Six Ukrainian servicemembers and two civilians have been charged in a fuel-theft scheme that diverted over 15 tons of diesel fuel from a military unit in 2025, the Special Prosecutor's Office for Defense Sector of the Central Region announces. The scheme caused damages of over $22,500 to the military unit, whose fuel was destined for Ukrainian Defense Forces operations.

The Poltava fuel-theft prosecution is one of several Ukrainian military corruption cases prosecuted in early June 2026.

How did scheme work? 

The scheme was organized by a technician of the Poltava-area military unit, prosecutors said.

The technician engaged refueling drivers with direct access to fuel during transport, along with civilians who acted as buyers and resellers of the stolen diesel. During loading operations, drivers manipulated the measuring sticks and exploited specific technical features of fuel tanker vehicles so that part of the diesel did not appear in official accounting.

They also artificially created fuel surpluses by reducing the actual consumption recorded during transport and entering false data into trip sheets, listing fuel as consumed when it was not.

The "surplus" fuel was poured into canisters and hidden in forest strips near the military unit. The technician then transported the stolen fuel to private buildings, where he stored and sold it to civilians. Proceeds were divided among scheme participants.

Ukraine's defense anti-corruption apparatus continues prosecution

Ukraine's defense-sector anti-corruption apparatus has continued to actively investigate and prosecute internal theft cases during the war. The DBR, Special Prosecutor's Office for Defense Sector, and SBU have pursued cases ranging from procurement fraud at the Defense Ministry level to FPV-drone theft from frontline supply caches to organized fuel-theft schemes like the Poltava case.

Medic stole 16 FPV from firm that entered $1.1 billion Pentagon competition and hid them for four months. Ukraine arrested him when he tried to sell them for 19% of their value

Portugal’s sweeping changes to its nationality law have left many foreign residents, investors and would-be citizens wondering where they stand. Portugal’s new nationality law officially came into force on May

The post Portugal’s new nationality law: what has changed and what remains unclear appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law allowing Russia to seize the property and bank balances of citizens living abroad before any court ruling, the Moscow Times reported. The legislation turns a single formal charge into an immediate asset freeze in absentia against exiled Kremlin critics. It takes effect on 1 September 2026.

Several hundred thousand Russians left the country after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 

What the law does

The amendments to Russia's Code of Administrative Offenses cover "administrative offenses against the interests of the Russian Federation." The seizure is framed as a "precautionary measure," not a sentence. Qualifying offenses include "discrediting" the Russian army, calls for sanctions against Russia, and "propaganda of Nazi symbols." They also cover producing and distributing "extremist materials" and non-payment of fines for any of these acts.

The value of property arrested, including bank account balances, is not capped at the underlying fine. Russian outlet Meduza noted that courts had previously fined people abroad under those administrative articles. Pre-trial seizure as a precautionary measure had never been available before.

Explore further

Russia is holding at least 100 people in occupied Crimea with no contact with outside world and no lawyer — and no trials

How it differs from the 2024 confiscation law

The legislation extends the post-conviction asset-confiscation regime that Putin signed in February 2024. That earlier law let Russia seize the assets of those convicted of spreading "deliberately false information" about the army and other offenses. The new law moves the seizure earlier, before any verdict.

It is aimed squarely at Russians who fled after Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Moscow Times said the legislation "hands the government a new tool to punish Kremlin critics living abroad, including exiled journalists and activists."

If a Russian abroad cannot be notified of charges, the court must appoint a defense lawyer. Legal fees are reimbursed from the federal budget only if the case is dropped. The document was published on Russia's official legal information portal on 10 June 2026.

Explore further

Children informing on parents, teachers beaten, collaborators later jailed — researcher details Russia’s occupation playbook

A "preventive" measure aimed at exiled critics

The bill's explanatory note cited "bright examples" of relocants conducting "activity directed against the interests of Russia." It argued for applying "measures of preventive influence" to such citizens. The authors stated the law will help "stop" calls to violate Russia's territorial integrity and constitutional order. In Russian official usage, that language covers the Kremlin's claim over occupied Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts. 

From Tatarstan to Putin's desk

Lawmakers from the Russian republic of Tatarstan first proposed the bill in October 2024. The State Duma — Russia's lower house of parliament — passed it late in May 2026. State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin praised the bill as a cover for Russian forces deployed in Ukraine. Russian state news agency TASS reported that the amendments make individuals abroad newly liable for abusing media freedom, inciting hatred, calls to violate Russia's territorial integrity, and discrediting the armed forces.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In order to persecute rulers deemed inconvenient to imperialism, the ICC overrode its own basic principle: limiting its jurisdiction to countries that ratified the Rome Statute. Yet while Gaddafi’s Libya and Putin’s Russia became targets of the ICC, the United States has remained immune. And it has demonstrated that, even while not being a member of the Court, it is the one truly in command.

When Bensouda sought to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan — not restricting her inquiry to the actions of the Taliban and the Islamic State, but also including what she viewed as the greatest perpetrators of that war (the U.S. military and the CIA) — she came under intense pressure from Washington, pressure that ultimately resulted in government sanctions. Her and her relatives’ bank accounts were frozen, and her husband was subjected to surveillance.

Eventually, Bensouda was replaced by a new prosecutor compliant with the United States. Karim Khan altered the focus of investigations into Afghanistan, declaring that priority would be given to the Taliban and ISIS while the United States would no longer be prioritized, citing a lack of resources for a broader undertaking.

During one of France’s many military interventions in Africa this century (between 2013 and 2016), soldiers raped and sexually abused children in displaced persons camps in the Central African Republic. The UN, although it devoted limited attention to the case, was accused of a “serious institutional failure” by an independent commission for having allowed the atrocities to continue. The ICC — which could have intervened, since France is a State Party and French magistrates failed to convict any soldier due to an alleged lack of evidence — preferred to remain silent on the matter.

During the same period, amid its intervention in the Sahel, French soldiers — including mercenaries from the Foreign Legion — were accused of murdering civilians and training and arming security forces responsible for massacres, summary executions, and rapes. French leaders likewise had little to fear.

On the other hand, the ICC even pretended to examine war crimes committed by the United Kingdom in Iraq, including the torture of prisoners. But it justified closing the case by claiming that British authorities were already conducting domestic investigations — even though the Office of the Prosecutor itself acknowledged there was a “reasonable basis” to believe British troops had committed war crimes.

The United Kingdom punished no officers, even though a later public inquiry concluded that there had been widespread violence and an institutional silence — in other words, responsibility reaching high military ranks. Since the United Kingdom had not truly been capable of concluding the matter, the ICC could have intervened, given that London is party to the Rome Statute. But the ICC once again washed its hands of the issue.

Now, as Bensouda revealed, Israel is also protected — and not only through U.S. sanctions, but also through the actions of an ICC bureaucracy working hand in glove with the Mossad, allowing direct and illegal Israeli interference without taking any action against it.

A Structure Dominated by Imperialist Nations

According to data made available in the ICC’s latest financial report, referring to 2024 and published in July 2025, it is possible to calculate that around 84% of the Court’s total funding comes from imperialist and associated countries (NATO members, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand). Yet together they account for only 28% of the Court’s States Parties. Meanwhile, the remaining countries (72%) contribute just 16% of the Court’s budget.

There is a clear structural imbalance in the ICC’s financing. Naturally, this is directly related to the Court’s partial conduct. As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The ICC itself considers that 60% of African countries that belong to it are “non-represented” or “under-represented” in its internal structure. In other words, only 40% have some form of representation. For Latin American and Caribbean countries, this percentage is even lower: only 14% of the Court’s members are adequately represented. For Asia-Pacific countries, the figure is 28%. By contrast, half of the imperialist and associated countries are properly represented, a far higher percentage than in the other regions.

According to a report by the Assembly of States Parties, 56% of ICC staff in 2024 came from the group composed of Western European and related countries. Only 16% were African, 11% came from Eastern Europe, 8% from Asia-Pacific, and 8% from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Among the Court’s current 18 judges, eight belong to imperialist and associated countries, and five maintain academic and/or professional ties with hegemonic institutions in those countries. The others are senior state bureaucrats, generally from countries whose state apparatus is intrinsically dependent on imperialism.

Thus, it is clear that the ICC’s victims will always be leaders who are inconvenient to imperialist powers. While even Putin has had an arrest warrant issued against him by the Court and African governments remain its preferred target, no NATO country has ever been seriously troubled by ICC proceedings.

The bombings using prohibited weapons in Yugoslavia in 1999, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rapes in Africa, or, more recently, the massacre at the school in Minab and the weekly killings of fishermen in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, do not concern ICC judges.

For this very reason, the majority of sovereign countries that refuse to kneel before imperialism have never joined the ICC. Cuba accused the Court of pursuing a “selective policy against developing countries.” North Korea described its maneuvers as “a product of hostile forces.”

But together with Burundi’s declaration, perhaps the best definition of what the ICC is came from the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Alexander Venediktov: “A compliant puppet in the hands of the collective West.”

