Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why a New European Security Architecture Will Be Born Through War

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | November 12, 2026

As the world has shifted from unipolarity to multipolarity, the security architecture must also change to ensure peace. From Europe to the Middle East and East Asia, existing security architectures are collapsing, and new arrangements are needed to prevent great-power wars that could destroy humanity. The problem is that new security architectures have historically been established only after major wars that have shattered the previous status quo.

War as the Catalyst for Change

After the Napoleonic Wars, the Concert of Europe was established and organised relations from 1815 to 1914. After the First World War, a new security architecture was developed with the League of Nations, yet it collapsed in 1939 with the outbreak of the Second World War. After the Second World War, the United Nations was established to manage relations and develop shared international law. Yet, throughout the Cold War, we had a dual system, as the international system was organised under the UN, while the bipolar international distribution of power organised competing alliance systems under NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

When the Cold War came to an end, the dual system continued to exist. The West initially signed agreements for a new, inclusive pan-European security architecture based on indivisible security and without dividing lines, as outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the establishment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1995 – both based on the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Yet, these agreements were hollowed out by expanding NATO as an instrument of hegemonic peace, creating a new Europe without Russia as the largest country in Europe. The redivision of Europe and the undermining of the principle of indivisible security have been at the heart of the conflict between NATO and Russia for the past three decades, and this was the trigger for the Ukraine War.

New security architectures are historically born through war, as the former status quo disappears and there is a recognition of the need to establish a system to avoid war and build peace. Institutions are usually effective and problem-solving in their early phases, as their objectives are clear. In the later stages, they become decadent and institutionalised, consumed by bureaucracy and institutional self-preservation, while resisting adaptation to new realities. NATO’s transformation is an interesting example of an effort at institutional adaptation and self-preservation, as open debates focused on finding a new purpose for the military bloc that had lost its Soviet adversary – with the slogan for embracing internationalism and expansionism being “out of area or out of business”.

Europe Searching for a Role in the Multipolar World

All the major actors are finding new roles in the multipolar world. China and Russia are taking the lead in establishing a new geoeconomic architecture and political institutions such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to facilitate a greater role for rising powers in the multipolar world. The US seeks to preserve or revive its former hegemonic position, yet is reluctantly adjusting to new realities by shifting its focus to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia.

The Europeans are the most reluctant to adjust to new realities, as their former role as the principal partner of the US in an international system defined by collective hegemony ensured Europe’s unity and relevance. There is also a lack of options in terms of what Europe can transition towards, as the US provided Europe with an economic model, security model, and political model, and was indeed the pacifier that ensured unity on the continent over the past decades. The Europeans can throw their full weight behind the US and face vassalage, although the failure to diversify their ties will only weaken Europe further, while a retreating US will see Europe as increasingly less relevant in the new world. Alternatively, Europe must adjust to a new international distribution of power and find unity through a geoeconomic logic of collective bargaining power and the pursuit of collective technological sovereignty. Yet, a geoeconomic Europe must adjust to realities and seek connectivity with the other centres of power – which includes Russia.

This will not happen. The institutions of the former status quo, such as NATO, are still present, which keeps alive the hope of returning to the unipolar order. On 6 November 2026, the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, made this argument explicitly as she dismissed Russia’s call for reforming the European security architecture, stating: “We already have European security architecture in place. NATO and the European Union both have their respective roles. We must make sure Ukraine is integrated into this architecture.” The massive war in Europe, which could quickly spiral into nuclear war, did not seem to affect her assessment of the stability of the former status quo.

War is Coming

As history has demonstrated, former security architectures remain in place long after they have outlived their function and decadence has set in. In an act of desperation and self-delusion, the Europeans embrace absurd narratives of being confronted with another Hitler to reinvent a purpose for the outdated and decadent security architecture that no longer provides security. Unwilling to accept new realities and discuss a new European security architecture, the Europeans will choose war as their Ukrainian proxy army collapses on the battlefield. Any pathway to peace that entails recognising the security concerns of Russia has been rejected as it will undermine the former hegemonic security architecture. As in the past, a new security architecture will be built after the coming war between Europe and Russia – if we survive it.

November 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Why a New European Security Architecture Will Be Born Through War

EU incapable of speaking with one voice on Ukraine – analyst to RT

RT | November 12, 2026

The European Union lacks a diplomatic heavyweight capable of negotiating with Russia, while disagreements between its largest member states have undermined its ability to speak with one voice on Ukraine, Stratpol director Xavier Moreau has told RT.

His comments follow two days of trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the US in Abu Dhabi, which concluded on Wednesday, marking the first formal three-way meeting since February. European representatives were excluded from the negotiations, although they held separate discussions with US and Ukrainian officials on Tuesday. Moscow has questioned Europe’s potential contribution to the peace process, accusing EU governments of undermining previous agreements and prolonging the conflict through continued weapons supplies.

“The European Union makes the big European countries weak,” Moreau said, arguing that the bloc’s diplomatic structure has left its most influential members unable to take the lead in potential negotiations with Moscow.

He questioned who could credibly represent the EU in talks with Russia, dismissing the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, as an unsuitable candidate.

“She’s not very known as a clever diplomat, so the Russians will never accept,” Moreau said, suggesting that any European representative should instead come from Germany, France, or Italy.

However, he argued that the EU’s overlapping national and supranational diplomatic structures have created confusion over who actually speaks for Europe.

“Who is in charge of the diplomacy in the European Union? Brussels, Paris, Germany, or Italy?” he asked.

Moreau also pointed to sharply differing positions among the bloc’s three largest economies. According to the analyst, France has exhausted its financial capacity to support Ukraine, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz remains committed to continued assistance despite mounting difficulties.

Italy, meanwhile, is seeking to distance itself from the conflict, he claimed, while ultimately following Washington’s lead.

Moreau also cited disagreements between Germany and Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, Czechia, and Romania, which he said are increasingly unwilling to fund Ukraine.

“So a common voice in Europe, it’s not possible,” he concluded.

November 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on EU incapable of speaking with one voice on Ukraine – analyst to RT

Ukraine training Sahel militants to use drones – Russian envoy

RT | November 12, 2026

Ukrainian officers are training armed groups and terrorist organizations in the Sahel to use drones as part of Kiev’s alleged support for militants fighting African governments, Russian Ambassador to Algeria Aleksey Solomatin has said.

The claim adds to repeated accusations by Moscow and several West African governments that Ukraine is supporting militants involved in a jihadist insurgency that has destabilized the region for more than a decade. Speaking to RIA Novosti on Thursday, Solomatin said armed groups operating across the Sahel and Sahara-Sahel region were destabilizing several countries bordering Algeria.

“Ukrainian officers are working in Africa, training [fighters] in the use of drones. They support not states, but armed formations and terrorist groups acting against states and democracy,” he said.

Last week, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service made a similar allegation. Deputy Director Mikhail Maksimovich said Ukrainian military intelligence emissaries were organizing courses in Africa, particularly Mali, to train drone operators, including users of “kamikaze” drones. He also said international terrorist organizations were showing growing interest in obtaining drone technology from Kiev.

Ukraine has faced accusations of backing terrorism in the Sahel since July 2024, when rebels ambushed Malian forces and personnel of Russia’s Wagner private military group near Tinzaouaten in northern Mali. Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Andrey Yusov later said the rebels had received the “necessary information” that enabled the successful operation.

Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso formally filed a complaint with the UN Security Council, accusing Ukraine of supporting international terrorism in the Sahel. The letter cited Yusov’s remarks and comments by Ukraine’s then-ambassador to Senegal as evidence of what the three governments described as Kiev’s involvement in the deadly Tinzaouaten attack.

Russian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, have said Kiev was opening a “second front” in Africa by supporting militants in countries friendly to Moscow.

In September, CNN reported that around 15 Ukrainian specialists were assisting Tuareg rebels in northern Mali with drones, including remotely directing missions. French newspaper Le Monde had earlier reported that cooperation between Ukrainian military intelligence and Malian rebels began in early 2024, including drone training in Ukraine and the Sahel.

Ukraine has repeatedly denied supporting terrorist groups in the Sahel. Last week, its Foreign Ministry said claims by Mali and Niger were unsupported by “credible evidence.” It added that the allegations “coincide with key messages of Russian propaganda” aimed at undermining trust in Kiev and weakening its relations with African partners.

November 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine training Sahel militants to use drones – Russian envoy

US still trying to recycle failed hypersonic missile programs

By Drago Bosnic | November 10, 2026

Just two decades ago, most military analysts were convinced the United States was unrivaled in hypersonic weapons. Its Military Industrial Complex (MIC) was adamant about underestimating Russian advances, particularly the 9K720 “Iskander” system, whose 9M723 missiles were the first ground-based hypersonic weapons (although still usually listed as quasi-ballistic missiles). The NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict demonstrated the “Iskander-M’s” high maneuverability and speed, proving beyond a doubt that Moscow is around 15-20 years ahead in the development and deployment of hypersonics. In stark contrast, Washington DC’s attempts to ridicule Russian advances seem to have had a “karmic” effect, as the Pentagon has been going through one embarrassing failure after another for decades.

However, denigrating your opponent through the mainstream propaganda machine doesn’t slow down their actual technological advances. It could surely make them look bad (albeit not beyond the political West), but nothing more. Still, the US keeps doing it. The mainstream propaganda machine’s rather pathetic claims that Russia supposedly “stole” non-existent American hypersonic technologies became all the more ludicrous as the Pentagon’s failures to develop a single working weapon kept piling up. Despite running up to a dozen hypersonic weapons programs, the US has nothing to show for it. Back in March 2023, things took a turn for the worse after the cancellation of the AGM-183A, an air-launched missile carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). Dubbed the ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon), it was supposed to be the US entry point into the highly exclusive “hypersonic club”.

However, America’s failures didn’t end there. Namely, its inability to make even basic weapons (relative to its superpower status) became evident, leading to more embarrassing episodes, such as constant delays and technological issues in developing ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). And yet, given the geopolitical prestige of fielding hypersonic weapons, Washington DC needed to suppress information about its failures, which is why we still don’t have an official confirmation of the most recent test results. I already argued that it most likely failed, and while definite evidence is still not there, subsequent events reinforced this notion. In fact, the latest revelations about America’s intentions to revive failed programs serve as a case in point. Namely, the abortive AGM-183A missile with an HGV warhead is being restarted – again.

Nicknamed the “Super-Duper” by President Donald Trump, the ARRW (usually read as “arrow”) allegedly went farthest in R&D and testing. However, the weapon was simply insufficient to match even North Korean and Iranian designs, let alone Chinese or Russian advances (which stand in a league of their own). Military sources report that uncertainty surrounding the AGM-183A’s future was exacerbated significantly in late September 2024, when the USAF gave Lockheed Martin $13.4 million in additional funds for an officially canceled program. Namely, aside from the aforementioned March 2023 cancellation (officially due to “unspecified technical issues”), there was a brief revival (albeit unofficial), mainly due to repeated failures of other programs. However, funding for the AGM-183A was still cut in March 2024.

This effectively made it the project’s second cancellation, with the US military promising it would focus on other programs. The missile was still paraded in the Asia-Pacific in a “show of force”, but this accomplished virtually nothing, as the true results of test launches there were never published (suggesting more failures), while both North Korea and Iran demonstrated they can build and field these missiles. And while it’s certainly a capable weapon on paper, the AGM-183A program is either very poorly executed or the US simply lacks the technology to field such weapons. It carries an HGV warhead, meaning the booster should be the least of the Pentagon’s problems, but even this relatively simple tech seems like an insurmountable obstacle, resulting in repeated failures and perpetual cost overruns.

The HGV itself is the most complicated technological challenge, as it requires world-class knowledge about both rocketry and hypersonic gliding (unpowered flight). Maintaining massive speeds in the given circumstances is a major hurdle, particularly as traditional ballistic missiles keep losing momentum as they fly further. However, HGVs are capable of using their highly advanced lift surfaces to not only sustain hypersonic speed, but also maneuver. Russia mastered this technology during its “Avangard” program (also known as Yu-71/Yu-74), reaching staggering speeds of Mach 28 (nearly 10 km/s or over 33,000 km/h), as well as intercontinental range (6,000+ to 18,000 km), making it the only strategic hypersonic weapon in the world. On the other hand, the failed ARRW is supposed to be an operational equivalent of the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” systems armed with 9-S-7760 air-launched hypersonic missiles.

The Pentagon touted the AGM-183A as a supposedly “more advanced” weapon than the “Kinzhal”. However, while the latter is not only an existing weapon, it has also proven its capabilities in combat, something the US-made missile can’t match even in highly controlled test environments. The would-be “game changer” was supposed to give the US military “unprecedented strike options” and was slated to be carried by both strategic aircraft such as B-52 bombers and tactical jets such as the F-15.

However, the Pentagon’s repeated failures led to ever-lower funding. Long expected to be the first hypersonic weapon in any Western arsenal, its “problematic” testing record forced the US military to look for alternatives. The problem is – the alternatives are also years behind schedule and suffer from identical issues such as excessive costs, unreliability, repeated test failures and lack of progress in improving the design.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on US still trying to recycle failed hypersonic missile programs

Will Republicans Learn Their Lesson from the ‘Disastrous’ Midterms?

By Ron Paul | November 9, 2026

Politicians break campaign promises with hardly any hesitation and usually they get away with it. Americans have come to put up with broken promises for so long, they hardly even seem to notice. Last week, however, voters noticed. They showed the Republican party just how angry they were over President Trump’s decision to attack Iran and how angry they were with Congress for abandoning its Constitutional authority over matters of war and peace.

The results were dramatic. Voters even turned Texas blue, as Democrats took firm control of both the House and Senate.

As President Trump’s promise of a quick war and a quick victory rapidly faded, the costs of the unnecessary and illegal attack thousands of miles away soon began to hit Americans hard. The predictable closure of the Hormuz Strait sent fuel costs through the roof, fanning the fires of inflation which hit everything transported by road, rail, or air.

For months the polls were clear: Americans’ top three concerns were high fuel prices, inflation, and the Iran war. All were related yet Republicans ignored voter concerns. Last Tuesday, voters had the final say.

The peace candidate usually wins, and President Trump promised repeatedly on the campaign trail that not only would he not start wars, but he would end existing conflicts. But we’ve heard it all before. George W. Bush was elected promising a “more humble” foreign policy. After eight years of Bush’s Middle East wars, Obama was elected as the “new” peace candidate. However soon the “Saddam must go” of the Bush era became “Assad must go” and “Gaddafi must go” in the Obama era. Trump was elected after Biden took us to the brink of war with Russia over Ukraine. He promised that this time he would be the real peace candidate. We got war on Iran instead – a war that we did not win and cannot win.

Has the Republican party gotten the message? Have they learned the lesson voters can deliver when they finally have had enough of being lied to?

Neocons are seeing the voter rebuke of Trump as an opportunity to return the Republican party to the Bush era. Yes, prices and inflation are a problem, they argue, but that has nothing to do with the Iran war.

Nobody is buying that.

Vice President Vance laid out clearly why Republicans lost in the midterms: the war, inflation, rejection of America first, and our unhealthy relationship with Israel. Bush-era neocons like Marc Thiessen were furious, accusing Vance of being “disloyal” to the President.

Does Vance really mean what he said, or is it just another example of politicians promising what they think voters want to hear?

It seems a Republican Party that drummed out Thomas Massie over his opposition to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” who warned about the dangers of putting foreign countries before our own, and who demanded an end to all foreign aid is not a Republican Party that Americans are interested in.

The pain will continue until the Party finally rids itself of the neocons and warmongers and returns to its roots as exemplified in the past by the late Sen. Robert Taft and in the present by Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Joe Kent, Tucker Carlson, and many others who genuinely care about peace and liberty.

November 9, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Will Republicans Learn Their Lesson from the ‘Disastrous’ Midterms?

New attack on Iran could devastate ‘Israel’, IOF general warns

Al Mayadeen | November 8, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s second term has exposed a reality starkly at odds with his promises to end crises and “achieve world peace,” as wars continue and economic difficulties deepen, Israeli reserve Major General Yitzhak Brik said.

In an article published by the Israeli newspaper Maariv, Brik noted that the West Asia region remains engulfed in an ongoing war, amid fears that the confrontation could spread to other parts of the world. Meanwhile, the global economy is deteriorating rather than experiencing the prosperity Trump had promised.

Brik argued that the outcome of the US midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of Congress, reflected the extent of public dissatisfaction with Trump’s policies and declining confidence in his ability to resolve the crises he had pledged to address.

According to Brik, the US president is now facing consequential decisions over the war on Iran, amid sharp divisions within his administration and the absence of a unified strategy for dealing with the evolving confrontation.

US divided over war

Brik further stated that disagreements within the White House revolve around two principal options: escalating military attacks on Iran in an attempt to achieve a decisive outcome through force, or maintaining economic pressure while pursuing an agreement that could bring the war to an end and prevent further escalation.

However, military and political calculations are not the only factors shaping Trump’s decisions, the Israeli general said. He suggested that the US president’s sense of “humiliation” over Iran’s treatment of him could drive him to launch an attack out of a desire for revenge rather than on the basis of strategic assessments.

He warned that a military decision motivated by such considerations could have grave consequences for the entire region, particularly if “Israel” joined any new offensive.

A catastrophe for ‘Israel’

Brik stressed that another aerial assault on Iran, potentially involving “Israel”, could rapidly trigger a full-scale regional war in which “Israel” would find itself at the center.

He acknowledged that the damage “Israel” could sustain in such a confrontation would be “enormous and unbearable,” noting that some of the damage it suffered during previous rounds of fighting had already become irreparable.

Brik called on the “sensible and responsible” figures within the US administration to dissuade Trump from ordering another attack, warning that further escalation could open the door to a confrontation extending far beyond the current war.

He argued that the expectation that airstrikes alone could secure a decisive military victory over Iran rests on unrealistic assumptions. Without a ground intervention, he said, aerial operations cannot topple the Iranian government or prevent Iran from becoming a “nuclear state”.

Citing the outcome of previous attacks, Brik maintained that they had failed to achieve their strategic objectives, producing little more than temporary destruction while strengthening Tehran’s determination to continue developing its capabilities.

What are the costs of war?

In outlining the options available to Washington, Brik argued that addressing Iran’s nuclear program would require one of two principal courses of action, neither of which could produce results without imposing a substantial cost.

The first option would involve a large-scale ground operation inside Iranian territory, directly targeting nuclear facilities with substantial troop deployments, extensive air support, and the use of technological and intelligence capabilities.

Brik believed this option could potentially deliver a decisive military defeat to the Iranian government and neutralize its nuclear facilities. He acknowledged, however, that it would require a massive operation resulting in heavy casualties among US forces.

The second option would involve economically exhausting Iran through stringent sanctions and a prolonged blockade, backed by the full participation of Western countries, with the aim of isolating the Iranian economy from global markets.

He specified that this approach would require preventing Iran from exporting oil, gas, and other products, while restricting the entry of raw materials and weapons through land crossings, thereby subjecting Tehran to sustained economic pressure.

Brik acknowledged that this option had a lower likelihood of success than a ground military campaign and would require prolonged patience, international discipline, and broad Western commitment.

At the same time, Brik rejected reliance on a “middle-ground solution” based on repeating aerial attacks, arguing that such an approach would neither halt Iran’s nuclear program nor achieve a decisive military outcome. Instead, it could drag “Israel” into a regional war in which it would pay a heavy price.

Brik concluded his article by urging decision-makers to abandon their reliance on political promises and displays of air power, warning that military decisions driven by revenge, without adequately assessing their consequences, could aggravate the crisis rather than resolve it.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on New attack on Iran could devastate ‘Israel’, IOF general warns

Thousands of Syrian troops set to join Saudi war on Yemen

Al Mayadeen| November 7, 2026

Thousands of Syrian troops are reportedly preparing to deploy to Yemen under a military arrangement with Saudi Arabia, potentially opening a new phase in the conflict and expanding Riyadh’s efforts in its aggression on Yemen.

Yemeni officials cited by AFP on Saturday said hundreds of Syrian personnel had already been deployed near the Saudi-Yemeni border, while additional forces were expected to arrive in stages. The reported agreement provides for an initial contingent of approximately 3,000 troops, with the overall deployment potentially exceeding 10,000.

A source from Yemen’s Aden government told AFP that Damascus and Riyadh reached an agreement on sending the initial contingent to participate in operations against the Yemeni Armed Forces.

“The Syrian side and the Saudi side agreed to send around 3,000 troops to fight against the Houthis,” the source said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Three separate Aden-aligned Yemeni sources and a defense official confirmed to the news agency that Syrian personnel had already arrived on both sides of the border. However, the full scale and operational details of the deployment have not been officially announced by the Syrian or Saudi governments.

Initial Syrian contingent reportedly includes officers and specialists

A source at the Aden-aligned Defense Ministry told AFP that the first phase would involve approximately 3,000 Syrian fighters, including officers and military specialists. The agreement reportedly provides for more than 10,000 personnel in total, with additional forces to be sent in subsequent stages.

The same source said Syrian and Saudi technical teams from the two countries’ defense ministries were in Riyadh finalizing arrangements for the participation of Syrian forces in aggressions against Yemen.

According to another Aden-aligned source, Syrian personnel already positioned near the Yemeni side of the border are involved in drone operations targeting the group.

The reported deployment is backed by a formal agreement between the Syrian and Saudi defense ministries, providing a legal framework for military cooperation. The arrangement was approved during Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to Riyadh this week, when the two countries signed several cooperation agreements, including a defense deal.

The agreement marks a significant development in relations between Riyadh and Damascus, particularly as Saudi Arabia seeks to consolidate its position in Yemen following the collapse of the truce over the summer.

Saudi Arabia seeks foreign military support

Riyadh has been seeking assistance from regional and international partners to fight against Yemen as the Yemeni Armed Forces retaliatory operations have cause significant damage inside the kingdom. The YAF have expanded their control along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline and stepped up retaliatory attacks on Saudi territory, vessels, and infrastructure.

The retaliatory strikes have also raised concerns over Saudi Arabia’s economic diversification plans and the security of strategic energy facilities. According to the AFP report, strikes on Riyadh forced the airport to close for two weeks following Ansar Allah’s retaliation.

The arrival of Syrian troops would make them the first clearly named foreign ground forces to join the war on Yemen since fighting escalated over the summer.

Other countries have also signaled or provided military assistance. Egypt’s parliament approved President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s request to authorize defensive military support for Saudi Arabia if Riyadh formally requests it.

France has deployed troops to protect the Yanbu oil terminal, a key Saudi energy facility, following a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron to Riyadh last month. The UK government also announced in October that it would deploy fighter aircraft to assist Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Syria’s top diplomat said last week that Damascus was considering joining a regional defense alliance involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. The pact was signed in Mecca in August and stipulates that an attack against one member is to be considered an attack against all three.

Neither Pakistan nor Turkey has announced military operations against the Yemeni Armed Forces.

Yemen conflict enters another phase of escalation

The renewed war on Yemen followed the collapse of a truce established in 2022 after Saudi Arabia targeted the Sanaa airport. Since the summer, Yemeni Armed Forces has imposed a maritime blockade targeting Saudi Arabia for its blockade on Yemen, launched operations against vessels and facilities linked to hostilities, and announced control of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline.

The Syrian deployment would add a new dimension to the war, bringing Damascus into a military effort alongside Riyadh and other countries supporting the Aden-based government.

The Syrian military itself faces significant organizational challenges. AFP reports that its ranks comprise a collection of armed groups, many of them extremist formations, that participated in the foreign-backed coup and overthrow of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. The composition and capabilities of any force sent to Yemen could therefore have implications for the nature of its role in the conflict.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Thousands of Syrian troops set to join Saudi war on Yemen

The Endgame: When the CIA Proxy War Runs Out of Ukrainians!

By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – November 7, 2026

From Napoleon’s march on Moscow to Hitler’s catastrophic invasion of the Soviet Union, strategic arrogance, political miscalculation and the underestimation of Russia’s capacity to absorb punishment have repeatedly produced consequences far removed from the expectations of those who started the wars.

As battlefield realities shift and diplomatic negotiations expose growing divisions in Washington and Europe, the Ukraine conflict is approaching a strategic reckoning. Trump talks peace, Moscow holds its ground, Kyiv faces mounting manpower and political pressures, and the U.S. intelligence establishment appears to be pursuing a far more confrontational agenda.

I think it’s no secret the Ukraine war is a CIA war. I doubt Trump can do anything himself anyway. I’ve wondered for a while if the anti-Russia pro-war EU isn’t also being manipulated by the CIA. When they run out of Ukrainians, they need another source of cannon fodder.

All the while Trump talks peace as the CIA fuels the war in Ukraine, as the title of a recent commentary explains so well. The central problem is not Trump or Putin. It is an intelligence apparatus that appears to have an agenda of its own. The war continues not simply because of political disagreements between Washington and Moscow, but because elements of the U.S. national security establishment have institutional interests that run counter to ending it.

While Trump calls Zelensky “more difficult to deal with” than Putin and urges Ukrainians to elect new leadership, his CIA is reportedly pursuing operations against Russia more aggressively than under Biden. The contradiction is striking: the CIA is helping Ukraine target Russian oil refineries even as Trump pursues deals to sell Russian diesel.

Meanwhile, his intelligence chief travels to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while reports suggest intelligence analysts are reluctant to tell the president what they actually think. This is not a coherent peace strategy. It is a government sending contradictory signals, with an intelligence agency seemingly operating according to its own rules and priorities.

Lack of Good Intentions

In reviewing the Ukraine playbook, whereby the Minsk accords were never intended to be honored by the west or their Ukrainian proxies, but were merely, in the words of the former German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to buy time for Ukraine to rearm and retake the Donbas by force. The rest is history that CIA concocted plan was destroyed by the Russian SMO starting in February 2022.

But still most of Europe, NATO were center stage to the mayhem that followed. They were like Hitler’s Willing Executors in having planned such a course of action. But now they cannot face facts, i.e., the situation on the ground, now that Russia is nearing a final push in reaching its strategic objectives. Turning away from Russia to the EU and US ruin has been brought upon Ukraine, and like a desperate gambler, Zelensky may now be betting the whole house in trying to recoup his losses and survive politically and physically.

It Is Time to End the War.

Even now, some of the more liberal news publications, including The Nation, are calling for an end to the war. Yet even in doing so, they wrap their arguments in a thick layer of political subterfuge. Rather than confront the underlying failures of Western policy toward Russia and Ukraine, they continue trying to shift responsibility onto Trump and Putin, portraying them as though they were somehow on the same team.

The article goes on to explain the failure of the proposed peace initiative largely through the prism of American domestic politics, while recycling the familiar and increasingly questionable narrative that Putin is somehow on his last legs. This is a convenient political storyline, but it is not a substitute for an honest assessment of the military balance, Russia’s strategic position, or the realities unfolding on the battlefield.

The central question is no longer who can win the propaganda war or which political faction can claim the moral high ground. It is how many more lives must be sacrificed before Washington and its European partners acknowledge that prolonging this conflict is not the same thing as winning it.

What Comes Next?

We shall have to wait and see what will happen—if anything. It is ironic that the pundits of war and peace are in denial in tandem with Ukrainian denials, one only has to check out the site of the Institute for the Study of War, which as of October 31, 2026 gives a narrow perspective of Russian offensives alongside claimed Ukrainian counterattacks and some localized advances.

History may ultimately judge the Ukraine conflict not simply by who prevailed on the battlefield, but by whether the governments that helped shape the confrontation ever seriously considered the political, economic and human fallout of a shooting war that diplomacy should have prevented—if that had been the desire.

Ukraine may now be confronting its own version of that historical reckoning.

The Minsk revelations, particularly Merkel’s acknowledgment that the agreements gave Ukraine time to strengthen its military, raise a fundamental question: was diplomacy ever intended to produce a lasting political settlement, or had it become an instrument of strategic postponement? If the CIA and other Western intelligence and security institutions were instrumental in shaping a longer-term strategy to weaken Russia through Ukraine, the battlefield has exposed the extraordinary risks of that calculation.

The extent of direct CIA operational control remains a question that will merit academic research as history is written. It is clear that Washington’s extensive intelligence sharing, military and its financial support prolonged the fighting Ukraine far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

And what of Europe?

Having committed its political credibility, economic resources and security architecture to this confrontation, European leaders now face an uncomfortable dilemma. How does one acknowledge strategic failure without admitting that years of policy, enormous financial commitments and Ukrainian lives may have been sacrificed to assumptions that proved disastrously wrong?

There is an even more disturbing question: if Ukraine can no longer sustain the human cost of the conflict, will European governments seek to expand their own military commitments rather than reconsider the strategy that brought them here?

Meanwhile, Zelensky faces a particularly consequential choice. Continuing the war carries mounting military, demographic and economic costs; negotiating carries enormous political risks. Yet prolonging a conflict simply to avoid confronting an unfavourable negotiating position could leave Ukraine with even less leverage and fewer options.

A government cannot indefinitely gamble the future of its country in the hope that the next Western weapons package, intelligence assessment or political promise will reverse the strategic and tactical reality on the ground.

And perhaps this is the most uncomfortable question of all: when the supply of Ukrainian soldiers, public patience and Western political goodwill begins to run out, who will be expected to pay the next installment of this war?

If this conflict began as an attempt to contain Russia, it has become a test of the strategic judgment of the very governments that embraced that objective. The ultimate irony may be that, in seeking to weaken Moscow, the West has helped produce a militarized, devastated Ukraine, a more dangerous European security environment and a confrontation that has exposed the limits of Western power.

Who Decides the Endgame?

The endgame may not be determined by Washington’s rhetoric or Brussels’ declarations, but by what is happening on the ground—and what Russia is prepared to accept at the negotiating table.

The historical verdict will not be determined by press conferences in Washington, Brussels or Kyiv. It will be written by the territorial realities and the people left to live with the consequences.

A proxy war can be prolonged by outside powers, financed by taxpayers and fought by another country’s population. But it cannot be made winnable simply by refusing to acknowledge that the original strategy has failed.

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on The Endgame: When the CIA Proxy War Runs Out of Ukrainians!

Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – November 6, 2026

November 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer

NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases

By Uriel Araujo | November 6, 2026

As Washington shifts Europe’s conventional defense burden onto its allies, the Nordic countries are emerging as a blueprint for NATO’s future – raising questions about Arctic militarization, Russia’s nuclear deterrent, and regional escalation.

Last week, Finnish researcher Matti Pesu argued in Foreign Affairs that the Nordic countries offer a practical path forward for NATO. His proposal, typical as it is of many Western analyses, deserves some attention.

Finland and Sweden, the alliance’s newest members, have deepened defense coordination with Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Joint air patrols, shared logistics, and intelligence sharing have reached unprecedented levels.

Pesu presents this “Nordic model” as a prototype for NATO 3.0: an alliance in which Europeans take primary responsibility for conventional defense while the United States retains nuclear deterrence and strategic leadership.

This is less about American “withdrawal” than burden-shifting: European states would supply more troops, equipment, infrastructure, and funding – while remaining under the American nuclear umbrella.

One could interpret this as the Europeanization of the costs and risks of “containing” Russia, without a corresponding Europeanization of strategic decision-making.

Pesu himself notes that Nordic military integration would advance the US National Security Strategy’s objective of maintaining favorable regional balances of power. The Nordic “cluster” thus serves wider American strategic goals.

The Arctic dimension carries particular weight: Pesu acknowledges that Finland allows American signals-intelligence aircraft to monitor the Kola Peninsula, where much of Russia’s sea-based nuclear deterrent is concentrated.

Finland’s accession has thus expanded the Alliance’s intelligence and operational access to areas central to Russia’s nuclear forces. From Moscow’s perspective, NATO surveillance and military infrastructure near the Kola Peninsula constitute a strategic threat.

I commented elsewhere on how the Gulf of Finland could become a flashpoint for new conflict between NATO and Moscow – following Finnish and Swedish accession. The same logic now extends into the High North.

Pesu further proposes that subregional “clusters” could act even if NATO itself is paralyzed: these groupings would offer a “hedge”, enabling frontline allies to respond together.

This raises questions about escalation control: if, say, Nordic, Baltic, or Black Sea clusters undertake coordinated operations independently, a confrontation might develop before the alliance as a whole has agreed on its political objectives. Larger members could then face pressure to support actions they never authorized.

Pesu outlines a strategy for organizing NATO’s entire frontier with Russia into interoperable military clusters: a Nordic-Arctic grouping in the northwest, a Baltic-Polish cluster in the center, and a Black Sea cluster in the southeast.

From a Russian strategic perspective, this could be perceived as the consolidation of a continuous NATO military frontier stretching from the Arctic to the Black Sea.

The danger is that it would institutionalize greater military integration along Russia’s western and northern periphery – while potentially allowing regional coalitions to act without NATO-wide political consensus.

Russia then would face not merely an enlarged NATO, but a network of interoperable clusters capable of coordinating airpower, missile systems, intelligence gathering, naval operations, and troop movements along multiple fronts.

A March 2026 SIPRI study explicitly warns that Nordic enlargement and new military capabilities could undermine crisis stability by bringing NATO’s precision-strike systems closer to Russian strategic assets.

Another SIPRI analysis identifies inadvertent escalation, including nuclear escalation, as a significant risk in Northern Europe. In a security dilemma, Moscow’s countermeasures could themselves provoke further NATO deployments, perpetuating an increasingly dangerous cycle.

The Greenland question exposes a deeper contradiction here: the September agreement between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk basically expanded American military access – while (formally) recognizing Danish sovereignty.

Pesu treats this as an opportunity to restore cooperation. Yet Washington is simultaneously asking European allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security and asserting exceptional strategic interests in territories belonging to those allies.

The Nordic countries, it turns out, are being asked to strengthen their capacity to “deter Russia” while accommodating an American administration that has itself openly challenged the sovereignty of a NATO member.

In any case, the biggest omission in NATO 3.0 discussions such as this is any serious consideration of diplomacy. There is little attention to arms control, confidence-building measures, military-to-military communication, or negotiated regional security arrangements.

One may recall that Finland and Sweden were long associated with different forms of neutrality or military nonalignment. They are now being presented as models for a more deeply militarized NATO – and a more NATOized Europe, increasingly “encircling” Moscow.

The “Nordic model” is no longer simply “adapting” to NATO; NATO is actually being encouraged to adapt to the Nordic model.

This way, the Arctic itself is becoming integrated into the alliance’s broader confrontation framework. Moreover, conventional military operations in this region take place close to strategically important nuclear assets.

Consequently, the consequences of a miscalculation could be far greater than those of an ordinary regional conflict.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

November 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases

Sunset on the Quality of Western Propaganda: Arrival of the Dr Strangelove Moment

By Greg Simons | Propaganda In Focus | September 30, 2026

Propaganda has a complicated history and relationship with the West, shaped by ideological presumptions, moral and ethical evaluations, definitions, and assumptions. These frameworks have the effect of producing dilemmas and contradictions within an idealised conception of society. In part, this is due to embedded assumptions about identity and the cultural myths that accompany idealised notions of a morally and socially superior Western society. Such myths function to construct the façade of a value- and ethics-based consensus, reinforcing in-group identity and cohesion as a means of generating political unity. At the same time, they define and contrast this in-group against an oppositional out-group perceived as lacking the ‘desired’ mythical attributes of a ‘good’ society.

One of the enduring myths of Western propaganda, which virtue signals the assumed values and ethical principles of a so-called democracy as an in-group, is that democracies do not engage in propaganda. This myth is based on the assertion that the values and virtues of free human will are cherished, where facts and reality prevail in a rational and informed society. Conversely, non-democracies are presented as the idealised out-group that regularly engages in heavy-handed and overt propaganda to prime and manipulate their ‘unfree’ population. The in-group is often thought to be virtuous and ethical while the out-group is subversive to the free human will and spirit: emotional logic dictates loyalty and empathy for the in-group, suspicion and fear of the named out-group.

This fear, of something bad happening and the personal aspect of it happening to you, is driven by mainstream politics and media. Fear is the first step toward compliance. A false sense of unity is driven by the façade of an external threat to an idealised projection of democracy in Western society and the notion that it is under threat from the propaganda of authoritarian forces seeking destroy the presumed cultural and identity foundations of ‘our’ society. See, for example, recent hyperbole about “anti-democratic propaganda” taking over the world.

However, does this cognitively nice and neat image reflect reality? Far from it. There are those who admit propaganda was an invention of the West, that it is a ‘necessary’ tool for the effective governing of democratic society, and that it is the very foundation of liberal democracy. Adolf Hitler admired the ‘quality’ and effects of British propaganda in the First World War to such an extent he praised its excellence in a chapter of his autobiography Mein Kampf. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels also admired the quality of Western propaganda, such as Hollywood Westerns. He also infamously quipped that the West accuses its opponent of that which they are guilty of doing.

However, in the wake of the Cold War and the general march into the era of what some term as the New Cold War, there is a distinct decline in the quality and effectiveness of Western propaganda. The New Cold War concerns the growing geopolitical tensions between the in-group ‘democracies’ of the Global North and the out-group ‘autocracies’ of the Global South (especially China, Iran and Russia). The motivation is to justify and legitimise a desperate, reckless, and increasingly militarised foreign policy of the West, one which requires political capital and public consent, or at least no significant resistance. Western mainstream political leaders from the liberal democracies lack public approval and consent and are the most unpopular generation according to opinion polls. The propaganda used by Western leaders to justify and legitimise an increasingly aggressive stance against China, Iran and Russia, as a means to contain and weaken these three pillars of the Global South, is ever more heavy handed and overt.

In its current iteration of desperation and decline of operational standards and effects, Western propaganda now seems akin to the satirical anti-war masterpiece Dr Strangelove. Unfortunately, the stakes are increasingly high for the world as compromised and incompetent political leaders seek to maintain an idealised public image and retain their political office, and the Western geopolitical hegemony desperately seeks to cling to its 500 years of a leading global role. Both of these aspirations have run out of time and talent, but the show must go on!

The propaganda of fear is being cultivated to maximum levels among publics throughout the Western world, and especially in the EU and US. This no longer concerns the positive propaganda of attraction, but the negative propaganda of fear and hatred. Furthermore, following Edward Bernays observation in 1947, there is no coincidence in terms of the timing and nature of this propaganda masquerading as news. The engineering of public consent as a means to prime and mobilise mass public audiences for an act that contradicts their objective interests is well under way.

There is a great deal of Orwellian influence in the language of vague wordings used to construct the Russian ‘threat’ – both in military and ideological terms. There is a “good” practical reason and desired outcome for this approach, which is that the sloppy, vague, and dishonest language actively corrupts the public’s ability to think clearly, which in turn enables political oppression and propaganda to be conducted. There are numerous examples of this, such as Russian “grey zone activities,” or “hybrid warfare,” and the threat of a Russian invasion of the whole of Europe should Ukraine lose the war. Here the propagandists refer to Ukraine as a “shield” for Europe, the same terminology used by Nazi Germany’s “crusade against Bolshevism”.

These propaganda constructions of the Russian ‘threat’ make use of fear, card stacking and bandwagoning – An information environment of selective information that is attempting to create a herd mentality, where emotional and knee-jerk decisions are engineered in the interests of the communicator. These desired emotional reactions are objectively against the audience being primed and mobilised. The basis of fear in the audience is to be operationalised to push the ‘solution’, a reckless and aggressive policy.

That policy is to prepare for war with Russia, even if the West is not in a financial or industrial position to effectively do so. Thus, the propaganda narrative is regularly repeated in the “speak with one voice spirit” by the political and media establishment. This includes a massive rearmament programme in an economy that is deindustrialising and running out of public funds, and where the standard of living is dropping and the cost of living rising. A war with Russia is presented as being imminent and inevitable, which among other things requires the public to be “psychologically ready” or, in other words, in an emotional state of fear and compliant to the state dictates. Even though citizens are not willing to fight and die for the vanity of the political establishment and a hegemon in severe decline, conscription is pushed as being necessary and a collective duty of citizens. Various countries are bringing back conscription amidst this massive propaganda campaign of fear, attempting to psychologically groom their citizens who lack the will to fight and lack trust in the political system. This is exemplified in the outrageous demand by politician Jacob Rees-Mogg that Britons need to do their duty to fight and die for the British government, a regime that has actively worked against the objective interests of its country and its people.

Every propagandistic accusation by the West regarding the alleged imminent and inevitable Russian threat reads more like a confession, as noted by Goebbels many years ago. The Western propaganda is not up to the same standards that it used to be when it was so much admired by Hitler; it has become everything that democracies have accused non-democracies of doing and being in terms of their idealised myths and notions of binary constructions of culture and identity between the in-group (liberal democracy) and the out-group (authoritarian). It comes at a time of Western political and geopolitical decline and, as the war in Ukraine seems to be in the process of decisively moving towards a Russian victory on the battlefield, this means that time is short and desperation is setting in to try and save imagined political reputations and a geopolitical hegemony that is all but lost.

November 5, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Sunset on the Quality of Western Propaganda: Arrival of the Dr Strangelove Moment

Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi

Sputnik – 05.11.2026

Tuesday’s crushing midterm defeat for Republicans was a “good sign” showing “that the American people are pushing the elites” and “putting pressure on them,” but the Democrats’ victory won’t bring positive changes to US foreign policy, Tehran University professor and prolific political commentator Mohammad Marandi has told Sputnik.

“The Democratic Party is not a party of peace,” Marandi emphasized, pointing out that Democrats were in charge when Israel unleashed its bloody campaign in Gaza in 2023, and initiated or greenlit the bombings, dirty wars and proxy conflicts in Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as the crisis in Ukraine.

As far as Iran is concerned, the change of power in Congress “doesn’t mean the war is over.” The US “may attack Iran at any time. But it does mean that the regime in Washington, the political establishment in Washington, recognizes that the American people are sick and tired of war,” Marandi said.

“The working assumption is that the United States will carry out aggression,” Marandi emphasized.

“The [pro-Israel lobby] will not give up, and they are the ones who are still in charge,” Marandi said. He warned, however, that any new war will be “much more costly” for the US and Israel, both politically and militarily.

“Any attack on Iran will be met with a decisive response, and that will lead to a global economic calamity.”

Israel will inevitably also work to try to rope the US into a new conflict, because they can’t fight alone, the observer noted.

Israel “needs, for example, the refueling planes of the United States. That would mean US involvement…And that, of course, would mean the involvement of the Arab regimes in the region…because the United States uses their bases, airspace and jet fuel,” Marandi said.

“Iran is both prepared for a very decisive battle in the coming days or weeks, and they’re prepared for a very long-term conflict as well,” with the government putting a wartime economy in place, Marandi said.

The military has received “a very large budget,” with the country traditionally having “the smallest military budget in the region” for decades.

The military is building “new underground cities,” expanding existing missile city and command and control infrastructure, developing new missiles, drones, and producing so much equipment they’re running out of places to store them, Marandi said.

The Islamic Republic is ready to fight through the remainder of the current US administration’s term, if necessary, and will not relent, Marandi stressed. The US will have to come to the negotiating table in the end.

November 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi

« Previous Entries