Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Jailing of Euroskeptic Moldovan politician is ‘repression’ – EU lawmaker

RT | September 5, 2025

The seven-year prison term handed to Euroskeptic Moldovan politician Evgenia Gutsul is an attempt to “repress” the opposition in the country, French European Parliament member Thierry Mariani has said.

Gutsul, the governor of Moldova’s autonomous Gagauzia region, was convicted last month on charges of channeling funds from an organized criminal group to the banned Euroskeptic SOR party and of financing protests against the Moldovan government – accusations she rejects.

Mariani, a member of the French right-wing National Rally party, weighed in on the case in a post on X on Thursday, writing:

“After Romania, the Eurocratic judicial repression is falling on the opposition in Moldova. On the eve of her birthday, support for Evgenia Gutsul, governor of Gagauzia, unjustly sentenced to seven years in prison for having defended political pluralism in her country.”

Gutsul has consistently advocated closer ties with Russia, and has described the proceedings as a “political execution” carried out “on orders from above.” Her sentencing triggered protests outside the courthouse in Chisinau, where hundreds of supporters denounced what they said was political repression by Moldova’s pro-Western government.

Russia has also condemned the ruling. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the decision was “an example of blatant and unlawful pressure on political opponents” and accused Moldova of suppressing dissent ahead of elections.

Gutsul has served as the head of Gagauzia, an autonomous and predominantly Russian-speaking region in southern Moldova, since winning the 2023 election as the SOR candidate. The party was banned the same year over allegations of illicit financing from abroad. Gutsul campaigned on promises of closer ties with Russia, in contrast with the pro-Western stance of the government of President Maia Sandu.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Western European powers are facing major problems

By Mohammed Amer – New Eastern Outlook – September 5, 2025

The policies of major Western European countries are not understood by the majority of the population of these states because they do not serve their national interests. In fact, they have led to an economic recession and threaten a serious deterioration in the standard of living of many segments of the working population.

France: The Sick Man of Europe

In France, a vote of confidence in the government will take place in early September, and it is almost a foregone conclusion that François Bayrou’s cabinet will be dismissed: the country will lose its third prime minister in one year. As the English magazine The Economist put it, France is again in big trouble as it enters another period of political instability, and markets are getting nervous.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the French left-wing opposition, has called for the impeachment of President Macron as the country sinks into political, economic, and social crisis. Notably, the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah concluded that France has “become an unreformable country and the sick man of Europe.”

Great Britain on the Brink of Impoverishment

Perhaps the crisis is felt most acutely in Great Britain, which is becoming a country of constant protests: the actions of Prime Minister K. Starmer are being increasingly harshly criticized. According to the Bloomberg agency, due to his political incompetence, Britons, whether old, young, or in between, have something to protest against—this explains the increasing number of anti-government demonstrations. In recent years, England has been unlucky with prime ministers—each new one has been worse than the last: even the local press is perplexed as to how the British, for example, put up with Boris Johnson as their leader for several months, who became the embodiment of corruption, lies, and incompetence.

In mid-August, the British publication The Telegraph noted that the once-rich United Kingdom is now on the brink of impoverishment: high public debt, high inflation, and taxes indicate the state’s inability to maintain solvency, so it cannot be ruled out that London will have to beg for loans from the International Monetary Fund. Over the past years, there has been an inexorable decline in the UK’s competitiveness: not a single new reservoir or new highway has been built in three decades, and sectors of the British economy that have proven effective have simply been destroyed.

“The State of Universal Unwell-being”

A negative situation is developing in various sectors of German industry; even the current chancellor admits that the country is experiencing a structural and economic crisis: Europe’s leading economy is facing the problem of high-energy prices. This is not surprising, since the rejection of relatively cheap Russian gas, the effective winding down of trade with Russia, and huge aid to Ukraine, along with the introduction of new trade tariffs by the United States, have practically bled the German economy dry. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the Federal Republic of Germany will no longer be a “social welfare state,” meaning an inability to finance social security costs.

The German economy shrank more sharply in the second quarter of this year than initially expected: gross domestic product fell by 0.3% compared to the previous three months, and investment also fell by 1.4%.

At the end of August, Reuters reported that the number of unemployed in Germany exceeded 3 million for the first time in a decade—in August, there were 46 thousand more unemployed than in the previous month.

Corruption, Spanish Style

The Spanish government is also facing serious difficulties: two close associates of Prime Minister P. Sánchez have been accused of corruption. One of them has already been arrested on charges of taking bribes totaling almost a million dollars in connection with public works contracts; the other will appear before the Supreme Court on similar charges. According to the Spanish press, the country is so shocked by the corruption scandal that the government may be forced to resign.

The Decline of Western Europe Becomes Apparent

It is noteworthy that more and more politicians are talking about Western Europe losing its influence. Former French Ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud, in an article for Le Point, noted the end of Western global dominance, linking it to the conflict in Ukraine, which, in his words, “cartoonishly illustrates the misunderstanding and rejection of the coming world by European leaders.”

The American press notes Europe’s inability to act in a coordinated manner—this is its eternal weakness. Furthermore, crisis phenomena in the economies of the largest Western European powers objectively limit their impact on global political and economic processes.

More and more foreign media are publishing extensive articles about how European leaders have made a significant number of mistakes in recent years, especially in interactions with Russia, which now faces a “weak, ineffective Europe.” The European Union has expanded too much, and decision-making has become very burdensome—this became painfully apparent starting in 2010, when the economic crisis in the eurozone led to the fall of governments in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, followed by years of zero interest rates and sluggish growth.

Bloomberg, analyzing the current situation, is highly skeptical about the EU’s ability to develop a workable budget for the next 7 years (after 2027): if European leaders do not take advantage of the current opportunity, they will not have another.

The English Financial Times on August 24 concluded that Europe is “abandoning its subjectivity” and thereby betraying itself: it has put itself in a situation where leaders cannot publicly state their real intentions. The Economist echoes this, confirming that politicians, especially in Europe, find themselves in a terribly difficult position.

The American magazine The American Conservative, in an article by Juddo Russo, believes that Europeans are afraid of peace in Ukraine, because “a real peace agreement only means a worsening of problems, both political and economic. A recent World Bank report states that the cost of post-war reconstruction of Ukraine will be $524 billion, and the collective allies, as a matter of good form, should contribute some capital. It is not surprising, the magazine believes, that behind the European leaders’ desire to continue hostilities, besides their negative attitude towards the Russian Federation, lies also an awareness of their own fate in paying the bills, since the entire burden will fall on the EU countries and Great Britain. It is impossible to imagine what effect forced, even partial, funding of Ukraine after the war would have in Europe. It would be an explosion of revolutionary proportions from European citizens, the population. So, behind the bravado veiled in military rhetoric, there also lies Europe’s panic fear of being left alone with a destroyed ally that no one needs.”

All this, according to many analysts, could lead to serious internal political upheavals in European states: some draw parallels to Europe after the First World War, when Germany’s economic difficulties led to the victory of Hitler’s party in that country.

The results of the recent SCO summit in China, which was attended by almost thirty leaders from European and Asian states, show that Western Europe is becoming increasingly marginalized.

Mohamed Amer is a Syrian political analyst.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

BRICS economies forecast to grow three times faster than G7 by 2028

By Jasbir Singh | The Eastern Herald | July 29, 2025

The economic tides of the 21st century are shifting, and shifting fast. As the Global South asserts itself with new confidence, the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and its expanded configuration, BRICS+, is emerging as the world’s most dynamic economic alliance, poised to grow nearly three times faster than the aging and economically stagnant G7 nations by 2028.

This is not mere speculation. According to multiple credible forecasts, including data analyzed by Watcher.Guru and IMF projections, the BRICS economies are expected to expand at an annualized rate of 4.2% to 5.1%, compared to a lethargic 1.3% to 1.8% for the G7, which includes the US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and Italy. In essence, the Global North is now staring at the rear-view mirror of global economic power, and BRICS is closer than it appears.

BRICS+ powers ahead while the G7 wheezes in the global growth race

India is expected to lead the charge with a remarkable 6.2% to 6.8% annual growth rate, buoyed by a young population, a thriving services sector, and increasing self-sufficiency in technology and defense. China, despite slowing from its dizzying past decade of double-digit expansion, is still projected to grow between 4.5% and 5.0%, a rate the US and EU economies haven’t touched since the 1990s.

Other new BRICS+ entrants are also pulling weight. Ethiopia is forecasted to grow 5.5%–6.0%, Indonesia around 5.1%–5.2%, and the UAE, a rising financial powerhouse, between 3.5% and 3.9%. Iran, long strangled by Western sanctions, is projected to notch a 2.0% to 2.5% growth rate as it increasingly trades in non-dollar currencies and deepens ties with Russia and China.

Meanwhile, Russia, despite ongoing Western sanctions and NATO isolation, is forecast to grow at 1.5% to 2.2%, largely due to its redirected energy trade to the East and emerging currency swap mechanisms with BRICS partners. Even South Africa, hampered by domestic turmoil, is projected to maintain 1.4% to 1.7% growth through a mix of mining exports and strategic realignments.

Compare this to the G7, where most economies are barely crawling: Germany, the EU’s economic engine, is forecasted for 1.0%–1.3%, Japan’s aging economy at 0.9%–1.2%, and even the US, despite heavy stimulus, only at 1.7%–2.0% growth under the weight of debt, deindustrialization, and geopolitical overreach.

BRICS+ shifts from economic outlier to commanding force in global affairs

The expanded BRICS alliance now accounts for over 45% of the world’s population and is rapidly closing in on 40% of global GDP (by purchasing power parity). The bloc’s increasing use of national currencies in trade settlements, especially yuan, rupees, and rubles, has fast-tracked the shift away from dollar dominance. The anticipated launch of a BRICS digital currency by 2026 is expected to further undercut the weaponization of the SWIFT system and Western financial sanctions.

Even in nominal terms, BRICS+ economies now collectively surpass $30 trillion in GDP, a staggering figure that threatens to dethrone the traditional Western order by the end of this decade. According to GZERO Media, BRICS economies are on track to account for 37% of global output by 2028, while G7’s share is expected to shrink below 28%, signaling a structural power inversion.

As the West crumbles under its own weight, BRICS reclaims the global center of gravity

What began as an economic alliance has morphed into a geopolitical counterweight to the West. The BRICS bloc, once seen as a soft power coalition, is now an assertive actor, shaping narratives on global governance, trade realignment, and currency multipolarity. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a recent statement, described BRICS as the “driving force of global economic growth”, a view echoed by India’s Narendra Modi and China’s Xi Jinping.

Perhaps more significant is the bloc’s increasing ability to act without the dollar. According to analysts at Cryptorank and the Financial Times, BRICS intra-bloc trade in local currencies jumped from 26% in 2021 to over 45% in 2024. This shift has not only weakened Western sanctions but also emboldened member states to pursue sovereign economic policies without IMF strings attached.

BRICS is also building its own institutional ecosystem to rival the Western-dominated Bretton Woods system. The New Development Bank (NDB), sometimes dubbed the “BRICS Bank,” has already issued billions in loans denominated in local currencies, supporting infrastructure and green development across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Global South flocks to BRICS+, abandoning the debt traps of the West

In the wake of this transformation, countries outside the original core are lining up to join. Argentina, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and even Türkiye have expressed interest in formally joining the group, seeking escape from Western debt diplomacy and a place in the world’s fastest-growing club.

The global south is no longer begging for seats at the G7 table. It’s building its own house, bigger, faster, and more inclusive.

With the G7 in decline, BRICS+ emerges as the inevitable future of global leadership

As G7 nations grow increasingly entangled in debt crises, political gridlock, and foreign wars, their share of global manufacturing, exports, and innovation is slipping. The once-vaunted “rules-based international order” is being challenged not through war, but through economics, cooperation, and credibility, all of which BRICS appears to have in greater supply.

The numbers don’t lie. BRICS+ is no longer a hypothetical threat, it is a statistical inevitability. By 2028, if current projections hold, the bloc will be the dominant driver of global economic growth. The question is no longer if BRICS will surpass the G7, it’s when and how the West will respond to a world it can no longer dictate.

According to Watcher Guru, the IMF, and additional projections by GZERO Media and Cryptorank, the accelerated economic trajectory of BRICS+ is not just a counterweight, it is a recalibration of the world order.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Ukraine “sanctioning” Hungary and Slovakia with terror and military provocations

Zelensky believes his country has the right to punish countries that cooperate with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz | September 5, 2025

Ukraine’s deliberate and unjustified provocations against sovereign European countries that refuse to support it in the current war are becoming one of the biggest sources of tension in recent times. Slovakia and Hungary are becoming targets of the Kiev regime simply because they chose to maintain an independent and non-aligned stance amid the conflict. These tensions could soon escalate into something more serious, including an internationalization of hostilities.

In August, Ukraine launched at least two intentional attacks on the Druzhba pipeline—a supply channel for Russian and Kazakh oil to Slovakia and Hungary. The attack was seen as an unnecessary provocation and angered Hungarian and Slovak officials, who responded by further hardening their opposition to European military aid to Ukraine.

These provocations are nothing new. Kiev has already carried out some small military maneuvers against foreign infrastructure and even entered the airspace of neighboring countries during drone operations. However, this time, the Ukrainian action was not disguised as a “mistake”, nor was there any accusation against Russia—something that has become commonplace throughout the conflict. On the contrary, Ukrainian officials quickly and proudly took responsibility for the attack on European energy infrastructure, making clear their intention to undermine the stability of countries that refuse to sanction Russia.

Not only that, but illegitimate Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky described the attacks as “sanctions” against Hungary and Slovakia. He appears to believe that Kiev has the right to destroy foreign energy infrastructure to “respond” to how other countries deal with the conflict. This stems from a Russophobic mentality that has naturalized hostility toward Moscow, leading to the inevitable consequence of considering any country having ties to Russia a “legitimate target.”

Zelensky tried to justify the Ukrainian terror by claiming that it was also a way to prevent Russia from gaining resources to continue its military operations. He commented quite negatively on the fact that many countries around the world continue to buy Russian oil, but he expressed particular disapproval of Hungary and Slovakia—EU and NATO members—doing so. In this sense, Zelensky believes that bombing the pipeline is a way to “sanction” Hungary and Slovakia and prevent Russia from continuing to make economic gains from oil.

“Among others, there are two countries [cooperating with Russia], we know that these are Hungary and Slovakia (…) [Ukrainian attacks] reduce the possibilities of [Hungary and Slovakia] obtaining the corresponding oil (…) Therefore, you see, Ukraine has found these types of sanctions.” he said.

A curious detail is that Zelensky’s words were said during a joint conference with French President Emmanuel Macron. Both leaders met on the eve of the summit in which 26 countries (mostly NATO) committed to sending “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire—something Russia has repeatedly condemned and described as intolerable. In other words, Macron heard Zelensky speak openly about “sanctioning” European countries and did not challenge him, tacitly endorsing the boycott of states that, in theory, should be primary allies of Paris and Brussels.

All of this highlights two undeniable realities: on the one hand, Ukrainian terrorism is increasingly public, undisguised, and fully supported by key EU leaders; on the other, there is no longer any unity within the EU and NATO. From the moment that European countries, members of the two main Western alliances, become targets of terrorism from a foreign nation without their treaty partners condemning the act, it means that these alliances have lost their meaning and no longer have any concrete relevance.

Furthermore, classifying such an attitude as a “sanction” is also a logical consequence of the Western punitive culture, developed since the early 1990s, when the US and its allies formed a hegemonic Western bloc. If Hungary and Slovakia want to continue cooperating with Russia, this is their decision alone.

Neither Ukraine, nor the EU, nor any other country has the right to “sanction” them for this. “Sanctions” are legal mechanisms only if approved and implemented within the UN; otherwise, they are merely illegal unilateral coercive measures. Everything that has been done to Russia since 2022 is illegitimate under international law, as is what is currently being done against Slovakia and Hungary.

Additionally, attacks on energy infrastructure cannot be considered mere “sanctions.” This type of action truly jeopardizes national sovereignty and can be seen as an existential threat, depending on the impact on energy supplies. Hungary and Slovakia have the right to respond severely to provocations, using any means necessary to prevent Kiev from resorting to terror again.

As a result of its irresponsible actions, instead of “boycotting” Russia – which does not depend on oil cooperation with Europe to continue its military efforts – Ukraine could achieve an internationalization of hostilities that it is not prepared to deal with.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Ukrainian neo-Nazi who knew too much?

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | September 5, 2025

The daylight assassination of Ukrainian ultranationalist Andriy Parubiy raises deeper questions: was it mere revenge, or a silencing of a man who carried explosive secrets about Maidan, Odessa, and Kiev’s descent into fascism?

On August 30th, Andriy Parubiy was shot dead in broad daylight in Lviv, Ukraine. A key figure in the foreign-fomented Maidan putsch and a prominent and influential politician locally for many years, he was mourned by a welter of British, European, and US officials. Within three days, Parubiy’s murderer was arrested and pleaded guilty. Wholly unremorseful, the assassin claimed his actions were “revenge on the state” for his son having disappeared – presumed dead – while fighting in Bakhmut in 2023.

Yet, there is almost certainly more to this story than meets the eye. In the immediate aftermath of Parubiy’s slaying, claims emerged he had months earlier requested formal protection from the SBU, only to be rebuffed. This prompted some outcry, forcing Kiev’s security services to issue a statement explaining why Parubiy’s demand was refused. Curiously though, a press conference has since been convened at which the SBU and local law enforcement contradictorily denied he had ever asked any state authority to be safeguarded.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Parubiy took an enormous number of sensitive secrets to his grave, which a great many individuals and organisations have a significant interest in remaining concealed forever. A longstanding, outspoken ultranationalist, in 1991 he cofounded the openly Neo-Nazi Social-Nationalist Party – later rebranded Svoboda – and from 1998 – 2004 ran its paramilitary wing, Patriot of Ukraine. The unit, like its parent political party, aggressively advocated insurrectionary violence, and espoused virulent, genocidal hatred of Russia and Russians.

Parubiy was a key figure in Kiev’s US-orchestrated 2004 Orange Revolution. His role in the Maidan coup and all that followed, which sent Ukraine hurtling towards war with Moscow, was considerably more outsized. After the protests erupted in November 2013, Parubiy founded the “Maidan Self-Defense Force”. While ostensibly responsible for protecting purportedly peaceful demonstrators from riot police, the Force acted in close coordination with fascist paramilitary group Right Sector. The latter routinely engaged in incendiary, savage acts to provoke adverse responses from law enforcement.

The protests ended with elected President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine on February 22, 2014. This followed the sniper massacre of demonstrators in Kiev’s Freedom – now Maidan – Square. Government forces – perhaps with Russian assistance – were blamed for the bloodshed, triggering an avalanche of international condemnation, and threats from Paribuy’s Maidan Self-Defense to storm the President’s residence and take power by force if he didn’t resign. Yanukovych’s government was replaced by a fascist-riddled unelected administration, hand-picked by the US State Department’s Ukraine point-person Victoria Nuland.

Parubiy was appointed National Security and Defense Council chief, overseeing the launch and execution of Ukraine’s “Anti-Terrorist Operation”, a savage crackdown on the country’s Russian-speaking population. He also instituted moves to integrate the country into NATO’s defence and security structures, in advance of formal membership. While Parubiy initially retained his position under elected, far-right President Petro Poroshenko, he resigned in August 2014 after the Minsk Agreements intended to achieve peace in Donbass were signed, believing the dispute could only be resolved via “force”.

Parubiy’s bellicosity only intensified when the proxy war erupted in February 2022. In the conflict’s early days, he forcefully argued against any negotiation with Moscow, and instead urged Kiev to “destroy the Russian Empire.” In the meantime, the Maidan massacre officially remained unsolved. This deficiency was so marked, suspicion abounded even among Ukrainian investigators as official probes into the killings were being deliberately sabotaged. There were certainly many figures within the country who wanted the truth obscured and buried – Andriy Parubiy perhaps foremost among them.

‘Sacred Victims’

In October 2023, a Kiev court finally made a ruling on the Maidan massacre, in a trial that began in 2016. Of five police officers on trial accused of the atrocity, one was acquitted outright, another sentenced to time served for alleged “abuse of power,” while three were convicted in absentia on 31 counts of murder and 44 counts of attempted murder. The verdict means no Ukrainian official from the time has been in any way legally punished over the incident today.

Nonetheless, the verdict conclusively ruled out the involvement of Russian elements in the mass shooting – a conspiracy theory promoted heavily by pro-Maidan elements for many years, including Parubiy. Even more significantly, in at least 28 of the 128 shootings of protesters evaluated during the trial, the court found the “involvement of law enforcement officers has not been proven,” and therefore the involvement of “other unknown persons” in the killings “cannot be ruled out.” Which is an extraordinary understatement.

The verdict noted “quite sufficient” evidence indicated “categorically” many shots were fired at protesters from Freedom Square’s Hotel Ukraina, which was “territory…not controlled by law enforcement agencies.” Unmentioned in the judgment, Hotel Ukraina was used as a base of operations by Svoboda throughout the Maidan unrest, its leaders – including Parubiy – coordinating chaos on the streets below. Many Svoboda operatives were based on the hotel’s 11th floor. Snipers in this area were observed by a BBC reporter.

However, copious witness evidence heard throughout the long running trial indicated Hotel Ukraina was not the only building or area from which protesters were being fatally shot, proven to have been occupied by opposition elements – not government forces – at the time. Of particular note was the testimony of Nazar Mukhachov, a Maidan Self-Defense commander and adviser to Parubiy. He gained access to government-collected evidence related to the massacre, and conducted his own investigation.

The results of Mukhachov’s probe into the mass killing amply indicated “third forces” linked to the Maidan leadership were responsible for shooting both protesters and police, from sites – including Hotel Ukraina – occupied by opposition elements. He declared Parubiy et al required “sacred victims” in order to seize power. Mukhachov’s account is especially forceful and persuasive, given his Maidan Self-Defense position, the fact he continues to support the Maidan coup, and remains a committed ultranationalist.

Meanwhile, Stanyslav Shuliak, a riot police commander during the Maidan protests, recorded how numerous officers observed snipers shooting from Maidan-controlled locations. Resultantly, security services negotiated with Maidan Self-Defense representatives to investigate these areas, but Parubiy denied their requests. Even more damningly, numerous witnesses testified to having caught armed individuals known or suspected of shooting at protesters during the massacre. After capture, these individuals were handed over to Parubiy’s Maidan Self-Defense – only for them to be released without consequence or explanation, and typically never seen again.

‘A Corpse’

In the immediate aftermath of Parubiy’s death, popular Ukrainian news outlet Strana interviewed a number of his associates. Intriguingly, while most blamed the “hand of the Kremlin” for his liquidation, others “[did] not exclude the internal political background of the murder” – namely, Parubiy may have been liquidated due to “expectations of some future political upheaval in the country.” After all, as an anonymous source told Strana, “Andrei knew well how to arrange a Maidan.”

The threat of impending “political upheaval” in Ukraine is very real. Every day, Moscow’s forces relentlessly advance in Donbass. Vast casualties, desertion, and failed recruitment drives mean Kiev’s manpower shortage is so dire: women – some of them pregnant – now fill frontline combat roles. Europe has been reduced to buying weapons from Washington to equip their proxy, while Donald Trump has firmly ruled out NATO membership, or the return of lost territory. The proxy war has unambiguously been lost for some time.

Despite this, President Volodymyr Zelensky remains publicly committed to maximalist – and wholly unattainable – battlefield goals, including recapturing Crimea. He has strong grounds for maintaining this farcical facade publicly. In July, Zelensky’s attempt to take US-run “anti-corruption” bodies under his government’s control sparked mass protests, demands for his resignation from even his strongest Western supporters, and vitriolic condemnation from powerful elements within the country. Among the loudest voices was Andriy Biletsky, founder of the notorious Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.

In an August interview with The Times, Biletsky repeatedly criticised Zelensky and ruled out any negotiations with Russia, outlining a personal “vision for the future” for perpetual war with Moscow, in which Ukraine became a “permanently militarised society” and Europe’s “army and arsenal.” His comments were echoed mere days later in a comparable puff piece in the same outlet, in which popular YouTuber and former head of Right Sector’s Odessa branch Serhii Sternenko openly threatened the Ukrainian President’s life:

“If… Zelensky were to give any unconquered land away, he would be a corpse – politically, and then for real. It would be a bomb under our sovereignty. People would never accept it… At the end, there will only be one victor, Russia or Ukraine… If the Russian empire continues to exist in this present form then it will always want to expand. Compromise is impossible. The struggle will be eternal until the moment Russia leaves Ukrainian land.”

Sternenko was centrally involved in the May 2014 Odessa massacre, which killed dozens of anti-Maidan activists and injured hundreds more. Another key Right Sector figure implicated in the hideous incident was Demyan Hanul, assassinated in March. The fascist paramilitary group described the slaughter as a “bright page of our national history.” In advance, Andriy Parubiy and 500 members of his Maidan Self-Defense were deployed to the city, strongly suggesting the industrial scale incineration of Russian-speakers was a premeditated, intentional act of mass murder.

In the Odessa massacre’s wake, prominent Svoboda representative Iryna Farion – whose room in Hotel Ukraina served as a sniper’s nest during the Maidan false flag massacre – cheered the killings, declaring “let the devils burn in hell… Bravo!” She herself was murdered in July 2024, despite being under intensive SBU surveillance. It’s certainly quite some coincidence that, at a time the walls are evidently closing in on Zelensky, three individuals who could testify to the events that brought the Maidan regime into being are now dead.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »