YouTube: Am I worse than Ousama?!

Blog, freedom of speech

21.09.2026 Brussels Here is my letter to YouTube “support”. Between us: Am I worse than Ousama?.. He is on the platform, collecting millions views, while I am banned…

Dear YouTube team,
You wrote: “We have reviewed the video and determined that it is in violation of our Community Guidelines. Contents intended to praise, promote, or aid violent criminal organizations are not allowed on YouTube. These organizations are not allowed to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.
“Upon review, we have removed the video per our violent extremist or criminal organizations policy as it contains content produced by or glorifying violent criminal or terrorist organizations”. (My video with an annoucement of death in a plane crash of PMC Wagner boss #Prigozhin)

However, contrary to your statement, a great deal of content produced by criminal or terrorist organizations is on display on YouTube, starting with the terrorist number one Osama bin Laden. You have the whole collection of his interviews, and speeches:.

1. Osama Bin Laden was a violent terrorist and founder of al Qaeda who killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children before his death in 2011. He was al-Qa’ida’s founder and only amir, or commander in history. Al-Qaeda is a transnational Sunni Islamist terrorist organization (source CIA).

8.2M views 15 years ago

2. Osama Bin Laden direct speeches:

13M views 4 years ago

3.Osama bin Laden interview:

292K views 10 years ago

4. Osama bin Laden interview:

12M views 14 years ago

5. Yahya Sinwar was a vicious and unrepentant terrorist responsible for the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust (source CIA)

6. Sinwar’s Old Press Conference Mocking Israeli Threat To Kill Him Goes Viral |
Hamas, Gaza, Iran, IDF

753K views 1 year ago

7. Yahya Sinwar: if you wish you can buy Super Thanks (!) for him:

8. Yahya Sinwar Death LIVE News |
Hamas Chief Sinwar’s Last Fiery Speech Before IDF ‘Killing’ | Israel

16K views Streamed 1 year ago

9. Yahya Sinwar speech in Gaza 2021

13M (!)

10. Sinwar did ‘not shy away’ from tough questions: Journalist

370K views

… and the list continues.
CONCLUSION: YouTube as the other major mass media sources regularly quotes official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, or plane crash intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The quote from PMC Wagner about the death of their leader was done within the existing legal framework.
Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

The second element mentioned in your verdict is the “glorification”. It is a very serious accusation, and as a professional in journalism I need to know the answer to that question:
Please, indicate what words in my video made you come to this conclusion?
Waiting for your answer,
AvD

YouTube vs Me: necrology as advertising ?!

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, Russia, World

Brussels, September 21, 2026. Dear viewers of my YouTube channel @AnnaVanDensky, today I received a response from Mr. Neal Mohan’s team that took me by surprise. It concerns a video announcing the death of the Wagner PMC leader in a plane crash. That video—posted three years ago, on August 23, 2023 — was taken down THREE YEARS LATER, and the channel was suspended for three months on the following grounds:

“We reviewed the video and concluded that it violates our Community Guidelines.
“YouTube prohibits content that praises, promotes, or facilitates the activities of violent criminal organizations.” Such organizations are prohibited from using YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.

“We removed the video because it violates our policy regarding violent extremist or criminal organizations: it contains material created by such organizations or glorifying their activities.
“Additional information can be found in the Help Center.”

So, does the announcement of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death—confirmed by the Wagner PMC—contain material “created by the PMC” or material that “glorifies” it? There is a significant difference. The question is: how can a report on the death of Prigozhin and his military strategist Utkin in a plane crash possibly “glorify” their activities? I won’t get carried away with irony regarding the “appeal” of such an advertisement—the prospect of dying in a plane crash. Instead, I will address the argument that censors are likely to try to level against me.

Under US law, the Wagner PMC is designated as a “Significant Transnational Criminal Organization”; however, the status of a full-fledged terrorist organization on the official US list (FTO) entails specific legal nuances and distinctions.

Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

Major media outlets regularly quote official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have currently initiated correspondence with the YouTube team to clarify the exact nature of the claims against me. I am awaiting a response. If I do not receive one in the coming days, I will have to seek legal counsel. Naturally, slander cannot be left unaddressed. Stay tuned!

(Image above: courtesy Elimende Inagella)

YouTube blocked my channel again!

Blog, World

Brussels 20.09.2026 I profoundly disagree with the discriminatory measure against my YouTube channel. “We have reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our violent criminal organisations policy” the second YouTube message reads.

Meanwhile all the other videos on the same subject about Wagner group boss Prigozhin assassination enjoy visibility on YouTube!
Moreover they collect views, many have open comments, and YouTube doesn’t consider them “unsafe”, or violating “violent criminal organisations policy”.

Officially YouTube company declares the same “Community rules” for everyone, and equality as a core value. However the punishment of my channel doesn’t correlate with these declarations.

Here are the similar content videos, but unlike mine announcement of Prigozhin death,
they have the graphic of his plane crash fire. I didn’t have it, I had only the verbal confirmation.

All the TV Channel below enjoy visibility on YouTube, and they are not considered ‘unsafe”:

1. WSJ
Prigozhin Is Dead: A Timeline of the Wagner Boss Since His Failed Mutiny | WSJ

NB! With the scenes of the plane crash.
493,575 views Aug 24, 2023
2.
WSJ
Yevgeny Prigozhin Dead: Wagner-Owned Plane Crashes in Tver, Russia

1M views 3 years ago
3.
Channel 4 News
Yevgeny Prigozhin: Wagner boss ‘killed in deadly plane crash’ in Russia

336K views 3 years ago Aug 23, 2023
4.
Al Jazeera
The Prigozhin plane crash — Putin’s revenge?

271,889 views Aug 25, 2023
5.
Sky News
Wagner leader Prigozhin confirmed dead in what is ‘almost certainly an assassination’

65K views 3 years ago
6.
BBC News
Dead in plane crash: Yevgeny Prigozhin who led mutiny against Putin

1.5M views 3 years ago
7.
Wion Wideangle
Yevgeny Prigozhin: Downfall. Disaster. Death

313K views 3 years ago WION Wideangle
8.
FRANCE 24
In-depth analysis: Wagner chief Prigozhin presumed to have died in a plane crash

40K views 3 years ago
9.
ABC News
Theories circling about Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s plane crash

108,818 views Aug 24, 2023

… and multiple shorts, podcasts, and other types of information formats on Prigozhin plane crash are on YouTube display, without being “unsafe” for the audiences, although they are devoted to exactly the same subject.
As you see all the other content creators with the similar subject are not regarded as “unsafe”.

Is YouTube Neal Mohan (pictured) serious about equality for all YouTube creators?..

YouTube closed my channel again!

Blog, International, Lifestyle, World

Washington DC July 03.2026 Here is the answer from the YouTube censors:
“Hi Anna Van Densky,
We have reviewed your appeal for the following:
Video: 02.07.2026 NYC: Сам черт не брат! (To take on the devil himself)
We have reviewed your content carefully and confirmed that it violates our harmful and dangerous policy. We know that this is probably disappointing news but it’s our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all.
“How this impacts your content
We won’t be putting your content back up on YouTube.
If your appeal was for a warning, you will not be given another warning in the future.
If your appeal was for a strike, the strike will remain on your channel.
You can find more information about warnings and strikes in the YouTube Help Centre.
Learn about your resolution options.Thanks,
The YouTube team”

The video which war removed was devoted to Angelina and Ivan stunt on July 1, 2026.

https://platform.x.com/widgets.js

President Monroe Doctrine: transcript

Blog, International, Politics, World

06.01.2026 Note: The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe’s seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe’s seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest:

President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress contained the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

“…At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .

“It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

“The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.

“It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course….”
Source: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine#transcript

Petroleum agent presides over Brussels press corps

Blog, EU, Europe

Brussels 03.10.2025 The General Assembly of the International Press Association (API) endorsed a correspondent of the non-news media to preside over the journalisits’ organisation. Although officially Dafydd ab Iago @dafyddabiago (David Ferguson) has been “elected”, in reality he was endorsed because there were no competition for the position.

The situation is remarkable because he is the first chairman in half a century, who presides over the EU press corps, while working for non-news media, which means the UK company he represents as a Brussels correspondent has the following fields of endeavor: “advertising material publishing; On-line publishing of statistics and other information; On-line publishing photos and engravings; Photo and engraving publishing; Postcard publishing; Poster publishing: Printed matter publishing; Publishers (other than of newspapers, books and periodicals”. In its own words Argus Media (previously known as Petroleum Argus Ltd) is an independent provider of price information, consultancy services, conferences, market data and business intelligence for the global petroleum, and other types of energy.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

But where is journalism? Where is the construction of public discourse?
Where is prime target of journalism: serving as a forum for public criticism and search for a fair compromise, facilitating discussion and collective action for positive change?

How Argus “price information”, and “global petroleum data” ensures journalism’s watchdog function, in fact, the news media’s main role in political system? How does it increase accountability in the EU democratic governance systems? Obviously the non-news media are unrelated to journalism, while pursuing purely commercial purposes.

Subsequently the endorsement of non-news actor as the president of a the international journalist’s Association (API) manifests the state of Brussels press corps, drifting away from its original mission of Democracy’s Watchdogs.

Nowadays API unites 400 members among a thousand of the EU institutions-accredited journalists, being a specific organization for Brussels-based foreign correspondents. API claims to be first organization since 1975 to unite non-Belgian journalists of all categories and expertise based in Belgium and working for international media. The membership is open to journalists employed by one or more media outlets—whether as staff or freelancers—whose headquarters are located abroad, or who can demonstrate that their work is targeted at a non-Belgian audience, reads the introduction on the API site.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

As the representative group of non-Belgian journalists in the Kingdom of Belgium, API was created to facilitate connection between the foreign correspondents and the EU institutions on issues relevant to professional activities of the members. This includes the established set of rules, opening access to information, ensuring adequate working conditions at the EU press events, and equal access to the sources, and documents.

However during Ursula von der Leyen presidency of the European Commission which is the EU institution granting accreditation for the journalists, the access for the press-events and information has been severely restricted. The bunker mentality of Madame President is widely known, reflected in replacing press-conferences by read out of statements, “family” photos, and other photo-ops as shake hands, shifting from dialogue, answering to the questions of press to production of public relations material, and policies promotion.

This shift signifies a clean break with the previous presidencies of the European Commission, engaged in dialogue with press, and explanations of the initiatives, or decisions. The von der Leyen Commission has been systematically replacing them with advertising of the Commission’s activities, and public relations.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Undoubtfully Brussels journalists are experiencing the global trends of transition from legacy media to digital multimedia, the process which has multiple implications. With the Digital revolution a Homo Sapiens, a product of written culture, is transforming into a Homo Videns for whom the word has been dethroned by the image. The image plays a decisive role, floating away from a text as an abstract form of thought to a visual representation. As a result the complexity of political process, democracy, and rule of law is substituted by shake hands, red carpets, and broad smiles of politicians, attempting to convince citizens that they are guided to a brighter future. Benefiting from the Digital technologies, the beau monde of politics is increasingly reliant on power of colorful, and often doctored images.

Within this global trend, while genuine discussion through traditional mass communication channels is replaced by the mosaic of optimistic edited images, the EU Commission does not miss opportunities to shape public debate upon its agenda. The Ursula von der Leyen Commission has successfully flooded the information field with the self-advertising, and promotions, while the gap between the Institutions, and regular citizens broadens daily.

In an exclusive new report for MCC Brussels — Brussels’s media machine: EU media funding and the shaping of public discourse — the author Thomas Fazi – revealed a vast, previously under-scrutinized system through which the European Union annually disburses nearly €80 million to media projects across Europe and beyond.

“The report contends that the EU’s financial leverage creates a “semi-structural relationship” with major media outlets, particularly public broadcasters and news agencies, blurring the lines between independent journalism and institutional communication — and seriously compromising the media’s ability to hold power to account” Thomas Fazi writes.

The European Commission and European Parliament collectively disburse close to €80 million annually to media projects, including major news agencies, who are used by the other types of media as a prime source of news distribution. The MCC report concluded a conservative estimate of one billion euro (€1 billion) in funding during the past decade. This figure doesn’t include indirect funding streams — for example, advertising or communication contracts awarded to marketing firms who then redistribute funds to major media outlets.

The European Commission system of replacing journalism by public relations, and advertising was shuttered by Brexit, which revealed the immunity of a large part of the electorate to the efforts of the EU institutions to promote their agenda, disguised in “independent” media discourse. However it after the departure of the Brits, the EU institutions’ methods became more aggressive, adding active censorship. The EU citizens have especially felt it during the pandemic, and beyond, when the battle for freedom of speech climaxed in EU Commissioner Thierry Breton clash with Elon Musk. The owner of X (formally Twitter) platform dabbed former European Commissioner for Digital Affairs a “tyrant of Europe” for his relentless efforts to impose censorship on social media via the EU regulations of the digital platforms.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The public battles for freedom of speech, and censorship are shifting Overton window, so do the other, less noticeable, but not less significant actions, for example including non-news agents into journalistic communities, and then promoting them to lead. The endorsement of non-journalist as a president of the Association of the International Press is one of these Overton shifts. The replacement of journalists by advertising, and other commercial publications agents is not only a precedent, it is decisive vector of development, which will allow to ditch the role of press as democracy watch dogs to favor the European Commission lap dogs, without attracting much attention of the general public to the surrogate.

“This latest episode simply confirms the disgraceful state of the EU press corps, and Brussels-based journalists more in general, which have forsaken their role of watchdogs a long time ago and today largely act as PR agents for the corporate-political interests which fund their operations, which happens to include the Commission itself, which funds a large number of media outlets across Europe, as I show in my report, – Thomas Frazi wrote, commenting on the situation.-With the non-news media agent, leading the Association of International Press. – The result is that there is basically zero real scrutiny from the Brussels media of the Commission and von der Leyen’s policies, as the latter’s embarrassing press conferences attest to. The good news is that more and more people are starting to realise just how corrupt the traditional media are, and no longer give much credit to what they have to say. So as the propaganda becomes more pervasive and blatant, it also becomes less effective”.
—

Letter to Postimees editorial

Blog, EU, Human rights

Brussels 19.09.2025
Postimees Editor-in-Chief Priit Hõbemägi

Dear Sir,
In spite of the EU prohibition of the publication of the personal data due to strict data protection regulations GDPR, Postimees newspaper blatantly breached the law again, and issued the second article, publishing my personal information without my consent, moreover the information published was inaccurate, manipulated, and in some passages totally false, thus damaging my reputation of an independent journalist. I am not a civil servant, governmental official, or an elected representative to be exempted from the general rule of the GDPR regulations, protecting personal data.

The GDPR regulations are effective since May 25, 2018, thus they grant individuals a significant control over their personal data, and place strict obligations on organizations worldwide that process EU citizens’ data. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not permit the general publication of private data, as it prioritizes the protection of individuals’ privacy and requires a legal basis for any processing of personal data. Both articles about me are published after the date of the entering of the regulation into force, thus they are liable to the regulation.

As the editorial is obliged to respect the GDPR in publication of personal data, which is permissible only under specific conditions, such as obtaining informed consent, which was not asked by your employee Meinhard Pulk, who collected, manipulated, deformed, and published my personal data in incoherent way, and without my consent.

Unfortunately the second time in a new article the employee Meinhard Pulk provided readership with intentionally inaccurate, false, and incomplete information, with a clear pattern to mislead the public, and damage my professional reputation.

As professionals in media Postimees editorial is obliged to know that the intentional distortion of information is called disinformation, or information manipulation, when someone intentionally provides incomplete, inaccurate, or false information with the goal of manipulating the audience. Distortion can take various forms, including providing incomplete, incoherent information changing the context, or intentionally distorting part of the information.

Taking into consideration mentioned above, I demand respect my rights, and call the Postimees editorial to return to the legal methods of processing, and publishing information, removing my personal data from both issued articles. I would like also to remind you for the future, that I am the only owner of my personal data, having the exclusive rights to administrate it.

The information to be removed from both articles: my photo (image), my locations data, characteristics as my political opinions, my cultural background, my employment history.

This letter is send to you in good faith, and in accordance with the GDPR regulator recommendations in line with the wish to settle the arguments in the spirit of the good will. In case you ignore my request, I will start a formal procedure, demanding the penalties, and claiming the damages as foreseen by the regulator.

NB! Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of Regulation has the right to receive compensation the damage suffered.

Regards,
Anna

Stockholm hosts Bilderberg Club

Blog, Europe, International, Politics, World

Brussels 13.06.2025 The 125 high-profile participants attending this year’s Bilderberg Meeting, which began on Thursday 13 June in Stockholm and runs until Sunday June 15.
The exclusive assembly brings together political leaders, business executives, and academics from both sides of the Atlantic for closed-door discussions under strict confidentiality rules.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Bilderberg Meeting guest list reflects the forum’s enduring role as a nexus of elite transatlantic influence, with participants drawn from the highest tiers of politics, business, academia, media, and technology.

Roughly one-third of the guests hold or have recently held top-level government roles, including sitting prime ministers–such as Finland’s Alexander Stubb and Greece’s Kyriakos Mitsotakis–Cabinet ministers, European commissioners, and high-ranking military officers from NATO and the US armed forces.

The presence of multiple European commissioners and current or former finance ministers underlines the group’s strong interest in economic governance and geopolitical stability.

Alongside them, major players from global business, such as the CEOs of Microsoft, Spotify, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, TotalEnergies, and Pfizer, signal the continued interweaving of political decision-making and private sector interests.

The tech sector is particularly well represented, with figures such as Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind, Mustafa Suleyman of Microsoft AI, and investor Peter Thiel indicating a growing focus on AI and defence innovation.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Several prominent journalists and editors, including from The Economist, The New York Times and Bloomberg, suggest media remains a valued lens through which these elites interpret global trends, though under the Chatham House Rule, their participation is private rather than performative.

The inclusion of figures like Applebaum and Stacey Abrams adds transatlantic political-cultural depth, while the involvement of Polish figures such as Sikorski and entrepreneur Rafał Brzoska reflects the region’s increasing visibility in Euro-Atlantic strategic discourse.

The only Russian invited is Alexander Gabuev, the head of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an institution banned by the Kremlin in 2022.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The meeting is taking place at Stockholm’s prestigious Grand Hôtel, which has been cordoned off by police since Tuesday in anticipation of protests.

The hotel, owned by the influential Wallenberg family, has blocked reservations for the duration of the event, echoing similar security steps taken ahead of Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Sweden.

This year’s agenda includes topics such as transatlantic relations, the future of Ukraine, the US and European economies, the Middle East, and the so-called “authoritarian axis” of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

Discussions will also explore defence innovation, artificial intelligence and national security, energy geopolitics, and global migration trends.

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting aims to promote informal dialogue between Europe and North America.

Around two-thirds of participants come from Europe, with the rest from North America. Roughly a quarter are active in politics and government, while the majority represent business, media, academia, and other sectors.

All discussions are held under the Chatham House Rule, which allows participants to use the information shared but prohibits identifying speakers or their affiliations.
This year agenda includes:

12 June – 15 June 2025 Stockholm, Sweden
Transatlantic Relationship
Ukraine
US Economy
Europe
Middle East
Authoritarian Axis
Defence Innovation and Resilience
AI, Deterrence and National Security
Proliferation
Geopolitics of Energy and Critical Minerals
Depopulation and Migration

The private format, there are no press briefings, resolutions, or official statements, has long fuelled speculation and conspiracy theories about the group’s influence.

However, organizers maintain that the event provides a rare space for candid, off-the-record exchange among global decision-makers, and the guest list is publicly available on the group’s website.

Stockholm, 12 – 15 June participants list:

Abrams, Stacey (USA), CEO, Sage Works Production
Albuquerque, Maria Luís (INT),
EU Commissioner Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union

Alcázar Benjumea, Diego del (ESP), CEO, IE University
Alverà, Marco (ITA), Co-Founder, zhero.net; CEO TES
Andersson, Magdalena (SWE), Leader, Social Democratic Party
Applebaum, Anne (USA), Staff Writer, The Atlantic
Attal, Gabriel (FRA), Former Prime Minister
Auchincloss, Murray (CAN), CEO, BP plc
Baker, James H. (USA), Former Director, Office of Net Assessment, Department of Defense
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chair and CEO, Temaris & Associés SAS
Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chair International Advisors, Goldman Sachs International
Baudson, Valérie (FRA), CEO, Amundi SA
Beleza, Leonor (PRT), President, Champalimaud Foundation
Birol, Fatih (INT), Executive Director, International Energy Agency
Botín, Ana (ESP), Group Executive Chair, Banco Santander SA
Bourla, Albert (USA), Chair and CEO, Pfizer Inc.
Brende, Børge (NOR), President, World Economic Forum
Brunner, Magnus (INT), European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration
Brzoska, Rafal (POL), CEO, InPost SA
Busch, Ebba (SWE), Minister for Energy, Business and Industry
Caine, Patrice (FRA), Chair & CEO, Thales Group
Calviño, Nadia (INT), President, European Investment Bank
Castries, Henri de (FRA), President, Institut Montaigne
Chambers, Jack (IRL), Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Reform and Digitalisation
Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of Finance and National Revenue
Clark, Jack (USA), Co-Founder & Head of Policy, Anthropic PBC
Crawford, Kate (USA), Professor and Senior Principal Researcher, USC and Microsoft Research
Donahue, Christopher (USA), Commander, US Army Europe and Africa
Donohoe, Paschal (INT), President, Eurogroup; Minister of Finance
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chair and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Eberstadt, Nicholas N. (USA), Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy, AEI
Ek, Daniel (SWE), CEO, Spotify SA
Ekholm, Börje (SWE), CEO, Ericsson Group
Eriksen, Øyvind (NOR), President and CEO, Aker ASA
Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Journalist
Fentener van Vlissingen, Annemiek (NLD), Chair, SHV Holdings NV
Fraser, Jane (USA), CEO, Citigroup
Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Minister of Transport and Internal Trade
Friedman, Thomas L. (USA), Foreign Affairs Columnist, The New York Times
Gabuev, Alexander (INT), Director, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Hammer, Kristina (AUT), President, Salzburg Festival
Harrington, Kevin (USA), Senior Director for Strategic Planning, NSC
Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, Google DeepMind
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation
Heinrichs, Rebeccah (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Heraty, Anne (IRL), Chair, Sherry Fitzgerald ana IBEC
Herlin, Jussi (FIN), Vice Chair, KONE Corporation
Hernández de Cos, Pablo (ESP), General Manager Elect, Bank for International Settlements
Hobson, Mellody (USA), Co-CEO and President, Ariel Investments LLC
Hoekstra, Wopke (INT), European Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth
Hunt, Jeremy (GBR), Member of Parliament
Isla, Pablo (ESP), Vice-Chair, Nestlé SA
Johansson, Micael (SWE), President and CEO, Saab AB
Jonsson, Conni (SWE), Founder and Chair, EQT Group
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies Inc.
Klöckner, Julia (DEU), President Bundestag
Kostrzewa, Wojciech (POL), President, Polish Business Roundtable
Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Kratsios, Michael (USA), Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chair, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chair and CEO, Kudelski Group SA
Kuleba, Dmytro (UKR), Adjunct Professor, Sciences Po
Leeuwen, Geoffrey van (INT), Director Private Office of the Secretary General, NATO
Lemierre, Jean (FRA), Chair, BNP Paribas
Letta, Enrico (ITA), Dean, IE School of Politics, Economics & Global Affairs
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chair, dsm-firmenich AG
Lighthizer, Robert (USA), Chair, Center for American Trade
Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chair, IFRS Foundation Trustees
Lundstedt, Martin (SWE), CEO, Volvo Group
Marin, Sanna (FIN), Strategic Counsellor, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
McGrath, Michael (INT), European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law
Mensch, Arthur (FRA), Co-Founder and CEO, Mistral AI
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), Prime Minister
Monti, Mario (ITA), Senator for life
Nadella, Satya (USA), CEO, Microsoft Corporation

Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD),

O’Leary, Michael (IRL), Group CEO, Ryanair Group
Ollongren, Kajsa (NLD), Fellow, Chatham House; Senior Fellow, GLOBSEC
Özyeğin, Murat (TUR), Chair, Fiba Group
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), Chair, TITAN S.A.
Paparo, Samuel (USA), Commander, US Indo-Pacific Command
Philippe, Édouard (FRA), Mayor, Le Havre
Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chair and CEO, TotalEnergies SE
Prokopenko, Alexandra (INT), Fellow, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, Financial Times
Rappard, Rolly van (NLD), Co-Founder and Chair, CVC Capital Partners
Reiche, Katherina (DEU), Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy
Ringstad Vartdal, Birgitte (NOR), CEO, Statkraft AS
Roche, Nicolas (FRA), Secretary General, General Secretariat for Defence and National Security
Rutte, Mark (INT), Secretary General, NATO
Salvi, Diogo (PRT), Co-Founder and CEO, TIMWE
Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chair, Newbridge Advisory Ltd.
Scherf, Gundbert (DEU), Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Helsing GmbH
Schimpf, Brian (USA), Co-Founder & CEO, Anduril Industries
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Executive Chair and CEO, Relativity Space Inc
Schmidt, Wolfgang (DEU), Former Federal Minister for Special Tasks, Head of the Chancellery
Šefčovič, Maroš (INT), European Commissioner Trade and Economic Security;
Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency

Sewing, Christian (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Bank AG
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Minister of Foreign Affairs
Şimşek, Mehmet (TUR), Minister of Finance
Smith, Jason (USA), Member of Congress
Stoltenberg, Jens (NOR), Minister of Finance
Streeting, Wes (GBR), Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Stubb, Alexander (FIN), President of the Republic
Suleyman, Mustafa (USA), CEO, Microsoft AI
Summers, Lawrence (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital LLC
Toulemon, Laurent (FRA), Senior Researcher, INED
Uggla, Robert (DNK), Chair, A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S
Valentini, Valentino (ITA), Deputy Minister of Enterprise and Made in Italy
Vassy, Luis (FRA), Director, Sciences Po
Verhoeven, Karel (BEL), Editor-in-Chief, De Standaard
Wallenberg, Jacob (SWE), Chair, Investor AB
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chair, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
Weder di Mauro, Beatrice (CHE), President, Centre for Economic Policy Research
Weel, David van (NLD), Minister of Justice and Security
Wilmès, Sophie (INT), Vice-President, European Parliament
Zakaria, Fareed (USA), Host, Fareed Zakaria GPS
Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Warner Bros. Discovery International

Putin: was it an assassination attempt?

Blog, Conflict, Europe, Politics, Russia

Brussels 26.05.2025 A Russian military commander of its air defense division claimed that President Vladimir Putin’s helicopter was “at the epicentre” of a Ukrainian drone attack on May 20, while travelling in Kursk oblast.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

“We were simultaneously engaged in an air defense battle and ensuring airspace security for the president’s helicopter flight. The helicopter was effectively at the epicenter of the response to the massive drone attack” Yury Dashkin said.

The claim, made five days after the alleged incident in Kursk Oblast, has not been independently verified. Dashkin provided no evidence to support the claim, and Russian authorities have not released further details.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Putin’s visit to Kursk marked his first public trip to the region since Russian forces reclaimed most of the territory from Ukrainian control which was established there in August last year.

The incident raises question of the respect of the international law by Ukraine while attacking military target – the helicopter – in Kursk oblast, which is undisputable Russian territory. In international law, self-defense is the right of a state to use force in response to an armed attack. This right is recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter and customary international law, which permits the use of force in self-defense when an armed attack occurs, according to the ICRC online casebook.
However the response must be necessary and proportional to the attack.

EU Media: Ursula’s Colonial remnants

Blog, EU, Human rights, Politics

Brussels 30.03.2025 During the hearing on the European Commission self-glorification “propaganda” the MEP Elisabeth DIERINGER ( @E_Dieringer_MEP ) said that she is concerned with the accumulating of accreditation refusals for independent journalists, who are not allowed to enter the institutions press-events.
The problem manifested itself during the second term of Ursula von der Leyen in a way it became visible to broader public. Less than modest presence of journalists during press-conferences can be perceived by a TV spectator as a lack of interest, however if one takes interest in the EU Commission accreditation rules an alternative vision of causes of this feeble presence occurs. It is also useful to remind that accreditation is a form of public control of the institutions performance.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

To receive the annual accreditation to the EU institutions: the press-centers of the European Commission, European Council, and the European Parliament, a journalist should be compliant with three criteria: become a resident of Belgium, regularly cover the EU affairs, and… pass the financial screening.

The financial screening is described as follows: “journalism must be the main source of income”, meaning a candidate should submit the totality of financial documents for last two years to an anonyms Committee composed by an unknown criteria, who will consider the entirety of the income, and pronounce their judgement. Within these rules, imposed by Ursula von der Leyen Commission two elements are especially striking, the request to submit the financial documents without any frame to guarantee proper handling of the private financial information; and anonymity of the “judges”.
@MCC_BrusselsThese Commission financial screening demands are at odds with the rights of media companies to keep the information about the fees to freelances confidential. Paradoxically Ursula von der Leyen has been ultra defensive regarding the grants of the European Commission to media companies, keeping the information as top secret, although thanks to the MCC ( @MCC_Brussels) report signed by Thomas Fazi, it became clear that tens, and hundreds of millions of public funds are distributed in undisclosed procedures to ensure positive coverage of the EU institution’s activities.

On the flipside is the submitting of the entirety of financial documents to Ursula von der Leyen Commission anonyms Committee without any obligation from their behalf to guarantee a minimum discretion. On contrary to tax authorities the Commission’s Committee doesn’t establish any regulatory frame in treating this external financial information.

The other aspect of the unusual among organizations request for financial screening of the income of the journalist is the basis of this initiative is rooted in Belgium Colonial history. In 1963 King Albert II signed a law, which was officially was designed to protect the status of journalist in the society, but in reality this piece of legislation to transform journalism into a price prohibitive profession, unattainable for Africans, who broke away from Empire. Nowadays in Belgium the situation is unchanged, and preserving the legislation-remnant of the other era.
However the European Commission as an international organization is not obliged to follow the suit, and replicated the rules based on Colonial era frustrations, and inhibitions.

https://commission.europa.eu/about/contact/press-services/media-accreditation_en

Nevertheless the most egregious element is not the totalitarian impulse of Ursula von der Leyen Commission to inspect pockets of journalists as such, but establishing the correlation between earning, ana professional status, which allows those journalists who receive generous grants from the Commission to be in the first ranks in this shrouded obscure scheme. Commission distributes grants, and than grants accreditation to financially successful recipients of their own generosity. What a travesty! Ultimus hypocrita omnis…
.