Greece’s Parliament has passed a major migration bill that officially integrates the European Union’s new Pact on Asylum and Migration into domestic law. The legislation introduces stringent measures to overhaul border controls, expedite asylum applications, and fast-track the deportation of individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected.

A central element of this new framework is the establishment of offshore “return hubs.” These are transit centers located in non-EU countries where rejected asylum seekers will be transferred if their countries of origin refuse or delay their repatriation.

Minister Plevris on “return hubs” and negotiations

Migration Minister Thanos Plevris clarified that these hubs will not operate outside the law, emphasizing: “These centers will operate within the framework of European Union agreements with third countries and under the guarantees of European and international law.”

Greece is spearheading this initiative alongside Germany, Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands. The coalition aims to sign their first bilateral agreements later this year so the hubs can become fully operational in 2027. Minister Plevris revealed that advanced talks are already underway. “The Greek government has already been in consultations with two African countries,” he stated.

The Minister also noted that these hubs are a vital tool for Greece, as partner nations frequently experience secondary migration flows—meaning migrants who initially crossed into Europe via Greek territory. He added:

“The creation of a more effective European return mechanism can act synthetically with the existing system and offer an additional innovative tool both to Greece and the remaining member states for managing returns.”

Voluntary returns and stricter detention policies

The new law expands administrative detention, increases surveillance on individuals awaiting deportation, and speeds up removals in coordination with Frontex. Minister Plevris stated that the strict new framework “is already starting to produce tangible results.”

According to Plevris, voluntary returns handled via the International Organization for Migration (IOM) have already increased by 25% since the new measures were introduced, with hundreds of undocumented individuals coming forward to express their intent to return home.

The changing migration numbers in Greece

Minister Plevris linked the accelerated asylum processes and rigid enforcement directly to a steep decline in illegal border crossings, noting that proper returns and secure borders are inherently connected: “These figures confirm that the effective management of returns, the acceleration of asylum procedures, and border protection are interconnected pillars of a cohesive migration policy.”

To demonstrate the shifting impact, Plevris provided specific data comparing past crises to current trends. Under the previous administration between 2015 and 2019, Greece saw a massive wave of 1,215,280 irregular arrivals. Since 2019, that number has dropped significantly to 197,651 total arrivals.

Furthermore, during the first five months of 2026, nationwide arrivals saw a further 31% decrease, with arrivals in the Aegean Sea plunging by 65%. However, localized pressure remains. Over the past two years, for instance, the southern islands of Crete and Gavdos have experienced a sharp rise in migrant boats arriving from Libya.

The efficiency of processing has also changed. Pending asylum applications in Greece have plummeted by roughly 80%, dropping from 142,000 in 2019 to just 28,000 today. At the same time, stricter evaluation standards have caused the international protection approval rate to fall from 71.5% to 40.7%.

Two key pillars of the new legislation

Mandatory Border Screening: Before a migrant is legally considered to have entered EU territory, they must undergo a mandatory pre-entry screening at the border. This process includes identity verification, biometric data capture, security and health checks, and cross-referencing information via the upgraded Eurodac database to track migrant movements across the EU.

Fast-Track Asylum Evaluation: The law establishes much tighter deadlines to eliminate years of bureaucratic delays. Applications flagged as “manifestly unfounded,” particularly those submitted by nationals of countries with historically low asylum approval rates, will face rapid, border-adjacent evaluations and immediate rejection.

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the $100,000 fee Trump imposed on H-1B visa applications was unlawful, striking down one of the administration’s key immigration measures targeting skilled foreign workers.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Boston found the payment was a tax, not a penalty, and that the president lacked authority to impose it without congressional approval. His 42-page ruling also barred the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from enforcing the requirement.

Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, applied reasoning from a February Supreme Court decision that struck down Trump’s tariffs issued under emergency authority. He concluded that immigration law, like the emergency statute in that case, does not permit the president to levy taxes.

Inside Trump’s case for the $100,000 H-1B visa fee

The H-1B program allows U.S. companies to hire foreign workers for specialized roles. Applicants must hold at least a bachelor’s degree. Visas are approved for three years with a possible three-year extension.

Each year, the program makes 65,000 visa slots available, along with a separate pool of 20,000 set aside for applicants holding advanced degrees.

Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee has been blocked by a judge.

Judge Leo Sorokin ruled the new fee for highly skilled foreign workers is unlawful and that it amounts to an unauthorised tax. pic.twitter.com/v1J9Np5qyV

— Pubity (@pubity) June 9, 2026

Employers typically paid $2,000 to $5,000 in fees before the order. Economists say the program helps American companies stay competitive and creates domestic jobs.

