Pinned Tweet
Kosovo in Retrospect: Rise and Fall of the ‘Rules-Based Order’ znetwork.org/znetarticle/kos…
Philip Hammond retweeted
British media has become basically a tabloid filled with lurid conspiracy theories rather than news. Vucic conceded without a vote being counted. Britain is increasingly detached from reality and is becoming a sort of “fantasy island”. 🇬🇧
"Politika kao sudbina": Kuća vam plakala via @EuronewsSerbia euronews.rs/kolumne/ljiljana…
Philip Hammond retweeted
These days, barely a week goes by in Europe without a drone sighting, a fire or a power outage being blamed on Russia. We’re told that these incidents are all part of a relentless, and escalating, “hybrid war” that Moscow is waging against the continent.
But does the evidence support Western claims that Russia is engaged in a systematic hybrid war against Europe? As I argue in my first piece for @RStatecraft, not really.
Most claims of Russian involvement turned out to be establishment-amplified speculation that collapsed under basic scrutiny. In many cases, there is no evidence the incidents themselves actually even happened (drones supposedly swarming European airports, etc.).
So is this just a case of collective panic fuelled by click-addicted media? Or, given that the claims of a Russian “hybrid war” against Europe appear to rest on little more than propaganda, is there a concerted effort by the EU-NATO establishment to condition citizens to believe that Europe is under attack from Russia?
In Italy, the expression “strategy of tension” evokes a dark period, from the late 60s to the early 80s, in which intelligence services and secret paramilitary networks operating under NATO auspices inflated the terrorist threat to frighten the electorate, including by engaging in terrorist acts that in some cases were then blamed on the left. European leaders should be wary of reviving such a strategy.
Read the article here: responsiblestatecraft.org/hy…
Philip Hammond retweeted
How my return from Russia turned into a nightmare thepeacemonger.substack.com/…
Philip Hammond retweeted
Burnham claims Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum. But some evidence would be welcome — especially since the question has been investigated several times, and nothing has turned up. In 2020, Parliament’s intelligence and security committee published its Russia report. It reached no finding of interference in the referendum, though it blamed the government for never commissioning an intelligence assessment of the question. Whitehall’s response was that it had seen no evidence of successful interference and therefore saw no need for one.
That same year, Elizabeth Denham, then information commissioner, concluded a three-year investigation into the use of personal data in political campaigning, including during the Brexit referendum, centred on Cambridge Analytica and its parent, SCL Group. Having examined more than 300,000 documents and some 700 terabytes of seized material, she reported that she had “found no further evidence to change [her] earlier view that SCL/CA were not involved in the EU referendum campaign in the UK”, and that her office had found “no additional evidence of Russian involvement” in the material recovered from the companies’ servers.
Another study by the Oxford Internet Institute examined thousands of tweets before the Brexit referendum and also found “little evidence” of Russian interference — though, to be fair, Twitter later revealed that the Russian broadcast RT had spent a total of £767 on adverts during the referendum. Facebook further reported that it had found no evidence of significant Russian advertising on its platform around Brexit, though accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency, a Russian “troll farm”, had spent 97 cents on three adverts shown to UK users (about immigration, not Brexit as such) and together generating around 200 impressions.
Funnily enough, this careful approach was backed by none other than Burnham’s own Foreign Office minister, Stephen Doughty, who, asked by Sky News about Burnham’s claims, said: “Well, the security minister has spoken about this before, and he’s been very clear that they’ve attempted to [but] they haven’t succeeded.” That is a very different statement from Burnham’s; the Prime Minister’s words were carefully chosen to imply, without quite saying it, that Russia had indeed swung the vote. If not, why raise it in a conversation about rejoining the EU?
Compare all this with the establishment-led Remain campaign, which enlisted most of the mainstream media and the government itself — which spent more than £9 million of public money on a Remain leaflet delivered to every household. Add to that the EU, which funds many of the universities, research bodies and NGOs that lined up behind Remain, and private actors such as George Soros, who later bankrolled the anti-Brexit campaign to the tune of at least £400,000. In short, the Remainers campaigned openly, lavishly and with the full weight of the state behind them. Which is probably why they have never gotten over the fact that they lost.
Read the article here: unherd.com/2026/10/why-rejoi…
I’ve written about perhaps the most absurd Russiagate yet: Andy Burnham’s claim that Russia was behind Brexit.
For the past decade, the British establishment — and Labour in particular — has been trying to neuter and, ideally, reverse Brexit. Under Andy Burnham, the project has acquired unprecedented momentum. In his first conference speech as Labour leader a few weeks ago, Burnham became the first prime minister to open the door to rejoining the European Union. On Monday, he told the Commons it would be a “dereliction of duty” to turn down a closer relationship with Brussels.
It is in this context that Burnham’s latest Brexit “bombshell” needs to be read. Speaking on Rory Stewart’s and Alastair Campbell’s podcast, The Rest Is Politics, Burnham claimed to have “clear” evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum — implying that Moscow had successfully tilted the vote towards Leave — while offering no details, let alone evidence. If anything is clear here, it is Burnham’s goal: to delegitimise the referendum result once and for all, and so pave the way for its reversal. And what better pretext than the Russian bogeyman?
This fits a wider pattern. Since the 2016 Russiagate hoax, it has become standard practice among Western elites, especially in Europe, to blame every unwelcome election result — and above all every “populist” rebuke to their rule — on Russian “disinformation” and “interference”. The campaign has escalated dramatically since 2022. We are told that Russia has for years been running a vast influence operation aimed at manipulating helpless European voters, yet the evidence is scant or non-existent.
The consequences, however, are not. In the EU, the permanent spectre of the Russian threat is being used to justify a rolling assault on democratic norms, from online censorship to the repression of dissent and interference in national elections. It is hardly surprising, then, that Burnham, Europhile that he is, should borrow a page — or rather a chapter — from the Brussels playbook. As is customary with sweeping claims against Russia, he offered no evidence. His statement was nonetheless amplified across the mainstream media, an allegation hardening into “fact” through sheer repetition. Indeed, pro-EU groups have duly called for Britain to rejoin in light of the “revelation”.
But the reality is that over the years several investigations have looked at the issue of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum — and found nothing.
It is of course possible that Burnham has been shown damning evidence buried for a decade. But how likely is that? Or is it more likely that he, like his European peers, is playing fast and loose with the facts — otherwise known as disinformation — for political gain? That he chose to make the claim on Alastair Campbell’s podcast, of all places, is itself a red flag. In September 2002, as Tony Blair sought to build support for war with Iraq, Downing Street published a dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Citing a senior source, the BBC’s Andrew Gilligan later reported that Campbell, then Blair’s director of communications, had “sexed up” the dossier to frighten the public into backing the war. Its most notorious claim, repeated four times, was that Iraq could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes — wording that implied Britain or British forces were 45 minutes from attack, which is exactly how much of the press reported it. The intelligence in fact referred to battlefield munitions. Gilligan’s source turned out to be the weapons expert David Kelly, who died in disputed circumstances in July 2003 after being exposed.
Burnham, it is worth recalling, voted for that war — one built on claims that could easily have been disproved at the time, and indeed were by many — and defended his vote for years afterwards. Given that record, some scepticism is in order, especially since his latest claim is, so far, equally unsupported.
Read the article here: unherd.com/2026/10/why-rejoi…
Philip Hammond retweeted
Zašto kritikujem pojam "normalan Srbin" | gost: Mirjana Vasović
#relativizacija #smajlovic
Philip Hammond retweeted
In my latest article, I offer the most exhaustive critical analysis to date of the “Russian hybrid war” narrative.
What I show is that many of the most widely publicised cases of supposed Russian “hybrid warfare” — von der Leyen’s jammed plane, the Baltic cable cuts, the DHL crash in Vilnius, the Heathrow fire, the wave of drone sightings that swept Europe in the autumn of 2025, the Romanian TikTok campaign — turned out to be media-amplified speculation that collapsed under basic scrutiny. Yet almost every day, new claims are made – with little or no evidence ever provided.
Ultimately, serious scrutiny of the “Russian hybrid warfare” narrative can only lead to one disquieting conclusion. A “hybrid war” is indeed being waged against Europe — but it is being waged by the EU-NATO establishment itself, against its own population.
Europeans are being subjected to a sustained campaign of cognitive or psychological warfare aimed at conditioning them to believe that Europe is under attack from Russia, and that these hybrid attacks are a prelude to conventional hostilities — a claim for which, by and large, there is little or no proof. What the record points to, in fact, is a deliberate campaign of threat inflation in which governments, media outlets and defence-funded “think tanks” have colluded to instil a permanent sense of fear in the population, through relentless coverage of “incidents”, “attacks”, “sabotages” and “campaigns” that, in most cases, simply do not exist.
Read the article here: thomasfazi.com/p/the-russian…
Philip Hammond retweeted
What @MKarnitschnig describes here about the media he used to run, Euractiv, applies to virtually every European mainstream media outlet. The difference is that, unlike 99% of his colleagues, he refused to go along with this charade. Congratulations! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I wrote an entire paper about this: brussels.mcc.hu/uploads/defa…
Euractiv died last night after a long illness. Good riddance.
My latest European Angle on a Brussels media institution shed its activist past – and finally got the name it deserves.
karnitschnig.substack.com/p/…
Philip Hammond retweeted
Fantastic piece!
“I argue that the United States is deliberately preparing to sacrifice Europe. When Ukrainian manpower is exhausted, European men and European territory are to become the next expendable resource in a proxy war against Russia.
For decades a networked elite has manipulated governments, manufactured consent for wars of aggression, and shielded itself from accountability through legal and institutional mechanisms designed for that purpose. That same elite now faces the collapse of its financial instruments, the failure of its traditional tools of control, and the rise of powers it can no longer dominate. It cannot afford to lose power, because loss of power would mean exposure for crimes that, under the standards established at Nuremberg, constitute the supreme international crime.
Europe’s own political class is not working for Europe’s interest. Its loyalty has been carefully cultivated to serve the American hegemon — more like a beaten wife than an equal partner. The continent is therefore being transformed from ally into resource: economically drained, politically captured, and militarily prepared as the theatre in which the costs of imperial decline will be paid. The ultimate expression of this strategy is a managed escalation that keeps the American homeland as sanctuary while Europe absorbs both the conventional attrition and the nuclear risk”.
Link to the article: mattiasforsgren.substack.com…
Philip Hammond retweeted
P.S. I am extremely "visibility-filtered" (i.e., censored) on "free-speech X." If you're not, do me a favor and retweet this. I have about zero reach these days.
The updated second edition of the book the German authorities have been prosecuting me for (with a foreword by @TuckerCarlson) will be released in October. You can pre-order it now, and annoy the hell out of the German authorities, if you're so inclined.
amazon.com/dp/168358578X?ref…
Philip Hammond retweeted
Kakva je razlika između 5. oktobra 2000. i 25. oktobra 2026? | gost: Branko Pavlović
Philip Hammond retweeted
Britain is largely deindustrialised now but we do have a booming industry producing state departments and units that are attempting to control how British people think and discuss domestic and international politics.
Oh YEY … Andy has announced ANOTHER new department to “detect, attribute and disrupt” hostile state information attacks.
( they don’t say what “disrupt” means.)
Anyway, I thought I’d remind you of all the other government, bodies already monitoring online narratives, disinformation and information threats… including from you.
▪️NSOIT (DSIT) - monitors publicly available online misinformation and disinformation affecting UK national security and public safety.
▪️Government Communication Service / Cabinet Office - monitors and analyses public social-media and search data across government.
▪️Media Monitoring Unit (Cabinet Office) - runs a 24/7 service monitoring print, broadcast and digital media for government departments.
▪️RICU (Home Office) - analyses extremist ideology, radicalisation, online exploitation and narratives linked to Prevent.
▪️Defending Democracy Taskforce - coordinates government, police and security agencies against foreign interference in UK democracy.
▪️Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit - examines threats around elections including disinformation, deepfakes and coordinated online manipulation.
▪️FCDO Information Threats and Influence Directorate - tracks and counters hostile-state information manipulation and propaganda overseas.
▪️77th Brigade (MOD) - conducts military information operations and analyses publicly available information and social-media trends relating to adversaries and disinformation.
▪️NCSC/GCHQ - investigates hostile cyber activity and foreign information threats, including those affecting elections.
▪️National Cyber Force - conducts offensive cyber operations, including disrupting hostile propaganda and influence activity.
▪️Social Cohesion Taskforce - monitors emerging community tensions and shares risk information across councils, government and Prevent.
Don’t think you aren’t being watched … you are.
Philip Hammond retweeted
Kallas: 'Nato jets had to shoot down a drone over Lithuania.'
Lithuania: 'That's for the birds.'
reuters.com/business/aerospa…
We have seen Russia’s dangerous recklessness at full display in the past 48 hours.
A Russian warship fired flares at a Danish helicopter.
NATO jets had to shoot down a drone over Lithuania.
Russia struck a passenger train near the border with Ukraine.
And Poland pulled a drone from its shores.
We need to be clear-eyed: those are not accidents.
They are calculated attempts by Russia to weaken our resolve.
Europe will not dial back its support for Ukraine.
My intervention in #EPlenary ↓
Philip Hammond retweeted
Anyone who's seen Adam Curtis’s HyperNormalisation thinks they know what hypernormalisation means. It’s there in the film; Wikipedia explains it all. But does Curtis’s film actually totally misrepresent the concept?
Philip Hammond retweeted
🚨👀 NEW FSU BRIEFING: Misinformation about Misinformation
The British Government is preparing an apparatus of internet censorship without precedent in the modern era.
The Orwellian DCMS Green Paper proposes forcing social media algorithms to favour "trustworthy" state-approved sources. Labour's Lucy Powell wants platforms under broadcast-style duties of "accuracy and balance" during elections. The Government Office for Science wants a state-linked database of "false and misleading narratives" and official "prebunking" in schools.
None of this fell from the sky. It is the demand of a lobby, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, co-founded by Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, and the Foreign Office-funded Global Disinformation Index, whose members then sat as "expert" reviewers marking their own homework on the evidence for the policy they demanded.
That review cost taxpayers almost half a million pounds. It relied on AI-generated summaries of two hundred and twenty-eight papers nobody read, contained no climate scientist, economist, clinician, or epidemiologist, and grounded its central claim, that algorithms are "exclusively profit- and engagement-driven", on a single AI-synthesised paper from an institution ranked ten thousand three hundred and seventieth in the world.
The real evidence contradicts the panic. A Science study found flagged vaccine misinformation on Facebook drew just 0.3% of 2.7 billion views, while unflagged, accurate content had forty-six times the impact on hesitancy. A Nature synthesis put "fake news" at roughly 0.15% of the average American's media diet. Twitter's own researchers found no evidence of algorithmic bias toward extremes. Only 33% of adults think the BBC, the state's model of trustworthiness, is impartial.
Under this regime, questioning heat pump efficiency or electric vehicle range counts as "misinformation." Whoever controls the label controls the debate. Britain has not seen anything like this since the Star Chamber licensing decrees of 1637 under King Charles I. Milton's answer still stands: let truth and falsehood grapple, for truth's confuting is the best and surest suppressing.
Read the new report from FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK 👇
Philip Hammond retweeted
Sixty thousand people have been arrested in Britain for social media posts
That's the largest number of people in the world. There are people scared to walk down the streets in my country yet the police have time to police social media accounts? And thousands more are awaiting terrorism trial for holding up a placard
Watch #MOATS Live every Sunday & Wednesday 7PM London Time
Follow @moatstv 584 #Socialmediaoffences #PalestineAction #terrorismcharges #UKpolice
Philip Hammond retweeted
What a time to be alive: Germany aims to develop the largest military in Europe, and the Europeans are cheering it on. Germany's political class is in full consensus in its enthusiasm for the war with Russia, with only the "far-right" party in opposition. The new reincarnation of Hitler who leads this racist 'Nazi party' opposing the war, Alice Weidel, is a lesbian woman with a Sri Lankan partner. Merz fully supports the genocide in Gaza, argues that Israel is "doing our dirty work" by attacking Iran, wants to take the lead in the proxy war against Russia, and defends democracy by crushing dissent. When the US destroyed Nord Stream, Germany blamed Russia. When the US provided subsidies that incentivised uncompetitive German companies to move to the US, Germany blamed Russia for its deindustrialisation. When the US threatened to annex Greenland, Merz responded by warning about a Russian threat to Greenland. Germany is now attempting to reverse its deindustrialisation with a booming military budget. In the First World War, Germany framed its military actions that resulted in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as liberating Ukraine from Moscow, while in reality Germany was establising its dominance over the region. In the Second World War, Germany yet again claimed to liberate Ukraine from Moscow, while actually treating it as an imperial conquest. This time around, Germany "liberated Ukraine" by toppling its democratically-elected government against the will of the majority of Ukrainians to convert it into a frontline state in an anti-Russian military alliance. Germany supported the brutality against Donbas and the purging of Ukraine's dissenting political opposition, opposition media, Russian language, and the Orthodox Church. The Minsk peace agreement negotiated by Germany was admitted to be a fraud to prepare Ukraine for war, and Germany is pumping in weapons. While most Ukrainians want a negotiated settlement, Germany boycotts diplomacy, pushes to deport Ukrainian refugees, and to conscript Ukrainian women to keep the war going - all under the slogan of "standing with Ukraine". Yet, the electoral defeat of Merz and his policies is framed as a threat to democracy and any criticism of make you a traitor who spreads Russian propaganda. How will this end?
Philip Hammond retweeted
Карен Пирс, специјални изасланик Велике Британије за западни Балкан, поново је искористила прилику да изриче лекције и осуде које јој, по свим мјерилима, не припадају.
Жена која се годинама хвалила бонским овлаштењима и колонијалним приступом у самом срцу Европе посљедња је особа која смије да држи предавања о принципима, међународном праву или моралу. Из садашње америчке администрације су јој рекли да се они никада не би хвалили бонским овлаштењима, ни приватно ни јавно.
Доста је било да се из Велике Британије дијеле "лекције" нама. Посебно када се сјетимо да је посљедњи британски ангажман био усмјерен на очување и јачање Кристијана Шмита, а да је крајњи циљ био претварање БиХ у депонију за мигранте које жели да протјера са своје територије.
Још је тужније, и готово цинично, када Карен Пирс помиње Други свјетски рат у осуди Србије. Нигдје се не може пронаћи да је било ко из Велике Британије - земље која је у Европској унији била заједно са Хрватском - иједном ријечју осудио сахрану Динка Шакића 2008. године у усташкој униформи. Тишина тада, морализовање сада. То није принцип. То је селективна политичка инструментализација.
Граничи се с монструозношћу идеја да је могуће читавом једном народу и слободним људима забранити или ограничити право на сахрану и одлазак на њу.
Српски народ, као и сваки други, има право на искрену емоцију према времену које је за њега било борба за опстанак и борба да се не понови прошлост - прошлост против које Карен Пирс није сматрала потребним да опомиње друге када су сахрањивали зликовце у усташким униформама. У ономе што она, вођена жељом да поново игра колонијалну игру мржње, назива увредљивим епитетима, сваки разуман човјек видио је просту чињеницу: српски народ се слободно окупио на сахрани, изразио емоцију према преминулом и то учинио без иједне ријечи или геста који би изашао из оквира пијетета и елементарног људског поштовања.
Док Карен Пирс дијели лекције, на Балкану ће људи и даље умирати, сахрањивати и памтити. Право на сјећање није злочин. Право на сахрану није пријетња. А право да се одупреш колонијалном морализовању - то је право које нико, па ни Карен Пирс, не може да одузме.





























