Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ian Proud: Anti-Russian Sanctions Do Not Work – How the Ukraine War Ends

Glenn Diesen | July 21, 2026

Ian Proud discusses why the anti-Russian sanctions will not work, and also how the war will likely end. As a former British diplomat, Proud performed a number of roles, including the Economic Counsellor at the UK’s embassy in Moscow between 2014 and 2019.

The Peacemonger: https://www.youtube.com/@IanProud

Buy Diesen merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en-nok

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Comments Off on Ian Proud: Anti-Russian Sanctions Do Not Work – How the Ukraine War Ends

Italian newspaper forced to pay for smearing ‘Putinists’

Corriere della Sera claimed the Italian government was investigating a Russian propaganda ring

RT | July 22, 2026

Italy’s Corriere della Sera was ordered to pay compensation to a sociology professor that it defamed as a “Putinist” after a court determined that the pro-Russia influence network he supposedly belonged to never existed.

In a Tuesday ruling, a court in Milan found that the newspaper had defamed Professor Alessandro Orsini by referring to him as a member of “Putin’s Network in Italy.” Corriere della Sera, a mainstream broadsheet paper, was ordered to pay €27,500 in compensation to Orsini.

“Publishing and allowing the publication of an article that attributes to Orsini the status of a member of an organized network of pro-Putin supporters aimed at propaganda and counter-information… constitutes conduct damaging to his personal and professional image and reputation,” the judge noted in the ruling.

Published in 2022, the defamatory article listed Orsini – then a professor at Luiss University in Rome – as a member of a “complex and diverse” network aimed at “attacking pro-Kiev politicians” and “undermining government decisions” it deemed favorable to Kiev. According to the newspaper, the group was under investigation by the Italian parliament’s intelligence committee (COPASIR), which allegedly determined it was “activated at key moments” to spread pro-Russia propaganda during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

However, COPASIR’s president admitted at the time that the committee had “never conducted its own investigations into alleged influencers.” Italy’s undersecretary for intelligence services, Franco Gabrielli, added that “the names given by the newspaper do not appear in any type of investigation.”

During the trial, Corriere della Sera claimed it had received “other and different information” from confidential sources to back its story but was unable to prove this in court.

The judge noted that, not only had the newspaper failed to prove that Orsini participated in an organized propaganda network, but it was unable to prove that the network even existed in the first place.

As a result of the Corriere della Sera article, Orsini lost his position at Luiss University and was dropped as a contributor by Italian broadcaster RAI.

Orsini has been a persistent critic of Italy’s support for Ukraine. In early 2022, he accused Prime Minister Mario Draghi of “total subordination to America,” while blasting the West for “doing nothing for peace.”

“We must be open to recognizing the independence of Donbass and lifting sanctions,” he said in an appearance on RAI. “Draghi must say he’s no longer sending weapons to Zelensky.”

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Italian newspaper forced to pay for smearing ‘Putinists’

Iran will destroy multiple energy facilities for every bridge, power plant struck by US: Report

Press TV – July 22, 2026

A senior Iranian military source has warned that any attack by the United States on Iranian bridges or power plants will face a devastating response targeting multiple infrastructure and energy facilities across the region where America has interests.

The warning came after US President Donald Trump threatened to destroy one Iranian bridge or power plant for each Iranian attack on a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

“From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT,” Trump wrote on social media.

In response, the Iranian military source told Tasnim News Agency that Tehran has an “iron will” in exercising its sovereignty over the strategic waterway and will never allow the Strait to once again become a threat against Iran.

The military source said vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz will only be safe if they coordinate with Iran and operate under Iran’s arrangements.

“If the Americans target a bridge or power plant in Iran, Iran will in turn strike infrastructure and bridges in the region, including energy facilities in which America has interests.”

The source said the Americans should have become fully convinced over the past ten days that Iran can strike wherever it deems necessary, warning that any gamble by Trump would once again lead to his humiliation.

Trump escalates threats as war costs mount

Trump’s latest threat came as the war enters its fifth month, with the Pentagon confirming that the conflict has already cost Washington $37.5 billion.

The United States has launched 11 consecutive nights of strikes against Iran, targeting military sites to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Fighting over the Strait has led to the collapse of a preliminary deal between the United States and Iran, and Tehran has re-imposed its blockade on the strategic waterway for oil and gas shipments, firing on vessels that seek to transit without coordination.

The blockade has rattled markets and sent oil prices climbing, adding to the pressure on Trump to find an off-ramp to a war that has hit Americans’ pocketbooks heading into closely-fought midterm elections.

Brent Crude, the global benchmark, briefly topped $95 a barrel for the first time in six weeks on Wednesday.

Despite the pressure, Trump has so far resisted calls for a swift end to the war.

“We’re not finished at all… we’re not leaving right now,” he said on Tuesday.

The threats came as Tehran continued offensive operations against American assets in the US-allied Persian Gulf states.

The Iranian military said it targeted assets in Kuwait and Bahrain, including air defence systems, radar installations and administrative buildings. Iran’s IRGC also said it had targeted US bases in Jordan.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran will destroy multiple energy facilities for every bridge, power plant struck by US: Report

Pakistan thought it won the peace. Now, it could be dragged into war.

By Elfadil Ibrahim | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

Four weeks ago, Pakistan looked like one of the biggest winners of the U.S.-Iran war.

Its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, shuttled between Washington, Tehran and Gulf capitals for months. As part of his efforts, Pakistan hosted the first face-to-face U.S.-Iran talks in years and helped broker the Islamabad memorandum of understanding that Vice President JD Vance signed in June, thanking Munir and calling him one of the “very, very important people” in his life.

Islamabad hired a Washington lobbying firm to convert that goodwill into defense cooperation and minerals investment, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke of a “sun of progress and prosperity” for Pakistan’s chronically stressed economy after the MoU between the U.S.and Iran brought an end to major military operations.

Pakistan’s fortunes have since reversed. Fighting between Washington and Tehran has resumed, and Islamabad’s dual goals of being Iran’s trusted interlocutor and the Arab Gulf states’ security guarantor are once again at odds.

President Donald Trump declared the deal was “over” in early July, after which the U.S. struck civilian and military targets in Iran. Iran, for its part, declared on July 18 through its deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, that it was “suspending all obligations” under the framework. The war has since widened into exactly the kind of multi-front regional conflict Pakistan spent the spring trying to prevent.

The clearest new exposure for Pakistan is in Saudi Arabia, where Iran struck Prince Sultan Air Base at al-Kharj — its first direct hit on Saudi territory since March — just days after the Houthis, Iran’s Yemeni ally, fired missiles on the kingdom, hitting Abha airport in the country’s south. That escalation occurred after Saudi-allied forces hit Sanaa airport in Yemen to prevent the landing of an Iranian airliner; the U.S. Treasury alleged without providing evidence that the plane is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. The strikes effectively enforced Riyadh’s airspace veto over the Houthi-controlled capital.

Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact with Riyadh last year. It deployed fighter jets and thousands of troops to the kingdom after earlier Iranian strikes on Saudi energy infrastructure. More recently, Islamabad has reportedly communicated to Tehran directly that attacks on Saudi Arabia will be treated as attacks on Pakistan itself. Sharif’s own statement in the aftermath called the Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia a violation of the kingdom’s sovereignty that Pakistan “strongly condemns,” pledging “unwavering support” for Riyadh’s security.

The tone is notable given that Pakistan’s parliament explicitly refused to get entangled in Yemen over a decade ago. In April 2015, faced with a nearly identical Saudi request to join the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis, Pakistan’s National Assembly voted unanimously to “maintain neutrality.” Islamabad’s calculus has not changed. If anything, recent events have sharpened Pakistan’s desire to broker a lasting peace.

Pakistan is home to the world’s second-largest Shia population after Iran, and the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in February set off deadly unrest in Karachi and Islamabad; Munir himself had to intervene to calm a wave of processions and pledges of allegiance to the new supreme leader across Shia neighborhoods.

Significantly, Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended Khamenei’s funeral in July, and Sharif posted after that “the late Supreme Leader’s wisdom, leadership and profound influence on Iran and the wider region will be remembered for generations” — a demonstration of the fine line Pakistan’s leadership has to walk, one no doubt delivered with a domestic audience in mind as much as an Iranian one.

That fine line becomes impossible to walk when a defense pact, triggered by Saudi-Houthi fighting or by further Iranian strikes on Saudi Arabia, would ask Pakistan to do the exact thing its parliament explicitly refused a decade ago: take a military side against a Houthi-Iran axis, and do so at a moment when its domestic Shia politics is highly combustible

Kuwait is now reportedly asking for the same kind of commitment that Saudi Arabia already has. Reuters reported last week that Islamabad is in early-stage talks with Kuwait — which has absorbed repeated Iranian strikes on its infrastructure in recent days — over an expanded defense agreement that would include “thousands of Pakistani troops on the ground, fighter jets, drones, an air defence system, and other defence-related facilities,” according to an anonymous Pakistani government official cited in the report.

Another anonymous Pakistani security official said the country “cannot consider a deployment of combat troops at this stage.” That hesitation suggests that stacking multiple defense commitments across Gulf states in Iran’s crosshairs makes Islamabad’s balancing act much harder to sustain. Each new pact narrows the room to claim neutrality the next time Tehran calls.

During this war, Pakistan discovered what happens when Gulf partners doubt its ability to balance between Tehran and the Arab Gulf states. The United Arab Emirates recalled a $3.5 billion loan in April and quietly began deporting Pakistani Shia workers by the thousands. The move was widely read as retaliation for Islamabad’s perceived tilt toward Tehran during the mediation. Saudi Arabia stepped in with $3 billion to cover the gap, but the lesson was clear: Pakistan’s neutrality satisfies no one fully, and the cost of disappointing any single Gulf patron is measured in the billions of dollars.

Economic self-preservation has been Pakistan’s primary motive for steering mediation and ending a war that has hobbled the economies of its creditors and choked the trade routes that power its own electric grid. Pakistan is on its 25th International Monetary Fund program; more than half of its tax revenue is put towards servicing its debts. It had barely stabilized its inflation before the Strait of Hormuz’s closure sent rates back into double digits.

In March, as the war’s first phase disrupted energy flows out of Hormuz, Islamabad ordered a two-week school closure and imposed a four-day work week to conserve fuel — measures the government has now indicated it may need to revive.

A parallel disruption to the Red Sea, like the blockade of Saudi Arabia declared by the Houthis Monday, would be highly disruptive to Pakistan’s energy security, and by extension, its economy. While Pakistan imports the overwhelming majority of its fuel from the Gulf, the closing of another critical chokepoint would simultaneously tighten global tanker capacity and insurance costs everywhere, pushing the same spot-market prices Pakistan is already struggling to afford even higher.

It would also add further pressure on Pakistan’s defense commitments to Saudi Arabia, given that Riyadh will not tolerate such a closure. In a recent statement, Riyadh pledged to deal with “Houthi threats against transiting vessels… firmly and swiftly.” The stakes for Saudi Arabia are high: Since the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, Saudi Arabia has relied on its East-West pipeline to divert roughly 5 million barrels per day of crude to the Red Sea Port of Yanbu — its only viable export outlet while Hormuz is all but closed.

None of this means Pakistan’s mediation was a mistake, or that its diplomatic capital has evaporated. Kuwait’s foreign minister still thanked Pakistan last week for its “constructive and mediatory role,” and Islamabad remains one of the few channels through which Washington and Tehran would resume talks, when the time comes. But the specific bet Pakistan made — that ending the war would allow it to bank the goodwill through commerce and financial aid — has not yet paid off.

Instead, the restart of the war has brought Saudi Arabia back into Iran’s crosshairs. At the same time, the Saudi-Houthi front has reopened, the Strait of Hormuz has been closed again, and a blockade of Saudi-linked ships on the Red Sea has been formally declared.

Each of these factors adds immense pressure on Pakistan, which now has every reason to double down on diplomacy, lest it be drawn in as a combatant.

Elfadil Ibrahim is a writer and analyst covering the politics of the Middle East and Africa, with a special focus on Sudan. His work has been featured in The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The New Arab, Open Democracy and other outlets.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Pakistan thought it won the peace. Now, it could be dragged into war.

Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran just sinks U.S. into a deeper quagmire

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026

The coming days and weeks will see Trump lower himself in the acid bath of what analysts call the ‘escalation trap’. Many analysts comment that he has already fallen on his sword in the Iran war, as his fantasy of bringing Tehran to its knees – served up by Israel’s PM Netanyahu – has proved to be the greatest deception in U.S.-Israeli relations since the birth of the entity in 1948. He has, to many, lost the war, which was really the essence of him signing the MOU on June 17th, agreeing in principle to all of the points of unconditional surrender, making Iran a bigger, bolder regional power which now controls the Straits of Hormuz and is revered by the GCC elites like never before.

Yet his own lack of diplomatic verve both with Western leaders, NATO and above all Benjamin Netanyahu made his signature worthless, and his only recourse was to continue the war, to at least make it look like he is still relevant.

But this gambit, which is foolish on so many levels – not least of all because the U.S. is very low on military hardware used up between February 28th and April 7th – is more reckless than he understands and will soon destroy him.

Just recently, GCC countries’ elites frantically called him to tell him to stop bombing Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as, unbeknown to him, the capability of Iran to completely wipe off the surface of the map the same infrastructure in the Gulf countries is within arms’ reach. It is one thing to have your U.S. air base bombed, but quite another for your schools, hospitals, bridges, power plants and water facilities to be blown up with a handful of hypersonic missiles. And it is hard to imagine how those elites would rebuild their countries if Iran chose to retaliate in such a fashion.

The call seems to have done the job. But Trump is a mercurial man-child who understands little and only cares about nursing his ego, and so there is no telling what he might do in the future if pushed, or if he simply fails to take the warning seriously.

And yet, whichever route he chooses, it all ends badly for him, and the Iranians are taking the time to remove entirely the U.S. presence in the region. If Trump persists in hitting their infrastructure, one move which Iran is mulling is destroying the oil shipments presently coming out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia outside of the Persian Gulf – in other words, oil which the Saudis send via pipeline to the Red Sea and oil which is sent to Fujairah port, currently being expanded. The 7 million barrels of oil each day which together these two countries export could easily be stopped by Iran, and so it is hard to see what strategy Trump thinks he has with his bombing, other than he believes that this will soften the Iranians up for coming back to the MOU.

What Trump doesn’t understand is that the hardliners in the Iranian government never believed he was serious about the MOU and saw it as a ruse to buy time before continuing with a bombing campaign. Now that they have been proved right, any return to an MOU will be much harder on Trump, as the demands from Tehran will be higher than the first time around.

Top of that list will be Lebanon, and this is where Trump’s problems start, as the position that he will be in if an MOU 2.0 is put together will be very weak, while Netanyahu’s will be very strong. Bibi is never going to pull Israel’s troops out of Lebanon, and so a peace deal will be impossible, leading Trump to only one recourse: the mother of all maddest ideas, which is the land invasion of Iran – which he might be thinking about around November when the weather is cooler. But the U.S. doesn’t have either the number of men required, the stockpile of weapons, or even, frankly, the competence to carry out such a remarkably risky venture. The casualties would be incredibly high, and Trump would go down in history as the egghead U.S. president who fell into Israel’s trap and got the ultimate lesson from Iran. The humiliation Jimmy Carter had to endure after a failed rescue mission of U.S. embassy workers in Iran in 1980 will pale into insignificance in comparison to what the Iranians have lined up for Trump.

Trump’s problem is credibility. No world leaders respect him nor trust him, and this is a major factor now with the Iranians, who simply consider Trump to be a clown at best or a dangerous, insecure child at worst – ready to burn the family house down just to get the attention that he craves. Nothing he says is taken seriously, as Tehran knows all along that Trump is always creating distractions while he is listening to his generals’ latest crackpot ideas about invasion. While Trump panics, Iran moves at a painfully slow, measured pace – confident about itself, its history and its destiny. Iran thinks long term and about how the world will judge it, also keeping in mind negotiating with the next U.S. administration. As an ancient civilisation, they are used to thinking in terms of decades and centuries. Trump only thinks about this week’s coverage in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. His gate-crashing of the World Cup and having the president of FIFA actually manhandle him out of the Spanish team’s photo shoot must have been very embarrassing for many Americans.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran just sinks U.S. into a deeper quagmire

US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 22.07.2026

Statements from the US that it might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities violate international law, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Wednesday.

“The repeated US attacks and threats against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities not only constitute a flagrant violation of the core principles of the UN Charter, international law, and the relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, General Conference, and UN Security Council, but also reveal the United States’ deep-rooted enmity toward Iran’s scientific progress and technological development,” Baghaei wrote on X.

Iran does not conduct any nuclear activities in the area of the Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La Mountain, otherwise known as “Pickaxe,” which the United States wants to strike, the diplomat said, adding that the relevant remarks are just an excuse for more aggression.

On July 21, US President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, where, per Israeli intelligence assessments, a fortified nuclear enrichment facility is located.

The US has been conducting strikes against Iran since July 8, in violation of the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

By Ahmed Adel | July 22, 2026

Ukrainian society is approaching a violent confrontation with its political leadership because of the apparent shortcomings of current mobilization efforts, said Dmitry Lubinets, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (unicameral parliament) Human Rights Commissioner. In a recent TV interview, Lubinets warned that rising tensions could spiral into chaos if not addressed promptly.

Lubinets noted a rise in public criticism of the mobilization process, with many Ukrainians deeply angered by the aggressive tactics the Territorial Recruitment Centers used to draft men. He cautioned that unless reforms are implemented, Ukraine could face worsening social divisions and even violent confrontations between civilians and authorities.

The ombudsman explained that Ukrainian citizens notice the lack of legal accountability for the actions of recruitment officers. As a result, citizens are taking matters into their own hands, which could potentially lead to escalated conflicts and greater instability in the future. This self-help approach, Lubinets said, reflects a breakdown in trust between the population and state institutions responsible for defense matters.

Lubinets expressed concern over the high levels of desertion and evasion occurring even before soldiers reach the front. Many conscripts reportedly escape from enlistment centers or while being transported to training sites. He noted several instances of unauthorized desertion from assigned positions. As a result, although official records may indicate a growing army, the real number of active combat-ready troops is decreasing. This gap highlights significant inefficiencies and morale issues within the military.

Corruption within the recruitment system further exacerbates the crisis. Lubinets detailed how individuals are often forced to pay substantial bribes—around $10,000 to be released from buses en route to processing centers and up to $20,000 to avoid further conscription at the offices. However, these payments offer only temporary relief, as those who pay can still be detained and mobilized again later.

Ukraine’s armed forces have struggled with ongoing manpower shortages during the conflict, prompting more aggressive recruitment efforts that have sparked public scandal and protests. Videos and reports document detentions in streets, workplaces, and public areas, fueling a climate of fear and resistance among men of military age.

Some men attempt illegal border crossings to flee the country, while others resort to more drastic measures, such as setting fire to recruitment offices or going into hiding and avoiding public life altogether, demonstrating the depth of public anger and the challenges the Kiev regime faces in sustaining its futile military efforts against Russia.

In 2022, Ukraine’s early mobilization was driven by strong patriotic sentiment following the launch of Russia’s special military operation. Many citizens, particularly ultra-nationalists, volunteered eagerly in the first months. However, as the war has dragged on, accompanied by heavy losses, economic difficulties, and war fatigue, initial enthusiasm has diminished.

Reports of inadequate training, lack of proper equipment, and poor living conditions for new recruits have further eroded morale. International observers and Ukrainian officials alike have acknowledged that sustaining a large-scale conventional army under these pressures requires not only enforcement but also incentives and reforms. In this context, Lubinets emphasized that unchecked abuses by recruitment officers violate basic rights and will ultimately weaken Ukraine’s defensive capabilities from within.

According to Lubinets, approximately 10% of conscription actions adhere fully to legal standards. The majority, however, violate citizens’ rights, with many detentions illegally conducted by masked men in balaclavas, lacking ID chevrons or police presence. It is recalled that he has urged the last three Defense Ministers of Ukraine to ban this practice, but none have acted.

Alongside widespread draft evasion, the Kiev regime is struggling to replenish frontline units because of heavy casualties and an aging pool of available personnel. Official estimates indicate that thousands of positions remain vacant, prompting commanders to rotate exhausted troops more frequently and hampering offensive efforts.

This issue is compounded by demographic problems, including a pre-war population decline and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of working-age men trying to avoid conscription. Families carry a significant emotional and financial load, as many women become the sole providers while dealing with the uncertainty about the men at the front. Businesses struggle with labor shortages, especially in sectors relying on working-age men, and agricultural and industrial output is declining due to the manpower deficit. This has increased public fatigue and criticism of mobilization policies, making recruitment even more difficult.

Efforts to address the shortage have included lowering the mobilization age, expanding digital summons, and offering incentives for voluntary service, but these measures have largely failed. Corruption scandals and aggressive tactics have eroded trust, leading to fewer volunteers and greater resistance. Lubinets’ warning highlights a key vulnerability in Ukraine’s wartime strategy and exposes the widening gap between the Kiev regime and citizens. Yet this will have little effect on the authorities, who insist on fighting the war against Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

After ten years of upgrades, repairs, and program-related issues, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer is finally returning to service this September. But it will have to go without the hypersonic missiles many hoped would give the troubled program a purpose.

Thanks to ongoing modernization efforts, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer now has a launcher, making it the Navy’s first hypersonic strike ship. But the missiles themselves will not be tested until next year, as the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile rollout is about two years behind schedule.

Experts tell RS the problem is par for the course for the Zumwalt program.

“The Zumwalt program had extraordinary promise,” Ben Freeman, the director of the Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy program, wrote to RS. “But it was curtailed from 32 ships to just 3 for a reason: it didn’t come close to living up to that promise.”

The Zumwalt’s initial role as a land-attack ship was scrapped in 2016 after ammunition for its land-attack gun became prohibitively costly, reaching $800,000 to $1 million per round.

Beyond that, “they couldn’t get the [ship’s] weapon to work properly,” Dan Grazier, who directs the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform program, told RS.

In the end, the military built three Zumwalts at a cost of $9.5 billion per ship. Now, efforts to convert the remaining vessels into hypersonic strike ships have only steered the program into more procurement issues

“They foisted an unproven missile system with its own checkered acquisition history onto the Zumwalt seemingly in hopes that two wrongs would make a right,” Freeman said. “Spoiler: they didn’t.”

The Pentagon plans to invest $50 billion into developing and fielding its CPS hypersonic capability across Army and Navy programs. But a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published last week found the project “does not have a comprehensive strategy” to accomplish its objectives.

Canceled and failed test flights and quality control issues also plague the hypersonic missile program. One test, for example, was canceled in 2023 after a battery failure during a pre-launch check. Lockheed Martin can only make six or seven hypersonic missiles each year, short of the military’s target of 12 missiles, jeopardizing the program’s ability to scale.

Meanwhile, costs are compounding for the Zumwalt, with questionable payoff.

The hypersonic missile capability will tack on about $452 million to the cost of each destroyer. Each ship will only be able to carry 12 hypersonic missiles, which leaves them with far fewer munitions than their naval counterparts. The missiles themselves are estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars each.

As Freeman concluded, “taxpayer dollars will still be wasted until the Navy comes to its senses.”

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026

Andy Burnham took over as British prime minister this week, promising to bring “hope and change” to poverty-stricken Britain amid a political crisis in which public contempt for governing parties is at record levels.

In his first speech outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Burnham said: “I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I do… Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.”

British media headlines were swooning over this supposed radical new beginning for Britain. At 56 years old, Burnham brings a fresh face to tired British politics.

Notably, he said his top priority was to end “rough sleeping” on the streets for thousands of homeless Britons. And he announced a budget of £340 million (€400 m, $450 m) over the next five years to fix the problem by building affordable homes.

This apparent commitment to improving social conditions may sound laudable. It buffs Burnham’s image as a caring politician on the side of working-class Britons. He likes to talk about his North of England credentials and empathy for popular concerns during his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026).

But let’s put his homeless budget in a realistic context. On his first day in Downing Street, Burnham also made Britain’s military support for Ukraine another of his priorities. He said there would be “one hundred per cent” continuation of the policy under his predecessor Keir Starmer that made Britain one of the most gung-ho backers of the Kiev regime in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.

Significantly, Burnham appointed former defense minister John Healey as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister). Healey will be London’s man in control of all government budgets. As defense minister in the previous Starmer Cabinet, Healey was an ultra-hawkish figure when it came to supporting Ukraine and calling for greater military spending. It was Healey’s shock resignation on June 11 as defense secretary that was the last nail in Starmer’s premiership. Healey quit because he claimed that Starmer had not allocated enough money to enable Britain’s NATO commitments for reaching a military spending target of 3.5 per cent of GDP. He claimed that Starmer was undermining Britain’s national security and leaving it vulnerable to an alleged Russian threat. Healey and the military establishment wanted additional funds amounting to at least £15 bn more than what Starmer could muster in his Defence Investment Plan.

If Healey gets his way as the new finance minister, he will commit Britain to increasing its annual military spending from £63 bn to £90 bn. This will have to be paid for by massive cuts in public services and social welfare, austerity that has already driven British society into widespread poverty, where one-in-three children live in deprivation.

That Burnham has surprised many observers with the appointment of Healey to the second-most powerful position in Downing Street is a sure sign that he, as prime minister, is fully committed to Britain ramping up its militarism and support for Ukraine.

Burnham’s first phone call in office was to U.S. President Donald Trump. His second call was to Vladimir Zelensky, the puppet president of Ukraine, to assure him of Britain’s ongoing support.

Doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous that “caring, sharing Andy” should make support for Ukraine and assurances about NATO spending his first foreign policy priority while at the same time posing with concern about homelessness in Britain?

Under a bilateral defense pact between Britain and Ukraine signed last year by Starmer and which Burnham will uphold, London is committed to supplying £3 billion (€3.5 bn, $4 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime every year over the next five years and “for as long as Ukraine needs support”. This is on top of Britain’s own national military spending.

Burnham’s budget to end homelessness in the UK works out at £68 million per year over five years. This is paltry, equivalent to only 2.3 per cent of the money that his government will be supplying every year to a NeoNazi regime to fight a futile war against Russia – paid for by British taxpayers.

What’s going on in Britain is not a supposed renaissance of people-centered democracy. The British media are hyping Burnham as a “people’s prime minister”. He is talking about decentralizing political power from London to create a “No 10 of the North”. All the sentimental aspiration about hope and change is reminiscent of when Barack Obama became U.S. president in 2008. It’s all hokum and empty rhetoric.

Lord Peter Ricketts, a former British national security advisor, let the cat out of the bag when he told CNN in an interview that Burnham’s task will be to use his populist communication skills to “sell” the agenda to the public of Britain continuing its support for Ukraine and intensifying the militarism of the British economy. This agenda depends on convincing the British public that Russia is a threat to Europe.

Already, Burnham has shown that he buys into that geopolitical project of making Britain ready for war against Russia. He is being an obedient politician to promote the interests of the British imperialist deep state and the military-industrial complex. As soon as he announced the appointment of Healey as chancellor, the stock prices of British weapons companies spiked.

Before he became prime minister, Burnham gave an interview to the London Times in which he pointedly said that he would not be “squeamish” about cutting social welfare funds to pay for increasing military spending. He was signalling to the British establishment that he would be a “safe pair of hands” in Downing Street.

During his first speech outside Downing Street this week, he said he would find a “sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down, to meet our fiscal rules, and honor our commitments on defense to our international partners.” For “international partners” read “NATO and Ukraine.”

If Burnham were genuinely seeking to overhaul Britain’s politics and economics to serve the pressing democratic needs of the British people, he would be challenging the irrational, undemocratic and reckless agenda of pushing NATO militarism and a proxy war in Ukraine. He would reject the relentless propaganda demonizing Russia that is driving Britain and Europe to the abyss of all-out war.

Andy Burnham is not going to save Britain from political and economic collapse. He’s just another manikin brought in to fob off the mass of angry people while the British imperial state siphons more money out of the economy for war. Under Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s homelessness problem will take on a whole new meaning if he lets the country slide into a world war.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

China hawks are losing the public opinion battle

Despite a Beltway push for confrontation, polls show that average Americans want a normal relationship with Beijing

By Frank Yuwen Chen | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

It sometimes seems easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Washington’s anti-China obsession.

Congressional Republicans, on one side, are championing a staggering $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget that would cannibalize domestic programs to “deter China.” Meanwhile, many of their Democratic colleagues are attacking President Donald Trump due to his apparent lack of enthusiasm for confronting China.

Yet under the surface, a crack is widening between how Beltway elites talk about China and how ordinary Americans view the U.S.-China relationship. In particular, younger Americans are roundly rejecting tough-on-China politics. Over time, this chasm will challenge the very foundation of Washington’s indefinite strategic competition with Beijing.

While the Blob whips itself into an anti-China frenzy, Americans are backing away from the so-called “China consensus.” Over the past two years, national surveys by reputable pollsters have consistently found that Americans are warming up in their views on China and seeking closer ties between the two superpowers. There are reasons to believe this trend will continue.

Indeed, as Americans increasingly struggle with affordability, AI dislocations, and the rising cost of a possible forever war in the Middle East, Beltway China hawks — fixated on commandeering ever more national resources to confront Beijing — are revealing themselves to be a self-sustaining industry detached from both public sentiment and material reality. This gap creates political space for a more grounded and productive approach to U.S.-China relations.

Americans across the political spectrum are moving on from endless China-bashing. Their opinions about China, after years of declining, are meaningfully recovering. Gallup shows China’s favorability climbing 19 points and unfavorability dropping 23 points between 2023 and 2026. Polls from Pew and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs/Ipsos found similar warming trends. Though Republicans are still more hawkish towards China than independents and Democrats, even their views have appreciably moderated.

Concurrently, Americans support closer ties with the rival superpower. The Chicago Council/Ipsos and the Searchlight Institute/Hart show most Americans now favor improving relations and cooperating with China (53% in Ipsos, 50% in Hart) over limiting China’s power (44% in Ipsos, 40% in Hart), a sharp reversal from recent years’ antagonistic attitudes.

Overall perception of China remains negative, with 61% of Americans telling Gallup this year that they had an unfavorable view of the country. But crucially, the “enemy” framing has crumbled. Pew and YouGov surveys show double-digit declines in percentages of Americans calling China an “enemy” over the past two years. Instead, Americans are developing more nuanced views. A characteristic 2026 NPR/Chicago Council/Ipsos poll found Americans more likely to describe China as a “rival” (37%) than an “adversary” (21%); 18% of respondents described Beijing as a “partner.”

Notably, most Americans still see China as some form of threat. Hawks may welcome this as evidence of popular backing for their tough-on-China agenda, but that would be a grave mistake. While public perception of China as a threat is still broad given a decade of hawkish narrative dominance, that perception is increasingly shallow.

From 2023 to 2025, The Economist/YouGov found fewer and fewer Americans describing China’s various threats as “immediate and serious.” Polls by the Institute for Global Affairs/YouGov and the Chicago Council/Ipsos also reveal that Americans view China’s threats as “moderate” rather than “severe.” Indeed, IGA/YouGov found that only 3% of Americans worry about competition with China in their daily lives, underscoring how abstract the “China threat” is for most people. Americans may continue to hold unfavorable opinions of China, but there is little indication they will accept the enormous costs needed to contain China.

Stark generational divides — fueled by radically different life experiences and information environments — are propelling this opinion shift. Throughout all surveys, across party lines, adults under 45 and especially those under 30 simply do not see China as an adversary, ideological nemesis, or existential threat

An illustrative 2025 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/YouGov study found that 52% of Americans over 65 say China surpassing the U.S. in global power would make their lives worse; however, those under 30 completely disagree, with 73% saying their lives would not worsen. Even on the right, younger Republicans are much more dovish towards China than their older counterparts. The Manhattan Institute found that 45% of Republicans under 50 see China as a global power to cooperate with, and only 24% see it as an adversary; that ratio transforms to 18% vs. 67% for Republicans over 65.

This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Americans’ warming views on China coincide with China’s rising global approval, which has overtaken that of the U.S. Simultaneously, Americans increasingly accept the fact of multipolarity. Contra Beltway consensus, Americans now want the U.S. to either share leadership roles with other powers or drastically scale back international involvement rather than clinging to global dominance. These mutually reinforcing trends further deflate any popular enthusiasm for the hawks’ grandiose project of leading a global coalition to take on China.

What explains this unmistakable change in public opinion? Americans are not becoming pro-Beijing; they have simply become skeptical of Washington’s interminable crying wolf about China. Meanwhile, they see that their own government, which frames confronting China as essential to safeguarding American democracy and prosperity, consistently ignores their democratic will and increasingly fails to meet their basic needs.

The rapprochement Americans want is not about capitulating to China, as some hawks claim, but smart pragmatism. More and more voters recognize the reality of China’s rise and want peace and mutually beneficial outcomes, not ideological crusades the country can’t afford and is unlikely to win.

Skeptics of this public opinion shift may attribute changes only to Trump’s reshuffling of U.S. foreign policy priorities and the backlash against him, expecting faith in U.S. hegemony to recover and robust strategic competition against China to return once Trump leaves office. But that would be foolish.

While those factors (along with fading COVID-related hostilities) certainly played a role, they can’t explain, for example, why Democratic voters — who oppose nearly everything Trump does — still predominantly support improving ties with China despite the fact that Trump is the one driving that approach. Nor can they explain the stark generational divides, and why younger Americans across party lines simply refuse to see China as an enemy.

Rather, Americans’ rejection of Beltway China hawkishness is likely driven more by bigger forces like young people’s near-total disillusionment with the American dream and American exceptionalism, growing weariness with U.S. hegemony, mounting constraints on America’s ability to coerce China, and increasing acceptance of China’s still-rising power. Public sentiments may fluctuate, but these structural trends will persist.

If policymakers ignore these trends and insist on an unrealistic grand strategy centered on confronting China, they risk not only profound policy failures but also a dangerous democratic deficit. As the “guns vs. butter” tension heightens and politicians choose sustaining militarism over addressing worsening domestic needs, populist anger and political instability will only intensify.

But the good news is that the political space for averting a “New Cold War” with China is real and growing. If the U.S. wants to focus on domestic regeneration, it needs to secure a peaceful and productive relationship with China.

The lane is wide open for a potent vision of renewal that promises to shift Washington’s focus away from dominating the world and confronting China and toward solving urgent problems and bettering Americans’ lives at home, offering voters tangible benefits from peace and cooperation. The question is whether any political coalition — particularly after Trump leaves office with his improvisational détente with China still unfinished — will have the courage to occupy it.


Frank Yuwen Chen is a China analyst and media strategist. He is currently Manager, US-China Relations at ReThink Media. He researches international political economy, US-China diplomatic history, domestic politics of US foreign policy, and the future of US-China relations. Previously, he had extensive experience leading media and digital strategy for political campaigns and nonprofits.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Comments Off on China hawks are losing the public opinion battle

Press Freedom Threatened as U.S. Government Seizes Max Blumenthal’s Devices

Glenn Diesen | July 21, 2026

Max Blumenthal discusses how the US-Israel partnership undermines press freedom. Blumenthal is the editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. The Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/

Buy Diesen merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en-nok

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , | Comments Off on Press Freedom Threatened as U.S. Government Seizes Max Blumenthal’s Devices

Henrik Svensmark fired by his university

By Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen | CLIntel | July 21, 2026

Something unusual and encouraging has happened in Danish climate journalism. Berlingske, one of Denmark’s leading national daily newspapers, has published an excellent and genuinely inquisitive article about the dismissal of physicist Henrik Svensmark from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), where he has been working since the late nineties. The headline leaves no room for doubt: “Controversial Danish climate and space researcher has received the pink slip from DTU: It is ‘a death blow’ to my research”.

Here is how the article starts:

He is one of Denmark’s most internationally recognized researchers – and at the same time one of the most controversial. But now space and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark has, in his own words, been “good old-fashioned fired” by his employer, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in Lyngby. He does not rule out that “political considerations” – as he puts it – were involved in the years-long process that led to his final dismissal. At the same time, Henrik Svensmark does not hesitate to call it “a death blow” to a branch of research that he has largely developed single-handedly and that climate researchers around the world, including the UN’s climate panel (IPCC), have had to relate to – often reluctantly. This is mainly because Svensmark’s research points to what he sees as an overlooked natural factor behind a large part of the climate changes Earth has undergone. He finally does not rule out that the dismissal may be linked to the fact that he is perceived as a controversial researcher in wide circles: “There is nothing controversial about the research itself. But it is true that many perceive my research as controversial, even though it shouldn’t be.” DTU has no comments on the actual dismissal of Svensmark and refers to it as a personnel matter. However, the director of DTU Space, Henning Skriver, confirms that Svensmark’s overarching research area, atmospheric physics, will now “be significantly down-prioritized.”

Science journalist Lars Henrik Aagaard deserves credit for the whole article. Rather than dismissing Svensmark as merely ‘controversial’, he asks the essential question: is DTU retiring an ageing employee, or is it terminating an internationally recognized but scientifically inconvenient research program?

The facts reported by Berlingske are troubling.

Svensmark, aged 68, and well known for his work on cosmic rays and clouds, was still actively working and preparing a new experiment. Only a few months earlier, he says, his superiors had told him that his research was important and that they wanted him to continue.

According to Svensmark, he had also been selected for a professorship in 2016 following positive international evaluations. A new rector however, blocked his expected promotion to full professor, downgrading him to Senior Researcher (and lowering his salary). That move made it harder for him to secure regular research funding in Denmark.

In 2021, DTU again attempted to dismiss him, but he continued, partly, he says, because of protests from scientists connected with MIT and Princeton (Lindzen and Happer).

Berlingske presented this history to DTU. The university declined to address it. DTU Space director Henning Skriver merely stated that atmospheric physics was being “significantly downgraded” as part of a strategic prioritization.

That is not an explanation. It is management fog.

A public university may change its priorities. But it should explain the scientific reasoning. Why was Svensmark encouraged to continue only months before his dismissal? What happened to the positive international evaluation? Why was the professorship removed? Why is an active experiment being stopped?

The details of an individual employment case may be confidential. The scientific grounds for closing a research program shouldn’t be. A hypothesis cannot be dismissed administratively.

Solar activity

Svensmark’s research concerns the influence of solar activity and cosmic radiation on aerosol formation, clouds and therefore the climate.

The proposed mechanism is straightforward in principle. Solar activity affects the amount of cosmic radiation reaching Earth. Cosmic radiation ionizes the atmosphere. Ionization may influence the formation and growth of aerosol particles, some of which become cloud condensation nuclei. Clouds, in turn, strongly affect Earth’s radiation balance.

Parts of this chain have been demonstrated experimentally. The unresolved question is how large the resulting climate effect is under real atmospheric conditions and over different timescales.

Svensmark does not claim that carbon dioxide has no effect. He told Berlingske :

“I am not saying that humans are not part of it.”

His point is that natural variability, cloud processes and solar influence remain insufficiently quantified. He describes the dismissal as “a death blow” to the research program he has spent much of his career developing.

Not a marginal researcher

Svensmark cannot reasonably be dismissed as an unsuccessful or marginal scientist. Google Scholar records more than 7,000 citations to his work and an h-index of 30. Compared with the broader DTU research community, this places him approximately among the upper fifth of researchers and probably higher when measured by total citations. That is a considerable scientific impact for a relatively small and highly contested research field, far removed from the large collaborative networks that generate many citations almost automatically.

The predictable but weakest contribution in the article comes from Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, professor at the Niels Bohr Institute and a prominent figure in the IPCC community.

Hesselbjerg accepts that cosmic radiation may play a role in cloud formation and long-term climate history. He then claims that much of Svensmark’s research appears to have been designed to confirm his hypothesis and that, whenever it was not confirmed, “an arm or a leg” was simply added.

That is an extraordinary accusation and an intellectually shabby one.

Hesselbjerg identifies no paper, no experiment, no faulty measurement, no improper method and no failed prediction. He merely insinuates that Svensmark has constructed his research to reach a predetermined conclusion. If Hesselbjerg believes that, he should name the experiments and explain precisely what was wrong with them. Otherwise, he should withdraw the allegation.

Developing a hypothesis as new evidence appears is not scientific misconduct. It is science. Aerosol formation involves nucleation, particle survival, growth, atmospheric chemistry and eventual cloud formation. Discovering additional mechanisms is not “adding an arm or a leg”. It is the whole purpose of experimental research.

Hesselbjerg’s performance illustrates a wider problem. Researchers close to the institutional consensus can invoke authority while providing remarkably little argument. A dissenting researcher is expected to prove every link in a complex physical chain before his work is even considered legitimate.

That is not a scientific level playing field.

The research should continue

The immediate objective should not merely be to embarrass DTU. It should be to ensure that Svensmark’s research survives. The most important next step is to develop a climate model that explicitly includes the proposed chain connecting solar activity, cosmic radiation, atmospheric ionization, aerosol growth and clouds, alongside greenhouse-gas forcing and the other established climate mechanisms.

Such a model would make it possible to test a question of enormous scientific and political importance: How much of the observed temperature development is caused by human influence, and how much is caused by natural variation?

That question is far from purely academic. Climate policy depends critically on the answer. If natural influences are larger than assumed, the expected effect of reducing carbon emissions is smaller. If they are negligible, the current attribution of climate change to CO2 becomes stronger. Either result would be valuable.

As explained by Henrik Svensmark: “The next decisive step is to build a climate model in which the influence of solar activity, cosmic radiation, aerosol growth and clouds is represented together with greenhouse gases. That would allow us to test how much of modern climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. This can be done within a few years and with a research budget that is modest compared with the political and economic importance of the question.”

The task is therefore concrete: we need to find a new institutional home for Svensmark, preserve the equipment and scientific expertise, assemble an international research team and raise the necessary funding.

Berlingske has performed a valuable public service by bringing this case into the open. DTU has responded with evasion. Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen has responded with an undocumented attack on a colleague’s scientific integrity.

Neither response is acceptable.

Science advances through experiments, observations and testable models, not through administrative priorities, institutional conformity or casual insinuations.

Henrik Svensmark’s research must not end with a DTU management decision. It must now be given the resources to face the only judgement that matters: the judgement of observations.

Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen is an independent consultant (owns Dahl-Madsen ApS), chairman of the board of the Danish climate-sceptical association Klimarealisme (Climate Realism), and a frequent commentator/debater in Danish media on climate policy, energy, and environmental issues. More: https://klimarealisme.dk/

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Comments Off on Henrik Svensmark fired by his university

« Previous Entries