The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.
Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.
The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”
Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
Imagine if war had broken out between the United States and Soviet Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let’s assume that two American cities — New York and Washington, D.C., and two Russian cities —Moscow and St. Petersburg — were destroyed by nuclear missiles before a peace agreement was entered into.
Who would the U.S. mainstream press, the U.S. national-security establishment, and U.S. public officials today be saying started the war?
There is no doubt that the official narrative would be that it was Russia that started the war when it installed its nuclear missiles in Cuba and then refused to remove them. If Russia had not installed those missiles, their argument would be, the U.S. government would not have had to attack and invade Cuba in order to remove them.
But what if someone were to point out that Cuba had the legitimate authority under international law to invite the Russians to install nuclear missiles in Cuba? After all, even though Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States, it is a sovereign and independent country. As such, it had the authority to install whatever missiles it wanted in its own country.
Nonetheless, even conceding the legalities of the situation, the official U.S. narrative would have been that as a practical matter, Russia started the war by provoking it with its installation of nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from only 90 miles away and its refusal to remove them.
Undoubtedly, it is this type of reasoning that President Trump had in mind when he recently declared that Ukraine, under the presidency of Volodymyr Zelensky, started the Ukraine-Russia war.
But to be more exact, it was the U.S. national-security establishment, in complicity with Zelensky, that started the war by provoking Russia into invading Ukraine, just as it would have been Russia that started the war by provoking the United States into invading Cuba back in 1963.
Provoking war is what U.S. officials were doing when they were violating U.S. promises not to move the old Cold War dinosaur NATO eastward toward Russia after the end of the Cold War. Knowing full well that Russia was objecting to the violation of those U.S. promises, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA used NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact, which enabled U.S. and German tanks, missiles, armaments, and troops to get ever closer to Russia’s border.
It was President Biden and the U.S. national-security establishment, operating in complicity with Zelensky, that pulled the final trigger to start the war by suggesting that NATO intended to absorb Ukraine, which would enable U.S. and German missiles, tanks, troops, bases, and weapons to be placed on Russia’s border. They knew that Russia would react with an invasion, just as the U.S. would have invaded Cuba had Russia not removed its nuclear missiles from that nation.
What many Americans do not want to confront is the fact that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was precisely what the U.S. national-security establishment wanted, given that this would convert Russia into a renewed Cold War enemy, would avoid a critical examination of the 20-year-long U.S. war in Afghanistan, would “degrade” Russia by having hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed, injured, or maimed, and, it was hoped, would result in the removal of Russian president Vladimir Putin from power and his replacement with a pro-U.S. stooge.
The fact is that Zelensky was not forced to participate in this political game. He chose to do so. He chose to sacrifice his country and his countrymen in order to please U.S. officials by having Ukraine join NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur. If he had chosen differently and declared no intention of having Ukraine join NATO, there would have been no deadly and destructive Russian invasion of his country.
Trump obviously gets this. Even though the U.S. mainstream press and the national-security establishment continue to mindlessly repeat the same tiresome official narrative, their mindsets are quite irrelevant. What is relevant is Trump’s mindset, which clearly sees Zelensky, especially with his NATO machinations, as having started the war.
Today, there are many people, including Zelensky, who are exhorting Trump to cancel his suspension of U.S. arms to Ukraine. But how can Trump do that, given his conviction that Ukraine was the one that started the war? How could he possibly justify to himself helping a regime that started the war to kill soldiers in a regime that did not start the war?
You don’t have to be a genius to work out that if you exclude Russia and just look at the three groups who are vying for war, or whining for peace, that no one is being very honest about their intentions. Previously, I tackled head on how Trump is not being very honest when he talks of peace as he has the means to enforce it at the drop of a hat, but chooses to drag his feet and hold out for deals. This is not simply Trump Basic who we all know well – where’s the deal? – but also Trump playing out a longer game with Russia, looking at where the sweet spot could be. Trump’s tour de force is always to create a crisis and then position himself to be the only person on the planet who is capable or willing to resolve it. His personality is always paramount to everything.
And so the stunt in the White House needs to be seen in the correct context. Zelensky was not honest in coming to the White House in the first place as it was believed that he was to meet Trump and JD Vance to sign a mineral deal which he agreed to and retracted from signing a number of times leading up to the visit. This became apparent when he met with Trump behind close doors and so the Plan B was to lower Zelensky into a trap and make him look ungrateful, arrogant and entirely impossible to work with. But what’s the real story behind Zelensky’s decision? Again, we see the puppet Zelensky having his strings pulled by others. Is it a coincidence that just days earlier British PM Keir Starmer arrives in the White House where, just a matter of hours earlier he announces in the British parliament that defence spending will be increased, in line with Trump’s demands for European members of NATO? Was it merely that Starmer needed to show some goodwill to Trump even to get the meeting, or was Starmer preparing for choppier waters to come, when Trump would finally hear the rumours? According to some reports, Zelensky has sold all the mineral rights already to the UK, so he was playing a game with Trump all along.
But there are more lies and games to come.
If we look at Zelensky’s European partners can we honestly say they are being honest with the public which elected them? While Macron announces a no-fly zone rule, Starmer tells his own people that Britain will send its own troops to Ukraine. Has the world gone mad, or are these leaders actually serious about their intentions? How many of UK soldiers, airmen and sailors could Starmer actually send out of a total of barely 150,000 in uniform? In reality, probably only a third at best. And presumably this move would be without the support of the U.S., who would keep out of it? If that isn’t the craziest batshit idea, there is more madness to follow. Zelensky, since arriving in the UK for the emergency meeting of mostly EU leaders who support him – including Erdogan of Turkey – has started saying some very odd things to the press, while he picks up these huge checks for military support. He keeps talking about getting a peace deal with Russia.
As Starmer prepares to send British troops to Ukraine, he continues to jail people for posting nasty messages in Facebook, in particular when they slur his own party members – an irony that only Joe Stalin would appreciate, as it’s straight from the dictators’ handbook. Starmer preaches about supporting a free and democratic Ukraine while persecuting anyone who doesn’t agree with his views or uses social media to complain about the state of Britain. In reality it’s one despot supporting another and it’s hard to see how many days this could last with body bags coming back to the UK while pensioners get plain clothed policeman come to their houses and threaten them with imprisonment – or even more cuts to the poor. Of course the body bags will be hidden by a tawdry deal struck between the government and the British press, just as so many ‘no-go zones’ were agreed beforehand. But citizen journalism will call them out as the families won’t stay quiet. Starmer and Macron seem to think that just as Churchill pulled a few stunts to draw the U.S. into the Second World War, that European soldiers on Ukrainian soil will override any agreement that the U.S. and Russia could pull off. The move by Starmer is so idiotic that it leaves many wondering whether he is being controlled by Mossad or the Obamas, comes from the same camp which so fabulously made so many poor predictions from the beginning – namely Russian sanctions.
There is only one conclusion to it, although it leaves Trump and Putin with two options, neither particularly edifying. One, to let the Europeans go ahead with their stunt and watch the collapse of NATO as a credible organization worthy of its funding; or two, to pull the rug out from under the feet of Zelensky and force presidential elections, where of course Trump will install his own puppet to replace the incumbent one. The huge mistake Starmer is making is that he is assuming British troops need not be sent to the front line, but can encircle Kiev to show political support for Zelensky. Yet, each day Russian troops will gain ground and move closer to the Ukrainian capital. For Trump to attempt regime change will be harder of course with a strong contingent of European soldiers on the ground as the State Department and all its dirty tricks doesn’t normally encounter such resistance. Is Zelensky’s ‘we want peace’ mantra a trick so that time can be bought to re-arm? Likely. Monty Python would have had a lot of fun with these clowns. Blessed are the peace brokers.
US President Donald Trump pledged to go ahead with his campaign of “swift and unrelenting action” in reorienting the country’s economy, immigration and foreign policy in his address to Congress.
“It seems he [Trump] wants more and more peace, urging Zelensky to conclude a ceasefire agreement and sign the US-Ukraine minerals deal,”Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired US AirForce official and former analyst for the US Department of Defense, told Sputnik.
Kwiatkowski stressed that Trump didn’t talk about Europe or NATO other than noting that they depend on the US and use American money, “and yet they seem not to want peace.”
She noted that peace means prosperity for the working people and younger generations rather than those not working and the government.
“It makes sense after watching his speech that he is most popular among the under 40 demographic in the United States according to current polling,” the ex-Pentagon analyst pointed out.
Former DoD officer David Pyne, in turn, said in an interview with Sputnik that “Trump had no reservations about ending all US military assistance to Ukraine” in order “to pressure the Zelensky regime to accept a cease-fire and the peace deal the US is working to negotiate with Russia.”
78% of Americans support Trump’s effort to negotiate an end to the conflict, Pyne stressed. “Even while Democrat leaders continue to support feeding Ukrainian soldiers into the meat grinder.”
Trump will continue to transform the US relationship with Russia “from one of adversaries to a new historic era of strategic partnership,” the analyst believed.
Washington has brought all intelligence sharing with Ukraine to a halt, CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed to Fox Business on Wednesday. The development came just a day after several American media outlets reported that the US had suspended military assistance, including both the purchase of new weapons and shipments already in progress.
When asked by host Maria Bartiromo whether the US had “cut off” its cooperation with Ukraine, Ratcliffe said that US President Donald Trump had “asked for a pause” to see if Kiev was ready to work toward resolving the conflict with Russia.
“President Trump had a real question whether… Zelensky was committed to a peace process,” Ratcliffe said, claiming that the halt to assistance and information sharing contributed to Zelensky publicly stating that he was “ready for peace.”
On Tuesday, the Ukrainian leader said that Kiev was ready for an immediate POW release and a temporary ceasefire with a “ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure.” Last week, Trump told reporters that Zelensky needed to be ready for an immediate ceasefire before he could be welcomed back to the US following their Oval Office debacle on Friday.
”On the military front and on the intelligence front, the pause… allowed that to happen,” Ratcliffe said, adding that he expected the US to resume cooperating with Ukraine soon.
The halt to intelligence sharing was “selective,” Sky News reported on Wednesday, citing a Ukrainian source. However, the move made it difficult for Ukraine to launch attacks against targets deep inside Russia, the source said.
Washington reportedly also barred its allies from sharing with Ukraine, Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources familiar with the matter. Recipients with assets inside Ukraine itself were likely to continue to pass on relevant information, the paper said, but Kiev would likely miss out on time-sensitive and high-value intelligence it needed to strike moveable Russian targets.
Trump and Zelensky had a heated verbal exchange on Friday, when the US president accused the Ukrainian leader of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to work towards a halt to hostilities.
Several US outlets, including Bloomberg, the New York Times, and CNN, reported that Trump had paused military aid after the fall out. According to the NYT, the president’s order affected more than $1 billion in “arms and ammunition in the pipeline and on order.”
Moscow commented on the reports by saying that if the US were to suspend supplies altogether it would “probably be the best contribution to the cause of peace.”
GAZA – The Hamas Movement said it will not be part of any administrative arrangements in the post-war Gaza Strip on condition of a national consensus.
“It is not necessary for Hamas to be part of the administrative arrangements in Gaza. It is not interested in that, and does not want to be in these arrangements at all,” Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem told Anadolu agency.
“Any arrangements for Gaza’s future after the [Israeli] aggression must be based on national consensus, and we will facilitate this. Hamas will not allow any external force to interfere,” he added.
Qassem said these arrangements must lead to “launching a serious and genuine reconstruction process to save our people in Gaza from the catastrophe they have endured” due to Israel’s war.
The comments come as Arab leaders prepare to meet in Cairo to formulate a unified Arab stance on the Palestinian issue and present a counterproposal to US plans for the displacement of Gaza’s population
On Tuesday, Egypt’s Al-Qahera Al-Ikhbariya channel published Egypt’s plan for rebuilding Gaza, which will be presented to Arab leaders at the emergency summit hosted in Cairo on Tuesday.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty previously stated that the plan was designed to ensure the Palestinian people’s dignity and rights, and would be presented on March 4.
According to Abdelatty, Egypt’s alternative reconstruction plan will not be solely Egyptian or Arab but will include international support and funding to ensure its effective implementation.
“We will hold intensive talks with major donor countries once the plan is adopted at the upcoming Arab Summit,” he stated during a press conference with European Union Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Suica.
Into Egypt’s plan
The plan, which is based on preserving the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, includes the formation of a Gaza Administration Committee to oversee the governance of the territory during a six-month transitional period. This committee will be independent, composed of non-partisan technocrats, and will operate under the Palestinian government.
According to the plan, the committee will be established throughout the current phase and pave the way for the full return of the administration, which would manage the next phase under Palestinian decision-making.
The plan also states that Egypt and Jordan will train Palestinian police forces in preparation for their deployment in Gaza. It calls for mobilizing political and financial support to back Egyptian-Jordanian efforts in training Palestinian security personnel.
Additionally, the plan suggests that the UN Security Council consider an international presence in the Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and Gaza, and issue a resolution to deploy international peacekeeping forces as part of a comprehensive framework for establishing a Palestinian state.
On stabilizing the ceasefire
The reconstruction statement also condemned the killing and targeting of civilians, as well as the high levels of violence and humanitarian suffering caused by “Israel’s” war on Gaza, claiming that the two-state solution is the most viable resolution under international law and consensus, emphasizing that Gaza is an inseparable part of Palestinian territory.
Egypt stressed the importance of safeguarding Palestinian rights and ensuring their continued presence on their land without displacement, calling on the international community to unite on a humanitarian basis above all else to address the catastrophic consequences of the war.
Any attempt to strip the Palestinian people of their hope for statehood or seize their land would only further fuel the struggle and instability, it also warned.
Additionally, the plan also underscored the need to maintain the ceasefire in Gaza, ensure the sustainability of the current truce, and secure the release of prisoners and detainees. It noted that successful reconstruction requires transitional governance arrangements and security measures that uphold the prospects of a two-state solution.
Furthermore, it urged the international community to support Egypt, Qatar, and the United States in stabilizing the ceasefire agreement, warning that a collapse of the truce would severely hinder humanitarian efforts and the reconstruction process.
The plan emphasized the importance of a gradual approach that ensures the Palestinian people’s right to remain on their land while also safeguarding their legitimate aspirations for an independent state with territorial continuity between Gaza and the West Bank. It called for handling Gaza’s situation through a political and legal framework that aligns with international legitimacy and UN Security Council resolutions.
The plan also stressed the need to begin planning for the early recovery phase in a way that guarantees Palestinian ownership of the process. It underscored the importance of continued efforts by the Palestinian Authority to take further steps in strengthening and developing Palestinian institutions and governance structures.
Many Mennonite community members in West Texas feel “frustrated” and “targeted” by mainstream media coverage of the current measles outbreak in Gaines County, Texas, Tina Siemens, a Mennonite business owner and award-winning author told The Defender in an exclusive interview today.
“The media spins it as there’s a large panic in our community. I have not seen that — and I get out and about in my community,” said Siemens, an immigrant who has lived in the Seminole, Texas, area since 1977. Seminole is the county seat for Gaines County.
The measles outbreak in West Texas — particularly in Gaines County — garnered mainstream media attention after the Texas Department of State Health Services (Texas DSHS) last week reported what it called “the first death from measles in the ongoing outbreak in the South Plains and Panhandle regions.”
Texas DSHS spokesperson Lara Anton on Feb. 26 told The Associated Press the outbreak’s main concentration of cases has been a “close-knit, under-vaccinated” Mennonite community.
But Siemens said that’s not a fair characterization. “It’s not just Mennonites that have the measles. There are other groups that have measles, but the Mennonites are an easy target.”
The Mennonites in West Texas mostly live on farms where they grow crops, including peanuts and cotton.
Siemens speaks out publicly because she feels called to be a “bridge builder” between immigrants and non-immigrants, she said. She wants the societal contributions of immigrant groups like the Mennonites to be appreciated — and for immigrants not to be targets of blame or poor treatment.
She detailed an instance of a Mennonite mother receiving “unfair” treatment. “I had a very dear lady message me last night,” Siemens said.
The woman was a Mennonite mother who had recently gone to her doctor’s office for a regular checkup.
The mother told Siemens the office staff demanded that she put on a mask right away because they could tell from her dress and accent that she was a Mennonite from Seminole, where the measles outbreak was strongest.
Meanwhile, other people who came into the office who did not look or sound like Mennonites were not instructed to wear a mask.
Siemens said the mother was then verbally “battered” by medical staff who told her, “You need to vaccinate. You need to vaccinate. You’re not a good mom if you’re not vaccinating.”
That kind of treatment is disrespectful and unfair, Siemens said.
Siemens said it’s not just the unvaccinated that are getting measles in West Texas. On Feb. 21, the Seminole Sentinel ran an article under the headline, “Measles Outbreak Now Includes Vaccinated Population.”
Parents who choose not to vaccinate kids aren’t uneducated
According to Siemens, “The media is portraying the unvaccinated as uneducated” and reporting that because they decline the vaccine, “they are the ones that are carrying all of the measles outbreak.”
“That is just not the truth,” she said.
The parents she knows who chose not to have their children receive the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine studied the vaccine’s risks, Siemens said. “They did more reading than those who say, ‘My doctor says [to get the shot], and I’m going to listen to my doctor.’”
There is evidence of serious health risks linked to the MMR vaccine. For instance, researchers in 2004 found that boys vaccinated with their first MMR vaccine on time were 67% more likely to get diagnosed with autism compared to boys who got their first vaccine after their 3rd birthday.
Additionally, the MMR vaccine contains virus levels significantly higher than those originally safety tested in the version of the vaccine approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — and the current vaccine has never been tested for safety, according to the legal testimony of Dr. David Kessler, former head of the FDA.
Siemens said she was vaccinated when she entered the U.S. in 1977 as an immigrant. “Did my parents study what was in the vaccines? No, they didn’t. But in 1977 versus 2025, that spectrum has changed a lot.”
Vaccines today are not what they were in 1977, she said. “And thanks to COVID, the trust has just diminished to almost non-existence.”
What’s most important is people’s right to choose
Siemens has worked with “those who choose to vaccinate and those who choose not to vaccinate … They have equal rights in our country.”
What’s most important is that we respect people’s right to choose for themselves and their children. “The freedom of choice is powerful,” she said.
Siemens has assisted the local health department by looking over their translations of community announcements informing people of measles testing sites and the availability of vaccines.
“The Mennonites in Seminole, Texas, all speak German,” she said. “There’s two dialects: a high German, which is the written language, and the low German, which is more the spoken language.”
The CDC is partnering with the Texas DSHS to respond to the state’s measles outbreak.
Siemens said she has been in touch with the parents of the child who died after testing positive for measles. She confirmed that the child who died was a 6-year-old girl and that the family is part of the “broader community” of Gaines County.
Siemens also said that details surrounding the child’s death have been shared with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and will later be made public.
“This story is going to be told in much more detail when the time is right.” For now, she said, “Just know that this family is being loved on by our community.”
I had the great pleasure of speaking with Karin Kneissl and Alexander Mercouris about Europe’s decline and tendency to double down on failed policies. Kneissl is the former Foreign Minister of Austria. We discussed why NATO’s defeat in the Ukraine proxy war will fragment the alliance, why the Europeans are no longer capable of engaging in diplomacy with Russia, how strategic thinking was replaced with ideological slogans, why unity and democracy within the EU is weakening, and why the economic decline will be difficult to reverse. Removing the dividing lines in Europe and restoring peace with Russia, as the largest state in Europe, would be an important part of reversing Europe’s growing irrelevance. However, the Europeans appear to be preparing for a showdown against Russia instead.
I had the great pleasure to discuss with Judge Napolitano the efforts by Trump to pressure Zelensky into starting negotiations to end the war. Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Zelensky and even cutting military support to push him to the negotiation table. It is very possible that Trump will also start to mount pressure on the Europeans as they are seen to also oppose his peace plan. By cutting military spending, Trump hopes to also deprive Zelensky and the Europeans of the alternative to keep the war going. The war summit in Paris organised by the Europeans demonstrates that they are not able to mobilise the political will and unity required to replace the US. The Europeans also do not have the money or military power to continue the war, yet they do not have the political imagination beyond doubling down on a failed war. If the Europeans continue to resist Trump’s peace efforts, then NATO itself could end up being dissolved.
Two weeks ago, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell announced that he would not seek re-election in 2026. McConnell’s announcement prompted Congressman Thomas Massie to share a poll asking his Twitter followers if he should run for McConnell’s open Senate seat, seek the governorship in 2027, or remain in the House.
Naturally, Massie’s followers were very enthusiastic about the former idea. But the prospect of a Senator Thomas Massie already has the Israel lobby on high alert.
Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks told Jewish Insider, “If Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.” Back in May 2023, Massie accused the RJC of taking “[the] neocon position that US taxpayers should fund the war in Ukraine.” The RJC responded by attacking Massie for, among other things, opposing U.S. funding for the Iron Dome and voting against a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Meanwhile, Rabbi Shlomo Litvin of the Kentucky Jewish Council accused Massie of “[going] out of his way to troll Jews,” and Melanie Maron Pell of the American Jewish Committee suggested that Massie demonstrates “outright hostility with the Jewish community.”
It should come as no surprise that the Israel lobby is doing everything in its power to torpedo any talk of a Thomas Massie Senate campaign. Massie is the only member of Congress who consistently opposes the ongoing wars in both Gaza and Ukraine. Shortly after the October 7 terrorist attack, Massie was the sole Republican congressman to vote against House Resolution 771, which “[reaffirmed] the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security,” “[urged] full enforcement of United States sanctions against Iran,” and declared that the U.S. “stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.”
In November 2023, he voted against House Resolution 6126, which provided Israel with $14.5 billion in military aid. In April 2024, he opposed House Resolutions 8034 and 8035, which allocated $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and other Indo-Pacific allies. (Donald Trump declined to oppose that package, all but assuring its passage.) In January 2025, Massie voted present on the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which would impose sanctions against any person who aids the International Criminal Court in its efforts to “investigate, arrest, detail, or prosecute” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.
Massie is keenly aware of the enormous power that the Israel lobby wields on Capitol Hill, and unlike other congressional Republicans, he is willing to publicly acknowledge the extent of its influence. During an interview with Tucker Carlson in June 2024, he noted that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee assigns handlers to every House Republican, dispatching them to influence how lawmakers vote. The previous month, the United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, spent at least $300,000 on TV ads tying Massie to Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Their efforts were in vain, as Massie won his primary with three-quarters of the vote.
Whether or not Massie can win a Senate primary remains to be seen. The only Republican candidate to have formally entered the race at this point is former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a McConnell protégé who lost the 2023 gubernatorial election. Cameron is already trying to distance himself from McConnell; he recently criticized the former leader of the Senate Republican Conference for opposing the confirmations of Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he even signaled his opposition to further aid to Ukraine. But in November 2023, shortly after losing his bid for governor, Cameron joined twenty-five other Republicans attorneys general in signing a letter urging Joe Biden and congressional leaders to provide “military resources, intelligence, and humanitarian assistance to Israel as she defends herself against those seeking her destruction.”
Congressman Andy Barr may also launch a bid for McConnell’s Senate seat. Barr believes that “enemies of Israel are enemies of the United States.” Just last month, he declared that he “[stands] fully with Israel in its mission to wipe every last Hamas terrorist off the face of the earth.” Given that AIPAC was the top contributor to his campaign committee in 2024, Barr’s commitment to the Israeli cause is perfectly understandable.
If he runs, Massie would be sure to receive an endorsement from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has unfortunately proven incredibly disappointing on the Gaza front. In November, Paul voted against three resolutions intended to block $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel. In January, he backed the ICC sanctions bill.
But a Donald Trump endorsement will no doubt prove to be the most important variable in shaping the outcome of the race. While Massie’s decision to endorse Ron DeSantis during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries may have hurt his standing with Trump, it is worth remembering that Trump offered former critic and one-time Evan McMullin supporter J.D. Vance his endorsement during the 2022 Ohio Senate primary. And the rest is history.
In December 2023, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Massie of anti-Semitism after he shared a meme correctly noting that Congress is more interested in Zionism than American patriotism. Expect more attacks like those, this time from pro-Israel Republicans, should the seven-term congressman enter the race to succeed McConnell. Despite those challenges, there is no doubt that a Thomas Massie Senate campaign has the potential to steer U.S. foreign policy in a less insane direction.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed that member states spend about $840 billion on defense to strengthen their military self-sufficiency – an amount more than double total EU defense expenditure in 2024.
In a statement on Tuesday, the EU chief cited the “most dangerous of times” and the “grave” threats facing the bloc as reasons to assume greater responsibility for its own security.
“We are in an era of rearmament,” von der Leyen declared, adding that she had sent a letter outlining her ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ to member state leaders ahead of the European Council meeting later this week.
“ReArm Europe could mobilize close to €800 billion ($840 billion) for a safe and resilient Europe,” she said. “This is a moment for Europe. And we are ready to step up.”
Official data shows the bloc’s total defense spending reached an estimated $344 billion last year, marking an increase of more than 30% since 2021.
The new plan includes $158 billion in loans available to member states to invest in what von der Leyen described as “pan-European capability domains,” including air and missile defense, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones, and anti-drone technology. It will also address other needs, from cybersecurity to military mobility.
The proposed five-part strategy is also designed to address the “short-term urgency” of supporting Ukraine, the EU chief said.
Von der Leyen did not specify a detailed timeline, but emphasized that defense spending must increase “urgently now but also over a longer period over this decade.”
Her announcement came just hours after news agencies reported on Monday that US President Donald Trump had ordered a pause on military aid to Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain. Following Zelensky’s public clash with Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday, the US president said America would no longer tolerate the Ukrainian leader’s attitude.
The EU has historically depended significantly on the US for its security, primarily through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, the Trump administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as Kiev’s. Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.
Trump has previously warned that under his leadership the US would not defend NATO countries that fail to meet their financial commitments. He has floated the idea of raising mandatory defense spending by members to 5% of GDP, though none – including the US – currently meet that threshold.
His push for increased defense spending has drawn mixed reactions, with some EU officials questioning its economic feasibility. European officials have occasionally raised concerns that Trump could pull the US out of the organization.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko recently warned that NATO appears to be preparing for war with Moscow, arguing that its current course poses a threat both to Russia and to overall security architecture.
Halting US military aid to Ukraine would be a significant step toward resolving the conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Tuesday.
Several US media outlets have reported that Washington has suspended the purchase of new weapons for Ukraine. Several reports have also suggested that US President Donald Trump has also ordered a halt to shipments of military aid.
Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Peskov stated that while the details of these reports have yet to be confirmed, such a move could prove to be a significant step towards de-escalation.
“It is obvious that the US has been the main supplier” of military aid to Kiev, Peskov noted, adding that if the US were to relinquish this role or suspend supplies altogether it would “probably be the best contribution to the cause of peace.”
The spokesman said that if the US had indeed stopped all military aid to Ukraine, it would mean that Kiev would effectively lose the vast majority of its ammunition, equipment and intelligence.
“If this really is so… then perhaps, without indulging in excessive optimism, we can modestly hope that this could encourage the Kiev regime to lean towards attempts to resolve the situation through peaceful means,” Peskov told Rossiya 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin.
According to Bloomberg, Trump has ordered a freeze on all military aid to Ukraine, which includes equipment already designated for delivery, as well as weapons in transit on aircraft and ships or waiting in transit areas in Poland. The New York Times reported that the president’s order, which has already taken effect, affects more than $1 billion in “arms and ammunition in the pipeline and on order.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Post claimed that in addition to stopping weapons shipments to Kiev, Washington is also considering the termination of intelligence sharing and training for Ukrainian troops and pilots.
Trump’s reported order comes after a public spat with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in the White House on Friday. During the meeting, Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to work towards a halt to hostilities.
After the heated exchange, Zelensky stated on Sunday that peace between Ukraine and Russia was still “very, very far away,” prompting even more ire from Trump, who said it was “the worst statement that could have been made” by the Ukrainian leader.
Trump warned that “America will not put up with it for much longer,” and suggested that Zelensky “doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing.”
For years Israel and its lobby around the world have been trying to normalise their relations with Arabs and Muslims without solving the Palestine Question.
One of the methods they resorted to in the last few years is using human rights and community organizations such as interfaith dialogue and Multiculturalism to achieve this objective and to: isolate the Palestinians, marginalise the Palestine question, end Israel’s isolation, and prevent criticism of Israel, knowing that these organisations will be the first to stand against Israel’s violations, racial and religious discrimination.
The group responsible for this task in Australia is The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC); its Director of International & Community Affairs, Jeremy Jones is in charge of lobbying religious community organizations, specifically Muslims and Christians. Consequently he convened the Faith Communities for Reconciliation, founding participant in the Australian Partnership of Religious Organisations and the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims & Jews.
AIJAC is a private political propaganda group. It is recognised as the main Israeli lobby in Australia. It coordinates its activities and works intimately with the Israeli embassy in Canberra and different institutions in Israel. It is privately funded by some Jewish businessmen. It monitors closely Australian politicians, the media, ethnic and religious groups, (especially Arabs and Muslims), unions and academics on their stands towards Israel and the Palestine question. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 