face prosecution for his crimes. In a dramatic confrontation in Tehran, an angry crowd besieged the US embassy. A group of militants stormed the embassy and took the American diplomats hostage, outraging American leaders. The Iranians insisted on the Shah’s return as a condition for release of the hostages. President Jimmy Carter refused and the hostages remained captive in Iran for more than a year. Carter would spend the rest of his presidency struggling to find a way to free them. His reelection depended on it.

Keep reading

Trump Goes All In On Regime Change In Cuba

The Trump administration just slammed the door on an effort by Cuba’s communist government to secure an economic lifeline while appearing to embrace reform. A May 1 executive order expands and sharpens longstanding American sanctions on Cuba, and appears to deliberately target a recent gesture at partially opening the Cuban economy. “All property and interests in property that are in the United States,” the order says, are barred from operating “in the energy, defense and related materiel, metals and mining, financial services, or security sector of the Cuban economy, or any other sector of the Cuban economy,” under the penalty of economic sanctions.

On March 16, in a bid for survival, the communist government of Cuba had announced a series of intended though vaguely executed reforms that would allow foreign investment in the island from Cubans living overseas. The reforms were to include a supposed expansion of private property rights. Deputy Prime Minister Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga said that the country was “open to maintaining a fluid commercial relationship with U.S. companies.”

Asked by email if the May 1 order was a deliberate response to the March 16 Cuban announcement, a State Department spokesman referred The Federalist to comments made on April 27 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants. In a long discussion with Fox News Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst, Rubio rejected the possibility of reform under the current Cuban government, describing Cuba as “a failed state.”

Cuba “can get better,” the secretary of state added, but “serious economic reforms are impossible with these people in charge. It can’t happen. And these people in charge aren’t just economically incompetent. They have rolled out the welcome mat to adversaries of the United States to operate within Cuban territory against our national interest with impunity. We are not going to have a foreign military or intelligence or security apparatus operating with impunity 90 miles off the shores of the United States. That’s not going to happen under President Trump.”

Keep reading

Rule by Secrecy – How Covert Regime Change Shaped Our World

The modern international order rests on a contradiction rarely examined in full daylight. Western states present themselves as guardians of international rules, democracy, and self-determination, yet the historical record of their behavior abroad tells a different story — one written not in treaties or speeches, but in classified cables, deniable operations, and shattered political systems. Covert Regime Change, first published in 2018, matters because it documents, with unusual rigor, how this contradiction became a governing method. Lindsey A. O’Rourke, Associate Professor at Boston College, does not ask whether covert intervention occasionally went wrong. She demonstrates that it became a routine instrument of statecraft, one whose predictable consequences were political collapse, mass violence, and long-term instability.

The book’s starting point is empirical, not rhetorical. O’Rourke assembles the most comprehensive dataset to date of U.S.-backed regime change attempts during the Cold War, identifying seventy cases between 1947 and 1989. Sixty-four were covert. Only six were overt. This imbalance is not incidental. It reveals a strategic preference for secrecy as a means of exercising power without democratic constraint. Covert regime change allowed policymakers to intervene repeatedly while insulating themselves from public accountability.

O’Rourke also dismantles the notion that covert regime change primarily served democratic ends. Statistically, covert interventions overwhelmingly produced authoritarian outcomes. Where democratic transitions occurred – and they are hard to find – , they were more often associated with overt interventions, where public scrutiny imposed limits. Secrecy correlated with repression, not reform. O’Rourke’s findings dispel the myth that the US fought for democracy during the Cold War: “The United States supported authoritarian forces in forty-­four out of sixty-­four covert regime changes, including at least six operations that sought to replace liberal demo­cratic governments with illiberal authoritarian regimes. Yet, Washington’s proclivity for installing authoritarian regimes was also not absolute. In one-­eighth of its covert missions and one-­half of its overt interventions, Washington encouraged a demo­cratic transformation in an authoritarian state.” In other words: Washington supported whatever regime or rebel group served its interests — and showed little concern for democracy.

What makes the book so unsettling is that it refuses to stop at the moment of intervention. O’Rourke tracks what followed. Using comparative statistical analysis, she shows that states targeted by covert regime change were significantly more likely to experience civil war and mass killings. Her statistical analysis shows that “states targeted for covert regime change were 6.7 times more likely to experience a Militarized Interstate Dispute with the United States in the ten years following intervention.” US regime change operations also steeply increased episodes of mass killing: “States targeted in successful operations were 2.8 times more likely to experience an episode of mass killing, whereas states targeted in failed covert missions ­were 3.7 times more likely.”

Vietnam demonstrates how covert regime change could deepen rather than prevent war. Before large-scale U.S. troop deployments, Washington pursued covert efforts to shape South Vietnam’s leadership. O’Rourke reconstructs the U.S. role in facilitating the 1963 coup against President Ngo Dinh Diem. Rather than stabilizing the regime, the coup fragmented power and intensified dependence on U.S. military support. What began as covert political manipulation ended in a war that killed millions of Vietnamese and devastated the region.

In the Western Hemisphere, the United States utilized hegemonic operations to enforce a brutal regional conformity, often at the direct expense of democratic institutions. The CIA-backed overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz in 1954 destroyed Guatemala’s young democracy. Guatemala’s subsequent trajectory: decades of military rule, a civil war lasting more than thirty years, and the killing of roughly 200,000 people, the majority civilians. Indigenous communities were systematically targeted.

The case of the Dominican Republic illustrates the cold transition from secret meddling to open violence. The US first backed Rafael Trujillo’s dictatorship. Following the 1961 assassination of Trujillo — an operation in which the CIA provided the weapons — the country attempted a fragile democratic opening. When the reformist Juan Bosch won the presidency in 1962, his refusal to launch a McCarthyite purge of domestic leftists led Washington to view him as a “weak link” in the regional defense against communism. After Bosch was ousted in a military coup, a popular uprising in 1965 sought to restore the democratic constitution. Fearing a “second Cuba,” the Johnson administration launched a massive overt invasion to crush the rebellion and install a more compliant regime. The empirical record here is clear: for American planners, the survival of a pro-Washington hierarchy was far more important than the survival of a Caribbean democracy.

Keep reading

Last US Convoy Exits Syria After Brutal 14-Year Regime Change Proxy War

Widespread reports on Thursday say the very last US military convoy has finally departed Syrian territory, with the years-long occupation of the primarily northeast oil and gas rich sector over in a ‘mission accomplished’ fashion.

It brings to a final close the 14-year long bloody proxy war which overthrew the Assad government and ultimately installed a pro-US/Saudi axis puppet, in the person of founding Syrian Al Qaeda Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, now known as President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Hundreds of thousand of people lost their lives in the regime change war, with the country and its economy left in a sanction-starved and conflict-demolished state of ruins.

The US-backed Syrian Foreign Ministry declared Washington had decided to “complete its military mission” in the country. “The Syrian state is today fully capable of leading counter-terrorism efforts from within, in co-operation with the international community,” it said, happy to now be back in control of the domestic oil and gas supply.

The ministry “welcomes the completed handover of military sites where United States forces were previously present in Syria to the Syrian government,” adding that “the handover of these sites was carried out … in full coordination between the Syrian and American governments.”

While Pentagon propaganda had for years touted an ‘anti-ISIS’ mission, the real purpose of the troop presence was to cut off Damascus under Assad of its sovereign natural resources, and to arm and prop up a Kurdish-Arab coalition called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). 

All the while, the CIA supported Sunni hardline jihadists who were indistinguishable from ISIS in their ideology in the fight against the Syrian Army, and the civilian population which often largely supported the secular Ba’ath government. The broader strategy has long been to destroy the Tehran-Baghdad-Hezbollah ‘Shia axis’ – even if that meant using ISIS as a tool of regime change.

Ironically, in the process of this US handover of oil and gas facilities back to post-Assad Damascus, the Kurds were thrown under the bus. Their dream for an autonomous enclave (Rojava) once again proved illusory, and in the long term the Kurds will find themselves at the mercy of Sunni fanatics on the one hand, and Turkish state under Erdogan on the other.

Keep reading