Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Europe needs to heed the invitation in the U.S. National Security Strategy and return power to its nation states

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 9, 2025

The publication of America’s new National Security Strategy has sent many European commentators into a collective rage. It is perhaps not surprising that those who are most enraged are the same people in favour of maintaining the war in Ukraine. The cold truth is that European citizens want their nations to focus on their national interests. The European Commission would sooner drag them into a war.

Despite the uproar on X and other social media, the U.S. National Security Strategy says relatively little about Europe, precisely because it focuses on U.S. core national interests. And, indeed, that is the core point made about Europe; that in trying to create a unified geopolitical role, it has neglected the core interests of its Member States.

The Strategy expresses a desire to see Europe regain its self-confidence and reestablish strategic stability with Russia. That aspiration appears driven by a desire to maintain Europe as an open market for U.S. goods and investment, and also to avoid it continuing to be a chaotic continent that diverts U.S. resources from its main peer competitor, which is China. There is also an underlying though unstated sense of Europe and Russia maintaining a healthier relationship in part to resist Chinese domination of both.

Europe’s supposed decline is framed in the context of its reduction in economic stature from 25% of global GDP to 14% now. European economic growth has never fully recovered from the shock of the Global Financial Crisis. With the economic centre of gravity shifting to Asia, the continent is being left behind.

Pundits have taken most offence to the notion that Europe faces civilisational erasure, driven by: ‘European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty.., censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.’

Right at the heart of this critique is the idea that the current ‘trajectory of Europe’ which the U.S. wants to ‘cultivate resistance to’, is eroding national sovereignty and the value of the nations within Europe. The Strategy is shot through with bemusement that culturally rich and diverse Europeans nations, which are the well spring of America’s citizenry, are abandoning their interests in favour of an inchoate supranational identity that is simultaneously unattainable self-harming.

In the aftermath of World War II and centuries of conflict, the European project emerged as a way to allow for the peaceful coexistence of very different nations, linguistically, politically and historically. The adrenalin running through the veins of unprecedented levels of peace and stability until 2014 was the dismantling of economic social and cultural barrier nations, that did not erode their unique sense of self of any nation.

It may well be true that a U.S. security shield avoided the domination of Europe by a hostile Soviet Union until 1991, and for that we should be thankful. But the reason why European states learned to live in peace with each other after that period was largely because politics and security were largely left out of the conversation.

The reason European nations spent less on defence after the Soviet Union collapsed was not because their security was underwritten by American troops in Europe, but because they faced no external threat of invasion either in military terms of through unchecked migration.

The irony, of course, is that the factors that precipitated Europe’s contemporary decline, the ever greater weight and importance given to undemocratic transnational groupings such as NATO – were U.S. led. Impetus from the U.S. to keep expanding NATO gradually reintroduced very real risk to Europe as Russia felt increasingly left out in the cold and threatened. Needing to justify a role for itself, the European Institutions have grabbed ever more competence from Member States to resist so-called Russian aggression.

Once and for all, at least it is hoped, the Strategy attempts to kill ‘the perception… of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance’. That is being interpreted by the usual pro-war commentators as a sop to Russia. In fact, it is an invitation to European nations to refocus on their national interests, for the benefit of the European continent as a whole.

Without digging over again the history of NATO expansion, the key point is that neither NATO nor the institutions of Europe are states. They have no core interests beyond the bureaucratic need to exist, grow and accrete ever greater powers. You will never see the European Commission or NATO advancing recommendations on how they might reduce in size or hand power back to their members.

At this time of unprecedented threat of a reemergence of continent-wide conflict in Europe, the Americans are simply suggesting that nation states start to wrest back control. Both NATO and the European Commission, in my opinion, have both undermined the national and inflamed the international, while contributing to the stagnation of Europe as an idea of community, rather than a confederation.

A core principle of the U.S. Strategy is to ‘seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories’.

How Trump seeks to coexist with other nations of the world is exactly how European states sought to coexist peacefully with each other after World War II. The European Economic Community, as it was called for a while, didn‘t seek to erode the primacy of the nation state, focussing instead on the economic, social and cultural features to create the idea of common purpose, without the shackles of common identity.

Yet, the European Commission’s concept of expansion – which in any case Europe cannot afford – is rooted in a desire to homogenise states under a fictious notion of common European values, and to prioritise conformity over identity.

Any existing European Member that seeks to raise a hand is called out by the collective as a back-slider, a quisling and a Putin stooge, taking Hungary, as a prime example.

Yet, European nations that focussed first and foremost on their economic wellbeing and the maintenance and protection of their industrial bases would buy Russian gas because it made good economic sense to do so.

A Europe that focussed on the protection of its citizens would seek a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible, instead of rejecting every possibility of dialogue, and raising the spectre of a future war that would kill and displace millions of their citizens.

A Europe that focussed on good neighbourly relations would seek a way to live on good terms with Russia and for Russia and Ukraine to live on good terms with each other, however long it may take to recreate that balance.

And in my experience of engaging with the Russians, they reciprocate with friendship as vigorously as they do with hostility, so the possibility of peace is far less of a mirage than people would have you believe.

Of course, war with Ukraine is used as a reason for why this is neither possible nor desirable. But then, unfortunately, the arguments in favour of perpetual conflict with Russia become self-reinforcing, with both Europe and Russia arguing to their quite separate allies about who is to blame, and no one seeking reconciliation, through the cutting off of contact.

So the European Commission has increasingly sought to dominate continent-wide diplomacy and marshalled the tools of its willing legions of media talking heads who insist that nothing must change, that talking to Russia is tantamount to treason. The bellicose response to the U.S. National Security Strategy is proof of that. Moscow’s signalling of their alignment with its principles offered as further evidence that Trump is selling us out.

Yet, restoring strategic balance between Europe and Russia, which the U.S. strategy claims to want, requires restoring the primacy of the individual Member States of Europe over its institutions, and handing back control to capitals in how to govern their relations with Russia and other countries.

The European institutions have succeeded in defining Europe as something distinct from Russia, when in fact, Russia is a part of Europe. Calls by Defence Commissioner Kubilius to develop a common European geopolitical strategy, is merely another effort to grasp more competence from the nation states of Europe. These should be roundly rejected. The common foreign and security policy has been an abject failure and should be dismantled.

It is the institutions of Europe who are blocking the door of efforts to restore some normality in relations with Russia, most notably in the form of rabid Russophobes such as Kaja Kallas. She would happily take Europe to war from the comfort of a safe distance. I’d invite more European citizens to heed the invitation of the Americans to seek a way out with the implication that she, and other unelected war-mongers, are stripped of their powers.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Two member states to sue EU over Russian energy ban – Szijjarto

RT | December 8, 2025

Hungary will seek to overturn the EU’s RePowerEU Russian energy ban at the European Court of Justice once the plan is adopted next week, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said.

Brussels launched the initiative in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, aiming to eliminate all Russian fossil fuel imports by the end of 2027.

A provisional agreement between the European Council and the European Parliament was announced last week, setting a halt to Russian liquefied natural gas imports by the end of 2026, with pipeline deliveries to be phased out by November 2027.

Hungary and Slovakia, which remain heavily dependent on Russian supplies, have objected to the plan, arguing that the measures would jeopardize their energy security.

In a post on X on Sunday, Szijjarto said Budapest and Bratislava will file an “annulment request to the European Court of Justice” as soon as the regulation is adopted and will ask for the suspension of the rules while the case is under review.

“We are taking this step because banning Russian oil and gas imports would make the secure energy supply of Hungary and Slovakia impossible and would lead to dramatic price increases,” he wrote, describing the regulation as “massive legal fraud.”

The minister argued that the regulation is a “sanctions measure” that requires the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. The European Commission bypassed the Hungarian and Slovak vetoes by shifting the decision to EU trade and energy laws that only require a qualified majority.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly warned that cutting off Russian supplies would raise costs and undermine long-term energy stability. Slovakia has taken a similar position, with Prime Minister Robert Fico saying on Wednesday that his country has “sufficient legal grounds to consider filing a lawsuit.”

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU summit to decide Zelensky’s fate

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 8, 2025

There is an EU document in which it is stated there “is a problem with the financing of Ukraine”. No shit. The real problem actually comes with a new lack of confidence from EU member states in this “financing” following recent unconfirmed reports that Donald Trump has told the EU in blunt terms that they can’t dip into the supposed 300 bn USD in Russian “frozen” assets held by the West.

When the war started, Russia’s central bank held around $207 billion in euro assets, $67 billion in U.S. dollar assets and $37 billion in British pound assets.

It also had holdings comprising $36 billion of Japanese yen, $19 billion in Canadian dollars, $6 billion in Australian dollars and $1.8 billion in Singapore dollars. Its Swiss franc holdings were about $1 billion.

And so out of 355 bn USD of so-called “frozen” Russian money around the world, the EU only holds a little over a half of it, despite the EU talking as though they have it all. Yet despite this, much hope was placed on the EU to use this cash to continue to fund the Ukraine war. But even if Trump hadn’t have told the EU to keep their hands off the cash, under international law the case for the EU to seize even the 207 bn euros is a very shaky one, which is likely to be the final nail in the coffin for the project which keeps the war going. On December 18th in Brussels EU leaders will meet and will have to be forced to recognise a reality: if this cash cannot be used, then it will be EU member states themselves which will have to scrape together a rescue package to underwrite Ukraine’s 80bn USD 2026 budget. Recently, the EU announced another 2 billion “loan” but such payments aren’t going to sustain any kind of normality faced with the enormous black hole which needs to be filled. The real problem that the EU has is that it doesn’t put its mouth where its Russian money is. Faced with an ultimatum by ECB figures like Christine Lagarde, EU member states won’t offer their own cash as a guarantee when things go wrong with the cash, if it were to be used to fund the war. This lack of confidence might prove to be detrimental to the West’s support for Zelensky who is currently dealing with his own political demise in Kiev following corruption scandals and key allies resigning and even in some cases fleeing the country.

And with a 28 point peace plan, which most experts agree was “dead on arrival”, the popular narrative now from western commentators is that his time is up. He can’t himself offer a peace deal as it is feared that the moment he signs such a paper he will be assassinated and then a ceasefire is broken and both sides return to fighting. The only hope for the West is to invest their political and financial capital in a new leader who is familiar and respected by the Russians, whose signature will come with real guaranties – but this will have to come with assurances that their own troops won’t pile into Ukraine when the deal is signed. EU leaders can’t get this idea in their heads straightened out, that the whole war started because Ukraine was ushered towards EU and NATO membership and its troops have been equipped and trained by the West, in particular under Trump in 2017 during his first term in office.

Another idea which is unpalatable for all EU leaders – including the UK – is that these countries’ economies are on their knees. The Belgian primes minister recently hinted at a press conference that while he was against using Russian cash to fund the war, for a whole host of reasons he pointed out, it was preferable that if the EU were to go ahead into this unchartered legal area, it would be advisable that the EU had a non-EU partner to join it. He was hinting that this could be London. But someone needs to tell him that the British economy is about to collapse under its own debt interest of 120 billion pounds a year, based on reckless decisions after years of borrowing to resolve problems of its own making. It is inconceivable that the UK could be a partner in underwriting or providing guaranties to using Russian frozen assets to continue the war racket. But in the La-la land of the EU, such BS makes good press fodder for the following day’s copy.

Trump’s orders to lay off the Russian cash comes with a sobering wake-up call to EU leaders that they have run out of cash to throw into the black hole of the Ukraine war, which in private, they know is funding Zelensky’s own network of money-grabbing cronies whose only real occupation is looking at how to syphon off international money and stay in office. The resignation of his chief of staff recently, which followed his own business partner and friend fleeing the country after investigators were about to arrest him for his part in a 100m USD energy firm embezzlement, is the clearest indicator to date what the business model is in Kiev. It’s getting harder and harder for western leaders to close their eyes to the sheer level of corruption, how far it goes, and what figures are when such scandals obviously only represent the tip of the iceberg.

And now for EU leaders to meet on the 18th of December, in many ways, their decision is not to keep on finding more and more ingenious ways to scam their own taxpayers out of hard earned money, but whether they can continue to back Zelensky and his formula. With a corruption scandal now in Brussels with top EU officials making headlines, to add to the graft allegations hanging over the head of Ursula von der Leyen, it seems inconceivable that EU leaders will not be sensitive to the cries of disbelief back home from ordinary people whose main worry is that they will freeze to death in their own homes this Christmas. The priority of the summit will be political survival. Theirs, not Zelensky’s.

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , | Leave a comment

France won’t let EU seize chunk of frozen Russian funds – FT

RT | December 8, 2025

Paris does not want to seize frozen Russian state assets held in French private banks, Financial Times reported on Monday, citing sources.

French officials support the European Commission’s plan for a “reparations loan” for Ukraine but oppose any scheme that would draw on Russian money held at commercial banks, arguing those lenders are bound by different contractual obligations than Euroclear, the outlet said.

Last week, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen set out two options to provide Kiev with €90 billion ($105 billion) over the next two years: EU-level borrowing backed by the bloc’s budget, or a long-debated “reparations loan” backed by profits from the blocked assets that would require institutions holding Russian cash to transfer it into a new loan vehicle.

For more than two years, France has declined to name the private banks holding about €18 billion in Russian assets, citing client confidentiality – a stance that has angered some other EU governments, the newspaper said.

According to the report, Paris has also withheld details on how any interest accrued on the funds is being used.

The assets immobilized in France are reportedly the second-largest pool in Europe, behind holdings at Belgium’s Euroclear.

After the roughly €185 billion held at Euroclear, most of the remaining €25 billion of blocked Russian state funds is held at commercial banks in France and Belgium, several people familiar with the matter told the FT.

The loan scheme has drawn criticism from several EU members. Belgium has warned that an outright confiscation would pose legal and security risks, while other major holders of Russian assets, including Luxembourg and Germany, also oppose a seizure, along with Italy, Hungary and Slovakia.

Recent media reports have said the US is lobbying several EU members to block plans to use frozen assets as collateral for the €140 billion loan to Ukraine, arguing the funds should be kept as leverage in peace talks with Kiev and Moscow. Politico earlier reported that Washington wants the EU to return the money once Russia signs a peace agreement with Ukraine.

Russia has condemned any use of its sovereign assets as theft and warned of legal action and retaliation.

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Hundreds of Porsche cars immobilized in Russia

By Deng Xiaoci | Global Times | December 7, 2025

Hundreds of Porsche owners in Russia have reported that their cars had failed to start due to a widespread malfunction since November 28 with Russia’s largest Porsche dealer suggesting the possibility that the situation could be caused deliberately, while some German media outlets claimed that the issue emerged after the factory-installed alarm system was accidentally blocked via its satellite module.

Citing a statement by Porsche, Berliner Zeitung reported on December 6 that the malfunction was not caused by a design defect in the vehicles. Rather, the problems appear to be caused by the cars’ factory-installed security system. “In recent days, we have recorded an increase in customer inquiries. We assume that the cause does not lie in the design of the vehicles,” the company stated, the Berlin-based media reported.

Russia’s TASS News Agency reported on December 1 that the widespread starting failures were caused by a false activation of the factory-installed alarm system via the satellite module, Yulia Trushkova, Service Director at Russia’s largest automotive dealer group Rolf, told TASS.

The report said that the satellite connection as down across all models and engine types, meaning any vehicle can be immobilized.

“Similar situations also occur with Mercedes-Benz owners, but these are isolated cases — the cars do not turn into ‘bricks.’ Is the reason for such blockages known? Specialists are currently investigating this issue, and there is a possibility that it was done deliberately,” she concluded.

According to Daily Mail, the nationwide malfunction in Russia hit Porsche models, including prized Cayennes and Panameras, built since 2013, which are all equipped with the brand’s factory VTS satellite-security unit. The issue appeared to stem from the Vehicle Tracking System, or VTS, which is an onboard security module, it said.

Porsche VTS, a factory-installed option available on Porsche models, relies on satellites to track its location. It can send the owner alerts if there is any unauthorized movement. However, a system failure related to it may be shutting down the cars equipped with this technology, according to British Road & Track website.

Poland-based news site TVP World reported that some experts said the failures appear to be tied to the “blocking of the standard satellite alarm system”, which prevents engines from starting. It remains unclear whether the disruption stems from electronic-warfare interference or an issue with signals sent to the system, it added.

Porsche halted deliveries to Russia since 2022, but thousands of vehicles remain on the roads, per the report.

Ongoing geopolitical tensions between Germany and Russia have further fueled speculation surrounding the incident, Berlin-based WorkVision Media pointed out.

Cybersecurity Insiders, an online community for information security professionals, stated that the situation has raised serious concerns among the automotive community and cybersecurity experts, as hackers increasingly target critical infrastructure in new ways. By compromising vehicle immobilizers – systems linked to both tracking and security alarms – attackers can cause severe disruptions.

While the immediate impact appears limited to immobilizing or disabling of cars, the broader implications could involve the potential for safety hazards, including accidents caused by unauthorized control or remote manipulation of vehicles, the website warned.

Xiang Ligang, a veteran Chinese technology analyst, told the Global Times on Sunday that the situation clearly shows that a security loophole in Porsche’s design allowed this to happen, and it raised alarm for the whole automobile industry.

According to Xiang, intelligent-vehicle systems inevitably rely on data management and remote-control functions — technical challenges that all carmakers must confront. The situation unfolding in Russia, however, is a stark reminder of how vulnerable these systems can be.

He added that escalating geopolitical tensions and in fact de-coupling between the Russia and Germany make it increasingly difficult to meet security requirements in areas such as operating-system authentication, data verification, and cross-border data management. Under such conditions, even partners that are meant to cooperate on security matters must prioritize localized and compliant management of data and servers, he said.

December 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Amendments in US’s New Security Doctrine Largely Align With Russia’s Vision – Kremlin

Sputnik – 07.12.2025

The adjustments made to the new US National Security Strategy are largely consistent with Moscow’s vision, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.

“The adjustments that we are seeing, I would say, are largely consistent with our vision,” Peskov told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.

On Friday, the White House published a new US national security doctrine that calls on Europe to take responsibility for its own defense. The document also suggests that the White House disagrees with European officials on their stance regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

Responsibility for the possible seizure of Russian assets will be shared by individuals and entire countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said.

“Listen, we will have both national responsibility and personal responsibility, personal and legal responsibility for these actions,” Peskov told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.

Peskov also recalled that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) opposed the seizure of Russian assets and urges caution to avoid negative repercussions on the international financial system.

“We hear that the International Monetary Fund has issued a statement addressing this issue with great caution and calling for such measures to avoid any negative impact on the international financial system. That is, even the IMF [opposes], and what is the IMF? It is what they created, it is the foundation of monetary policy in the monetary world. So it turns out that this foundation is now turning against its progenitors, saying ‘Come to your senses,’” he said.

December 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Putin’s India Visit Signals Folly of Western Pressure – Academic

Sputnik – 06.12.2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India may have sealed dozens of strategic partnerships, but its core purpose transcends trade: Moscow is using its Soviet-era ally to send a defiant message to the West that it will not be isolated over the conflict in Ukraine, US academic Ramesh Mohan says.

Putin left New Delhi on Friday after witnessing with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi the signing of over a dozen bilateral agreements on technology, agriculture, tourism and defense cooperation. The subject of Ukraine or the increasingly bellicose US and EU sanctions against Russian oil weren’t in any of the signed documents.

Yet, those in the room — or thousands of miles away in any of the Western capitals that had been plotting their next move against the Kremlin — could not have missed the true significance of Putin’s two-day visit, said Mohan.

“The core message here is that Russia still maintains strong global alliances despite the multitude of Western sanctions and attempts to isolate Moscow over the war in Ukraine,” Mohan, an economics professor at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island, told Sputnik.

Mohan, who also teaches about economics in international politics and regularly leads Bryant University study missions to Asia, said Modi was also sending a message to the world that US pressure will not dictate India’s policy.

“Modi is showing the West that India will not be cowed into abandoning its own national and strategic interests,” said Mohan. “The Russia-India alliance, particularly, is a long-standing, privileged partnership rooted in the Soviet era. I don’t ever see India forsaking that.”

The last time Putin met Modi was in the presence of Chinese President Xi Jinping when they attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in the Chinese port city of Tianjin in September.

The visual display of camaraderie between the three leaders had sent a message to the world even then that the so-called Global South solidarity could not be broken in the face of Western pressure, said Mohan.

December 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump files for divorce from NATO over Ukraine

By Larry Johnson | RT | December 6, 2025

It is one thing to produce a written national security strategy, but the real test is whether or not US President Donald Trump is serious about implementing it. The key takeaways are the rhetorical deescalation with China and putting the onus on Europe to keep Ukraine alive.

The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the US, released by the White House on December 4, 2025, marks a potentially profound shift in US foreign policy under Trump’s second administration compared to his first term as president. This 33-page document explicitly embraces an ‘America First’ doctrine, rejecting global hegemony and ideological crusades in favor of pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests: Homeland security, economic prosperity, and regional dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

It critiques past US overreach as a failure that weakened America, positioning Trump’s approach as a “necessary correction” to usher in a “new golden age.” The strategy prioritizes reindustrialization (aiming to grow the US economy from $30 trillion to $40 trillion by the 2030s), border security, and dealmaking over multilateralism or democracy promotion. It accepts a multipolar world, downgrading China from a “pacing threat” to an “economic competitor,” and calling for selective engagement with adversaries. However, Trump’s actions during the first 11 months of his presidency have been inconsistent with, even contradictory of, the written strategy.

The document is unapologetically partisan, crediting Trump personally for brokering peace in eight conflicts (including the India-Pakistan ceasefire, the Gaza hostage return, the Rwanda-DRC agreement) and securing a verbal commitment at the 2025 Hague Summit for NATO members to boost their defense spending to 5% of GDP. It elevates immigration as a top security threat, advocating lethal force against cartels if needed, and dismisses climate change and ‘net zero’ policies as harmful to US interests.

The document organizes US strategy around three pillars: Homeland defense, the Western Hemisphere, and economic renewal. Secondary focuses include selective partnerships in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Here are the major rhetorical shifts in strategy compared to the previous strategies released during the respective presidencies of Trump (2017) and Biden (2022):

  • From global cop to regional hegemon: Unlike Biden’s 2022 NSS (which emphasized alliances and great-power competition) or Trump’s 2017 version (which named China and Russia as revisionists), this document ends America’s “forever burdens” abroad. It prioritizes the Americas over Eurasia, framing Europe and the Middle East as deprioritized theaters.
  • Ideological retreat: Democracy promotion is explicitly abandoned – “we seek peaceful commercial relations without imposing democratic change” (tell that to the Venezuelans). Authoritarians are not judged, and the EU is called “anti-democratic.”
  • Confrontational ally relations: Europe faces scathing criticism for migration, free speech curbs, and risks of “civilizational erasure” (e.g., demographic shifts making nations “unrecognizable in 20 years”). The US vows to support the “patriotic” European parties resisting this, drawing Kremlin-like rhetoric accusations from EU leaders.
  • China policy: Acknowledges failed engagement; seeks “mutually advantageous” ties but with deterrence (e.g., Taiwan as a priority). No full decoupling, but restrictions on tech/dependencies.
  • Multipolar acceptance: Invites regional powers to manage their spheres (e.g., Japan in East Asia, Arab-Israeli bloc in the Gulf), signaling US restraint to avoid direct confrontations.

The NSS represents a seismic shift in America’s approach to NATO, emphasizing “burden-shifting” over unconditional alliance leadership. It frames NATO not as a values-based community but as a transactional partnership in which US commitments – troops, funding, and nuclear guarantees – are tied to European allies meeting steep new demands. This America First recalibration prioritizes US resources for the Indo-Pacific and Western Hemisphere, de-escalating in Europe to avoid “forever burdens.” Key changes include halting NATO expansion, demanding 5% GDP defense spending by 2035, and restoring “strategic stability” with Russia via a Ukraine ceasefire. While the US reaffirms Article 5 and its nuclear umbrella, it signals potential partial withdrawals by 2027 if Europe fails to step up, risking alliance cohesion amid demographic and ideological critiques of Europe. When Russia completes the defeat of Ukraine, the continued existence of NATO will be a genuine concern.

The strategy credits Trump’s diplomacy for NATO’s 5% pledge at the 2025 Hague Summit but warns of “civilizational erasure” in Europe due to migration and low birth rates, speculating that some members could become “majority non-European” within decades, potentially eroding their alignment with US interests.

Trump’s NSS signals a dramatic change in US policy toward the Ukraine conflict by essentially dumping the responsibility for keeping Ukraine afloat on the Europeans. The portion of the NSS dealing with Ukraine is delusional with regard to the military capabilities of the European states:

We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation… This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons.

As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant US diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.

It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.

The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home. The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.

Not surprisingly, this section of Trump’s NSS has sparked a panicked outcry in Europe. European leaders, including former Swedish PM Carl Bildt, called it “to the right of the extreme right,” warning of alliance erosion. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) praise its pragmatism, but flag short-sightedness, predicting a “lonelier, weaker” US. China views reassurances on sovereignty positively, but remains wary of economic pressures. In the US, Democrats, such as Rep. Jason Crow, deem it “catastrophic” for alliances, i.e. NATO.

Overall, the strategy signals a US pivot inward, forcing NATO allies to self-fund security while risking fractured partnerships with Europe. It positions America as a wealthy hemispheric power in a multipolar order, betting on dealmaking and industrial revival to sustain global influence without overextension.

Larry Johnson is a political analyst and commentator, former CIA analyst and member of the US State Department’s Office for Counterterrorism.

December 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

POLITICO’s Delusion Cracks: Belgium Isn’t Helping Russia — It’s Trying to Save Europe From Itself

By Gerry Nolan | The Islander | December 5, 2025

The great farce of late-imperial Europe is that every time Brussels stumbles into another historic blunder of its own making, it immediately searches for a foreign hand to blame. And so the EU’s court chronicler, Politico, delivers its latest fever dream: that Belgium, the most indecisive, over-medicated country in the bloc, has somehow transformed into “Russia’s most valuable asset.” In reality, the only asset Russia needed was the EU’s own arrogance.

Belgium merely did the unthinkable, it told the truth.

What Politico dresses up as geopolitical intrigue is actually a confession of EU derangement. The EU are trying to engineer the largest state-sanctioned theft of sovereign wealth in modern history, a direct raid on the Russian Central Bank’s reserves and expected applause, unity, and moral ecstasy. Instead, Belgium asked the only sane question left in Europe: “Are you all completely out of your minds?” For this, Politico paints De Wever as eccentric, impulsive, unstable, the same labels always deployed when someone refuses to bow to the imperial autopilot. But the deeper scandal is that Brussels expected him to sign off on detonating the post-war financial order for the sake of one more photo-op with Zelensky.

Politico can hide behind metaphors of summit dinners and langoustines, but the legal reality is brutal: raiding another nation’s central bank is not a policy disagreement. It is a declaration of financial war on the entire world. It would obliterate sovereign immunity, destroy the neutrality of reserve holdings, and instantly signal to the global South that their assets in EU banks are hostage to EU’s emotional spasms. One act, one reckless stroke of a pen, and the euro collapses as a safe currency, capital flees to Asia, and the West loses its last functional pillar of power. Belgium saw the cliff’s edge, Brussels mistook it for a (perverse) moral leap of faith.

Politico’s narrative stumbles further when it pretends the only danger lies in Moscow’s retaliation. It does not. Russia’s symmetric countermeasures are well-known, lawful, and devastating: nationalization of Western corporate assets, seizure of industrial infrastructure, liquidation of bond holdings, and the dismantling of Western financial footprints inside Russia. The value of Western assets exposed inside the Russian Federation rivals what sits in Euroclear. Brussels knows this. Euroclear knows this. Investors know this. Only the EU pretends the ledger is irrelevant. But the real threat is not Russia’s response , it is the irreversible collapse of trust in Western custodianship. Once the EU steals central bank reserves, no nation with self-respect will ever again store wealth in Europe. The theft of Russian reserves would be remembered not as an isolated act, but as the day the West proved it cannot be trusted with global money, let alone soverign assets.

This is the part Politico is terrified to articulate. Belgium wasn’t protecting Russia. Belgium is trying to protect the very system the EU purports to defend. Yet instead of portraying De Wever as the only adult in the room, Politico stages a melodrama about a Flemish nationalist gone rogue, supposedly spoiling the EU’s grandiose plan to hurl another €140 billion onto the Ukrainian funeral pyre. The reality is simpler, Belgium refused to mortgage its own future so Europe could continue its cosplay as a geopolitical superpower utterly detached from material reality. The EU elite wanted to play empire with someone else’s risk. Belgium refused to be the guarantor of their delusion.

What makes Politico’s narrative even more absurd is that it accidentally reveals the deeper rot, Europe’s elite caste are incapable of unity, incapable of strategic thought, incapable of honesty. Merz shoots from the hip. Von der Leyen improvises legal fantasies. Orbán holds a veto the size of a continental fault line. Trump instinctively knows he needs an offramp via peace talks and is happy to download project Ukraine’s corpse along with the humiliation onto Western Europe. Zelensky arrives in Brussels begging for cash while European governments fight over whether the money should be spent on their own weapons factories. This is not a union. This is a collective suicide pact.

And through all this chaos, Politico clings to the illusion that Russia must somehow be “laughing.” But Russia isn’t laughing. Russia is watching. Watching as Europe destroys its own energy security, its own industrial base, its own strategic autonomy, its own diplomatic credibility, its own financial reputation, and finally — with this proposed asset raid — the very legal foundations of the Western economic system. If Moscow appears calm, it is because it doesn’t need to act. Europe is demolishing itself at a pace Russia could never have engineered.

Belgium’s “no” was not an act of betrayal. It was the last flicker of European rationality. The EU’s hysteria and psychosis, not Russia, created the crisis. Europe is trying to violate international law, sabotage its own financial institutions, and torch what remains of the bygone postwar order to salvage the illusion of a war it has already lost. Belgium simply refused to join the ritual suicide.

So let us rewrite Politico’s headline as history will record it: “How the EU Became Russia’s Greatest Strategic Gift.” Not because Russia manipulated Europe, but because Europe manipulated itself, into hysteria, into decay, into legal nihilism, into economic ruin. Belgium didn’t hand Russia an asset. It denied the EU the final act of self-destruction… for now.

The tragic irony of the entire Politico piece is that its authors still cling to the fantasy that Europe can recover simply by shaming Belgium into compliance. But history will not be kind to this moment. When future scholars study the collapse of the Western financial empire, this attempted seizure of Russian assets and Belgium’s lonely refusal, will stand as the point where the veil fell, revealing a Europe that could no longer distinguish faux moral posturing from strategic insanity.

Belgium didn’t break with Europe, it broke with Europe’s delusions. The EU convinced itself that tearing down the last pillars of the post-war order was an act of courage. Belgium saw it for what it was, a death rite dressed as morality. And when this era ends, when capitals move eastward, when trust evaporates, when the euro cracks under the weight of its own blind arrogance, historians will look back on this moment. They will not ask why Belgium said no. They will ask why Europe said yes.

December 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Denmark hit by boomerang effect: War vs. welfare

By Ron Ridenour | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 3, 2025

The Social Democratic Party (SD), which has led two governments since 2019, experienced the worst regional election in a century thanks to its leading role in spending more on the Ukraine-Russia war than any other country per capita, and number four in absolute sums—$13 billion, with another billion in the pipeline.

That is $2,100 per person. It is also three times Denmark’s defense budget as of three years ago. The U.S. has appropriated $184 billion for a population of 340 million, according to the March 2025 Department of Defense figures. That is $410 per person.

According to EU figures from August, the EU has spent $186 billion, committed $54 billion more, and has “mobilized” $3.9bn of Russian assets kept in western finance institutions for Ukraine. More than $300bn Russian funds have been “immobilized” and might be used to kill Russians and Ukrainians. Danes think they are protecting Ukraine’s “democracy and sovereignty”, and do so at greater cost to them than any of the 57 countries citizens lined up against Russia.

SD Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen heads a three-party coalition government, including the conservative Moderate party and the land-owner conservative Liberal (Venstre) Party. Moderate Party is a recent off-shoot of the Liberal Party. Frederiksen’s ratings before the proxy war against Russia fluxed between 27% and 35%. Following November 18 regional elections, Frederiksen’s rating fell to 17%.

Social Democrats lost mayor posts in most towns and main cities, including the over-mayor post in Copenhagen, which it has held for over 100 years. Leading members of Frederiksen’s party are calling for a new leader already a year before parliament elections.

None of the 12 parliamentary political parties in Denmark, or the handful of Communist and Trotskyist parties, consider that Russia has the right to protect its sovereignty against the ever-encroaching NATO alliance, which now has six countries bordering Russia out of 14 countries around its border. Schools do not allow pro-Russian views to be taught, nor does the media allow pro-Russian views to be expressed.

Nevertheless, for the first time to this reporter’s knowledge, state-sponsored TV news, and other msm, began reporting following the November election that many voters are tired of spending so much money for Ukraine, and less for welfare. Voters mainly blame the key spokesperson for war, Social Democrat Frederisken.

The Social Democrat-led governments have increased NATO funding from 1.3% of its GNP to 3.5% since 2022, and plan to reach 5% to meet President Trump’s demand. Defense budgets have tripled since 2022.

The mass media usually does not report on Ukrainian corruption, but they did when on November 10 anti-corruption investigators revealed that at least $100 million was siphoned from contracts to rebuild energy losses, plus money laundering conducted by Justice Minister German Galushchenko and, ironically, the Energy Minister, Svitlana Grynchuk.

Investigators also searched Tymur Mindich’s house just hours after he fled to Israel, in order to avoid possible prosecution. Mindich is considered President Zelenskyy’s close associate and confidant. Among other roles, he is co-owner of the TV production company “Kvartal-95,” which Zelenskyy helped set up.

In reality, Ukraine’s government officials have skimmed scores of $billions from at least $400 billion sent to Ukraine. It is no longer taboo to be wary of continued support despite the population’s traditional culture of not challenging Denmark’s authority powers. This scandal created skepticism about just what this war is all about only a week before Danes went to the polls.

Even the CIA-friendly Wikipedia admits that corruption is endemic. “Corruption in Ukraine is a significant issue that effects society going back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.”

Welfare Down $4 Billion

The largest magazine in Denmark is Ældre Sagen (Senior’s Cause) with a 750,000 circulation out of six million people often reports on how the governments are spending less on welfare. Since 2015, welfare spending has deceased three percent ($4 billion).

The current issue of “Senior’s Cause” shows how much less support there is for seniors who cannot care for themselves without communes’ health care. Lack of help for bathing when needed has increased to 37% from 20% in 2021, just before the war. Percentage of elders need for cleaning homes has increased to 45% from 33% in the same period. Only 40% of those who have need for help at home or take a walk receive any whereas it was 56% just four years ago.

Sanctions against Russia cause a boomerang effect, because Danes have to use much more money to import expensive oil and gas energy sources from Norway and the U.S. after they sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipelines, with Sweden and Denmark’s assistance.

Food prices have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. Just before the war, average Danes used 15% of their income for food and now 17%. Moreover, some favorite items have skyrocketed in price: coffee by 67%, hamburger meat by 50%, cheese 47%, milk 44%.

Despite silent but growing war weariness, PM Frederiksen spent time during her local election campaign to provoke Russia even though the election had nothing to do with foreign policy. She blamed Russia for sending drones over Denmark for which no evidence has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, some elected politicians proposed to shoot down drones that fly over these “targets” even if it may not be known that “they” are drones, or even if the senders are unknown.

Among false accusations was her claim that a Russian tanker, Boracay, which was sailing peacefully in international waters close to Denmark, was a “provocation”. At that time, Frederiksen was entertaining 26 heads of state on the Prime Minister grounds to discuss how to keep the war going in Ukraine. Her French sidekick, President Emmanuel Macron, then sent a war ship with soldiers to seize Boracay with the intention of putting its captain on trial.

Macron said: “We want to increase pressure on Russia to convince it to return to the negotiating table… [we are moving] towards to a policy of obstruction when we have suspicious ships in our waters that are involved in this trafficking.”

“Trafficking” means shipping oil to-and-fro countries, which is what the world’s capitalist economies do.

The Danish government is also encouraging more youth to join the military for longer times than the 11-month draft increased from just four months. The draft now includes women. The proposal to have women forced into military garb came during this war by a former communist party, now called Enhedslisten (Red Green Alliance or Unity List). It has nine of the Parliament’s 179 members.

Denmark invites Ukraine to produce rocket fuel

In September, the Danish government announced that it will build a factory for Ukraine missiles by the military Skrydstrup airport near the town of Vojens. Skrydstrup is where most of Denmark’s F-35s are located and where the U.S. will have one of its military contingents. This is the first time that a NATO country has invited a Ukrainian firm to produce weaponry on its soil.

The Ukrainian company Four Points is behind the project. It is best known for developing the 3,000-km range Flamingo cruise missile, which is having difficulties when fired. Four Points and Denmark will employ a couple hundred workers. They will produce rocket fuel and parts for at least two types of ballistic missiles, FP-7 and FP-9. These missiles will be transported to Ukraine where the military will fire them at targets inside Russia. FP-7 has a range of 200 kilometers at a speed of 1,500 meters per second. FP-9 has an 855-kilometer range at 2,200 meters per second.

At first, it was left unstated whether fuel will be made for the Flamenco in Denmark. Nevertheless, Denmark is considering buying some Ukrainian missiles and/or U.S.’s long-range Tomahawks. Denmark has put up $80 million for the rocket fuel project.

The media reported the response of Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin: “Denmark is determined to continue the bloodshed in Ukraine. If Ukraine produces rocket fuel for cruise missiles on Danish soil, then it is increasingly difficult not to consider Denmark a direct participant in the conflict. The Ukrainian side has stated very openly that these missiles are intended to carry out attacks deep inside Russia.”

Then, a week after Zelensky’s buddy Minditi fled to Israel, it was revealed that he is the “mastermind” behind Four Points. Vojens citizens and opposition political parties now demand that their government assure people that no corruption will take place when the Ukraine team comes to work beside Danish workers to build the rocket fuel factory. No one is yet publically questioning why do this when it is all too apparent that Russia will win this war soon.

That scandal, though, was not enough. On November 30, the main war commander and peace negotiator, Chief-of-Staff Andriy Yermark, was forced to resign due to new economic corruption revelations, the extent of which is not yet out. These scandals tell the world that Zelensky only wants personal loyalty for his side-kicks, and not honesty and competence.

Nevertheless, construction of the war factory began as planned on December 1, under the name FPRT ApS. The media let many local citizens express concern that something amiss could occur, such as explosions of fuel inside the factory, and concern about what Russia might do.

Denmark Supports Palestinian Genocide While Preparing for Total War

Denmark’s government is also a supporter of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There was even an arms fair last August with seven Israel weapons firms selling their wares and Danish weapons sold to Israel. The weapons festival was held at the invitation of Denmark’s military. Two parliamentary parties complained about Israel’s participation. What was the Danish government’s explanation? “We need to quickly rearm for national security to meet the Russian threat.”

Frederiksen and company have concocted one falsehood after another about how Russia will attack first one of its non-NATO neighboring countries, then one NATO neighbor, and within five years invade the entire of Europe: 32 NATO countries have a total of 3.33 million troops (2022) compared to Russia’s 850,000. Six hundred million people inhabit the 30 European NATO countries, compared to Russia’s 140 million. The two North American NATO countries have 335 million and 40 million.

Allegedly, the only obstacle for Russia’s total invasion is to finish the war in Ukraine. Denmark’s only intelligence service, the Defense Intelligence Service (FE), subordinate to the CIA (about which I have written extensively), purports this scenario without offering one iota of evidence.

Since this hypothesis-as-truth surfaced last February, we are repeatedly told by politicians, military experts, and the media to prepare for war by storing water, food, medicines, hygiene articles, warm clothes and blankets, batteries, flashlights, cash, sun-cell or battery radios for three days. Shelters should be constructed or repaired. Land-owner-associations shall call community meetings to learn how best to prepare for war. Military experts are available to give advice.

Following the recent economic corruption cases, the media is open to question how long the war will last as enthusiasm is waning. For instance, some media reports that very few people are actually following the government’s advice to hoard necessities in case of war.

TV stations have long run several one-sided war programs daily. However, on November 26, DR TV’s “War’s Day” weekly program closed with a truthful and cynical Major in the Defense Academy stating: “If the Americans pull out completely, it will be very difficult for Ukraine but still better for us Europeans to continue fighting there, and cheaper than fighting Russians elsewhere.”

Danish Voters Getting Tired of War Cries

In September, dozens of drones (possibly) of various sizes popped up over civilian and military airports. Some were in the air for four hours the first day. Earlier reports of the like turned out to be that the “drones” were sun reflections, but this time they were real, averred the government.

Should unannounced drones be shot down, asked msm and some politicians? The hard-core right says yes. Middle-of-the-roaders point out that when Poland shot down a drone, its own missile destroyed a Polish house.

The key tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet went bananas. Its September 26 headline, “Drone Catastrophe-Denmark Humiliated” started seven pages of text and photos with front and back cover—one-fourth of the newspaper. Its reporters sharply criticized the government-military management for not either shooting them down or intercepting them, or knowing where they came from or where they went.

However, the tone in some media changed. I was pleasantly surprised to read the front-page story in the Christian Daily, November 28, headlined: “Critique: Drone-Communication Has Created Fear and Wild Theories”.

The article opens with a staunch supporter of Ukraine war. “Frederiksen and government rhetoric brings Denmark more in danger than what is necessary, and that worries me…Denmark’s interference in the war is too quick-tempered.”

The article points out that after several days of government shouting about how the Russians are threatening “our skies, our airports… ” silence ensued. No proof of what the “drone interference” really was, not even if they were drones, or where they came from. Nevertheless, Frederiksen wouldn’t give up her rhetoric about the evil Russians. The newspaper quoted her: “It is primarily one land that constitutes a threat: Russia.”

The daily ended with the conclusion that the government presents its people with “a lack of information. [Regardless of what the disturbances were] the point is the government wishes to frighten the people and in that way keep them in an iron cage.”

Just three days before this seminal front-page story, PM Frederiksen spoke on TV about how it was still possible for Ukraine with even more massive European aid to win the war. She said so after Russia completely rejected Europe’s “Coalition of the Willing” 19-point peace proposal as a substitute to Trump’s 28-point plan, which the government and media imply is pro-Russian and supported by President Putin. Both suppositions are false.

The only peace plan for the inevitable Russian victory will be:

  1. a) Crimean and Donbas regions now in the Russian Federation since the peoples’ referendum remain in Russia.
  2. b) Ukraine will not be in NATO nor have associated “military security”.
  3. c) Legal protection for ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
  4. d) A de-Nazification process must begin to re-educate the rampant fascist mentality instilled in the government and military, and much of the population since the 2014 neo-fascist coup financed and organized by the Obama-administration.

November 2025 will be remembered as the beginning of the end for PM Mette Frederiksen’s political career, and the end of silence among the Danish population: Enough is Enough!

December 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Putin reveals new plans with China and India

RT | December 2, 2025

Moscow wants to further develop its economic ties with its key trade partners, China and India, President Vladimir Putin said at the ‘Russia Calling!’ investment forum on Tuesday.

Beijing and New Delhi have refused to join Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict and have instead boosted trade with Russia. The Russian leader hailed what he called a “rational and pragmatic” approach to cooperation taken by the two countries.

Putin paid tribute to “many years of friendship and strategic partnership” with both China and India, adding that the volume of trade with each has “significantly grown” over the past three years.

“We are aiming at taking cooperation with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India to a whole new level, including through enhancing its technological aspect,” Putin stated.

Russia and China nearly doubled their bilateral trade from 2020 to 2024, surpassing $240 billion last year. Last month, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that the two nations had abandoned Western currencies in mutual settlements, with most payments now conducted in rubles and yuan.

Last month, Moscow and Beijing published a joint roadmap for further developing bilateral ties. They vowed to provide mutual assistance on issues ranging from agriculture, trade, ecology, and investment to AI and space exploration.

India’s exports to Russia are currently worth $5 billion, while imports from Russia amount to $64 billion. The countries are aiming to increase bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030. Russia is also expanding joint production with India in many areas, both military and civilian.

Earlier on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow is also ready to share its technological knowledge with New Delhi. “Whatever can be shared with India, will be shared,” he said.

Putin is expected to discuss the joint production of Russia’s fifth generation Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his trip to India later this week.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU central bank rejects von der Leyen’s asset-theft plan

RT | December 2, 2025

The European Central Bank has refused to support a proposed €140 billion payout to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets held at Belgium’s Euroclear, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing officials familiar with the discussions.

The ECB determined that the European Commission’s scheme falls outside its mandate, the newspaper reported.

The EU has spent months trying to tap frozen Russian central bank reserves to back a €140 billion ($160 billion) “reparations loan” for Kiev. Belgium, where around $200 billion of the assets is held at the privately owned Euroclear clearing house, has repeatedly warned of potential litigation as well as financial risks if the EU goes through with the scheme.

Under the European Commission’s plan, EU nations’ governments would provide state guarantees to share the repayment risk on the loan for Ukraine.

Commission officials, however, have warned that member states might be unable to mobilize cash quickly in an emergency, risking market strains.

EU officials reportedly asked the ECB whether it could act as a lender of last resort to Euroclear Bank, the Belgian depository’s lending arm, to prevent a liquidity crunch. ECB officials told the commission this was not possible, the FT reported, citing sources familiar with the talks.

“Such a proposal is not under consideration as it would likely violate EU treaty law prohibiting monetary financing,” the ECB said.

Brussels is now reportedly working on alternative ways to provide temporary liquidity to backstop the €140 billion loan.

“Ensuring the necessary liquidity for possible obligations to return the assets to the Russian central bank is an important part of a possible reparations loan,” the FT quoted an EC spokesperson as saying.

Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain warned last week the move would be seen globally as “confiscation of central bank reserves, undermining the rule of law.” Moscow has repeatedly warned it would view any use of its sovereign assets as “theft” and respond with countermeasures.

The push comes as the cash-strapped EU faces pressure to finance Ukraine for the next two years amid Kiev’s cash crunch, with efforts to tap Russia’s assets intensifying as the US promotes a new initiative to settle the conflict. Economists estimate Ukraine is facing a budget gap of about $53 billion a year in 2025-2028, excluding additional military funding.

The country’s public and government-guaranteed debt ballooned to unseen levels of over $191 billion as of September, the Finance Ministry said. The IMF last month raised its debt forecasts for Ukraine, now predicting public debt at 108.6% of GDP.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »