US Continues Dangerous Escalations in Ukraine, Sprinting Toward Catastrophe. Plus: Saagar Enjeti on ...

Glenn Greenwald

Politics • Culture • Writing

US Continues Dangerous Escalations in Ukraine, Sprinting Toward Catastrophe. Plus: Saagar Enjeti on Ukraine, Anthrax/COVID, GOP Race, Tucker Carlson, & More

Video Transcript

Glenn Greenwald

May 26, 2023

Watch the full episode here:

Good evening. It's Tuesday, May 23. Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.

Tonight, more major escalations in the U.S. proxy war with Russia in Ukraine as Ukrainian forces step up their incursions over the border and attacks inside of Russia. While all of this occurs, the Biden administration continues its bizarre, unstable and dangerous pattern. It first insists that it will not send a particular weapon or military system to Ukraine because doing so would be far too risky for escalating the war and dragging the U.S. further into that conflict – including risking direct military confrontation between the U.S., the country with the world's second-largest nuclear stockpile, and Russia the country with its largest – only for Biden to then turn around months later and announce that he will, in fact, send exactly that same weapons system they emphatically said they could not supply to Ukraine due to the serious dangers. They first did this with Patriot missile batteries, which Biden said at the start of the war he would never send to Ukraine, only to announce, suddenly, in December of last year, that it would send them. The same thing happened with Abrams tanks. Biden spent all of 2022 adamantly rejecting Ukraine's pleas for them only to reverse himself this year, by announcing the U.S. would send 31 tanks, just to start. And it just happened again, this time with F-16 fighter jets, which easily have the capacity to fly deep into Russia and bomb Russian targets. Biden was particularly emphatic that sending some of the U.S.'s most potent and complex fighter jets would create far too large of a risk of a major escalation, including their use to bomb Russia. Yet, last week, Biden once again reversed himself, telling President Zelenskyy those jets were coming and that the U.S. would begin training Ukrainian pilots on how to use them.

This is the living, breathing embodiment of creeping out-of-control escalation. What is declared unthinkably dangerous and risky one month becomes official government war policy the next. On this path, it seems far more likely than not now the U.S. will find itself in some sort of direct military confrontation with Russia. How would the U.S. react if a neighboring country was repeatedly striking American soil using missiles, tanks and fighter jets supplied by China, Russia, or Iran?

As has been the case since the start of this war, the question continues to be what U.S. interests or benefits possibly justify trifling with these increasingly dangerous risks, especially given Washington's position for two decades under both parties that Ukraine was never and never would be a vital interest to the United States. We'll evaluate the question once again in the context of these latest war escalations.

Then, for our interview segment, we'll speak with one of the most impressive success stories in independent media, Saagar Enjeti, host of the wildly popular “Breaking Points” program, which successfully broke away from the corporate media outlet where it was born under a different name, The Hill, to find an even larger audience and greater influence as a fully independent program.

We'll talk to Saagar, who got his start in journalism working with Tucker Carlson, in The Daily Caller, about Ukraine and the increasingly significant role of the U.S. in that war, the state of the GOP primary, and whether Ron DeSantis represents an ongoing breakaway from the GOP establishment or an attempt by that establishment to regain control of the party. We'll discuss the program we did here last night on the various mysteries of the 2001 anthrax attacks and the light it shines on the current attempt to determine dispositively the origins of the COVID pandemic. And we'll talk about the nature of independent media, including the recent decision by Tucker Carlson once he was fired by Fox to put his show, at least for now, onto Twitter.

This being Tuesday, as soon as we're done with our one-hour show, live, here on Rumble, we will move to Locals for our interactive aftershow to take your questions and comment on your feedback, something we do every Tuesday and Thursday night. To obtain access to that aftershow where we respond to your feedback and I address criticism, simply sign up as a member of our Locals community. The red join button is right below the video player here. System Update is also available in podcast form. You can follow us on every major podcasting platform, including Spotify and Apple, 12 hours after our shows are broadcast live, here on Rumble.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.

There is a lot to say about the war in Ukraine, particularly what has now indisputably become the U.S. proxy war with Russia using Ukraine as the sacrifice or as the platform. Observing that the U.S. was intending to use Ukraine as a proxy war with Russia was once taboo to say, anyone who said it was immediately – needless to say – branded a Russian agent, or a pro-Russian propagandist, and yet now nobody disputes that characterization. How can you? It is like every hallmark of a classic proxy war and there are some really serious escalations taking place right now as we speak, escalating numbers and types of Ukrainian attacks into Russian territory using American weapons systems, including weapons systems the Biden administration repeatedly vowed not to send, only to send them. While there are greater incursions by the Ukrainian or Ukrainian allied forces into Russia, striking Russian targets and killing Russian people with American weapons, the Biden administration reversed its most emphatic decree that it would never send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, given their capacity to strike deep into Russian territory. By having Joe Biden announce to President Zelenskyy that the F-16s are on their way and that the U.S. will begin training Ukrainian pilots on how to use them, I think the most striking part of this war – and we will talk about a lot of this with Saagar Enjeti when he comes on in just a little bit – is that there has been no campaign of propaganda and disinformation that even compares to the one surrounding the war in Ukraine, at least since the war in Iraq.

We spent last night devoting our entire show to just a prong of propaganda that led to that war in Iraq. The effort to falsely and thoroughly link the Iraqi government to the anthrax attacks, which the FBI seven years later said came actually not from the Iraqi government, but from the American government, from a U.S. Army lab in Fort Detrick, where, as it turns out, according to the FBI, the U.S. government was working with highly sophisticated, deadly strains of anthrax, something it had long claimed it never does, and something it still continues to claim it does not do.

This propaganda is hard to overstate. There was just outright lie after outright lie after outright lie emanating from leading political figures and U.S. media outlets from the very start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year and two months ago. To underscore that, I want to show you an interview that was recently given by Jeffrey Sachs, whose establishment resume is way too long for me to recite. Basically, he became a very well-known and well-regarded economics professor at Harvard in the 1980s, where he became renowned for helping countries avoid or solve hyperinflation. He became very close to a lot of governments, including in Bolivia and Poland and then in Russia. He's been at the center of some of the most important historical events of the last 40 years. He often was hosted on the most establishment television programs. He still manages to appear on “Morning Joe”, despite the fact that he has become a real heretic when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and even the COVID pandemic, where he originally was asked to lead a COVID task force because of his views that the U.S. government mostly had it right, only to then begin questioning a lot of the core pieties. And here he is talking about the role the U.S. media has played in disseminating a level of propaganda that is at least as severe and glaring and flagrant as the propaganda that led us into Iraq. He's specifically talking about the role The Washington Post has played in that, in the context of the obvious lies that our government and our media have spread in order to avoid having Americans realize the obvious that when the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up, one of the worst environmental disasters in all of human history, an act of industrial terrorism – it was a pipeline that connects Russia to Germany to allow Russia to sell cheap natural gas to the Europeans, something that the United States has long wanted to terminate because it will then force the Europeans to buy natural gas in the United States – when it was blown up, it was so obvious it was done, at least, with the consent of, if not led by the American military. And yet, not only was that instantly denied by the corporate media, but they also actually tried convincing people of something so preposterous that nobody should be able to say with a straight face, namely that it was Russia that blew up its own pipeline – a kind of false flag claim, a conspiracy theory that when it comes to that of the United State is completely impermissible to entertain, and yet it's constantly asserted when it comes to Russia. The same thing was said when a drone attack took place over the Kremlin at the time that President Putin was inside the Kremlin and released what appeared to be a bomb near the Kremlin and we heard, “Oh, that was just Russia launching a false flag operation against itself. They attacked itself just like they blew up its own pipeline.”

Here's Jeffrey Sachs, again, somebody whose life has been immersed in establishment sectors, at Harvard, with economics and macroeconomics, somebody who has been given access to mainstream media outlets. We're going to have him on our show very shortly. He has an extremely interesting history. Lots of misperceptions about his ideological directory, which I'll cover. But listen to what he says about the role of mainstream media outlets in this war in Ukraine.

I should say he's talking here to Bob Wright, who is a critic of the war in Ukraine and has a show in his Bloggingheads.tv – it's been about 15 years. It was one of the early pioneers of blogging. You're able to have people on in a split-screen format to debate each other. Listen to what Jeffrey Sachs says.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1660327241467801603

(Video. Bloggingheads.tv. May 21, 2023)

Jeffrey Sachs: I tell you when Nord Stream was blown up, I had a chat with a long-time friend, actually a classmate of mine from Harvard from decades ago, who was a senior reporter in one of the most important newspapers. I said, you know what? I think the U.S. did it. And he said, Of course, the U.S. did it. Who else? And I said, Humm… maybe your paper could mention something like that. It just today said the Russians did it. He said, come on, Jeff. Come on. I said, Are you kidding? Could we have a serious discussion of this? And he said to me, You know, the editors are not so interested in that. And I said – this is a friend from decades – I said, You know, when I was young, I turned to your newspaper because of Watergate, because of the Pentagon Papers, and I loved it. And he said to me, ‘That paper is so dead and gone, Jeff, you have to understand that.’ And I cannot imagine, you know, this is a really talented guy. A lead columnist, a lead journalist, I should say, and he's telling me the paper that I loved is dead and gone. If you ask me why, I really cannot figure it out why a paper doesn't want to eat the government over the head when it tells ridiculous stories like Nord Stream was blown up by six people on a boat like they tried for one day. Okay, Come on. This is... This was put up by serious media? Because it was almost a joke from the intelligence agency. Why these media are so in line with official narratives? I don't fully understand. I know all the theories – money, advertising, power and many other things – but the truth is it's dreadful compared to what it was 40 years ago. Dreadful. And it's gotten a lot worse.

I think that is the key point when it comes to understanding the role of these media outlets, as he said, why are they so in line with official narratives? People often debate what is the ideology of the media. I've talked about this before. For decades, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh would insist that the media was biased in the sense that they were liberals, they were Democrats. I think that tells a part of the story when it comes to things like the culture war, for example. They're clearly biased in favor of American liberalism. These are people who went to East Coast colleges. They're no longer people who come from working-class backgrounds, primarily, it's not a working-class profession any longer at the national level. So, these are cosmopolitan people who go get educated on the East Coast. The national media live in New York; they live in Washington, so, they have the cultural views and biases of their environment. But when it comes to foreign policy, it's not really so much being biased in favor or against the Democratic Party or American liberalism. After all, it was The New York Times, and as we've shown you, Jeffrey Goldberg at The New Yorker, and so many other leading liberal institutions – foreign policy writers at liberal outlets – that took the lead role in selling the Iraq war to the American people. Their primary overarching fidelity is not to a particular political party or ideology, at least when it comes to foreign policy, that is, instead, they are completely in servitude to the U.S. security state and to the foreign policy community. That is what foreign policy and war exist for them to do: to propagate whatever these institutions tell them to say. That's where Russiagate came from. That is where so many of the frauds that we have suffocated under, including all the lies from COVID came from. This is what they exist to do, as he said, to reflect the ideology and the propaganda of establishment institutions.

From the very beginning, there has been, as you probably recall, a series of lies told about the war in Ukraine. I would have to devote an entire show to listing them but we have a series of tweets that you may recall from the then-congressman, nominally Adam Kinzinger, who is now a CNN commentator, who from the start of the war just begun outright lying, spreading complete campaigns of disinformation. And in a way, we chose this example, because of how ridiculous it is, but in another way, because of how blatant the lie was, it was a reference to the “Ghost of Kyiv,” some supposedly heroic Ukrainian fighter jet pilot who had managed courageously to shoot down a huge number of Russian planes all by himself and he got turned into this hero called the “Ghost of Kyiv.”

Here you see Adam Kinzinger's tweet in February 2020 right at the start of the war where he falls for an Internet scam. This is a picture of somebody who is constantly used for all sorts of Internet fake, Sam Hide, and Adam Kinzinger fell for it like the idiot that he is.

The #ghostofkyiv has a name and he has absolutely OWNED the Russian air force. Godspeed and more kills, Samuyil! (@Adam Kinzinger. Feb. 25, 2022)

Samuyil Hyde is the Ukrainian version of the name for Sam Hide, who is constantly used by all right sites and other scam sites in a kind of frivolous way to create fakes that this moron fell for. But here he is, spreading it even more seriously.

On the same day:

To the #ghostofkyiv, we raise a glass. Here is to even more! (@Adam Kinzinger. Feb. 25, 2022)

There have been fact-checks since then that there is no such thing as the ghost of Kyiv. There were similar lies told about the Russian battlefield being told to go fuck yourself by a group of very heroic Ukrainians who fought to the death on an island when in reality they were safely captured. The whole thing was a complete fairy tale. He'd spread that as well. And what amazes me is that this person – whom we know, deliberately told lies, just spread campaigns of disinformation while a member of the U.S. Congress to support a war, just like was done at the start of the Iraq war and for years after – after being exposed for spreading lies and propaganda on purpose, got hired by CNN, where he now works as a commentator. The network that incessantly tells you that they're there to combat disinformation, that you have to trust them to decree truth and falsity because you and independent media cannot be trusted to do it.

This is not the first known liar they've hired. They got hired James Clapper, President Obama's senior national security official, after he got caught lying to Congress, three months before we began the Snowden reporting, by telling the U.S. Senate, falsely, that the NSA does not collect data on millions of Americans when in fact, three months later, we showed that the NSA is doing exactly that. So, there was another proven liar inside the government that CNN hired.

Probably the most prolific chronic liar of the Trump era when it comes to media is a woman named Natasha Bertrand, who was a hardcore Russiagate or who promoted every single fraud that became part of Russiagate from Trump and the Alfa Bank to Russian bounties in Afghanistan to the Steele dossier. And every time she lied, she got promoted. She went from Business Insider to MSNBC. Then she ended up at The Atlantic, where Jeffrey Goldberg, who's now the editor-in-chief after telling his eyes that led to the Iraq war, got promoted. Then she ended up at Politico, where she was the first to break the CIA lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. She, too, got promoted or hired to CNN after getting caught lying. These people are not getting hired by CNN, despite the fact that they're liars. They're getting hired precisely because they're liars. It's a requirement for the job. That’s what these media outlets exist to do, as Jeffrey Sachs just said. They're there to say whatever is necessary to be in alignment with and promote the agenda of the establishment, the U.S. security state, even if it means outright lying, like trying to convince you of the absurdity, the face of absurdity, that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

Let's take a look at what I referenced earlier as the overarching question here, which is why is it that the United States is willing to risk and trifle with these incredibly grave dangers with the world's largest nuclear stockpile? We're getting closer and closer to direct military confrontation. You now have Ukrainian soldiers with highly offensive weapons, highly sophisticated weapons enabled by the United States, supplied by the United States, going into Russia and bombing and killing Russians inside Russia. And they're now going to have F-16s sent in, delivered by the Biden administration, after a series of bizarre reversals that shows how unhinged this war policy is. And what is particularly bizarre about this and I want to talk to Saagar about this when he comes on, because I genuinely think it's mystifying in a way, is that, for at least a decade, in Washington, bipartisan Washington, the view of the bipartisan class in Washington and the foreign policy community was that there is no vital interest for the United States in Ukraine. This doctrine of vital interest is crucial. It says where are we willing to go to war? For what are we willing to go to war? Which countries are vital enough to our interests to risk justifying military confrontation? And there's nothing in Ukraine that has ever been considered a vital interest to the United States, to the point where, in April 2016, that very same Jeffrey Goldberg, who rose to become the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic after getting caught telling multiple lies while at The New Yorker, he was one of President Obama's favorite journalists, this neocon. Obama sat down with him to discuss what Jeffrey Goldberg titled “The Obama Doctrine - The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America's role in the world.” And one of the things Jeffrey Goldberg badgered him about was Obama's refusal to do more for Ukraine, to arm Ukraine, to punish the Russians for taking Crimea. And Jeffrey Goldberg kept saying, why didn't you do more to protect Ukraine? Why didn't you do more to arm Ukraine, to use Ukraine to hurt Russia? And here's what Obama said:

Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest, but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” Obama said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic. “It's realistic”, he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's always going to be some ambiguity.” He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down.
I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that Obama that that's how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not that important to us, they know that, and we know that,” he said. There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we should consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. (Jeffrey Goldberg. May 2, 2022)

And Obama describes it that way because it's facially absurd that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Obama said they should speak up and be very clear about it. He wanted them to say that. These militarists in the Republican Party, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, who were attacking him for not doing more to confront Russia, he said stand up and say, if you believe it, that we should risk war with Russia over Ukraine.

The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision-making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years. (Jeffrey Goldberg. May 2, 2022)

In other words, it's so absurd that we would go to war or risk war with Russia over who rules eastern Ukraine, that Obama was daring his critics to stand up and say it because, of course, they didn't want to say they were willing to risk war with Russia over Ukraine. And yet that's exactly what U.S. policy has become. We are risking war with Russia, undoubtedly, indisputably over nothing more than the question of who rules various provinces in eastern Ukraine. The reason Obama didn't go to war with Russia or didn't really take strong action against Russia when it annexed Crimea was because he knew that the people of Crimea wanted to be under Russian rule, wanted to be under Moscow rule, just like the people of Kosovo wanted independence from Serbia. And the precedent we set was that the people of this province want independence enough, they should have it. That's why Kosovo is now an independent country. And it's indisputably true that Crimea and the people in it consider themselves far more Russian than Ukrainian. It's long been true as well for the people of eastern Ukraine. And so why would we possibly continue to trifle with war with a nuclear-armed power over any of this?

It wasn't just Barack Obama who thought this. There was a president after him, named Donald Trump, who thought the same thing. In fact, when Trump saw the Republican Party's platform when it came to Ukraine, it seemed like it was written by neocons – John McCain, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and that crowd – basically saying, We will always arm Ukraine. We will stand by Ukraine. Trump thought that was insane. Just like Trump thought it was insane that the U.S. is trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria and risk confrontation there through the CIA. Trump's position was why would we try to change the government of Syria? We should cooperate with Russia and Syria to kill ISIS and al-Qaida. Why would we want to change the government of Syria? He thought the same thing about Ukraine. He expresses it in Trumpian ways but it was the same position Obama had, which was risking war with Russia or harming the United States to protect Ukraine from Russia is insanity. And so, he had the GOP platform changed and, amazingly – and this is when I really began realizing how insane the establishment become when it came to Russiagate – they used the change in that platform, which just reflected Trump's view of pragmatism in media to avoid words that weren't a direct threat to the United States, to claim that this was proof somehow that Trump was in the Kremlin's pocket. That he took the same position Obama did, which is there's nothing in Ukraine worth going to war with Russia over.

From The Washington Post:

“Trump Campaign Guts GOP’s Anti-Russia Stance on Ukraine”

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won't call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington. (The Washington Post. July 18, 2016)

Oh, perish the thought! “Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington” have been so correct about everything you would never want to contradict them. This was a major prong of Russiagate. The fact that Trump basically adopted Obama's view against the GOP establishment, against the Democratic establishment that said Ukraine is not a vital interest to the United States. We should not risk anything, much less war with Russia to care about what happens there. What changed in Washington that we have now gone from we will never send Patriot missile batteries, we will never send Abrams tanks, we will never send F-16s to, one after the next, sending all of those?

Back in March 2022, at the start of the war, the establishment figure, Niall Ferguson wrote an article in Bloomberg that expressed the view that at the time was considered evil, which is basically that the United States only has one goal in Ukraine, which is not to protect the Ukrainian people. The inspiring script, the moralistic narrative, the fairy tale we were fed just like we were told we were going to Iraq to deliver democracy to the Iraqi people, we were going to war in Libya to bring democracy to the Libyans, we were going to try and take out Bashar al-Assad with the CIA secret war because we wanted to help the Syrian people – we're not in Ukraine to help the Ukrainian people. Niall Ferguson said after talking to both British and American senior foreign policy officials that the real reason we're in Ukraine was the opposite. It was to sacrifice Ukraine, to destroy Ukraine, in order to bleed Russia. The country suffering the most from this war, really, the only country is Ukraine. Their entire country is being destroyed. Their people are dying in huge numbers. Their buildings are all being blown to bits, at least in the parts where this war is. And the people who are benefiting most are the elites in the West. They have a new war for their arms manufacturers, pundits get to feel Churchillian and purposeful and strong writing in favor of this war from a safe distance. But this is what Niall Ferguson said at the very beginning: the real goal was to sacrifice Ukraine and Ukrainians and not protect them.

“American officials are divided on how much the lessons from Cold War proxy wars like the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan can be applied to the ongoing war in Ukraine.” David Sanger reported for the New York Times on Saturday. According to Sanger, who cannot have written this piece without high-level sources, the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential path to de-escalation. CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to American officials. Reading this carefully, I conclude that the U.S. intends to keep this war going. The administration will continue to supply the Ukrainians with anti-aircraft Stingers, anti-tank Javelins and explosive Switchblade drones. It will keep trying to persuade other NATO governments to supply heavier defensive weaponry. (The latest U.S. proposal is for Turkey to provide Ukraine with the sophisticated S-400 anti-aircraft system, which Ankara purchased from Moscow just a few years ago. I expect it to go the way of the scuttled plan for Polish MiG fighters.)
Washington will revert to the Afghanistan-after-1979 playbook of supplying an insurgency only if the Ukrainian government loses the conventional war. I have evidence from other sources to corroborate this. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime.” Until then, all the time Putin stays, Russia will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. I gather that senior British figures are talking in similar terms. There is a belief that “the UK's number one option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.” Again and again, I hear such language.
It helps explain, among other things, the lack of diplomatic effort by the U.S. to secure a cease-fire. It also explains the readiness of President Joe Biden to call Putin a war criminal. (March 22, 2022)

And that indeed is exactly what ended up happening. The reality is the only identifiable U.S. interest was achieved in the first month of the war, which was when the U.S. coerced Germany, and then Europe, to cut off the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and to start buying natural gas from the United States. Everything else after that has been trying to do to Ukraine what the United States did to Syria: leave it in ruins by bleeding out the war just long enough, in order to weaken Russia. That is what everything is about, why we're sending $100 billion in weapons, they're depleting our own stockpiles and most dangerously of all, increasingly risking all sorts of new escalations.

We have for you the articles that show how Biden would one month declare he refuses to send the weapons system I mentioned and then months later send the rest. As I told you, the last week brought the worst reversal of all, the most severe and by no means necessarily the last one. We're right now giving them fighter jets, F-16 fighter jets. And of course, the Ukrainians are supposedly promising not to use it to strike deep into Russia. They've repeatedly violated those promises in other ways, using American weapons to strike Russian targets inside Russia. And there are few greater escalatory dangers than that.

As always, the question becomes who is benefiting from this war? It is definitely not you, as American infrastructure crumbles, but the CIA is benefiting, arms manufacturers in the West are definitely benefiting and it's hard to tell who else beyond that. But what is for sure true is that the core doctrine of Washington, a bipartisan foreign policy in Washington, has radically changed, seemingly overnight when it comes to the question of Ukraine. And the only real explanation I can find is that the Democratic Party fed for so long an anti-Russian animus as a result of Russiagate, they really became convinced that what they regard as the greatest, the most cataclysmic event in recent U.S. history – the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the defeat of Hillary Clinton – was due to interference by Moscow. And this is payback for that. We seem to be willing to risk blowing ourselves up over the question of who rules provinces in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas, where the people of that region have always clearly had greater loyalty to Moscow than to Kyiv. And whatever the motive is, ultimately – and ultimately, it was very hard to tell the motive in Iraq: people had different motives for why we invaded that country and occupied it for over a decade – you can see what escalation is unfolding right before your eyes. Never with congressional debate, let alone debate of the American people. In fact, before the midterms, Kevin McCarthy, trying to win the speakership position in the midterm, signals that he would impose limits on the flow of money from the United States to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe. As soon as he won and the Republicans won that election and he got to be the speaker, all of that stopped, and he's now aligned with the biggest hawks and warmongers in the Republican Party saying, “I've always been on the side of Biden when it comes to the war in Ukraine, and I always will be. We stand with Ukraine until the very end.”

So, we have a great guest for you. There he is, Saagar Enjeti.

Only for Supporters

To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 18, 2026

Lindsey Graham: Senator from Tel Aviv

New video: Glenn discusses Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) extreme devotion to Israel.

00:18:06

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 17, 2026

The NYT Performs Loyal Stenography—Masquerading as Journalism—to Protect AOC

The New York Times dutifully protected AOC after her disastrous interview flop at the Munich Security Conference, watch Glenn's reaction here:

00:31:25

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 14, 2026

AOC Makes Her Big Foreign Policy Debut, Falls Flat on Her Face

00:23:22

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

January 09, 2023

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 19, 2026

Good news about your Locals membership and our move to Substack

Dear Locals members:

We have good and exciting news about your Locals membership. It concerns your ability to easily convert your Locals membership to SYSTEM UPDATE into a Substack subscription for our new page, with no additional cost or work required.

As most of you know, on February 6, we announced the end of our SYSTEM UPDATE program on Rumble, or at least an end to the format we’ve used for the last 3 years: as a live, nightly news program aired exclusively on Rumble.

With the end of our show, we also announced that we were very excited to be moving back to Substack as the base for our journalism. Such a move, we explained, would enable us not only to continue to produce the kind of in-depth video segments, interviews, and reports you’ve grown accustomed to on SYSTEM UPDATE, but would also far better enable me to devote substantial time to long-form investigations and written articles. Our ability at Subtack to combine all those forms of journalism will enable (indeed, already is enabling) us to ...

Alice Everyday@AliceEverywhere

February 25, 2026

So last Tuesday was the first day of the Lunar/Chinese New Year (a really special one - the year of the fire horse! :) and I realized that I forgot to wish everyone happy new year last month, too, so Happy New Year to everyone! 🥳whichever one you like to celebrate🎆🥂🎊

The Chinese New year that just ended was the Year of the Snake - definitely was that for me! 😓 it's all about shedding old patterns of thinking and stuff like that - but I'm feeling better now & ready to get back to my art works and everything 🥰

To celebrate, I wanted to share 2 videos - one is a clip from my favorite movie growing up! The Black Stallion :)

There is actually a scene just before this one where a cobra sneaks up on Alec while he is sleeping, and the horse jumps in and thrashes the snake & saves his life! 😱🐍💥🐎

I was going to make a clip of that one instead, bc it seemed the most fitting to me (I mostly associated the horse with water since some of my favorite scenes are of them playing and ...

StuartFoxx@StuartFoxx

February 25, 2026

There was a question in a survey I took today about Glenn.

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 08, 2026

NEW: Message from Glenn to Locals Members About Substack, System Update, and Subscriptions

Hello Locals members:

I wanted to make sure you are updated on what I regard as the exciting changes we announced on Friday night’s program, as well as the status of your current membership.

As most of you likely know, we announced on our Friday night show that that SYSTEM UPDATE episode would be the last one under the show’s current format (if you would like to watch it, you can do so here). As I explained when announcing these changes, producing and hosting a nightly video-based show has been exhilarating and fulfilling, but it also at times has been a bit draining and, most importantly, an impediment to doing other types of work that have always formed the core of my journalism: namely, longer-form written articles and deep investigations.

We have produced three full years of SYSTEM UPDATE episodes on Rumble (our premiere show was December 10, 2022). And while we will continue to produce video content similar to the kinds of segments that composed the show, they won’t be airing live every night at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, but instead will be posted periodically throughout the week (as we have been doing over the last couple of months both on Rumble and on our YouTube channel here).

To enlarge the scope of my work, I am returning to Substack as the central hub for my journalism, which is where I was prior to launching SYSTEM UPDATE on Rumble. In addition to long-form articles, Substack enables a wide array of community-based features, including shorter-form written items that can be posted throughout the day to stimulate conversation among members, a page for guest writers, and new podcast and video features. You can find our redesigned Substack here; it is launching with new content on Monday.

For our current Locals subscribers, you can continue to stay at Locals or move to Substack, whichever you prefer. For any video content and long-form articles that we publish for paying Substack members, we will cross-post them here on Locals (for members only), meaning that your Locals subscription will continue to give you full access to our journalism.

When I was last at Substack, we published some articles without a paywall in order to ensure the widest possible reach. My expectation is that we will do something similar, though there will be a substantial amount of exclusive content solely for our subscribers.

We are working on other options to convert your Locals membership into a Substack membership, depending on your preference. But either way, your Locals membership will continue to provide full access to the articles and videos we will publish on both platforms.

Although I will miss producing SYSTEM UPDATE on a (more or less) nightly basis, I really believe that these changes will enable the expansion of my journalism, both in terms of quality and reach. We are very grateful to our Locals members who have played such a vital role over the last three years in supporting our work, and we hope to continue to provide you with true independent journalism into the future.

— Glenn Greenwald

Read full Article

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 16, 2026

The Epstein Files: The Blackmail of Billionaire Leon Black and Epstein's Role in It

Black's downfall — despite paying tens of millions in extortion demands — illustrates how potent and valuable intimate secrets are in Epstein's world of oligarchs and billionaires.

One of the towering questions hovering over the Epstein saga was whether the illicit sexual activities of the world’s most powerful people were used as blackmail by Epstein or by intelligence agencies with whom (or for whom) he worked. The Trump administration now insists that no such blackmail occurred.

Top law enforcement officials in the Trump administration — such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino — spent years vehemently denouncing the Biden administration for hiding Epstein’s “client list,” as well as concealing details about Epstein’s global blackmail operations. Yet last June, these exact same officials suddenly announced, in the words of their joint DOJ-FBI statement, that their “exhaustive review” found no “client list” nor any “credible evidence … that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” They also assured the public that they were certain, beyond any doubt, that Epstein killed himself.

There are still many files that remain heavily and inexplicably redacted. But, from the files that have been made public, we know one thing for certain. One of Epstein’s two key benefactors — the hedge fund billionaire Leon Black, who paid Epstein at least $158 million from 2012 through 2017 — was aggressively blackmailed over his sexual conduct. (Epstein’s second most-important benefactor was the billionaire Les Wexner, a major pro-Israel donor who cut off ties in 2008 after Epstein repaid Wexner $100 million for money Wexner alleged Epstein had stolen from him.)

Despite that $100 million repayment in 2008 to Wexner, Epstein had accumulated so much wealth through his involvement with Wexner that it barely made a dent. He was able to successfully “pilfer” such a mind-boggling amount of money because he had been given virtually unconstrained access to, and power over, every aspect of Wexner’s life. Wexner even gave Epstein power of attorney and had him oversee his children’s trusts. And Epstein, several years later, created a similar role with Leon Black, one of the richest hedge fund billionaires of his generation.

Epstein’s 2008 conviction and imprisonment due to his guilty plea on a charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” began mildly hindering his access to the world’s billionaires. It was at this time that he lost Wexner as his font of wealth due to Wexner’s belief that Epstein stole from him.

But Epstein’s world was salvaged, and ultimately thrived more than ever, as a result of the seemingly full-scale dependence that Leon Black developed on Epstein. As he did with Wexner, Epstein insinuated himself into every aspect of the billionaire’s life — financial, political, and personal — and, in doing so, obtained innate, immense power over Black.

The recently released Epstein files depict the blackmail and extortion schemes to which Black was subjected. One of the most vicious and protracted arose out of a six-year affair he carried on with a young Russian model, who then threatened in 2015 to expose everything to Black’s wife and family, and “ruin his life,” unless he paid her $100 million. But Epstein himself also implicitly, if not overtly, threatened Black in order to extract millions more in payments after Black, in 2016, sought to terminate their relationship.

While the sordid matter of Black’s affair has been previously reported — essentially because the woman, Guzel Ganieva, went public and sued Black, accusing him of “rape and assault,” even after he paid her more than $9 million out of a $21 million deal he made with her to stay silent — the newly released emails provide very vivid and invasive details about how desperately Black worked to avoid public disclosure of his sex life. The broad outlines of these events were laid out in a Bloomberg report on Sunday, but the text of emails provide a crucial look into how these blackmail schemes in Epstein World operated.

Epstein was central to all of this. That is why the emails describing all of this in detail are now publicly available: because they were all sent by Black or his lawyers to Epstein, and are thus now part of the Epstein Files.

Once Ganieva began blackmailing and extorting Black with her demands for $100 million — which she repeatedly said was her final, non-negotiable offer — Black turned to Epstein to tell him how to navigate this. (Black’s other key advisor was Brad Karp, who was forced to resign last week as head of the powerful Paul, Weiss law firm due to his extensive involvement with Epstein).

From the start of Ganieva’s increasingly unhinged threats against Black, Epstein became a vital advisor. In 2015, Epstein drafted a script for what he thought Black should tell his mistress, and emailed that script to himself.

Epstein included an explicit threat that Black would have Russian intelligence — the Federal Security Service (FSB) — murder Ganieva, because, Epstein argued, failure to resolve this matter with an American businessman important to the Russian economy would make her an “enemy of the state” in the eyes of the Russian government. Part of Epstein’s suggested script for Black is as follows (spelling and grammatical errors maintained from the original correspondents):

you should also know that I felt it necessary to contact some friends in FSB, and I though did not give them your name. They explained to me in no uncertain terms that especially now , when Russia is trying to bring in outside investors , as you know the economy sucks, and desperately investment that a person that would attempt to blackmail a us businessman would immeditaly become in the 21 century, what they terms . vrag naroda meant in the 20th they translated it for me as the enemy of the people, and would e dealt with extremely harshly , as it threatened the economies of teh country. So i expect never ever to hear a threat from you again.

In a separate email to Karp, Black’s lawyer, Epstein instructs him to order surveillance on the woman’s whereabouts by using the services of Nardello & Co., a private spy and intelligence agency used by the world’s richest people.

Black’s utter desperation for Ganieva not to reveal their affair is viscerally apparent from the transcripts of multiple lunches he had with her throughout 2015, which he secretly tape-recorded. His law firm, Paul, Weiss, had those recordings transcribed, and those were sent to Epstein.

To describe these negotiations as torturous would be an understatement. But it is worth taking a glimpse to see how easily and casually blackmail and extortion were used in this world.

Leon Black is a man worth $13 billion, yet his life appears utterly consumed by having to deal constantly with all sorts of people (including Epstein) demanding huge sums of money from him, accompanied by threats of various kinds. Epstein was central to helping him navigate through all of this blackmail and extortion, and thus, he was obviously fully privy to all of Black’s darkest secrets.

At their first taped meeting on August 14, 2015, Black repeatedly offered his mistress a payment package of $1 million per year for the next 12 years, plus an up-front investment fund of £2 million for her to obtain a visa to live with her minor son in the UK. But Ganieva repeatedly rejected those offers, instead demanding a lump sum of no less than $100 million, threatening him over and over that she would destroy his life if he did not pay all of it.

Black was both astounded and irritated that she thought a payment package of $15 million was somehow abusive and insulting. He emphasized that he was willing to negotiate it upward, but she was adamant that it had to be $100 million or nothing, an amount Black insisted he could not and would not pay.

When pressed to explain where she derived that number, Ganieva argued that she considered the two to be married (even though Black was long married to another woman), thereby entitling her to half of what he earned during those years. Whenever Black pointed out that they only had sex once a month or so for five or six years in an apartment he rented for her, and that they never even lived together, she became offended and enraged and repeatedly hardened her stance.

Over and over, they went in circles for hours across multiple meetings. Many times, Black tried flattery: telling her how much he cared for her and assuring her that he considered her brilliant and beautiful. Everything he tried seemed to backfire and to solidify her $100 million blackmail price tag. (In the transcripts, “JD” refers to “John Doe,” the name the law firm used for Black; the redacted initials are for Ganieva):

On other occasions during their meetings, Ganieva insisted that she was entitled to $100 million because Black had “ruined” her life. He invariably pointed out how much money he had given her over the years, to say nothing of the $15 million he was now offering her, and expressed bafflement at how she could see it that way.

In response, Ganieva would insist that a “cabal” of Black’s billionaire friends — led by Michael Bloomberg, Mort Zuckerman, and Len Blavatnik — had conspired with Black to ruin her reputation. Other times, she blamed Black for speaking disparagingly of her to destroy her life. Other times, she claimed that people in multiple cities — New York, London, Moscow — were monitoring and following her and trying to kill her. This is but a fraction of the exchanges they had, as he alternated between threatening her with prison and flattering her with praise, while she kept saying she did not care about the consequences and would ruin his life unless she was paid the full amount:

By their last taped meeting in October, Ganieva appeared more willing to negotiate the amount of the payment. The duo agreed to a payment package in return for her silence; it included Black’s payments to her of $100,000 per month for the next 12 years (or $1.2 million per year for 12 years), as well as other benefits that exceeded a value of $5 million. They signed a contract formalizing what they called a “non-disclosure agreement,” and he made the payments to her for several years on time. The ultimate total value to be paid was $21 million.

Unfortunately for Black, these hours of misery, and the many millions paid to her, were all for naught. In March, 2021, Ganieva — despite Black’s paying the required amounts — took to Twitter to publicly accuse Black of “raping and assaulting” her, and further claimed that he “trafficked” her to Epstein in Miami without her consent, to force her to have sex with Epstein.

As part of these public accusations, Ganieva spilled all the beans on the years-long affair the two had: exactly what Black had paid her millions of dollars to keep quiet. When Black denied her accusations, she sued him for both defamation and assault. Her case was ultimately dismissed, and she sacrificed all the remaining millions she was to receive in an attempt to destroy his life.

Meanwhile, in 2021, Black was forced out of the hedge fund that made him a billionaire and which he had co-founded, Apollo Global Management, as a result of extensive public disclosures about his close ties to Epstein, who, two years earlier, had been arrested, became a notorious household name, and then died in prison. As a result of all that, and the disclosures from his mistress, Black — just like his ex-mistress — came to believe he was the victim of a “cabal.” He sued his co-founder at Apollo, the billionaire Josh Harris, as well as Ganieva and a leading P.R. firm on RICO charges, alleging that they all conspired to destroy his reputation and drive him out of Apollo. Black’s RICO case was dismissed.

Black’s fear that these disclosures would permanently destroy his reputation and standing in society proved to be prescient. An independent law firm was retained by Apollo to investigate his relationship with Epstein. Despite the report’s conclusion that Black had done nothing illegal, he has been forced off multiple boards that he spent tens of millions of dollars to obtain, including the highly prestigious post of Chair of the Museum of Modern Art, which he received after compiling one of the world’s largest and most expensive collections, only to lose that position due to Epstein associations.

So destroyed is Leon Black’s reputation from these disclosures that a business relationship between Apollo and the company Lifetouch — an 80-year-old company that captures photos of young school children — resulted in many school districts this week cancelling photo shoots involving this company, even though the company never appeared once in the Epstein files. But any remote association with Black — once a pillar of global high society — is now deemed so toxic that it can contaminate anything, no matter how removed from Epstein.

None of this definitively proves anything like a global blackmail ring overseen by Epstein and/or intelligence agencies. But it does leave little doubt that Epstein was not only very aware of the valuable leverage such sexual secrets gave him, but also that he used it when he needed to, including with Leon Black. Epstein witnessed up close how many millions Black was willing to pay to prevent public disclosure in a desperate attempt to preserve his reputation and marriage.

In October, The New York Times published a long examination of what was known at the time about the years-long relationship between Black and Epstein. In 2016, Black seemingly wanted to stop paying Epstein the tens of millions each year he had been paying him. But Epstein was having none of it.

Far from speaking to Black as if Epstein were an employee or paid advisor, he spoke to the billionaire in threatening, menacing, highly demanding, and insulting terms:

Jeffrey Epstein was furious. For years, he had relied on the billionaire Leon Black as his primary source of income, advising him on everything from taxes to his world-class art collection. But by 2016, Mr. Black seemed to be reluctant to keep paying him tens of millions of dollars a year.
So Mr. Epstein threw a tantrum.
One of Mr. Black’s other financial advisers had created “a really dangerous mess,” Mr. Epstein wrote in an email to Mr. Black. Another was “a waste of money and space.” He even attacked Mr. Black’s children as “retarded” for supposedly making a mess of his estate.
The typo-strewn tirade was one of dozens of previously unreported emails reviewed by The New York Times in which Mr. Epstein hectored Mr. Black, at times demanding tens of millions of dollars beyond the $150 million he had already been paid.
The pressure campaign appeared to work. Mr. Black, who for decades was one of the richest and highest-profile figures on Wall Street, continued to fork over tens of millions of dollars in fees and loans, albeit less than Mr. Epstein had been seeking.

The mind-bogglingly massive size of Black’s payments to Epstein over the years for “tax advice” made no rational sense. Billionaires like Black are not exactly known for easily or willingly parting with money that they do not have to pay. They cling to money, which is how many become billionaires in the first place.

As the Times article put it, Black’s explanation for these payments to Epstein “puzzled many on Wall Street, who have asked why one of the country’s richest men would pay Mr. Epstein, a college dropout, so much more than what prestigious law firms would charge for similar services.”

Beyond Black’s payments to Epstein himself, he also “wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to at least three women who were associated with Mr. Epstein.” And all of this led to Epstein speaking to Black not the way one would speak to one’s most valuable client or to one’s boss, but rather spoke to him in terms of non-negotiable ultimatums, notably similar to the tone used by Black’s mistress-turned-blackmailer:

Email from Jeffrey Epstein to Leon Black, dated November 2, 2015.

When Black did not relent, Epstein’s demands only grew more aggressive. In one email, he told Black: “I think you should pay the 25 [million] that you did not for this year. For next year it's the same 40 [million] as always, paid 20 [million] in jan and 20 [million] in july, and then we are done.” At one point, Epstein responded to Black’s complaints about a cash crunch (a grievance Black also tried using with his mistress) with offers to take payment from Black in the form of real estate, art, or financing for Epstein’s plane:

Email from Jeffrey Epstein to Leon Black, dated March 16, 2016.

With whatever motives, Black succumbed to Epstein’s pressure and kept paying him massive sums, including $20 million at the start of 2017, and then another $8 million just a few months later, in April.

Epstein had access to virtually every part of Black’s life, as he had with Wexner before that. He was in possession of all sorts of private information about their intimate lives, which would and could have destroyed them if he disclosed it, as evidenced by the reputational destruction each has suffered just from the limited disclosures about their relationship with Epstein, to say nothing of whatever else Epstein knew.

Leon Black was most definitely the target of extreme and aggressive blackmail and extortion over his sex life in at least one instance we know of, and Epstein was at the center of that, directing him. While Wall Street may have been baffled that Wexner and Black paid such sums to Epstein over the years, including after Black wanted to cut him off, it is quite easy to understand why they did so. That is particularly so as Epstein became angrier and more threatening, and as he began reminding Black of all the threats from which Epstein had long protected him. Epstein watched those exact tactics work for Black’s mistress.

The DOJ continues to insist it has no evidence of Epstein using his access to the most embarrassing parts of the private and sexual lives of the world’s richest and most powerful people for blackmail purposes. But we know for certain that blackmail was used in this world, and that Epstein was not only well aware of highly valuable secrets but was also paid enormous, seemingly irrational sums by billionaires whose lives he knew intimately.

Read full Article

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

February 13, 2026

Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest Unwittingly Reveal the Severity of the U.S. Surveillance State

Just a decade after a global backlash was triggered by Snowden reporting on mass domestic surveillance, the state-corporate dragnet is stronger and more invasive than ever.

That the U.S. Surveillance State is rapidly growing to the point of ubiquity has been demonstrated over the past week by seemingly benign events. While the picture that emerges is grim, to put it mildly, at least Americans are again confronted with crystal clarity over how severe this has become.

The latest round of valid panic over privacy began during the Super Bowl held on Sunday. During the game, Amazon ran a commercial for its Ring camera security system. The ad manipulatively exploited people’s love of dogs to induce them to ignore the consequences of what Amazon was touting. It seems that trick did not work.

The ad highlighted what the company calls its “Search Party” feature, whereby one can upload a picture, for example, of a lost dog. Doing so will activate multiple other Amazon Ring cameras in the neighborhood, which will, in turn, use AI programs to scan all dogs, it seems, and identify the one that is lost. The 30-second commercial was full of heart-tugging scenes of young children and elderly people being reunited with their lost dogs.

But the graphic Amazon used seems to have unwittingly depicted how invasive this technology can be. That this capability now exists in a product that has long been pitched as nothing more than a simple tool for homeowners to monitor their own homes created, it seems, an unavoidable contract between public understanding of Ring and what Amazon was now boasting it could do.

Amazon’s Super Bowl ad for Ring and its “Search Party” feature.

Many people were not just surprised but quite shocked and alarmed to learn that what they thought was merely their own personal security system now has the ability to link with countless other Ring cameras to form a neighborhood-wide (or city-wide, or state-wide) surveillance dragnet. That Amazon emphasized that this feature is available (for now) only to those who “opt-in” did not assuage concerns.

Numerous media outlets sounded the alarm. The online privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Ring’s program as previewing “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything — human, pet, and otherwise.”

Many private citizens who previously used Ring also reacted negatively. “Viral videos online show people removing or destroying their cameras over privacy concerns,” reported USA Today. The backlash became so severe that, just days later, Amazon — seeking to assuage public anger — announced the termination of a partnership between Ring and Flock Safety, a police surveillance tech company (while Flock is unrelated to Search Party, public backlash made it impossible, at least for now, for Amazon to send Ring’s user data to a police surveillance firm).

The Amazon ad seems to have triggered a long-overdue spotlight on how the combination of ubiquitous cameras, AI, and rapidly advancing facial recognition software will render the term “privacy” little more than a quaint concept from the past. As EFF put it, Ring’s program “could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone.”

Those concerns escalated just a few days later in the context of the Tucson disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of long-time TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie. At the home where she lives, Nancy Guthrie used Google’s Nest camera for security, a product similar to Amazon’s Ring.

Guthrie, however, did not pay Google for a subscription for those cameras, instead solely using the cameras for real-time monitoring. As CBS News explained, “with a free Google Nest plan, the video should have been deleted within 3 to 6 hours — long after Guthrie was reported missing.” Even professional privacy advocates have understood that customers who use Nest without a subscription will not have their cameras connected to Google’s data servers, meaning that no recordings will be stored or available for any period beyond a few hours.

For that reason, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos announced early on “that there was no video available in part because Guthrie didn’t have an active subscription to the company.” Many people, for obvious reasons, prefer to avoid permanently storing comprehensive daily video reports with Google of when they leave and return to their own home, or who visits them at their home, when, and for how long.

Despite all this, FBI investigators on the case were somehow magically able to “recover” this video from Guthrie’s camera many days later. FBI Director Kash Patel was essentially forced to admit this when he released still images of what appears to be the masked perpetrator who broke into Guthrie’s home. (The Google user agreement, which few users read, does protect the company by stating that images may be stored even in the absence of a subscription.)

While the “discovery” of footage from this home camera by Google engineers is obviously of great value to the Guthrie family and law enforcement agents searching for Guthrie, it raises obvious yet serious questions about why Google, contrary to common understanding, was storing the video footage of unsubscribed users. A former NSA data researcher and CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Patrick Johnson, told CBS: “There's kind of this old saying that data is never deleted, it's just renamed.”

Image obtained through Nancy Guthrie’s unsubscribed Google Nest camera and released by the FBI.

It is rather remarkable that Americans are being led, more or less willingly, into a state-corporate, Panopticon-like domestic surveillance state with relatively little resistance, though the widespread reaction to Amazon’s Ring ad is encouraging. Much of that muted reaction may be due to a lack of realization about the severity of the evolving privacy threat. Beyond that, privacy and other core rights can seem abstract and less of a priority than more material concerns, at least until they are gone.

It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security.

But the core premise of the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is that those trade-offs are never worthwhile. Americans still all learn and are taught to admire the iconic (if not apocryphal) 1775 words of Patrick Henry, which came to define the core ethos of the Revolutionary War and American Founding: “Give me liberty or give me death.” It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty-versus-security trade-off the U.S. was intended to fall.

These recent events emerge in a broader context of this new Silicon Valley-driven destruction of individual privacy. Palantir’s federal contracts for domestic surveillance and domestic data management continue to expand rapidly, with more and more intrusive data about Americans consolidated under the control of this one sinister corporation.

Facial recognition technology — now fully in use for an array of purposes from Customs and Border Protection at airports to ICE’s patrolling of American streets — means that fully tracking one’s movements in public spaces is easier than ever, and is becoming easier by the day. It was only three years ago that we interviewed New York Timesreporter Kashmir Hill about her new book, “Your Face Belongs to Us.” The warnings she issued about the dangers of this proliferating technology have not only come true with startling speed but also appear already beyond what even she envisioned.

On top of all this are advances in AI. Its effects on privacy cannot yet be quantified, but they will not be good. I have tried most AI programs simply to remain abreast of how they function.

After just a few weeks, I had to stop my use of Google’s Gemini because it was compiling not just segregated data about me, but also a wide array of information to form what could reasonably be described as a dossier on my life, including information I had not wittingly provided it. It would answer questions I asked it with creepy, unrelated references to the far-too-complete picture it had managed to create of many aspects of my life (at one point, it commented, somewhat judgmentally or out of feigned “concern,” about the late hours I was keeping while working, a topic I never raised).

Many of these unnerving developments have happened without much public notice because we are often distracted by what appear to be more immediate and proximate events in the news cycle. The lack of sufficient attention to these privacy dangers over the last couple of years, including at times from me, should not obscure how consequential they are.

All of this is particularly remarkable, and particularly disconcerting, since we are barely more than a decade removed from the disclosures about mass domestic surveillance enabled by the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden. Although most of our reporting focused on state surveillance, one of the first stories featured the joint state-corporate spying framework built in conjunction with the U.S. security state and Silicon Valley giants.

The Snowden stories sparked years of anger, attempts at reform, changes in diplomatic relations, and even genuine (albeit forced) improvements in Big Tech’s user privacy. But the calculation of the U.S. security state and Big Tech was that at some point, attention to privacy concerns would disperse and then virtually evaporate, enabling the state-corporate surveillance state to march on without much notice or resistance. At least as of now, the calculation seems to have been vindicated.

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices