Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Matson Suspends Electric Vehicle Shipments Over Battery Fire Concerns

What’s Going on With Shipping? | July 27, 2025

In this episode, Sal Mercogliano — a maritime historian at Campbell University (@campbelledu) and former merchant mariner — and Patrick Dunham from StacheD Training discussed the decision of Matson to suspend the shipment of Electric Vehicles (EVs) on board their ships from the West Coast of the United States to Hawaii and Guam.

July 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | | Leave a comment

Tehran’s new war plan: Build an anti-NATO

Russian FM Sergey Lavrov attends a meeting with foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing, China. © Sputnik / Russian Foreign Ministry
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | July 27, 2025

What if the next global security pact wasn’t forged in Brussels or Washington – but in Beijing, with Iran at the table?

This is no longer a theoretical question. At the mid-July meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Council of Foreign Ministers in China, Iran made it clear: Tehran now views the SCO not just as a regional forum, but as a potential counterweight to NATO. In doing so, it signaled a profound strategic pivot – away from an outdated Western-dominated system and toward an emerging Eurasian order.

The summit highlighted the increasing resilience of multilateral Eurasian cooperation in the face of growing global turbulence. Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who also met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping – an encounter that underscored the strength of the Moscow-Beijing axis. On the sidelines, Lavrov held bilateral meetings with the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan, India, and notably, Iran. His talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi focused on diplomatic solutions to the nuclear issue and emphasized deepening strategic coordination.

The Iranian side used the platform with purpose. Araghchi expressed his appreciation for the SCO’s solidarity amid Israeli aggression and stressed that Iran views the organization not as symbolic, but as a practical mechanism for regional unity and global positioning.

A platform that works – despite the skeptics

India’s full participation also contradicted predictions in Western circles that geopolitical tensions would paralyze the SCO. Instead, New Delhi reaffirmed its commitment to the platform. The implication is clear: unlike NATO, where unity depends on compliance with a central authority, the SCO has proven flexible enough to accommodate diverse interests while building consensus.

For Russia, the SCO remains a cornerstone of its Eurasian strategy. Moscow serves as a balancing force – linking China with South and Central Asia, and now, with an assertive Iran. Russia’s approach is pragmatic, multi-vector, and geared toward creating a new geopolitical equilibrium.

Iran’s strategic breakout

The heart of the summit was Abbas Araghchi’s speech – an assertive and legally grounded critique of Israeli and American actions. He cited Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter, denounced attacks on Iran’s IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities, and invoked Resolution 487 of the UN Security Council. His message: Western aggression has no legal cover, and no amount of narrative control can change that.

But beyond condemnation, Araghchi delivered a concrete roadmap to strengthen the SCO as a vehicle for collective security and sovereignty:

  • A collective security body to respond to external aggression, sabotage, and terrorism

  • A permanent coordination mechanism for documenting and countering subversive acts

  • A Center for Sanctions Resistance, to shield member economies from unilateral Western measures

  • A Shanghai Security Forum for defense and intelligence coordination

  • Enhanced cultural and media cooperation to counter cognitive and information warfare

These are not rhetorical gestures – they are blueprints for institutional transformation. Iran is operationalizing a new security doctrine built on multipolarity, mutual defense, and resistance to hybrid threats.

SCO vs. NATO: Two models, two futures

While NATO is structured around a rigid hierarchy dominated by Washington, the SCO embodies a post-hegemonic vision: sovereignty, equality, and civilizational plurality. Its member states represent over 40% of the global population, possess vast industrial capacities, and share a collective desire to break the unipolar mold.

Tehran’s bet is clear: the SCO offers not just a geopolitical shelter, but a platform for advancing a new global logic – one rooted in strategic autonomy, not dependency.

The sophistication and clarity of Araghchi’s initiatives suggest that Tehran is preparing for the long game. Behind closed doors, the summit likely featured discussions – formal and informal – about deepening SCO institutionalism, perhaps even rethinking the organization’s mandate.

Araghchi made that vision explicit: “The SCO is gradually strengthening its position on the world stage… It must adopt a more active, independent, and structured role.” That’s diplomatic code for institutional realignment.

The West responds – predictably

The Western response was immediate. Within days of Iran’s proposals, the EU imposed new sanctions on eight individuals and one Iranian organization – citing vague claims of “serious human rights violations.” Israel, by contrast, faced no new penalties.

It is geopolitical signaling. Tehran’s push to turn the SCO into an action-oriented bloc is seen in Brussels and Washington as a direct threat to the current order. The more coherent and proactive the SCO becomes, the harsher the pressure will grow.

But that pressure proves Iran’s point. The rules-based order is no longer rules-based – it is power-based. For countries like Iran, the only path to sovereignty is through multilateral defiance and integration on their own terms.

The stakes ahead

Iran is not improvising. It is positioning itself as a co-architect of a post-Western security order. Its vision for the SCO goes beyond survival – it is about shaping an international system where no single bloc can dominate through sanctions, information warfare, or coercive diplomacy.

This strategy has implications far beyond Tehran. If the SCO embraces Iran’s proposals and begins to institutionalize them, we could be witnessing the early formation of the 21st-century’s first true alternative to NATO.

The West may dismiss this as fantasy – but in Eurasia, the future is already being drafted. And this time, it’s not happening in English.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s addiction to sanctions is terminal

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

It has been said there are two kinds of European countries: small countries and those that have not yet realized they are small. As of mid-2025, it appears most of the continent has yet to reach this realization.

More than three years into the grinding attritional war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union, having finally secured President Trump’s support for its maximum pressure campaign against Moscow, announced its most severe round of sanctions to date. In this 18th round, the EU expanded its blacklist of Russia’s so-called ‘shadow-fleet,’ used to export energy, to 444 vessels, denying operators access to European ports as well as insurance services. EU-member states were also prohibited from any dealings with a further 22 Russian banks, bringing the total to 44, to strangle Moscow’s financial channels to the outside world.

Alongside expanded export bans on ‘dual-use’ technologies, Brussels sanctioned entities in China, Türkiye, and 11 other countries for assisting Russia to circumvent sanctions and further lowered the price-cap on Urals crude oil, aiming to choke off the entry of Russian energy, in any form, from entering the bloc.

Besides the impressive hubris involved in declaring that Europe, as an importing region, will dictate the price it and other customers will pay for Russian energy, last weeks’ measures serve only to make permanent the long-term damage to its own economic viability, while Russia simply pivots to other buyers.

Parallel to the drafting of the latest sanctions salvo, the EU’s two largest members, Germany and France, alongside the UK, also pursued a maximum hostility campaign against another crucial energy exporter. Rather than condemning the 12-day war launched against Iran by “Israel”, European leaders, German Chancellor Merz in particular, chose to give the game away entirely, announcing their support for Israeli aggression because it was doing their “dirty work” (undermining the Islamic Republic) for them.

Upon the beginning of a ceasefire, the French and British foreign ministers, as if taunting Tehran after its nuclear facilities and scientists had been attacked, threatened to initiate the “snapback” mechanism of the defunct nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, if Tehran retaliated. The “snapback” mechanism would enable any of the signatory countries in the JCPOA to unilaterally trigger the reimposition of UN sanctions against Iran, which had been lifted under its terms post-2015. As the JCPOA itself will expire by October, the window for European states to trigger the snapback is closing.

Talks between Iran and the E3 were announced this week to take place in Istanbul over exactly this issue. Given Europe’s enthusiasm for compensating for its shrinking global clout with economic warfare, as well as pursuing American [Israeli] geopolitical goals ahead of its own, the likelihood of all three states foregoing the chance to “punish” Tehran for adhering to the agreement they signed on to seems a fading possibility.

If Europe ultimately follows through on its snapback threat, it will in a matter of months have destroyed any possible rapprochement with two states who could realistically have helped it out of its self-inflicted economic blood-loss. While no doubt damaging to both Moscow and Tehran, it will have solidified in the minds of both the necessity of forming economic routes and institutions outside the control of Western states.

The International North-South Economic Corridor, connecting Russia to the Indian Ocean via Iran, is the most prominent example of such cooperation. Since its effective launch in 2022 at the onset of operations in Ukraine, cargo traffic in energy, food, and other raw materials along the route has risen year-on-year, nearly hitting 27 million tons in 2024. As well as bilateral trade, the route’s growth has been fueled by intensified exchange between Russia and India. The latter is largely ignoring economic sanctions on Moscow, with two-way trade expected to approach $100 billion by 2030. The INSTC also crucially grants land-locked Central Asian states much-needed maritime access, magnifying regional buy-in.

The reimposing of UN-sanctions, along with the threat of secondary measures against third-party states could ironically create the kind of space for Chinese involvement with the region, leveraging INSTC’s points of interoperability with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Whatever course it takes, the leaders of Europe still seem not to have realized either the declining impact of their actions, nor the long-term negative consequences they will have for the continent. The last five centuries of economic history undoubtedly belonged to Europe, but Brussels’ seemingly terminal lack of vision writes it out of the coming chapter being authored in Asia.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to the PRC

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – July 26, 2025

The official visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the PRC, which took place from July 12 to 18 this year at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, became a notable event in the rapidly developing process of reshaping the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Formally, Albanese’s visit was considered a reciprocal event following the visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in June last year, during the latter’s regular tour of several countries in the region. However, the current visit of the Australian Prime Minister coincided with a period of rapid acceleration in the long-anticipated transformation of the global order and therefore deserves special attention.

Geopolitical uncertainty stimulates the continuation of the China-Australia dialogue

The very fact and nature of this visit serve as yet another testament to the increasing relevance of the “strategy of balancing,” which is being adopted by all more or less significant participants in the current phase of the “Great Game.” This is especially evident in its focal point, which is rapidly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. One of the most striking examples of this trend toward “balancing” has previously been noted in the policy of one of the leading Asian powers — Japan. To reiterate, this trend itself is a characteristic feature of the reshaping of the world order that began with the end of the Cold War, and it is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of various factors of uncertainty in global politics.

Lately, particularly significant among those factors are the ones triggered by the “tariff war,” launched on April 2 of this year by the 47th President of the United States. Although outwardly motivated by fairly understandable considerations of a “purely economic” nature, it has inevitably affected the sphere of political relations. And this includes countries with which Washington remains in military-political alliances that were once formalized through binding agreements.

Australia belongs to such countries. Along with New Zealand, it has been part of the trilateral ANZUS alliance (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) with the U.S. since 1951. Although the alliance had shown few signs of life after the end of the Cold War — primarily due to New Zealand’s de facto boycott — the sharp escalation of the international situation that began at the end of the last decade, as well as the coming to power of the conservative National Party in Wellington in early 2023, appear to be breathing new life into the pact. Australia also participates in “politically non-binding” configurations with the United States (Quad, AUKUS).

All these alliances and configurations are aimed, directly or indirectly, at Washington’s current primary geopolitical opponent — China — which, however, has been Australia’s main trading partner for over ten years. This fact constitutes a fundamentally important departure from the Cold War era and compels Canberra to maintain constructive relations with Beijing in order to ensure the prosperity of Australia’s export-oriented economy.

Let us note that in 2023, Australia exported various goods (mainly from the mining and agricultural sectors) to China worth an enormous $220 billion. At that time, the volume of accumulated Chinese investment in the Australian economy had reached almost $90 billion.

One would think Washington should appreciate the risks Canberra takes by joining overtly anti-Chinese actions in the South China Sea or in matters related to the increasing importance of controlling the Pacific Ocean’s waters. Yet the inclusion of Australia in the list of countries targeted by the “tariff war” waged by the current U.S. President does not suggest that such assessments are present in the thinking of U.S. leadership.

By contrast, the longstanding demand for Australia to “more clearly” demonstrate its stance on the Taiwan issue was once again voiced by the current architect of U.S. defense strategy, Elbridge Colby — and precisely on the eve of Albanese’s visit. In response, during the visit itself, the Australian government issued a reply along the following lines: guided by national interests, our troops will not be sent abroad based on hypotheses regarding the situation in specific regions.

Just a few years ago, Australia’s “older brothers” nearly forced the country into AUKUS, promising to build it a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. But now, the same Elbridge Colby is pondering the possibility of the U.S. pulling out of the project.

In short, Anthony Albanese, who resumed his post as Prime Minister of Australia following the most recent general elections, had ample reason to choose this visit as his first trip abroad — in order to “clarify the situation” in relations with a political adversary.

Some outcomes of the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to the PRC and the prospects for bilateral relations

The entire week-long visit of Albanese to the PRC can be divided into three components: “business,” “general political,” and “associated.” The first was held mainly in Shanghai with the participation of relevant ministers and business representatives; the second took place in Beijing; and the third, involving representatives of public organizations, was held in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province. Regular meetings were held on several bilateral platforms, including those at the level of prime ministers and ministry heads. The high-ranking Australian guest was received by the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

Following the events, several documents were adopted. Of particular note is the “Joint Statement” outlining the outcomes of the latest meeting between the prime ministers. This document includes ten equally important points, of which we will briefly highlight a few here.

Point 3 reaffirms the relevance of maintaining and further developing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, as well as the commitment to “wisely overcome” differences. In point 4, the Australian government reiterated its adherence to the “One China” principle — essentially reaffirming the aforementioned response to U.S. demands concerning the Taiwan issue. A message to the same effect is conveyed in point 6, which emphasizes the importance of a “fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment,” along with its chief regulator, the WTO. Point 8 refers to the intention to further develop this environment within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2015.

Finally, let us point out the potentially greatest challenge to the continued constructive relations between Australia and the PRC. This may turn out to be not so much the renewed U.S. focus on the 1951 alliance, but rather the development of the process of forming (still, it should be repeated, quasi-) allied relations between Australia and Japan. Even more so, since the current leadership of the Philippines is showing increasingly clear interest in joining this emerging regional alliance.

However, within the Philippines itself, resistance to anti-Chinese political trends is growing. In particular, in July of this year, a retired general questioned the usefulness of the well-known 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (in favor of the Philippines) regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea. According to this general, the only practical result of that decision is turning the country into a “second Ukraine.”

It seems that the word “Ukraine” is beginning to acquire a symbolic meaning and now plays a role in global politics similar to that of “Baba Yaga” in children’s fairy tales — stories that are better left unread before bedtime.

Australia would also do well to avoid a prospect defined in such terms. Today, Canberra has every reason to do so, and those reasons were only strengthened during the visit of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as discussed here.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

EU’s Russian diesel ban forcing prices up – industry boss

RT | July 25, 2025

The latest European Union sanctions banning imports of oil products made from Russian crude are driving up diesel prices worldwide, according to the head of TotalEnergies, Europe’s largest oil refiner.

The EU introduced its 18th package of Ukraine-related sanctions last week, barring imports of oil products derived from Russian crude, even if refined outside the bloc. It also lowered the price cap on Russian oil to $47.60 and sanctioned over 100 vessels in what Brussels claims is a “shadow fleet” transporting Russian oil and circumventing restrictions.

European diesel futures have spiked in recent weeks, at times hitting the equivalent of $110 a barrel, as traders turn to alternative suppliers following the EU ban, TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne said during the company’s Q2 earnings call on Thursday.

“We think stronger diesel prices will become a persistent feature on the global market,” Pouyanne stated, as quoted by Bloomberg. “Diesel now comes from the Middle East or US refineries further away, which raises costs.”

He added that banning fuels made from Russian crude at foreign refineries has further tightened supply. The EU also sanctioned India’s Vadinar refinery, part-owned by Russia’s Rosneft, which had been a major supplier of refined Russian crude to the EU.

“People have underestimated this news from the EU,” Pouyanne said. “There is something, for me, more structural there,” he warned.

The CEO noted that the pivot from Russian supplies has led refineries to rely on lighter crude, which yields less diesel. Many EU plants have replaced Russia’s Urals grade with lighter US barrels, complicating diesel output.

The latest ban builds on earlier 2022-2023 sanctions that restricted direct imports of Russian crude and fuels. Economists have warned the move could backfire, as the bloc remains structurally short of diesel and heavily reliant on Russia, one of its top external suppliers. Diesel powers large parts of the EU economy, with over a third previously sourced from Russia.

Russia has called the sanctions illegal, branding them a “double-edged sword” and warning that each new round worsens the impact on countries endorsing them.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Trump’s weapons plan for Ukraine bound to fail

By Ahmed Adel | July 24, 2025

The idea of resuming the supply of weapons to Ukraine began with applause in the West, but was followed by shock as it turned out that many countries in Europe are not ready for various reasons, either because they themselves do not have the weapons or they openly admit that they do not have the money for such an adventure.

United States President Donald Trump recently said that the Europeans will take on the burden of sending weapons to Kiev by purchasing them from the US, and as a start, they will send the Patriot missile defense systems.

The problem is that there are neither as many Patriot systems nor as many cruise missiles as Ukraine would need to change the catastrophic situation on the front. Some Europeans have caught on to this issue, but in general, most are unwilling to go to Ukraine militarily, to wage war and fight against the Russians, but they are all ready to verbally support it.

Patriot systems are not a miracle weapon that will mark a turning point in the war. Although some analysts have claimed that the Patriot is capable of shooting down some Russian missiles, the system is not capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile traveling at 12,000 kilometers per hour.

Even the US itself does not have enough Patriot missiles after transferring a significant number to Israel. As a result, the total stock of these missiles in the US is 25% depleted, which is why Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has decided, on his own initiative, to halt deliveries of these missiles to Kiev. Moreover, it takes between one and two months to produce one missile.

An additional factor is the price: it is a huge and expensive scale of construction that costs nearly $2 billion, and each rocket costs an average of $1.5 to $2 million.

Another problem is the training of personnel to operate the Patriot systems. Each battery has 92 crew members, and with 17 units, in addition to a reserve, Ukraine will face difficulties in finding so many personnel. Furthermore, training for one Patriot system according to NATO standards takes a year and a half without evaluation. It is also worth noting that in 2023, Kiev sent trained crews to the infantry, but many of them were subsequently lost.

At the same time, Radar stations are not mobile and are often targeted by drones, rendering them ineffective.

Finally, the American logistics system means that if a Patriot malfunction or maintenance cannot be performed in the field, it must be packed, transferred from Ukraine to Rzeszów, Poland, and then loaded onto cargo planes and sent to the US.

Previously, the F-16 fighter jets, as well as the Leopard and Abrams tanks, were also praised as “miracle weapons” in Ukraine. Now, no one mentions that Russia has better weapons that are doing their job on the front to deadly effect.

Europe’s financial situation is a weak point in the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, with many European countries refusing to participate in Trump’s project to purchase American weapons for Kiev. Italy openly admitted that it did not have the necessary funds.

The European Union is on a rather gloomy downward trajectory, following several blows, including the migrant wave, COVID-19, and the Ukrainian crisis, and is clearly starting to lag behind the BRICS and G20 countries, which have several comparative advantages over it.

Brussels lacks relevant resources. Russia has the largest resources among all the power centers, the US has somewhat fewer, and China has even fewer. European military power is dwarfed compared to that of the US, Russia, and China.

At the same time, Russia is a prominent member of intercontinental economic alliances, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. European goods are becoming more expensive and less competitive, yet they want to give more money for weapons to Ukraine.

Trump’s entire plan is a game in which, as a businessman, he tries to make the best possible deal for the US. He is aware of the limited scope of the American role in Ukraine, which will have an inglorious end. The billionaire is realistic and understands that no success can be achieved and that time is not on Ukraine’s side.

In general, things are not going well for the West because Europe is falling even faster, and Trump is facing several ambitious world powers that possess real spheres of influence. He wants to play a subtle game where there is no clear winner. But he does not want a repeat of Saigon or Afghanistan, where American collaborators were grabbing onto departing helicopters. Trump wants to avoid those humiliating scenes and make a deal, showing collegiality with the Russian president as much as possible.

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

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Romania Strong-Armed Into Buying $2.3 Billion Israeli Anti-Aircraft Systems

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 23, 2025

Having managed to derail populist, NATO-skeptical presidential candidates through a variety of extraordinary means, Romania — bowing to pressure from NATO and President Trump — announced it will spend $2.3 billion on Israeli anti-aircraft systems to fend off the supposed Russian menace.

The big-ticket, Israel-benefitting purchase comes even as Romania is poised to impose dramatic austerity measures to address its deteriorating financial condition. Romania’s 2025 deficit will be the largest in the country’s history. At roughly 9% of GDP, its deficit is also the EU’s highest by that measure. The alarming numbers have triggered reprimands from the European Commission, which asked Romania to bring its deficit down to 2.8% of GDP by 2030. At last month’s NATO summit, the organization’s members bent to Trump’s long-running demands, agreeing to more than double their targeted military spending — from 2% of GDP to 5% — by 2035.

Working hard to rationalize the outlay, Reuters’ report on the Israeli deal notes that Romania “has had Russian drone fragments fall in its territory repeatedly over the past two years.” The Times of Israel bolstered the narrative with a headline claiming “Romania [is] on edge over Russia.”

Last year, Romania seemed poised to elect the deeply NATO-skeptical populist Calin Georgescu, who won the first round of Romania’s two-round presidential election. Citing supposed Russian interference, the country’s Constitutional Court threw out the election and ordered it to be started anew. In a May triumph for the EU establishment, centrist Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan prevailed.

Romania’s pending redistribution of $2.3 billion of its wealth to Israel’s booming arms industry comes as the government is  poised to unleash drastic austerity measures that are certain to stoke resentments. Potential moves include firing 20% of the country’s civil service workers, increasing value-added taxes, and increasing taxes on profits and dividends from 10% to 16%. “This correction is so extensive, so far-reaching, that pain cannot be avoided,” former finance minister and current head of the Romanian Fiscal Council Daniel Daianu told Politico.

Meanwhile, Romania will shower $2.3 billion on an Israeli arms industry already enjoying record revenues. Hitting a new high for the fourth consecutive year, Israeli weapon sales totaled just under $14.8 billion in 2024. European customers accounted for 54% of exports, the Times of Israel reports.

Under the new arms agreement, Romania will buy short-range and very-short-range anti-aircraft systems from Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, with contracts encompassing training, logistical support and ammunition. The first two V/SHORAD systems will be delivered within three years of the contract’s signing, which is expected this fall. The Defense Post reports that Rafael submitted its SPYDER missile systems in the bidding competition. Rafael defeated South Korea’s LIG Nex1, European multinational MBDA and Germany’s Diehl Defence.

Too many conservative Americans clap like seals when Trump demands that European countries spend more money on “defense” — seemingly oblivious to the fact that higher defense spending by European governments is not geared to achieving lower defense spending by the US government. Indeed, in a matter of several weeks during his new term, Trump went from oratorically aspiring to partner with Russia and China to cut the three countries’ military budgets in half, to enthusiastically announcing his approval of a Pentagon request to lift spending to a record $1 trillion.

Fittingly, Trump did so in an Oval Office session with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side. Turning to the man who would soon drag Trump into a war on Iran launched on false claims about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said, “You’ll like to hear of this.”

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

Hungary and Serbia to build new oil pipeline in defiance of EU energy policy

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | July 22, 2025

Hungary announced plans to build a new crude oil pipeline linking it with Serbia, bypassing European Union restrictions on Russian energy and challenging Brussels’ energy strategy.

The project, unveiled on Monday by Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó, is being carried out in cooperation with Serbian and Russian partners and is expected to be operational by 2027.

“A series of wrong decisions made in Brussels has put Europe in a very difficult position on the international energy market,” Szijjártó said.

“Today, energy prices in Europe have increased several times more than in the rest of the world. This is not a miracle, as Brussels forcibly disconnects energy connections, bans the use of Russian energy carriers, and shuts down transport routes.”

The new pipeline is planned to carry 5 million tons of crude oil annually and will span 180 kilometers on the Hungarian side. According to the minister, the aim is to secure stable, affordable energy supplies and to resist what he described as harmful EU policies that have led to higher costs for households.

“This situation can be solved by attracting more energy sources and developing more transport routes,” Szijjártó said, calling the project a way to protect Hungary’s energy sovereignty.

Zoltán Kovács, the Secretary of State for International Communication and spokesman for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, reinforced the government’s position on social media, declaring: “Brussels wants to cut us off from Russian oil and gas, forcing Hungarian families to pay 2–4 times more. We won’t allow it.”

He added that Hungary is committed to “building new sources, not shutting them down,” and that the pipeline would safeguard the country’s decade-long policy of utility cost reductions.

The move sets up another confrontation between Budapest and Brussels, as Hungary continues to resist the EU’s sanctions on Russian energy and pursues bilateral infrastructure deals with countries outside the bloc’s common strategy.

Energy security in Central and Eastern Europe has been jeopardized by its reliance on pipelines running through Ukraine. On Jan 1., Kyiv halted the transit of gas from a major Russian pipeline, sparking criticism from both Hungary and Slovakia.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiations over the matter. However, Kyiv’s refusal to play ball led to Fico accusing Zelensky of “begging and blackmailing” European nations for financial aid while simultaneously cutting off gas supplies.

Slovakia has also sought alternative energy supplies this month, meeting with the Croatian government over the potential use of its LNG terminal on the island of Krk to offset the loss of Russian gas.

Slovak President Peter Pellegrini met with his Croatian counterpart, Zoran Milanovic, at the beginning of the month, and confirmed discussions with Croatian officials are underway.

“We are trying to find solutions to buy gas as cheaply as possible,” Slovak Economy Minister Denisa Saková stated, noting that Slovakia is now relying on a mix of Russian supplies and imports from other European partners, prioritizing price above all.

July 22, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

German opposition slams Ukraine aid

RT | July 21, 2025

Frustration is growing in Germany over increased aid to Ukraine while domestic spending lags, co-chair of opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alice Weidel has said.

Berlin has been one of Kiev’s largest military backers since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Earlier this year, the German Defense Ministry announced that it would provide €5 billion ($5.6 billion) to finance long-range weapons production in Ukraine.

In an interview with the broadcaster ARD on Sunday, Weidel criticized the allocation of funds to Kiev, citing unmet domestic needs. Asked about alternative uses for public funds, she pointed to a shelved proposal to abolish electricity taxes, which would have cost the state €5.4 billion – comparable to what Berlin is spending on weapons for Ukraine, she argued.

“And then our government, the Friedrich Merz government, gives Ukraine nine billion in German tax money and now wants to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine for five billion. Nobody understands that anymore,” Weidel said.

She was referencing a US-backed plan to funnel Patriot air defense systems to Kiev via NATO members, with Germany covering the costs. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth in Washington last week that the terms of the arrangement could be finalized “within days or weeks,” though the actual transfer of the missile systems to Ukraine might take months. Berlin has indicated its readiness to cover the cost of at least two Patriot batteries to Ukraine – estimated at approximately $1 billion each.

Since taking office in May, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pursued a hardline stance against Russia. Earlier this month, he declared that diplomatic options in the Ukraine conflict were “exhausted” and doubled down on his policy of providing weapons to Kiev. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Merz of choosing escalation by abandoning diplomacy.

Last week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that European nations are funding the “death” of Ukraine by paying for weapons sent to Kiev. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they do not change the overall course of the conflict and merely serve to prolong the bloodshed and risk further escalation.

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

E3 violated JCPOA, lost right to reinstate UN sanctions against Iran: Russian envoy

Press TV – July 21, 2025

A senior Russian diplomat says Britain, France, and Germany, known as the E3, have repeatedly violated the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, and thus forfeited their right to trigger the snapback mechanism that would re-impose all UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, made the remarks in an interview with Izvestia newspaper on Monday, days after the E3, in coordination with the US, threatened to initiate the 30-day snapback process if there is no progress on Iran’s nuclear talks by the end of August.

“As for the threats of Westerners to initiate a mechanism for restoring sanctions, it is quite rightly noted that this idea is illegitimate,” Ulyanov said.

“The Americans themselves withdrew from the JCPOA, renouncing the rights and obligations of a participant in the nuclear deal, and the United Kingdom, Germany and France are violators of both the JCPOA and UN Security Council resolution 2231. This means that they have also deprived themselves of the right to initiate a ‘snapback.’”

He was referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the official name of the Iran nuclear accord, which the US ditched in 2018 before returning the illegal sanctions that it had lifted against Iran and launching the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign.

Following the US withdrawal, the European signatories to the JCPOA failed to uphold their commitments and made no efforts to save the agreement.

Also in his remarks, the Russian envoy criticized the Europeans and Americans for using “the tactics of forceful pressure” against Tehran, saying such an approach has no chance of success.

“The habit of Europeans and Americans to set certain deadlines all the time is quite counterproductive,” he said, citing the negotiations aimed at restoring the JCPOA in 2021-2022 as an example.

In an X post on Sunday, Ulyanov emphasized that the E3 “has no legal or moral right” to activate the snapback procedure.

Earlier, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sent a letter to the UN chief, the Security Council president, and the top EU diplomat, saying the E3 have relinquished their role as “participants” in the JCPOA, rendering any attempt to trigger the snapback mechanism “null and void.”

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Azerbaijan Considering Hosting a Turkish Military Base?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – July 21, 2025

As Azerbaijan-Russia relations cool, discussions emerge in Baku about the potential deployment of a Turkish military base. Is this a random development — or is chance merely revealing an underlying pattern?

Between Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan chooses Turkey. At one point, when describing the political geography of modern Azerbaijan, Geidar Dzhemal — a Russian Islamic political and public figure, philosopher, and poet — characterized it as extremely vulnerable, considering its southern border with Iran and northern border with Russia. At the time, the Karabakh issue remained unresolved for Baku, and the goal of regaining full control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory was still pending. In other words, despite being technically at war with Armenia, Baku did not perceive it as an existential threat.

Dzhemal’s assessment reflected Azerbaijan’s geopolitical choice to align with NATO-member Turkey, and to build partnerships with the UK, Israel, and the US. These allies, carefully selected by Baku, have political and economic agendas that are at odds with those of Russia and Iran.

Despite historical ties with Iran and its shared Shia Islamic heritage, Azerbaijan opted in the 1990s for an alliance with Sunni-majority Turkey. Turkey became a key facilitator in the implementation of the so-called “contracts of the century” in the oil and gas sector, with Britain playing a leading role.

Recognizing the deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Iran, Baku forged a pragmatic partnership with Tel Aviv. Azerbaijani oil — making up 60% of Israel’s overall oil imports — in exchange for Israeli weaponry and military technologies laid the foundation for robust bilateral relations. Israel, for its part, assisted Azerbaijan in strengthening ties with the US and Europe, both directly and through lobbying by the Jewish diaspora.

In return, Azerbaijan did not hinder the activities of Israeli intelligence services on its territory, particularly when directed at Iran. Azerbaijan’s military success in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, with direct Israeli support (weapons deliveries, intelligence sharing, UAV operations), significantly expanded the operational scope of Israeli intelligence targeting Iran. The results of the twelve-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025 have once again raised questions about Israeli security structures potentially using Azerbaijani territory.

Today, Tehran is unlikely to escalate tensions with Baku. On one hand, both sides have only recently emerged from a serious diplomatic crisis (following the terrorist attack at Azerbaijan’s embassy in Iran, the withdrawal of Baku’s ambassador, and the later restoration of ties). On the other hand, Iran’s conflict with Israel remains unresolved and without a peace agreement.

Azerbaijan’s relationship with Russia in the post-Soviet era has fluctuated — swinging between partnership and hostility. Moscow initially adopted a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, trying to retain both Armenia and Azerbaijan within its sphere of influence, and took the lead in conflict resolution efforts. Indeed, both Karabakh wars ended under Russian mediation, but with radically different outcomes. From the 2000s onwards, Russia began pursuing a more pragmatic approach in the South Caucasus, shifting toward a strategic partnership with Baku. As a result, Azerbaijan secured access to $5 billion worth of modern Russian weapons, expanded its business presence in Russia, and acted as a mediator — particularly after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 by Turkish forces — in restoring and advancing Russian-Turkish ties.

Russia’s distant approach during the Second Karabakh War and the Azerbaijan-Armenia tensions of 2021–2023 allowed Baku to achieve military success and regain lost territories in Karabakh. Following its pragmatic logic, Azerbaijan did not join anti-Russian sanctions and, like Turkey, has maintained business ties with Russia, receiving considerable benefits from transit and re-export arrangements.

However, despite its strategic partnership with Russia, Turkey has not hastened to implement the Russian-proposed gas hub project in Eastern Thrace. Ankara continues to demand favorable financial terms (lower gas prices, deferred payments, joint trade) and also seeks Russian consent for its plans to access Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and tap into Turkmen gas.

Since autumn 2020, the “Turan Project” has begun to take more tangible shape. Ankara envisions the creation of an alternative alliance to the EAEU and the EU, involving Turkic states and Pakistan.

Iran opposes the Zangezur Corridor, Russia — due to Armenia’s position — cannot establish control over the project, and Azerbaijan may reconsider its support for the North–South International Transport Corridor, possibly obstructing Russia’s access through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. This scenario could trigger new diplomatic — or worse, military-political — crises in the South Caucasus.

Amid all this, Azerbaijan is placing its hopes on Turkish military bases. Following the latest escalation in Azerbaijan-Russia relations — sparked by Baku’s harsh reaction to the tragic downing of a civilian aircraft and the detention of Azerbaijani diaspora members in Yekaterinburg (with investigations still ongoing) — former presidential aide Eldar Namazov raised the prospect of hosting a major Turkish military base in Azerbaijan. He even suggested that part of the base could be leased to the Pakistani Air Force as a potential deterrent against alleged provocations from Russia and Iran.

Namazov is far from a fringe figure, and his statements are likely aligned with the presidential administration — at the very least, with the President’s foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev.

In fact, Turkey has long been involved in Azerbaijan’s defense and security — from the two Karabakh wars to military reforms and personnel training. Joint military drills are held regularly. After the Second Karabakh War, a Turkish-staffed monitoring center operated in Aghdam from November 2020 (Russian peacekeepers have since left the region, but no official information suggests Turkish forces have followed suit). Turkish military advisers remain active in Baku. The 2021 Shusha Declaration explicitly provides for mutual military assistance upon request. Iran is acutely aware that any attack on Azerbaijan would trigger Turkish intervention.

Should Azerbaijan decide to host a Turkish NATO base on its territory, it would usher in a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. This would compel Russia and Iran to take additional security measures, plunging the region into uncertainty. Baku, while not necessarily hoping for a repeat of its Karabakh victory, risks forfeiting significant advantages — namely, threats to transit routes vital to its economy, and potentially even the loss of its hard-won control over Karabakh.

In chess, logic demands the elimination of reckless moves that may lead to failure. In political chess, the stakes are even higher: a miscalculated diplomatic move can result not only in defeat, but in far more serious consequences  —  human, material, and strategic. Sadly, history has shown that wars often spell the downfall of some states, while paving the way for the birth of others. President Aliyev, a diplomat by training with years of presidential experience and a cool, calculated approach, is unlikely to let the Azerbaijan–Russia crisis escalate unchecked. Most likely, this period of tension will soon give way to renewed cooperation  —  perhaps even in the form of a formal declaration of alliance.

Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is bluster and bluff to hide proxy war defeat

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 18, 2025

What’s behind Trump’s angry ultimatum to Russia this week? The short answer: failure and frustration. Donald Trump promised American voters that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours upon his election in November 2024. Six months into his presidency, Trump has failed to deliver on his boastful promises.

This week, Trump flipped his pacemaker image by pledging billions of dollars worth of new American weaponry to Ukraine. He also issued a warning to Russia to call a ceasefire within 50 days or else face severe secondary tariffs on its oil and gas exports. The tariffs, quoted at 100 percent, will be applied to nations purchasing Russian exports, primarily Brazil, China, and India. The latter move indicates that the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is really part of a bigger geopolitical confrontation to maintain American global hegemony.

In any case, Moscow dismissed Trump’s ultimatum. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow would not comply with pressure and that Russia would not back down from its strategic goals in Ukraine to counter NATO’s historic aggression.

It is clear that Trump and his administration have failed to understand Russia’s strategic position and the root causes of the conflict.

Trump’s supposed diplomacy is seen to operate on a superficial basis more akin to showbiz, with no substance. He wants a peace deal with Russia to show off his vaunted skills as a business negotiator and to grab the limelight, headlines, and adulation.

Resolving a conflict like Ukraine requires deep historical understanding and genuine commitment to due diligence. Moscow has repeatedly stated the need to address the root causes of the conflict: the expansion of NATO on its borders, the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014, and the nature of the NATO-weaponized Neo-Nazi regime over the past decade.

Trump and his administration have failed to appreciate Russia’s viewpoint. Thus, expecting a peace deal based on nothing but rhetoric and vacuous claims about “ending the killing” is futile. It won’t happen.

This failure, based on unrealistic expectations, has led Trump to adopt an increasingly bitter attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. Ironically, Trump has accused Putin of duplicity and procrastination when, in reality, it is Trump who has shown no serious commitment to resolving the conflict.

Now, with chagrin and bruised ego, Trump has reacted with frustration over what are his own failings by issuing ultimatums to Russia. Trump’s 50-day deadline for a Russian response to his demands has a similarity to the 60-day deadline he threatened Iran with, after which he carried out a massive bombing attack on that country. Trump’s aggression towards Iran has turned out to be a fiasco and failure. Threatening Russia is even more useless.

This proclivity for threatening other nations has the hallmark of a Mafiosa megalomaniac. It is also causing Trump to lose support among his voter base, who believed he was going to end “endless wars.” It’s shambolic. Biden’s war is becoming Trump’s war because, at the end of the day, it is the U.S. imperial deep state that rules.

Trump’s mercurial switch from professing peace in Ukraine to ramping up the promise of weapons shows that his previous aspirations were always hollow and contingent on other interests.

It seems that the 47th American president did not want peace after all. What was driving his apparent desire to end the conflict in Ukraine – what he deprecated as “Biden’s war” – was simply to cut American financial costs.

What has appealed to Trump is that the proposed new supplies of American weapons to Ukraine will be paid for by Europe. Money and profit are all that matter to him. It is significant that when Trump announced the new arms racket scheme, he was sitting beside NATO chief Mark Rutte in the Oval Office. Rutte has a knack for wheedling, previously referring to Trump as “daddy” and this week absurdly praising the U.S. as the world’s policeman for securing peace. It seems that the NATO and transatlantic ruling establishment have found a way to manipulate Trump. Tell him that the Europeans will henceforth directly subsidize the U.S. military-industrial complex.

The trouble for Trump and the NATO establishment is that it is all an unworkable bluff. For a start, the U.S. arsenal of Patriot missiles and other munitions has been depleted and destroyed by Russia over the past three years in Ukraine. There are no “wonder weapons” that can alter the battlefield dominance of Russia.

Secondly, the European economies are broke and can hardly sustain the proposed purchase of U.S. weapons for Ukraine, even if such supplies were feasible, which they are not. At least four European states, including France, the Czech Republic, Italy, and Hungary, have said they will not engage in any scheme of buying American weapons for Ukraine.

Thirdly, Trump’s threat of secondary sanctions against Brazil, China, India, and others for doing business with Russia is a blatant assault on the BRICS and Global South that will only garner international contempt. Trump’s bullying is neither viable nor credible. His earlier trade war against China has already failed and shown that the United States is an impotent giant whose power is a thing of the past. Trump had to climb down from his hobby horse towards China.

So, threatening to hit China and others with 100 percent tariffs for doing business with Russia is like a former prizefighter shaking a feeble fist while sitting in a wheelchair. He is liable to incur more self-harm.

Lastly, Russia is decisively winning the NATO-led proxy war in Ukraine. The Kiev regime’s air defenses are non-existent at this stage. Therefore, Russia can and will press its strategic terms to end the conflict because it is the military victor.

Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is nothing but bluster and bluff. He once mocked Ukraine’s puppet president Zelensky, that he had no cards to play. Trump, for all his bravado, has only a couple of deuces himself.

In 50 days, Trump will have a serious amount of egg on his face when Russia’s defeat of the NATO proxy war becomes more evident.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »