Latest news with #SeymourHersh
Russia Today
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Zelensky's end goal is in sight, and so is his end
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine's most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country's presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections. And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump's White House. This is not surprising: Trump's recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, 'Western allies of Ukraine' still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin 'as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.' And according to 'knowledgeable officials in Washington' who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president 'feet first' in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh's confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn't mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries' leaders is always an option. Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington. Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an 'authoritarian slide,' which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title 'Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.' The Economist has detected an 'outrage' in Zelensky's moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization. Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine's two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky's misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is 'what took you so long?' My first articles explaining Zelensky's obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling. But then, I know the reason for the mainstream's delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West. Zelensky's recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his 'friends' in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence. Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there's something authoritarian about the West's top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky's absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president's control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky's attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism. For the Ukrainian news site – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime's aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky's one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn't even done. At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine's fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile. This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky's fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine's reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law. In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we've made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider. Taken together, Zelensky's government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: 'I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I'll fight.' The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the 'value-based' West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West. Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today's Zelensky is not 'turning' to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine's president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022. How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky's Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party 'Servant of the People' for erecting a 'mono-vlada,' that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well. By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine's opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West. The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up 'color-revolution-ed.' How ironic.
Time of India
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
US Journalist Claims Zelensky To Lose Power, His Successor Already Finalised
/ Jul 20, 2025, 04:21PM IST Big claim by an American journalist, Seymour Hersh, citing unnamed US officials regarding Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Hersh said that the US is discussing a possible forced change of power in Ukraine. He added that if Zelensky refuses to leave his office, he will be dragged out by force." The US journalist also revealed that former Ukrainian army chief Valery Zaluzhny is likely to replace Zelensky. Watch this video to know more.
Russia Today
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Zelensky may not last much longer
The political future of Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky appears increasingly uncertain, according to officials in Washington cited by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh. The prospect of the president being replaced by former armed forces commander Valery Zaluzhny is reportedly growing amid waning domestic support and mounting frustration in Washington. Zelensky suspended national elections under martial law and opted not to step down after his presidential term officially ended in 2024. His former top military commander, who was dismissed earlier this year and later appointed ambassador to the UK, has reportedly long been considered a potential successor. 'Zelensky is on a short list for exile, if [US] President Donald Trump decides to make the call,' the veteran reporter wrote on Friday. One US official familiar with internal discussions suggested that if Zelensky refuses to step down — which they believe is the most likely scenario — he may ultimately be removed by force. Zaluzhny is currently seen as the most credible successor to Ukraine's leader, according to 'knowledgeable' officials in Washington cited by Hersh, who added that the 'job could be his within a few months.' Zelensky's popularity, which soared to 90% in the early months after the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022, has steadily declined due to battlefield setbacks and ongoing economic difficulties. The latest polls suggest that only 52% of Ukrainians still trust him, while around 60% would prefer he not seek another term. Western media outlets have recently shifted their tone, with some portraying Zelensky as increasingly authoritarian. Others have reported that officials in Washington believe 'it's time for an election and new leadership.' Russian officials have also raised concerns about Zelensky's legitimacy, arguing that any international agreements signed under his leadership could be legally challenged. While Moscow has expressed a willingness to negotiate with Zelensky, it remains skeptical of his authority to finalize any lasting deal.
Russia Today
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Iran moved its enriched uranium before US strikes
Last month's US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities failed to hit the country's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has claimed, citing US officials. The attack, which involved seven US B-2 'Spirit' bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker busters, was not even expected to 'obliterate' the Iranian nuclear program, one of the journalist's sources admitted. 'The centrifuges may have survived and 400 pounds of 60% enriched uranium are missing,' one of the officials said, adding that the US bombs 'could not be assured to penetrate the centrifuge chamber . . . too deep.' The lack of radioactivity at the targeted Iranian nuclear sites – specifically Fordow and Isfahan – following the attack suggest that the enriched uranium stockpile had been moved ahead of time, one US official familiar with the matter said. Fordow, an underground complex built deep inside a mountain that many believed housed the stockpiles, was a particular focus of the attack. The US officials cited by Hersh nevertheless believe that the location of the stockpile and its fate are 'irrelevant' because of the serious damage the strike allegedly dealt to another Iranian nuclear site near the city of Isfahan. The goal of the operation was to 'prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon in the near term – a year or so – with the hope they would not try again,' a US official told Hersh. This could translate into 'a couple of years of respite and uncertain future,' the official added. Following the strikes, US President Donald Trump claimed that the attack 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also told lawmakers that several key sites had been completely destroyed and would take years to rebuild. However, intercepted communications suggested that Tehran had expected a worse impact from the strikes and that the real damage was limited, the Washington Post reported. The strikes were part of a coordinated American-Israeli military campaign launched in mid-June. The Israel Defense Force bombed Iranian targets, claiming that Tehran was close to being able to build a nuclear weapon. Hersh believes that Israel was the 'immediate beneficiary' of the US strike. West Jerusalem does not officially acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons. The Jewish State may still have up to 90 nuclear warheads at its disposal, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Time of India
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
US strikes Iran: How legendary 88-year-old reporter Seymour Hersh scooped that Donald Trump would attack Iranian nuclear sites
In an age where news breaks on social media feeds faster than newsroom alerts, it wasn't CNN, BBC or The New York Times that first reported the United States' military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was Seymour Hersh. Yes, that Seymour Hersh—the 88-year-old Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter, best known for uncovering the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib prison abuses in Iraq. And now, in the summer of 2025, the veteran journalist has done it again—beating major media outlets and intelligence briefings by publishing details of the Trump administration's plan to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, nearly 48 hours before the world knew it had actually happened. The Scoop On June 19, Hersh published a detailed report via his Substack newsletter, claiming that US B-2 bombers and naval platforms were preparing a "coordinated assault" on Iran's underground nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The piece cited unnamed sources in the intelligence community who warned that the operation was imminent and being conducted with minimal oversight from Congress or America's NATO allies. At the time, most dismissed it as another speculative post from a journalist long estranged from the legacy media. But by June 22, when US President Donald Trump went on record confirming the strikes—calling the targets 'obliterated'—Hersh had already been vindicated. The Attack The strikes, launched late on June 21, targeted three high-profile Iranian nuclear facilities. While initial reports from state media in Iran downplayed the damage, satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts suggested precision airstrikes had indeed hit deep underground bunkers at Fordow and Natanz, as well as key infrastructure in Isfahan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Yet despite the intensity of the operation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no significant radiation spikes, prompting speculation that either: Iran had preemptively moved or buried sensitive material, or The sites were largely non-operational or decoy facilities. Either way, it challenged Trump's claim of having 'wiped out' Iran's nuclear capability. Déjà Vu: From Nord Stream to Natanz Hersh's report bore eerie similarities to his controversial 2023 scoop on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which he attributed to US covert operations. At the time, mainstream outlets largely ignored the piece, but subsequent leaks from German and Nordic investigations lent circumstantial credibility to his claims. The Iran story followed a similar arc: initial media silence, public disbelief, and then abrupt confirmation—except this time, the stakes involved possible nuclear escalation in the Middle East. The Media Gap Hersh's scoop once again spotlights the widening chasm between traditional journalism and independent reporting. A 2023 study by the Reuters Institute found that 62% of US adults now rely on social media, newsletters, and independent platforms for breaking news—often citing speed, authenticity, and ideological distrust of legacy media. Hersh, for his part, has long been critical of what he calls the 'lapdog press'—journalists too embedded in officialdom to question military narratives or dig beneath the surface. His latest work only reinforces that critique. Even defenders of legacy media recognize the challenge. In late 2024, Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, penned a stirring op‑ed titled 'The hard truth: Americans don't trust the news media,' in which he conceded: 'Reality is an undefeated champion. … We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement.' Bezos's admission—calling out both accuracy and credibility—served as a tacit acknowledgment that even powerful legacy outlets are circling back to the same core demand: fearless, truthful reporting, just as Hersh delivers time and again. What Next? Iran, for now, has not confirmed the full extent of the damage but has vowed to retaliate 'at a time and place of its choosing.' Meanwhile, in Washington, Trump faces minimal political backlash, with key GOP figures framing the strike as a 'preemptive blow' to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. But the bigger story might be this: Seymour Hersh, nearly nine decades old, once again scooped the world. In an era of TikTok pundits and algorithm-fed outrage, his dogged reliance on old-school sourcing—combined with new-age platforms like Substack—has given him a second act few journalists ever get. Legacy vs Longevity While major networks scrambled to confirm what Hersh had already written, one truth remained clear: in the information war, experience still matters. Hersh's longevity in investigative reporting—not in spite of, but because of his outsider status—continues to disrupt the cosy, slow-moving machinery of legacy media. The attack on Iran may or may not spark a wider conflict. But Hersh's scoop has already ignited a different kind of reckoning—one about where we get our news, and who we still trust to tell us the truth.
