• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Did the U.S. Provoke Russia to Sabotage Nord Stream 2?

by Noah Carl
26 August 2022 10:04 AM

There’s a fair amount of evidence that the U.S. (or let’s say ‘elements within the U.S. foreign policy establishment’) actually wanted Russia to invade Ukraine because they thought it was in America’s strategic interests.

Since the Maidan uprising in late 2013, the U.S. has taken an intense interest in Ukraine, and many of the decisions it has made seem almost designed to provoke Russia. This is not to say they definitely were – which is a matter for debate – only that it’s hard to explain why else the U.S. would have made them.

American officials publicly backed the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ in 2014, which saw the replacement of Ukraine’s pro-Russian government with one made up of pro-Western nationalists. They even helped the Maidan ‘revolutionaries’ behind the scenes, though to exactly what extent is not clear.

When you think about it, this is extremely provocative. Imagine if Chinese officials travelled to Canada, and publicly backed a protest movement seeking to replace Canada’s government with a pro-Chinese one. Americans would be outraged.  

After Ukraine’s president was toppled, the U.S. had significant sway over the new regime. As the most powerful Western country, it could have said, ‘We will not recognise your government unless you do X, Y and Z.’ Despite this, the U.S. allowed almost a quarter of cabinet positions to go to the far-right Svoboda party – a party the EU had previously denounced as “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic”.

Svoboda is not merely far-right, but specifically anti-Russian: the party’s leader once railed against the “Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine”. How hard would it have been for the U.S. to say, ‘We will recognise your government so long as no cabinet positions go to the far-right’? But they made no such demand. In fact, U.S. politicians were pictured smiling and shaking hands with Svoboda’s leader – a man who, in any other context, they would have surely decried.

An NBC News headline from March 2014.

In the following years, the U.S. spent billions of dollars training and equipping Ukraine’s armed forces. (Note that Obama initially opposed arming Ukraine, since doing so could “draw a more forceful response from Moscow”.) The U.S. also began incorporating Ukraine into NATO – something it had a long-known was an absolute red line for Putin. Meanwhile, U.S. senators travelled there to give pep talks to Ukrainian soldiers.

One detail is particularly hard to explain unless you take a cynical perspective. Earlier this year, Zelensky told CNN, “I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO … And the response was very clear: you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly the doors will remain open.” If the U.S. had no intention of letting Ukraine into NATO, why would it want Russia to think the opposite?

In the months leading up to Russia’s invasion, the U.S. even encouraged Ukraine to crack down on the pro-Russian opposition. According to Zelensky’s former national security adviser, the decision to shut down three pro-Russian TV stations was “conceived as a welcome gift to the Biden Administration” and was “calculated to fit in with the U.S. agenda”.

One obvious motivation for U.S. policy was to “see Russia weakened”, in the words of words of Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin. By getting Russia bogged down in a protracted conflict, the U.S. hoped to deplete Russia’s economic resources and perhaps even foment regime change. But was there another reason?

Yes, says journalist Mike Whitney: to sabotage Nord Stream 2. (This was the second pipeline built to transport gas from Russia to Germany. Originally conceived in 2011, construction did not begin until 2018, and was completed in September of 2021.) Here’s the basic argument:

In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power.

This is certainly a provocative theory, but is it true? I’m not aware of any direct evidence, so for the time being it should be regarded with appropriate scepticism. However, there is circumstantial evidence, and the theory is sufficiently plausible to be worth discussing.

Nord Stream 2 is the second pipeline across the Baltic sea.

It’s no secret that the U.S. strongly opposed Nord Stream 2 (which has been dead in the water since February 22nd, when Germany pulled the plug after Russia’s recognition of the two breakaway regions).

In April 2017, five European energy companies reached a deal with Gazprom concerning how the pipeline would be financed. Two months later, the U.S. slapped sanctions on Russia in an effort to thwart the project. This prompted sharp rebukes from European leaders, with the German Foreign Minister stating, “Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America.”

Despite delays and higher costs, the project continued. Then in January 2019, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany wrote “threatening letters” to several German companies involved in the pipeline’s construction, warning that they would face sanctions if they continued work on the project. This “very unusual” move was met with “incomprehension” in the German foreign office.

By July of 2021, U.S. officials had “given up on blocking the pipeline’s completion” and were “scrambling to contain the damage”. Under a deal signed by Washington and Berlin, the project would go ahead unless Russia attempts to “use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive acts against Ukraine”.

