Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Riyadh realigns: Tehran over Tel Aviv

The Cradle | July 8, 2025

The recent confrontation between Iran and Israel marked a decisive shift in regional power equations, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s direct and calibrated military response – executed through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – exposed the strategic vulnerabilities of Tel Aviv and forced Gulf capitals, chiefly Riyadh, to reassess long-standing assumptions about regional security.

The Saudi-led recalibration did not emerge in isolation. Years of cumulative political, military, and diplomatic failures under the umbrella of US-Israeli tutelage have pushed Persian Gulf states to seek more viable, non-confrontational security arrangements. What we are witnessing is the slow dismantling of obsolete alliances and the opening of pragmatic, interest-driven channels with Tehran.

Iran’s war strategy resets Gulf expectations

Tehran’s handling of the latest military clash – with its reliance on precision strikes, regional alliances, and calibrated escalation – demonstrated a new level of deterrence. Using its regional networks, missile bases, and sophisticated drones, Tehran managed the confrontation very carefully, avoiding being drawn into all-out war, but at the same time sending clear messages to the enemy about its ability to deter and expand engagement if necessary.

The message to the Gulf was clear: Iran is neither isolated nor vulnerable. It is capable of shaping outcomes across multiple fronts without falling into full-scale war.

Speaking to The Cradle, a well-informed Arab diplomat says:

“This war was a turning point in the Saudi thinking. Riyadh now understands Iran is a mature military power, immune to coercion. Traditional pressure no longer works. Saudi security now depends on direct engagement with Iran – not on Israel, and certainly not under the receding American security umbrella.”

At the heart of Saudi discontent lies Tel Aviv’s escalating aggression against the Palestinians and its outright dismissal of Arab peace initiatives, including the Riyadh-led 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence – particularly the aggressive expansion of settlements in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank – has alarmed the Saudis.

These provocations not only sabotage diplomatic efforts but strike at the kingdom’s pan-Islamic legitimacy, forcing a reassessment of Israel’s utility as a strategic partner. As the diplomatic source notes:

“This Israeli political stalemate pushes Saudi Arabia to reconsider its regional bets and view Iran as a regional power factor that cannot be ignored.”

Riyadh turns to Tehran: containment over confrontation

Behind closed doors, Saudi Arabia is advancing a strategy of “positive containment” with Iran. This marks a clear departure from the era of proxy wars and ideological hostility. Riyadh is no longer seeking confrontation – it is seeking coordination, particularly on issues of regional security and energy.

Diplomatic sources inform The Cradle that the reopening of embassies and stepped-up security coordination are not mere side effects of Chinese mediation. They reflect a deeper Saudi conviction: that normalization with Israel yields no meaningful security dividends, especially after Tel Aviv’s exposed vulnerabilities in the last war.

Riyadh’s new path also signals its growing appetite for regional solutions away from Washington – a position increasingly shared by other Persian Gulf states.

For its part, the Islamic Republic is moving swiftly to convert military leverage into political capital. Beyond showcasing its missile and drone capabilities, Iran is now actively courting Arab states of the Persian Gulf with proposals for economic cooperation, regional integration, and the construction of an indigenous security architecture.

Informed sources reveal to The Cradle that Iran is pursuing comprehensive engagement with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman. This includes economic partnerships and alignment on key regional files, from Yemen to Syria and Iraq.

Tehran’s position is consistent with its long-stated view: The Persian Gulf’s security must be decided by its littoral states and peoples – not by foreign agendas.

A new Gulf alliance is taking shape

This is no longer a Saudi story alone. The UAE is expanding economic cooperation with Tehran, while maintaining open security channels. Qatar sustains a solid diplomatic line with Iran, using its credibility to broker key regional talks. Oman remains the region’s trusted bridge and discreet mediator.

An Arab diplomat briefed on recent developments tells The Cradle :

“Upcoming Gulf–Iran meetings will address navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, energy coordination, and broader regional files. There is consensus building that understanding with Iran [will] open the door to a more stable phase in the Gulf.”

Amid these realignments, Israel finds itself regionally sidelined – its project to forge an anti-Iran axis has crumbled. The US-brokered Abraham Accords – once trumpeted as a strategic triumph – now elicit little more than polite disinterest across the Gulf, with even existing Arab signatories walking back their engagement.

Riyadh’s political elite now openly question the utility of normalization. As Tel Aviv continues its war on Gaza, Gulf populations grow more vocal and Saudi leaders more cautious.

The Saudi position is unspoken but unmistakable: Tel Aviv can no longer guarantee security, nor can it be viewed as the gatekeeper to regional stability any longer.

Pragmatism trumps ideology

This Saudi–Iranian thaw is not ideological – it is hard-nosed realpolitik. As another senior Arab diplomat tells The Cradle :

“Riyadh is discarding illusions. Dialogue with neighbors – not alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv – is now the route to safeguarding Saudi interests. This is now about facts, not old loyalties. Iran is now a fixed component of the Gulf’s security equation.”

The binary of “Gulf versus Iran” is fading. The last war accelerated a trend long in motion: the collapse of Pax Americana and the emergence of multipolar regionalism. The Gulf is charting a new course – one less beholden to US-Israeli diktats.

Today, Saudi Arabia sees Tehran not as a threat to be neutralized, but as a power to be engaged. Regional security frameworks are being built from within. Israel, meanwhile, despite its many pontifications about a Tel Aviv-led, Arab-aligned “Middle East,” is struggling to stay relevant.

If these dynamics hold, we are on the cusp of a historic transition – one that may finally allow the Persian Gulf to define its own security and sovereignty, on its own terms.

This is not an ideal future. But it is a strategic upgrade from decades of subservience. Saudi Arabia is turning toward Iran – not out of love, but out of logic.

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US must rebuild trust for diplomacy to resume, says Iran’s FM

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – July 8, 2025

Iran’s foreign minister has issued a call for the United States to revive diplomacy following a breakdown in indirect talks, warning that further engagement will only be possible if Washington demonstrates a genuine commitment to a fair resolution.

“Iran remains interested in diplomacy, but we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue,” Abbas Araghchi wrote in an article published by the Financial Times. “If there is a desire to resolve this amicably, the US should show genuine readiness for an equitable accord.”

The foreign minister referred to his five rounds of talks with US special envoy Steve Witkoff, saying that the two sides had made progress in those meetings.

According to Araghchi, discussions covered sensitive issues, including Iran’s uranium enrichment program and a potential end to US sanctions, with proposals from both sides and mediation by Oman.

The talks, he suggested, could have laid the foundation for an economic partnership potentially worth trillions, offering Iran development opportunities while addressing US President Donald Trump’s ambitions to revive struggling US industries.

But, Araghchi said, hopes for a breakthrough were shattered when Israel launched an unprovoked assault on Iran just 48 hours before a planned sixth round of talks in a move to derail diplomatic progress.

“Israel prefers conflict over resolution,” he wrote, arguing that the bombardment was not about stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons but about sabotaging dialogue.

Araghchi reaffirmed that Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and operates under UN monitoring.

He warned that while Iran seeks to prevent a wider regional war, its restraint should not be mistaken for weakness.

“We will defeat any future attack on our people,” he said, cautioning that Iran would reveal its true defensive capabilities if provoked again.

Araghchi placed the blame for the collapse of the talks on “an ostensible ally of America” and on Washington for its “fateful decision” to join in the strikes, thereby violating international law and the NPT framework.

While noting recent messages from US intermediaries suggesting a possible return to the table, Araghchi questioned whether Tehran could trust any future American overtures, citing the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and Iran’s experience of being attacked during active negotiations.

“Negotiations held under the shadow of war are inherently unstable, and dialogue pursued amid threats is never genuine,” he wrote.

Still, Araghchi stopped short of closing the door entirely.

Iran, he insisted, remains interested in diplomacy, but only if it is based on mutual respect and free from external sabotage.

The top diplomat warned that Washington’s continued alignment with Israel risks dragging the US into another costly and avoidable conflict in the region.

“The American people deserve to know that their country is being pushed towards a wholly avoidable and unwarranted war by a foreign regime that does not share their interests,” Araghchi wrote, in reference to Israeli influence in Washington.

He ended with a stark choice for the United States: “Will the US finally choose diplomacy? Or will it remain ensnared in someone else’s war?”

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Seeks to Plug Ukraine’s $19Bln Budget Gap in 2026

Sputnik – 08.07.2025

The European Union is urgently exploring options to cover Ukraine’s $19 billion budget deficit in 2026, including by using frozen Russian state assets, as US support for Kiev continues to decline and a ceasefire remains out of reach, the media reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

A senior European official involved in discussions with Kiev told the newspaper that many who anticipated a ceasefire agreement in 2025 had to reassess costs, acknowledging a financing “hole” despite efforts to minimize it.

The European Commission has been forced to adjust Ukraine-related spending 2025. A European diplomat told the newspaper that the EU intends to ensure that Kiev’s needs are covered before winter, especially given uncertainty over renewed US support for Kiev.

The commission is reviewing a G7 proposal to provide military aid to Ukraine via bilateral grants, recorded as “off-budget external transfer” but counted toward national defense spending targets.

Another option involves leveraging the existing $50-billion G7 loan scheme, funded by proceeds generated by frozen Russian assets. Additionally, countries are exploring reinvesting Russian assets into riskier categories to maximize returns.

After the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the European Union and G7 countries froze almost half of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves, totaling nearly 300 billion euros ($347 billion). More than 200 billion euros are in the EU, mainly in the accounts of Euroclear, a Brussels-based clearing house.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly condemned the freezing of Russia’s central bank money in Europe as theft. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow could respond by withholding assets held in Russia by Western countries.

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s oil production at records not seen since 1978: Report

Press TV – July 5, 2025

Iran has reached a record in oil production that has not been seen in the country since 1978, when Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, was still in power, according to a recent report.

The report published on Thursday by Bloomberg said that Iran had produced about 4.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude plus another 725,000 bpd of other liquids in 2024.

The report cited figures from the UK Energy Institute and its Statistical Review of World Energy, which was published last month.

It said that an oil production of nearly 5.1 million bpd has not been seen in Iran since the last year of Shah’s reign when the oil industry in the country was still receiving huge investment and technology from Western companies.

However, it admitted that Iran has achieved a remarkable feat by raising its oil output to record levels at a time of increased American pressure.

“Developing its vast condensate and natural-gas liquids riches without foreign help wasn’t easy,” said the report by Javier Blas as he insisted that domestic companies, including those run by Iran’s elite military force the IRGC, have contributed to the country’s efforts over the past decade to develop its energy sector.

Iran has reported consistent rises in its oil production and exports since 2021, just two years after US President Donald Trump enforced a harsh regime of sanctions on buyers of Iranian oil during his first term in office.

Estimates suggest Iran’s oil exports, which mostly go to private buyers in China, have well exceeded 2.4 million bpd in recent months.

Bloomberg’s report said Iran’s rising oil exports and the revenues it generate would be key to the country’s reconstruction efforts after a recent Israeli aggression.

It also reiterated that Israel’s 12-day aggression against Iran, which ended on June 24, had failed to affect Iran’s massive oil industry and its daily operations.

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ faces massive economic fallout from its war on Iran

Al Mayadeen | July 4, 2025

Israeli media sounded the alarm over $14 billion in losses, a surging defense budget, and tens of thousands of compensation claims, as economic strain deepens in the aftermath of the 12-day war on Iran.

According to a report by the Israeli daily Maariv, the war has inflicted severe financial damage on the Israeli economy, with the total impact estimated at over 52 billion shekels (approximately $14 billion USD). The report noted that the war has delivered a major blow to “Israel’s” total economic activity and threatens broader budgetary stability.

“It’s no longer just about rebuilding damaged buildings, it’s about rebuilding the economy,” Maariv reported, highlighting that daily life during the war was “nearly impossible” due to constant sirens, rocket fire, destroyed infrastructure, and casualties.

Even under optimistic recovery scenarios, the paper noted that half of the damage is unlikely to be recuperated, leaving a net loss of 26 billion shekels, or 1.3% of GDP, a substantial economic blow.

Defense budget grows into a ‘bottomless pit’

The financial strain is further compounded by the ballooning costs of the Israeli occupation’s defense spendingMaariv reports that the 2025 defense budget, recently approved by the Knesset, stands at 135 billion shekels, or 21.8% of the national budget. This includes 75.7 billion shekels in debt repayments to the National Insurance Institute.

The newspaper described both the security establishment and debt servicing as “a bottomless economic pit,” given the continued war-related expenditures.

Of the allocated defense budget, 67 billion shekels had already been spent within the first five months of 2025. Now, the Israeli military is reportedly requesting an additional 55–60 billion shekels to fund recent wartime expenses, further straining fiscal resources.

Infrastructure damage, compensation soar

In parallel to military spending, the Israeli entity faces rising compensation obligations. According to Maariv, more than 36,000 compensation claims have been filed with the Property Tax Authority and the Compensation Fund at the Tax Authority, with an estimated added cost of 5 billion shekels.

The claims include:

  • 3,392 for destroyed vehicles
  • 3,758 for household damage
  • 10,996 from evacuated settlers
  • Nearly 4,000 settlers were forced to relocate to their relatives’ residential units

Thousands more claims are still being submitted, the paper added, warning that the financial toll on “Israel” is rapidly escalating and may continue to rise sharply in the coming months.

This report follows earlier findings from Calcalist, which estimated the total cost of direct damage at over 5 billion shekels (approximately $1.3 billion), though thousands of cases remain under review or are yet to be formally filed.

Israeli censorship hindering assessment of damage from Iranian strikes

“Israel” has admitted to being struck by more than 50 missiles during its 12-day war on Iran, but the full scope of the damage may never be revealed due to strict press censorship.

Such media restrictions are long-standing in “Israel”, where any content, written or visual, considered potentially harmful to the vaguely defined notion of “national security” can be legally suppressed.

Recently, the Israeli entity has further tightened its grip on wartime reporting.

July 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

It must surely be time to end Russia sanctions and develop a new plan to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 2, 2025

Russia can endure the economic pain of war for longer than Europe. On this basis, more sanctions will only ever embolden Russia to keep fighting rather than making peace. Europe should incentivize peace through sanctions relief, although I see zero chance of that happening right now.

This terrible war in Ukraine must end sooner or later. It has claimed over one million people to death or injury, mostly since February 2022, but also, in fact, since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in February 2014.

Clearly, both Russia and Ukraine need to find incentives to end the fighting. One such incentive relates to sanctions. The whole basis of sanctions against Russia is that they will impose a cost on Russia for continuing to wage war in Ukraine.

When the 18th sanctions package was proposed on 10 June, Kaja Kallas announced that ‘we do all this because sanctions work, every sanction weakens Russia’s ability to fight.’ She also said, ‘Russia has lost tens of billions in oil revenues. Its economy is shrinking, and its GDP has dropped.’

And yet, these assertions do not appear to be true.

Firstly, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6% in 2024. That compares to 0.9% growth for the Eurozone and 1.1% for the United Kingdom.

On exports, in the first four months of 2025, Russia exported $39.5 billion more goods than it imported and maintained a healthy overall current account surplus of $21.9 billion. Since its default in 1998, Russia has become an exporting powerhouse and there hasn’t been a single year since that time in which it has not recorded a healthy surplus, including during the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID Pandemic.

There is no evidence that sanctions have had any real effect on Russia’s ability to generate large surpluses of trade each year. This boosts its tax revenues and provides the scope to increase spending without significant reliance on borrowing.

The overall value of Russian exports has fallen from their peak in 2012 when the oil price was consistently above $100 to the barrel. But the point is, Russia also now imports significantly less than it did then, largely out of a drive to import substitution which started in 2014, meaning that its overall balance is comparable.

It is for this reason that Russia’s international reserve position has improved by around $80 billion since the war started, to $680 billion today (which includes the currently frozen assets of around $300 billion).

No sanction imposed on Russia has shifted the fundamentals of Russia’s economic model and, I believe, no sanction ever will. And yet the Europeans have been sanctioning Russia for eleven years already without recognising this.

Yes, Russia has undoubtedly endured economic pain from sanctions. Prior to the Ukraine crisis, the European Union accounted for over 40% of all Russian trade and most of that business has been progressively lost over the past eleven years. That triggered huge shifts in the structure of Russia’s economy, arguably making it more dependant on domestic investment and pivoting its trade decisively away from Europe and towards Asia.

Sanctioning individuals and companies prompted huge changes in the beneficial ownership and board membership of the largest Russian firms. This triggered a bizarre whack-a-mole policy in Europe as it tried to sanction ever changing figures on Russian company structures.

Yet, Russia’s continued strength in trade allows it to keep pumping billions into the war economy each year at a time when Ukraine constantly teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, propped up only by European donations, as I have written many times before.

Europe will never be able to tip to scales so far in favour of Ukraine that it has the economic reserves to outslug Russia, whether the war continued for one year or ten. Only a fantasist would believe that though, unfortunately, there appears no shortage of those in Brussels.

Sanctions have become an end and policy makers are now so invested in sanctions, and so lacking in ideas, that they continue despite the obvious self-harm they are causing to the European project, not only economically, but also politically and culturally.

Politicians in Central Europe are growing increasingly concerned by this direction of policy, because of which a battle is brewing about whether the EU approves the eighteenth package of sanctions against Russia, first proposed on 10 June.

Slovakia and Hungary are currently blocking the package because it would threaten their energy security. At an EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister accused Brussels bureaucrats of hypocrisy, claiming that further energy sanctions would ‘cripple Hungary’s energy security’ and increase domestic energy prices by 2-3 fold. Hungary remains heavily reliant on Russian gas in particular for its domestic needs. And a complete ban would have huge consequences for consumers and Hungarian industries, at least in the short-medium term as the economy transitioned.

So, while EU Ministers extended all other EU sanctions against Russia for a year, the 18th sanctions package remains in limbo. German officials appear confident that an agreement can be reached this week, one assumes, by making concessions to Slovakia and Hungary on energy imports. In typical muddling through fashion, a backroom deal will be struck.

But the real question is shouldn’t the EU abandon sanctions altogether?

Sanctions can only succeed if the sanctioning party is willing to accept a level of economic pain comparable to that inflicted on the opponent, such that the opponent decides to back down or at least moderate the actions which prompted the sanctions.

That has never looked likely to happen with Russia. It’s not only that sanctions appear to have caused more pain to European economies than to Russia, most visibly through crippling energy prices. But that Russia has never looked like it would back down in the face of sanctions, and now pressure is growing within the EU for it to back down.

And, not only has Europe had to endure the direct economic cost to itself from the sanctions it has imposed, but also to absorb the additional cost of keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat during wartime. This pressure will only grow as the USA reduces its financial commitment to the war; on current levels, Ukraine needs at least $40 billion in European funding each year just to maintain the current tempo of a war that it is losing.

As we are currently witnessing in the UK with labour Members of Parliament rebelling against planned cuts to welfare benefits, this will have political consequences in Europe too, as anti-war parties gain more support.

Russia only has to maintain its economy from a significantly stronger baseline position. It won’t experience crippling high energy prices, given its self-sufficiency. Nor will it have to reach consensus with other countries on retaliatory measures taken against Europe.

On this basis, imposing more sanctions on Russia will only embolden President Putin to keep fighting. Rather than putting Ukraine is a position of greater strengthen, they are, in fact, putting Europe in a position of ongoing decay.

There may come a theoretical point in the future in which the massive fiscal investment Russia is making to sustain the war overheats its economy to such an extent that it starts to cause unbearable economic and political pressure. But that point does not appear to have been reached, nor does it appear close to being reached anytime soon.

And, amidst all the posturing, there is no real indication that Europe has Ukraine’s best interests really at heart. Ukraine is in most respects now a failed state. While Zelensky maintains the semblance of autocratic rule, he is in fact kept on life support by the continuance of the war. Ending the war would create a moment of both huge economic and democratic opportunity, for Ukraine, but also massive risk, as a disgruntled and defeated army demobilised to find the country bereft of quality jobs and good incomes.

If the Eurocrats in Brussels put all of their energies and resources into ending the war as soon as possible and helping Ukraine to emerge and rebuild in the best possible way, they might just about be able to stave of a much bigger catastrophe for that country. That would begin with setting out a plan to remove sanctions upon the agreement of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

Right now, though, I see zero chance of that happening.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Must Come to Agreement With Russia to Avoid New Arms Race – Orban

Sputnik – 30.06.2025

NATO will have to come to an agreement with Russia in order to avoid a new arms race, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Monday.

“Sooner or later, NATO… will have to negotiate with Russia on how much we will spend on military spending, because otherwise the sky will be the limit. So we need to avoid an arms race. We need to strengthen, but we must avoid an arms race. And it will not work out otherwise, except for us, the West, to come to an agreement with Russia,” Orban told the media.

There is a majority of states forming in NATO that believes that any conflict between the alliance and Russia will lead to a third world war and must be avoided, Orban added.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex

By Ron Paul | June 30, 2025

The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.

However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.

Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.

One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.

Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.

Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.

Increasing spending on militarism while cutting spending on programs that help low-income Americans is bad politics and bad policy. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, do not support overseas intervention.

The growing opposition to our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is easy to understand. The US has engaged in numerous military actions in many countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since the beginning of the 21st century. The American people pay for this militarism in several ways. One is the “inflation tax” imposed by the Federal Reserve in order to monetize the debt incurred by the US government for endless wars. President Trump has turned his back on his antiwar supporters by bombing Iran and by increasing military spending to over a trillion dollars.

The Republican insistence on increasing military spending is the main reason Congress cannot cut taxes without increasing the debt, making cuts in domestic welfare programs, or both. If the Republicans want to be the Make America Great Again party, they need to embrace a true America First foreign policy. This means no more regime change wars or US taxpayer supported “color revolutions.” Instead, America should return to the Founders’ vision of a country that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” and instead is “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

A return to a noninterventionist foreign policy is the only way we will be able to begin to pay down the national debt and restore a government that adheres to the constitutional limits on its powers and respects all the people’s rights all the time.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

NATO’s defense spending surge may cause its collapse: Lavrov

Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2025

NATO’s surge in defense spending will only damage the alliance and push it toward collapse, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned, calling for greater pragmatism in its approach, as he addressed reporters following the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers meeting.

“He can probably see – since he is such a wise sage – that the disastrous increase in spending of NATO countries will also lead to the collapse of this organization,” Lavrov said, responding to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s claim that Russia’s military build-up would lead to its downfall.

“Meanwhile, Russia – as President [Vladimir Putin] said the other day in Minsk after the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting – plans to reduce its military spending and be guided by common sense, rather than imaginary threats, as NATO member states do, including Sikorski,” Lavrov pointed out.

NATO approves defense spending hike to 5%

Following the NATO Summit held in The Hague on June 24-25, the alliance’s member states have agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, as outlined in the adopted communique, with plans to allocate at least 3.5% of GDP by 2035 based on NATO’s agreed definition of military spending.

An allocation of 1.5% of GDP will be dedicated to safeguarding critical infrastructure and networks, enhancing civil preparedness and resilience, fostering innovation, and bolstering the defense industrial base.

Eager to claim credit, Trump hailed the agreement by all 32 NATO member states to work toward spending five percent of GDP on defense, calling it “a great victory for everybody.”

During closed-door discussions, diplomats revealed that Trump stressed the importance of US leadership while pushing allies to direct their expanded defense budgets toward purchasing American-made weaponry.

With NATO leaders unanimously praising the agreement as “historic,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever observed that Europe’s “long break from history” had ended, emphasizing the continent’s urgent need to assume full responsibility for its defense amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Hungary blocks EU accession talks with Ukraine

RT | June 27, 2025

Hungary has vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the bloc’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev’s accession talks, according to a communique published on Thursday on the European Council’s website.

The statement, which urged the council to open membership negotiations with Ukraine, was “firmly supported by 26 heads of state” out of 27 EU members, the document read. As unanimous approval is required, talks cannot begin until Hungary reverses its stance. The communique noted that the council will revisit the issue at its next meeting in October.

While the document did not name Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed the veto in comments to reporters.

“We stopped Ukraine’s EU accession with the votes of Voks2025, and I needed it, because I was almost swept away by the public anger when I announced that Hungary would not agree to start negotiations with Ukraine,” Orban said, referencing the national referendum which concluded on June 20. More than 2 million Hungarians, or 95% of voters, rejected Ukraine’s EU bid, according to the prime minister.

“I had to remind [the council] that the most important criterion [for accession] is that there is in fact a country,” he said. “There must be a defined identity, borders, a population, a territory, and in the case of Ukraine, none of these apply.”

Ukraine made EU accession a national priority in 2019, formally applying in 2022 shortly after the escalation of its conflict with Russia. The EU granted Kiev candidate status later that year and set a 2030 target for membership.

While Brussels supports the move, critics argue that Ukraine’s institutions and economy are unprepared, and the cost would strain the bloc. Budapest opposes EU membership for Ukraine, warning it could escalate tensions with Russia and burden EU taxpayers with decades of military aid. Alongside Hungary, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Polish officials have raised concerns. A recent IBRiS poll shows only 35% of Poles support Ukraine’s EU bid, down from 85% in 2022.

Moscow strongly opposes Ukraine joining NATO, but had previously taken a neutral stance on its EU ambitions, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying in March that Ukraine has the “sovereign right” to join if the bloc remains focused on economics. However, with Brussels ramping up defense spending, Russian officials have recently grown critical. Peskov earlier this week called EU militarization “rabid,” while former President Dmitry Medvedev said the bloc has become “no less of a threat” to Russia than NATO.

“This is a politicized, globalist, and fiercely Russophobic organization,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “Thus, the so-called ‘Ukraine in the EU’ is a danger to our country.”

June 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

A Worrisome Pledge to Substantially Increase US ‘Defense’ Spending

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | June 26, 2025

Big news out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting this week is member governments agreeing to a declaration stating they each “commit to invest 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.”

“Defence” is used, largely outside America, as an alternative spelling of “defense.”

Most the focus in media coverage of this development is on the increased spending that will be required to meet this goal by nations other than the US that was the primary pusher of the move. But, it should also be noted that the US government will have to direct much more spending to “defense” to meet the goal as well.

A NATO chart of member governments’ spending levels as of 2024 puts the US at 3.4 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on this type of spending. That means meeting the goal would require that such spending gobble up roughly half again as much of GDP within the next ten years.

In April, I wrote about how it would be disastrous if the US government achieved this increased spending goal that was then being promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You can read that post here.

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

EU nation to veto new Russia sanctions – PM

RT | June 26, 2025

Slovakia will block the EU’s 18th sanctions package against Russia unless Brussels resolves its concerns over the planned phase-out of Russian energy, Prime Minister Robert Fico has announced. Although the energy measures are set to be presented as trade legislation – thus needing only a qualified majority for approval – Fico argues that they relate to sanctions and should be treated as such.

The issue stems from the European Commission’s RePowerEU plan, which aims to eliminate all Russian energy imports by 2028. The initiative is due to be discussed at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, alongside the new sanctions package, which mostly targets Russia’s energy and financial sectors. Fico has insisted the measures against Russian energy actually fall under the bloc’s sanctions regime and should be unanimously approved. Fico said Slovakia will request a postponement of the vote and, if denied, will vote against it.

“As for tomorrow’s vote, Slovakia will not vote on the 18th sanctions package,” he stated at a parliamentary committee meeting on Thursday. “We consider it to be one package that includes RePowerEU, and we believe that unless the fundamental issues are resolved, we cannot adopt any further sanctions.”

He warned that the regulation would endanger Slovakia’s energy security and cause price hikes. He also noted that Brussels has yet to provide answers on how it would compensate for rising gas prices or handle potential arbitration with Gazprom. Fico warned that if Slovakia breaks its long-term supply contract with the Russian energy giant, it could face up to €20 billion ($23 billion) in penalties.

“Let’s take this seriously. Slovakia has gone from being a country at the beginning of the pipe to a country at the end of the pipe…There may be shortages, prices will go up… RePowerEU is harmful,” he said, calling the initiative “ideological nonsense.”

Hungary has also voiced opposition to the plan. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said Budapest and Bratislava had jointly blocked the package when it was discussed at the foreign ministers’ meeting earlier this week, warning that the proposed phase-out would “destroy Hungary’s energy security” and sharply raise utility costs. He signaled that Hungary also planned to vote against the new sanctions package.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned sanctions as illegal and self-defeating, particularly those targeting energy, noting how energy prices in the EU surged after the initial measures against Russia were imposed in 2022. Commenting on the sanctions debates, Kremlin investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev praised Slovakia and Hungary on X for “doing what Brussels won’t: fighting to keep the EU globally competitive.”

June 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment