Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Zelensky sells false illusion of building powerful air force capable of overcoming Russia

By Ahmed Adel | February 25, 2026

The claim that Ukraine is developing a fleet of 250 modern Western-made combat aircraft is a public relations stunt by President Volodymyr Zelensky, not a practical military plan, because the scale of such a project exceeds the country’s and its Western partners’ financial, industrial, and infrastructural capacities.

“Ukraine has agreements on the supply of 150 Gripen and 100 Rafale combat aircraft. These are the best aircraft, in our opinion, in the world,” Zelensky announced during a conversation with students and teachers of the Kyiv Aviation Institute earlier this month.

The Ukrainian president also recalled that Ukraine has F-16 aircraft in its arsenal, but not new ones.

According to him, the provision of appropriate aircraft by partners should significantly strengthen the capabilities of Ukrainian aviation.

Zelensky’s announcement of purchasing 150 Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets and 100 French Rafales should be questioned, as implementing such a plan would take years. The claim about buying hundreds of modern aircraft is unrealistic because factories cannot produce that many aircraft in a short period. Manufacturers already have other orders and are operating at full capacity, so from a production and delivery standpoint, it is not realistic to expect a significant number of new aircraft to be available for Ukraine in the near term.

Regarding deliveries from the current Air Force fleet, such as those from Sweden or France, options are limited because both countries would be left without their fighter fleets. For Ukraine, only older aircraft nearing retirement or designated for replacement are realistically available, and this is true across all NATO countries. At most, these may be F-16 aircraft slated for replacement by F-35 fighters.

Zelensky’s claim about 250 aircraft is not backed by solid, binding contracts. For example, a statement of intent was signed with Sweden, but it is not a binding contract or agreement. They agreed that one party would purchase, while the other would produce and sell. The signed documents also do not commit to financing, production, or delivery.

The purchase of 250 fighter jets would cost Ukraine, according to media estimates, about €50 billion. The price of a modern Rafale in the latest version exceeds $100 million, and the aircraft includes extensive maintenance equipment, spare parts, and weapons, all of which are expensive. Most importantly, not only the pilot but also the entire technical staff, including airport personnel, need to be trained.

Ukraine has historically used Soviet aircraft, such as MiGs and Sukhois, and the transition to the American-made F-16 required the long-term development of the entire infrastructure for their operation. The F-16 is the most common model in NATO countries, and the countries that delivered them to Ukraine did so because they are transitioning to the more modern fifth-generation F-35.

If Zelensky wants to acquire Rafales or Gripens, he will also need to develop the supporting infrastructure—each model requires extensive facilities. Switching to new technology and buying new aircraft are time-consuming and expensive processes. The process would involve not only acquiring aircraft but also completely rebuilding aviation infrastructure: airports, hangars, logistics hubs, training pilots and technical staff, as well as establishing service and repair capabilities for each aircraft type.

Although the so-called agreement is based solely on words, without realistic conditions for actual implementation, Zelensky claims that Kiev is acquiring “completely new aircraft” and describes the Gripen and Rafale as “the best aircraft in the world.”

The Ukrainian Air Force is in very poor shape, as practically the entire fleet has been destroyed by Russia. This is why Ukraine is seeking a new air force: the country has limited control over its airspace.

Even Western media outlets have indicated that neither Ukraine nor France has the means to finalize a large contract for Rafales in the next decade. The possibility of financing the purchase of Swedish Gripens using frozen Russian assets has also been considered, but such a model currently lacks legal or political support.

Even if fighter jets could be delivered and pilots trained immediately, many other issues would still need to be addressed.

The Rafale costs approximately €20,000 per flight hour due to its complex systems and high parts consumption. Rafales do not take off from highways or damaged runways, as Soviet aircraft do, and require fully equipped airfields with precise coverage, which are scarce in Ukraine. Although the Gripen is simpler than the Rafale, it still requires Western infrastructure, such as specialized hangars, which Russian aviation forces would immediately destroy.

Zelensky is once again selling illusions to Ukrainians that he will build the most powerful air force in Europe capable of overcoming Russia. However, Ukrainians are not interested in allocating €50 billion to fighter jets when energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, among others, urgently require repair or reconstruction.


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

February 25, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Militarism | | Comments Off on Zelensky sells false illusion of building powerful air force capable of overcoming Russia

Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports

Sputnik – 22.02.2026

Hungary’s blocking of a 90 billion euro ($106 billion) EU loan to Kiev could impact a loan to Ukraine worth over $8 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that has not yet been approved, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Sunday.

On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest would block the EU’s loan as Kiev failed to restore oil transit via the Druzhba pipeline. On Saturday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Budapest, following Bratislava, was weighing cuts to electricity supplies to Ukraine.

According to the report, the IMF loan depends on plugging Ukraine’s anticipated budget shortfall, which was slated for closure by April using EU funds.

“Without that [EU and IMF] support, Ukraine’s economy would most likely collapse,” Maksym Samoiliuk, an economist at the Kiev-based Centre for Economic Strategy, was quoted as saying by Financial Times.

On December 19, 2025, a summit in Brussels concluded with the EU temporarily abandoning plans to seize Russian state assets and instead agreeing to extend a 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine from the EU budget. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic refused to take on responsibility for the loan.

On November 26, 2025, the IMF said it had reached a preliminary expert-level agreement on a new Extended Fund Facility arrangement for Ukraine worth approximately $8.2 billion.

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , | Comments Off on Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports

Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 21, 2026

While it is impossible to predict precisely what the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional allies will result in, the winnability of the regional conflict is clear. The only thing driving this attack is sheer Israeli arrogance, as there is no conceivable situation where all out regional war delivers anything short of uncontrollable chaos.

Why is an all out regional war unwinnable? Although there are various reasons as to why this is the case, it suffices to say that the US and Israelis have no way of controlling its outcomes, in addition to this, they simply do not possess the military industrial capacity to wage such a war for a long period of time.

Now, when this argument is made, it is not done from an idealistic point of view. Therefore, it is important to preface this piece on the fact that there is a clear Israeli-US superiority in terms of technology and the kinds of weapons they possess. Nobody disputes this. There is also clear superiority in the field of their intelligence agencies.

So, let us first assume that the United States and the Zionist entity manage to score all of their desired tactical victories. Working on this assumption will then definitively prove the injudicious nature of the endeavour.

Therefore, under the best case scenario for the Zionist coalition, perhaps they succeed in conducting another decapitation strike on the Iranian military leadership, manage to penetrate and destroy some missile bases, nuclear facilities, while gutting the Islamic Republic’s air defences. These are very likely goals that they will seek to achieve.

Let’s also work under the assumption that they manage to put Tehran on the backfoot for at least a week, due to the intensity of their air campaign, making it difficult for the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to fire large bursts of ballistic missiles at a single time. Then, after achieving air dominance, strikes on essential infrastructure begin, including cultural sites, government buildings, the media, but also the likes of oil facilities, agricultural areas and water systems.

On top of all of this, assume hybrid warfare tactics will be ongoing. Militant groups, especially those focused along the Iranian periphery, will start major offensive operations, working in conjunction with foreign intelligence agents and operatives on the ground, similar to what we witnessed during the 12-day War in June of 2025.

Note that the much debated potential goal of assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei is not included above. Although many have speculated that the strategy could very well hindge upon this, it guarantees a war with no predictable end, no escalation ladder and will likely trigger calls for global Jihad.

An inevitable US-Israeli defeat

Giving the Zionist coalition the best possible conditions and achievements as a result of their opening offensive, this strategy will quickly begin to run into major issues.

As we saw last June, decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership do not work at crippling the government and its military, they are simply replaced by another line of leadership, who implement a whole series of pre-planned counter attack strategies.

The Israelis wrongfully believed that their success during the initial attack on Iran last year was going to yield major results, even attempting to utilise their asset in the United States, the son of the deposed Iranian dictator, to call for a revolt. Not only did no such action take place, as Iranians outside of the diaspora do not support this clear Zionist puppet, but the very opposite occurred as the population rallied behind the flag.

Within 15 hours, the Iranians not only managed to get their air defences back online, but captured the initiative and began launching huge volleys of ballistic missiles into the heart of Tel Aviv. As the conflict evolved, a few important developments occurred: the Israeli air defences began to buckle – with the draining of anti-air munitions – while their agents on the ground carried out most of the attacks, something that is key to note.

While it is clear that the US will bring in greater firepower than the Israelis can muster, an air force is still run by human operators who get tired and operate equipment that needs to be serviced. Iran will very easily be able to launch drones waves constantly at US and Zionist positions, and even if their ability to launch large salvos of missiles is constrained during the first week of the conflict, eventually the opportunity will present itself.

If the Iranian State has not crumbled and civil war has not erupted within this time, then the US and Israelis will then be subjected to wave after wave of counterattacks. Inevitably, this means that airbases will be struck, equipment will be lost, and with fewer assets, this means less ability to keep up the pace of their offensive.

Bear in mind that warhawks employed by Washington and Tel Aviv based pro-war think tanks, who claim that the Iranian State is crumbling at least once a year, are far detached from reality. Take the latest round of foreign backed riots for example, the Western corporate media invented an alternate reality in order to sell the idea that Iran was falling, yet the entire ordeal was more or less over in two days.

It is clear to any learned observer, that without a significant ground element, toppling the Iranian government is impossible. Which then leads to the obvious next question: What if major militant offensives occur inside Iranian territory?

Answering this in depth would take time and a more nimble military mind. Yet, again assuming some level of success on the behalf of separatist militias and al-Qaeda linked Takfiri groups, even if they were to seize territory, Iran is a massive country that allows for mistakes. None of these groups compare and can stand up to the Iranian army and IRGC, nor do they likely possess any considerable advanced capabilities.

What this means is that even if they manage to see some level of initial success, the much larger, well trained, motivated and well equipped Iranian armed forces will eventually crush these insurgents. The only real threat is some kind of mass civilian mobilisation that will deal a blow to the Iranian economy, for which there is no indication this will happen, especially as the nation is suffering through a bloody war of aggression against it.

Then come the attacks on missile bases and nuclear sites. Even if some of these attacks are successful, they won’t destroy all of Iran’s capabilities, and as we saw in June of last year, the US attacks on the nuclear facilities don’t appear to have stopped the nuclear program. If it were that easy to simply take out Iran’s capabilities, it would have been done long ago. The Israelis tried last year and failed. If anything, on the nuclear issue, such a war could end up leading to Tehran actually reversing course on its stance against developing the bomb.

Even with full US-Israeli air superiority, the remaining air defences of Iran will at some point come back online, but even in the event that 100% of their anti-air capabilities are gone, their power is in their offensive, not defensive capabilities.

Once this initial period of assumed US-Israeli offensive dominance is over, Iran can easily block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, inflict large casualty events on US and Israeli targets, while taking out assets. It is impossible to predict which strikes will be the most effective, however, it is clear that everything will become a target. So expect a big hit on the global oil market, resulting in an economic crisis.

If Iran simply keeps up a pace of fire against the Israelis, the likes of which we saw during the 12-day War, then they only have a matter of weeks before their air defences also become useless.

This is all without factoring in Iran’s various allies, which may enter at any level of intensity at any point in this conflict. There’s Ansar Allah, which has the capability of striking the Israelis, but also assets throughout the Persian Gulf. If Hezbollah manages to wage a considerable ground war, the Israelis have proven in the past to be the weakest in this arena.

The Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU/PMF, Hashd al-Shaabi) are around 250,000 men strong, alongside Saraya Awliya al-Dam, who can use their own capabilities to not only target the US, but the Israelis also. So far, since October 7, 2023, we have not seen a true demonstration of their power. Another factor which is not often discussed, but is also very important, is the role of the Palestinian resistance, who are more likely to wait for the right opportunity, but can also pose a major ground challenge to the Israelis from Gaza.

None of this considers the other elements that could come into play, such as the roles played by regional nations, armed groups we may not have previously heard of, the likes of the Fatemiyoun of Afghanistan and Zainabiyoun of Pakistan, or the general populations throughout the region and what we could see in the event that chaos erupts. Governments could be overthrown, the civilian populations of Jordan and Egypt could become active and out of control. There is also the possibility that some groups in Syria could seize the opportunity to attack the Israelis.

In the event that such a war occurs, the longer it goes on, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. A situation will be totally out of the US’s control, especially as the only means of combating this regional explosion is through the air. As we witnessed with the US campaign against Yemen, airstrikes alone change very little. Even in Gaza, the armed resistance groups fought for over 2 years with no supply chain, and by the admissions of the US and Israelis, their fighting force is still roughly the same size.

If things don’t go their way very quickly, then the Zionist coalition is going to get battered, and not even nuclear weapons will get them out of it. Therefore, [if] the US and Israelis, as long as we again grant them another assumption, that they are somewhat sane, choose to go to war, they will have to try and establish an escalation ladder, devising a real exit strategy.

The question becomes whether the Iranians and their allies allow them to exit the fight. An all out war will be bloody, it will claim an enormous amount of civilian lives, and it will also inflict considerable damage on civilian infrastructure. Truly, the effects of such a war are not desired by anyone in the region, yet the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance have long prepared their capabilities in order to combat what appears to have been inevitable.

Another thing to be mentioned here is that the US government, under the Trump administration, is totally captured by the Zionist entity. For all the reasons noted above, no previous administrations have dared escalate to this extent. If it were easy to launch a regime change operation against Iran, it would have been carried out many years ago.

However, a Zionist stooge is occupying the White House, a narcissistic man whose already low cognitive abilities are clearly declining. He is a President that an FBI report concluded had been compromised by the Mossad, but even if that report isn’t to be taken seriously, his whole campaign was bankrolled by Zionist donors, and his administration is an embarrassing collection of Zionist war hawks. If there was ever any US administration that was foolish enough to launch such a war, it is that of Donald Trump.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran

Travelers Take a Pass on Visiting America

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | February 20, 2026

Donald Trump, who started his second term as United States president a little over a year ago, likes to talk about how he is making America great again. But, for foreigners planning their trips abroad, it appears Trump has played a significant role in reducing their perception that America is great — at least as a travel destination.

Ceylan Yeğinsu reported Thursday at the New York Times that America stood alone among major destinations in having a drop in foreign visitors last year. She wrote:

Last year, as tourism grew worldwide, the United States was the only major destination to see a decline in foreign visitors, recording a 6 percent drop, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council, an industry group. January saw a continued decline in inbound visitors, down 4.8 percent from January 2025.

Why is America the loser in attracting foreign visitors? Yeğinsu points to several initiatives of Trump as contributing to the development, including current and planned Trump policies directly making traveling to America more burdensome:

The Trump administration has made it significantly harder for some travelers to enter the United States, barring visitors from more than a dozen countries and introducing a $250 ‘visa integrity fee‘ for nonimmigrant tourist and business visas designed to discourage visitors from overstaying. Visitors are also facing more rigorous vetting at the border, with increased searches of electronic devices, some resulting in detentions and denied entry. Citizens of countries who just need an electronic authorization to visit the United States may soon be required to provide up to five years of social media history to enter; that could result in a loss of up to $15.7 billion in visitor spending, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council.

Typical of Trump’s “make America great again” braggadocio, in July the president declared in a “Made in America Week” proclamation:

Together, we are rebuilding our Nation with American heart, hands, and grit.  We are bringing back a culture of boldness and creativity that will empower the next generation of innovators, unleash the full strength of the American spirit, and ensure our economy, our culture, and our way of life remain the envy of the world.  Above all, under my leadership, we are proudly building, inventing, and creating in the United States of America once again.

“Envy of the world” or not, America is moving further from being the travel destination of choice of the world, and Trump appears to be largely to blame for that.

February 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Comments Off on Travelers Take a Pass on Visiting America

EU members divided on 20th Russia sanctions package – media

RT | February 20, 2026

EU ambassadors reportedly failed to reach an agreement on a 20th sanctions package against Russia during a meeting on Friday, Reuters has reported, citing diplomatic sources.

The proposed measures, which Brussels said it hopes to finalize by the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine conflict’s escalation on Monday, face opposition from several member states over key provisions.

The main sticking point is a proposed full ban on maritime services for Russian oil tankers which would scrap the existing price cap system, prohibiting all EU companies from providing insurance, banking, shipping, or port access to any vessel carrying Russian crude.

Greece and Malta, two countries with powerful maritime industries, have reportedly emerged as the main opponents of the new restriction, warning that a unilateral EU ban without full G7 backing would cripple their economies and push shipping business toward competitors in India and China.

They have also opposed possible restrictions on the port of Karimun in Indonesia. Italy and Hungary have been reluctant to support sanctions against the port of Kulevi in Georgia. Madrid and Rome have objected to placing sanctions on one of Cuba’s banks.

Furthermore, Hungary and Slovakia have placed a “general reserve” on the entire package, leveraging their veto power to secure assurances over Russian oil supplies via the damaged Druzhba pipeline which have been halted since January.

Reuters reported that EU diplomats could reconvene over the weekend to discuss the proposed sanctions again, ahead of Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting, where ministers hope to formally adopt the package.

Moscow has repeatedly denounced the EU’s sanctions as illegitimate and counterproductive, saying that they have had little effect on Russia’s economy, while decimating Europe’s.

A number of European officials have also consistently opposed the restrictions, with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico arguing that the EU is “only hurting itself” with the sanctions, describing previous packages as bringing “no benefit to member states.”

February 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , | Comments Off on EU members divided on 20th Russia sanctions package – media

With Ukraine blamed for cutting oil flows to Hungary, Croatia also refuses to transfer Russian oil in violation of EU law

Election interference?

Remix News | February 20, 2026

The energy supply dispute has reached a new level in Central Europe after Zagreb made it clear that it will not allow Russian crude oil to be transported via the JANAF pipeline to Hungary and Slovakia.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced this week that Hungary would stop the transport of diesel fuel to Ukraine, after Ukraine halted the transit of Russian oil to Hungary via the Friendship pipeline on Jan. 27 and has not resumed it since. Shortly afterwards, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also announced that the Slovnaft oil refinery would stop exporting diesel to Ukraine.

Szijjártó made it clear that Hungary expects Croatia to comply with EU law and step in to fill the shortage created for Hungary and Slovakia due to Kyiv’s refusal to reopen the Druzhba pipeline.

Economy Minister Ante Susnjar has indicated that Croatia is ready to help the two countries with oil from non-Russian sources, in accordance with European Union legislation and OFAC rules, but Hungary has countered that this is not in compliance with EU rules, which Szijjártó has pointed out state that if land transit of Russian crude oil is impossible, Budapest and Bratislava can also purchase from Russia by sea.

Susnjar said that JANAF is capable of transporting 15 million tons of oil per year, which exceeds the combined capacity of the Százhalombatta and Bratislava refineries, so there are no technical obstacles. He added that transportation fees account for only about one percent of the total cost of oil. According to him, as explained by Index, the real issue is that Russian oil is about 30 percent cheaper than alternatives.

Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic confirmed that Croatia is able to guarantee 12 million tons of oil per year for Hungary and Slovakia, which would fully cover the refining needs of both countries.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has also intervened following an extraordinary meeting. “We have convened an ad hoc meeting of the Oil Coordination Group to discuss the impacts of the supply disruption and possible alternatives to fuel supply,” said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, spokesperson for the European Commission.

She further added, as quoted by Euronews, “We are in contact with Ukrainian authorities on the timeline of repairing this (Friendship) pipeline. It is very, very important that this is not misinterpreted to mean that we would be exerting any kind of pressure on Ukraine.”

Still, the EU commission has made it clear that they are concerned about Ukraine’s own energy security, indicating they do not want to see Hungary and Slovakia blocking diesel fuel from the war-torn country. Hungary also stated yesterday that it may decide to cut off electricity and natural gas transports to Ukraine as well, as confirmed by Reuters.

Szijjártó stated that they are in constant contact with the Ukrainian authorities about the schedule for repairing the pipeline. He noted that Hungary expects the European Commission to comply with European Union rules and that the Brussels body should not behave like the “Ukraine Commission.” He also called on them to take the EU rules on the import of Russian crude oil seriously and to signal to the Croatians that they cannot refuse the sea transport of Russian oil from Hungary and Slovakia during the outage of the Friendship pipeline.

The Hungarian foreign minister has also made it clear that there are no physical or technical obstacles to restarting the oil pipeline, claiming that Zelensky’s refusal to restore service on the Druzhba is election interference, given it plays directly into the opposition’s hands right before parliamentary elections in Hungary this April.

February 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Comments Off on With Ukraine blamed for cutting oil flows to Hungary, Croatia also refuses to transfer Russian oil in violation of EU law

Ukrainian disruption of Russian oil pipeline triggers emergency in EU state

RT | February 18, 2026

Slovakia has declared a state of emergency following Ukraine’s decision to block vital Russian oil supplies to the country, TASR news agency has reported.

The state of emergency will be in effect from Thursday until September 30 at the latest, it added, citing Kiev’s refusal to transit Russian oil to the country and the ongoing blockade of the Druzhba pipeline network.

The Slovak government will release strategic oil reserves to ensure one month of operation for the country’s only refinery, in Bratislava, the agency wrote on Wednesday.

Slovakia will also import oil via Croatia’s Adria pipeline, an alternative route bypassing Druzhba, although that supply could take up to 30 days to reach the facility.

Slovak Economy Minister Denisa Sakova said the Czech government was also examining possibilities for supplying oil to Bratislava.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced after a government meeting on Wednesday that oil company Slovnaft was stopping the export of diesel to Ukraine, with all products now destined for the domestic market.

He also previously stated that Slovakia may stop supplying electricity to Ukraine over the suspension of oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline. According to him, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is refusing to cooperate on the issue.

While Ukraine has claimed the transit halt was caused by a Russian attack in late January, Slovakia and neighboring Hungary have insisted the pipeline is operational, but oil is not flowing due to a political decision in Kiev.

Fico said on Sunday that Kiev had delayed the restart of oil flows in order to pressure Budapest to drop its veto on Ukraine’s future EU membership. Orban has vowed to block any accelerated accession, warning that admitting the country would drag the bloc into direct conflict with Russia.

Hungary and Slovakia are heavily dependent on Russian crude and hold exemptions from EU sanctions allowing them to import Russian crude by sea if pipeline transit becomes impossible. On Monday, Budapest announced plans to invoke the temporary exemption and import seaborne Russian crude via Croatia.

February 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on Ukrainian disruption of Russian oil pipeline triggers emergency in EU state

Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’

RT | February 17, 2026

Russia’s response to “Western piracy” targeting its maritime trade should be forceful and not limited to diplomatic means, an aide to President Vladimir Putin has said.

Nikolay Patrushev, a veteran national security official who heads a naval policymaking body, called for stronger action against Western moves targeting vessels described as part of an alleged Russian ‘shadow fleet’.

Attempts to paralyze Russian foreign trade will only intensify, Patrushev warned in an interview with Argumenty i Fakty published on Tuesday.

“Unless we push back forcefully, soon the English, the French, and even the Balts will get brazen enough to try and block our nation’s access to at least the Atlantic,” he said.

“The Europeans are in essence making steps to impose a naval blockade, deliberately pushing towards a military escalation, testing the limits of our patience and provoking our retaliation. If the situation is not resolved peacefully, the Navy will be breaking and lifting the blockade,” Patrushev said.

“Let’s not forget that plenty of vessels sail the seas under European flags. We may get curious about what they are shipping and where,” he added.

Patrushev expressed skepticism that tensions could ease, saying “there is little hope that the West has an ounce of respect for diplomacy and the law.” He argued that “the old practice of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ is being revived,” citing US operations targeting Venezuela and Iran.

Washington has used warships to target suspected drug smuggling boats off Venezuela and intercept outgoing oil tankers, including one sailing under a Russian flag. The Pentagon is now concentrating assets in the Middle East as President Donald Trump pressures Iran to accept restrictions on its missile deterrence against Israel.

In today’s world, the Russian Navy is “a geopolitical tool that combines might with flexibility and is suitable for both peacetime and armed conflicts,” Patrushev said. Its strength is needed to protect Russia’s “ability to export oil, grain and fertilizers, and the normal functioning of the state.”

February 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’

Trump, Netanyahu Agree to Target Iranian Oil Exports to China

What will it cost the US economy?

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 15, 2026

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to increase economic pressure on Iran by attempting to cut oil exports to China.

A US official speaking with Axios said during the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu last week, the leaders “agreed that we will go full force with maximum pressure against Iran, for example, regarding Iranian oil sales to China.”

Kpler estimates that 80% of Iranian oil sales are to China. The Trump administration has attempted to cause intense economic suffering in Iran, hoping the result will be the overthrow of the government in Tehran.

Trump recently signed an executive order authorizing the White House to impose 25% tariffs on countries that buy Iranian oil. It’s unclear if the President will be willing to upend the delicate Trump relationship with China to damage the Iranian economy.

The US is ramping up the economic war as talks with Iran are ongoing. US and Iranian negotiators are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Tuesday. The US and Israel are demanding that Iran agree to limits on its nuclear and missile programs. Tehran says it is refusing to place any restrictions on its missile program.

According to officials speaking with Axios, Netanyahu and Trump disagreed during the meeting about negotiations with Iran. The President believes a deal is possible, while Netanyahu told Trump that Iran will not sign an agreement and that, if it did, Tehran would not comply with it.

CBS News reports speaking with two sources who said during a December meeting, Trump told Netanyahu that Israel could strike Iran if Iran does not agree to a deal with the US.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US Caribbean Buildup Near $3B — Report

Sputnik – 15.02.2026

The US military surge around Venezuela that culminated in the military aggression and abduction of President Nicolas Maduro is approaching a $3 billion price tag, Bloomberg reported.

Bloomberg calculations show the deployment at its peak cost more than $20 million a day, with as much as 20% of the US Navy’s surface fleet tied up in the region. Former Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker estimated that Operation Southern Spear has “probably cost about $2 billion since August 2025,” excluding intelligence and targeting expenses.

The White House has said the operation did not cost taxpayers extra because the forces were already deployed. But experts cited by Bloomberg noted that combat activity, higher operational tempo and personnel benefits add to expenses, and there is “no contingency fund in the DOD budget for unexpected operations.”

Despite the USS Gerald R. Ford being reassigned to the Middle East, Bloomberg reported the Caribbean deployment has no clear end date, even as US lawmakers say they have not been provided with detailed cost estimates.

Billions spent. No formal accounting.

And the tab keeps rising.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO

By Lucas Leiroz | February 13, 2026

Apparently, NATO officials are beginning to admit that the organization is not in a position of military superiority over the Russian Federation. In a recent statement, a senior NATO official admitted that Russia has an advantage in adapting to new forms of warfare and military technology, warning of the Western alliance’s obsolescence.

The warning was issued by Admiral Pierre Vandier, who holds the position of NATO’s technological transformation commander. He commented on how world powers adapt to ever-changing military technologies and made it clear that Russia has greater adaptive capacity than NATO.

Vandier described NATO as “static and predictable.” According to him, the bloc fails to perceive in time the constant changes in the global military and geopolitical scenarios. He draws special attention to the issue of military technology, warning how the bloc is still bound to an outdated mentality about combat technology – which proves useless on the battlefield in contemporary conflicts. Meanwhile, Russia is perfectly adapted to the new reality of war, knowing how to use technology satisfactorily in the pursuit of its strategic objectives.

“Russia is very good at adapting and probably better than we are today (…) We have been very static, very predictable,” he said.

In fact, Vandier is merely admitting something that has already been commented on by many military analysts over the past four years: NATO’s inability to understand how to correctly use military technology in a combat context. What appears to be happening is a conflict of mentalities and ideologies. Russia prioritizes the military objective and how technology can help achieve it, while, on the other hand, NATO prioritizes profit and the impact on public opinion generated by technological development.

This logic is strongly aligned with the military, political, and economic principles that guide Russia and NATO. As a pragmatic state focused on achieving its strategic interests, Russia is concerned with developing military technology aimed at ensuring the rapid neutralization of the enemy and sparing as many Russian soldiers’ lives as possible. This is deeply aligned with the illiberal mentality of the Russian Federation at the political and economic levels.

On the other hand, the Collective West continues to guide its decision-making process with a mentality typical of the post-Cold War period, when neoliberal ideology became hegemonic. At that time, without worthy competitors, the West no longer prioritized clear strategic objectives, but rather technological development for financial and media purposes.

Since then, Western countries have developed extremely expensive military hardware, often designed by civilian specialists with no connection to the military sphere, with the sole objective of generating an impact on public opinion, inflating the price of the equipment and selling it to client states, creating relationships of economic dependence and indebtedness.

This has been a recurring issue in Ukraine in recent years. The fascist regime in Kiev has imported Western military technology described as “advanced,” when in fact it is merely overpriced hardware, fueled by Western financial economies. These technologies are designed to impress and sell, not to defeat the enemy in a real combat situation. The result is being seen in the special military operation: cheap Russian drones obliterating tanks, missile launch systems, and all types of “sophisticated” equipment imported from the West.

The warning issued by Vandier is important for Western countries if they truly want to adapt to the circumstances of an increasingly polycentric and multipolar world. The 1990s are over, the neoliberal era no longer exists, and the West now has worthy enemies. Russia, China, Iran, India, and other emerging countries maintain strong industrial economies capable of producing military technology on a massive scale – and they are not guided by liberal principles that prioritize profit and media impact.

However, despite the warning, it is unlikely that this situation will change. The West is not governed by politicians interested in what is best for their countries, but by transnational financial elites interested only in their own selfish gains and unconcerned with any strategic issues. For these elites, the more useless military technology is produced, overpriced, sold and discarded, the better – since this way they will continue to profit, regardless of the real military benefit to the West and its client states.

The best thing that can be done in the West is to dismantle NATO and decouple individual states from these transnational elites, creating sovereign governments focused on their real strategic interests.


Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Populations in key NATO nations balk at sacrifices for military spending – poll

RT | February 13, 2026

People in key NATO nations are reluctant to tighten their belts to fund increased defense spending, despite believing that the world is “heading toward global war,” according to a Politico poll published on Friday.

The poll, which surveyed at least 2,000 people from the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany each, found that majorities in four of the five countries think “the world is becoming more dangerous” and expect World War III to break out within five years.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) consider a new world war ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ by 2031, up from 38% last year. In the UK, 43% share this belief, up from 30% in March 2025.

French respondents matched British levels at 43%, and 40% of Canadians expect war within five years. Only Germans remain skeptical, with a majority believing that a global conflict is unlikely in the near term.

The survey suggested a stark disconnect, however, between the growing alarm and willingness to pay for a defense buildup. While respondents support increased military spending in principle, support fell dramatically when specific trade-offs were mentioned.

In France, support dropped from 40% to 28% when those being surveyed were told about the potential financial and fiscal consequences. In Germany, it fell from 37% to 24%, with defense spending ranking as one of the least popular uses of money.

The survey also suggested significant skepticism about creating an EU army under a central command, with support at 22% in Germany and 17% in France.

While the poll suggests that Russia is perceived as the ‘biggest threat’ to Europe, Canadians view the administration of US President Donald Trump as the greatest danger to their security. Respondents in France, Germany, and the UK rank the US as the second-biggest threat – cited far more often than China.

The findings come after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged members states in December to embrace a “wartime mindset” amid the stand-off with Russia. This also comes amid Western media speculation that Russia could attack European NATO members within several years. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” while accusing EU countries of manufacturing anti-Russia hysteria to justify reckless militarization.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , , , , | Leave a comment