Over the past five years, U.S. officials have given two main reasons for their opposition to Nord Stream 2: that it would threaten European energy security by increasing the continent’s dependence on Russia; and that it would harm Ukraine by depriving that country of billions in transit fees.

Yet it’s widely recognised the U.S. also had self-interested motives. “By reducing access to Russian gas,” writes historian Sophie Marineau, “it hoped to increase its own exports of liquefied natural gas”. America produces vast quantities of gas through fracking, but has been unable to compete with Russia due to the cost of shipping gas across the Atlantic.

Two months before Russia formally recognised the two breakaway regions, the U.S. still had its sights on Nord Stream 2. As the Financial Times noted on December 8th, “The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany was top of the list when US officials brainstormed potential sanctions that western countries could threaten against Russia.”

Warnings of the pipeline’s demise ramped up as Russia’s invasion day approached. On January 27th, Victoria Nuland stated, “I want to be clear with you today: if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”. (This is the same Victoria Nuland who said “Fuck the EU” in the famous leaked phone call from 2014.) Then on February 7th, Biden stated, “If Russia invades … there will be no longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Victoria Nuland being interviewed about the leaked tape in which she says “Fuck the EU”.

As I said, all the evidence (of which I’m aware) supporting the ‘Nord Stream 2 theory’ is circumstantial. So the theory is far from proven. But if true, it would suggest the U.S. has achieved an important tactical victory, as commentators like Niccolo Soldo have been arguing.

Since Russia’s invasion, not only has Nord Stream 2 been suspended (and the company funding it gone bankrupt), but there has been a surge in U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. What’s more, NATO is stronger than ever, and may soon welcome both Sweden and Finland – granting the U.S. unprecedented access to the Baltic Sea. Meanwhile, nations like Germany have promised to spend more money on defence, some of which will undoubtedly end up in the coffers of U.S. defence contractors.  

Of course, the suspension of Nord Stream 2 and Russia’s counter-sanctions aren’t a ‘win’ for everyone: Europe may now face permanently higher energy prices. As the Belgian Prime Minister recently stated, “The next five to ten winters are going to be difficult”.

Tags: EuropeNord Stream 2United States

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

ONS Data Suggest a Vaccine Fatality Rate in the Over-75s of Up to One Every 275 Doses

Next Post

Energy Crisis? What Energy Crisis? EU Will Urge World’s Biggest Economies to Double Down on Net Zero at COP27

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Hickling
Bill Hickling
2 years ago

Nice piece Chris. Joe Bastardi has also been on this theme recently in his weekly Weather Bell video.

46
0
NeilParkin
NeilParkin
2 years ago

Shhh. Say it quietly, but there might be another variable in all this climate stuff. I’ve noticed it the other day, but none of the scientists seems to. Its a large round thing in the sky. I dont think its very close to us, but it is hot, really hot, It appears each morning, moves across the sky getting warmer and warmer, until it goes below the horizon, when it gets colder, much colder. The other day it went from -5c overnight to +15c in the day, 20 degrees, in a few hours. I was reading something, in the restricted section of course, that it can go as high as 50c. in a few hours.

All this 0.1c by 2050. Its nonsense, obviously. Anyway. Mum’s the word. Don’t want to lose our funding now do we…?

143
0
For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
2 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

There is another variable which seems to have increased significantly over recent decades and is responsible for all the anthropogenic warming – it is called green funding.

109
0
FerdIII
FerdIII
2 years ago
Reply to  For a fist full of roubles

And propaganda, rendering homo sapiens, homo stupidus. The matrix is very good at control and brainwashing.

67
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago
Reply to  For a fist full of roubles

To the tune of coming trillions!

23
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

Whooo you cad! Why didn’t you tell the rest of us about this? Does Antonio Guterres know about it? Please advise him of it,.. it may stop him from being a monumental twathead!

19
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
2 years ago
Reply to  Dinger64

I can’t imagine any force, natural or supernatural, that could achieve that

9
0
soundofreason
soundofreason
2 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

You do realise that that is an out-of-control fusion reactor, don’t you? It should be banned.

22
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago
Reply to  soundofreason

If Billy Gates had his way it would be🤣

14
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
2 years ago
Reply to  Dinger64

Remove the B and the G, you get “ill ates” which is the name of his new insect protein company.

8
0
psychedelia smith
psychedelia smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Dinger64

He absolutely would. CO2 is currently 420PPM – one of the lowest points in the Earth’s history but Bill Gates and his batshit mates want to ‘scrub’ it from our atmosphere. Nobody seems to have pointed out to him that if it drops below 250PPM everything on the planet dies. Including Gates.

21
0
David101
David101
2 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

It’s a bit like saying that my living room isn’t so much being heated by the roaring wood-burning stove, as it is from the CO2 I’m exhaling from my mouth!

0
0
David101
David101
2 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

Earth sits in relatively close proximity to the sun WITHIN the heliosphere (the sun’s atmosphere). Along with geothermal energy, it is one of the two original sources of all the earth’s heat. You could fit about 1.3 million earths within the sun, and it accounts for roughly 99% of the mass of the solar system. It’s like a grain of sand a metre or so away from a giant bonfire… But of course solar activity can have nothing at all do with climate change – it’s all our fault, obviously!

2
0
nige.oldfart
nige.oldfart
2 years ago

Thank you for an excellent article, a touch of common sense amongst so much shrieking and hysteria. Who would have thought that a chain of active volcano’s in antarctica, would not cause some warming of those waters.

71
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
2 years ago

There’s only one (1) thing causing a major, emergency-power requiring event, to which there is only one (1) solution? Which solution, by pure coincidence (of course), can only be provided by multi-billionaires and their acolyte politician buddies who force taxpayers to pay billions in tax money straight into the multi-billionaires pockets? And the multi-billionaires will then turn out to have nothing by way of solution and will then gaslight the entire world saying they and their whore politician buddies never, ever violated any laws, constitutions, fundamental rights, never thieved off the taxpayer and only ever meant to help mankind and it was just ever such bad luck that it failed and they got miserably rich?

Just because the vaxx was not the solution to the “pandemic”, surely does not mean that eradicating all cows and cars on earth is not the solution to “climate change”?

I’d say even Hollywood hacks would think this script is too worn and incredible now, but looking at all the dimbulbs and their EVs and vegan obsession, I guess not. Not being a scientist, maybe I’m just not capable of seeing how cow farts will cause the world to wither and die.

75
0
MTF
MTF
2 years ago

A group of oceanographers led by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego identified in total 19,325 new volcanoes, or seamounts, to add to the existing known total of 24,643. 

To be clear seamounts are mostly extinct volcanoes and these are only new in the sense that they are newly discovered. They haven’t suddenly popped up! Nor has oceanographers’ estimate of the total number of sea mounts changed (it is about 100,000 depending on how you define them). All that has happened is that a lot more have been identified. Perhaps it is not surprising that the main stream media have made little of this research.

I should add that the referenced paper did not “Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change”. All it did was map sea mounts. In fact there is no mention of climate in the paper at all!

Last edited 2 years ago by MTF
12
-21
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

Chris Morrison’s article made it very clear that these are discoveries of existing seamounts and I don’t think anyone would imagine that they’ve suddenly popped up.

And also his article doesn’t claim that the referenced paper explicitly uncovers ‘the role of undersea volcanoes in climate change’. The headline may suggest it, but I suspect that the Daily Sceptic’s clickbait headlines are not written by the writers of the articles.

21
-1
MTF
MTF
2 years ago
Reply to  godknowsimgood

The headline may suggest it, but I suspect that the Daily Sceptic’s clickbait headlines are not written by the writers of the articles.

Whoever wrote it, the headline is false and should be corrected.

1
-1
For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

I thought false headlines were a stock in trade of global warming orthodoxy.
And I feel I should remind you that the undersea volcanoes are likely to be in all stages of their lives. I understand that the continents are still subject to movement of tectonic plates and fresh volcanoes arise as a consequence of that, to put it simply for you, molten rock and associated gases ooze out wherever the plates separate or come together. The rock oozing out tends to be quite hot and the gases both carbon and sulphur oxides.
I remind you that putting hot rocks in a pot is one traditional way of cooking.

22
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

See your point, both sides of the science should be considered 👍
Especially as we have knowledge of only 5% of the worlds seabed! (We are more knowledgeable about the surface of the moon!)

Last edited 2 years ago by Dinger64
7
0
zebedee
zebedee
2 years ago

Just reading Michael Palin’s book on the first Antarctic expedition, Erebus. Once they breached the pack ice they soon found a couple of volcanoes – Mt Erebus and Mt Terror on Ross Island.

18
0
varmint
varmint
2 years ago

Back in the seventies people like Stephen Schneider were concerned about global cooling. Today these people have forgotten all about global cooling are now on the global warming gravy train. OfCourse the solution to both these crises was———More Government. mmmm. These people come from the “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste” department of government. But it is still the case that a beautiful hypothesis is easily slain by an ugly fact, and when it comes to climate change there are tons of ugly facts flying around. Not that you would know it because BBC and the rest of the bought and paid for media keep them swept firmly under the carpet ———–SSSSHHHHHH.

48
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago

How on earth do we have the Arrogance to believe we control anything when we’ve only been on the planet for the last 30 seconds of a 24 hour clock?
We are not the owners of this ball! just temporary custodians!
Life will do what it wants, it doesn’t need a verdict from us!
We should be at nature’s feet in humble thankfulness, not spitting in its eye!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dinger64
49
0
Dinger64
Dinger64
2 years ago

Where’s Greta? Obviously learned that all she spake was put in her mouth by others! Hence the quietness when having to speak for herself. A lot has changed since her future being “stolen”! Nothing has changed, and there lies her dumbness! Proof? Pudding? Strangley, the sea hasn’t engulfed her house since she was 15!
She has single handedly done more damage the the world than any human in history! I hope in her “stolen future” she is proud of that fact!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dinger64
33
0
sskinner
sskinner
2 years ago

“…runs the risk of opening discussion about the natural forces surrounding the constantly changing climate”
Please, please please… there are multiple climates on earth, not one. As well as the six major climate zones as defined by the large atmospheric cells, driven by the rotation of the earth and the mass of the atmosphere, there are multiple climates within geographic regions, for example Ethiopia has 14 climates which range from Hot Desert to Humid Subtropical to Subpolar Oceanic.
Climate is defined as “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.” Therefore how would anyone characterize the Earth’s climate (singular)? In addition many people will live on the boundaries between all these climates and will experience change because there is considerable turbulence within the atmosphere and oceans. So far the various tree lines around the world are exactly where they were 200 or more years ago. Russia has not observed the tree line moving north and trees are not moving up mountain ranges. In addition, the six main climate zones mark out, or determine where the rain forests and deserts are and I cannot see how a small increase in the proportion of a trace gas is going to upset any of the convergence zones.

46
0
psychedelia smith
psychedelia smith
2 years ago
Reply to  sskinner

Spot on.

4
0
Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
2 years ago

 fake climate scientists ignore Undersea Volcanoes
************************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane 

Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field 
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE

13
0
psychedelia smith
psychedelia smith
2 years ago

Great article. I’d like to know how much CO2 these new volcanos are emitting each year of the 97% natural portion and frame it against the £3 trillion (or 43 million nurses) we’re spending in an apparent ‘fight’ with the UK’s anthropogenic 0.00001% portion. Does anyone know what the annual overall volcanic contribution to CO2 is?

6
0
MTF
MTF
2 years ago
Reply to  psychedelia smith

volcanic emissions account for less than 1% of CO2 inputs. Human activities account for about 3% but that 3% is responsible for almost all the increase over the last two centuries. Prior to that CO2 levels had hardly changed for thousands of years. CO2 inputs (including volcanoes) had been in balance with outputs.

1
-2
wryobserver
wryobserver
2 years ago

There are lots of places where heat from the earth’s inner layers escapes. These include volcanoes on earth and under the sea, and smaller vents around which a selection of organisms is able to tolerate high heat. The activity of all these varies. We know that major eruptions on land can spill enough stuff (dust and gas) to cause global cooling. We know that underwater eruptions cause sea warming which will affect ocean currents, as will changes in the topography of the ocean floor. None of this is man made and man cannot alter it.

Other causes of localised climate change include deforestation and river diversion. These are man made but may produce profound change that by the butterfly effect causes more distant change. Thus Himalayan deforestation causes a failure of water holdback and contributes to flooding in the Pakistan plains.

Given all of this what is needed is a careful analysis of how much each contributes to climate change, and what each actually does temperature-wise, up or down. I suspect that global emissions are a minute percentage.

12
0
7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago

Yet another great piece, Chris.

Just a reminder that Prof. Ian Plimer’s brilliant book “Heaven and Earth”, way back in 2009, pointed out how many undersea volcanos were known then, and pointed out that this number was without doubt grossly underestimated.(Only a brief mention in a very thorough discussion of Climate, but picked on by the GangGreen zealots even then.)

For this, he got Hedge Fund fraudster Jeremy Grantham’s Imperial College Climate Rottweiler, Bob Ward, to run one of his bogus attacks on Plimer in the Times and George Monbiot to ‘interview’ Plimer on Aussie TV.

“What a rude young man!” as Plimer pointed out when the Moonbat spewed out his lies but refused to engage in any discussion.

Fortunately, His dopey Majesty Charles III’s wise old dad had read the book and arranged to discuss the implications face to face with Plimer and Nigel Lawson.

I’d bet anything, that Charles never even bothered to pick it up.

Last edited 2 years ago by 7941MHKB
10
0
Marcus Aurelius knew
Marcus Aurelius knew
2 years ago

“Carbon dioxide is well mixed in the atmosphere so it is a valid scientific question to ask why it only warns the surface in this one patch?”

A very good question.

When I was fourteen, I asked my geography teacher a very similar question about The Hole in The Ozone Layer ™ – why it was only over Antarctica.

I also asked him when The Hole first appeared.

No, I never did get any answers from him.

Last edited 2 years ago by Marcus Aurelius knew
3
0
MTF
MTF
2 years ago
Reply to  Marcus Aurelius knew

When I was fourteen, I asked my geography teacher a very similar question about The Hole in The Ozone Layer ™ – why it was only over Antarctica.
I also asked him when The Hole first appeared.

I am sorry that your geography teacher was so ill informed – but of course I don’t know when you were 14. Nowadays the answers to both questions are available on the internet. The second question is easily answered. The hole was predicted in theory from the 1970s but first observed by the British Antarctic Survey in 1985.

The answer to the first question is more complicated.

The ozone hole over Antarctica is formed by a slew of unique atmospheric conditions over the continent that combine to create an ideal environment for ozone destruction.

  • Because Antarctica is surrounded by water, winds over the continent blow in a unique clockwise direction creating a so called “polar vortex” that effectively contains a single static air mass over the continent. As a result, air over Antarctica does not mix with air in the rest of the earth’s atmosphere.
  • Antarctica has the coldest winter temperatures on earth, often reaching -110 F. These chilling temperatures result in the formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSC’s) which are a conglomeration of frozen H2O and HNO3. Due to their extremely cold temperatures, PSC’s form an electrostatic attraction with CFC molecules as well as other halogenated compounds

As spring comes to Antarctica, the PSC’s melt in the stratosphere and release all of the halogenated compounds that were previously absorbed to the cloud. In the antarctic summer, high energy photons are able to photolyze the halogenated compounds, freeing halogen radicals that then catalytically destroy O3. Because Antarctica is constantly surrounded by a polar vortex, radical halogens are not able to be diluted over the entire globe. The ozone hole develops as result of this process.

2
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic EP.37: David Frost on Starmer’s EU Surrender, James Price on Broken Britain and David Shipley on Lucy Connolly’s Failed Appeal

by Richard Eldred
23 May 2025
7

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

28 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

How to Defeat the Westminster ‘Blob’

27 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

What is ‘The Movement Forward’?

28 May 2025
by Charlotte Gill

The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

28 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Starmer Dragged Into Free Speech Union’s Koran-Burning Court Case

28 May 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

19

Dominic Cummings: Nigel Farage Could Definitely be Next PM

15

What is ‘The Movement Forward’?

13

Starmer Dragged Into Free Speech Union’s Koran-Burning Court Case

12

AI Data Centre Blitz Threatens Labour’s Net Zero Hopes

12

The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

28 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Alasdair MacIntyre 1929-2025

27 May 2025
by James Alexander

Lies, Damned Lies and Casualty Numbers in Ancient History

26 May 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Lord Frost: “The Boriswave Was a Catastrophic Error”

26 May 2025
by Laurie Wastell

The Legal Case Against the AfD Has Collapsed

25 May 2025
by Eugyppius

POSTS BY DATE

August 2022
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jul   Sep »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

August 2022
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jul   Sep »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

28 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

How to Defeat the Westminster ‘Blob’

27 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

What is ‘The Movement Forward’?

28 May 2025
by Charlotte Gill

The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

28 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Starmer Dragged Into Free Speech Union’s Koran-Burning Court Case

28 May 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

19

Dominic Cummings: Nigel Farage Could Definitely be Next PM

15

What is ‘The Movement Forward’?

13

Starmer Dragged Into Free Speech Union’s Koran-Burning Court Case

12

AI Data Centre Blitz Threatens Labour’s Net Zero Hopes

12

The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

28 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Alasdair MacIntyre 1929-2025

27 May 2025
by James Alexander

Lies, Damned Lies and Casualty Numbers in Ancient History

26 May 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Lord Frost: “The Boriswave Was a Catastrophic Error”

26 May 2025
by Laurie Wastell

The Legal Case Against the AfD Has Collapsed

25 May 2025
by Eugyppius

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences