Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Galling Gallium Chokehold: Why the US Cannot Produce Precision Missiles and Fully-Functional F-35s

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 3, 2026

Kudos, again, to Kevin Wamsley of Inside China Business. Based on his latest podcast (see below) I did some additional digging. The substance of his video briefing is shocking and alarming, at least for US policymakers and weapons manufacturers. There is a single thread running from the empty nose cones of America’s newest stealth fighters to the laboratories where China is building the internet of the 2030s. That thread is gallium — a soft, silvery byproduct of aluminum refining that almost no one outside a materials-science department thinks about, and that the United States does not produce at all.

A metal America stopped making

The top line from the US Geological Survey is stark: the United States has had no primary domestic gallium production for decades, and its net import reliance sits at 100 percent. China, by contrast, controls the overwhelming majority of global output — figures commonly cited run from 94 to 98 percent of raw production. The reason is structural, not incidental. Gallium is extracted as a byproduct of bauxite and zinc processing, industries China dominates. A country cannot simply decide to make gallium; it must first build the aluminum and zinc industries that yield it, then the extraction, refining, wafer, and packaging lines on top. That is a decade-plus undertaking, not a budget line.

This dependency became a weapon in December 2024, when Beijing banned exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony to the United States, explicitly prohibiting sales to US military end-users. It was retaliation for American semiconductor export controls, and it landed on a Pentagon that, by the USGS’s own accounting, had no gallium in the National Defense Stockpile to fall back on.

One crucial update the alarmist version of this story often omits: in November 2025, as part of a broader trade truce between Presidents Trump and Xi, China suspended the civilian portion of that ban until late November 2026, moving those exports to a licensing regime. But the suspension came with a catch that matters enormously — the prohibition on exports to military end-users stayed in force. So the civilian supply reopened on Beijing’s sufferance, revocable at will, while the weapons-makers remained cut off. The chokehold didn’t release; it was repositioned.

The fighters with counterweights where radars should be

The most vivid symptom of this dependency is also the most easily misunderstood. It is true — confirmed through photographic evidence and industry reporting, though initially denied by the Department of War — that F-35s built from Lot 17 onward are being delivered with counterweights, literal ballast, in their nose cones where radars belong. Reporting has put the number affected in the hundreds.

But the cause is more tangled than “China cut off the gallium.” The immediate culprit is the delayed development and certification of the AN/APG-85, the next-generation radar meant to replace the older AN/APG-81. The APG-85 is built on gallium-nitride (GaN) technology, which delivers far higher power and better thermal efficiency — and demands roughly 82 kilowatts, forcing structural, cooling, and power redesigns to the aircraft’s forward fuselage. Jets from Lot 17 were redesigned to accept the APG-85 and can no longer take the old APG-81. When the new radar slipped, those aircraft had nowhere to turn but counterweights.

Gallium supply is the aggravating factor layered beneath that engineering delay: GaN radars use far more gallium than their predecessors, the DLA has struggled to source it as Japan and Germany lack the capacity to fill the gap, and prices have surged. The honest framing is that America faces a radar-development problem and a materials problem, and China’s monopoly sits underneath both. Meanwhile, China has moved its own J-20 fighter to a next-generation radar reportedly built on the same GaN technology — the qualitative gap the APG-85 was meant to open is instead narrowing.

The vulnerability extends well past one airframe. Gallium nitride underpins the high-power jammers on the EA-18G Growler, the F-35’s own electronic-warfare suite, and the large ground-based radar arrays of the kind destroyed during the fighting in the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon’s supply chains reportedly touch Chinese suppliers across a vast share of weapons components — the dependency is systemic, not a single point of failure.

The same monopoly, pointed at the future

Here the story turns from defense to something larger. The same industrial base that lets China throttle radar production also lets Chinese researchers race ahead on the technology expected to define the next quarter-century of connectivity: 6G.

The headline achievement is real and was published in Nature. A team led by scientists from Peking University and the City University of Hong Kong built what they describe as the world’s first “all-frequency” 6G chip — a device roughly 11 by 1.7 millimeters that integrates the entire wireless spectrum from 0.5 to 115 gigahertz onto a single chip. That span previously required nine separate radio systems. In testing it exceeded 100 gigabits per second on a single channel, which independent write-ups translate to roughly 500 times the real-world speed most users get from 5G today, and it can retune across 6 gigahertz of spectrum in 180 microseconds to hop clear of interference. The researchers built it not from gallium but from thin-film lithium niobate, using a photonic-electronic design, and they intend to shrink it into plug-and-play modules for phones, base stations, drones, and IoT devices.

The strategic point survives the technical correction. Whether the enabling material is gallium in a radar or lithium niobate in a transceiver, the pattern is the same: China increasingly controls both the raw inputs and the pipeline of scientists and engineers turning them into deployable systems. And 6G’s importance is not really about consumers. Few individuals need to download a library of films in seconds. The demand comes from industry — precision robotics, advanced manufacturing, private industrial networks, integrated sensing, low-altitude drone economies — the very sectors where China has already built commanding positions. 6G’s promised leap in speed, latency, and integrated sensing is a boon precisely to the industrial base China is busy consolidating.

The standards are the prize

There is one more dimension that outlasts any single chip. 6G has not yet been standardized worldwide; the global protocols are still being written, precisely because the systems are still being built. Standards bodies — 3GPP, the ITU, the O-RAN Alliance — are only now moving 6G from research into formal specification, with first specs targeted around 2029 and commercial networks around 2030. Whoever builds the working systems first shapes the standards everyone else must adopt.

The Trump administration has recognized the stakes, declaring 6G foundational to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity, and setting a policy of American leadership — directing work on spectrum, commercial applications, and diplomatic coalitions to back the U.S. position. The Boston Consulting Group projects that 5G’s roughly $1 trillion in economic output could grow toward $18 trillion by 2035, with 6G enabling entirely new enterprise models and large-scale AI across manufacturing, cities, healthcare, and public safety.

But intent collides with the same wall. The United States cannot lead in building what it cannot supply. Leadership in 6G requires the mining, refining, fabrication, and — above all — the tens of thousands of trained engineers applying the technology at scale. China is doing that work now. America is still debating how to start.

The bottom line

Strip away the hyperbole and a hard core remains. Today, U.S. contractors cannot reliably put advanced radars on hundred-million-dollar aircraft, in part because China controls a metal America stopped producing forty years ago. Ten years from now, on current trajectory, anyone who wants the best phones, drones, or robots may find the critical components — and the standards they run on — routed through that same country. Supply chains are the whole game, and so are the researchers who turn raw materials into markets. That is the argument, and the uncomfortable part is how much of it is simply true.

Here is Kevin’s video:

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , | Comments Off on The Galling Gallium Chokehold: Why the US Cannot Produce Precision Missiles and Fully-Functional F-35s

The Problem Is Israel, Not Netanyahu

By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | August 2, 2026

Israel, and its wanted-for-genocide Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are increasingly unpopular. Gemini estimates that about 80% of the world’s soccer fans cheered for Spain over Argentina in the World Cup, and the primary reason was that Spanish leader Pedro Sanchez is pro-Palestine while Argentina’s president Javier Milei is a rabid Zionist.

Even the United States, laboring under the weight of a pro-Israel media and political donor class, is turning against the Zionists. Recent polls show an astonishing 70-point collapse in support for Israel over the past eight years. During Trump’s first term, Israel’s net favorability hovered at over plus 50. Today it has dropped to minus 20 according to Marquette University Law School and minus 23 according to Pew Research Center.

Even AIPAC-money-loving politicians can sense which way the wind is blowing. Thomas Massie’s bill to end US military support for Israel, which a few years ago would have struggled to find two or three brave supporters, garnered 103 Democratic “yes” votes against only 98 “no” votes. (Massie was the only Republican voting in favor.)

Even many of Israel’s strongest supporters agree that their “chosen nation” needs a facelift. In June, Donald Trump, huddling with his Israel-loyal Jewish handlers Witkoff and Kushner, screamed at Netanyahu on the phone: “Everyone hates you now! Everyone hates Israel!”

As Trump’s outburst implied, many people identify the things they hate about Israel with one man, Benjamin Netanyahu. Swapping Bibi for a prettier face, or at least one that is not on the world’s most wanted list, is on the Zionist agenda.

At some point, the ancient Jewish ritual of scapegoating will likely be applied to Netanyahu. The term “scapegoat” (Azazel) originates from the ancient Hebrew ritual of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Every year, on that high holiday—the holiest single day on the Jewish calendar—the ancient Jews ritually transferred the collective sins, guilt, and impurities of their community onto a goat, and then expelled or destroyed it to achieve symbolic purification.

Soon the scapegoated Netanyahu will be removed from office. Perhaps he will die suddenly or go to prison. His replacement will be celebrated by the Epstein class media as a reasonable man, a moderate, someone who will restore Israel to its pre-Netanyahu status as “a light unto the nations” and “the only democracy in the Middle East.” But will that really solve the problem?

Consider who is likely to replace Netanyahu. Until recently, his main rival was Naftali Bennett, who, like Netanyahu, is a fanatical Zionist extremist. Bennett cut his teeth in Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and served as Netanyahu’s Chief of Staff from 2005 to 2008. His positions haven’t shifted since then. Bennett is every bit as genocidal—and as committed to dragging the US into endless war on Iran—as Netanyahu himself.

During the past two months, Gadi Eisenkot has eclipsed Bennett as Netanyahu’s main challenger, and the likely next Prime Minister of Israel. And Eisenkot, like Bennett, is as bad as Netanyahu.

Eisenkot is the man who created the Dahiyeh Doctrine—Israel’s official policy of genocidally mass murdering civilians. Eisenkot created that “Genocide Doctrine” in 2008 when he was head of the Israeli Defense Forces. He named it the Dahiyeh Doctrine after his mass murder of civilians in the Dahiyeh suburb of Beirut in 2006.

Eisenkot is an enthusiastic supporter of Israel’s mass murder of tens of thousands of children, and additional tens of thousands of women, in its leveling of Gaza. His open support of that mass slaughter makes him one of the most evil political leaders who have ever lived.

Astonishingly, Eisenkot even thinks Netantyahu is too much of a peacenik! The genocidal “moderate” has strongly criticized Netanyahu for being too submissive to US ceasefire demands in the current Israeli-instigated war on Iran. In other words, Eisenkot is even more determined to force the US to destroy itself for Israel than Netanyahu is!

Netanyahu may be evil, but he is not the source of Israel’s problem. Zionism is. That pernicious ideology holds that God “chose” the Jews 3000 years ago and gave them all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers in perpetuity. Most Zionists don’t even believe in God, but they believe God gave them the right to steal other people’s property and rape and murder anyone who resists. How crazy is that?

Israelis have made national heroes of prison guards who sodomize people to death, train dogs to rape prisoners, and engage in other unspeakable atrocities. Their soldiers proudly celebrate shooting pregnant women in the belly to get “one shot two kills.” They hunt children for sport, as Chris Hedges detailed in “A Gaza Diary.”

In short, Israel is criminally insane, and Netanyahu is just a symptom.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on The Problem Is Israel, Not Netanyahu

Palantir revenue surges 93% amid criticism over support for Israel’s Gaza war

MEMO | August 4, 2026

US artificial intelligence and data analytics company Palantir Technologies reported a 93% year-on-year surge in second-quarter revenue, despite mounting criticism over its support for Israel and the alleged use of its technology in the Gaza war, Anadolu reports.

Revenue reached $1.94 billion in the three months ended June 30, up from $1 billion a year earlier, the company said Monday.

Net income attributable to common shareholders more than tripled to $1.06 billion, while diluted earnings per share rose to $0.41 from $0.13.

Palantir’s US revenue climbed 115% year-on-year to $1.57 billion. US commercial revenue jumped 149% to $764 million, while government revenue increased 90% to $809 million.

“This quarter was otherworldly,” CEO Alex Karp said, citing accelerating demand for what the company calls “AI sovereignty.”

Palantir signed 220 contracts worth at least $1 million during the quarter, including 73 deals valued at $10 million or more.

Total contract value rose 49% to $3.37 billion, while US commercial contract value surged 153% to a record $2.13 billion.

The company raised its full-year revenue forecast to between $8.15 billion and $8.16 billion, from an earlier projection of $7.65 billion to $7.66 billion.

It expects US commercial revenue to exceed $3.42 billion this year, representing growth of at least 134%.

Palantir shares rose more than 14% in after-hours trading following the results.

Founded in 2003, Palantir develops data-analysis software used by companies, intelligence services and military agencies.

The company announced a strategic partnership with Israel’s Defense Ministry in January 2024 to provide technology for war-related missions.

Open Intel, a platform tracking corporate involvement in what it describes as the genocidal war on Gaza, says Palantir has recruited former members of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyberintelligence division.

The group alleges that Palantir’s software combines intercepted communications, satellite imagery and other data to help Israeli forces generate military targeting lists.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Palantir revenue surges 93% amid criticism over support for Israel’s Gaza war

British academic and Press TV co-host David Miller wins legal battle as UK court protects anti-Zionist beliefs

British academic and Press TV co-host David Miller (File)
Press TV – August 4, 2026

A British appeals tribunal has upheld a landmark ruling in favor of British academic David Miller, confirming that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected under UK equality law and dismissing almost all of the University of Bristol’s appeal against findings of unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overwhelmingly rejected the University of Bristol’s challenge to an earlier Employment Tribunal judgment that found Miller, a producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly show ‘Palestine Declassified’, had been unlawfully discriminated against and unfairly dismissed because of his anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs.

The Tuesday ruling establishes a binding legal precedent that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, making it unlawful to discriminate against individuals because they hold the belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist and colonial, and ought to be opposed.

Miller, a professor of political sociology specializing in propaganda, lobbying and state power, was dismissed by the University of Bristol in October 2021 following a sustained campaign over his criticism of Zionism, Israel and pro-Israel lobbying organizations.

The appeal court upheld the tribunal’s findings that Miller’s expression of his anti-Zionist beliefs had a “material impact” on the university’s decision to dismiss him, while reaffirming that protection of free speech is particularly important in cases involving political speech.

Rejecting the university’s argument that Miller’s views amounted only to political opinions, the EAT ruled that his critique of Zionism constitutes a protected philosophical belief under Section 10 of the Equality Act.

In a key passage, the tribunal said it was coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology promoting the establishment of a state for only “one race of people” in territory inhabited by another population, while also affirming the legitimacy of describing the migration of that group into the territory with the support of an imperial power as “colonial and imperialistic.”

The court also reiterated the earlier finding that Miller “did not oppose or have antipathy towards Jews or Judaism,” noting that the university itself had not alleged during the original proceedings that his statements were antisemitic.

In a statement following the ruling, Miller said, “For years, the University of Bristol capitulated to an intimidation campaign by genocidal Zionist groups to criminalise my sociological research.”

“The court has made it clear: universities ‘ought to be prepared to face and to weather criticism and reputational damage which flows from the exercise by its academics of their rights to speak and think freely and lawfully’ [Para 47],” said the professor, adding, “The court has also declared that it is clear, coherent and legitimate to describe Zionism as racist, colonial and imperialist. Zionist claims to the contrary have been comprehensively rebuffed.”

‘Legal precedent’

“The binding legal precedent we have established in my case,” he maintained, “means no vice-chancellor can ever again lawfully sack an academic or suspend a student simply for identifying the structural racism, colonialism and imperialism inherent in the Zionist project. Nor can any other employer. This victory belongs to the global movement for the liberation of Palestine and the final dismantling of Zionism.”

He noted that he is looking forward to returning to his work at the University of Bristol in his post as professor of political sociology. “It is important that my career is reinstated and that I am therefore free to work in higher education without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

The judgment is expected to have significant implications for universities and employers across the United Kingdom by reinforcing legal protections for philosophical beliefs and academic freedom.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Comments Off on British academic and Press TV co-host David Miller wins legal battle as UK court protects anti-Zionist beliefs

Qatar says Hamas honored its ceasefire obligations, calls for action against Israel

Palestinian Information Center – August 4, 2026

DOHA – Qatar’s foreign ministry has urged the international community to press Israel to honor its Gaza ceasefire commitments, affirming that Hamas has met all obligations under the agreed roadmap.

During a news conference held in Doha on Tuesday, spokesman for the foreign ministry Majed al‑Ansari confirmed that Hamas fulfilled its first‑phase commitments of the agreement, including the release of Israeli prisoners.

Ansari accused Israel of shirking its ceasefire obligations by maintaining strikes and restricting food, medical, and shelter aid into Gaza.

Ansari said that 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, among them 1.5 million displaced people, endure dire humanitarian conditions as Israel maintains tight restrictions on the entry of food, medicine, and other vital needs.

The spokesman said that Doha urges global actors to press Israel to abide by the ceasefire deal to pave the way for the launch of reconstruction efforts in the Gaza Strip.

He noted that Israel has not yet announced an official position on the roadmap for the next phase of the agreement, which includes an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the disarmament of Hamas.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Qatar says Hamas honored its ceasefire obligations, calls for action against Israel

US is the real loser if Senate passes virtue signaling Russia sanctions

Lindsey Graham’s “passion project” won’t end the war and, if anything, hurts American economic and political interests

By Jennifer Kavanagh | Responsible Statecraft | August 4, 2026

As the Senate returns to Washington for its last week in session until mid-September, it faces a long to-do list. But for many senators, the top priority is not enacting legislation that will help Americans but instead rushing to approve the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, known colloquially as the “Russia sanctions bill.”

A passion project of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill is intended to increase economic pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The legislation’s backers hope that, by choking off funding for Russia’s war effort, they can force Moscow to make greater concessions in ongoing negotiations to end the four-year old conflict in Ukraine.

But this logic and the bill itself are fundamentally flawed. The new legislation will have a limited effect on Russia’s fortunes; as has been the case since the beginning of the war, additional economic punishments are unlikely to be decisive in Putin’s calculus. In fact, the bill is more likely to harden the Russian position than to soften it.

The bill contains three main types of provisions. First, it codifies and expands sanctions against Kremlin officials, Russian oligarchs, and Russian banks and corporations. Second, it cracks down on Russia’s shadow fleet, increasing penalties against tankers and companies accused of trying to smuggle oil or evade the Western price cap on Russian oil sales.

Third and most significantly, it grants the president the authority to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, though it exempts allies who are reducing their purchases from Russia over time. The bill also allows the president to waive required penalties if deemed important for U.S. national security.

To be sure, if the new bill is passed by Congress and implemented by the White House, it will be economically painful for Russia. The sanctions it prescribes would fully sever Russian banks and energy corporations from the SWIFT system, including Gazprombank, which handles energy transactions. The bill also threatens secondary sanctions and loss of access to SWIFT for third-party intermediaries that continue to process payments from or interact with sanctioned entities. Combined with the bill’s measures aimed at Russia’s shadow fleet, these new sanctions will further complicate any Russian efforts to export oil.

However, after more than four years of sanctions, Russian banks and corporations have already developed alternatives. For example, they can turn to small regional banks that have little exposure to U.S. markets. They can also rely on layered shell companies that work through friendly countries, transactions conducted through “stablecoin” digital currencies, and even direct country-to-country bartering in which Russian commodities are swapped for machinery, microelectronics, or other goods. None of these approaches is convenient, but they will allow Russia to weather even the more draconian penalties included in the new bill.

The bill’s tariff provisions are likely to have even less effect on Russia’s revenues. Theoretically, the legislation targets the top five buyers of Russian oil and gas, a list that would include key U.S. allies like France, Japan, Spain, Turkey, and Belgium. But members of Congress, fearful of giving Trump more authority to use tariffs punitively against U.S. allies, included a waiver for countries that account for less than 15% of Russian exports and are working to decrease their dependency on Russia over time. This list applies to just about every country that might be hit with tariffs for continuing to buy Russian oil and gas, except for three: China, India, and Hungary.

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.

Even if Trump chooses to apply tariffs to these countries, the consequences may be worse for the United States than for Russia.

Tariffs on India could cause Russia real economic pain, as New Delhi has shown itself to be sensitive to threats of U.S. economic penalty. But if the conflict in Iran continues to snarl oil markets, India will face constraints on its ability to shift its demand for oil elsewhere. Moreover, the United States has already tried sanctions on India as a way to pressure Russia, and it didn’t work. It did, however, damage U.S. ties with an important partner in Asia.

China is the leading buyer of both Russian natural gas and oil, and likely the primary target of the bill’s writers. But using tariffs to penalize Chinese oil purchases would be suicidal for Trump. He’s already run the experiment of putting 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, back on Liberation Day in April 2025. The result was so bad for the U.S. economy that it led to the original Trump TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).

Since then, China has shown its willingness to use its dominance in rare earth minerals to retaliate against what it sees as unfair U.S. trade practices, and it would likely do so again if Trump levies tariffs under the authority of the new legislation. But even smaller tariffs on China are unlikely, since Trump is unlikely to do anything in the near term that derails his September meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In the end, the new legislation is unlikely to be the knockout blow that forces Putin to give up on his core demands. The tariff provision may affect Russian oil and gas income on the margins, but its effect will be limited by the Trump administration’s higher priority political goals. Russia’s economy is under strain, but it can withstand the modest costs that Graham’s sanctions bill will impose while sustaining the war effort.

More importantly, the legislation’s underlying premise — that increased economic pressure is the key to ending the war in Ukraine — is as incorrect today as it was back in 2022. Putin has made clear time and again that he is willing to pay a very high price to achieve what he considers to be an acceptable outcome in Ukraine. He views the war as existential, for Russia and for himself personally, and has been largely insensitive to economic levers since the conflict began. This is unlikely to change.

In fact, the new legislation is much more likely to strengthen Russia’s resolve and work against peace. It may do this in two ways. First, it fuels Putin’s narrative that the conflict in Ukraine is really a war between Russia and the West, a storyline that can shore up domestic support and that increases the risks that the war eventually widens. Second, it confirms for Moscow that the United States is not actually interested in peace or in serving as a mediator but rather continues to harbor Biden administration-era hopes of weakening Russia over the long-term.

Many in the U.S. Congress probably realize this but will vote for the bill anyway, a virtue signaling gesture taken at the expense of the voters who elected them. In fact, if there is a loser from this legislation it will be the United States, which will face economic uncertainty and the loss of geopolitical influence as more countries tire of the United States using the dollar as a weapon and look for alternatives.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Comments Off on US is the real loser if Senate passes virtue signaling Russia sanctions

Zelensky leads ‘mafia-like’ government – former spokeswoman

By Lucas Leiroz | August 4, 2026

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is facing growing opposition, with various former supporters now criticizing his regime and demanding political change in Ukraine. In a recent statement, his former press secretary, Yulia Mendel, described Zelensky as Ukraine’s “main problem,” urging the country’s people to replace him.

Mendel made these remarks during an interview with the French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche. She accused the Ukrainian leader of deliberately allowing corruption within the country’s state institutions and acting in a highly authoritarian manner. Furthermore, she stated that Zelensky plans to prolong the conflict as long as possible solely to save his own political career – since he would be unlikely to remain in power in a post-war scenario.

According to her, Zelensky has altered Ukraine’s international image, causing global public opinion to lose sympathy for the country. She considers him primarily responsible for the unpopularity of the pro-Ukraine agenda in Western nations. In Mendel’s view, Ukraine is now perceived as a country entirely controlled by Zelensky, creating an automatic association between the dictator and the Ukrainian nation as a whole. Since Western public is tired of the “beggar” image, the ingratitude, and Zelensky’s authoritarianism, people are naturally losing sympathy for Ukraine as well.

Mendel placed special emphasis on the issue of corruption. In her view, Zelensky’s financial gains demonstrate that Ukraine has become a “mafia-like” state. She also asserted that it is impossible for so many people around him to be knowingly involved in illegal schemes while he himself remains “innocent”. According to her, Zelensky is either incompetent or a criminal himself – and his personal enrichment from the conflict is evidence that he is engaged in corruption.

“I believe he has become my country’s main problem (…) The world has come to see Ukraine as the face of a single man. It believed this fabricated image (…) [Zelensky is] the main beneficiary of this war (…) Zelensky’s wallet gives the impression of a mafia-like operation (…) I’ve never seen his [Zelensky’s] bank accounts, but if almost everyone around him is accused of corruption, how is it possible that the president knows nothing? (…) [Zelensky is] either incompetent, or he’s pretending not to see anything (…) Those responsible [for crimes in Ukraine] are almost never punished (…) Zelensky betrayed the people’s trust in the state,” she said.

She also sharply criticized irresponsible narratives regarding a possible “Ukrainian victory” in the conflict. According to her, even if Russia were eventually losing the war, that would not mean Ukraine was “winning” – given the country’s heavy losses and the crisis caused by the war. Nevertheless, she emphasized that Moscow is not losing, as it holds the absolute military advantage in the conflict.

“Even if Russia is losing, it doesn’t mean Ukraine is winning. And Russia is not losing,” she added.

It is important to remember that Mendel is a former spokesperson for the Ukrainian leader and certainly has inside information about Zelensky. She served from 2019 to 2021, participating in critical periods of pre-war Ukrainian history – such as the pandemic and the tensions with Russia that led to the inevitable launch of the special military operation by Moscow in 2022.

Mendel is yet another example of a former Zelensky ally who eventually became a political adversary. The Ukrainian leader is known for targeting his former associates, attempting to intimidate them to prevent them from sharing sensitive information with the media or the opposition. Currently, many of Zelensky’s key political rivals are individuals who were once linked to him in some way. By doing so, Zelensky seeks to eliminate potential challengers to his power, aiming to remain in the presidency for as long as possible.

Mendel was recently even added to the kill list of the neo-Nazi regime, the infamous website “Myrotvorets”. The reason she is now considered an “enemy of the Ukrainian state” is that she shared information regarding the Ukrainian president’s drug abuse during an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson. Mendel claims that Zelensky is addicted to cocaine and that this influences his decision-making. Furthermore, she stated that she witnessed him “change from peacemaker to propagator of war.” Now, due to these statements, her life is under threat from Ukrainian security services.

In fact, as long as Zelensky and his junta continue to govern Ukraine, peace remains unlikely, given that the dictator insists on prolonging hostilities. Cases like Mendel’s reveal the reality of present-day Ukraine to the world. It remains to be seen when Zelensky’s Western backers will finally decide to pressure him to step down.

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.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Corruption | | Comments Off on Zelensky leads ‘mafia-like’ government – former spokeswoman

NATO to soon double US nuclear sharing warheads, deploy them in Finland, Poland and Lithuania

By Drago Bosnic | August 4, 2026

NATO is no longer even bothering to hide that it wants to expand its nuclear footprint on the “old continent”. Namely, the most aggressive racketeering cartel in recorded history is sliding into an increasingly dangerous nuclear posture, with the shift being sold as “routine deterrence”. In reality, the change is a deliberate widening of escalation options aimed at upending Russia. Combined with France’s preparation of a base for nuclear-capable “Rafale” fighter jets, this process is effectively a (geo)political and military masterclass in “normalizing” a confrontation that could bring about thermonuclear annihilation of humanity. With the new “Eastern Front” closer to a hair-trigger condition than ever before, this sort of escalation is virtually guaranteed to deliver what Western warmongering oligarchies have wanted for centuries – an all-out war with Russia.

Firstly, it should be understood that even from a theoretical point of view, this is not static deterrence, but an active preparation for offensive nuclear warfare. New infrastructure, upgraded airbases, greater readiness for nuclear-capable assets, massive expansion of delivery options and systems, etc., none of which are “administrative measures” or “seamless red tape”. This changes the strategic equation by making it easier to initiate nuclear escalation at shorter notice, giving Russia little to no time to evaluate response options and forcing it to rely on absolute use of its devastating firepower. In simpler terms, the Kremlin is left with no choice but to launch its entire strategic arsenal, by far the largest and most powerful in the world, if any incoming missile from NATO-occupied Europe is detected.

The general public, largely oblivious to the current nuclear posture developments, is actively being lied to that these steps are “defensive”, because Moscow is “aggressive”. However, the practical reasoning is to deepen the permanence of nuclear tensions in Europe. The role of Paris is especially telling, as it exposes the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s nuclear posture. Namely, France likes to frame its strategic arsenal as an “instrument of sovereignty” that’s supposedly separate from NATO’s wider nuclear posture. And yet, the timing of preparing airbases for nuclear strikes involving its “Rafale” fighter jets tells a very different story. What conclusion is Russia supposed to make given that the processes are concurrent? Would anyone with an ounce of “grey matter” view it as “purely coincidental”?

Thus, it can only be expected that Moscow will not view any of this as a series of isolated incidents. In the current geopolitical climate, this is clearly part of NATO’s wider doctrinal shift aimed at projecting strategic pressure, complicating Russian deterrence planning and tightening the nuclear dimension of European security. The nuclear integration of the US, EU and NATO is where the danger multiplies and grows exponentially. When nuclear-capable jets, forward operating bases and broader coordination are normalized at once, the line between deterrence and provocation effectively vanishes. In which twisted universe can doubling (if not tripling) the number of deployed nuclear warheads be seen as defensive? And to say nothing of the fact that they’re going to be placed in Finland, Poland and Lithuania.

Namely, all three countries border Russia. In practice, this means there would be a “nuclear wall” stretching from the Arctic all the way to the heart of Central Europe. That’s around 3,800 km of frontline that could explode into a thermonuclear annihilation at virtually any moment. Any move presented as “deterrence” could lead to cataclysmic consequences, meaning there’s zero room for error. And yet, NATO’s constant belligerence has reduced diplomatic contacts with Moscow to exchanging protest notes. The more the “old continent” is wired for nuclear war, the less response time leaders on both sides have in an escalating crisis. This dramatically increases the chance that what could be a temporary geopolitical flare-up becomes a military emergency before anyone can stop it or at least slow it down.

In addition, NATO’s wider nuclear build-up perfectly fits the Pentagon’s “geopolitics of controlled chaos”. In practice, that translates into a NATO-occupied Europe that’s mainly useful as a springboard for strategic pressure against the Kremlin. The overall nuclear posture keeps moving closer to the point where peace is maintained only by the threat of immediate catastrophe. This sort of “logic” is precisely what drove the world to the edge of the abyss during the (First) Cold War. It culminated in the late 1980s, with strategic arsenals in tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. NATO’s aggressive posture and forward deployment of offensive weapons forced the Soviet Union to build nearly 50,000 thermonuclear warheads, the largest and most destructive strategic arsenal in human history.

Hopeful that long-term peace with the political West was possible, Russia reduced this massive strategic asset to just about 12% of what it was at the time. What did it get instead? Only more belligerence and truly unprovoked aggression, while being presented as a “threat”. Not to mention the total disregard for its most basic national security interests, including NATO-backed terrorist attacks on Russian civilians and energy infrastructure.

Faced with such odds, Moscow had no choice but to dramatically increase the effectiveness of its thermonuclear arsenal. Namely, while the Soviet arsenal had around 60% of missiles with MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads, modern Russia has upward of 90% of MIRV-ed missiles, demonstrating how NATO aggression keeps making the world less safe.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on NATO to soon double US nuclear sharing warheads, deploy them in Finland, Poland and Lithuania

The EU Has No Plan If Peace Breaks Out in Ukraine

By Glenn Diesen | August 4, 2026

Over the past years, NATO has held “peace summits” to which Russia was not even invited, where European leaders such as President Duda spoke about peace in terms of breaking up Russia into smaller states. Now that NATO is clearly losing its proxy war, the EU demands an “unconditional ceasefire”. This is not a peace proposal but an effort to further extend the war. An “unconditional ceasefire” is a conditionality for starting negotiations, which is intended to freeze a conflict that NATO is losing, giving it time to rearm, regroup, and even send in NATO troops as “peacekeepers”.

Why has the EU boycotted diplomacy for 4.5 years and continues to do so? And why will NATO not even take NATO expansion off the table in return for a ceasefire? Would it not be wise to discuss with the other side how we failed to establish a mutually acceptable pan-European security architecture after the Cold War, which has led us into this horrific war? The EU uses smears and censorship to prevent its own public from even discussing this matter, and it will certainly not be discussed with Russia.

The EU cannot allow this war to end, as there is no plan for peace. Fighting with Ukrainians keeps the U.S. in Europe, temporarily preserves European unity, protects an unpopular political elite from the rising opposition that seeks course correction, offers military Keynesianism as an economic model for a de-industrialising Europe, weakens Russia as a strategic rival, and buys the European leaders time to prepare for a direct war with Russia. A peace agreement would require European leaders to repay the funds they have seized and partly stolen from Russia, which they also used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Victory would give the Europeans a strong U.S. behind them and a battle-hardened Ukraine in front of them, while defeat would leave Europe without a clear role or relevance in a multipolar world. There is no plan for what to do when peace breaks out.

When the Trump administration broke with the NATO consensus of boycotting diplomacy to negotiate an end to the Ukraine War, the main objective of the European leaders was to shut down the talks. The European leaders rushed to Washington to insist that peace entails an “unconditional ceasefire” without even discussing a political settlement, and intensified deep strikes into Russia to sell the idea that Russia can be defeated. The European leaders were successful as the Trump administration began adopting the false narrative that Ukraine had “turned the tide”. While the Trump administration had initially aimed to either end the Ukraine War or outsource it to the Europeans, the proxy war in Ukraine is now Trump’s war.

If the goal was to “help Ukraine”, then NATO would not have toppled the Ukrainian government in 2014 in the effort to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted; NATO would not have sabotaged the Minsk Agreement between 2015 and 2022; NATO would not have pressured Zelensky to reverse his peace platform that won him the election in 2019; NATO would not have torpedoed the Istanbul agreement in 2022; or at least NATO would have ended the war in November of 2022 on the recommendation of General Mark Milley when Ukraine was at its strongest. Instead, “standing with Ukraine” now entails deporting Ukrainian refugees and financing military recruiters to hunt Ukrainian men on the streets to send them to die in a war that Ukraine cannot possibly win. Proxy wars are ruthless as they use the proxy as cannon fodder, yet proxy wars are always sold to the public as being motivated by empathy and support for the proxy that is unnecessarily sacrificed.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on The EU Has No Plan If Peace Breaks Out in Ukraine