The unwillingness of Bangladesh to condemn Russia over the Ukraine conflict was one of the reasons the US wanted to oust Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, former cabinet minister and chief negotiator Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury has said in an interview with RT.
Hasina, who led Bangladesh for 15 years, fled the country in August 2024, following weeks of violent student-led protests which claimed 700 lives, according to some estimates.
Chowdhury, who served as the country’s shipping minister, was at the heart of negotiations between the authorities in Dhaka and demonstrators during the crisis. The country has been led by an interim government since then, which pledged to hold an election in 2026.
Chowdhury told RT in an exclusive interview to be aired on Monday that the uprising was instigated by NGOs linked to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Clinton family.
Asked about what Washington’s problem with Hasina’s government was, he pointed to “Bangladesh’s position during the time of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.”
“There was a resolution that was brought in the UN. And there was intense lobbying for Bangladesh to vote against Russia. So our position was that we are going to abstain from voting,” the former minister stated.
Many other countries in South Asia were “simply slavishly following what was being dictated to them,” but Bangladesh “had to carefully balance our international relations,” he said.
“Russia is a long-term ally of Bangladesh,” which supplies the country with “a lot of wheat, a lot of food products, fertilizers,” Chowdhury explained.
“The people in the Global South suffer the most” due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which is being “escalated by certain powers,” he said, adding: Hasina’s government “called for peace” and “recognized [that] warmongering… [was] leading to a humanitarian catastrophe. So, that was not liked by certain countries.”
Bangladesh abstained from voting on several UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Moscow over the Ukraine conflict and calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops in 2022 and 2023. The Russian embassy in Dhaka thanked Bangladesh for its stance.
Armando Mema, a member of Finland’s Freedom Alliance party, said on Sunday that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war.
“Secretary Rutte should stop sending weapons to Ukraine if he is truly concerned about a nuclear War. NATO should stop expanding to Ukraine, if we don’t want to end up in a nuclear War,” Mema said on X.
Rutte, despite his supposed concern about nuclear rhetoric, “forgot to rebuke” Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken for his threats to “wipe out Russia with nuclear weapons,” Mema added.
On Saturday, Rutte told Welt am Sonntag newspaper that NATO intends to place greater emphasis on its nuclear capabilities to deter adversaries more effectively in the future. He said that Russia is using “dangerous and reckless nuclear rhetoric,” and people in the West should not panic because NATO has a strong nuclear deterrent that helps preserve peace.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is not brandishing its nuclear weapons, but is pursuing a policy of nuclear deterrence. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov has said that the West’s destructive actions have undermined the foundations for constructive dialogue between nuclear-armed countries.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that a number of persistent challenges have accumulated in the strategic sphere, primarily related to destabilizing doctrinal approaches and military-technical programs of Western countries.
Russia sees readiness from the administration of US President Donald Trump to continue dialogue but undoing the damage done to bilateral ties under Joe Biden will take significant time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
In addition to ongoing discussions on resolving the Ukraine conflict, Russia and the US held two rounds of high-level talks in Saudi Arabia and Türkiye earlier this year, dedicated to restoring the proper functioning of diplomatic missions and other forms of cooperation. A planned third round of negotiations did not take place, with Moscow saying it was canceled by the US.
In an interview with RIA Novosti on Saturday, Lavrov said there are “many irritants in Russian-American relations, inherited from the previous US administration [of Joe Biden],” adding that “it will take a long time to clear up the mess.”
After the arrival of the Trump administration in January, Moscow “sensed willingness to resume dialogue. It is happening, but not as quickly as we would like,” the foreign minister stressed.
According to Lavrov, US-Russia discussions must not solely focus on the work of diplomatic missions, but also address the issues of the return of “illegally” seized Russian diplomatic property and the restoration of air links between the two countries.
Russia and the US drastically limited the number of each other’s diplomatic staff as relations deteriorated over the past decade. In late 2016, the administration of outgoing US President Barack Obama restricted Russian diplomats’ access to residences in New York and Maryland, and later seized additional Russian properties. The suspension of flights and closure of US airspace to Russian carriers were among the sanctions imposed on Moscow by the Biden administration after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
“Our proposals regarding both diplomatic real estate and air travel have been conveyed to the US side. Working contacts are currently underway regarding the possibility of continuing dialogue,” Lavrov said.
Last month, Trump imposed sanctions on Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil, citing lack of progress in peace talks on Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the “unfriendly move” would not hurt Russia’s economy, but could hamper the normalization process with Washington.
MOSCOW – The United States has informed Russia through diplomatic channels that it is considering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s idea of maintaining the restrictions laid down in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) beyond February 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Sputnik in an interview published on Sunday.
“There has been no substantive response from Washington yet. As we were told through diplomatic channels ‘the matter is under consideration,’” the minister said.
The idea of maintaining the restrictions outlined in the New START agreement beyond February 2026 is simple and does not require in-depth discussion, Lavrov added.
“The constructive initiative put forward by President Putin in the post-New START sphere speaks for itself. It has no hidden agenda and is extremely easy to understand. Its practical implementation will not require any specific additional efforts. Therefore, we see no need for in-depth discussion of our idea,” he said.
Russia is not going to persuade the US to accept Putin’s proposal, Lavrov also said.
“We are not going to persuade anyone. We believe that our act meets the interests of both parties and the entire international community. We are prepared for any developments. However, we hope that the outcome will be positive,” he said.
The initiative requires only reciprocity on the part of the US, and Russia will adhere to voluntary restrictions only if and as long as the other side does the same, the minister added.
Putin has announced that Russia was ready to continue adhering to the restrictions under the START treaty for one year after February 5, 2026. The Russian president has explained that the steps taken to comply with the START restrictions would be effective if the US reciprocated. US President Donald Trump reportedly called Putin’s proposal on the INF Treaty a good idea.
European Union member states will face ballooning deficits and debt unless they agree to use frozen Russian assets as collateral to fund Ukraine, the European Commission has warned in a document seen by the Financial Times.
The paper was circulated to EU capitals following last month’s failure to reach consensus on the so-called “reparations loan” of around €140 billion ($160 billion), the FT reported on Friday.
Without tapping Moscow’s immobilized central bank reserves, the EU would need to either authorize joint borrowing or issue direct grants – both of which would “directly affect” national budgets and increase public debt, the Commission warned. It remains unclear whether the option of not bankrolling Kiev was even considered.
The potential cost to EU economies is substantial, as servicing a collective loan of that size could result in up to €5.6 billion in annual interest payments. The Commission cautioned that borrowing at such a scale could also raise general EU borrowing costs and undermine other financial instruments.
Kiev expects its Western backers to cover a nearly $50 billion deficit next year, with its 2026 draft budget projecting some $114 billion in spending and only $68 billion in revenue – nearly all of which is earmarked for military purposes. Most non-military government expenses, including salaries, pensions, healthcare, and education, will rely entirely on foreign aid.
Belgium continues to oppose the use of Russian assets as loan collateral, citing serious financial and reputational risks. The frozen funds, totaling around $300 billion globally, with roughly $200 billion held at Belgium’s Euroclear, are technically not confiscated and could be reclaimed by Moscow if EU sanctions are not continually renewed. The EU has already stretched legal definitions by classifying the interest generated on these frozen funds as windfall profits not belonging to Moscow, and using them to arm Kiev.
The new plan hinges on the assumption that Moscow will eventually repay the loan as part of a future peace settlement – an outcome Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has described as improbable. On Friday, EU Commission officials once again failed to convince Belgium to back the asset seizure.
Moscow has repeatedly said it would regard any use of its frozen assets as theft, and could retaliate by seizing €200 billion ($172 billion) in Western assets held in Russia by foreign governments and companies.
The Football Association of Ireland (FAI) has overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to suspend Israel from international competitions.
The resolution, proposed by Dublin club Bohemians, says that the Israel Football Association (IFA) failed to enforce an effective anti-racism policy and continues to organize clubs in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank without the consent of the Palestinian Football Association.
The motion passed Saturday with 74 votes in favor, seven against, and two abstentions, according to the FAI. The association confirmed that it plans to submit a formal motion to UEFA’s executive committee requesting Israel’s immediate suspension from its competitions.
The Irish resolution follows similar calls from the Turkish and Norwegian football associations, which urged Israel’s suspension from international competitions.
These requests came after United Nations experts appealed to FIFA and UEFA to act, citing a UN Commission of Inquiry report that concluded Israel was actively committing genocide against Palestinians.
In a letter to UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin, the experts described banning Israel as “imperative” and urged the football governing body and its members to “fulfil their legal and moral obligations to uphold international law and move forward with an immediate and complete ban of Israeli football.”
The letter highlighted the devastating impact of Israel’s actions on football in Gaza as at least 421 Palestinian footballers have been killed since the regime launched its war on the Palestinian territory in October 2023.
Revolutions are funny things. They start out almost imperceptible. The final straw itself may be as inconsequential as a single voice in the crowd whose words unleash a tidal wave that sweeps aside the seemingly intractable old order forever.
Even as the cracks in the Eastern Bloc began to materialize in 1989, starting in June in Hungary, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Romania seemed impervious to the winds of change. They maintained a cult-like grip on power aided by the notorious and ubiquitous Securitate, the secret police.
On 21 December 1989 Ceausescu decided that the best way to quell a bubbling cauldron of unrest in Transylvania over the past several weeks was to appear, himself, with his wife Elena, above Bucharest’s Palace Square. Workers were bussed in and given red banners to wave in support of the regime. It was to be a show of force that would solidify the existing order.
After all, no one would dare challenge Ceausescu to his face.
As he confidently approached the microphone from the balcony and began mechanically repeating the tired old slogans of communism, suddenly a voice broke through with a high pitched scream, followed by an increasing din. The discordant sounds of protest rendered Ceausescu speechless and confused.
That second, when the false edifice of his rule was punctured and the impossibility of his position exposed, communist rule died in Romania.
America’s foreign policy has been a lot like the rule of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Since President Reagan opened the door to the gang of “former” Trotskyites from New York who were hell bent on worldwide revolution while being ideologically driven by their absolute devotion to the state of Israel, US foreign policy has been dominated by an equivalent of Ceausescu’s Partidul Comunist Român.
Anyone who attempted to challenge the neocon dominance over US foreign policy was drummed out of society by the equivalent of Ceausescu’s Securitate. One by one, Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, the John Birch Society, Ron Paul, and any voice raised in opposition to neocon dominance over foreign policy was brutally attacked by the likes of William F. Buckley, Jr. and his minions of enforcers in the media and the think tanks, and the corridors of power and influence.
Trotsky is reputed – perhaps apocryphally – to have said that, “to oppose the state is to die a slow starvation,” and that is certainly true for any foreign policy analyst over the past 40-plus years who has spoken out against neocon dominance. No jobs, no publications, no way to be heard or even exist.
But suddenly that Berlin Wall has fallen.
Future history may record America’s “Ceausescu Moment” as November 6th, 2025.
The same mainstream/”alt” media and conservatism-industrial-complex that has refused to acknowledge Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s sharp turn against neocon, pro-Israel foreign policy have done their best to harness and re-direct the Charlie-less TPUSA back onto the foreign policy reservation. With a doubting Charlie conveniently gone, they assumed they could ascend the “Palace Square Bucharest” balcony, grab the microphone, and return America’s conservative youth to the “wisdom” of Bill Kristol, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Mark Levin, and the rest of the blood-soaked dinosaurs.
However our own “high-pitched scream” that deflated Ceausescu came on November 6th not from a Mamdani “communist,” or from an “America-hating” Muslim, nor Hamas-devoted foreign student, nor tortured trans-genderist…or even a generic leftist.
No, it came from a corn-fed, conservative, earnest, American student at Auburn University in Alabama with the slow drawl of our great country’s 250 year history. In other words, the epitome of the Red, White, and Blue that burns in the soul of every American patriot.
The young man approached the open microphone and addressed President Trump’s son Eric and his wife Laura – ambassadors of the President’s claim to be the most pro-Israel Administration in US history – with a respectful set of questions.
I’d like to ask about your father’s relationship with Israel. He’s taken over $230 million from pro-Israel groups. In the summer even though the US advised against it, Israel attacked Iran and the US still bombed on behalf of Israel…Israel has not been a good ally to the US since the 1960s when they bombed the USS Liberty.
The crowd of CONSERVATIVE young Americans erupted into wild applause.
Israel is a nation where Christians are constantly under attack… We talk about America first and defending Christians, but how can we do this if we align ourselves with a nation that does not do that itself?
At this point the applause among TPUSA’s conservative youth was deafening.
Deer-in-the-headlights Eric Trump does a Ceaucescu, repeating the slogans of the old order and hoping their magic will still quell the restive population.
You have a nation chanting ‘death to America’ every single day on the streets of Tehran. You have a nation that will develop a nuclear weapon and that will use that nuclear weapon.
These are standard Benjamin Netanyahu talking points from 30 years ago. Laura looked like Elena. Arranging her perfect hair as the crowd remained silent at Eric Trump’s well-rehearsed applause lines. Silence. They’ve heard it all before and they have done their own research and know that these are neocon lies.
Guys: Iran wanted to destroy our way of live they wanted to hurt us they wanted to inflict real pain.
Silence. They’ve done their own research.
Eric then repeats the absurd claim that his father solved eight wars (involving countries whose names he cannot pronounce) and the silence continued. The bumper sticker slogans no longer worked with Charlie Kirk’s kids just as Ceaucescu’s slogans no longer worked with a Romania sick to death with it’s subservience to a dying Communist bloc.
This is a genie that can no longer be put back into the bottle. Toothpaste out of the tube. The same social media harnessed early on by the US “regime change” operatives seeking to fulfil the neocon project has been captured by young American conservatives who are revolting against the destructive “Israel-first” party line of their boomer forebears and no underhanded sale of TikTok to pro-Israel fanatics will change the fact.
From this point on, like Ceaucescu, Trump’s people dare not address openly the number one youth movement of their ideological base. They dare not risk stop after stop being questioned by earnest young conservatives about America’s toxic and self-destructive supplication to the state of Israel. They will go back into Nicolae Ceaucescu’s bunker. Terrified of the very “America First” movement they have launched.
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
This Thursday, US President Donald Trump announced that Kazakhstan will be joining his so-called Abraham Accords project, which seeks to bring together Arab and Muslim-majority nations in a quest to normalize ties and form a regional alliance. Yet, this move reflects desperation rather than a significant advancement.
On the Kazakhstan move, Trump took to Truth Social to explain that “We will soon announce a Signing Ceremony to make it official, and there are many more Countries trying to join this club of STRENGTH”.
The countries that Kazakhstan will join are the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.
While the Trump administration has been engaged in talks with the new Syrian leadership to bring them into the fold of the agreement, with its primary goal being the facilitation of a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the US government is now settling with a non-Arab country that will have little bearing on the overall project.
Kazakhstan’s joining the so-called Abraham Accords makes no sense, not only due to its irrelevance when it comes to regional affairs, but the Central Asian country had normalized ties with Israel back in 1992.
A far cry from Riyadh or Damascus, Astana appears like a rather desperate attempt to keep the ball rolling and demonstrate that the normalization process is ongoing.
Although Saudi Arabia appeared poised to normalize ties with Israel, as its leader, Mohammed bin Salman, even hinted at, prior to October 7 of 2023, it remains clear that achieving such a deal now will prove very difficult.
This also seems to have been a factor in Riyadh’s recent military pact with Islamabad, which could serve as protection in the event of another regional escalation between the US-Israeli-led alliance and Iran.
Contrary to Donald Trump’s framing of the “Abraham Accords” as a peace alliance, the very opposite is the truth. It was, in fact, an initiative that was born out of the desire to kill Saudi Arabia’s ‘Arab Peace Initiative’, a project which entailed the Arab and Muslim-majority nations agreeing to sign onto normalization deals in exchange for a viable Palestinian State.
Ultimately, due to the weakness of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab Peace Initiative served as the only remaining bargaining chip for achieving a Palestinian State inside the territories occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war.
Taking this chip off the table means the collapse of the PA’s leverage, hence putting them in the position where they must choose between two options: to disband and relaunch the liberation struggle, or to submit and accept the end of their role in the Palestinian cause.
Out of the three nations that committed themselves to the Trump normalization agenda, the only one that has seen any benefit has been the United Arab Emirates. However, even in the UAE’s case, the deal only works in favour of its rulers.
Bahrain is irrelevant and was likely only included due to Saudi Arabia’s testing of the waters, while Morocco was forced into the agreement through ultimatums.
There was not only immense pressure placed upon Rabat by the US, but also the UAE, which used all kinds of pressure points, such as port projects and the issue of Western Sahara, to force Morocco’s hand.
Similarly, following the ousting of former Sudanese President Omar Bashir, the new military leadership was blackmailed and pressured into committing itself to the accords. Sudan was stripped of its state sponsor of terrorism designation, had its sanctions removed, and offered financial relief, yet descended into a horrifying war that Israel played a role in helping to start.
Saudi Arabia knows the potential consequences of joining this alliance and that it would pit them against their neighbour Iran, in a way that sets them on the war path. The UAE is also rapidly becoming a Pariah for its role in Sudan, but also its overt collaboration with the Israelis in their genocide against the people of Gaza.
When it comes to Syria, its new leadership has attempted to reach a so-called “security agreement” with the Israelis, which, despite the best efforts of Damascus to frame it as falling short of normalization, is in essence a recognition agreement.
Yet, due to Syria’s leadership being so incredibly weak and proving incapable of running the country, the Israelis themselves have expressed doubts about the viability of such an agreement. If a deal with Tel Aviv is going to be struck, it will be on Israel’s terms and could cause enormous issues for Damascus.
Trump resorting to dragging along Kazakhstan comes off as desperate; it indicates that the Abraham Accords are far from attractive to regional countries at this time and adds no value to the strategy. More than anything, it serves as a public humiliation ritual that implicates Kazakhstan in the Gaza genocide.
On Monday, November 3, a group of Israeli soldiers stood outside the Supreme Court in West Jerusalem wearing black masks. They weren’t there to apologize; they were there to defend themselves.
The soldiers, accused of torturing and raping a Palestinian detainee at the notorious Sde Teiman prison, demanded “gratitude” for their actions.
“Instead of appreciation, we received accusations,” one said defiantly. Israeli media covered the scene while Western outlets mostly ignored it.
The same soldiers are part of a criminal case that Israeli prosecutors reluctantly opened in 2024 after video evidence surfaced showing Palestinian detainees stripped, beaten, and sexually assaulted at Sde Teiman.
One Palestinian man was hospitalized with seven broken ribs and a rectal tear, injuries consistent with violent sexual abuse.
The Times of Israelreported the indictment of five reservists for “severe abuse,” while other sources cited evidence of sodomy inside the facility.
Yet, in Western coverage, the word rape almost never appeared. Headlines spoke of “abuse” or “mistreatment,” as though sexual torture were a matter of workplace misconduct.
Contrast this silence with the wall-to-wall coverage of October 7, when Israel accused Hamas fighters of “mass rape.” Those claims, still unproven, became the moral foundation of Israel’s campaign of annihilation in Gaza.
In his latest interview with American journalist Candace Owens, political scientist Norman Finkelstein called the Israeli allegations “genocidal atrocity propaganda.”
After examining more than 5,000 photographs and fifty hours of footage from that day, Finkelstein said he found “not a single shred of evidence of even one rape.” Yet those unverified stories, repeated endlessly by Western outlets, were enough to cast an entire population as subhuman and to legitimize the killing of more than 68,000 Palestinians.
In December 2023, the New York Times published a sprawling investigation titled “Screams Without Words: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”
The article claimed Hamas fighters had systematically raped Israeli women during the attack. Its pages were filled with graphic descriptions and lurid imagery. The story relied on anonymous witnesses, unverified videos, and second-hand testimony, yet it was presented as conclusive evidence of mass rape.
Within days, it shaped international discourse. Then US President Joe Biden, European leaders, and prominent feminists invoked the Times’ story to condemn Hamas and morally justify Israel’s “retaliation”.
But when journalists and scholars began checking the evidence, the story fell apart. Forensic experts found no physical proof of rape. Several of the supposed witnesses cited by the Times contradicted one another or were later discredited.
In April 2024, more than 50 journalism professors sent a public letter demanding an independent review of the article’s sourcing and editorial process. The Washington Postreported internal dissent within the Times newsroom itself, where reporters said the piece had been “rushed” to meet political expectations.
Meanwhile, the Sde Teiman scandal, an Israeli atrocity supported by video evidence, medical reports, and judicial proceedings, has never received a fraction of the attention that the Times story did. This imbalance is not merely linguistic. It is structural, reflecting the hierarchy of human worth built into Western coverage of the war.
This is how “atrocity propaganda” works. It does not require lies to function, only selective truth. By repeating unverified claims of Hamas rape while downplaying verified Israeli sexual crimes, Western media transformed journalism into a weapon of war.
Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.
An unidentified drone has dropped a bag of red paint within the premises of the Russian trade mission in Stockholm, Moscow’s embassy in Sweden has said.
It published an image showing red paint splattered on the pavement inside the mission’s compound. Another such incident happened early on Saturday, the embassy said in a statement on Telegram.
Since May 2024, there have been more than 20 acts of vandalism using UAVs targeting the embassy and the trade mission in the Swedish capital, the statement read.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in September that Moscow had repeatedly asked the Swedish authorities to properly protect the Russian missions. But, despite assurances that necessary measures would be taken, the drone incursions continue, she noted.
“Such provocations pose a threat not only to the diplomatic mission, but also to the city’s residents. Apparently, after Sweden joined NATO [in March 2024], it lost control over its internal and external security,” Zakharova said.
Russian diplomatic buildings have been subject to frequent acts of vandalism and harassment since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Last month, a woman was detained after threatening a police officer guarding the Russian Embassy in Berlin with a knife.
In February, two pro-Ukraine activists in France were sentenced to eight months of house arrest after they threw three improvised bombs filled with liquid nitrogen at the Russian Consulate in Marseilles. Moscow condemned the punishment as far too lenient for an “attempt to commit a terrorist act.”
For more than a month, U.S. President Donald Trump has been conjuring with the idea of supplying nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. This week, however, he told reporters that he had backed away from the prospect.
Several weeks ago, shortly after Trump announced he was considering arming Ukraine with Tomahawks, our weekly editorial on October 3 warned that “all bets are off for a peace deal”. We contended that the American president, by considering such a move, was not genuine in his diplomatic efforts to end the nearly four-year conflict. “Trump is acting as a big-mouth poker player who has very few cards to play… betting that his boorish tough talk and the hype about sending Tomahawks to Ukraine… will somehow intimidate Russia to sit at the negotiating table and accept a half-baked peace deal.”
Moscow has not been intimidated to rush a peace deal on Trump’s or NATO’s terms of an immediate ceasefire, insisting instead that a resolution to the conflict must involve a substantive international security treaty and the eradication of root causes, including the Nazi nature of the Kiev regime and NATO’s historic expansionism.
When Trump was asked this week if he was still considering supplying the iconic missile to Ukraine, he said: “No, not really.”
That was after weeks of demurring; he might, he might not, we’ll see, and so on. What changed his mind?
In the last phone call between Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, on October 16, it was reported that Putin sternly warned that supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks was an escalation too far. He indicated that the weapon would not change the battlefield situation in Ukraine’s favor but that it would bring the U.S. and Russia directly into confrontation.
Sixty-three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, with John F Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, this was an uncanny echo of that critical moment when the world faced nuclear war.
Trump subsequently claimed that he asked Putin, “Would you mind if I send Tomahawks to Ukraine?” We can only imagine Putin’s terse response.
The lame question from Trump suggests that the American president was not actually serious about the proposal and that the whole prior and subsequent reporting of his musings was a bluff aimed at unnerving Moscow.
The Tomahawk has a range of about 2,000-2,500 km and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It would also require U.S. participation to launch it from Ukrainian territory. If the missile were fired at St Petersburg or Moscow, Russia would have no choice but to consider it a possible preemptive nuclear attack.
Thus, it is averred, Trump was told that if he went ahead with his insane idea to supply Ukraine, then he had better be prepared to accept responsibility for starting World War III.
The day after the phone call with Putin, on October 17, Trump hosted the Ukrainian puppet president at the White House, whereupon Trump started backpedaling on the Tomahawks. He said that the U.S. needs to retain stockpiles for its own security interests and may not be able to supply Ukraine. “We need Tomahawks for the United States, too. We can’t deplete our country,” said Trump.
Though pointedly, last week, the Pentagon announced that there were no inventory limitations and that the White House was clear to send Tomahawks to Ukraine if President Trump made that determination.
Well, it looks like Trump has chosen caution to be the better part of valor, or should we say, bluffing. At least for now, anyway.
Still, the insanity of NATO’s war psychosis is always looming. Trump’s erratic and egotistical whims make him an unreliable interlocutor.
Following his “disappointing” meeting with the Ukrainian puppet, Vladimir Zelensky, last month, the European NATO warmongers have stepped up lobbying for the Tomahawks. NATO chief Mark Rutte met with Trump in the White House on October 22 to discuss the matter, no doubt reflecting the anxiety of the European elite that Trump was going soft on the idea.
This week, the former NATO chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, came up with the scheme of Germany supplying its Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine as a way to pressure Trump to follow up with Tomahawks.
Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, Olha Stefanishyna, also reportedly claimed that “discussions” with the Trump administration for the cruise missile are “still ongoing”.
In this context, there are reports of British intelligence working on a false-flag provocation to blow up the Zaporozyhe Nuclear Power Plant, the biggest civilian plant in Europe, causing mass casualties and blaming it on Russia, even though Russia is in control of the ZNPP. Such an extreme provocation could be used to sway the White House.
For now, it seems, Trump has encountered the uncomfortable reality of his and NATO’s psychological games by desisting from supplying Tomahawks to Ukraine.
Similar reality checks are going on elsewhere. The imminent defeat of NATO’s Ukrainian proxy army in Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) and Kupyansk is one such rude awakening from NATO’s illusions that Western media have been spinning for the past four years. Only last month, Trump was talking about green-lighting a counter-offensive by Ukraine against Russia and taking back territory.
Pertinent, too, was the unveiling last week of Russia’s breakthrough nuclear-capable weapons, the Burevestnik cruise missile that can fly unlimited distances, and the Poseidon torpedo, both of which are invulnerable to U.S. defenses. That would also seem to be a moment of realization for the NATO warmongers that their fantasies of defeating Russia are futile.
Another dousing with cold water is the potential deployment of Russian hypersonic missiles in Venezuela to upgrade the Latin American country’s air defenses amid U.S. aggression. It is reported this week that Trump is now having second thoughts about his (illegal) threats to attack Venezuela, fearing the military operation could end in abject failure with deaths of U.S. servicemen, at a time when voters are souring big time on the 47th president.
Bullies usually only operate with impunity and delusions about their strength until reality punches them in the face.
Trump’s throwing around the idea of Tomahawks to Ukraine seems to have hit him like a boomerang. One might hope that he can retain some common sense and restrain the transatlantic War Party.
NATO intends to place greater emphasis on its nuclear capabilities in the future in order to deter adversaries more effectively, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in an interview.
“It is important that we communicate more with our societies about nuclear deterrence to ensure they understand how it contributes to our collective security,” Rutte said.
Russia allegedly uses “dangerous and reckless nuclear rhetoric,” Rutte also said, adding that in this regard, the West “should know that there is no reason to panic, because NATO has a powerful nuclear deterrent that serves to preserve peace.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is not brandishing its nuclear weapons, but is pursuing a policy of nuclear deterrence. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov has said that the West’s destructive actions have undermined the foundations for constructive dialogue between nuclear-armed countries.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that a number of persistent challenges have accumulated in the strategic sphere, primarily related to destabilizing doctrinal approaches and military-technical programs of Western countries.
On 25 May, famous US actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted an apology for suggesting that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.
“I have reflected and wanted to apologise for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’,” Ruffalo wrote, adding: “It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful and is being used to justify anti-Semitism, here and abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”
But were Ruffalo’s earlier assessments, indeed, “not accurate, inflammatory and disrespectful”? And does equating Israel’s war on besieged, impoverished Gaza with genocide fit into the classification of “hyperbole”? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 