Kremlin releases Putin-Trump phone call summary (FULL STATEMENT)
RT | March 18, 2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump have held a phone conversation lasting over two hours, discussing a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
The Kremlin reported that the two leaders spoke about a suggested 30-day ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, and maritime security, with Putin responding positively to Trump’s proposals. Both leaders expressed interest in normalizing US-Russia relations, agreeing to continue discussions on global security, economic cooperation, and even cultural exchanges like NHL-KHL hockey matches.
The Kremlin has published a summary on the outcome of the call:
A phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place on March 18, 2025.
Reaffirming his commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, President Putin expressed readiness to work closely with American partners on a thorough and comprehensive settlement. He emphasized that any agreement must be sustainable and long-term, addressing the root causes of the crisis while considering Russia’s legitimate security interests.
Regarding President Trump’s initiative for a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side highlighted key concerns, including effective monitoring of the ceasefire across the entire front line, halting forced mobilization in Ukraine, and stopping the rearmament of its military. Russia also noted serious risks due to Kiev’s history of undermining previous agreements and drew attention to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian militants against civilians in the Kursk region.
It was emphasized that a crucial condition for preventing further escalation and working toward a political-diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
In response to Trump’s recent request to ensure the safety of Ukrainian troops encircled in Kursk Region, Putin confirmed that Russia is guided by humanitarian considerations. He assured his counterpart that Ukrainian soldiers who surrender will be granted safety and treated in accordance with Russian laws and international humanitarian norms.
During the conversation, Trump proposed a mutual agreement between both sides to refrain from striking energy infrastructure for 30 days. Putin welcomed the initiative and immediately instructed the Russian military to comply.
Putin also responded constructively to Trump’s proposal regarding maritime security in the Black Sea, and both leaders agreed to initiate negotiations to further refine the details of such an arrangement.
Putin informed Trump that on March 19, Russia and Ukraine would conduct a prisoner exchange involving 175 detainees from each side. Additionally, as a goodwill gesture, Russia will transfer 23 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers who are currently receiving medical treatment in Russian hospitals.
Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continuing efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict bilaterally, incorporating the proposals discussed. To facilitate this, Russian and American expert groups will be established.
Putin and Trump also discussed broader international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They agreed to coordinate efforts to stabilize crisis areas and enhance cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security, which, in turn, would improve the overall state of US-Russia relations. A positive example of such cooperation was their joint vote at the United Nations on a resolution regarding the Ukraine conflict.
Both leaders expressed mutual interest in normalizing bilateral relations, recognizing the shared responsibility of Russia and the United States in ensuring global security and stability. In this context, they explored various areas for potential cooperation, including discussions on mutually beneficial economic and energy partnerships.
Trump supported Putin’s idea of organizing hockey matches in the US and Russia between players from the NHL and KHL.
The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all discussed matters.
Trump, Putin agree on ‘energy and infrastructure ceasefire’ – White House
RT | March 18, 2025
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.
According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.
“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.
The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.
According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”
Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.
Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.
“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.
Xi Jinping snubs EU invitation to anniversary summit – FT
RT | March 17, 2025
Chinese President Xi Jinping has turned down an invitation to visit Brussels for a summit this year marking the 50th anniversary of his country’s relations with the EU, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
The Chinese leader’s reported snub comes at a time of growing tensions between Beijing and Brussels. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the EU believes is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. Adding to the tension was a wave of retaliatory tariffs placed by the EU on Chinese goods.
Beijing informed EU officials that Prime Minister Li Qiang would meet the presidents of the European Council and European Commission instead of Xi, the FT said, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The prime minister usually attends the summit when it takes place in Brussels, while the president hosts it in Beijing. However, this time the EU wanted Xi to attend given the significance of the meeting, which marks half a century of diplomatic relations, the sources told the outlet.
“Informal discussions are ongoing, both about setting the date for the EU-China summit this year and the level of representation,” an EU official told the FT, while the Chinese ministry was quoted as saying it did not have any information to provide on the matter.
Tensions between the EU and China intensified following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when the EU accused Beijing of supporting Moscow.
China has adhered to a policy of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the bloc and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.
The rift deepened last year after the EU imposed tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese electric vehicles, claiming that Chinese manufacturers benefit from unfair government subsidies. The decision sparked strong objections from Beijing, which retaliated by slapping tariffs of between 30.6% and 39% on the bloc’s brandy imports. The move hit major French cognac producers particularly hard, as they rely heavily on sales in the Chinese market.
China has also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the EU’s “protectionist” actions amount to “an abuse of trade remedies” and violate WTO rules.
‘Expel Soros agents’ — Hungary issues list of demands to EU
RT | March 15, 2025
Brussels should take decisive steps towards denying EU membership to Ukraine and ending the influence of foreign agents linked to billionaire George Soros on the bloc’s policies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated. He has called for the absolute national sovereignty of member states over domestic issues.
In a post on X on Saturday, Orban urged Brussels to “expel Soros agents” from the European Commission and “remove corrupt lobbyists” from the European Parliament.
The Hungarian prime minister has a long history of opposing foreign-funded organizations in his country, particularly those sponsored by Soros. Orban has repeatedly accused the Hungarian-American magnate of meddling in Hungary’s domestic affairs, undermining traditional family values, and promoting a globalist agenda.
Orban also called for “a Union, but without Ukraine,” having demanded “peace, freedom, and unity.”
Budapest has strongly opposed the rapid acceptance of Ukraine into the EU, citing the potential harm to the bloc’s economy. Kiev applied for membership shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022 and was granted candidate status within just three months.
The demands voiced by Orban were included in a broader list that contained calls for protecting Europe’s Christian heritage, banning “the unnatural re-education of children,” eliminating debt, and establishing equality before the law for all members of the bloc.
Orban emphasized that the Hungarian people expect Brussels to restore the competencies unlawfully taken from member states. He demanded “national sovereignty” and the right to “a strong veto for national governments.”
He also urged the EU authorities to stop obstructing the Hungarian National Guard from protecting the country’s borders. “Do not bring in migrants, and remove those who have arrived illegally,” he wrote.
Since the 2015 migrant crisis, Orban’s government has taken tough measures to curb the influx of migrants, including building border fences along Hungary’s southern borders with Serbia and Croatia and rejecting EU-mandated refugee quotas. These policies have triggered legal challenges, including a €200-million fine from the European Court of Justice last year for non-compliance with the bloc’s asylum rules.
Four years ago, Budapest updated child protection regulations to ban the promotion of LGBTQ topics in media, advertising, and educational materials accessible to minors. The move sparked outrage in Brussels, which launched legal action against Budapest, referred the case to the European Court of Justice, and froze billions in EU funds intended for Hungary over what it claimed were violations of fundamental human rights.
Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 15, 2025
Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.
In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.
It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.
In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.
One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.
This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.
Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.
The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.
During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.
In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.
However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.
It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.
What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.
Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.
All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.
From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.
German car-sharing service shuts down in Belgium over theft and misuse
The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities
Remix News | March 12, 2025
The EU elites kick and scream about countries like Hungary, but the very capital of the European Union is a crime-infested slum in many areas, featuring organized criminals and vast ghettoes. The German car-sharing service, Miles, has finally had enough, and is pulling operations in all of Belgium, citing Brussels as especially problematic.
“Despite a positive trend in figures in Belgium, operations have been increasingly affected by vandalism, misuse of vehicles and attempted theft, particularly in the Brussels region, over the past two years,” a company statement announced. “These external factors had a significant negative impact on the company’s financial results.”
The company has been in Brussels for three years, starting in October of 2022. It was already operating in German cities such as Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg, while in Belgium, Miles vehicles were also seen in Ghent and Antwerp.
In fact, just last year, the Miles general manager of Belgium, Raphaël Zacchello, described just how bad it was in Brussels. He urged the authorities to act, saying: “The rate of vandalism in Brussels is incomparable with what we see in all German cities, even in Berlin, which is a big metropolis.”
Of course, most of the publications writing about Miles shutting down are not naming the suspects, but most of them were “youths,” many who filmed themselves joy-riding in stolen Miles vehicles.
Some may think it is a stretch to claim this Miles car-sharing company leaving Belgium as anything more than an isolated incident involving one company complaining too much. However, there is reason to believe it speaks to the failures of not only diversity but also the fight against climate change.
Many of these car-sharing services are hailed as “green” solutions. The idea that you will “own nothing and be happy” is posited on the idea that not everyone will need to buy a car, for instance, but can instead rent one when needed and use that to get around, which will reduce consumption and help the environment.
Apparently, this model is not working in Belgium. A lot of it aligns with trends seen with other Green parties in Europe, which promote public transportation and then make public transportation extremely unsafe for people to use due to mass immigration. Foreigners, for example, commit 59 percent of all sexual violence on German public transport networks. Migrants have become so out of control on certain train lines that public unions are protesting and calling in sick out of stress. The German Green Party has been forced to propose “women-only” train cars in Berlin to deal with the soaring sexual violence.
It should also be noted that Belgium is one of the most diverse cities in Europe, with approximately half of its 1.1 million residents born outside the EU, most notably from Africa and Turkey. However, diversity is not proving a strength, and judging by where EU politicians live and work, they believe the same thing, as it is also one of the most segregated cities in Europe.
Miles is also far from the only vehicle-sharing service that has found operating in Belgium to be a minefield. In Brussels, nearly all GO Sharing electric scooters were stolen by “young” people who know how to circumvent security measures on the rental system. They even offered crash courses online to effectively steal the scooters, which were used for joyrides until all their batteries were empty in an incident that occurred in April of 2022.
The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities across Europe. Berlin, for instance, tries to promote itself as a green, progressive city, and many of the most powerful left-wing parties are focused on getting as many cars off the roads and as many bikes on the roads as possible. Yet, the city is continuously plagued with tens of thousands of bicycles being stolen every year. And only 4 percent of bike thefts are solved in the city every year.
The overwhelming amount of those arrested are foreigners, such as this Romanian gang operating in Berlin covered by Spiegel. In another report by Tagesspiegel, it found that “a total of 66 percent of the suspects (in organized crime) were of foreign nationality, the rest were German citizens.” As Berlin’s own data shows, nearly all clan criminals have German citizenship (71 percent), which skews the statistics. Many of these same networks are operating organized bicycle theft rings, but also cars, e-bikes, and scooters, on top of drug smuggling and other criminal operations.
Of course, car-sharing woes and bike thefts are insubstantial problems when compared to other issues plaguing Brussels, including ample issues with crime, drug mafias, a radical jihadist scene, and of course, its highly segregated neighborhoods. However, all of these issues are tied together to some degree. The fact also remains, Europeans should be able to ride a train, take a bus, or rent a car for car-sharing purposes without a problem. The end of Miles is just another canary in the coal mine.
If Germany’s €1 trillion debt deal falls through, expect tough times ahead for the incoming government
Remix News | March 12, 2025
Shortly after the election, the Christian Democrats (CDU) gleefully announced their plan for a debt bonanza, along with their new Social Democrat (SPD) partners. A total of €1 trillion would be spent on weapons and infrastructure, all Germany needed to do was suspend its “debt brake” to make it happen.
Now, the whole plan is coming under threat. The Greens have signaled they won’t back the black-red trillion-euro debt plan, at least not without some serious investment in climate infrastructure and funds for foreign nations. The CDU has signaled they want to accommodate the Greens’ requests, but even if that happens, there are other serious roadblocks ahead, including a vote in the Bundesrat, which is made up of the 16 state governments in Germany.
In addition, the March 23 deadline is rapidly approaching. After that date, the new Bundestag forms, the German parliament, and due to the new composition of parties, the votes will no longer be in place to overcome the required two-thirds majority to rewrite the German constitution.
The Greens are going to drive a hard bargain, as they hold all the cards. The liberal Free Democrats (FDP) have already signaled they will not vote for lifting the debt brake, and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and The Left Party have also ruled out such a move. That means the CDU and SPD only have the Greens or they have nothing.
In many ways, the Greens have little incentive to go along with the package. The CDU blocked lifting the debt brake while they were in power, which contributed to the collapse of the previous government. There is also no offer for the Greens to join the new government ruling coalition either.
In addition, the sister party of the CDU, the CSU, bashed the Greens relentlessly during the election. Now, the Greens are supposed to hand the CDU and SPD a nearly blank check to spend hundreds of billions on projects not especially close to the Greens’ policy goals.
Negotiations are ongoing, and it appears the Greens may accept a compromise, as long as the CDU throws them enough money. However, there will be voices in the party who remain resistant to such a deal, as it will give the CDU and SPD an enormous advantage politically.
The Bundesrat could also spell doom for the debt plans. In the east, the FDP, the Left Party, and the BSW have all shot down the plan, along with the Greens. Even in Bavaria, the CSU’s Markus Söder has not been able to convince his smaller coalition partner, the Free Voters, to back the plan.
If a state government cannot agree in the Bundesrat, then it is required by law to abstain from voting, which is counted as a “no” vote. So far, the CDU and the SPD have only secured the votes from four states, Hesse, Saarland, Saxony, and Berlin, where they also happen to govern. They also need a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat to ensure their plan goes through.
Green Party officials in the states are also skeptical.
“Without taking important corrections into account, we do not consider the law to be acceptable. Due to the urgency of the situation, negotiations need to be held quickly, taking into account the concerns and worries of the states,” read a joint statement by NRW Deputy Prime Minister Mona Neubaur, Baden-Württemberg Finance Minister Danyal Bayaz, and Björn Feckers, the Mayor and Senator for Finance in Bremen.
If the debt deal falls through, the CDU and SPD will be facing a potentially precarious situation. If they want to spend, they will have to cut. Then, things will get messy. Migration alone is costing between €50 billion and up to €75 billion a year depending on how it’s calculated, however, both parties have few solutions on how to bring down those costs. NGOs are raking in billions, but the SPD will fight tooth and nail to ensure the funds keep flowing. These battles could play out in all sorts of ways and eventually doom the new ruling government. That trillion in debt is supposed to be there to soothe over the differences, and without all the sugar rush a trillion euros brings, the honeymoon for the CDU and SPD may be over faster than anyone expects.
Ukraine admits attacking key oil pipeline to EU
RT | March 11, 2025
The Ukrainian General Staff has confirmed that one of the targets of Tuesday’s mass drone attacks was Russia’s Druzhba oil pipeline system, a key delivery route to EU countries, according to a statement on its official Telegram channel.
Druzhba is one of the world’s longest networks, transporting crude some 4,000km from Russia to refineries in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.
“Ukraine’s security services carried out the operation, reporting explosions near the linear production dispatching station ‘Stalnoi Kon’ (Steel Horse) in Russia’s Oryol region, which manages the pipeline’s operations,” the statement read.
Hungary, which relies on oil shipments through the system, has called the attack “unacceptable” and accused Ukraine of threatening its sovereignty. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced that crude shipments via the pipeline had been temporarily halted, but later resumed. Szijjarto criticized the European Commission, arguing that assurances it had offered regarding the safety of Hungary’s energy infrastructure had been repeatedly violated.
According to media reports, three Ukrainian fixed-wing drones struck the Druzhba terminal in Russia’s Bryansk Region. The attack was part of a wider assault involving more than 340 UAVs hitting civilian targets across Russian territory, killing at least 3 people and injuring over 20 and causing a fire at a Rosneft oil depot in Bryansk.
Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian energy infrastructure throughout the conflict, despite resulting supply disruptions for Kiev’s European allies.
In January, Ukrainian forces attempted to attack a compressor station of the TurkStream pipeline, which supplies natural gas to Turkish customers and several European countries, including Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece.
In March 2024, Ukrainian drones struck an oil refinery in the Krasnodar region, causing a fire and temporary shutdown. Similarly, in January of that year, a drone attack hit a fuel depot in St. Petersburg, reportedly damaging storage tanks.
The most notable attack on Russian energy infrastructure during the conflict was the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022. The explosions, which severely damaged Nord Stream 1 and 2—key conduits for Russian gas exports to EU—sparked international speculation about the perpetrators. While various theories have emerged, no definitive culprit has been identified.
Moscow has condemned attacks on its civilian energy infrastructure, labeling them acts of terrorism.
Europe faces a MAGA ‘vibe-shift’ as Trump moves to his primordial objective – The Global Reset
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 11, 2025
President Trump wants Ukraine settled, full stop. This is so that he can move ahead quickly – to normalise with Russia, and begin the ‘big picture’ project of setting a new World Order, one that will end wars and facilitate business ties.
The point here – which Europe feigns to not understand – is that the end to the Ukraine conflict simply is Trump’s ‘gateway’ to the entire rationale and platform on which he stood: The Great Reset of the Geo-Political landscape. Ukraine, simply said, is the obstacle to Trump’s pursuit of his primordial objective: The Global Reset.
Starmer, Macron and the eastern wing of the Euro-élites are blind to the sheer scale of the global vibe-shift towards traditionalist U.S. politics and ethics. They miss too, the barely concealed fury in the Trump world that exists behind this nascent revolution. “The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies”, Allister Heath writes.
The European Ruling Class is in desperate trouble and increasingly isolated, in a world shifting ‘Rightward’ at breakneck speed. “The U.S. is now the enemy of the West”, the FT proclaims. European leaders wantonly won’t understand.
The reality is that the U.S. is engaged now in rolling up Europe’s foreign policy. And, is about to start exporting U.S. traditional Republican values to roll up the European wokeist belief-system. The European Ruling strata – far removed from its base – has failed to grasp the threat to its own interests (a scenario outlined here).
The Trump administration is trying to rebuild the ailing Republic, and Americans in this new era do not care for the European obsession with ancient feuds and their entailing wars.
Trump reportedly views with utter disdain the UK and European boast that should the U.S. not do it, then Europe will. The Brussels class claims to be able still – after three years of losing in Ukraine – to be able to inflict a humiliating defeat on President Putin.
More profoundly, however, Team Trump – committed to the task of taking down the American Deep State as the ‘inexorable enemy’ – perceives (rightly) the British security state to be co-joined at the hip with their American counterparts, as a part of its global meta-structure. And its oldest and deepest component has always been the destruction of Russia, and its dismemberment.
So when Macron, in an address to the nation this week, rejected a ceasefire in Ukraine and declared that “peace in Europe is only possible with a weakened Russia”, calling the country a direct threat to France and the continent, many in ‘Trump world’ will interpret this defiant declaration (that ‘Ukraine defeating Russia is preferable to ‘peace’’) is nothing more than Macron and Starmer ventriloquising the aims of the Meta Deep State.
This notion is lent substance by the sudden plethora of articles appearing in the European-(managed) MSM to the effect that Russia’s economy is much weaker than it appears and might collapse in the next year. Of course it is nonsense. This is about managing the European public to believe that keeping the war going in Ukraine is a ‘good idea’.
The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured, as Wolfgang Münchau notes, in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia: “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said.
Zelensky and his European fans want ‘to negotiate’ – though later, rather than sooner (perhaps in a year, as one European Foreign Minister reportedly told Marco Rubio privately).
“This”, Münchau writes, “is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office [last week] was all about. Peace through untrammelled victory — essentially the Second World War model — as the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict”.
America sees things differently: It views almost certainly the European Deep State to be putting a spoke into Trump’s ‘normalisation with Russia’ wheel – a normalisation to which they are viscerally opposed. Or, at the very least, as the Europeans chasing a “mirage that no longer exists, stubbornly hiking ‘tax and spend’, whilst doubling down on mass immigration and overpriced energy, oblivious to the flashing red lights in the [financial markets] as government debt yields rocket to their highest levels since 1998”, as Allister Heath outlines.
In other words, the suggestion is that Friedrich Merz, Macron and Starmer are talking about how they are going to turn around their countries – via a massive infusion of debt – into defence superstates. Yet, at some level of consciousness, they must realise that it is not doable, so they settle instead for presenting themselves as ‘world leaders on the international stage’.
The European élites are deeply unstable ‘leaders’ who are risking the prosperity and stability of the continent. It is clear these countries do not have the military capacity to intervene in any concerted manner. More than anything, it is the European economy circling the drain that is the reality at the gates.
Zelensky is accomplice to the European insistence that defeating Russia takes priority over achieving peace in Ukraine, in spite of lacking any strategic rationale as to how it may be achieved after three years of a worsening military situation. Both plans – crushing the Russian economy with sanctions and attrition of the Russian military to the point of collapse – have failed. Why then does Zelensky resist Trump’s peace proposals? On the surface, it makes no sense.
The explanation likely goes back to the post-Maidan era when the western ‘Meta Security State’ (principally, the British and the Americans) entrenched hardline Banderites (then a tiny minority) into the Ukrainian Police, Intelligence and Security State. They are still today the controlling force. Even were this faction to acknowledge that their war cannot be won, they understand what happens if they lose:
Russia will not deal with them. They view them as extremists (if not war criminals) who are in no way ‘agreement capable’ and must be replaced by a leadership who is actually capable of compromise. Russia would likely pursue and bring these men to trial. Zelensky has to be frightened at what the Banderites might do to him (despite his British team of bodyguards).
Well, Trump is not entertaining these European ‘games’: He is administering a slap-down to Zelensky and European leaders, perhaps bringing Zelensky into line; or perhaps not … Team Trump, Politico reports, has now entered into direct talks with the Ukrainian opposition on holding early elections to unseat Zelensky – who is on his way to being removed, members of Team Trump say.
Zelensky may be finished, but interestingly Zaluzhniy wasn’t discussed either. He is being groomed by the British as a replacement – it looks like the Americans are going to make this decision independently of the British, too.
President Trump has ordered intelligence sharing with Ukraine stopped. What he technically did was to stop allowing Ukraine to use exclusive U.S. targeting systems controlled by U.S. Intelligence, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. What has been suspended is the exchange of so-called ‘lethal’ data, including information for HIMARS targeting. However, the defensive information needed for protection is still being provided to Ukraine.
“The extent of the intelligence-sharing freeze, which appears to have been imposed alongside the halt in military aid Mr Trump announced on Monday, initially appeared to be somewhat limited … But by Wednesday afternoon it became clear that the Trump administration, ignoring overtures from Mr Zelensky the previous evening, had gone much further. A military intelligence officer in Kyiv told The Telegraph that the freeze amounted to “more or less a total blackout””.
Put bluntly, the earlier munitions freeze will undoubtedly affect Ukraine’s military abilities over time, however the impact might not be felt for some weeks. The loss of vital intelligence, however, will make its mark immediately. It will – simply put – blind Ukraine. In Ukrainian command posts, the battle tracking and satellite online feeds on tablets and TV screens have indeed been disconnected.
What Trump’s slap-down has done is to puncture the fiction that Ukraine is able to defend itself with a little substitute of European support. That has always been nonsensical bravado. NATO, the CIA and the global Intelligence Community have been in control of the war fighting from the outset. And that, for now, has been switched off.
So, Europe wants to shoulder the U.S. burden? Bloomberg reports that European bond markets are in meltdown. If Europe pretends to replace the U.S., it is going to be extremely expensive, very politically costly, and it will fail.
Trump’s ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia, Iran
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 10, 2025
Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion.
Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market.
The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all?
In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation.
So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war.
At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy. If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space.
Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves.
It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle.
All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?
In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability.
As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically.
A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice.
The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation.
This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.
Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy.
The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran.
Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.
Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon.
“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”
Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.
If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.
Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,
Thousands protest in Paris against Macron’s defense policies
RT | March 9, 2025
Thousands of protesters marched through Paris on Saturday to oppose what they see as French President Emmanuel Macron’s militaristic approach to foreign policy and his lack of interest in achieving peace in the Ukraine conflict.
The demonstration was organized by Florian Philippot and his party, The Patriots. Chanting slogans and carrying signs such as “We don’t want to die for Ukraine,” and “Macron, we don’t want your war,” the crowd moved from the Place du Palais Royal to the Place Pierre Laroque.
Macron on Wednesday proposed expanding France’s nuclear deterrent to protect EU nations and urged European members of NATO to take more responsibility for their own defense. He cited uncertainty over Washington’s commitment to Ukraine, especially as relations between Kiev and US President Donald Trump’s administration experienced a setback after Vladimir Zelensky rejected calls to negotiate peace with Russia.
Macron has argued that continued aid to Ukraine was crucial, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin succeeded in Ukraine, he wouldn’t stop there – a claim that Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as nonsense. Russia has identified NATO’s expansion toward its borders and the US-led bloc’s promise of eventual membership for Ukraine as being among the key reasons for the conflict.
Many demonstrators at the Paris rally criticized Macron for prioritizing military matters over domestic issues. “When you declare war, it’s to erase all the other failures,” one protester said. Another accused Macron of pursuing conflict while leaders such as Trump and Putin are talking about peace.
Addressing the crowd, Philippot condemned Macron’s approach, declaring that the president “absolutely does not want peace.” Philippot, formerly a member of the National Front, has been a vocal critic of Macron’s administration and EU’s policies. His party opposes what it perceives as unnecessary military interventions and advocates for a more independent French foreign policy.
Macron’s push for increased defense spending faces hurdles as France grapples with a budget deficit and pressure to rein in spending. Approval of the 2025 budget has been delayed due to a divided parliament. In January, Budget Minister Amelie de Montchalin announced plans to cut €32 billion ($34.6 billion) in public spending while raising taxes by €21 billion.
Critics argue that these measures would burden middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees already struggling with rising costs. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has rejected calls for public consultation on major defense policies, insisting such decisions are the government’s responsibility. When asked on Friday whether the French people should have a say in increased military spending and a shift toward a “war economy,” Bayrou was firm: “The government’s responsibility is to say, no, we can’t let the country be disarmed. It’s vital.”
BP in crisis — The oil industry’s biggest loser on renewable energy
The iconic 120 year old company shares fall as rumors of a takeover spread
By Jo Nova | February 25, 2025
BP has lost a quarter of its share value in the last two weeks. The fall started when company profits turned out to be just $9 billion, down from $14b a year ago and $28b in 2022. As The Telegraph reports, “BP’s shareholders had realized that the green spending they supported in 2020 had halved their dividends.” But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon — the other oil giants — they were all doing much better.
Twenty years ago BP changed its branding to “Beyond Petroleum”. By 2020 the company was hellbent on getting there. Suicidally, the oil company pledged to reduce their own oil production by 40% by 2030, (which did nothing except help all their competitors) and promised to pivot into renewable power. BP set itself a target to increase renewables generation by a factor of twenty this decade. The media gushed — “BP Shuns Fossil Fuels“, said Politico. BP supposedly shone a light on “stranded oil and gas”!
Thus and verily, in mid 2020, with exquisite timing, BP management leapt headlong in the magical energy pit. They were sure that after the pandemic the world would ‘build back better’ with renewables “so their economies would be more resilient”... CEO Bernard Looney actually said that (probably while reading from the WEF handbook of “What to Wear for Billionaires”).
So BP flagged a write-down of $18 billion dollars in fossil fuel assets and talked of “accelerating” it’s green investments. Then everything went wrong. Just after BP bet the house on renewables, the Ukraine war broke out and everyone needed oil and gas and no one needed another wind farm. There was a bonanza selling fossil fuels as prices lifted off (seen in the BP income in 2022) but suddenly no one could afford to buy real energy to make solar panels and turbines, and no one had much cash left to buy randomly-failing generators either. It’s been all downhill in renewables ever since.
Prior to this, BP operated Australia’s largest oil refinery for 66 years in Kwinana, Western Australia until it closed in 2021. Until a few weeks ago, BP was planning to launch a $600 million biofuel project on the same site, and the Australian government was thinking of tossing $1 billion dollars at a hydrogen project there too. They were supposed to turn cooking oil into av-gas and renewable diesel, and be a hub for hydrogen. It’s sadly pathetic and unravelling at warp speed.
The Telegraph has all the sordid details as British Petroleum fights for life.
BP faces ‘existential crisis’ after ruinous attempt to go green
The energy giant has vowed a ‘fundamental reset’ after its costly foray into net zero
Johnathon Leake and Ben Marlow, The Telegraph
Five years on from that speech in February 2020, the company is beleaguered by a ruthless activist investor, under pressure to boost its flatlining share price and considering a return to the oil and gas exploration that made it so successful to begin with.
The abrupt turn follows decades of crisis at one of Britain’s most venerable institutions. Today, its future is more uncertain than ever.
To win round doubters, he is expected to announce a major break with the last five years – shifting away from net zero and back towards its oil and gas heritage.
Pushed by analysts, Auchincloss, Looney’s replacement, confirmed a halt to all investment in wind and solar. “We have completely decapitalised renewables,” he said.
We can blame management, who had been on the fruity green path since 1997, and screwed up majorly, but oddly, 88% of BP shareholders also voted in favor of cutting oil and growing renewables which doesn’t make much sense. Not unless the rank and file votes were unknowingly cast-by-proxy through their hedge funds and pension accounts. Were 88% of British Petroleum investors really fooled into thinking oil was “bad” — or was BP quietly undermined by the big banker blob cartel who may have bossed all the pension funds into voting for Hari Kari? Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, pumped up the whole renewables bubble in 2020, and the bankers were known to boss around whole countries with threats of high interest rates if they didn’t behave.
Hypothetically if the Big Bankers were heavily invested in renewable stocks (which they were), then during a bubble, it would work out well for them if one of the largest oil and gas companies performed a large public flip to renewables. And as a bonus, if BP shareholders were stiffed in the process, the wreckage of a great company could be picked up cheaply a few years later…
So management were crazy, but they probably had help from The Blob Bankers and the Blob Media to really screw things up.
Featured Video
Answers to Myocarditis and Heart Conditions
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Casuistry
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje… loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America…
Aletho News- Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive
- Report: Kurdish Fighters Have Been Entering Iran From Iraq and Clashing With the IRGC
- Trump’s Options in Iran Limited By Military Buildup in Latin America
- Villains of Judea: Paul Singer’s Empire of Debt & Demographic Replacement
- The Gaza ceasefire’s Phase 2 only exists in the media and at UN meetings
- We must act before Palestinian hostages are executed in the world’s worst prisons
- Why Washington will take Greenland
- Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate: There’s a ‘very significant influence operation by the US’ in Iran
- Israel–Syria security pact stumbles as Tel Aviv rejects withdrawal: Report
- The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons
- If Americans Knew
- Militant Pro-Israel Group Agrees to Halt Operations in New York
- During “ceasefire,” at least 100 Gaza children killed – clearly NOT a ceasefire Day 96
- Israel Has Demolished 2,500 Buildings in Gaza Since Signing Ceasefire Deal
- Iran, Gaza and the politics of counting the dead
- How Israel’s move in Somaliland fits in its broader strategy for regional dominance
- As genocide continues in Gaza, the West Bank is pushed into a new Nakba
- Israeli settlers beat elderly, deaf Palestinian man in West Bank attack, video shows
- U.S. May Bankroll New Israeli Armored Vehicles With Billions of Dollars, Internal Files Reveal
- How Israel and the US are exploiting Iranian protests
- The New Neoconservatives
- No Tricks Zone
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
Aletho News 