Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Sahra Wagenknecht on the Failing War in Ukraine, the State of German Politics, and Her New Political Party
Video Transcript
April 19, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


 

NOTE: Exceptionally, this English-language transcript of the interview with Sahra Wagenknecht, originally conducted in German, was released without a paywall for all to enjoy. Locals subscribers have access to a transcript of every System Update episode.


Interview: Sahra Wagenknecht

xstYGYXNmv8R-lhVPTNefhZdSV-sPl-FN23tC95oZ-GiDJUAibsWS9p8Xb60dzrvs_BeFVY_IzfGESNEKc4F4QhRnjHLg_o5i84Of1qIN1vOx_aVBsFZSjjV1nmPwlBg3cUvgq0RqMLX

 

G. GREENWALD: Okay. Sahra, Guten Tag. It's very good to see you again. Thank you for giving us some time.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: A pleasure. I'm also really looking forward to the interview.

 

G. GREENWALD: Let's start with the war in Ukraine. We spoke to you a little bit more than a year ago about your opposition to Germany's involvement in the war. How—14 months later—do you now see this war between Russia and Ukraine? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, it is horrible. This war is ongoing. Clearly, we can see that everything we've been told—including in Germany—such as, we have to supply the tanks, we have to supply the weapons and that would lead to a solution but none of this has worked. And Germany has become more and more of a war party. There are now politicians in Germany who are calling for the war to be taken into Russia with Taurus missiles. That is a very dangerous development. And it has demonstrated in all honesty that anyone who wants to end this war will have to negotiate and finally make a serious offer for negotiations. And I am very pleased that the Pope is also calling for this, that many countries in the South are calling for this, and that we in Germany will continue to call for this. But the German government has so far entirely opposed this.

 

G. GREENWALD: So, independent of moral arguments or geostrategic arguments, it has become clear to everyone that Ukraine cannot possibly win this war, especially as victory was defined by NATO as Russians expelled from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. The Ukrainians have no artillery, and no people left to send to the front line. The only movements in the front line have been in Russia's favor. Has support in Germany for funding and arming the war in Ukraine changed at all over the last year?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: There is a considerable proportion of the population who see things differently and are also fed up with being told that Ukraine could win this war because they can see that they are unable to do so. But there is a very, very strong media debate in Germany that amounts to the narrative that if we don't stop Putin now, he will invade Poland or Lithuania or the Baltic states. In other words, they are now trying to sway people, who have also come to the realisation that arms deliveries have not led to a turnaround in the war, convinced by creating a new narrative. The new narrative is that we have to do everything we can to stop Putin because if there were to be another compromise now, he would invade other countries. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people in West Germany, and less so in East Germany, who believe that. So you can't say that the mood has now completely changed. 

 

G. GREENWALD: If you look at the history of the 20th century, the one lesson it shows is that very bad things happen when Germany and Russia are antagonistic, or see each other as enemies or involved in wars. And yet we've had the German Chancellor many times give pro-war speeches, saying that Germany must ensure Russia's defeat. What dangers does that create? And what do you think should be the relationship between Germany and Russia? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, relations are very bad. I can imagine that old traumas have been awakened in many people in Russia when they hear that German politicians want to supply weapons to attack Russia. Now, for example, it became public in Russia that there was a discussion among German officers about the delivery of Taurus missiles, where there was a debate about whether it would be possible to deliver them and disguise the fact that they came from Germany. And the Taurus missiles are so dangerous because Ukraine could use them to attack Moscow. They could destroy ministries and the Kremlin in Moscow. They could attack military bases, even nuclear bases in Russia. And when German officers discuss the possibility of delivering such missiles and how it might be possible to conceal the fact that they came from Germany, I can imagine that this will of course reawaken old fears in Russia and that a great deal of historical experience, especially among older people, may bring this back to the surface. The relationship between Germany and Russia is at a low point and that is very regrettable. And it is also incredibly foolish of the Germans because we are harming ourselves above all. Our economy is in crisis because we can't import cheap energy. No gas, no Russian oil. The German economy is now shrinking for the second time this year, probably. We have high inflation, people have lost purchasing power and they are afraid of their industrial jobs. So above all, it is a policy that is damaging the German economy and the people in Germany. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So, at the beginning of the war, in 2022, there was a delusion in the U.S. and in Europe that maybe Ukraine could really win. But I think now almost nobody believes that Ukraine can expel Russia from Ukrainian territory. So what do you think are the real motives in Germany and Europe for why they want to continue this war indefinitely? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, of course, it's a permanent gateway. The war is also very, very expensive for Russia. This means that the economic sanctions will of course remain in place as long as this war continues. You also don't want to admit that you haven't achieved your goals. The German Foreign Minister stepped up at the beginning of the war and said, "We want to ruin Russia", and Russia has not been ruined. On the contrary, Russia now has a close alliance with China and is really very well-paced in the BRICS. Yes, the alliance is getting bigger, but you don't want to admit that, you don't want to acknowledge that either. And I think the German media is much more one-dimensional here. I have the feeling, I also read some of the American press, that there is a more open discussion there about the question of how we can perhaps end this war, how we can get out of it. Meanwhile, for example, the parliamentary group leader of the governing party SPD (Social Democrats) in the Bundestag addressed the issue here, saying that perhaps we need to discuss putting a halt to the war. He was attacked terribly for that. So to address a self-evident fact that we need to end this war means—if you are a member of the SPD in Germany and you recognize that—you will be beaten up for it. The Pope said in an interview that Ukraine needs to consider how negotiations can take place out of self-interest, which was also criticized in the German press. It was said that the Pope was calling on Ukraine to surrender, which he never did. Unfortunately, we also lack diversity and positions in the media here to promote negotiations and to advocate an end to the war, which tends to be pushed very, very much into a corner; these are the people who are allied with Putin, who is running Putin propaganda. And that, of course, has a certain impact on how many people here in the country view the war.

 

G. GREENWALD: It's exactly the same in the United States, everything you just described. Since we last spoke, one of the major developments is that you left the longtime party to which you belong, Die Linke, or the left, to form a new party called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance for Reason and Justice. Some polls now show your new party polling as high as 20%. One of the things that is most obvious is that the word Linke, left, is not in your party's name, your new party's name. Why is that? And what motivated you to leave the party that you were a member of for so long? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Left has unfortunately alienated a large part of its voters. It has mainly focused on these so-called modern, progressive issues, which are mainly within academic milieus, in well-off, privileged milieus, and anti-racism, but also more out of symbolic politics, such as trans debates. But the truly fundamental social problems, wages, pensions, and social fears about the future, have been increasingly lost sight of. And that's why the Left has become very, very weak. Many former voters of the Left have moved to the right and are now voting for the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]. It's a right-wing party in Germany and at some point, I simply said to myself along with others that we no longer want to watch how the left of the party spectrum is basically just going downhill and the right is benefiting, but rather we want a new force to emerge in Germany that embodies social justice and reason, but also peace policy. Die Linke is increasingly taking very, very unclear positions on the issue of peace policy, for example. A year ago we had a big peace rally with over 50,000 people. The left distanced itself and did not support it. And there are now clear voices on the left that are campaigning for arms deliveries to Ukraine. And that has also contributed to the Left losing voters. And this is where the BSW  [Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht] is now a clear voice for peace, and negotiations, but also for social justice. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So this formula that you're embracing, this new kind of politics, let's say, defending traditional left-wing economic policies to help the working class, but at the same time avoiding or rejecting these very elite left-wing dogmas on culture war issues, seems like that's becoming increasingly visible in other countries in northern Europe as well. Do you see the success of that kind of combination of politics, defending the working class, focusing on their economics, but avoiding these more elite culture war questions as being a framework for success in other left-wing parties in other countries in Northern Europe?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Well, we can't complain about the response and the support we have. It's been very, very strong. We only founded the party in January and we're currently at over 5%, in Germany, in some eastern German states we're in double figures. That really is something that is quite unusual when a party is so new. And that's why I can tell that there really was a big gap in the political system that we are now filling. And I am firmly convinced that we can also change politics in Germany as a result. The stronger we become – we hope to achieve a good result in the European elections – the more we can influence German politics. So if we campaign as a voice for peace, then this will also put pressure on the German government. Or, if we make it an issue that wages have been falling in Germany for three years. That is something that has never happened before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. It's actually a scandal that people have been losing income for three years and are completely resisting it. And at the same time, we also recognize that people have a longing for stability, and security, that you can't ignore that. In Germany, we live with very high levels of migration. This is something that the Left has always denied. In my opinion, we consider this to be an important issue because it takes place primarily in poor neighborhoods and not in rich ones. So this is already a policy, a policy offer, it also has a logic to it and it's very well received by people. 

 

G. GREENWALD: In the United States, there was a long-time opposition to mass emigration that came mostly from the left, from labor unions, who argued that the people who suffer from mass migration tend to be the poorest, and the working class people whose jobs are taken, whose wages are declined. One of the first, and I guess, most important events that began to drive a wedge between you and your party was your opposition to the policy of Angela Merkel to accept a million refugees from Syria. What do you see as the conflict between immigration, on the one hand, and the interest of the German poor and the working class on the other? 

 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, there is a conflict. My own father is from Iran. I understand that people are looking for a better life and that's why they move to wealthy countries. And I also think that we should talk about why people are fleeing their homeland. Many of those who come to Germany are from countries where wars have taken place and these wars have often been waged by the West, or in part, as in Syria, the West has armed certain groups there and supported this civil war because it wanted a regime change. So there are causes of displacement and migration. But you don't eliminate the causes by saying we're going to open the borders and invite everyone in. You need to achieve changes in the home countries. But here in Germany, it is also the case that housing shortages have of course worsened in the poorer residential areas. There is a lack of daycare places, the schools are swamped, there are many districts where first grade is starting and 80% of the children can't speak a word of German. Integration doesn't work either when the numbers are so high. And that's why the less privileged in Germany are very strongly opposed to such high levels of migration. Incidentally, people who have a migration background themselves even express their desire that this uncontrolled migration be stopped. And that's why this is an important issue for us because it strengthens the Right. High levels of migration, as it is happening now, naturally favor low wages and high rents, overburden the infrastructure and ultimately strengthen the Right. 

 

G. GREENWALD: One of the best-known parties in Germany that claims to be on the left is the Green Party, and it has become successful. It now has, among other people, Annalena Baerbock as its foreign minister. And I recall when the Greens were running, they ran on a platform of what they called a feminist foreign policy. This idea that if you have women in positions of power in foreign policy, it would make war less likely. And yet you have Baerbock and the Greens, along with the president of the EU, who are among the most aggressive supporters of Germany's involvement in the war in Ukraine, Israel's war in Gaza, support for NATO generally. Why did that happen? And how do you understand what role the Green Party plays in Germany?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Greens really are a remarkable phenomenon. The party emerged from the peace movement. So alongside the question of environmental policy, peace policy was a very, very big issue for the first generation of the Greens. Petra Kelly was a great pacifist. She co-founded the Greens. Today, the Greens really are the biggest warmongers. They are the most fanatical about supplying weapons. In some cases, they are people who previously refused to do military service themselves, but who now know all the different types of tanks that are produced in Germany and are pushing aggressively for them to be supplied to Ukraine. Why is that? Well, the Greens are very, very strongly oriented towards the U.S., also on other issues. I can't say for sure why that is, but it is noteworthy. In many respects, the Greens are really the mouthpiece of U.S. politics and represent what is currently being discussed or expected in U.S. politics, and they have completely changed. It certainly also has something to do with this approach of a strong moralization of politics—i.e. you don't do politics to do something good but to be part of the good side. This approach results supposedly to “We are the good guys, the good West is fighting against Putin and the Russian dictatorship”. After all, this too resonates very, very strongly with the Greens as a narrative. In other words, we need to fight for human rights and democracy. It's all a lie. But that's just the Green tone. And in the party, there are now hardly any obvious functionaries who contradict it in any way. There are some in the SPD, but among the Greens, there really is a massive drumbeat for war and also an arrogance towards other countries, which they lecture on how they should be governed, including China, for example. But now the Greens are really the absolute worst when it comes to war policy. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So Ukraine is one war that Germany is providing arms to, but there's another war where Germany is also doing that. That is the war by Israel in Gaza. There's currently a case in the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, accusing Germany of aiding genocide by providing the arms and bombs to Israel that they use against Palestinian civilians. What is your view of what the German policy toward Israel and its war in Gaza should be? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, I think it's really horrible what we've been seeing in the Gaza Strip for months now. These are war crimes. It's a terrible war against the civilian population, against women, against children. And of course, Germany, or even every German, is special—and they naturally have a different relationship or responsibility towards Israel because of German history, because of the Holocaust. We have always said, and I support this, that we understand or share Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks by Hamas, but what is happening over there has nothing to do with self-defense; it is a major war crime. And that is why we, the BSW, have now submitted a motion in the Bundestag to impose an immediate arms embargo on Israel, i.e. to stop supplying weapons, because Nicaragua is right. Therefore, all countries that supply weapons are partly responsible for this terrible killing in the Gaza Strip. That is why I think it would be deeply appropriate and urgently necessary for us to take a different path here, to stop supplying arms immediately and to condemn this action. Condemn the fact that this is a campaign of revenge and not self-defense. In my opinion, we need to make that very clear. And Netanyahu has now even announced that he may launch a ground offensive on Rafah. And that would take death and horror to a whole new level. So here, I think there is no reason to say that we as Germans should stand on the side of the Israeli government. On the contrary, the Israeli government is basically pursuing a course here that could actually cause the entire Middle East to enter a major war. When I look at the development of relations with Iran, the attack on the Iranian consulate, there is also a possible threat of military escalation. And we absolutely must not allow that to happen, we cannot support it, we need to clearly condemn it and distance ourselves from it, and above all, we need to stop providing weapons. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I think everybody understands the very unique German duty and obligation after the Holocaust and World War II. But I think there are two ways of looking at what Germany's obligation is. One is to say our obligation is just to support Israel in everything that it does, no matter what that is. The other is to say we should oppose genocide and violence against civilians in every instance where it occurs. How does Germany understand the difference between those two options? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: In the meantime, the German media, including the German government, has been mildly critical. It's no longer the case that they support everything the Israeli government does. But there is still far too little criticism. I also believe that we have a responsibility to defend Israel's right to exist, but the kind of warfare we are now seeing does not increase security for people in Israel or for Jews worldwide; on the contrary, it endangers it. It is an extremely right-wing Israeli government, whose defense minister even announced at the beginning that they wanted to wage a war against civilians. He spoke of human animals when he spoke of Palestinians. And that wording is fascistoid and we simply need to speak out and recognize that this is not something we can support and that we have no responsibility whatsoever arising from our history in sharing or engaging in such actions and such contempt for humanity, on the contrary, we must condemn such very clearly. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I know that Germany has a much different approach to free speech than the United States has, especially when it comes to expressions of anti-Semitism, for reasons that I think everybody can understand. At the same time, there have been a lot of reports about attempts to punish and repress defenders of the Palestinian cause or critics of Israel, even sometimes when the critics of Israel are Jewish, we see actions by the German government against them. How serious of a problem is this, and do you think it is something to worry about this attack on free speech in the name of defending Israel? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: So we don't really have an open debate in Germany, we have a clear narrowing of the spectrum of opinion on many issues, including this one. So anyone who formulates harsh criticism here is met with the sledgehammer of anti-Semitism. For example, my co-chairwoman of the BSW was recently on a television program, a talk show, and she was accused of the BSW  being an anti-Semitic party. In other words, we are a party of anti-Semites because we criticize Israel and because we condemn the actions of the Israeli government. This shows that a truly absurd debate is taking place here. We will continue to point out that there is a big difference between anti-Semitism and a completely justified and absolutely necessary criticism of a far-right Israeli government that is committing the worst war crimes in the Gaza Strip. 

 

G. GREENWALD: The last time you and I talked, you made it very clear that you were very opposed to the far-right German party, AfD. And we talked about the differences between yourself and that party because there had been reports that some people on the right are supportive of you and now your new party. And I understand that. But there are also reports, especially in the wake of this explicit racist discussion, that this party may need to be outlawed or prohibited from the ballot. What are your thoughts on how the AfD should be treated legally? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: I am strongly against banning the AfD. In my opinion, the whole debate about it is completely misguided. Ultimately, this will help the AfD. We need to deal with its policies and positions. For example, they have European candidates who clearly have a nationalistic worldview. They define being German by blood. That's racism, it's very bad. But you can challenge this in terms of content or you can address the AfD's economic positions. It has a radical position about the market, wants to dismantle the welfare state, and opposes higher minimum wages. Or, for example, it is not a peace party. When it comes to Ukraine, the AfD has positions that are actually similar to ours in that they also advocate a negotiated peace but, regarding the issue of the Gaza conflict, for example, they are a radical supporter of the Israeli government. That has something to do with the fact that they are very strongly anti-Islamic and not ultimately that they are a force for peace. However, you need to challenge them in terms of content and not with blanket bans and blanket exclusion. The main reason they are now gaining so much popularity is because of how poorly Germany is being governed—because the coalition government is so unjust, so haphazard, so incompetent, the economic situation is very bad and people are afraid. That's why the AfD has doubled in the polls in these two years. But that's not because people are right-wing. And if you want to win back these voters, you need to deal with the AfD objectively. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Well, I find your political project not just very interesting, but very relevant to other countries in the West, including the U.S. And it's always a pleasure to speak to you, and I really appreciated your time today.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: You're very welcome, thank you very much. And yes, perhaps until next time. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Guten Tag. Tschüss.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Okay. Tschüss. 


And that concludes our show tonight.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
48
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Lindsey Graham: Senator from Tel Aviv

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

00:18:06
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
AOC Makes Her Big Foreign Policy Debut, Falls Flat on Her Face
00:23:22
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.

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

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 ...

post photo preview
placeholder
February 25, 2026

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

post photo preview
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
post photo preview
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
post photo preview
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
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals