Europe will not loosen its pressure on Russia after the US-Russia diesel deal, EU Foreign Policy chief Kaja Kallas says. She has announced that EU foreign ministers will approve the bloc’s largest set of sanctions against Russia’s war machine since the full-scale invasion on 12 October.

Washington has just eased the pressure on Russia, letting Russian diesel back onto world markets and handing Moscow more money to wage war. This comes as Russian strikes have killed more than 80 Ukrainian civilians in two days, 22 of them on Russian President Vladimir Putin's birthday on 7 October.

Moreover, Russia has stepped up its hybrid attacks against Europe, both EU Member States and NATO Allies. It is now the time to tighten sanctions, not loosen them, Kallas says.

“Suspending sanctions on Russian diesel provides Moscow with more revenues to wage war. This is not the time to ease pressure on Russia, and Europe won’t,” she claims.

A split with Washington

On 9 October, Trump claimed he had agreed with Putin to put more than 300,000 tons of Russian diesel on world markets immediately.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the deal a weak decision by strong partners, arguing that Russia turns oil-product revenue into weapons against Ukraine's civilians, according to the BBC.

The package aims at the missile chain

On 7 October, EU ambassadors approved the 22nd package of sanctions, with about 1,700 listings, Ukrainian President’s Commissioner for Sanctions Policy Vladyslav Vlasiuk notes. It is expected to be formally approved on 12 October.

This package contains the largest number of sanctions targeting Russia’s defence industry. Of these, 60% were drawn from Ukrainian decrees and proposals. The package includes measures targeting machine tools, Lancet drones, ballistic weapons, and related technologies.

“The core of the package is Russia’s missile programme and electronic components: electronics, capacitors, resistors, and semiconductors. It also covers electronic warfare, shipbuilding, and explosives,” Vlasiuk says.

It took just a few weeks from Ukraine's decision to the European one.

"But we are already working on further measures, including sectoral sanctions targeting energy, the defense industry, finance, and trade,” he stated.

from SGT Report: The BOMBSHELL information you are about to hear comes at great cost to the personal safety of Jesse Beltran, Matt Hazen and the whistle blowers who are bringing it to light. We have all been transfected by bioweapons, GHOST technology, RF emitting devices and nanotech which now lives in many of us, […]

 L’Europa ha già conosciuto questa strada, nell’estate del 1914. Sarebbe imperdonabile percorrerla di nuovo, stavolta con le testate nucleari in fondo.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Tutto è pronto a esplodere

A Copenaghen, davanti ai capi di stato maggiore dei trentadue Paesi dell’Alleanza atlantica, l’ammiraglio Giuseppe Cavo Dragone ha scelto le parole con cui presentarsi all’opinione pubblica europea. Presidente del Comitato militare della NATO dal gennaio 2025, ha annunciato che l’Alleanza dispone di «4.000 pagine di piani» per il fianco orientale, che quei piani coprono ogni scenario «da una crisi minima o un intervento sul nostro territorio all’attivazione dell’articolo 5 e alle successive azioni», e che «il personale militare, i sistemi e le armi sono pronti». Poi la chiusa: in caso di attacco, i russi «hanno molto più da perdere che da guadagnare. Questo è assolutamente certo. Ed è questo che costituisce la deterrenza».

Nelle intenzioni dell’ammiraglio doveva essere un messaggio rassicurante. Letto con attenzione, è una delle dichiarazioni più imprudenti pronunciate da un vertice militare europeo dalla fine della Guerra fredda. Vale la pena smontarla pezzo per pezzo.

Le parole di Copenaghen non cadono nel vuoto. Poche ore prima il premier polacco Donald Tusk aveva previsto che Mosca potrebbe lanciare droni o missili sul territorio di un Paese NATO «nei prossimi mesi», per dimostrare che l’articolo 5 è una promessa di carta; Parigi, intanto, preparava un piano contro gli attacchi con droni. In un’atmosfera del genere, il compito di un militare di rango sarebbe raffreddare, distinguere l’ipotesi dal fatto, ricordare ai governi che la guerra tra potenze nucleari non è uno scenario da pianificare ma da impedire. L’ammiraglio ha fatto l’opposto: ha aggiunto combustibile.

E non è la prima volta. Nel dicembre 2025, in un’intervista al Financial Times, lo stesso Cavo Dragone spiegava che l’Alleanza stava valutando di diventare «più aggressiva» contro la guerra ibrida russa, che un «attacco preventivo» poteva essere considerato un’«azione difensiva» e che essere più aggressivi della controparte «potrebbe essere un’opzione». Mosca, per bocca di Marija Zacharova, parlò di un passo irresponsabile verso l’escalation, arrivato mentre si negoziava sull’Ucraina. Dieci mesi dopo il registro non è cambiato. Si è solo fatto più esplicito: prima l’ipotesi dell’attacco preventivo, ora l’inventario delle armi pronte.

La deterrenza non si fa con i proclami

L’ammiraglio chiama tutto questo «deterrenza». Ma la teoria della deterrenza, quella seria, dice altro. Thomas Schelling ha spiegato che la deterrenza è un atto di comunicazione in cui la credibilità conta quanto la forza, e che la minaccia efficace lascia sempre all’avversario una via d’uscita. Nel dilemma della sicurezza, ciò che una parte vive come difesa venga letto dall’altra come preparazione all’offesa. Quattromila pagine che arrivano fino alle «azioni successive» all’articolo 5 sono, viste da Mosca, piani di guerra contro la Russia. Nessun analista del Cremlino le leggerà in altro modo, e nessuno dovrebbe stupirsene.

C’è poi una questione di ruolo. Il presidente del Comitato militare è il principale consigliere militare del Segretario generale e del Consiglio Nord Atlantico: non decide la politica dell’Alleanza, la serve. Quando un ufficiale di questo livello usa la tribuna pubblica per lanciare avvertimenti a una potenza straniera, invade uno spazio che appartiene ai governi e ai parlamenti, cioè a chi risponde ai cittadini. In una democrazia la decisione sulla guerra non spetta alle stellette. Oppure dobbiamo intendere che è la NATO, tramite Cavo Dragone, a provocare lo scoppio di una guerra, invocandola a più non posso?

E soprattutto c’è l’arma nucleare. Dal novembre 2024 la dottrina russa considera l’aggressione di uno Stato non nucleare, condotta con la partecipazione o il sostegno di una potenza nucleare, come un attacco congiunto, e abbassa la soglia per l’impiego dell’atomica. Si può giudicare quella dottrina come si vuole. Ignorarla è impossibile. Chi parla di «azioni successive» all’articolo 5 contro un Paese che ha scritto nero su bianco queste regole sta parlando, che lo voglia o no, di guerra nucleare.

Tutta la costruzione retorica di Copenaghen poggia su una premessa mai dimostrata: che la Russia si prepari ad attaccare l’Alleanza. Gli indizi citati sono violazioni dello spazio aereo, sabotaggi, rapporti d’intelligence che parlano di un attacco «nei prossimi anni». Il Cremlino ha smentito piani del genere, e la smentita da sola non prova nulla. Ma la logica strategica sì. Mosca è impegnata in Ucraina da oltre quattro anni e mezzo; un’aggressione diretta contro un membro NATO la porterebbe contro gli arsenali di Stati Uniti, Regno Unito e Francia, senza alcun guadagno proporzionato al rischio. Che una simile scelta sia altamente improbabile lo capisce chiunque ragioni in termini di costi e benefici, a Mosca come a Bruxelles.

Perché allora insistere sull’imminenza della minaccia? Una risposta, difficile da scartare, sta nei bilanci. Al vertice dell’Aia del giugno 2025 gli alleati si sono impegnati a portare la spesa per la difesa al 5% del PIL entro il 2035. Un obiettivo del genere si giustifica davanti agli elettori solo con un nemico alle porte. La paura è diventata una voce di bilancio.

Resta l’altra metà del problema, la più grave. Se un attacco russo alla NATO è improbabile, una guerra della NATO contro la Russia è impensabile. La Federazione Russa possiede, secondo le stime della Federation of American Scientists, il più ampio arsenale nucleare del pianeta. Non esiste una vittoria militare contro una potenza di questo tipo: esiste solo la distruzione reciproca, e la sua geografia è già scritta. Si combatterebbe qui.

Ammiraglio, ci dia qualche spiegazione

Ammiraglio, adesso si calmi, si pulisca la bava che le è uscita dalla bocca, e ci spieghi esattamente cosa abbiamo noi da perdere da un confronto con la Russia. Lei ha misurato con certezza assoluta le perdite altrui. Le nostre non le ha nominate.

Proviamo a farlo noi. L’Italia ospita basi che le fonti aperte indicano da anni come depositi di armi nucleari statunitensi, ad Aviano e a Ghedi; ospita Sigonella, il comando alleato di Napoli, porti e infrastrutture che in qualunque pianificazione avversaria sono bersagli di prima fila. La Polonia, i Baltici, la Germania sono il teatro stesso delle «4.000 pagine». Gli Stati Uniti hanno un oceano di mezzo. L’Europa ha le sue città, le sue fabbriche, i suoi figli. In una guerra con la Russia l’Europa non è un attore: è il campo di battaglia.

E allora la seconda domanda, quella che nessun comunicato di Copenaghen affronta. Cosa otterremmo da un confronto nucleare combattuto sul nostro territorio, per l’esattezza? Quale obiettivo politico, quale interesse nazionale italiano, quale principio europeo varrebbe Milano, Monaco, Varsavia? La risposta onesta è una sola: niente. Una guerra che non si può vincere non è una politica. È un suicidio con un piano operativo allegato.

In 77 anni di storia, che l’ammiraglio rivendica, l’Alleanza ha prodotto piani per ogni contingenza. Mancano altre pagine, quelle che l’Europa dovrebbe pretendere dai propri governi: un’architettura di sicurezza continentale che includa anche la Russia, misure di fiducia reciproca, canali militari di comunicazione permanenti, trattati sul controllo degli armamenti da ricostruire dopo che quasi tutti sono stati lasciati decadere. Nel 1975, con l’Atto finale di Helsinki, due blocchi armati fino ai denti seppero sedersi allo stesso tavolo. Non era debolezza. Era la consapevolezza che la sopravvivenza del continente valeva più di qualunque vantaggio tattico.

Oggi quella consapevolezza sembra scomparsa proprio da chi, per mestiere, dovrebbe conoscere meglio di tutti il prezzo della guerra. Quando i generali parlano come ultimatum e i governi tacciono, il rischio non è che la guerra venga dichiarata. È che arrivi da sola, per inerzia, trascinata da parole che nessuno ha avuto il coraggio di ritirare.

L’Europa ha già conosciuto questa strada, nell’estate del 1914. Sarebbe imperdonabile percorrerla di nuovo, stavolta con le testate nucleari in fondo.

La NATO Edge 26 a Smirne fonde la tecnologia civile con quella militare. L’intelligenza artificiale, il cloud e la sicurezza informatica sono ora al servizio del complesso militare-industriale.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il vertice della NATO tenutosi ad Ankara nel mese di luglio continua a far sentire il proprio impatto nel nostro Paese — un vertice caratterizzato dal blocco della città, dai tappeti rossi stesi per i leader imperialisti, dalle marce dei giannizzeri, dalla narrativa di una «grande Turchia» costruita attorno all’ospitare l’evento e dagli arresti che continuano a tenere le persone dietro le sbarre.

Come è stato spesso sottolineato, il vertice di luglio ha segnato l’inizio di una «nuova era» sia a livello internazionale che per il nostro Paese.

Sembra che discuteremo di questa importante svolta ancora per molto tempo. Nel frattempo, il «lavoro» della NATO nel nostro Paese non è ancora terminato. Si avvicina un altro evento cruciale della NATO, che ha ricevuto scarsa attenzione da parte dei media mainstream — e quando ne riceverà, sarà ancora una volta inquadrato nella narrativa dell’«importanza della Turchia»: il NATO Edge 26…Il NATO Edge 26, che si terrà a Smirne nel novembre 2026, viene promosso utilizzando concetti quali «innovazione», «prontezza operativa» e «sicurezza del futuro». O, per dirla in parole povere: la commercializzazione e l’integrazione delle tecnologie militari, dell’industria della difesa e della capacità bellica…Il testo promozionale ufficiale dell’evento, organizzato dall’Agenzia della NATO per le comunicazioni e l’informazione (NCIA), ne illustra lo scopo in modo piuttosto chiaro:«NATO Edge 26 si concentrerà sul rafforzamento della prontezza operativa e della capacità bellica della NATO attraverso una collaborazione più rapida, più intelligente e più scalabile con l’industria.…La NCIA è lieta di portare avanti questa tradizione in Turchia nel 2026 e di far compiere all’evento un ulteriore passo avanti con un formato rinnovato, incentrato sulla fornitura di soluzioni efficaci e sulla priorità data alle partnership con l’industria.La partecipazione dell’industria sarà al centro dell’edizione del 2026, offrendo maggiori opportunità di coinvolgimento diretto, sessioni informative mirate, una comprensione più completa delle imminenti esigenze e priorità di approvvigionamento della NATO, nonché maggiori opportunità di presentare le soluzioni del settore ai decisori della NATO, agli utenti finali e ai potenziali partner».Un ecosistema militare che opera secondo la logica di mercato, con le partnership e la partecipazione al centro del proprio funzionamento. Le aziende del settore della difesa, gli Stati e i comandi militari stanno ampliando la propria cooperazione al fine di rafforzare la «prontezza operativa»…Che cos’è esattamente NATO Edge?NATO Edge è l’evento tecnologico di punta del centro per la tecnologia e la sicurezza informatica della NATO, l’Agenzia NATO per le comunicazioni e l’informazione (NCI Agency).Il termine “Edge” può essere tradotto in turco con “bordo”, “frontiera”, “vantaggio”, “superiorità” o, a seconda del contesto, “all’avanguardia” o “avanzato”.Si è tenuto per la prima volta nel 2022 a Mons, in Belgio. L’evento è nato dalla fusione di due manifestazioni precedentemente separate: il Simposio della NATO sulla sicurezza delle informazioni (NIAS) e una conferenza di settore nota come NITEC.Secondo i documenti ufficiali della NATO, il NIAS era incentrato sulla sicurezza informatica, mentre il NITEC riguardava la dimensione tecnologica e industriale. In altre parole, NATO Edge si rivolge esplicitamente sia alla sfera tecnologica che a quella industriale/commerciale.Alla prima edizione, tenutasi a Mons, in Belgio, dal 25 al 27 ottobre 2022, hanno partecipato oltre 2.100 iscritti e più di 100 aziende hanno preso parte all’area espositiva. Il programma includeva argomenti quali l’uso dell’intelligenza artificiale nelle applicazioni militari, la sicurezza informatica e la trasformazione digitale.In occasione del secondo evento, tenutosi a Tampa, in Florida (Stati Uniti), dal 3 al 5 dicembre 2024, sono state discusse le tecnologie cloud, la sicurezza informatica, l’intelligenza artificiale e l’uso strategico delle risorse. Secondo il rapporto annuale 2024 della NCIA, circa il 60 per cento dei partecipanti proveniva dal settore industriale, mentre il 31 per cento rappresentava la NATO, i governi e le forze armate.Questo quadro indica chiaramente che la tecnologia dell’intelligenza artificiale — il cui sviluppo negli Stati Uniti ha subito un’accelerazione dall’inizio degli anni 2000 ed è esploso negli ultimi anni — viene sistematicamente adottata dal complesso militare-industriale.Inoltre, tale sistema è stato sviluppato direttamente sotto la guida militare della NATO, in collaborazione con l’industria civile, utilizzando risorse così vaste che le iniziative civili volte a impiegare la tecnologia — in particolare l’intelligenza artificiale — «a beneficio dell’umanità» non possono competere con esse.Negli Stati Uniti, ad esempio, molte aziende incapaci di reperire investimenti hanno iniziato a ricevere finanziamenti da istituzioni militari quali la CIA e la NATO e a sviluppare tecnologie sotto la loro direzione. Il fatto che la CIA sia stata il «primo investitore» in numerose startup tecnologiche costituisce un esempio lampante di questo sistema.In sintesi, il percorso dello sviluppo tecnologico è stato in gran parte lasciato alla mercé della leadership militare e dei giganti tecnologici americani.Un quadro simile emergerà al NATO Edge 26. Molte piccole startup partecipanti all’evento cercheranno di stringere accordi con i principali attori del settore e tenteranno di assicurarsi finanziamenti da parte loro. Naturalmente, ciò avverrà al prezzo di lavorare per gli interessi militari della NATO.Per le aziende tecnologiche «locali, nazionali e fortemente nazionaliste», il cui numero è cresciuto enormemente nel nostro Paese negli ultimi anni, la «giustificazione» è altrettanto chiara: la Turchia è oggi un Paese sull’orlo di una svolta epocale, sede di importanti eventi internazionali, destinato presumibilmente a diventare non il loro subordinato, ma il loro padrone, e dotato di qualità che lo rendono indispensabile per tutti… Allora perché non dedicare tutte le nostre forze e il nostro lavoro alla strategia elaborata dalla NATO? Guadagneremo denaro e faremo un ulteriore passo avanti in un ordine mondiale in cui, presumibilmente, siamo già un attore così importante…Questa è più o meno la logica che sta dietro alla retorica apparentemente contraddittoria e irrazionale dell’industria della difesa turca riguardo alla «sfida al mondo» e alle sue azioni che, in ultima analisi, equivalgono a lavorare per le potenze imperialiste.In parole povere, NATO Edge è proprio l’incarnazione di questa logica attraverso eventi, sessioni e stand espositivi aziendali.Perché si tiene a Smirne?L’NCIA non ha fornito una motivazione specifica per la scelta di Smirne come sede del NATO Edge 26. Tuttavia, è possibile comprendere il motivo della scelta di Smirne esaminando i documenti della stessa istituzione.In primo luogo, durante il vertice di Ankara del 7-8 luglio si è tenuto un Forum dell’industria della NATO, nel corso del quale sono state annunciate nuove decisioni in materia di appalti per un valore di decine di miliardi di dollari. Le decisioni adottate dalla NATO a luglio mirano a tradurre in capacità operativa gli impegni politici e finanziari assunti ad Ankara, mentre a Smirne la NATO e l’industria collaboreranno per accelerare lo sviluppo di tale capacità.In secondo luogo, il vertice di Ankara ha adottato una nuova Strategia per la cooperazione tra l’industria e la NATO (SYNC). Questo documento porta il rapporto tra la NATO e l’industria a una fase più precoce. Attraverso questo meccanismo, le aziende non si limiteranno a presentare offerte per gare d’appalto già indette, ma saranno coinvolte nel processo sin dal momento in cui vengono identificati i futuri requisiti di capacità.In terzo luogo, il Ministero della Difesa Nazionale turco ha presentato NATO Edge 26 come un evento finalizzato alla «promozione internazionale e alla maggiore visibilità delle capacità “high-tech” dell’industria della difesa turca». L’NCIA ha inoltre firmato, durante la Giornata dell’Industria Turca da essa organizzata in Turchia, uno dei primi contratti della sua storia riguardante la modernizzazione delle apparecchiature di sorveglianza aerea a bassissima frequenza per il Comando Marittimo Alleato con ASELSAN.In altre parole, Smirne non dovrebbe essere considerata semplicemente come una «sede dell’evento», ma come un punto di contatto per legare più strettamente la Turchia alla catena di approvvigionamento delle tecnologie di difesa dell’imperialismo.È proprio qui che NATO Edge 26 si differenzia in modo più significativo dai precedenti incontri. L’NCIA sta dicendo apertamente alle aziende: «Potrete conoscere le esigenze della NATO prima che diventino specifiche ufficiali di gara», offrendo al contempo oltre 1 miliardo di euro in imminenti «opportunità di appalto della NATO». ”Il NATO Edge 26 sta creando un meccanismo di abbinamento in fase iniziale tra le esigenze militari della NATO e le decisioni del settore privato in materia di sviluppo dei prodotti e di investimenti.Chi vi partecipa?L’elenco ufficiale dei partecipanti al NATO Edge è ancora in fase di aggiornamento e, nella sua versione accessibile al pubblico, non tutte le oltre 270 aziende di cui è nota la partecipazione compaiono contemporaneamente. Ciononostante, è possibile confermare la presenza di numerose aziende di rilievo sia attraverso l’elenco ufficiale sia tramite gli annunci relativi a NATO Edge diffusi dalle aziende stesse. Tra i nomi che figurano nell’elenco ufficiale figurano Airbus, AWS, Anduril, ASELSAN, ASFAT, BAE Systems Digital Intelligence, BlackBerry, Booz Allen Hamilton, Cisco, Cloudflare, Broadcom, Armis Federal/ServiceNow, Atos e Barikat Cyber Security.Tra i relatori del settore presenti nel programma figurano il cofondatore e amministratore delegato di Helsing, Gundbert Scherf; l’amministratore delegato di Planet Labs, Will Marshall; il fondatore di UiPath, Daniel Dines; il dirigente di AWS Global Defense, Christian Hoff; il dirigente tecnologico di Leonardo, Alessandro Massa; il dirigente di Thales cortAIx Factory, Mickael Brossard; e la consulente capo per la sicurezza di BlackBerry, Christine Gadsby.Il pericolo del «doppio uso»Uno dei concetti che emerge in modo particolare nei materiali dell’evento NATO 2026 è quello della tecnologia a «doppio uso».Il vice segretario generale della NATO, Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe, ha affermato che NATO Edge 26 risulterà particolarmente interessante per «le aziende che, oltre alla propria attività commerciale principale, dispongono di una credibile applicazione militare». In altre parole, la NATO non si rivolge più esclusivamente alle tradizionali aziende del settore della difesa, ma punta anche alle tecnologie che possono essere trasferite dal mercato commerciale alla sfera militare.Ciò significa che un’azienda tecnologica non deve più essere necessariamente un’«azienda produttrice di armi» sin dall’inizio. Un’azienda può operare nei settori dell’analisi dei dati, delle immagini satellitari, dei sistemi cloud, delle comunicazioni, dell’intelligenza artificiale, della sicurezza informatica, dell’automazione o dell’informatica, entrando al contempo nel sistema NATO e lavorando per la NATO.Ciò amplia notevolmente la portata di ciò che da tempo viene descritto come la «militarizzazione della tecnologia».Il profilo dei partecipanti al NATO Edge 26 lo rende evidente. Da un lato vi sono giganti della difesa quali Airbus, Anduril, ASELSAN, Leonardo e Thales; dall’altro, aziende tecnologiche civili quali AWS, Cisco, Cloudflare, Broadcom, BlackBerry, UiPath e Planet Labs.In altre parole, la tecnologia militare non significa più semplicemente «produrre prodotti militari per gli eserciti»; significa sempre più mettere i prodotti che si creano al servizio degli interessi militari.In che modo il mercato e la militarizzazione si stanno fondendo?In questo nuovo sistema, in cui anche il settore privato viene coinvolto nell’industria della difesa, la formula è chiara:Finanziamenti pubblici, domanda della NATO, investimenti aziendali, sviluppo tecnologico, integrazione militare, appalti pubblici, produzione su larga scala, nuovi investimenti…A questo punto, è necessario fare una breve digressione. La combinazione tra impresa privata ed esigenze militari, quando a queste ultime viene data priorità, comporta l’emergere di nuove crisi economiche nelle società capitalistiche. Infatti, l’intera catena di esigenze finirà per essere finanziata a spese dei lavoratori e dei loro bisogni sociali, che vengono collocati in fondo alla lista delle priorità.La forza competitiva della Repubblica Popolare Cinese (RPC), che ha compiuto progressi significativi nell’intelligenza artificiale, nella tecnologia e nella tecnologia militare, deriva non solo da tali progressi, ma anche dalla leadership del Partito Comunista, che dirige i settori pubblico e privato da un unico centro. Ciò che conferisce alla Cina la sua «velocità», nonché la minaccia che essa rappresenta per l’alleanza atlantica, è il controllo e la guida del settore privato da parte del Partito.Questa «minaccia» rappresentata dalla Cina sta spingendo il capitalismo ad adottare misure più rapide e severe in nuovi ambiti di cooperazione civile-militare simili a Edge.L’«industria nazionale e interna» viene vincolata al mercato della NATOL’entusiasmo dell’«industria nazionale e interna» sopra menzionata viene inoltre direttamente vincolato, nell’ambito di questo nuovo sistema, al mercato della NATO e alle sue esigenze militari.Si sostiene ripetutamente che la Turchia stia espandendo la propria industria della difesa. Ma di che tipo di espansione si tratta?L’industria della difesa viene internazionalizzata attraverso gli standard della NATO, i meccanismi di approvvigionamento della NATO, le esigenze operative della NATO e l’accesso al mercato della NATO.Per questo motivo, «produzione nazionale» e «integrazione nella NATO» non devono necessariamente essere in contrapposizione. Al contrario, nell’ambito del modello odierno, le due cose possono avvenire contemporaneamente. Il carattere «nazionale» a cui si fa riferimento è, per un Paese la cui intera strategia militare è già stata costruita da anni in conformità con gli interessi della NATO, un tipo molto particolare di nazionalità.È interessante notare che un annuncio del giugno 2026 da parte della Camera di Commercio della Regione dell’Egeo rivela che la quota inizialmente assegnata di 100 stand per le organizzazioni dell’industria della difesa turca all’evento è stata ridotta a 40, dopo che sono state ricevute meno candidature del previsto da parte delle aziende nazionali.Questi dati sono importanti sotto due aspetti.In primo luogo, l’ipotesi secondo cui l’industria della difesa turca si stia automaticamente e intensamente orientando verso il mercato della NATO non si applica in egual misura a tutte le aziende. È possibile intuire quali tipi di aziende possano permettersi di presentare domanda.In secondo luogo, ciò dimostra che presentare il NATO Edge 26 semplicemente come una «mostra gigantesca che apre tutte le aziende turche del settore della difesa al mondo» non riflette la realtà.Cosa rivela il collegamento con l’Ucraina?NATO Edge 26 contiene anche segnali importanti riguardo alla guerra in Ucraina. Sebbene il nostro Paese abbia ripetutamente cercato di posizionarsi come mediatore in ogni momento cruciale della guerra tra Russia e Ucraina, è del tutto evidente che nessuno — la NATO in primo luogo — abbia preso sul serio tale intenzione.Tra i partecipanti a Edge figurano il Centro per l’Innovazione e lo Sviluppo delle Tecnologie di Difesa del Ministero della Difesa ucraino e Brave1. Fondata nel 2023, Brave1 è una piattaforma ufficiale attraverso la quale il governo ucraino riunisce sviluppatori di tecnologie per la difesa, forze armate, investitori e aziende tecnologiche. La loro partecipazione significa inoltre che la NATO trasferirà direttamente l’esperienza tecnologica della guerra in Ucraina nel proprio ecosistema di innovazione.Anche questo non è un caso. Nell’ambito del programma UNITE–Brave NATO, la NATO e l’Ucraina hanno già istituito un fondo comune per appalti del valore complessivo di 10 milioni di euro, con l’intenzione di espandere il programma fino a 50 milioni di euro nelle fasi successive.A quali interessi serve la tecnologia?

Considerare il NATO Edge 26 a Smirne semplicemente come un evento in cui vengono esposte armi di nuova generazione, applicazioni di intelligenza artificiale o sistemi di difesa digitali sarebbe una grave semplificazione eccessiva. Il «quadro più ampio» mostra come le capacità civili e militari vengano fuse in un unico bacino, con aziende, Stati, istituzioni militari e sviluppatori tecnologici che partecipano congiuntamente alla costruzione di una nuova capacità bellica sotto il nome di «partenariato».

Pertanto, l’ambito della guerra cessa di limitarsi ai sistemi d’arma impiegati sul campo di battaglia; dati, intelligenza artificiale, sistemi cloud, comunicazioni, tecnologie satellitari, software e logistica stanno diventando tutti componenti della preparazione alla guerra e della pianificazione militare.

Dal punto di vista del nostro Paese, si può affermare che la retorica «interna e nazionale» di Ankara sia orientata verso i requisiti, gli standard, i meccanismi di approvvigionamento e le reti internazionali dell’industria della difesa della NATO. I limiti della narrativa secondo cui la Turchia sarebbe una potenza indipendente in grado di sfidare il mondo attraverso la propria industria della difesa sono, in ultima analisi, determinati dalle decisioni prese in sede di NATO.

Allo stesso tempo, eventi di questo tipo mettono ancora una volta in luce un’altra realtà che i marxisti hanno ripetutamente sottolineato — e ripetutamente dimostrato nella pratica: quanto sia in realtà condizionata la retorica del «libero mercato» del capitalismo.

Quando si tratta di guerra e di esigenze militari, la tradizionale affermazione secondo cui il mercato dovrebbe essere lasciato a se stesso può improvvisamente passare in secondo piano. La capacità produttiva può essere orientata in base a priorità strategiche, e il capitale privato può essere incoraggiato a operare per soddisfare le esigenze di «sicurezza».

In breve, la «vera questione» sollevata da NATO Edge 26 non è quale nuova tecnologia venga sviluppata, ma in base alle esigenze di chi, secondo quali priorità politiche ed economiche e, in ultima analisi, al servizio di chi venga sviluppata questa capacità tecnologica.

A chi era impegnato nella lotta organizzata un tempo veniva detto: «Lasci perdere tutto questo, si trovi prima un lavoro». Ora la frase è cambiata: «Lasci perdere la politica, viviamo nell’era dell’intelligenza artificiale — impari la tecnologia».

Eppure, sebbene lo sviluppo tecnologico e i tempi che cambiano trasformino gli strumenti e le esigenze a nostra disposizione, non modificano il fatto che le classi dominanti utilizzino ogni strumento del «progresso» per preservare il proprio potere.

Da questa prospettiva, lo scopo politico che sta alla base della monopolizzazione dell’intelligenza artificiale da parte dei giganti militari ed economici è lo stesso che stava alla base del controllo dei macchinari da parte dei detentori del capitale nelle prime fasi della Rivoluzione Industriale.

Nel nostro Paese, dove i tempi che cambiano, gli strumenti e le esigenze sono forieri di gravi crisi, questi «accordi diabolici» che verranno stipulati a Smirne apriranno le porte a un’altra nuova era.

In definitiva, NATO Edge 26 è un esempio contemporaneo non solo dello sviluppo tecnologico in sé, ma anche dell’organizzazione della tecnologia per scopi «prebellici» e della socializzazione dei suoi costi — ovvero, del trasferimento di tali costi sulle spalle dei lavoratori.

I nostri predecessori politici, che un tempo osservavano a quale scopo venissero effettivamente utilizzate le gigantesche macchine nelle fabbriche oltre che per la produzione, ci hanno anche tramandato ciò che era necessario fare in risposta.

Ciò che occorre costruire oggi è il bastone che verrà conficcato negli ingranaggi digitali della nostra epoca.

from DollarVigilante: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Trying to pin the blame for the depletion of U.S. military stockpiles on something other than the war in Iran, President Donald Trump fell back on a usual scapegoat last week: Ukraine. “The Biden administration gave far more munitions away to Ukraine, at no cost to them whatsoever, than we have used in Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

This is a familiar refrain. Trump loves to remind his audience that because of him, Americans are “not spending on Ukraine anymore” and instead, Europe is footing the bill. In truth, most people in the United States don’t think about Ukraine much these days. But since Trump himself brought it up, it’s worth asking: What exactly is going on with U.S. military support to Ukraine?

The answer might surprise you. Despite Trump’s rhetoric, the United States remains deeply embroiled in Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia in ways that create national security risks and run counter to Trump’s own foreign policy goals.

It is true that Trump has reduced U.S. support to Ukraine compared to its high mark under his predecessor, Joe Biden. First, his administration has stopped the use of Presidential Drawdown Authority to transfer weapons from U.S. stocks directly to Ukraine. The Biden administration used this mechanism to give Ukraine almost $35 billion in weapons free of charge. Second, the Trump administration has not requested additional funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which uses U.S. financing to purchase new weapons for Ukraine.

But Trump has not cut off all assistance to Ukraine. Several important channels remain. First, there are about $13 billion in outstanding USAI contracts as of June 2026, down from $20 billion in January 2025. These contracts, signed by Biden and now implemented by Trump, will procure weapons for Ukraine through about 2028. Weapons in the pipeline include longer-lead time systems like NASAMs, Patriot missiles and components (Ukraine is reportedly receiving at 10-20 PAC-3s per month under these contracts), counter-drone systems, artillery rockets, and ammunition.

These continuing deliveries are not new awards, but they are still taxpayer-funded military aid to Ukraine that will add up to about $20 billion in aid over the 4 years of Trump’s term. Weapons produced under these contracts come off overburdened U.S. production lines. This has a high opportunity cost given the limits of U.S. defense industrial capacity. Without obligations to Ukraine, industrial resources could shift to different weapons or systems that the United States needs more.

If the Trump administration were serious about ending U.S. spending on the Ukraine war, it could still recoup these funds and reallocate the money to support U.S. defense production needs. It has instead allowed the aid to continue.

There has also been some new funding approved since Biden left office. Congress included about $800 million of USAI funding in the 2026 and 2027 NDAAs. We can expect more in future bills as well.

And the State Department has continued to send military aid of its own. A portion of this aid goes through the Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, including drones, armored vehicles, guns, grenade launchers, and similar equipment. Since this equipment ends up with Ukraine’s National Guard and border police it is often counted as non-military and intended for things like counterdrug operations, but today these personnel serve as combat units.

The State Department has also approved $3 billion of new arms sales to Ukraine in 2025 and 2026 that will be at least partially funded from foreign military financing (FMF), which means U.S. dollars supporting foreign government purchases of U.S. weapons. Some of these funds may come from money allocated but not spent under President Biden, but much of the funding will be new, coming from the State Department’s budget.

The bottom line is that U.S. weapons transfers to Ukraine continue under Trump, amounting to, on average, as much at $5 billion per year. But this is no longer the most important, or expensive, type of support that the United States gives to Ukraine.

For example, the United States gives Ukraine real-time targeting information, including on the movement of Russian troops and the location of key command centers. This information has been important to Ukraine’s mid-range strike campaign on Russian logistics as well as its deep strikes against military and energy targets inside of Russia. In addition, U.S. reconnaissance and surveillance assets in countries on the NATO border (including routine E-3 flights) are integrated with Ukraine’s air defense network, improving the accuracy and speed of Ukraine’s response.

Beyond intelligence, the United States also provides logistical and maintenance support, including forward and remote assistance to repair American-made equipment, necessary spare parts to keep older systems running, and training. It also facilitates the expensive transfer of European purchases of U.S. weapons.

The cost of the intelligence, logistics, and other operational support the United States provides to Ukraine does not show up anywhere as an itemized bill, even as U.S. assistance increases. But we can use available public information to draw some conclusions about the expenses incurred.

The 2024 defense supplemental bill, for instance, allocated about $15 billion to “military training, intelligence sharing, increased presence, and other support activities.” In theory, these funds are intended to cover activities conducted in support of Ukraine that would not occur if the United States remained uninvolved in that conflict. Some portion of this money will go to the salaries of military personnel who would be paid no matter where they work.

Since about a third of each military service’s budget is personnel costs, we could estimate the cost of extra activities conducted for Ukraine, excluding baseline manpower, at about $10 billion over the course of a year or so. If Trump has truly expanded intelligence sharing with Ukraine, this price tag may have increased over time.

The money included in the bill is likely only a portion of the actual burden the U.S. military and intelligence community have shouldered to support Ukraine’s war. Many intelligence activities, like tasking and analyzing satellite data and collecting signals intelligence, might be covered in classified national security budgets. Starting in 2023, in fact, the classified intelligence budget increased by 10%, a large jump over the 2022 total. The increase was justified by intelligence community leaders as resulting from shifts in the national security landscape, including especially concern about China’s rise and spillover from conflict in Ukraine. Since the total increase in funding was about $10 billion, we can guess that Ukraine-related expenditures might amount to $3-$5 billion per year, or about one-third to one-half of the total increase.

All told, then, U.S. taxpayers are still spending roughly $20 billion per year on Ukraine. Today, assistance to Ukraine comes primarily in the form of direct operational support, not weapons. But the shift in type of aid increases the risk of U.S. support to Ukraine to average Americans.

First, assisting Ukraine in striking energy targets inside of Russia has a perverse effect on the Trump administration’s efforts to keep gas prices low. As Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent acknowledged, Ukraine’s strikes inside Russia push global oil prices up, imposing higher costs of living on Americans.

Second, U.S. intelligence support deepens U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war, making it an all-but-direct combatant. Russian assistance to Iran, both in terms of weapons and intelligence sharing, is a reaction to the comparable U.S. role in Ukraine, and it leaves U.S. servicemembers in the Middle East and elsewhere less safe. Growing U.S. participation in Ukraine also increases the risk that miscalculation leads to a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, a nightmarish possibility given the degraded state of U.S. military readiness.

Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. He has instead deepened U.S. entanglement in ways that create real risks and new fiscal costs for the United States. American interests would be best served if the United States were to walk away entirely, but if Trump instead opts for the status quo, he should at least be honest about it.

Original article: responsiblestatecraft.org

A company of unmanned ground systems from Ukraine's 92nd Assault Brigade used the robotic system Frodo to evacuate a wounded soldier, Frontline Robotics told Militarnyi on 7 October.

Ground robots are being used to evacuate wounded soldiers from the drone-dominated "kill zone," a band tens of kilometers deep on both sides of the front line. About 112,000 logistics and evacuation missions by ground robotic systems were recorded from January through August 2026, according to Ukraine's Defense Ministry.

Operator credits speed and suspension

The operator, callsign Tango, named speed and the ability to perform complex maneuvers as the robot's main advantages, according to Militarnyi. The unit also praised Frodo's adaptive suspension, which it said smoothed out rough terrain and kept the wounded soldier's transport relatively comfortable.

What Frodo can carry, and how far

The robot has a 6×6 wheel layout with independent suspension, adjustable ground clearance of 170–330 mm, and a top speed of 40 km/h. Its recommended payload is 200 kg, and its maximum is 400 kg, according to Frontline Robotics. The company lists its range as 150 km on asphalt and up to 90 km over rough terrain with the recommended load. Frodo supports several communication channels, and one person can swap its batteries in about two minutes.

Frodo had passed the Defense Ministry's codification and could carry remote-controlled modules such as the Burya turret, Militarnyi reported on 30 September.

The 92nd Brigade had used ground robots to evacuate wounded soldiers before. In September 2025, the brigade evacuated three wounded soldiers using a ground robot, according to Militarnyi.

from Redacted News: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

An analysis published on Wednesday by ABC News estimated that companies backed financially by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have so far scored more than $6 billion in contracts from the US Department of Defense. As ABC documented, many of the investments into the defense firms come through 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm […]

The post Trump sons-backed firms bank $6 billion plus in Pentagon deals appeared first on Asia Times.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Who asked, and who decided

There are phrases which, on their own, say more about a state than a Defence White Paper. One such phrase appeared in the Corriere della Sera on 4 October, in an interview with the Chief of the Army General Staff, Lieutenant General Carmine Masiello: “On the eastern flank, we were asked to deploy units capable of providing a real deterrent: we are leading the multinational battlegroup in Bulgaria and are present in Latvia and Hungary. War does not ask for permission, and the contingent must be ready to respond.”

A few lines earlier, the same general had opened the interview as follows: “We are at war. A hybrid war, but war nonetheless.” The attentive reader will pause to consider three words. We have been asked. By whom? Real deterrence. Compared to what deterrence, until now, has been unreal? We are at war. Who has declared it? These are questions that the Italian public debate should ask itself seriously, without indulging either in the caricature of the warmongering military or in the conditioned reflex that treats every doubt as enemy propaganda. The argument put forward in these pages is simple: the idea of direct involvement by Italy and European countries in an armed conflict with Russia is strategic folly, and the bellicose rhetoric that is making it seem conceivable protects no one. It makes the situation worse.

It is best to start with the facts, because the controversy surrounding the interview has misrepresented some of them. The contingents mentioned by Masiello are not a development from the past week. Italy has been participating in NATO’s forward presence in Latvia since 2017 and, since 2022, has been leading the multinational battlegroup in Bulgaria – established following Russia’s conflict with Ukraine alongside those from Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The Madrid Summit in June 2022 then committed the allies to strengthening these groups to brigade level ‘where and when required’. The general’s statement that ‘we were asked’ therefore has a clear source: the Alliance’s planning, approved by the North Atlantic Council, to which the Italian government has given its consent.

Parliament, too, has formally expressed its view. Law 145 of 2016 stipulates that the government must approve international missions annually and that Parliament must authorise them. For 2026, the Council of Ministers’ resolution is dated 14 May; the Chamber of Deputies approved the authorisation resolution on 28 July, for missions valid from 1 January to 31 December. On closer inspection, this situation is more serious than the mere omission denounced by many commentators. Parliament was not bypassed: it was called upon at the end of July to ratify what had been in progress for seven months, as part of a single package bringing together dozens of different missions, from Lebanon to the Horn of Africa. Voting against the eastern flank means, in this context, voting against the whole package. It is a procedure that produces consensus without generating debate.

The problem, then, is not strictly legal. It is political, and concerns the quality of the decision. It is one thing to maintain a contingent in an allied country for reassurance purposes. It is quite another to publicly declare that that contingent must provide ‘real deterrence’ and be ‘ready to respond’ to a war that ‘does not ask for permission’. This shift in function – from a symbolic presence to combat readiness – has not been the subject of any specific parliamentary debate. Italians learnt of it from an interview published at the weekend, in a tone one might use to describe the modernisation of barracks.

A war that no one has authorised

Article 78 of the Constitution is so clear that it sounds almost embarrassing today: ‘The Chambers shall declare a state of war and confer upon the Government the necessary powers.’ Article 11 adds that Italy repudiates war as an instrument of aggression and as a means of resolving international disputes. In this context, the phrase ‘we are at war’, uttered by the head of the Armed Forces, is not merely a lexical detail. Neither House has declared a state of war. No government has been granted extraordinary powers. If words have any meaning, that phrase describes a condition that is not recognised by the legal system.

The contrast with Masiello’s own words from two and a half years ago is striking. In May 2024, in another interview, the general had been unequivocal in the opposite sense: ‘Let’s be clear: we are not at war,’ he had said, referring to a ‘sub-threshold’ conflict. The material reality described then and now is essentially the same: cyber-attacks, sabotage, disinformation, airspace violations. What has changed is the verbal framework. And in international politics, the framework is never neutral. Those who repeat every day that we are already at war accustom public opinion to the idea that actual war is merely the next step on a path that has already begun. This is precisely the process that the literature on threat construction describes as securitisation: a problem is shifted from the ordinary political sphere to that of emergency, where the usual rules – including debate – appear to be a luxury.

It is no coincidence that, in that very interview, the priority highlighted is the distribution to military personnel of a ‘cognitive self-defence manual’ against disinformation. The stated aim is to protect personnel. The side effect is to delimit the scope of what is conceivable: if every voice that questions the necessity of conflict can be interpreted as an emotional lever wielded by the enemy, dissent becomes a security issue. A democracy that fears manipulation should respond with more debate, not less.

Deterrence that produces what it fears

The strategic crux of the matter is the very concept of deterrence. Deterrence works when the adversary perceives our stance as both defensive and credible. It ceases to work – and indeed becomes counterproductive – when the measures a state adopts to feel secure are interpreted by the other as offensive preparations. This is the security dilemma: in a system without a higher authority, many of the means by which a state increases its own security reduce that of others, triggering a spiral that neither actor had intended.

The eastern flank is where this spiral is most visible. From Moscow’s perspective, allied brigades permanently deployed a few hundred kilometres from St Petersburg and the Belarusian border, exercises in the Baltic and attempts to stop Russian ships in transit are signs of encirclement. Putin stated this explicitly at the Valdai Forum in early October, describing the Western manoeuvres in the Baltic as an escalation. One might regard that interpretation as self-serving, and in part it is. But deterrence is not measured by our intentions: it is measured by the perceptions of those who are to be deterred. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

There is also one factor that should be of the greatest concern, and it is Masiello himself who articulates it. In hybrid warfare, the general explains, the risk is ‘not only to suffer, but to slip, by mistake, into an open confrontation’. This is a valuable admission. It means that the Italian military leadership considers the possibility of an unintended war – arising from an accident, a misinterpretation or a chain of automatic responses – to be very real. Thomas Schelling referred to this mechanism as ‘the threat that leaves something to chance’: the more forces are in contact and ready to react, the more control over the crisis slips from the hands of political decision-makers. If the main risk is error, the rational response is to reduce friction and increase the number of communication channels. Yet whilst the readiness of troops near the border is being stepped up, the tone of rhetoric is moving in the opposite direction.

In Moscow, Putin spoke clearly

At the Valdai Forum, Putin reiterated that Russia has no intention of attacking anyone ‘neither in 2029, nor in 2030, nor in 2050’, adding that in the event of an attack, Moscow would respond with all means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons. A few days earlier, in St Petersburg, he had said that Russia is in no way preparing to go to war with Europe. The usual response in the Italian press is that these reassurances are worthless: Formiche pointed out, for example, that even the 1994 Budapest Memorandum contained written commitments that were subsequently breached.

This argument deserves a serious response, not a slogan. No one is obliged to take the statements of a head of state – be they Russian or American – at face value. But mistrust of others’ words does not justify abandoning diplomacy: it makes it all the more necessary. Public statements serve precisely this purpose: to establish commitments that can be verified, negotiated, translated into measures of mutual trust, limits on troop deployments, notifications of military exercises, and direct military lines of communication. This is precisely what Europe did during the decades of the Cold War, with the Helsinki Final Act and the subsequent Vienna documents, when mistrust of Moscow was at least as great as it is today. Responding to every overture by increasing military readiness amounts to choosing not to verify. And those who fail to verify their adversary’s intentions end up planning for the worst-case scenario, which, by dint of being planned for, becomes the most likely outcome.

The reverse is also true. If it is genuinely believed that Russia is preparing an act of aggression against an EU member state, then the matter is of such gravity as to demand a public and parliamentary debate commensurate with its importance, based on the available evidence, intelligence assessments and the alternatives under consideration. Not an interview. The two things are mutually exclusive: either the threat is existential, in which case the nation must be mobilised; or it is not, in which case the language of imminence is a mistake.

To die for whom and for what?

The question currently circulating on social media – whether Italians are prepared to die for the Baltic states or for Zelensky – is phrased brutally, but it hits upon a real issue. European public opinion, and Italian public opinion in particular, has never given an explicit mandate for direct military confrontation with Russia. Surveys in recent years have consistently ranked Italy amongst the European countries most opposed to sending troops and most in favour of a negotiated solution. A democratic system that prepares for war against the prevailing will of its citizens, without even consulting them, accumulates a debt of legitimacy that would be called in at the worst possible moment: precisely when national cohesion is most needed.

Nor is there any need to demonise the Baltic states to recognise the problem. Their perception of the threat has historical roots that a Western European struggles to fully comprehend. The point is another: in a thirty-two-member alliance, the most hardline positions tend to set the tone for the whole, because no government wants to appear the least supportive. Italy has different geopolitical interests, focused on the Mediterranean, Africa, the Balkans and its energy ties with the East. A country in that position has everything to lose from a conflict in the Baltic and nothing to gain. Its historical role, from Andreotti to Prodi, has been that of a mediator, not an outpost. To abandon this role in order to align with the hardline stance is a choice that someone should openly advocate, rather than letting it seep out through an interview.

Finally, there is the practical reality, which the general himself does not hide. Masiello speaks of the return of the ‘importance of mass’: forces are quickly worn down, and without the capacity to replenish them, a prolonged conflict cannot be sustained. In short: a conventional war with Russia would be a war of attrition, fought with ammunition stocks that Europe does not possess and with an industrial base that would take years to reconvert. Against a nuclear power that has just reiterated that it regards nuclear weapons as part of its defence. There is no rational interpretation of Italy’s national interest in which this scenario is acceptable.

Alternatives do exist and do not require naivety. The first is institutional: to separate missions on the eastern flank from the annual budget and subject them to a specific vote, preceded by a public hearing of military and government leaders on the nature of the mandate. If Italian soldiers are asked to be ‘ready to respond’, Parliament has the right and the duty to know to what, under what rules of engagement, and within what limits.

The second concerns language. The military leadership has a responsibility to prepare the forces, not to influence public opinion on the underlying political judgement – namely, whether or not Italy is at war. That assessment is the remit of the constitutional bodies. A return to verbal restraint is not a concession: it is the condition for deterrence to remain defensive even in the eyes of those observing it from Moscow.

The third is diplomatic. Any Russian declaration of non-aggression should be taken at face value in the technical sense of the term: put to the test with concrete proposals for risk reduction, starting with the Baltic, where the density of ships, aircraft and units in close proximity makes an incident more likely than elsewhere. Rome has the credibility and the history to champion such an initiative at European level. The fact that it is not doing so, and that the issue emerges only from the words of a general, is the real cause for alarm in this affair.

The enemy to be feared is not a country a thousand kilometres from our borders. It is the habit – which is taking root here – of deciding on the most serious matters without discussing them, and of presenting them as if they were inevitable; a psychopathology that is dramatically eroding the last remnants of common sense.

NATO Edge 26 in Izmir merges civilian tech with war-fighting. AI, cloud, cybersecurity now serve the military-industrial complex.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The summit NATO held in Ankara in July continues to make its impact felt in our country — a summit marked by the lockdown of the city, red carpets rolled out for imperialist leaders, Janissary marches, the narrative of a “great Turkey” constructed around hosting the event, and arrests that continue to keep people behind bars.

As has often been pointed out, the July summit marked the beginning of a “new era” both internationally and for our country.

It looks like we will be discussing this important turning point for a long time to come. Meanwhile, NATO’s “work” in our country is not yet finished. Another critical NATO event is approaching, one that has received little attention in the mainstream media — and when it does, it will once again be framed through the narrative of “Turkey’s importance”: NATO Edge 26…

NATO Edge 26, which will be held in Izmir in November 2026, is being promoted using concepts such as “innovation,” “readiness,” and “the security of the future.” Or, to put it in plain language: the marketing and integration of military technologies, the defense industry, and war-fighting capacity…

The official promotional text of the event, organized by the NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA), lays out its purpose quite clearly:

“NATO Edge 26 will focus on strengthening NATO’s readiness and war-fighting capacity through faster, smarter, and more scalable collaboration with industry.

…NCIA is excited to carry this legacy forward in Türkiye in 2026 and take the event a step further with a renewed format focused on delivering effective solutions and prioritizing industry partnerships.

Industry participation will be at the heart of the 2026 edition, providing more opportunities for direct engagement, focused information sessions, a more comprehensive understanding of NATO’s upcoming procurement requirements and priorities, as well as greater opportunities to showcase industry solutions to NATO decision-makers, end users, and potential partners.”

A military ecosystem operating according to market logic, with partnerships and participation at its core. Defense companies, states and military commands are expanding their cooperation in order to strengthen “war readiness”…

What exactly is NATO Edge?

NATO Edge is the flagship technology event of NATO’s technology and cybersecurity center, the NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCI Agency).

“Edge” can be translated into Turkish as “edge,” “frontier,” “advantage,” “superiority,” or, depending on the context, “cutting-edge” or “advanced.”

It was first held in 2022 in Mons, Belgium. The event was created by merging two previously separate events: the NATO Information Assurance Symposium (NIAS) and an industry conference known as NITEC.

According to NATO’s official documents, NIAS focused on cybersecurity, while NITEC carried the technology-and-industry dimension. In other words, NATO Edge explicitly targets both the technology and industry/commercial spheres.

At the first event, held in Mons, Belgium, on October 25–27, 2022, more than 2,100 registered participants and over 100 companies took part in the exhibition area. The program included topics such as the use of artificial intelligence in military applications, cybersecurity, and digital transformation.

At the second event, held in Tampa, Florida, in the United States, on December 3–5, 2024, cloud technologies, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and the strategic use of resources were discussed. According to NCIA’s 2024 annual report, approximately 60 percent of participants came from industry, while 31 percent represented NATO, governments, and armed forces.

This picture is a clear indication that artificial intelligence technology — whose development in the United States has accelerated since the early 2000s and exploded in recent years — is being systematically taken up by the military-industrial complex.

Moreover, this system has been developed directly under NATO’s military leadership, in cooperation with civilian industry, using resources so vast that civilian initiatives seeking to use technology — particularly artificial intelligence — “for the benefit of humanity” cannot compete with them.

In the United States, for example, many companies unable to find investment have begun receiving funding from military institutions such as the CIA and NATO and developing technologies under their direction. The fact that the CIA has been the “first investor” in numerous technology startups is a striking example of this system.

In short, the path of technological development has largely been left at the mercy of military leadership and the American technology giants.

A similar picture will emerge at NATO Edge 26. Many small startups participating in the event will seek agreements with major players and attempt to secure financing from them. Naturally, this will come at the price of working for NATO’s military interests.

For the “domestic, national, and highly nationalist” technology companies whose numbers have grown tremendously in our country in recent years, the “justification” is equally clear: Turkey is now a country on the verge of a major breakthrough, hosting major international events, supposedly becoming not their subordinate but their master, and possessing qualities that make it indispensable to everyone… So why not devote all our strength and labor to the strategy drawn up by NATO? We will make money, and we will take yet another step forward in a world order in which we are already supposedly such an important player…

This is more or less the logic behind the seemingly contradictory and irrational rhetoric of the Turkish defense industry about “challenging the world” and its actions that ultimately amount to working for imperialist powers.

Put simply, NATO Edge is precisely the embodiment of this logic through events, sessions, and corporate exhibition stands.

Why is it being held in Izmir?

NCIA has not given a specific reason for choosing Izmir as the venue for NATO Edge 26. However, it is possible to understand why Izmir was chosen by looking at the institution’s own documents.

First, a NATO Industry Forum was held during the Ankara Summit on July 7–8, where new procurement decisions worth tens of billions of dollars were announced. The decisions taken by NATO in July are intended to translate the political and financial commitments made in Ankara into operational capacity, while in Izmir, NATO and industry are to work together to accelerate that capacity.

Second, the Ankara Summit adopted a new Strategy for Industry-NATO Cooperation (SYNC). This document moves the NATO-industry relationship to an earlier stage. Through this mechanism, companies will not merely submit bids for tenders that have already been announced; they will be brought into the process from the point at which future capacity requirements are identified.

Third, the Turkish Ministry of National Defense presented NATO Edge 26 as an event aimed at “the international promotion and increased visibility of the Turkish defense industry’s ‘high-tech’ capabilities.” NCIA also signed, during the Turkish Industry Day it organized in Türkiye, one of the first contracts of its history concerning the modernization of very-low-frequency air-surveillance equipment for Allied Maritime Command with ASELSAN.

In other words, Izmir should be viewed not merely as an “event venue,” but as a point of contact for tying Turkey more tightly into imperialism’s defense-technology supply chain.

This is also where NATO Edge 26 differs most significantly from previous meetings. NCIA is openly telling companies: “You can learn about NATO’s requirements before they become official tender specifications,” while offering more than €1 billion in upcoming “NATO procurement opportunities.”

NATO Edge 26 is creating an early-stage matching mechanism between NATO’s military requirements and the private sector’s product-development and investment decisions.

Who is taking part?

The official NATO Edge participant list is still being updated, and in its publicly visible format, not all of the more than 270 companies known to be participating appear simultaneously. Nevertheless, a number of notable companies can be confirmed either through the official list or through the companies’ own NATO Edge announcements. Names appearing on the official list include Airbus, AWS, Anduril, ASELSAN, ASFAT, BAE Systems Digital Intelligence, BlackBerry, Booz Allen Hamilton, Cisco, Cloudflare, Broadcom, Armis Federal/ServiceNow, Atos, and Barikat Cyber Security.

Among the industry speakers on the program are Helsing co-founder and CEO Gundbert Scherf, Planet Labs CEO Will Marshall, UiPath founder Daniel Dines, AWS Global Defense executive Christian Hoff, Leonardo technology executive Alessandro Massa, Thales cortAIx Factory executive Mickael Brossard, and BlackBerry Chief Security Advisor Christine Gadsby.

The danger of ‘dual-use’

One of the concepts that stands out particularly in NATO’s 2026 event materials is “dual-use” technology.

NATO Deputy Secretary General Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe said that NATO Edge 26 would be particularly attractive to “companies that have a credible military application alongside their primary commercial business.” In other words, NATO is no longer targeting only traditional defense companies; it is also targeting technologies that can be transferred from the commercial market into the military sphere.

What this means is that a technology company no longer needs to be a “weapons company” from the outset. A company can operate in data analytics, satellite imagery, cloud systems, communications, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, automation, or computing, while simultaneously entering the NATO system and working for NATO.

This significantly broadens the scope of what has long been described as the “militarization of technology.”

The NATO Edge 26 participant profile makes this clear. On one side are defense giants such as Airbus, Anduril, ASELSAN, Leonardo, and Thales; on the other are civilian technology companies such as AWS, Cisco, Cloudflare, Broadcom, BlackBerry, UiPath, and Planet Labs.

In other words, military technology no longer means merely “producing military products for armies”; it increasingly means placing the products you create at the service of military interests.

How are the market and militarization being merged?

In this new system, in which the private sector is also being drawn into the defense industry, the formula is clear:

Public funding, NATO demand, corporate investment, technology development, military integration, public procurement, larger-scale production, new investment…

At this point, we need to make a brief detour. Combining private enterprise with military requirements, when military needs are given priority, means the emergence of new economic crises in capitalist societies. Because this entire chain of needs will ultimately be paid for at the expense of workers and their social needs, which are placed at the bottom of the priority list.

The competitive strength of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which has made its own breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, technology, and military technology, stems not only from those advances but also from the leadership of the Communist Party, which directs the public and private sectors from a single center. What provides China’s “speed,” as well as the threat it represents to the Atlantic alliance, is the Party’s control over and direction of the private sector.

This “threat” posed by China is pushing capitalism to take faster and harsher steps in new areas of civilian-military cooperation similar to Edge.

The ‘domestic and national industry’ is being tied to the NATO market

The enthusiasm of the “domestic and national industry” mentioned above is also being directly tied, under this new system, to the NATO market and its military requirements.

It is repeatedly argued that Turkey is expanding its own defense industry. But what kind of expansion is this?

The defense industry is being internationalized through NATO standards, NATO procurement mechanisms, NATO operational requirements, and access to the NATO market.

For this reason, “domestic production” and “NATO integration” do not necessarily have to be opposites. On the contrary, under today’s model, the two can take place simultaneously. The “domestic” character being referred to is, for a country whose entire military strategy has already been built for years in accordance with NATO interests, a very particular kind of domesticity.

Interestingly, a June 2026 announcement by the Aegean Region Chamber of Industry reveals that the quota initially allocated for 100 booths for Turkish defense-industry organizations at the event was reduced to 40 after fewer applications than expected were received from domestic companies.

This data is important in two respects.

First, the assumption that the Turkish defense industry is automatically and intensively turning toward the NATO market does not apply equally to every company. It is possible to guess which types of companies can afford to apply.

Second, it shows that presenting NATO Edge 26 simply as a “giant exhibition opening all of Turkey’s defense companies to the world” does not reflect reality.

What does the Ukraine connection show?

NATO Edge 26 also contains important signals regarding the war in Ukraine. Although our country has repeatedly sought to position itself as a mediator at every major turning point in the Russia-Ukraine war, it is quite clear that no one — NATO above all — has taken this intention seriously.

Among the Edge participants are Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense Innovation and Defense Technology Development Center and Brave1. Established in 2023, Brave1 is an official platform through which the Ukrainian government brings together defense-technology developers, the military, investors, and technology companies. Their participation also means that NATO will directly transfer the technological experience of the war in Ukraine into its own innovation ecosystem.

This, too, is no coincidence. Under the UNITE–Brave NATO program, NATO and Ukraine have already established a joint contract pool worth a total of €10 million, with plans to expand the program to as much as €50 million in subsequent stages.

Whose interests is technology serving?

Treating NATO Edge 26 in Izmir simply as an event where next-generation weapons, artificial intelligence applications, or digital defense systems are put on display would be a serious oversimplification. The “bigger picture” shows civilian and military capacities being merged into the same pool, with companies, states, military institutions, and technology developers jointly participating in the construction of a new war-fighting capacity under the name of “partnership.”

Thus, the scope of war ceases to be limited to weapons systems used on the battlefield; data, artificial intelligence, cloud systems, communications, satellite technologies, software, and logistics are all becoming components of war preparation and military planning.

From the perspective of our country, it is possible to say that Ankara’s “domestic and national” rhetoric points toward NATO’s requirements, standards, procurement mechanisms, and international defense-industry networks. The limits of the narrative that Turkey is an independent power capable of challenging the world through its own defense industry are ultimately being determined by the decisions taken at NATO events.

At the same time, events of this kind once again expose another reality that Marxists have repeatedly pointed out — and repeatedly demonstrated in practice: how conditional capitalism’s rhetoric of the “free market” really is.

When the issue is war and military requirements, the traditional claim that the market should be left to its own devices can suddenly be pushed into the background. Production capacity can be directed according to strategic priorities, and private capital can be encouraged to work for “security” needs.

In short, the “real question” posed by NATO Edge 26 is not which new technology is being developed, but according to whose needs, according to which political and economic priorities, and ultimately in whose service this technological capacity is being developed.

People involved in organized struggle used to be told: “Forget all this, get yourself a job first.” Now the phrase has changed: “Forget politics, we are living in the age of artificial intelligence — learn technology.”

And yet, although technological development and changing times transform the tools and needs at our disposal, they do not change the fact that the ruling classes use every instrument of “progress” to preserve their power.

From this perspective, the political purpose underlying the monopolization of artificial intelligence by military and economic giants is the same as the purpose underlying the control of machinery by the owners of capital in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.

In our country, where changing times, tools, and needs are pregnant with major crises, these “devilish deals” to be made in Izmir will open the door to yet another new era.

Ultimately, NATO Edge 26 is a contemporary example not only of technological development itself, but of the organization of technology for “pre-war” purposes and the socialization of its costs — that is, the shifting of those costs onto the backs of working people.

Our political predecessors, who once observed what the giant machines in factories were actually being used for alongside production, also passed down to us what needed to be done in response.

What needs to be built today is the stick that will be thrust into the digital gears of our age.

from The Alex Jones Show Live: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., Childrens Health Defense: For decades, health departments have sprayed pesticides to curb diseases carried by ticks and mosquitoes. Critics argue that repeated, broad-area spraying, which sometimes uses chemicals banned in other countries, needlessly exposes people and wildlife, particularly in communities where it happens often. Some also question whether it works at […]

By Jonathan COOK

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When the establishment media deals with issues in which the West’s war industries are most heavily invested, it happily jettisons even the semblance of critical distance from the state

It’s easy to forget that the western media – the so-called “free press” – likes to distinguish itself from media in authoritarian regimes on the basis that, unlike them, it asks critical questions of the powerful, reports facts objectively, and formulates its analyses dispassionately.

They do propaganda, we do news – or so the western media argues.

The feverish coverage since five men were arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning close to RAF Fairford in the UK is blowing a very big hole in that claim.

Here are the known facts so far.

Three white vans, bearing the logo of a genuine fuel transit company, were spotted by a local farmer on the road outside her property as she returned from a party. Police arrived promptly and arrested the men, who were all British nationals in their twenties.

On Tuesday, it emerged that one of the arrested men actually called the police earlier – seemingly the reason officers were on the scene so quickly.

Although the men were initially arrested on explosives charges, no “viable” explosives were found. Although they were arrested on terrorism charges, which allow for 14 days of detention, they were released on bail under normal criminal laws in less than two days.

It has also emerged that the men had several empty “barrels” in their vans, plus one that contained what police described disturbingly as an “accelerant”.

Actually, that was simply a reference to petrol. The stuff that goes into vehicles to make them accelerate.

British prime minister Andy Burnham held a rare national emergency Cobra meeting over the incident.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration got involved because RAF Fairford, despite its name, is in reality a US air base from which American planes are waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran, with the UK’s blessing.

US Secretary of state Marco Rubio has said the incident “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor”. When asked whether Iran was that actor, Trump replied: “It might be.” He added: “I know the answer… I can be very specific, but I’d rather not say.”

According to a report in the New York Times, “American and British intelligence services worked with Israel and Western countries to discover the threats against US bases, including ones in Germany.” [my emphasis]

Despite these sparse facts, the British media have uniformly rushed to a single conclusion: that this was almost certainly part of an Iranian terror plot to target the US airbase and its planes. The only room for debate allowed is whether the five men were witting or unwitting actors in that plot.

As the Guardian reported in its Wednesday edition, referring to this as a “complex investigation”: “An Iranian link to the bizarre events in the Gloucestershire countryside over the weekend is seen as increasingly likely.”

As context, let us note the following: that British and US officials have every interest in trying to hype this incident as an Iranian “terror plot”, whatever the actual evidence suggests.

Why? Because the US is waging an illegal war on Iran, and the UK is allowing it to do so from British soil. Under the rules of war, Iran has every right to attack RAF Fairford.

If the British state and billionaire-owned media were actually serving as a truly “free press”, they would be offering the context that RAF Fairford is a legitimate military target and that any attack on it by Iran would not constitute terrorism.

Of course, none have done so.

Instead, they have loyally regurgitated the British and US security services spin of a “terror plot” – based on no tangible evidence at all – that paints Britain and the US as the victims of a sinister and unwarranted act of Iranian aggression.

But context aside, an objective, sceptical media – a “free press” – would be reserving judgment on what had happened. It would be asking difficult questions. It would be offering plausible counter-narratives.

Again, none of this is happening. In the British media, there has been a lemming-like rush towards accepting uncritically the very conclusions that best serve British and US state interests.

The constant highlighting of a terrorism connection to the arrested men – for which there is no apparent evidence – is precisely the kind of coverage you would expect from state media in an authoritarian regime. This is about whipping up a public mood of fear, not about transparent fact-finding.

Notably, unlike the British media, the New York Times report does allow for another possibility, even if it instantly ignores it and then joins the British media in treating what evidence there is as proof of an Iranian terror plot.

The Times opens with a question: “The potential ambiguities – were the men Iranian operatives, petty gas thieves, or both? – added to the confusion surrounding the arrests that the authorities have yet to fully explain.”

“Petty gas thieves”! Men in vans with empty barrels close to a farm in the middle of the night. Is it possible they could simply be criminals?!

In fact, this conjecture has been all over social media since the first reports of the men being arrested surfaced. As new details have emerged, those suspicions have only grown.

And yet Britain’s “free press” has uniformly ignored this counter-theory in favour of the US and British security services’ narrative.

Doubtless, British journalists covering this incident would call the idea that this was simply a criminal group caught in the act unhelpful “speculation”.

But how is their no-more-plausible, and possibly less plausible, theory that this was an Iranian terror plot not equally speculation – if in their case, speculation that happens to be extremely helpful to the British and US security establishments?

There are other theories we could posit too, given the known facts. Israel, which originally pushed for the illegal and disastrous war on Iran, has been looking for a way to persuade the Trump administration to return to a full-scale bombing campaign.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., Childrens Health Defense: The pharmaceutical and health industry spent $456.9 million on lobbying expenses in 2025, according to OpenSecrets. According to STAT, it was the largest-ever single-year increase in lobbying spending. Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, suggested the industry may feel threatened by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s […]

The Government is keeping a blacklist of people who question its policies, with social media posts criticising the Government being monitored and investigated by officials.

The post The Government is Keeping a List of People Who Question its Policies appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Powerus, a US defense company with ties to President Donald Trump’s sons, drew scrutiny after signing a memorandum of understanding this month with the Pakistani Army and offering Islamabad access to Ukrainian drone technology, sparking debate over the deal’s potential impact on India and wider regional security. Powerus was founded in October 2025 by veterans […]

The post Trump family-tied drone maker woos Pakistan at India’s expense appeared first on Asia Times.

After running a historic campaign to unseat a criminal court judge for the first time in Nashville, Courtney Teasley created the legal education company emeffen to inform working-class communities about their civil rights. From combating police abuse to supporting vulnerable populations targeted by the criminal justice system, Teasley is a business and legal powerhouse redirecting people toward civic engagement and political-economic acumen. In this heartfelt interview, Mansa Musa and Courtney Teasley discuss grounded community organizing and political education that subverts the carceral system’s goal of turning citizens into captives.

Related links:

• Follow Courtney Teasley on Youtube, TikTok, Instagram, website.

Credits:

• Production/Post-production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Today we are joined by Courtney Teasley, who consider herself and identify herself as a legal disruptor and justice strategist. We’ll be discussing her perspective on how she is intervening in the criminal injustice system and her work challenging the prison industrial complex as it exists today. Thank you, Courtney. Welcome to Rattling the Bars.

Courtney Teasley :

Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited. I’ve heard a lot about this podcast, and so thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to your audience.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. Let’s start by introduce yourself to our audience and tell our audience how you came into this space, but more importantly, what is a legal disruptor and a justice strategist? What’s your identity as how you identify those things? So tell us a little bit about yourself.

Courtney Teasley :

Yes. So my name is Courtney Teasley. I am a licensed attorney in Nashville, Tennessee. I have practiced mainly criminal defense for the last 13 years and am now a retiring lawyer, a criminal defense lawyer, because I have done all the things within the criminal justice system from teaching and training in mock trial, training and coaching other lawyers to open their own law practices, and also then to teaching as a criminal justice educator over at a historically black college and university here in Nashville called Tennessee State University. So I taught there for a number of years as well. And then that is where I was able to see the big three that were creating this cycle. I call them the big three education topics that people from what I like to call the DAMM community, D-A-M-M, and that’s the disproportionately affected marginalized minority community. And people from that community are often not educated in the big three that I call financial literacy, criminal justice literacy, or legal literacy, and civics.

And these three lead directly to mass incarceration. And so after running a campaign, it was a historical campaign here, we unseated a criminal court judge for the first time ever in Nashville. I decided to create a legal education company to help fill that gap of legal literacy that so many of us never received and that basically you had the cops saying, “Hey, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, but you never taught me the law.

That’s legal literacy and then financial literacy. You keep me in cycles of poverty. You keep me broke. You don’t teach me ever how to really make money.” And so that leads right back into the criminal justice system. And then finally civics, the last one we’re undereducated in, you teach us nothing more than go vote. You don’t teach us anything else around how to actively participate as a citizen. So we don’t really take advantage of the things that we should. We don’t really hold people accountable the way we should. We don’t show up the way we should when it comes to voting because of that. So that’s why I created my company is called MFN and I created it with the intent to help reduce mass incarceration.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. And it’s interesting that you identify three areas that you say are essential in disrupting this cycle. So let’s talk about those. Let’s talk about those things. Walk us through your program. How do you engage the community or who is your target audience?

Courtney Teasley :

Yeah, so like I was kind of telling you why I created it, I forgot to mention a very important part of that all the things we do are proactive in the criminal justice system, meaning I feel like if mass incarceration is going to go anywhere, the efforts to fight it must happen before someone has been found guilty or someone has pled guilty. We know 97% of people take pleas. And so the majority of efforts in the criminal justice system usually are happening after someone has already pled guilty and been found guilty. They have received that ultimate if, made a felon. Their rights may be restricted. They have a lot of different things. They have a lot of different hurdles at that area versus fighting proactively where I think we can be a lot more strategic and a lot more effective. So that’s my company focusing in on the proactive portion of fighting back.

And so how we do this and how I engage in the community, and I think you asked me also who is my targeted audience. And so the ways that we’ve been. My target audience is who I was telling you, the damn community, disproportionately affected marginalized minority community, the 97% of people who take pleas, the people from areas of town that others may look down on. I’m talking about the hood.

The people who most likely come into contact with the criminal justice system, that’s my target audience. And so we engage the community through multiple efforts, whether it’s through our partnerships and collaborations with schools, churches, community centers, organizations that care, from us going out and creating the activations where we’re bringing the legal literacy, but we’re bringing it in a fun way where people actually want to take part in and they’re getting to understand it, they’re getting to participate. So we do that and then we do some advocacy training where now we train organizations how to fight back proactively. So I’m a criminal defense attorney and when I say a justice strategist, I’m a fighter and I’m a strategic person first. And

So I’m going to pull back the veil and I’m going to show you what the criminal justice system really is and then I’m going to teach you how to do what I teach my lawyers how to do, play chess and not checkers, how to fight back unapologetically, vigorously. And so that’s what we do in our advocacy training. And so that’s how we engage the community. A lot of times we’re doing events where we’re going out to people who are having events in the community and a lot of people just don’t feel competent in teaching legal stuff. And so we bring that to you because we speak the language of the damn community, D-A-M-M community, African American English.That’s how I’m so successful as a lawyer because I’m bilingual. I speak two languages and that’s how the community resonates. If my life is on the line, I don’t need you speaking above my head.

So that’s how we engage in the community in an authentic way.

Mansa Musa:

When you saying legal literacy, are you educating me on understanding my rights somewhere like the Black Panther Party had, when they came out, they was going around, they was telling people they had the right one to be on, but they wasn’t saying your right to bear saying you have a right to be arm, but you have certain rights when the police pull you up and stop you. You have a right to not say nothing. You can ask to speak to somebody. When you say legal literacy, you talking about pre, post incarceration or do you deal with people at all sectors, like a person in society or people in prison or people that got out on what we call paper, out on parole?

Courtney Teasley :

Yeah. So with legal literacy, when I’m speaking about that, we’re talking about all facets of it. So I have books already for the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, books on that. And I teach out on the Sixth Amendment because that book is not out yet. We have plenty of books that are coming out, but the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is the one that just came out. And actually I’ll send y’all over a copy of it so you can check it out.

But the way that we really just break, it’s packed full of pre-protection. Now, and when I say pre-protection, that means protection that jumps in from the moment you’re accused of anything. A lot of times we like to rely on the Fifth Amendment and wait until the police tell us, oh, you got the right to remain silent or you’re being forced to testify and you’re like, oh, I plead the Fifth. However, no, the Fifth Amendment, it actually came into play the very moment you were suspected. So when that cop gave you a call and said, Hey, I want to talk to you, you know what I mean? We’ve heard from such and such. You mind coming down here talking to me? At that moment, even though they haven’t told you that you’re a suspect or whatever it may be, you have the power to say, oh, hold on.

I think I’m going to choose to stay silent. I’ll have my lawyer contact you. So you get to make a determination whether it’s in your best interest to talk about anything. So you have that pre-protection. And so that’s how we kind of engage with the amendments that really pop up in the criminal justice. The fourth, fifth, and sixth are the ones that we focus in on when we’re teaching our advocacy training. But those come into play when you’re incarcerated.

If you’re just on bail and you’re waiting, well, those are in play. Or even if you’ve been found guilty and you’re appealing, those are in play. You need to be able to understand those. And so then for other ones that we don’t have books on, then you rely on a person like myself to be able to train you on what that means for your organization or your specific

Mansa Musa:

Situation.

Courtney Teasley :

Okay.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. And then in financial literacy, because I was telling off camera that when I got out, I hadn’t established no credit, but I had established a savings. So when I went to get an automobile, my mind was I ain’t want no car note. So I wind up paying $15,000 for 2015.

Courtney Teasley :

Oh

Mansa Musa:

God. And had I had established credit, I would’ve had made out better. But since then I had established credit. I went to a dealership in 2023 and I had the same amount of money and because I had good credit, I was able to get a 2023 and I paid the same amount of money I paid to get for that 2015. So my concern with the financial literacy, what is this? Because when you talking about the damn community, a lot of us don’t have a pot to piss in the window to throw it out. So we don’t have no funds. So are you teaching how to create your own business? Are you teaching how to go about getting grant, how to get money and then how to manage it? What is this, your financial literacy model? I

Courtney Teasley :

Love that you asked that. So after I declared retirement from the practice of law, I went and got certified as a business coach and I’m also a certified strengths coach. And so I basically am talking, when I’m teaching about financial literacy, I did that to go be able to teach my lawyers who were never taught anything about business. But when we transition it over here to people in the damn community, we started the very basics, like you said, learning about building credit. It’s just something so simple that it’s like a lot of times we don’t think about it or we’ve been so used to having not so good credit that we try to disregard it, that we never try to maybe get it back together. Well, and I understand that, but I think that there are multiple ways that you can start building your credit in smaller ways that a lot of people don’t talk about.

So we like to bring in financial strategists and people who are investors who actually have done these types of things to help you understand what to do. A lot of times, think about it like this. When you were just talking about you had a savings and the thing is you’re thinking about how can you make more money? How can you do whatever? You got your job. Then it’s like, well, who is here teaching us about investing? These are things we never learned about. Nobody’s sitting here giving us the playbook on what to do or how to do it. Like you said, you might be working a dead end job, a job that doesn’t promote you. Well, then you need to learn about what kind of jobs are out there, what kind of jobs, what kind of skill set do you have? What have you already done?

And then how can we use those same skills to get you a job that now has advancement opportunities? So it’s just all of those things that come together and that comes with us partnering with other organizations and actually bringing the experts to you to be able to help understand how do I segue now? I have not partnered yet and I’m open to it. I have not yet partnered with an organization for reentry where we’re teaching the coaching to them, but I have connections with one of the world’s top traders just in the last couple of years. I did an interview with him and he’s actually a Nashville native and he came down and he did a gig where he just talked to us all about investing, the bare minimum, how to start, what to do. Then you want to get somebody else. What’s a 401k?

How do I start it? What’s the IRA? You bring the experts to be able to bring it down, take all the high paid jargon out of it and speak the language of the damn community and explain to me, how do I get my ducks in a row? How do I protect myself and my children? And so that’s what I think we do well with partnering with other orgs to help

Mansa Musa:

That. And then we talk about civic and that in of itself speaks volumes in terms of our lack of understanding of electoral process, our lack of understanding of different institutions that regulate, responsible regulatory type things that affect us. So what is your civic model? Because when we learn civic in school, we know that at a certain age you get a right to vote. We know now that that’s not a guarantee with the latest Supreme Court decision, but be that as may, what’s your civic model?

Courtney Teasley :

Yeah. So with civics, my big thing has always been people get so mad, especially the new generation, it’s like, oh my God, they don’t vote. They won’t do this. They won’t do that. And it’s like, well, you got to teach them more than just go vote. It’s more to civics than just going to vote. And I like to bring up a case that I was fighting vigorously back in 2023. It was called disruptmanchester, if you look on Instagram or Twitter. And a family with five children, five Black children were driving through Manchester, Tennessee and had their children taken and forced into foster care all over marijuana. And so in that case, I had to publicly put it out to people and let them know what’s going on in this city that we consider a sundown town. A lot of Black people have known it to be that over the years.

And so we know what it is when these people are taking Black children and forcing them into foster care. And so when you’re making it public and you’re letting other people know what’s going on, and basically I call it criminal defense organizing, “Hey, this is what they’re doing to us in real time. We need you to be concerned about what’s going on.” I want to ignite their civic abilities and a lot of times they have to know what that means. And your civic abilities just meant, “Hey, you got the power to come court watch. You know that you can come. You have a right to come into a courtroom. You have a right to sit in here and see what they’re doing.” That’s accountability, making sure that the people that your taxes pay, that they’re accountable to you. And then also when we had issues where we were saying, “Okay, well, you guys took the children.

The state trooper did this, the county did this.” Well, people started to request records. So as citizens, like, “Hey, I’m requesting to see the stop. I’m requesting to see your personnel records. I’m requesting…” So that’s the type of thing when you’re igniting people to understand that as a citizen, because government officials, public officials, you pay them, your taxes pay them, you have the right to inquire into anything that’s going on, and you have the right to demand answers, you got the right to transparency, you got the right to ask for, you can file complaints, you can come court watch. So igniting them to see that your civic duty far exceeds just voting, right? You have power and you just need to know how to utilize it.

Mansa Musa:

In the District of Columbia, before you answer, we got the right returning citizens. Anyone formerly incarcerated, you’re a DC resident, you got the right to vote. And so we got that right. But with this latest decision that came out the Supreme Court, we looking at how they might try to take that back because the federal government got complete control over the District of Columbia, everything relative to District of Columbia, the federal government. We’re not a state. We got home rule. So talk about how you look at people that’s disenfranchised because that’s your costume population specifically. And not only that’s them and their family, because their family is highly affected by their incarceration.

Courtney Teasley :

Absolutely. So basically with what you’re talking about is probably going to go more into efforts that are reactive, but very necessary. And so what I did recently is incorporate a nonprofit so that way we are able to partner with organizations that do a lot of the rights restoration. And so most recently we hosted a judicial forum and in the judicial forum, we talked about, we educated them first on what all these seats, because right now we have a special election for judges going on right now. So we educated them around that. And then we had a forum so they could hear from the people. But one of the big pieces was we wanted people who did not have their rights, who may have been made felons at young ages. We wanted them to be able to come in and inquire about how to get your rights back so we can start that process with them.

And so what we do is we’ll have them come in, let us know, “Hey, I’m interested in getting my rights back or however, just let us know you’re interested.” And then we can do the connections with making sure you get that done. And we do that through collaborating with other orgs who are already doing it. So that’s how we try and fight back reactively by partnering and empowering, kind of like you were just saying, how you give amplify people’s voices. So we try to do that with other organizations. We’ll connect with them and allow them to do what they’re doing best in that field around rights

Mansa Musa:

Restoring. Yeah. And I mentioned earlier that I was incarcerated. Prior to being released, I did 48 years in the Maryland system. And a lot of what you’re saying, we would educate ourselves on all those levels. You had guys that did financial listing, they studied the stock market. They understood it and they invested their money. We had people that was jailhouse lawyers and did legal and was proficient at that. And then we had people that came together around organizing the community around social issues in general. If a person, and I’m looking at the prison population in particular, if a person in the prison population, when they let me out, they gave me $50.

They didn’t give me no bus ticket. They let me out in the city. They let me out in Baltimore City. I reached out to my family. I ain’t know if they had got the message or not, but that’s what I left out with $50 after serving all that time. The average person leave out a prison in the Maryland system with about that much money before they leave. If they leave with any kind of money, it’s not enough money for them to sustain themselves. So what’s your economic, that component and why you call it the missing curriculum and how do that factor into the system eradicating it or stabilizing the people that’s coming out?

Courtney Teasley :

Yeah. So I love that you asked this and I think you’re talking about when I call it why financial power is a prerequisite for social justice. Because one thing for me is as a criminal defense lawyer, I didn’t take the public defender route. I didn’t want to work for the government. I didn’t want my hands tied. I didn’t want to go to handcuffs. I wanted to be able to fight because the moment you fight a little too hard, guess what they going to do? Take your money from me, right?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Courtney Teasley :

So that’s the way they keep us in order. And so I wanted to be able to fight without having that issue. And so I started to see that the fact that I was private practice, I was able to create, I charged my worth the majority of the times, but because of that, I was able to create scaling fees, sliding fees, low income, and represent people who really needed it because I charged my worth over here in my law practice the majority of the time. The people who can’t afford it were able to pay that and the people who were not able to afford it, I’m still able to represent you because I get to create that. I didn’t need the government to tell me to do a pro bono or to take a court appointment. I knew how to serve my community. And so one thing I kind of started to see is I would do all the things.

I told you I did the mock trial. I was the NAACP legal redress chair. I was the equality and justice committee chair for the Tennessee Association Criminal. I was all these things. And I started to see that real change. Y’all trying to burn me out. You know what I mean? And you’re not going to pay anybody for it. So I started to see that if the narrative being pushed is if you want to help your community, you need to do it for free and long hours, do it under a nonprofit, don’t get paid much. And I was like, well, that’s the reason none of these initiatives are long lasting.

Mansa Musa:

They

Courtney Teasley :

Only last for a little bit of time. And then as soon you run out of money and then now you can’t help anybody else. And so what we have to do is be able to be self-sustaining. So when people in our community are creating businesses, when I had my legal education company and 10% of all my product profits go back into the very people who are fighting proactively. So one of the Middle Tennessee National Action Network, I trained them and my trainings was $5,000. Well, they didn’t have to pay for that because people that actually were supporting and buying our product books and buying into our other things. And so that is, to me, a model that other businesses can take and see that, look, there are problems in our community. I’m making money over here. Well, let me figure out how to best assist.

And then that means in your situation, when you’re talking about a person coming from prison, well, if you have a business that actually cares, that you’re partnering with a business and they’re like, you know what? This is hard. People are trying to get back on their feet. We want to be able to make sure that they can do just that so that person can come and maybe they can do an externship. They can get a job over here and then they can get a stipend up front. Whatever it is, we are the ones who have to create the solutions. Nobody’s coming to save us. And the solutions that are coming through nonprofits are the monies. Come on, we’re under this administration. A lot of people aren’t getting money for anything that’s assisting Black people in general. So it’s going to be up to our community to be able to build financial power, to be able to become financially literate and to be able to be creative in actually helping assist.

For me, I care about any mass incarceration. For somebody else, it could be something different, but it’s going to be up to us to create those solutions and then partner with the ones that are doing it.

Mansa Musa:

And I think your approach to this mindfulness and skill building, it goes back to an era where we was educating for liberation. So I think we get caught up on how we see the problem and therefore we let that be determined the solution. But more importantly, who telling us what the problem is? Not so much as it how we see it. Let me rephrase that. Somebody telling us this is what the problem is, and then we say, okay, then the solution is, and trying to get a solution, it become, to your point, we try and get something from the government and the government ain’t going to fund you to get your freedom. That’s not happening. Government ain’t going to come and say, okay, because we still waiting on our 40 acres of the mule. And

Courtney Teasley :

It ain’t

Mansa Musa:

Coming. It ain’t coming. So the best thing we can do is do what we’ve been doing. But Courtney, I really appreciate you coming and having this conversation. And I hope our audience can really understand the importance of this approach, mainly when you’re dealing with the cost population. I know from experience that when people come into that system much like yourself and provide education, information and knowledge that we’re receptive. And there was a lot of people that was locked up with me, all of us that got out in the last 10 years. And a lot of what we learned while we was incarcerated, we’re doing it now in the Baltimore community and other communities. But you got the last one. What you want to tell our audience about how they can get in touch with you and how they can support your work?

Courtney Teasley :

Thank you so much, Mansa. First of all, what you just said is exactly why I’m doing the work I do and why I focus proactively prior to someone becoming incarcerated, prior to someone taking a plea or pleading guilty because I think it sucks that you did 48 years. Could you have helped me prior to that? And a lot of times you’ll see the Innocence Project, which is good and they’re doing good work, but it’s like people are only getting out and that effort’s only coming in after people have done 30 and 40 years. And it’s like, I think we can do something way before then while they’re fighting their cases more proactively. And so you can find me over on TikTok. I do a lot of legal literacy education over there. I have a whole course up there called Easy Way to On Your Right.

It’s Criminal Justice Literacy 101. It went most viral. We have over 30,000 followers and we have so many resources like a fight your case manual. So anyway, come over and follow us at MFN, that’s E-M-E-F-F-E-N. And we’re also over on, if you want to follow me personally, you can hit me up on LinkedIn, Courtney Teasley, or you can find me on Instagram @thecourtneyteasley. And so YouTube, again, we have the same thing. It’s not MFN, it’s @blacklawgirl. So if you want to find us on YouTube, it’s @blacklawgirl.

Wherever I am, look, come find me, come get me, and let me know. I love to come collaborate with y’all wherever you are. Let me bring the legal literacy and let me bring it in a fun way that’s easy to understand.

💾

Effective public safety policy is founded on preventing crime and repairing harm, but these are not the foundations of America’s reactionary criminal justice establishment. This week on Rattling the Bars, we host a roundtable discussion about the DC Justice Lab’s 2026 Public Safety Policy Agenda, which has been endorsed by 30 progressive organizations working directly with system-impacted individuals, and about criminal justice reforms that would ensure safer communities through restorative justice, not draconian punishment.

Additional links/info:

• DC Justice Lab website, Facebook page, X page, and Instagram
• DC Justice Lab, 2026 DC Public Safety Policy Agenda

Credits:

• Producer / Videographer / Editor: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

MANSA MUSA:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Today we are at the True Reformer Building talking to representatives from DC Justice Lab. I’m talking to Clinique Chapman, CEO, Bethany Young, the policy director. We’re here to discuss a roadmap for a safer and more equitable District of Columbia through the lens of the public safety policy agenda that DC Justice Lab has developed.

Welcome to Rattling the Bars.

CLINIQUE CHAPMAN:  Thank you. We’re happy to be here.

MANSA MUSA:  OK. Let’s start with transparency and technology. Clinique and Bethany, your agenda highlights surveillance oversight and the need for virtual testimony from the jail. Why are these two so critical for ensuring the justice system remains accountable to public safety and accessible to those inside? 

And when we talk about the virtual, for the benefit of our audience, DC Code offenders can vote. And because DC Code offenders can vote, they also should have the right — I think this is the attitude that we have in the city — They should have the right to be able to testify before City Hall around issues relative to whatever’s going on in the city and whatever’s going on with the jail. So, it’s that landscape that we’re talking about virtual testimony.

CLINIQUE CHAPMAN:  Thank you for having us. I think to start, I’d love to just introduce the 2026 DC Public Safety Policy Agenda, which was co-created by DC Justice Lab. We convened nearly 30 organizations to come and talk to us about what are the solutions that we want to see as we know that the landscape is shifting, a new mayor is coming, new city council members, new congressional representative. And so we knew that it was a very important time to really pull together all of those organizations who are working on the ground, in policy, different spaces to really put together what those solutions should look like and that roadmap for the next administration, whoever that is in the city.

And so that was the impetus to creating this document. And there are many priority areas for each organization, whether it be the youth orgs or our organization spanning different policing, punishment, prosecution, prevention. 

And so for us and your question related to the virtual testimony, that’s something that DC Justice Lab has been working on through the EASE Act. It is something that we recognize is a civic requirement, a civic necessity. Just because someone is incarcerated at the DC jail doesn’t remove their… We’ve already removed their liberty, right? So, the punishment is that they’re being held at the jail while they await sentencing or their case, but that doesn’t remove their responsibility as community members. They are still community members. They should still have the same rights as it relates to, as you mentioned, voting, as it relates to them being able to express and talk to their council members. Those are still their representatives. 

And so, we recognize that and have been in coalition with individuals and organizations to really push forward this act. And nearly 10 council members agree that it was something that should at least come to the table for conversation. And so, we have a hearing, we’ve held a hearing. And so now we’re really just waiting for them to pass that to move it forward. 

But would love Bethany to also chime in on that as well.

BETHANY YOUNG:  The specific recommendations you named around surveillance oversight and expanding advocacy opportunities to people in the DC jail are a part of one of the agenda’s primary focus areas, which is oversight and resident-led policymaking.

And so, surveillance oversight is one piece of work we’re doing around, first of all, we don’t even really know the expanse of the surveillance program in DC. We know it is expansive and growing. The mayor’s budget included additional money to further expand the use of surveillance in DC. 

What we also know is that that information gets shared with federal agencies. It gets shared with some private corporations. There is informal and formal surveillance. There’s a gangs database as one form of surveillance, and where we’ve heard from journalistic reports that infants have been listed on the gang database because of where they live or who their name is associated with in their household. We know that there are drones operating in DC, CCTV cameras, ShotSpotter. One of those, ShotSpotter, is one of the things that does not have a strong evidence base. In fact, in the last six to nine months, many cities have eliminated that program because of the issues that have been uncovered around its reliability and accuracy.

So, our push around surveillance is these residents deserve to know what’s being used, what of their information is being collected without their knowledge and who has access to it, and what are the implications of that. 

Another piece of that is an oversight piece. DC residents should be at the table, an integral part of the conversation to understand, first of all, the extent of the use of this technology and to weigh in on whether it is a viable use of taxpayer dollars and whether it is actually contributing to improving public safety. 

And so advocating from the DC jail is related to that in that it’s about people who are impacted by policies, being able to understand what the policies are, having the tools and access to do that, but also to offer their insight. The council often is dealing with issues related to what happens in the jail, so without having people in the room who are experiencing it, it’s a question how sound decision making can happen without the people who are most directly impacted being a part of the process. 

In recent examples, the use of solitary confinement in the DC jail has been not contested by anybody outside of government, but there have been years and years of denials from the DOC that it does not happen. It does not take place. They don’t use it. That conflicts with evidence from [the] DC government about the use of solitary confinement in the DC jail. But they continue, as recently as a few weeks ago, to say, we don’t do that. Easy way to get a good answer about that question: Ask somebody who’s in there who’s experienced it. We need a more meaningful tool to allow people to do that. 

So, all of it is about giving people who are impacted by the policies, the tools, the access, and requiring the decision makers who are charged with taking care of all of us to listen, to hear them out, and to engage with them about how their government is serving them.

MANSA MUSA:  And speaking of solitary confinement, your organization has been intentional in waging this campaign. So, where are y’all at with this? I know that we getting some leeway in it, but where are y’all at in terms of ending solitary confinement, in DC jail more specifically? And what is the transition from that in y’all policy? You have a controlled environment where the jail is saying we have a need for certain people to be confined in certain areas. What’s y’all policy? OK, eradication, but then what?

CLINIQUE CHAPMAN:  Well, I’d love to even expand on what you’re saying the jail said. The jail is saying it doesn’t exist, so we have to start there. They’re saying it doesn’t exist — Although they’re just being very simplistic with it in terms of saying solitary confinement doesn’t exist. They’re using that title versus there is restrictive housing, there’s segregated housing, you can go in protective custody, voluntary, you have safe cells. Safe cells are functioning as solitary confinement based on the definition. And so that is the issue right there with the jail, just even common language. We’re not even having shared language with the jail in terms of how they’re defining solitary confinement.

But yes, you are right. DC Justice Lab has been, honestly, one of the most vocal voices as it relates to the building the coalition around Unlock the Box in DC for years now as it relates to the ERASE Act. We have advocated, we’ve pushed for it with council. We spoke to the jail before over the years. We spoke to council before over the years. And the commonality between both is that they’re saying, well, the jail is saying it doesn’t exist. And so we really do need council to really take a more active approach and saying, well, they’re saying it doesn’t exist, let’s go in there and see it for ourselves. 

And so that is really, in my opinion, what the next step should be as it relates to what council should do. They should be doing two things: They should go to see it for themselves, and they should be holding a hearing so that those who are experiencing it, those who have experienced it, the family members who know when their loved ones are in solitary confinement and they can’t talk on the phone, they can’t visit, they know that it’s still happening. Let those folks come in and actually be able to testify for themselves.

And so, we haven’t even had an opportunity to have a hearing where people can share their experiences, their current experiences with solitary confinement in DC. And so that really is the next step of moving toward a hearing for ERASE. And so, once solitary confinement is erased, that is the goal. The ultimate goal is that solitary confinement in DC jail will no longer exist. We will move toward measures — I’m saying we’ll move toward, the goal will be for the jail. For the jail, for the government to see ways to implement. It’s happening across the country. There are many states who are doing this currently, and it’s working for them in terms of how you treat people when acts do happen, where harm has happened to someone. They’re using restorative justice in jails. They are using more preventative measures so that those issues that arose in the first place won’t even be necessary.

And so, I think there are various ways that the jail can put things in place to eliminate the use of solitary confinement and move toward a more humane way of holding people accountable when they think there are issues that need to be addressed. And currently that is not happening.

MANSA MUSA:  And I think from, like I said, full disclosure, I did four and a half years in what they call a supermax. And I think the problem that we see when you say solitary confinement, you have a misnomer that a person is in a cell getting bread and water, never nobody come and seeing them, open the door a year later, let them out. But the reality is that you’re being isolated for inordinate amount of times. You’re not allowed to… everything is regulated. You got an hour out. Within an hour, you got to take a shower. That’s your rec. The next day, you might get an hour out or you might not. 

So, I think that to y’all credit, it’s important that what y’all are doing in terms of educating people about understanding what isolation is. If you want to play word play, oh, we don’t have solitary confinement. But you got what they call 24 on one. I’m locked in 24 hours a day.

But let’s talk about y’all’s solutions. Y’all got when they deal with solutions. Y’all have on y’all agenda of record relief and earned compliance credits. Talk about what this is and how is this playing into the… Well, how do y’all look at this in terms of reentry? Wilhelmina Rolark, which would be one of the city council persons, they passed the Good Time Credit Act. And when they closed Lorton, that didn’t follow them. And so, they had to hassle and haggle with the VOP to get that. Now they’re getting the benefit of that in y’all policy agenda and then enforcement.

BETHANY YOUNG:  Reentry is one of the smartest investments a city can make into public safety. Prevent crime by giving people a path when they come home to not wind up back in jail or prison. So as a framing, reentry is a significant and meaningful and impactful investment in improving public safety.

The two policies you mentioned, earned compliance and record relief, earned compliance credits and record relief are policies that, if implemented, would improve people’s chances at successful reentry. So, earned compliance credits, you mentioned good time credits. It’s like a good time credit on supervision. So, for every 30 days of compliance with supervision requirements, someone could earn 30 days off their supervision sentence. Because what the evidence shows is that incentives work better than penalties. And if people have something to work towards, they’re going to be more likely to follow the rules that are part of someone’s supervision setup. 

We also know why this is important is that parole, probation, community supervision are also drivers of mass incarceration. And so, if you want to think about decarceration, people think about probation or parole as forms of decarceration, but it ends up being an expansion of incarceration because people can end up back in prison for violations that aren’t crimes on their own but that are violations of their supervision. So, things like being late for an appointment, missing a phone call, things like that. Things that someone may not really have any real control over, especially when you think about all the challenges someone is up against when they’re coming home. So, to ding them and potentially re-incarcerate them for traffic or missing a bus or not having a ride or hanging out with people that they’ve known since childhood who they may be prohibited from hanging out with because of the terms of their supervision. So, that’s earned compliance.

Record relief would allow people who, for certain crimes after certain waiting periods, depending on the crime, to have their record either sealed or expunged. And so, we know that employment is an important part of somebody returning home and being successful. We also know that a criminal record can have a devastating impact on someone’s employment opportunities. So, by removing that as a barrier pursuant to certain parameters that are in the Second Chance Amendment Act, which is a law DC passed to simplify and expand that process, those are all investments in public safety is making sure that people can live free, can not be on papers their whole life, can be free members of society, and that they have access and are not blocked from supporting themselves and their families.

MANSA MUSA:  I know from being in that space, being on parole and probation, if you give a person the incentive saying like, well, in five years, if you stay this course, your parole and probation is up in 20 years, but you stay this course, you’ll be off paper — That’s the terminology that we use — You’ll be off paper in five years because compliance with this and it’s being recognized. And don’t cost the city nothing. That’s the other part of it.

But let’s talk about y’all public safety policy agenda and the core principles in it, and briefly go over what those principles are and how y’all envision this taking shape. Because right now, y’all saying that to y’all credit, we have a solution, public safety solution. All right. So, how do we see this public safety agenda and the core principles playing out? So, a person, the lay person can say, oh, I can see it. That’s why I support that. I can see these principles because I see the conditions in my neighborhood, and I see that these principles are directly related to addressing the conditions in my neighborhood.

CLINIQUE CHAPMAN:  I think Bethany used the word “doable.” Was that you that used that word? It’s doable. It’s a doable set of recommendations that any elected official — And so we’ve moved this toward the new administration coming in, but any, even the current administration could pick up this document and use it as a tool to implement solutions that they know work. It’s rooted in evidence. It’s rooted in things that we know work, whether it be here or in other places. It’s rooted in things that we’ve seen work before and the investment be taken from. 

And so it’s nothing remarkable. I think what’s remarkable is that all of the organizations that came together saw now was the time to really put this forward. But it’s something that the average resident, the average, even the youth can pick up and say, hey, hey city councilman, hey ANC member, hey, anyone that matters to them that they’re trying to move and advocate for with something, they can pick this document up and say, this right here, this is the pathway forward. It gives you the steps. It gives you the resource inside. 

And so it’s really just rooted in evidence. It’s rooted in a community. Community voices were a part of building this document and the support is there for it. And so it is not something that a resident shouldn’t be able to get behind. If a resident in DC, whoever that may be, is ready for change, for a sustainable change, it is something that the city can definitely get behind in terms of investing in. 

Like we talked about before, all you have to do is move the money around and make sure that it reflects humanity, community, and not punishment and policing. If we put so much money in policing, where has that gotten us? We’ve put so much money into jail and in sending people to prison. Where has that gotten us? It’s just gotten us more people incarcerated, more people on paper. And so, why don’t we actually try something that we know works, try something that allows people to heal from harms? We have alternatives. We have a big section in there talking about prevention and youth before they ever even touch the system. How about focusing on those youth and focusing on investing in youth that just want somewhere to go every night? Instead of placing them inside of a YSC [Youth Services Center] or DYRS [Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services], why would we do that when we know that we can actually invest in the youth that are currently trying to do something positive?

BETHANY YOUNG:  So, we talk about prevention, investments in communities, behavioral health, and making sure that survivors and victim services organizations have what they need to really help people get from harm, being impacted by harm to being whole. We talked about it with reentry. I think it’s the same with victim services. People that find themselves victims of crime. It can be a bad, hard thing away from being a perpetrator of harm or being caught up with police or the criminal legal system in some form or fashion if they are not met with the services they need to get to a better position after harm has occurred. 

So, we have victim services, recommendations, behavioral health, things like we know DC has made the investment in alternative crisis response conducted by behavioral health professionals rather than police, but it’s not working. It’s not being used. It’s not been effective. And so, recommendations around a way to get that in order so that it’s working in the way that other cities have seen progress with alternative first response.

Clinique mentioned the youth investment. So, really upstream, making sure that kids are a part of the legislative process, that they have a voice before the council, a voice that carries some weight to it, giving them opportunities to be leaders in the city, but amongst their other peers. It also addresses what happens to kids once they are caught up in the system. How do we ensure that they are still treated as children even if they are in the system? That the facilities where they’re held have the resources and also oversight. We know that there are some major challenges happening in DYRS. There has been legislation passed that would create independent external oversight that has not been funded continuously. So, making sure that kids don’t get to the system, that we are doing things to prevent that from happening, but also if they wind up there, that we’re protecting them and that the adults that are charged with their care are being held accountable for their care.

We also talk about ways to limit our reliance, reduce our reliance on policing. Where police are not the best responders, what can we replace them with to minimize unnecessary contacts people are having with police, but also where contact does happen, where it does arise, making sure that we have accountability and oversight mechanisms in place to deal with that. 

The district passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act in 2022. Several of the measures in there related to accountability and oversight remain unfunded. Things like having a public database related to officers accused of misconduct, of giving the office of police complaints what they need to really thoroughly and meaningfully address bad actors in the department. 

And then the last section, we talk about what’s happening in the jails, what’s needed around reentry? How do we make sure that people who are incarcerated who are from DC have what they need while they’re away and when they come back and how to get them closer to home?

CLINIQUE CHAPMAN:  The policy agenda is something that starts off and is always rooted in community first, investing in the prevention and the community. And then if people get wrapped up in this terrible system that we have, making sure that the system doesn’t do more harm, making sure that the system still sees people as people and is people centered. 

So, I think for me, it’s both. It’s both and. Yes and yes, we want people to be home, not be contacted by the police, not interact with the jail, not go to court. But if they do, then what? Then how do we treat them while they’re there? And what should that system look like?

MANSA MUSA:  Thank y’all for enlightening us on this. Y’all taking a bold step. Y’all saying y’all got a DC public safety agenda that y’all offering as an alternative to what the city is offering, that y’all inserting y’allselves in this and y’all have a comprehensive program because y’all definitely rattled the bars today. 

And we want to make sure that everybody understand that when we talk about public safety, it’s all our responsibility. And we ask that you continue to look at these things, vet them, ask yourself, what would you do if you was given the responsibility to put a public safety agenda together? What would you do?

💾

In part two of our series on conservative attempts to use D.C. as a testing ground for harsh criminal justice policies, Rattling the Bars host Mansa Musa sits down with Chelsea Canterbury and Eric Franklin of Voices for a Second Chance. They discuss the danger of proposed measures—including charging 14-year-olds as adults, increasing mandatory minimums, repealing the Second Look Act, and reinstating cash bail—and explain why doubling down on mass incarceration won’t make the city safer.

Additional links/info:

• Voices for a Second Chance Instagram
• Sarah Staudt, Prison Policy Initiative, “Bad Omens: Reform rollbacks in Washington D.C. are a warning sign for state-level advocates”

Credits:

• Producer / Videographer / Editor: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

We’re here in Washington DC, Massachusetts Avenue at Voices for a Second Chance. We’re talking about Congresses introducing certain bills to roll back progressive laws that impact District of Columbia residents. One such law is the Second Chance Act. The Second Chance Act has been very instrumental in allowing people to get out of prison after they demonstrate they have changed, but Congress want to change that. You’ll hear different testimonies today about how these things impact everyday citizens, people that want to do right. Stay tuned. Joining me today is Chelsea Canterbury. Chelsea Canterbury, welcome to Rattling the Bars. Hi,

Chelsea Canterbury:

Hi. Welcome. Thank you. All

Mansa Musa:

Right. So today we are in front of Voices for a Second Chance service organization in the District of Columbia. And full disclosure, I actually work here. Chelsea Canterbury is, and I’ll call her Chelsea from here on out. Chelsea is a case manager here at Voices for a Second Chance.

Chelsea Canterbury:

So I do connect one-on-one with clients. We’re client facing. The work we do here, we help individuals that have been involved within the justice system or are recently entering society from incarceration. We actually start connecting with clients prior to their release, and that’s part of our first responder services. So we are going into DOC. We’re connecting with individuals that have been released to the halfway houses from federal prison. So we’re actually connecting prior to release. And we offer wraparound services, making sure individuals have all their vital documentation. As you know, can’t get anything done without those documents. So that’s kind of where it all starts. We offer full case management services, employment services, housing, and any resource that we do not provide in-house, we do connect with our partners within the community.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. And I open up by making it known that Congress, they had centrality over the District of Columbia in terms of any bills or laws has passed. Congress has a finalacy on whether they’re going in effect or Congress has the authority to create laws. And recently it came out that they put 27 bills to impact some of the things that’s going on such as cash bail. How do you think changes in the law to make laws harsher in DC will impact the services that Voice for a Second Chance offer?

Chelsea Canterbury:

So yeah, definitely with certain bills being passed, it will in turn affect our community and also the resources that are available to individuals. It’s not reducing recidivism. It’s actually rising it. I don’t believe that’s the answer. I believe offering the proper resources for individuals while they’re still incarcerated prior to release and our youth.

Mansa Musa:

Our youth. And in terms of the youth, in the District of Columbia, they really got a target on the youth back. You hear a lot of negative reporting about the kids in District of Columbia, mainly in certain areas. What’s your views on, if you had the money and the authority to do something about what’s perceived as juvenile delinquency, what would you do? Well,

Chelsea Canterbury:

I definitely think it also starts in the home. So I think providing appropriate resources, I can’t say it enough, but as a community, we have to come together. We have to stand together. So even providing appropriate resources to not only the youth, but also the family. I think that will definitely help our community.

Mansa Musa:

And talk about how many people do y’all do Voices for a Circumchange service during the course of a week? What’s the caseload per week?

Chelsea Canterbury:

It definitely varies, but I mean, we can see up to 50 clients per week, but it definitely varies.

Mansa Musa:

So in terms of the 50 clients, and that’s on an average that you see 50 clients on a week, but in terms of the clients that you see, what are their major needs?

Chelsea Canterbury:

Definitely housing is a huge need. Housing employment is very scarce within our community and the district, providing more food resources.

Mansa Musa:

Right. And the general attitude about Congress interference in DC’s politics is the general consensus is they’re using the District of Columbia as a test case for how they can go throughout the nation and do these things. If you had the ability or the authority or you was able to talk to Congress about what you think should be done, what would you tell them?

Chelsea Canterbury:

I would definitely have a discussion on funding and just allocating that funding appropriately that will actually give back and assist in our community. For instance, we are, as you know, a nonprofit organization and we have seen the results of the services that we have provided to individuals. And if we had additional funding to do so, we could provide more, not only us, just throughout the district alone, more assistance to provide more food resources, shelter resources, employment resources. And in turn, that is what is going to reduce recidivism.

Mansa Musa:

I am talking to Lynwell Muse in front of Voice for a Second Chance. Mr. Muse, Congress is trying to pass a series of bills that’s going to have a devastating impact on the citizens of the District of Columbia. One such bill is to remove the second look at. Another one is what they call the Youth Act. And both of these bills they want to get rid of, both these bills lead to people upon being released under conditional term. The only way you can get access to them, you have to have certain behavior and certain attitude towards your change in life. What do you think if you had the authority or the ability to tell Congress, what do you think they should be doing? Well,

Lemuel Muse:

I don’t think that is a good idea because the Second Chance Act, people like me need that because I’m 67 years old and I’m just getting out of jail February the 20th.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, what wrong?

Lemuel Muse:

And I did 35 months and I was placed on the street the next day. So in my situation, I don’t know what they expect me to do. I’m out here, I’m homeless. All the shelters are full. They got hundreds and hundreds of Black men out on the street just homeless. You know what I mean? And I just don’t think that’s a good idea because people like me need the Second Chance Act.

Mansa Musa:

The money be best spent on doing what?

Lemuel Muse:

The money would be best spent on helping the people, the citizens that live here. I’ve been here all my life. I’ve been here all my life. And the resources that I need, they seem like they cut them and taking them away from us and just leaving us out here with nothing. You know what I mean? Go ahead. Right now I’m going to Voices for a Second Chance to receive some help. And I’ve been to Marca over on Good Hope Road.

Mansa Musa:

Mayor’s office on return to.

Lemuel Muse:

Right. And all I want is just a little bit of help just to help me because being in jail 35 months and being placed on the street the next day, it’s just difficult. It’s difficult when you don’t have help.

Mansa Musa:

So the crime is not really in people committing crime. The crime is in the misappropriation of funds.

Lemuel Muse:

I agree with you. I agree with you because I didn’t have a chance to work my way back in the community slow. I’m just back on the street.

Charlina Mcbride:

Right. My name is Charlena McBride. I was incarcerated for about a year. I’m a DC citizen.

Mansa Musa:

All right. So today we’re talking about Congress trying to roll back some of the progressive laws that the District of Columbia City Council has passed, such as they want to reduce the age of charging kids to making them adults from 16 to 14. They want to roll back mandatory minimum. Mandatory minimum is that they’re taking it out the hands of the judge to give a person a sentence that he think they should get based on whatever crime they committed. It’s a mandatory sentence they got to get. So a judge don’t have no discretion. They try to institute cash bail, making it difficult for people to get out of prison. But more importantly, they try and roll back what they call a Second Chance Act. If you had the authority to tell, or if you was in front of Congress and you wanted to tell them what you should think they should do with this money, what would you tell

Charlina Mcbride:

Them? I would tell them that I think they should create an alternative plan for the youth or for people that make mistakes in the society that get locked up because it’s a lot of stressful times out here. The economy is constantly rising. Housing is being unaffordable to people that’s not making enough money. When people get locked up, I think they should have some more facilities where they can be rehabilitated versus getting a lot of time because people can change and I don’t think they should give them more time and take away their choices or their right to be able to get out, being locked up with no bail. And I don’t think the youth should be charged as an adult because they have a mind of a youth.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Charlina Mcbride:

So they should have more programs or more facilities where they can go to versus going to jail to an adult jail. Having more outreach programs, having more voices for second chance to provide for people, more counselors, more mental health sponsors and mentorship programs so that somebody can help guide the youth into the right direction. Because everybody needs somebody to guide them. And if they’re not getting guided when they step off the porch from at home, then there should be other big brother programs, big sister programs that’s reaching out to the community and the youth so they don’t have to go through taking from somebody else or involved in something that’s going to cause them to go to jail.

Mansa Musa:

I’m talking to Jerry Mack, a client at Voices for a Second Chance. Mr. Mack, tell us a little bit about yourself first.

Jerry Mack:

Well, born and raised in Washington DC. Been in the city my whole life. There’s a lot of things that’s changed in the city from pretty much my youth to now. And I think that us as pretty much the older generation can pretty much reach out to the adolescents and pretty much try to see what it is that we can do for them to pretty much get back on track and just pretty much enjoy theirself while they’re in the city instead of having Congress and everybody else try to intervene and pretty much take their youth and stuff away from them. All

Mansa Musa:

Right. And you formally incarcerated?

Jerry Mack:

Yes.

Mansa Musa:

How much time did you serve? If you don’t mind me asking.

Jerry Mack:

A year and a half.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. So you served a year and a half. Where was you at now? DC Jail?

Jerry Mack:

I started at DC Jail. They transferred me to Philly. I left Philly and went to New Jersey in Fort Dix.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. Now while you was in DC Jail, did you see a lot of young individuals in there?

Jerry Mack:

Yeah, it’s a lot. You know what I’m saying? I mean, it’s just basically, it feels like that’s what they trying to do to pretty much the youth. They’re not trying to let them enjoy theirselves, not realizing that they was once kids at

Charlina Mcbride:

That

Jerry Mack:

Point in time. So it’s just basically kids going to be kids, but they really don’t have too much for them to do nowadays. So it’s just kind of hard for them to actually really enjoy theirselves.

Mansa Musa:

So if you was able to tell Congress what your views are on what they should do in terms of helping the city become a more profitable city, a more productive city, a more humane city, what would you tell them?

Jerry Mack:

I mean, I would practically tell them that instead of just trying to lock them up and pretty much push them out or put them in prison or jail and stuff like that, sit down and talk to them. Find out what it is that they want and what they need. You know what I’m saying? Because like I said, it’s basically they just kids. They being kids. So basically you could take the money that you’re trying to put into all these other bills and cash bonds or whatever. Have the kids, you know what I’m saying, really not even into some of the foolishness or whatever. But it’s just basically they just out enjoying themselves and they just getting a bad rap.

Mansa Musa:

And as Mr. Mack said, invest in them as opposed to try to penalize

Eric Franklin:

Them. Yeah. My name is Derek Franklin. I’m the reentry navigator here at Voices for a Second Chance, and I’m a returning citizen and also a IRA recipient.

Mansa Musa:

Today we’re talking about Congress introducing a series of bills to roll back some of the progressive laws that the DC City Council passed. And one of the bills that they’ve introduced is they want to roll back the Second Chance Act, which is basically IRA. Talk about, because you’re in that space and dealing with IRA, you’re IRA recipient, as you say. And talk about that and what that means.

Eric Franklin:

So yeah, these new laws that’s been introduced by Congress, the rollback IRA and all these other laws that changed in sentences for young people, young adults to get more time at the age of 14 sentences as adults. These things doesn’t work. They’re going back to what mass incarceration, which they did back in the 90s, the 80s and the 90s that didn’t curve the crime. So it’s all about rehabilitating the people, the young people and giving them a second chance. Like me, I was sentenced to 40 years to life. And I mean, I changed my life way before I even knew IRA was in existence. You know what I’m saying? So this shows that the people will change, especially the youth as they do their time. So locking them up and throwing away the key is not the answer. It’s not the answer.

Mansa Musa:

And how old were you when you got out there?

Eric Franklin:

When I got out there, I was 22 years old. I came out, I was 47 years old. You know what I’m saying? So I spent most of my 20s, all my 30s, most of my 40s in prison. And like I say, I changed my ways and my way of thinking, I want to say probably 15 years ago before I came home. You know what I’m saying? So these things, locking the people up, these young people up and saying, okay, look, what they was calling them, predators or whatever like that. No, the sign says what? The frontal lobes don’t fully develop to the mid – 20s. So the decision making of these teenagers, they don’t fully develop. So give them a chance. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes, but locking them up and not giving them a chance to come out, this is, I want to say, inhumane.

You know what I’m saying? This is something that you don’t do to people or do to your residence in DC. I said far as the law, especially containing to the youth. More programs for the youth. Giving them something to do as far as education. It goes back to their family, helping their families out with jobs so they won’t be just running the streets and getting to things. You know what I’m saying? This will change. This will help the youth and not to be on the streets like that. And another thing, the law should be changed, not just for a certain age. Take away the age and just give everyone who gets incarcerated another chance to come home. Instead of just locking the people up and having them in prison, which doesn’t help at all. You know what I’m saying? So we got the age where now, before the age of 25, have no age for someone who can have a time reduction.

This will help and have more programs and housing for the people when they return. You

💾