Trump announced the $100,000 H-1B visa requirement in September, saying the program had been misused to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labor.

The fee did not apply to foreign nationals already in the country on student visas, who represent a significant portion of new applicants.

The requirement saw little uptake. USCIS recorded only 85 payments as of Feb. 15, according to a March court filing.

Attorneys General celebrate as administration vows to appeal

Twenty Democratic attorneys general filed the lawsuit in December. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who led the group, said that the ruling protects the country’s ability to attract skilled workers, on which the economy depends.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said that it blocked what she called an unlawful effort to undermine the program and the jobs it supports.

The administration defended the policy as a lawful use of presidential authority over immigration. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said that the ruling would be appealed, adding that the president has the authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals deemed harmful to American interests.

Justice Department spokeswoman Natalie Baldassarre said that the department would continue holding companies accountable for misusing the program.

At least three lawsuits have targeted the fee. A federal judge in Washington ruled in December in favor of the administration in a separate case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is appealing that outcome.

The administration has also called for stricter applicant screening and put forward a revised selection process designed to give priority to foreign workers with higher qualifications and better pay.

El 84% del presupuesto de la CPI viene de potencias imperialistas, que dictan sus investigaciones y protegen a sus aliados.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Para perseguir a gobernantes incómodos para el imperialismo, la CPI pasó por encima de su norma básica: limitar su actuación a los países que ratificaron el Estatuto de Roma. Sin embargo, mientras la Libia de Gadafi y la Rusia de Putin fueron víctimas de la CPI, Estados Unidos continúa impune. Y ha demostrado que, aun sin formar parte de la Corte, es quien verdaderamente manda en ella.

Cuando Bensouda intentó investigar los crímenes de guerra en Afganistán —sin limitar su investigación a la actuación del Talibán y del Estado Islámico, sino incluyendo a lo que ella consideraba los mayores criminales de aquella guerra (el ejército estadounidense y la CIA)—, sufrió una fuerte presión desde Washington, hasta el punto de resultar en sanciones gubernamentales. Sus cuentas bancarias y las de sus familiares fueron congeladas, y su marido fue espiado.

Finalmente, Bensouda fue sustituida por un nuevo fiscal dócil a Estados Unidos. Karim Khan modificó el enfoque de las investigaciones sobre Afganistán, declarando que daría prioridad al Talibán y al ISIS y retiraría la prioridad de Estados Unidos, alegando falta de recursos para una investigación más amplia.

Durante una de las muchas intervenciones militares francesas en África en este siglo (entre 2013 y 2016), soldados violaron y abusaron sexualmente de niños en campos de desplazados en la República Centroafricana. La ONU, aunque prestó una atención limitada al caso, fue acusada de una “grave falla institucional” por una comisión independiente, al haber permitido que las atrocidades continuaran. La CPI —que podría haber intervenido, dado que Francia es un Estado Parte y los magistrados franceses no lograron condenar a ningún soldado por una supuesta insuficiencia de pruebas— prefirió guardar silencio al respecto.

Durante el mismo período, en su intervención en el Sahel, soldados franceses —incluidos mercenarios de la Legión Extranjera— fueron acusados de asesinar civiles y de entrenar y armar fuerzas de seguridad responsables de masacres, ejecuciones sumarias y violaciones. Los gobernantes franceses tampoco tuvieron de qué preocuparse.

Por otro lado, la CPI incluso fingió examinar los crímenes de guerra cometidos por el Reino Unido en Irak, incluidas torturas contra prisioneros. Pero justificó el cierre del caso alegando que las autoridades británicas ya estaban llevando a cabo investigaciones internas, aun cuando la propia Oficina del Fiscal de la CPI reconoció que existía una “base razonable” para creer que tropas británicas habían cometido crímenes de guerra.

El Reino Unido no castigó a ningún oficial, aunque una investigación pública posterior concluyó que hubo violencia generalizada y un silencio corporativo —es decir, una responsabilidad de altos mandos militares—. Como el Reino Unido realmente no había sido capaz de concluir el caso, la CPI podría haber intervenido, ya que Londres integra el Estatuto de Roma. Pero la CPI volvió a lavarse las manos.

Ahora, como reveló Bensouda, Israel también está protegido, y no solo por las sanciones estadounidenses, sino también por la actuación de una burocracia de la CPI confabulada con el Mossad, que permite la injerencia directa e ilegal de Israel sin hacer absolutamente nada al respecto.

Una estructura dominada por las naciones imperialistas

De acuerdo con los datos disponibles en el último balance financiero de la CPI, correspondiente a 2024 y publicado en julio de 2025, es posible calcular que alrededor del 84% de toda su financiación proviene de países imperialistas y asociados (miembros de la OTAN, Suiza, Austria, Japón, Corea del Sur, Australia y Nueva Zelanda). Sin embargo, en conjunto representan apenas el 28% de los Estados Parte del organismo. Mientras tanto, el resto de los países (72%) aportan solamente el 16% de su presupuesto.

Existe un claro desequilibrio estructural en la financiación de la CPI. Naturalmente, esto está directamente relacionado con la actuación parcial de la Corte. Como dice el dicho, quien paga manda.

La propia CPI considera que el 60% de los países africanos que la integran están “no representados” o “subrepresentados” en su estructura interna. Es decir, apenas el 40% cuenta con algún tipo de representación. Para los países latinoamericanos y caribeños, ese porcentaje es todavía menor: solo el 14% de los integrantes de la Corte están adecuadamente representados. En los países de Asia-Pacífico, la cifra es del 28%. En cambio, la mitad de los países imperialistas y asociados sí están debidamente representados, un porcentaje muy superior al de las demás regiones.

Según un informe de la Asamblea de los Estados Parte, el 56% de los funcionarios de la CPI en 2024 provenían del grupo compuesto por países de Europa Occidental y relacionados. Apenas el 16% eran africanos, el 11% provenían de Europa Oriental, el 8% de Asia-Pacífico y el 8% de América Latina y el Caribe.

Entre los 18 jueces actuales de la Corte, ocho pertenecen a países imperialistas y asociados, y cinco mantienen vínculos académicos y/o profesionales con instituciones hegemónicas de esos países. Los demás son altos burócratas estatales, generalmente de países cuya burocracia estatal es intrínsecamente dependiente del imperialismo.

De esta forma, queda claro que las víctimas de la CPI siempre serán los dirigentes incómodos para las potencias imperialistas. Mientras incluso Putin ha tenido una orden de arresto emitida por el organismo y los gobiernos africanos continúan siendo su objetivo favorito, ningún país de la OTAN ha sido jamás seriamente molestado por procesos de la CPI.

Los bombardeos con armas prohibidas en Yugoslavia en 1999, las torturas en Abu Ghraib y Guantánamo, las masacres en Irak y Afganistán, las violaciones en África o, más recientemente, la masacre en la escuela de Minab y los asesinatos semanales de pescadores en el Caribe y el Pacífico Oriental, no preocupan a los jueces de la CPI.

Precisamente por ello, la mayoría de los países soberanos que no se arrodillan ante el imperialismo jamás se adhirieron a la CPI. Cuba acusó al organismo de tener una política “selectiva contra los países en desarrollo”. Corea del Norte calificó sus maniobras como “un producto de fuerzas hostiles”.

Pero, junto con la declaración de Burundi, quizás la mejor definición de lo que es la CPI fue dada por el vicesecretario del Consejo de Seguridad de Rusia, Alexander Venediktov: “Un títere obediente en manos del Occidente colectivo.”

EUA atacam relatores da ONU que denunciam racismo, pobreza ou sanções. Defendem “interferência” quando convém e arruínam quem investiga seus crimes.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

As tensões entre Washington e os relatores especiais da ONU não se limitaram à política externa ou à “guerra ao terror”. Em diferentes momentos, especialistas internacionais que voltaram os olhos para problemas internos dos Estados Unidos — racismo estatal, pobreza extrema e impactos humanitários de sanções econômicas — também passaram a enfrentar pressão política, ataques públicos e campanhas de deslegitimação.

A questão racial foi um dos temas mais sensíveis.

Muito antes do assassinato de George Floyd, mecanismos da ONU já vinham denunciando padrões persistentes de discriminação racial, violência policial e encarceramento em massa nos EUA. Um dos nomes mais associados a esse debate foi o sociólogo senegalês Doudou Diène, relator especial da ONU sobre formas contemporâneas de racismo entre 2002 e 2008.

Após visitas aos Estados Unidos e investigações sobre discriminação racial, Diène alertou para a persistência de estruturas históricas de desigualdade profundamente ligadas ao legado da escravidão e da segregação racial. Seus relatórios chamavam atenção para disparidades econômicas, tratamento desigual no sistema de justiça criminal e violência policial contra negros.

Em certos momentos, diplomatas americanos trabalharam para reduzir o impacto político de relatórios considerados excessivamente críticos dentro dos fóruns multilaterais.

A tensão se intensificou após os protestos de 2020 contra a violência policial. Países africanos chegaram a defender, no Conselho de Direitos Humanos da ONU, mecanismos internacionais mais robustos de investigação sobre racismo sistêmico nos Estados Unidos. Washington resistiu à ideia de qualquer instrumento de monitoramento direcionado especificamente ao país, e a proposta acabou diluída em uma investigação mais ampla sobre racismo no mundo.

Outro caso emblemático de atrito ocorreu com o professor australiano Philip Alston, relator especial da ONU sobre pobreza extrema e direitos humanos entre 2014 e 2020.

Após uma missão aos EUA em 2017, Alston publicou um relatório devastador sobre desigualdade, desproteção social e precarização econômica no país mais rico do mundo. O especialista afirmou que o chamado “American Dream” corria o risco de transformar-se numa “American illusion”, denunciando o contraste entre extrema riqueza e pobreza disseminada.

Durante visitas a estados como Alabama, Califórnia e Porto Rico, Alston descreveu comunidades sem saneamento adequado, pessoas vivendo em trailers degradados, crescimento do número de sem-teto e erosão de programas sociais.

Suas conclusões provocaram reações irritadas entre políticos conservadores e setores da imprensa americana. Ao contrário do que sempre fazem quando as críticas são aos inimigos dos EUA, eles acusaram o relator de ideologização e de ignorar a prosperidade média do país. Em certos círculos políticos, sua missão foi retratada como interferência indevida em assuntos internos dos EUA – uma grande ironia, vindo de quem veio.

A relação conflituosa reapareceria ainda no debate sobre sanções econômicas internacionais.

A jurista bielorrussa Alena Douhan, relatora especial sobre o impacto negativo de medidas coercitivas unilaterais, tornou-se alvo frequente de críticas após publicar relatórios apontando os efeitos humanitários das sanções impostas por Washington contra países como Venezuela, Síria e Irã.

Douhan argumentava que restrições econômicas amplas frequentemente agravavam crises humanitárias ao afetar acesso a medicamentos, alimentos, infraestrutura energética e sistemas de saúde. Em visitas e relatórios, sustentou que sanções unilaterais podiam violar direitos humanos fundamentais quando produziam sofrimento generalizado da população civil.

Nos EUA e em países aliados, críticos passaram a acusá-la de reproduzir narrativas de governos “autoritários” e minimizar responsabilidades internas por crises econômicas. Organizações políticas e think tanks ocidentais frequentemente tentaram desqualificar seu mandato, questionando a credibilidade de suas conclusões e denunciando suposta proximidade excessiva com governos sancionados.

Durante décadas, os Estados Unidos responderam a especialistas da ONU com métodos relativamente previsíveis: ataques políticos, campanhas diplomáticas, recusa de acesso, tentativas de esvaziar mandatos, pressão sobre o Conselho de Direitos Humanos ou esforços para deslegitimar publicamente relatores considerados hostis. No caso Albanese, Washington lançou mão do aparato coercitivo do próprio Estado americano — especialmente seu poder financeiro global.

Em todos os casos, o preço de se desafiar os EUA é muito alto. Não apenas para os relatores, que não podem realizar plenamente o seu trabalho. Mas, sobretudo, para os futuros relatores e especialistas – o recado é: não mexam com os interesses dos EUA e de seus aliados (sobretudo Israel), caso contrário sua carreira será arruinada.

Basta ver que, comparativamente aos países do chamado “Sul Global”, a abordagem dos funcionários independentes da ONU é muito mais amistosa com os EUA e seus aliados e os casos expostos nesta série são exceções da regra número um das Nações Unidas: atue contra os países alvo da cobiça imperialista.

Aqueles, que são a maioria, que seguiram perfeitamente o roteiro da ONU e investiram contra a Rússia, China, Belarus, Coreia do Norte, Venezuela, Irã, Nicarágua (ou seja, contra os alvos do imperialismo) tiveram sua carreira garantida, com premiações, sucesso, prestígio, forte apoio diplomático ocidental, ampla repercussão nos grandes jornais, intensa circulação de seus relatórios em ONGs e governos e audiências parlamentares, sanções e resoluções baseadas em suas acusações.

Por sua vez, os que desafiaram as estruturas e os chefes imperialistas da ONU são basicamente censurados, invisibilizados, descredibilizados, caem no ostracismo, sofrem intensa pressão psicológica, ameaças, sanções econômicas e proibição de entrada em eventos internacionais – inclusive os da própria ONU, pois sua sede central é justamente nos Estados Unidos.

Tenhamos um pouco de empatia com os burocratas a serviço da ONU: quem que deseje subir na vida e receber amplo prestígio mundial irá arriscar sua carreira colocando o dedo nas feridas dos seus patrões? Praticamente ninguém. E é assim que a ONU permanece quase absolutamente instrumentalizada pelas potências imperialistas, desde o primeiro momento de sua criação.

Dalla Jugoslavia alla Libia, il messaggio è chiaro: giustizia solo per i nemici dell’America.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Fatou Bensouda, ex procuratore capo della Corte penale internazionale, ha recentemente rivelato che il Mossad ha esercitato pressioni dirette su di lei nel tentativo di bloccare le indagini sui famigerati crimini commessi da Israele durante il genocidio a Gaza.

Il primo approccio ha avuto luogo presso la sua stessa abitazione all’Aia. «Sono venuti direttamente a casa mia», ha dichiarato ad Al Jazeera. Successivamente, l’allora capo del Mossad, Yossi Cohen, ha tenuto personalmente degli incontri con Bensouda, durante i quali ha minacciato lei e la sua famiglia qualora le indagini fossero proseguite.

Un’altra rivelazione fatta da Bensouda — che, tuttavia, non ha ricevuto altrettanta attenzione — è stata che, sebbene avessero rintracciato i numeri di telefono degli agenti e ne avessero identificato l’origine in Israele, i funzionari responsabili della sicurezza presso la CPI e le autorità olandesi non hanno dato seguito al caso di intimidazione. «Mi sono sentita abbandonata. Mi sono sentita priva di sostegno», ha confessato Bensouda.

Le sue dichiarazioni costituiscono una nuova prova della protezione concessa a Israele dalle istituzioni multilaterali. Inoltre, indicano che queste istituzioni forniscono tale protezione proprio perché sono controllate dalle potenze imperialiste — le stesse potenze che hanno creato lo Stato di Israele e lo hanno sostenuto fino ad oggi, anche durante il genocidio a Gaza.

La Corte penale internazionale — nota anche come Corte dell’Aia — è stata uno degli strumenti imperialisti più importanti per attaccare i paesi i cui governi sono scomodi alla dittatura degli Stati Uniti e dei loro alleati europei, impiegando un doppio standard sempre più evidente. Creata per perseguire i crimini commessi in tempo di guerra, con il consenso dei sistemi giudiziari locali e solo quando questi ultimi erano incapaci di farlo a causa delle conseguenze della guerra, la CPI si è trasformata nel padrone del diritto internazionale e persino delle giurisdizioni nazionali.

Perseguire i nemici

«La CPI è diventata uno strumento di pressione e destabilizzazione contro i paesi poveri», ha dichiarato il ministro della Giustizia del Burundi nel 2016, annunciando il ritiro del paese dalla corte internazionale.

Negli ultimi anni si è verificata una vera e propria ribellione tra i paesi africani contro la CPI, che sembra interessata solo a perseguire i leader di quel continente. Jacob Zuma ha tentato di ritirare il Sudafrica, ma la magistratura sudafricana ha annullato la sua decisione e poco dopo è stato destituito in quello che è stato a tutti gli effetti un colpo di Stato — un evento che puzza chiaramente di cospirazione imperialista contro il leader nazionalista dell’African National Congress.

Poco dopo, la Corte penale internazionale ha accusato i leader della Costa d’Avorio di “crimini contro l’umanità” per giustificare un colpo di Stato promosso dalla Francia (assolvendoli in seguito, ma solo dopo che il colpo di Stato si era già consolidato).

Forse il caso più scandaloso (o che dovrebbe esserlo) è stata la detenzione all’Aia di Slobodan Milošević. Dopo la caduta dell’Unione Sovietica e del blocco orientale, la Jugoslavia era l’unico paese al di là dell’ex «cortina di ferro» a mantenere un regime sovrano, con Milošević alla sua guida. Le potenze imperialiste si mossero per sbarazzarsi di lui: alimentarono una serie di guerre per disintegrare la Jugoslavia, bombardarono la Serbia e successivamente promossero una rivoluzione colorata.

Non contente di tutto ciò, hanno utilizzato il Tribunale penale internazionale per l’ex Jugoslavia (un laboratorio giuridico e istituzionale per quello che sarebbe poi diventato la Corte penale internazionale) per accusare Milošević di essere responsabile della pulizia etnica in Bosnia. È stato incarcerato all’Aia ed è morto nel 2006 prima di ricevere una sentenza perché i responsabili della sua detenzione gli hanno negato le cure mediche di cui aveva bisogno.

Dieci anni dopo, il tribunale ha finalmente riconosciuto di non aver trovato prove sufficienti per condannarlo. Non ce n’erano state — né erano necessarie, poiché la missione era già stata compiuta: la Jugoslavia non esisteva più e le sue rovine erano passate nelle mani degli Stati Uniti e dell’Unione Europea.

Muammar Gheddafi subì un destino simile a quello di Milošević anni dopo. La Corte penale internazionale (CPI) fornì inoltre il proprio sostegno all’assassinio del leader arabo e alla distruzione della Libia. L’allora procuratore capo della CPI, Luis Moreno Ocampo, era un uomo legato alle università americane e israeliane e all’ONG Transparency International.

Basandosi esclusivamente su articoli pubblicati da giornali che sostenevano l’invasione della Libia — e che a loro volta erano sostenuti dai governi invasori della Libia — Ocampo ha raccolto presunte prove per incriminare Gheddafi, suo figlio e suo genero. Probabilmente ha riso proprio come Hillary Clinton quando è stata applicata una giustizia di stampo imperiale contro Gheddafi.

Più recentemente, la Corte penale internazionale ha emesso un mandato di arresto contro Vladimir Putin sulla base di ciò che l’autore definisce una vera e propria menzogna: che la Russia avesse rapito bambini ucraini. In realtà, la maggioranza della popolazione del Donbass, oppressa dal regime ucraino dal 2014, si considera russa e ha sostenuto l’integrazione delle proprie regioni nella Federazione Russa attraverso un referendum.

I bambini del Donbass sono fuggiti in Russia insieme alle loro famiglie alla ricerca di un luogo sicuro per sfuggire ai bombardamenti e ai massacri perpetrati dalle forze militari e paramilitari fasciste che agiscono su ordine di Kiev. Circa 15.000 persone sono morte per mano del regime ucraino tra il 2014 e il 2022, e da allora sono stati commessi ulteriori massacri, ma questo non ha importanza per la CPI.

Nel prossimo articolo vedremo come la CPI protegga le potenze imperialiste – che sono le nazioni più criminali del mondo – e la composizione della struttura interna della Corte, dominata dagli interessi imperialisti a tutti i livelli, garantendone il funzionamento come strumento di controllo e dittatura sui paesi poveri.

Hungary's long reckoning with alleged graft is shifting from accusations to prosecutions, the country's anti-corruption watchdog has told Politico. Senior figures from Viktor Orbán's former government could face charges over EU money the authority believes was systematically misused. Those words arrive as Orbán's successor works to rebuild trust with Brussels and reclaim funds frozen for years.

Senior officials in the crosshairs

Ferenc Pál Biró, who heads the Hungarian Integrity Authority, said top politicians "can and may well be prosecuted." He described it as an alleged effort to bilk EU taxpayers over the course of Orbán's 16 years in power. His team had flagged several criminal cases, he said. Biró wants Hungary to recover the money and have it repatriated, since most has already left the country. He stopped short of naming Orbán or anyone in his inner circle. 

Explore further

Hungary unblocks $7.7 billion in EU arms payments after dropping two-year veto on Ukraine aid

The alleged procurement scheme

The watchdog claims that three companies won most government contracts at artificially inflated prices. The key figures he laid out:

• Roughly €10 billion paid to just three firms in four years
• About €3.5 billion, the watchdog treats as overpricing tied to corruption risk
• Everyday goods and services billed at multiples of their market value

Biró said tenders were manipulated and that the Hungarian state "became the largest entity on the market."

Explore further

Voted out and facing investigators, Orbán could reach for UN cover, sources say

The watchdog Orbán was made to create

Brussels required the Integrity Authority in 2022 as a condition for releasing frozen money. It monitors how EU funds are spent and sits independently of the government. The body should help unwind patronage empires built under Orbán, spanning construction, utilities, and media. Biró has led it since it launched. Hungary has had billions frozen over corruption and rule-of-law concerns. Orbán himself now faces corruption investigations under the new government.

Bribes and intimidation

Biró said the previous government targeted him while he investigated the scheme. He described attempts at bribery and politically motivated pressure. His wife was offered a job with high pay and no work, he said, though he would not say by whom. He was also held over an accusation of misusing his company car. 

The post Russian Penitentiary System of the 90s: Two Photo Projects From Foreign Authors appeared first on English Russia.

A Dutch pro-abortion organisation has placed lockboxes containing abortion pills across Malta and Gozo, directly challenging one of Europe’s last remaining pro-life countries. The campaign is being presented as a humanitarian intervention […]

The post Abortion Activists Supply Illegal Drugs in Malta, Violating National Law first appeared on The Expose.