‘The Romanian scenario’ – Fears of EU election interference in Poland after Brussels announces roundtable
Remix News | March 6, 2025
Henna Virkkunen, vice-president of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said that a roundtable on the presidential elections in Poland will be held in the coming weeks.
The Finnish politician told DW that such meetings are organized before every election in the member states and that she is concerned about the possibility of influencing the election results using social media.
“Cooperation with Germany went well, and I am sure that we will also cooperate closely with the Polish authorities. EU citizens have the right to be sure that elections are fair and free. And because of content recommendation systems and the content itself distributed by internet platforms, this is very difficult,” she said, complaining about the uncensored X platform.
Various politicians reacted quickly on X.
PiS MP Radosław Fogiel expressed concern, noting that “in Polish elections ONLY the voice of Polish citizens counts. They will certainly not be decided by the Vice-President of the European Commission, who does not even have a democratic mandate, because no one voted for her. But such announcements, along with the desire to limit freedom of speech, are disturbing. The EU is heading in a very dangerous direction.”
“The European Union is simply preparing for either the Romanian scenario in Poland or the introduction of political censorship,” said political scientist and publicist Prof. Adam Wielomski.
Following the cancellation of presidential elections in Romania after Călin Georgescu appeared poised to win, there are grave concerns about democratic backsliding in Europe. Georgescu has since been arrested in dramatic fashion and charged with a variety of crimes, including “misinformation.” After the events in Romania, former EU commissioner Therry Breton claimed they could annul the elections in Germany just as they did in Romania.
Author Rafał Ziemkiewicz wrote: “What the f**k? Will the Germans and the Eurocrats hold a ’roundtable’ to determine who will win the elections in Poland?”
“This is starting to look more and more serious. The European Commission openly announces interference in the Polish presidential elections!” posted PiS MP Paweł Jabłoński.
“Can you believe that she will hold a roundtable with Tusk on the presidential elections in Poland?” asked MP Michał Dworczyk.
Kremlin reacts to Macron’s ‘war’ speech
RT | March 6, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech focusing on Russia earlier this week was “highly confrontational,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday, arguing that it signals an intent to further escalate tensions.
In his address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron labeled Russia “a threat” to the EU and called for a significant increase in defense spending to counter the perceived danger posed by Moscow. He also said that France would be prepared to deploy troops to Ukraine should a truce be reached in the conflict.
Commenting on the remarks during a regular press briefing, Peskov stressed that it hardly conveyed a message of peace: “France apparently is contemplating war, a continuation of war.” This stance naturally elicits a negative reaction in Moscow, he suggested.
Macron’s address adhered to the conventional Western narrative portraying Russia as the unprovoked aggressor in the Ukraine conflict and claimed that Moscow has ambitions of conquest in Ukraine and beyond. However, according to Peskov, the French leader selectively ignored crucial events and circumstances that contributed to the current Ukraine crisis.
Among these, he pointed to NATO military infrastructure “encroaching, or rather making seven-mile strides” towards Russia’s borders, creating significant security concerns for Moscow. Peskov stated that Russia had no choice but to respond to this growing threat.
He also refuted Macron’s claims that Russia violated the Minsk Agreements, citing former French President Francois Hollande’s acknowledgment that the West never genuinely intended for them to succeed.
In 2015, Hollande and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel co-mediated a roadmap purportedly aimed at peacefully reintegrating the then-breakaway regions in Donbass back into Ukraine. Following the 2022 escalation, both politicians admitted that the purpose of the accord from the West’s perspective had merely been to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO support.
Peskov also remarked that in 2014 France and other European nations “deceived” then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich by endorsing his power-sharing agreement with Western-backed militants, who violated the deal within hours and forcibly removed the democratically elected leader, all without any protest from Paris.
The EU is currently promoting a substantial military buildup that would cost some $840 billion and be funded through debt. Brussels asserts that European security risks have been intensified by the shift in Washington’s policy under President Donald Trump, who is seeking a resolution to the Ukraine conflict while urging Europe to assume responsibility for future security guarantees for Kiev. Peskov observed that while this does not make the US a friend of Russia, it at least opens avenues for normalizing bilateral relations.
Zelensky changed his tune after Trump stopped (some) of the military aid to Kiev
By Ahmed Adel | March 6, 2025
Although US President Donald Trump announced the halt of military assistance to Ukraine, he cannot stop all the programs. Nonetheless, the threat of no longer receiving US military assistance was enough for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to change his tune toward his American counterpart after their spat on February 28 by expressing “regret” and announcing his support for a peace process.
Aid to Ukraine is provided through a specific program for the supply of foreign military equipment, which is included in the US budget for the current fiscal year and continues. Other assistance is also provided through a special program for Ukraine.
Before leaving the post of US President, Joe Biden signed an order for the Pentagon to deliver surplus ammunition and equipment. Trump could stop this program, but he cannot stop the funds that are financed from the budget because Congress approved it.
Therefore, as in many other things, what is said aloud does not necessarily correlate with reality. In fact, Ukraine has enough weapons and ammunition for at least six months, meaning that combat operations are not decreasing. Real consequences for Ukraine may arise when the Americans stop providing them with intelligence and help in guiding missiles and other weapons at Russian forces.
Three days after the bitter clash between Trump and an ungrateful Zelensky in the White House, the US president ordered a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until the Kiev regime shows a “commitment to peace,” adding that the sending of all the military assistance that is not yet in Ukraine will be suspended, including weapons in transit on planes or ships, or located in warehouses in Poland.
Trump again sharply criticized Zelensky for his statement that an agreement to end the war with Russia is “still very, very far away.” On his Truth Social media network, Trump described it as “the worst statement that could have been made” and that “America will not put up with it for much longer,” in a threat that sounded as if regime change in Kiev was being considered.
“It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing,” Trump added.
US Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking about security guarantees for Kiev, said on March 3 that the best option is to give Americans an economic perspective for the future of Ukraine because it “is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”
The offer Trump made to establish peace in Ukraine included various forms of pressure on those involved. For some, it was a ‘stick,’ like stopping arms deliveries to Ukraine, and for others, it was a ‘carrot,’ like promising Russia that some sanctions would be eased.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in principle, said that talks are welcomed but that military operations will not end until peace talks come to fruition. Therefore, the possibility that peace negotiations could begin in the near future cannot be ruled out.
The US president mentioned an April 20th deadline and that his meeting with Putin would take place by then, too. However, that is a whole month and a half away, and much can happen between now and then.
It is estimated that the loss of American aid will increase the losses of the Ukrainian armed forces on the front. Ukrainian military experts say that the front can hold out for only another month or two without American military support.
For this reason, Zelensky said on March 4: “Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way.”
He also claimed that Kiev wants to end the war and is “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” stressing that “my team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts. We are ready to work fast to end the war.”
What Trump’s decision to halt military aid shows is that the Biden administration always had the ability to force Zelensky to the negotiating table but refused to do so in the false belief that Ukraine would bleed Russia whilst Western sanctions would collapse the Russian economy.
As has been proven, it is Ukraine that has been bled and its economy collapsed, while now with the threat of military aid halting, Zelensky is seemingly being forced to begin negotiations with Moscow.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Can India Become a Global Powerhouse?
MK Bhadrakumar, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 6, 2025
We had the pleasure of speaking with Ambassador Bhadrakumar about India’s status as a great power. As the world has become multipolar, India will undoubtedly be an important centre of power. Yet, Ambassador Bhadrakumar is sceptical about India’s ability to assert itself on the international stage in terms of both capabilities and intentions. While India has been a source for peace as a non-aligned power that mitigated bloc politics, its neutral position often results in the inability to take a clear position on critical issues.
USAID and the Venezuelan opposition: Corruption and intervention in the name of ‘humanitarian aid’
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2025
In recent years, Venezuela has been the stage for an intense political battle, marked by polarization and foreign intervention. In this context, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has played a controversial role, repeatedly accused of diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid and being involved in corruption schemes that include prominent figures from the Venezuelan opposition. Recently, following controversies surrounding the American agency, these accusations have taken on new dimensions, with allegations that opposition leaders misappropriated 116 million dollars provided by USAID, exposing a scandal that calls into question not only the integrity of the opposition but also the true intentions behind international “aid.”
During the period of the self-proclaimed “interim government” of Juan Guaidó, large sums of money were directed into Venezuela under the guise of humanitarian assistance. However, investigations revealed that these resources were diverted through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) linked to opposition politicians and their relatives, many of whom live abroad without any real connection to the country. Leaked documents from the U.S. embassy in Venezuela indicate that Carlos Vecchio, an opposition figure wanted by Venezuelan authorities, allegedly received 116 million dollars from USAID. Additionally, the FBI is investigating Juan Guaidó himself for corruption and embezzlement, further raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the Venezuelan opposition.
This diversion of resources is not only a betrayal of the trust of Venezuelans who genuinely need help but also raises serious questions about the transparency and accountability of the opposition. While millions of Venezuelans face social hardships (largely due to American economic coercion), opposition leaders appear more interested in enriching themselves at the expense of the population and foreign funds.
The situation becomes even more complex when considering the revelations made by Jordan Goudreau, a mercenary who orchestrated a failed armed incursion into Venezuela in May 2020. Goudreau claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, protected figures like Leopoldo López and Juan Guaidó, even while aware of their involvement in fraud schemes against USAID. These allegations suggest a deep complicity between the Venezuelan opposition and U.S. agencies, revealing that the Venezuelan crisis is not merely an internal conflict but rather a geopolitical game in which U.S. interests play a central role.
In light of these allegations, the Venezuelan government has launched investigations against opposition figures involved in corruption schemes. These actions are seen as an attempt to dismantle the networks that undermine the opposition’s credibility and expose the hypocrisy behind the “humanitarian aid” promoted by the U.S. However, USAID, which in theory should be an instrument of development and assistance, sees its reputation seriously compromised. The accusations of corruption and embezzlement not only tarnish its image but also make clear how the institution has become a tool of imperialist aggression in Latin America and other continents.
The truth is that USAID was never truly a development agency but rather a weapon of political intervention — which is why Donald Trump’s recent decision to dismantle it should be celebrated among Global South countries. Under the guise of “promoting democracy” and “helping the needy,” the agency has been used to destabilize governments considered adversaries of U.S. interests. In Venezuela, as in other Latin American countries, USAID acted as a soft power tool, conducting resources to groups and individuals aligned with U.S. geopolitical objectives.
This strategy, however, comes at a high cost. By financing and supporting opposition groups that are often corrupt and disconnected from the real needs of the population, USAID has contributed to political and social instability, exacerbating the problems it supposedly seeks to solve. In the case of Venezuela, the result has been the perpetuation of a crisis that benefits only a reactionary elite minority and their foreign allies, attempting to create dissent in the local political situation.
In an increasingly multipolar world, it is essential to question the role of agencies like USAID and their influence in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Venezuela is just one example of how “humanitarian aid” can be used as a geopolitical weapon, serving the interests of foreign powers at the expense of the local population. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition, far from representing popular interests, increasingly reveals itself as a corrupt group dependent on external support, incapable of offering real solutions to the country’s challenges.
The so-called “Venezuelan crisis” is, ultimately, a reflection of the complex power dynamics that define international politics, particularly concerning American interventionism in Latin America. And in this game, USAID and its local allies demonstrate that, for them, “the ends justify the means” — even if it means sacrificing the sovereignty and well-being of an entire nation.
‘Israel’ voiced position to US on direct talks with Hamas: Netanyahu
Al Mayadeen | March 5, 2025
The Israeli occupation has informed the United States of its opinion on holding direct negotiations with Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Wednesday without providing any further details on what said “opinion” was.
“Israel has expressed to the United States its position regarding direct talks with Hamas,” Netanyahu’s office said.
The United States has been holding separate talks with Hamas to secure the release of two American captives still held in Gaza, Reuters reported, citing sources.
Ceasefire talks fail to advance to second phase
On Saturday, a senior Palestinian Resistance official told Al Mayadeen that negotiations in Cairo have failed to pave the way for the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, blaming the Israeli regime for obstructing progress.
According to the official, the Israeli occupation is deliberately stalling to prolong the first phase of the agreement while gradually securing the release of its captives.
He accused the Israeli regime of violating the deal by delaying entry into second-phase negotiations and reaffirmed that the resistance would not release any captives without a comprehensive agreement.
“The Israeli side is attempting to use blackmail tactics, but we reject any deal that is not part of a full-package agreement,” the official stated.
The official also noted that mediators have been unsuccessful in persuading the Israeli regime to engage in the next phase of talks. He added that Israeli political leaders are pressuring negotiators to extend the first phase on the condition that Hamas releases additional captives.
German ministry dismisses lawyer for supporting Gaza, rejecting genocide
MEMO | March 4, 2025
https://twitter.com/Melaniebelizi/status/1895904365225058324
Zelensky’s New ‘Ceasefire’ Offer Shows He’s Back to His Old Jokes
Sputnik – 05.03.2025
Zelensky’s latest so-called ‘peace offer,’ which the ex-comedian claims could help end the conflict, has zero chance to succeed as it contains NO NEW proposals, a source in military and diplomatic circles has said.
A ‘Truce at Sea’
- Such a truce was actually implemented during the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) during 2022-2023.
- Whereas Russia honored all of its BSGI commitments, the other parties to the agreement did not fulfil their part of the deal.
- That ‘truce’ was in fact used by the West to ship weapons into Ukraine on vessels that were ostensibly meant to ferry Ukrainian grain to global markets.
- In November last year, a proposal similar to the BSGI was made by Ukraine to Russia via Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The offer was reviewed by Russia’s Ministry of Defense and Foreign Ministry, but ultimately rejected due to being one-sided, with Moscow expected to make concessions but receive nothing in return.
No Attacks on Energy Infrastructure
- Again, a similar offer was made to Russia before via Turkiye, former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu revealed last year.
- Russia studied that offer carefully. President Vladimir Putin even postponed plans to launch a campaign of massed precision strikes against energy facilities that supplied power to Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, both because of such offers and due to humanitarian concerns.
- Ukraine, however, proceeded to launch drone strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, achieving some of their goals. However, superior Russian strikes have now rendered inoperable about 70 percent of the energy infrastructure that provides power to the Ukrainian military and to Kiev’s arms industry.
Thus, it seems highly likely that Volodymyr Zelensky simply wants to use his old tricks to gain an advantage over Russia, and is not really interested in peace.
EU ‘rearmament’ plan has no funding – Euractiv
RT | March 5, 2025
The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.
Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.
The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”
Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
How Does Trump Resume Shipments of Arms to the Regime that Started the War?
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 5, 2025
Imagine if war had broken out between the United States and Soviet Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let’s assume that two American cities — New York and Washington, D.C., and two Russian cities —Moscow and St. Petersburg — were destroyed by nuclear missiles before a peace agreement was entered into.
Who would the U.S. mainstream press, the U.S. national-security establishment, and U.S. public officials today be saying started the war?
There is no doubt that the official narrative would be that it was Russia that started the war when it installed its nuclear missiles in Cuba and then refused to remove them. If Russia had not installed those missiles, their argument would be, the U.S. government would not have had to attack and invade Cuba in order to remove them.
But what if someone were to point out that Cuba had the legitimate authority under international law to invite the Russians to install nuclear missiles in Cuba? After all, even though Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States, it is a sovereign and independent country. As such, it had the authority to install whatever missiles it wanted in its own country.
Nonetheless, even conceding the legalities of the situation, the official U.S. narrative would have been that as a practical matter, Russia started the war by provoking it with its installation of nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from only 90 miles away and its refusal to remove them.
Undoubtedly, it is this type of reasoning that President Trump had in mind when he recently declared that Ukraine, under the presidency of Volodymyr Zelensky, started the Ukraine-Russia war.
But to be more exact, it was the U.S. national-security establishment, in complicity with Zelensky, that started the war by provoking Russia into invading Ukraine, just as it would have been Russia that started the war by provoking the United States into invading Cuba back in 1963.
Provoking war is what U.S. officials were doing when they were violating U.S. promises not to move the old Cold War dinosaur NATO eastward toward Russia after the end of the Cold War. Knowing full well that Russia was objecting to the violation of those U.S. promises, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA used NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact, which enabled U.S. and German tanks, missiles, armaments, and troops to get ever closer to Russia’s border.
It was President Biden and the U.S. national-security establishment, operating in complicity with Zelensky, that pulled the final trigger to start the war by suggesting that NATO intended to absorb Ukraine, which would enable U.S. and German missiles, tanks, troops, bases, and weapons to be placed on Russia’s border. They knew that Russia would react with an invasion, just as the U.S. would have invaded Cuba had Russia not removed its nuclear missiles from that nation.
What many Americans do not want to confront is the fact that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was precisely what the U.S. national-security establishment wanted, given that this would convert Russia into a renewed Cold War enemy, would avoid a critical examination of the 20-year-long U.S. war in Afghanistan, would “degrade” Russia by having hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed, injured, or maimed, and, it was hoped, would result in the removal of Russian president Vladimir Putin from power and his replacement with a pro-U.S. stooge.
The fact is that Zelensky was not forced to participate in this political game. He chose to do so. He chose to sacrifice his country and his countrymen in order to please U.S. officials by having Ukraine join NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur. If he had chosen differently and declared no intention of having Ukraine join NATO, there would have been no deadly and destructive Russian invasion of his country.
Trump obviously gets this. Even though the U.S. mainstream press and the national-security establishment continue to mindlessly repeat the same tiresome official narrative, their mindsets are quite irrelevant. What is relevant is Trump’s mindset, which clearly sees Zelensky, especially with his NATO machinations, as having started the war.
Today, there are many people, including Zelensky, who are exhorting Trump to cancel his suspension of U.S. arms to Ukraine. But how can Trump do that, given his conviction that Ukraine was the one that started the war? How could he possibly justify to himself helping a regime that started the war to kill soldiers in a regime that did not start the war?
Something is smelling really bad among the peace brokers of Ukraine
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2025
You don’t have to be a genius to work out that if you exclude Russia and just look at the three groups who are vying for war, or whining for peace, that no one is being very honest about their intentions. Previously, I tackled head on how Trump is not being very honest when he talks of peace as he has the means to enforce it at the drop of a hat, but chooses to drag his feet and hold out for deals. This is not simply Trump Basic who we all know well – where’s the deal? – but also Trump playing out a longer game with Russia, looking at where the sweet spot could be. Trump’s tour de force is always to create a crisis and then position himself to be the only person on the planet who is capable or willing to resolve it. His personality is always paramount to everything.
And so the stunt in the White House needs to be seen in the correct context. Zelensky was not honest in coming to the White House in the first place as it was believed that he was to meet Trump and JD Vance to sign a mineral deal which he agreed to and retracted from signing a number of times leading up to the visit. This became apparent when he met with Trump behind close doors and so the Plan B was to lower Zelensky into a trap and make him look ungrateful, arrogant and entirely impossible to work with. But what’s the real story behind Zelensky’s decision? Again, we see the puppet Zelensky having his strings pulled by others. Is it a coincidence that just days earlier British PM Keir Starmer arrives in the White House where, just a matter of hours earlier he announces in the British parliament that defence spending will be increased, in line with Trump’s demands for European members of NATO? Was it merely that Starmer needed to show some goodwill to Trump even to get the meeting, or was Starmer preparing for choppier waters to come, when Trump would finally hear the rumours? According to some reports, Zelensky has sold all the mineral rights already to the UK, so he was playing a game with Trump all along.
But there are more lies and games to come.
If we look at Zelensky’s European partners can we honestly say they are being honest with the public which elected them? While Macron announces a no-fly zone rule, Starmer tells his own people that Britain will send its own troops to Ukraine. Has the world gone mad, or are these leaders actually serious about their intentions? How many of UK soldiers, airmen and sailors could Starmer actually send out of a total of barely 150,000 in uniform? In reality, probably only a third at best. And presumably this move would be without the support of the U.S., who would keep out of it? If that isn’t the craziest batshit idea, there is more madness to follow. Zelensky, since arriving in the UK for the emergency meeting of mostly EU leaders who support him – including Erdogan of Turkey – has started saying some very odd things to the press, while he picks up these huge checks for military support. He keeps talking about getting a peace deal with Russia.
As Starmer prepares to send British troops to Ukraine, he continues to jail people for posting nasty messages in Facebook, in particular when they slur his own party members – an irony that only Joe Stalin would appreciate, as it’s straight from the dictators’ handbook. Starmer preaches about supporting a free and democratic Ukraine while persecuting anyone who doesn’t agree with his views or uses social media to complain about the state of Britain. In reality it’s one despot supporting another and it’s hard to see how many days this could last with body bags coming back to the UK while pensioners get plain clothed policeman come to their houses and threaten them with imprisonment – or even more cuts to the poor. Of course the body bags will be hidden by a tawdry deal struck between the government and the British press, just as so many ‘no-go zones’ were agreed beforehand. But citizen journalism will call them out as the families won’t stay quiet. Starmer and Macron seem to think that just as Churchill pulled a few stunts to draw the U.S. into the Second World War, that European soldiers on Ukrainian soil will override any agreement that the U.S. and Russia could pull off. The move by Starmer is so idiotic that it leaves many wondering whether he is being controlled by Mossad or the Obamas, comes from the same camp which so fabulously made so many poor predictions from the beginning – namely Russian sanctions.
There is only one conclusion to it, although it leaves Trump and Putin with two options, neither particularly edifying. One, to let the Europeans go ahead with their stunt and watch the collapse of NATO as a credible organization worthy of its funding; or two, to pull the rug out from under the feet of Zelensky and force presidential elections, where of course Trump will install his own puppet to replace the incumbent one. The huge mistake Starmer is making is that he is assuming British troops need not be sent to the front line, but can encircle Kiev to show political support for Zelensky. Yet, each day Russian troops will gain ground and move closer to the Ukrainian capital. For Trump to attempt regime change will be harder of course with a strong contingent of European soldiers on the ground as the State Department and all its dirty tricks doesn’t normally encounter such resistance. Is Zelensky’s ‘we want peace’ mantra a trick so that time can be bought to re-arm? Likely. Monty Python would have had a lot of fun with these clowns. Blessed are the peace brokers.
Featured Video
Did the 9/11 Hijackers Really Fly the Planes?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
Biden’s Closed Circle on Russia
An excerpt from ‘The Great Betrayal’
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Biden’s Closed Circle on Russia
- Lebanon Accuses Israel Of Violating The Chemical Weapons Convention By Spraying Toxic Herbicide Over Farmland
- Did the 9/11 Hijackers Really Fly the Planes?
- ‘Jewish lobby’ deceived Putin – Lukashenko
- The UK Joins the Pirates
- Israeli government plans to fund extremist occupier group in occupied West Bank with $1.89M: Report
- Press TV reporter wounded in Israeli drone strike on southern Lebanon
- Time for Trump to Tell Benjamin Netanyahu to Go Away!
- Israeli officials: ‘Security zones’ to remain in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza
- Israel Fails to Sabotage Islamabad Accord… At Least for Now
- If Americans Knew
- Jared Kushner’s Israel-linked island, and other dubious projects
- Why Are Crypto Billionaires and AIPAC Spending $8+ Million to Elect Adrian Boafo?
- Why the Mainstream Media Should Stop Using the ADL as Their Go-To Antisemitism Source
- Censorship and Thuggery Won’t Save Israel’s Reputation
- Israel Searches for a Red Sea Foothold in Somaliland
- They Weren’t Convicted of Terrorism, But These Palestine Activists Got Sentenced as Terrorists Anyway
- “Ceasefire” is not in Israel’s vocabulary – Daily Update
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- No Tricks Zone
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
Aletho News 