Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Collapse of Kursk: Narratives versus Reality

Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 11, 2025

The Ukrainian army’s invasion of Kursk, backed by NATO, likely had rational and tangible objectives such seizing the Kursk nuclear power plant, creating a buffer zone, diverting Russian troops, and giving Ukraine a bargaining chip in future negotiations. However, it was also a battle for narratives. Exploring why the military operation failed also provides some lessons for why the war to control the narrative failed. … continue reading

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

UPDATED – Russia ready for ceasefire: Putin

RT | March 13, 2025

Russia is ready for a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, President Vladimir Putin has said, stressing that such an agreement “must lead to long-term peace.”

Moscow believes that the “idea” of a ceasefire is the “right one,” Putin told journalists during a joint press conference with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow on Thursday. “We absolutely support it,” he added.

“We endorse the idea of resolving the conflict through peaceful means,” the president insisted.

Certain issues still need to be discussed and resolved before a truce can be reached, Putin stated, adding that Moscow particularly needs to discuss them with the US. The dialogue could also require a personal conversation with US President Donald Trump, the Russian leader said.

As of Wednesday evening, Moscow’s forces had liberated 86% of the territory occupied by the Ukrainians in August 2024, according to the head of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov. The remainder of Kiev’s units in the area were largely “encircled” and “isolated,” he explained.

Washington and Kiev both endorsed a 30-day temporary truce following a meeting between the two nations’ delegations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. US special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to present the results of those talks during his visit to Moscow later today.

Russia has previously spoken out against any temporary truce in the Ukraine conflict, arguing that Kiev would use it to rearm and continue fighting. Putin has insisted that any resolution to the conflict must address the root causes in order to establish a long-lasting sustainable peace.

Here’s a full transcript of the Russian president’s response:

Before I assess how I view Ukraine’s readiness for a ceasefire, I would first like to begin by thanking the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, for paying so much attention to resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

We all have enough issues to deal with. But many heads of state, the president of the People’s Republic of China, the Prime Minister of India, the presidents of Brazil and South African Republic are spending a lot of time dealing with this issue. We are thankful to all of them, because this is aimed at achieving a noble mission, a mission to stop hostilities and the loss of human lives.

Secondly, we agree with the proposals to stop hostilities. But our position is that this ceasefire should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis.

Now, about Ukraine’s readiness to cease hostilities. On the surface it may look like a decision made by Ukraine under US pressure. In reality, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have insisted on this (ceasefire) from the Americans based on how the situation (on the front line) is unfolding, the realities on the ground.

And how is it unfolding? I’m sure many of you know that yesterday I was in Kursk Region and listened to the reports of the head of the General Staff, the commander of the group of forces ‘North’ and his deputy about the situation at the border, specifically in the incursion area of Kursk Region.

What is going on there? The situation there is completely under our control, and the group of forces that invaded our territory is completely isolated and under our complete fire control.

Command over Ukrainian troops in this zone is lost. And if in the first stages, literally a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in large groups, now it is impossible. They are trying to get out of there in very small groups, two or three people, because everything is under our full fire control. The equipment is completely abandoned. It is impossible to evacuate it. It will remain there. This is already guaranteed.

And if in the coming days there will be a physical blockade, then no one will be able to leave at all. There will be only two ways. To surrender or die.

And in these conditions, I think it would be very good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a truce for at least 30 days.

And we are for it. But there are nuances. What are they? First, what are we going to do with this incursion force in Kursk Region?

If we stop fighting for 30 days, what does it mean? That everyone who is there will leave without a fight? We should let them go after they committed mass crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down their arms. Simply surrender. How will this work? It is not clear.

How will other issues be resolved on all the lines of contact? This is almost 2,000 kilometers.

As you know, Russian troops are advancing almost along the entire front. And there are ongoing military operations to surround rather large groups of enemy forces.

These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?

How will the issues of control and verification be resolved? How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this will happen? How will the control be organized?

I hope that everyone understands this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.

Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed?

These are all questions that demand a thorough examination from both sides.

Therefore, the idea itself is the right one, and we certainly support it. But there are questions that we have to discuss. I think we need to work with our American partners. Maybe I will speak to President Trump. But we support the idea of ending this conflict with peaceful means.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

All the pressure is now on Zelensky after ceasefire offer – don’t believe the British spin

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 12, 2025

I assess that Russia will agree with the U.S. on a proposed ceasefire in Ukraine. This would put the ball back in Zelensky’s court to sign a peace deal that could destroy him politically and may give President Putin the security assurances he has sought for over seventeen years.

In a quite remarkable turn of events, the BBC announced that Britain had helped the U.S. and Ukraine agree on the need for a 30-day ceasefire. This is spin of the most disingenuous kind.

The UK has done everything in its power to prevent the possibility of ‘forcing’ Ukraine into negotiations on ending the three-year war. Indeed, just last week, a prominent UK broadsheet reinforced this point in a searing editorial. The British narrative for three years has been that, with sufficient support and strategic patience, Ukraine could impose a defeat on Russia. To use a British military phrase, that plan ‘didn’t survive contact with the enemy’.

Ukraine’s sudden collapse in Kursk, after Russian troops crawled ten kilometres through a gas pipeline that President Zelensky had, with much fanfare, shut down in January, was an astonishing defeat. It was astonishing because it revealed what many western commentators had said since August 2024, that seizing a small patch of land in Russia would turn out to be a strategic blunder for Ukraine. Since the Kursk offensive was launched, Russia has occupied large tracts of land in southern Donetsk, including several important mines and one of Ukraine’s largest power stations. The basic maths show a significant net loss to Zelensky over the past six months. The bigger picture proves that the overall direction of the war has been moving in Russia’s direction since the failed Ukrainian counter-offensive in the summer of 2023.

In Ukraine itself, the vultures are already circling in the sky as the body of Zelensky’s now six-year presidential term approaches its final breath. Arestovich was quick to call for Zelensky to resign after the damaging shoot-out at the Oval Office. Poroshenko has come out to say Ukraine has no choice but to cut a deal. Even Zelensky’s former press spokeswoman has called for peace and implied that the Ukrainian government tries to limit free speech on the subject of a truce. Team Trump is apparently talking to the egregiously corrupt former Prime Minster Yulia Tymoshenko about the future, heaven help us. The domestic political space for Zelensky to keep holding out with meaningless slogans like ‘peace through strength’, and ‘forcing Russia to make peace’ is rapidly closing around him.

That Ukraine has come to the negotiating table at all is a sign that it has been given no choice, since America paused the military and intelligence gravy train. There is nothing in the Jeddah meeting that suggests any change in the U.S. position towards Ukraine.

All that the ceasefire does, if Russia agrees to it, is pauses the fighting. Indeed, it goes further than the unworkable Franco-Ukrainian idea to pause the fighting only in the air and sea, allowing Ukraine to keep fighting on the ground. Ironically, the Jeddah formulation favours Russia, as a partial ceasefire would have provided succour to the Ukrainian army which does not enjoy strategic air superiority, despite its mass drone attack on Moscow and other parts of Russia.

The joint U.S.-Ukraine statement calls for Ukraine and others to ‘immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security’.

If Russia agrees to a ceasefire, the clock will start on 30-days of intensive talks aimed at delivering a durable peace. Russia has said consistently that it will not agree to a ceasefire only; it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.

The latter should be easier to tick off, at least in theory, although it will face resistance from ultranationalists in Ukraine. The second will be harder, as there is no military route for Ukraine to reclaim occupied lands, so may require some diplomatic finesse in allowing for a freezing of the line. By far the most bitter pill for Ukraine and its European sponsors will be the NATO issue.

Just moments after U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth said at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine’s NATO aspiration was unrealistic, Keir Starmer told Zelensky that it was irreversible. There is simply no way in which Britain will be able to finesse the point that a core plank of its strategy on Ukraine will be shattered, at U.S. and Russian insistence. Nor is it likely that Russia will agree to any UK proposal for a NATO-lite peacekeeping force in Ukraine, even if it is in Lviv or some place hundreds of kilometres from the line of contact.

Moreover, Russia will expect some movement in any peace talks on the issue of economic sanctions. Before arriving in Jeddah, the Guardian newspaper published an OpEd from Andriy Yermak calling for more sanctions on Russia as part of any peace plan. This is beyond idiotic. What person with an ounce of political savvy thinks that Russia will sign up a peace process that punishes it for ending a war that it is winning on the battlefield?

While I doubt that Russia expects to achieve a complete lifting of all 20,000 sanctions, they will want many to fall away immediately as part of a longer-term plan. This will also force a reckoning with the issue of the $300bn in seized Russian sovereign reserves, most of which are held in Brussels. Ignoring the issue or hoping that western nations can simply give the money to Ukraine, simply won’t work; detailed thinking needed here too, as I have said several times before.

From my perspective, Ukraine’s readiness to go for a ceasefire illustrates how weak its hand of cards has become. Many on the western side are crowing that Russia will be forced to accept a ceasefire on Ukrainian terms, but this is nonsense. I predict President Putin will see this as an opportunity for NATO to provide him with the longer-term security reassurances on NATO enlargement that he has sought for the past seventeen years, without heed.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

FPÖ slams Austrian government’s betrayal of its neutrality after footage shows foreign military units headed to Ukraine

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 13, 2025

A video showing a foreign military transport moving through Austria by train has ignited a heated debate, with the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) calling for an immediate ban on such transits.

The footage, filmed by a passerby at a train station and shared by the FPÖ, has fueled concerns about Austria’s neutrality and its role in European defense logistics.

FPÖ General Secretary Christian Hafenecker strongly condemned the transport, describing it as a blatant violation of Austria’s neutrality. “Foreign military and weapons transports across our territory are completely unacceptable,” he stated.

He further criticized the increasing use of Austrian infrastructure for military movements, warning, “It must not be the case that our railway lines and roads increasingly become the ‘number one NATO highway’ to the east.”

“That is precisely what we fear from the black-red-pink ‘loser traffic light’ coalition, whose subservience to the EU and NATO, coupled with betrayal of neutrality, is becoming ever more blatant,” the FPÖ added in a post on X.

Hafenecker placed direct responsibility on Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), arguing that the government’s permitting such actions is entirely at odds with the public. “The Austrians have no understanding of the fact that tanks, guns, and other heavy military equipment of foreign states roll through their country,” he said, insisting that public sentiment is firmly against such activities.

In response, the FPÖ has demanded an immediate halt to all NATO weapons transports through Austria and the creation of a “no-transport zone” for military equipment. The party is also calling for an end to Austrian financial contributions towards arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Hafenecker stressed the need for diplomatic efforts over military escalation, taking aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to mobilize €800 billion for European rearmament.

“What is needed now is de-escalation, diplomacy, and peace talks to end the suffering and dying in Ukraine,” he declared.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia and Trump set the stage for Ukraine, but can Kiev be trusted?

The Jeddah talks have confirmed the long-obvious fact that Zelensky’s regime has no real options

By Sergey Poletaev | Kommersant | March 12, 2025

The most telling aspect of Tuesday’s US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah wasn’t the meeting itself but rather the reaction of Western European leaders. Forced to begrudgingly praise Washington’s supposed efforts for peace, officials – led by EU boss Ursula von der Leyen – were left practically begging for a seat at the negotiating table. But they won’t get one.

For the past month, there has been an ongoing struggle between European globalists and Donald Trump over who will dictate the West’s approach to Ukraine. The outcome of the Jeddah talks makes it clear: the Europeans have lost that battle.

Europe sidelined

Brussels and its allies wanted to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons and funding in a prolonged fight against Russia, all while attempting to drag Washington along. The idea was to assume leadership of the globalist agenda that had been slipping from Joe Biden’s grasp. Emmanuel Macron, the most restless among them, floated various unrealistic initiatives – ranging from sending Western European troops under the guise of peacekeepers to proposing partial ceasefires and other half-measures.

Trump, however, has made no secret of his disdain for this crowd. To him, the liberal interventionists pushing for endless war in Ukraine are ideological opponents. Since Ukraine has been the centerpiece of Western foreign policy for the past three years, stripping Kiev from its European patrons was a crucial step for Trump’s team in its broader battle against the globalist elite.

This strategy played out in the open. First, Vladimir Zelensky was humiliated in Washington, almost being shown the door at the White House. Then, the Trump administration cut off Ukraine’s access to intelligence data and drastically reduced military supplies. Trump made it clear to Zelensky: either fall in line or lose everything, because the Europeans won’t save you.

For Zelensky, the writing was on the wall. He spent the past few days frantically touring European capitals, desperately seeking military guarantees or a last-minute lifeline. Instead, he received only empty words of sympathy and lofty speeches. The reality was unavoidable – the EU was powerless to help.

By effectively signing a political surrender to Trump, Zelensky has pledged loyalty to the American president, committing to his agenda. This was confirmed in Jeddah. Now, Zelensky is expected back in Washington – to cement what is likely a humiliating agreement for Ukraine.

What this means for Russia

Exactly one month ago, Trump placed a call to Vladimir Putin. While the details of their conversation remain unknown, we can speculate. Trump likely expressed his desire for a quick peace deal and inquired about Russia’s conditions. Putin would have reiterated Moscow’s long-standing demands – rooted in the failed Istanbul agreements of 2022 and further solidified by Russia’s terms outlined last June. Most importantly, Putin likely asked Trump a critical question: can you guarantee Ukraine and Europe will abide by any deal?

It appears Moscow and Washington have reached an initial framework for a peace agreement. The broad strokes seem to include no military guarantees for Ukraine, no path to NATO membership, and a change in Kiev’s leadership.

Both sides have spent the past month preparing. Trump has tightened his grip over Ukraine and pushed Western Europe out of the decision-making process, while the Russian military has made decisive gains, particularly in Kursk, a necessary condition for any ceasefire.

A fragile peace?

Trump seems confident that he can strike a deal with Putin, ensure Kiev’s compliance, push the Europeans aside, and secure a lasting peace – cementing his status as a global peacemaker. But the reality is more complicated.

First, we don’t know the precise terms Putin and Trump have discussed, nor whether both leaders interpret them in the same way. The devil is always in the details, and negotiations between Moscow and Washington are never straightforward.

Second, and more critically, Zelensky’s pledge to Trump does not guarantee genuine loyalty. A peace deal on Russia’s terms would mean the collapse of modern Ukrainian nationalism and, inevitably, the slow dismantling of the Ukrainian state in its current form.

Zelensky has already spent the past year resisting peace efforts, pushing for military guarantees, and clinging to Western Europe in hopes of prolonging the war. There is no reason to believe he has suddenly abandoned these instincts. The most logical course for Kiev now would be to publicly cooperate while privately undermining any deal, buying time in hopes that Trump can be outmaneuvered or that European support can be rekindled.

Western Europe’s next move

The EU and the UK are unlikely to sit idly by. Macron and others will undoubtedly work behind the scenes to keep Ukraine on life support, maintaining a political and financial link to Kiev while waiting for an opportunity to reverse course. Their strategy is clear: stall Trump and hope for a new US administration in 2029 that will reignite the conflict.

The Kremlin has experienced this kind of Western deception before. If Moscow has learned anything from past negotiations, it will ensure that any deal struck this time is airtight, leaving no room for Ukraine or its European patrons to wriggle free.

The Jeddah talks mark a turning point. Ukraine is being pulled out of the hands of the Western European elite and placed firmly under Trump’s control. Whether this will lead to a real peace settlement – or merely a new phase in the geopolitical chess game – remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that Brussels and London have lost their grip on the Ukraine conflict.

Sergey Poletaev is an information analyst and publicist, co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project.

This article was translated and edited by the RT team.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Netherlands rejects EU militarization agenda

RT | March 12, 2025

The Dutch House of Representatives has voted against the European Union’s multi-hundred-billion euro militarization plan, citing financial risks and a lack of clear guidelines, the Volkskrant newspaper reported on Tuesday. The rejection comes as Brussels has been urging to spike the bloc’s military spending to address a perceived Russian threat.

The EU’s rearmament proposal, known as the REARM plan, was introduced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month and aims to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities. The plan includes €150 billion in loans to EU governments for defense spending and fiscal exemptions, potentially mobilizing up to €800 billion ($870 billion) over the next four years.

However, critics in the Netherlands have warned that the plan lacks a concrete financial framework and could lead to an economic crisis. Despite Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof initially backing the initiative, a narrow parliamentary majority—including the Party for Freedom (PVV), New Social Contract (NSC), and the Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB)—rejected the proposal in a vote on Tuesday.

Lawmakers argued that the plan’s reliance on joint EU loans would increase debt burdens for member states and expose them to financial risks. A representative of the NSC noted that while the party supports Ukraine aid and increased EU military budgets, it is opposed to any form of eurobonds or the expansion of budgetary standards, as proposed by the REARM plan.

The EU’s push to boost military spending has intensified after US President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized European NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments. Last month, Trump warned that the US would not automatically defend NATO allies if they did not increase their financial contributions, stating, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”

In response, European leaders have moved to expand their military budgets with some citing a supposed Russian threat as justification for the rush. French President Emmanuel Macron had recently publicly labeled Russia as a “threat to Europe” and has suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected having any intentions to attack NATO or EU countries and has dismissed such claims as “nonsense.” The Kremlin has also condemned the EU’s plans to increase defense spending, calling it “militarization” that is “primarily aimed at Russia” and stressing that such moves are a “matter of deep concern” for Moscow.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

If Germany’s €1 trillion debt deal falls through, expect tough times ahead for the incoming government

Remix News | March 12, 2025

Shortly after the election, the Christian Democrats (CDU) gleefully announced their plan for a debt bonanza, along with their new Social Democrat (SPD) partners. A total of €1 trillion would be spent on weapons and infrastructure, all Germany needed to do was suspend its “debt brake” to make it happen.

Now, the whole plan is coming under threat. The Greens have signaled they won’t back the black-red trillion-euro debt plan, at least not without some serious investment in climate infrastructure and funds for foreign nations. The CDU has signaled they want to accommodate the Greens’ requests, but even if that happens, there are other serious roadblocks ahead, including a vote in the Bundesrat, which is made up of the 16 state governments in Germany.

In addition, the March 23 deadline is rapidly approaching. After that date, the new Bundestag forms, the German parliament, and due to the new composition of parties, the votes will no longer be in place to overcome the required two-thirds majority to rewrite the German constitution.

The Greens are going to drive a hard bargain, as they hold all the cards. The liberal Free Democrats (FDP) have already signaled they will not vote for lifting the debt brake, and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and The Left Party have also ruled out such a move. That means the CDU and SPD only have the Greens or they have nothing.

In many ways, the Greens have little incentive to go along with the package. The CDU blocked lifting the debt brake while they were in power, which contributed to the collapse of the previous government. There is also no offer for the Greens to join the new government ruling coalition either.

In addition, the sister party of the CDU, the CSU, bashed the Greens relentlessly during the election. Now, the Greens are supposed to hand the CDU and SPD a nearly blank check to spend hundreds of billions on projects not especially close to the Greens’ policy goals.

Negotiations are ongoing, and it appears the Greens may accept a compromise, as long as the CDU throws them enough money. However, there will be voices in the party who remain resistant to such a deal, as it will give the CDU and SPD an enormous advantage politically.

The Bundesrat could also spell doom for the debt plans. In the east, the FDP, the Left Party, and the BSW have all shot down the plan, along with the Greens. Even in Bavaria, the CSU’s Markus Söder has not been able to convince his smaller coalition partner, the Free Voters, to back the plan.

If a state government cannot agree in the Bundesrat, then it is required by law to abstain from voting, which is counted as a “no” vote. So far, the CDU and the SPD have only secured the votes from four states, Hesse, Saarland, Saxony, and Berlin, where they also happen to govern. They also need a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat to ensure their plan goes through.

Green Party officials in the states are also skeptical.

“Without taking important corrections into account, we do not consider the law to be acceptable. Due to the urgency of the situation, negotiations need to be held quickly, taking into account the concerns and worries of the states,” read a joint statement by NRW Deputy Prime Minister Mona Neubaur, Baden-Württemberg Finance Minister Danyal Bayaz, and Björn Feckers, the Mayor and Senator for Finance in Bremen.

If the debt deal falls through, the CDU and SPD will be facing a potentially precarious situation. If they want to spend, they will have to cut. Then, things will get messy. Migration alone is costing between €50 billion and up to €75 billion a year depending on how it’s calculated, however, both parties have few solutions on how to bring down those costs. NGOs are raking in billions, but the SPD will fight tooth and nail to ensure the funds keep flowing. These battles could play out in all sorts of ways and eventually doom the new ruling government. That trillion in debt is supposed to be there to soothe over the differences, and without all the sugar rush a trillion euros brings, the honeymoon for the CDU and SPD may be over faster than anyone expects.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Russian defenses down 337 Ukrainian drones – MOD

RT | March 11, 2025

Russian air defenses have intercepted 337 Ukrainian drones overnight, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said on Tuesday morning. One [now updated to three] civilian is reported to have been killed by the attack.

The drone wave launched from Ukrainian territory was primarily aimed at Moscow, information provided by the military suggests. The largest number of interceptions occurred in the heavily fortified border Kursk Region, where 126 drones were destroyed. An additional 91 UAVs were taken down in Moscow Region, surrounding the capital.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin provided multiple updates throughout the night, with his latest message stating that 74 drones had been downed on their approach to the city, in what he called the largest such Ukrainian attack to date.

Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyov reported casualties across three municipalities, including a fatality in Domodedovo. A 38-year-old night guard was killed and two more people died in hospital later after a drone crashed into the parking lot of a food plant, damaging approximately 20 vehicles. In total, more than a dozen people have been injured in the region, including a four-year-old child, according to the governor.

The raid was one of the largest conducted by Ukraine to date, although its scale is not without precedent.

Kiev claims that low-cost long-range kamikaze drones are effective at striking deep within Russian territory. Moscow has accused the Ukrainian government of resorting to terrorist tactics due to setbacks on the battlefield. The Russian Investigative Committee is treating the latest attack as terrorism, it said on Tuesday.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky recently proposed a limited air truce, suggesting a halt to long-range drone attacks in exchange for Russia ceasing its strike on Ukrainian energy infrastructure – operations that Moscow argues are crippling Kiev’s arms production and military logistics. Russia insists on a comprehensive truce, arguing that Ukraine would use any pause to regroup its forces and continue hostilities.

Zelensky is facing pressure from US President Donald Trump, who is seeking a swift resolution to the Ukraine conflict and has criticized Kiev for undermining his efforts.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Europe faces a MAGA ‘vibe-shift’ as Trump moves to his primordial objective – The Global Reset

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 11, 2025

President Trump wants Ukraine settled, full stop. This is so that he can move ahead quickly – to normalise with Russia, and begin the ‘big picture’ project of setting a new World Order, one that will end wars and facilitate business ties.

The point here – which Europe feigns to not understand – is that the end to the Ukraine conflict simply is Trump’s ‘gateway’ to the entire rationale and platform on which he stood: The Great Reset of the Geo-Political landscape. Ukraine, simply said, is the obstacle to Trump’s pursuit of his primordial objective: The Global Reset.

Starmer, Macron and the eastern wing of the Euro-élites are blind to the sheer scale of the global vibe-shift towards traditionalist U.S. politics and ethics. They miss too, the barely concealed fury in the Trump world that exists behind this nascent revolution. “The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies”, Allister Heath writes.

The European Ruling Class is in desperate trouble and increasingly isolated, in a world shifting ‘Rightward’ at breakneck speed. “The U.S. is now the enemy of the West”, the FT proclaims. European leaders wantonly won’t understand.

The reality is that the U.S. is engaged now in rolling up Europe’s foreign policy. And, is about to start exporting U.S. traditional Republican values to roll up the European wokeist belief-system. The European Ruling strata – far removed from its base – has failed to grasp the threat to its own interests (a scenario outlined here).

The Trump administration is trying to rebuild the ailing Republic, and Americans in this new era do not care for the European obsession with ancient feuds and their entailing wars.

Trump reportedly views with utter disdain the UK and European boast that should the U.S. not do it, then Europe will. The Brussels class claims to be able still – after three years of losing in Ukraine – to be able to inflict a humiliating defeat on President Putin.

More profoundly, however, Team Trump – committed to the task of taking down the American Deep State as the ‘inexorable enemy’ – perceives (rightly) the British security state to be co-joined at the hip with their American counterparts, as a part of its global meta-structure. And its oldest and deepest component has always been the destruction of Russia, and its dismemberment.

So when Macron, in an address to the nation this week, rejected a ceasefire in Ukraine and declared that “peace in Europe is only possible with a weakened Russia”, calling the country a direct threat to France and the continent, many in ‘Trump world’ will interpret this defiant declaration (that ‘Ukraine defeating Russia is preferable to ‘peace’’) is nothing more than Macron and Starmer ventriloquising the aims of the Meta Deep State.

This notion is lent substance by the sudden plethora of articles appearing in the European-(managed) MSM to the effect that Russia’s economy is much weaker than it appears and might collapse in the next year. Of course it is nonsense. This is about managing the European public to believe that keeping the war going in Ukraine is a ‘good idea’.

The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured, as Wolfgang Münchau notes, in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia: “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said.

Zelensky and his European fans want ‘to negotiate’ – though later, rather than sooner (perhaps in a year, as one European Foreign Minister reportedly told Marco Rubio privately).

“This”, Münchau writes, “is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office [last week] was all about. Peace through untrammelled victory — essentially the Second World War model — as the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict”.

America sees things differently: It views almost certainly the European Deep State to be putting a spoke into Trump’s ‘normalisation with Russia’ wheel – a normalisation to which they are viscerally opposed. Or, at the very least, as the Europeans chasing a “mirage that no longer exists, stubbornly hiking ‘tax and spend’, whilst doubling down on mass immigration and overpriced energy, oblivious to the flashing red lights in the [financial markets] as government debt yields rocket to their highest levels since 1998”, as Allister Heath outlines.

In other words, the suggestion is that Friedrich Merz, Macron and Starmer are talking about how they are going to turn around their countries – via a massive infusion of debt – into defence superstates. Yet, at some level of consciousness, they must realise that it is not doable, so they settle instead for presenting themselves as ‘world leaders on the international stage’.

The European élites are deeply unstable ‘leaders’ who are risking the prosperity and stability of the continent. It is clear these countries do not have the military capacity to intervene in any concerted manner. More than anything, it is the European economy circling the drain that is the reality at the gates.

Zelensky is accomplice to the European insistence that defeating Russia takes priority over achieving peace in Ukraine, in spite of lacking any strategic rationale as to how it may be achieved after three years of a worsening military situation. Both plans – crushing the Russian economy with sanctions and attrition of the Russian military to the point of collapse – have failed. Why then does Zelensky resist Trump’s peace proposals? On the surface, it makes no sense.

The explanation likely goes back to the post-Maidan era when the western ‘Meta Security State’ (principally, the British and the Americans) entrenched hardline Banderites (then a tiny minority) into the Ukrainian Police, Intelligence and Security State. They are still today the controlling force. Even were this faction to acknowledge that their war cannot be won, they understand what happens if they lose:

Russia will not deal with them. They view them as extremists (if not war criminals) who are in no way ‘agreement capable’ and must be replaced by a leadership who is actually capable of compromise. Russia would likely pursue and bring these men to trial. Zelensky has to be frightened at what the Banderites might do to him (despite his British team of bodyguards).

Well, Trump is not entertaining these European ‘games’: He is administering a slap-down to Zelensky and European leaders, perhaps bringing Zelensky into line; or perhaps not … Team Trump, Politico reports, has now entered into direct talks with the Ukrainian opposition on holding early elections to unseat Zelensky – who is on his way to being removed, members of Team Trump say.

Zelensky may be finished, but interestingly Zaluzhniy wasn’t discussed either. He is being groomed by the British as a replacement – it looks like the Americans are going to make this decision independently of the British, too.

President Trump has ordered intelligence sharing with Ukraine stopped. What he technically did was to stop allowing Ukraine to use exclusive U.S. targeting systems controlled by U.S. Intelligence, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. What has been suspended is the exchange of so-called ‘lethal’ data, including information for HIMARS targeting. However, the defensive information needed for protection is still being provided to Ukraine.

“The extent of the intelligence-sharing freeze, which appears to have been imposed alongside the halt in military aid Mr Trump announced on Monday, initially appeared to be somewhat limited … But by Wednesday afternoon it became clear that the Trump administration, ignoring overtures from Mr Zelensky the previous evening, had gone much further. A military intelligence officer in Kyiv told The Telegraph that the freeze amounted to “more or less a total blackout””.

Put bluntly, the earlier munitions freeze will undoubtedly affect Ukraine’s military abilities over time, however the impact might not be felt for some weeks. The loss of vital intelligence, however, will make its mark immediately. It will – simply put – blind Ukraine. In Ukrainian command posts, the battle tracking and satellite online feeds on tablets and TV screens have indeed been disconnected.

What Trump’s slap-down has done is to puncture the fiction that Ukraine is able to defend itself with a little substitute of European support. That has always been nonsensical bravado. NATO, the CIA and the global Intelligence Community have been in control of the war fighting from the outset. And that, for now, has been switched off.

So, Europe wants to shoulder the U.S. burden? Bloomberg reports that European bond markets are in meltdown. If Europe pretends to replace the U.S., it is going to be extremely expensive, very politically costly, and it will fail.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Baerbock will be remembered as the most ignorant, arrogant and useless German FM

The German Foreign Minister leaves behind her a series of gaffes and humiliation

By Ahmed Adel | March 11, 2025

Outgoing German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock resigned as co-chair of the Greens. In a letter to her parliamentary group and the Brandenburg provincial branch, Baerbock stated that she decided to step down from the political leadership after intense years of engagement and a recent divorce from her husband.

“After years at high speed,” Baerbock wrote in the letter that she wanted to take some time to think about “what this moment means for my family and me.”

“In all this time, I have always given my all. At the same time, these intensive years also had a private price. For personal reasons, I have therefore decided to take a step back from the glare of the spotlight and not apply for a leading position in the parliamentary group,” she added.

Baerbock’s rise to the position of foreign minister demonstrates the postmodern political dominance in Germany and how the European country is an economic giant but a political dwarf. What is particularly paradoxical and tragic is that the next German foreign minister could be banal but seen as better since Baerbock has set the standard so low.

The transformation of the German Greens from an anti-war and anti-nuclear party into warmongers is due to the fact that the entire left, whether it has been converted into a green agenda or left-wing market liberalism, is led by a single radical ideology.

Europeans in leading positions of power like incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Baerbock have gone through the ideological schools of George Soros and Klaus Schwab and with the help of their bosses’ ownership of the media, managed to climb to the very top of the state.

Yet, Baerbock was somehow more imprecise, paradoxical and grotesque in her actions and statements than others.

It is recalled that at the beginning of her ministerial career, Baerbock published her biography, which was full of lies about her academic career and titles. Then, at the beginning of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine, she declared that Europe was at war with Russia, after which she awkwardly explained that she did not really think that was the case. Her statement that she would only negotiate with Russia when President Vladimir Putin makes a “360-degree turn” (instead of a 180) is also a legendary gaffe.

Baerbock’s democratic capacities are evidenced by her statement that the government she heads will support the war in Ukraine regardless of the position of the majority of German citizens and the economic crisis that this support has led to.

She also made a name for herself by declaring that her ministry would pursue “feminist diplomacy,” without specifying what that meant, which was followed by the cancellation of Otto von Bismarck. The foreign minister removed the portrait of the first chancellor and founder of German diplomacy to performatively claim she broke the power of men in German diplomacy.

Nothing better demonstrates Baerbock’s failed “feminist diplomacy” than when she arrived in Damascus after the takfiri leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Ahmed al-Sharaa, took power and he refused to shake her hand and left her awkwardly and humiliatingly shaking her own hand.

The less than favorable reputation she enjoyed as the head of German diplomacy is also evidenced by the fact that when she arrived on an official visit to China and India, her hosts did not wait for her at the airport, and in India, even the German ambassador was late to greet her.

Making her time as foreign minister more sufferable is her evident detachment from reality, as seen when she said on March 1 that Europe must show leadership against Trump’s “ruthlessness” and “must defend the rules-based international order and the strength of law more than ever against the power of the strongest.” Rather, a “rules-based international order” has never existed and was just a mantra repeated by Washington to impose its will against enemies and allies alike, including the European Union. In fact, it is alarming that European leaders still believe in a supposed “rules-based order.”

Baerbock also issued a direct warning to Washington, claiming that Russia is a perpetrator and Ukraine a victim. According to her, straying from this narrative would mark “the end of international law—and with it, the security of most states” and that, in the long run, “it would also be fatal for the future of the United States.”

The German foreign minister has not accepted that her country and the EU collective are political dwarfs, and that the world system has always operated on Great Power politics, not a “rules-based international order.” It is precisely for this reason that the EU and Berlin are on the sidelines of a peace settlement for Ukraine and why Baerbock will only be remembered as Germany’s most ignorant, arrogant, and useless foreign minister.

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

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Unchecked expansionism: Senior Knesset member calls for ‘full Israeli control of Syria’

Press TV – March 10, 2025

In a brazen declaration of expansionist Zionist ambitions, an Israeli Knesset member has openly called for Syria to be placed under the regime’s full control.

Boaz Bismuth said Israel “will not allow a military force to emerge in Syria after Assad’s fall.”

“Damascus must be under full Israeli control, and we will ensure that it comes under our control.”

The remarks reveal long-standing Israeli objectives to reshape West Asia by force.

“Syria is our bridge to the Euphrates, and in the future we will reach Iraq and Kurdistan.”

The extremist Israeli politician also voiced wishful thinking that the entire region should become subordinate to Israeli policies.

“Syria must be completely subordinate to us, as must Jordan, without any military capabilities.”

“We wake up the King of Jordan in the middle of the night to make him carry out our orders.”

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said the regime will not tolerate the presence of the HTS or any other forces affiliated with the new rulers in southern Syria.

He also said the regime’s troops will remain stationed at a so-called “buffer zone,” seized following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, inside the occupied Golan Heights.

The buffer zone was created by the United Nations after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. A UN force of about 1,100 troops had patrolled the area since then.

Netanyahu said the regime’s forces will maintain an indefinite military presence at the summit of Mount Hermon, and the adjacent security zone.

Mount Hermon, known as Jabal al-Shaykh in Arabic, is a huge cluster of snowcapped mountain peaks towering above the Syria-Lebanon border.

It overlooks the Damascus countryside as well as the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Following the downfall of Assad, the Israeli military has been launching airstrikes against military installations, facilities, and arsenals belonging to Syria’s now-defunct army.

The strikes were accompanied by ground incursions, as tanks and armored bulldozers penetrated Syrian territory, beyond the Golan Heights to Qatana, barely 30 kilometers from Damascus.

Israel has been condemned for the termination of the 1974 ceasefire agreement with Syria, and exploiting the chaos in the country in the wake of Assad’s downfall to make a land grab.

Former al-Qaeda affiliate the HTS took control of Damascus in early December in a stunning offensive, prompting Israel to move forces into a UN-monitored demilitarized zone within Syria.

The Israeli regime has occupied some 600 kilometers of Syrian territory since the fall of Assad.

The HTS remained conspicuously silent on the unprecedented Israeli aggression, refusing to condemn the land theft, a move seen by regional experts as a sign of internal instability.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia, Iran

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 10, 2025  

Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion. 

Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market. 

The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all? 

In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation. 

So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war. 

At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy.  If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space. 

Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves. 

It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle. 

All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?  

In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability. 

As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an  unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically. 

A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice. 

The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia  thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation. 

This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.   

Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy. 

The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran. 

Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.

Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon. 

“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.

If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.

Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,   

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »