Israel lost the war in Gaza from every perspective
Regardless of the success of the ceasefire, the Israeli side is the defeated one.
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2025
After more than a year of bloody fighting in the Gaza Strip, both sides reached a ceasefire agreement. Hamas and Israel reportedly agreed to halt hostilities from January on, implementing a multiple step “pacification” plan to end the war. The agreement came after several bilateral talks mediated by Qatar. The final terms of the deal were highly unfavorable to Israel, which led to harsh criticism from the Zionist press and internal opposition, who described it as a “surrender.”
As a result of local political pressure, on January 16, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his interest in delaying the signing of the agreement due to unfounded accusations of “violations” allegedly on the part of Hamas. Additionally, new Israeli airstrikes occurred in Gaza on the same day, killing dozens of people. However, only a few hours later, reports emerged that the agreement had been signed in Doha.
It is still too early to say what the final outcome of this agreement will be. The fact that both sides agreed to temporarily stop hostilities does not mean the end of the conflict. For the Palestinians, the true war will only end when Israel withdraws from Palestine. For Zionists, the end depends on the success of the ethnic cleansing plan in Gaza and the West Bank. However, the halting of bombings and killings is a significant political victory for Palestinian Resistance, especially considering the favorable terms for Hamas.
The agreement, as outlined in its final terms, establishes a prisoner exchange system at a ratio of one Israeli for fifty Palestinians. Tel Aviv is required to completely withdraw from Gaza and stop attacks, while Hamas maintains its legitimate political authority in Gaza. In other words, the agreement includes substantial concessions from Israel, clearly showing that the winning side — i.e., the side in a position to demand its terms — was Hamas.
It is possible that the agreement will fail early. Even with both sides signing, Israel could withdraw at any time, given that Netanyahu is under constant pressure to disguise his political defeat. However, even if hostilities continue, Tel Aviv will still be viewed by all analysts as the defeated side in this war.
It is important to emphasize that war is a political phenomenon, not a military one. Military operations are merely some of the means through which a war occurs, but they are not the central point of a conflict. In fact, war is an extreme political mechanism, where two or more political entities confront each other using violence as a legitimate weapon.
Being a political event, the winner in a war is the side that achieves its political objectives, regardless of the military situation. In this sense, it is possible to lose all military battles but still win politically in the end. Something similar happened, for example, in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In both cases, the U.S. devastated the enemy countries, massacring the local populations through inhumane acts of violence. However, both in Vietnam, in 1973, and in Afghanistan, in 2021, Washington was defeated at the end of the war, leaving the battlefield without achieving its political objectives.
In Gaza, Israel devastated the civilian population and destroyed the infrastructure, but failed to achieve the political goals of its counterattack: eliminating Hamas, occupying Gaza, and freeing prisoners. No Israeli objective was achieved, so Tel Aviv lost. Meanwhile, Hamas achieved its political objectives of weakening the Zionist enemy and preventing the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque, clearly demonstrating that the Resistance won the war.
The situation is far from over. Only the end of the State of Israel — or its complete demilitarization and territorial reconfiguration — would represent a final victory for Hamas. But regardless of this, the current victory is important for the Resistance. If the ceasefire holds, Hamas will have relief and enough time to regroup and strengthen for the next battle. If the agreement fails, the war will continue in its status quo, where Hamas already has the advantage on the battlefield, efficiently preventing enemy territorial advances despite constant civilian casualties.
In the end, Israel is defeated from every perspective. Netanyahu criticizes the agreement because he knows he is committing political suicide by signing a disguised surrender pact. However, if he does not respect the ceasefire, Netanyahu will further harm his government and will have to accept the consequences of a permanent war.
Palestinian victory is the only certainty for now.
The whitewashing of Western crimes in Syria
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2025
After the fall of Syria and the partial collapse of the Axis of Resistance, a predictable smear campaign has been launched in Western media, which, like for Russia, is based on distortion and lies.
It is a well-oiled Western psyops campaign to make the public believe that after Hitler, Bashar al-Assad was a feared dictator, just like they do with Putin and, before that, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
The world was surprised when, on December 8, 2024, the most feared terrorists took over the old Syria, a semi-secular state form, and immediately turned it into a caliphate.
But for the American imperial planners, their European allies, and their terrorist proxies, including those in Ukraine, there was no surprise. They knew about it. The NATO-sponsored terrorist militia was trained by the CIA in Idlib, and provided with drones by Ukraine, drones that are produced in Ukraine, from semi-finished products from a company in the Netherlands called Metinvest B.V.
Large parts of the Syrian army did not defect, as the Western media and so-called experts claim. About 9,000 soldiers are still held captive in the Syrian desert, or in the Sednaya prison, held by the terrorists.
Not only the terrorists but the American army is in charge everywhere in Syria. American rulers secretly prepared for the occupation of Syria, as they did with Iraq. They primed the terrorists in Idlib for the final offensive with Operation Dawn of Freedom.
The operation included the Turkish-financed and supported so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), which falls under the umbrella of the U.S., also known as the Syrian National Army. As early as 2016, Turkey began to assemble a new coalition of so-called Syrian rebel groups, including many former FSA fighters, in an attempt to create a more cohesive and effective opposition force. This coalition consists of the terrorists most feared by the Syrian people, who have been massacring civilians since 2011. Among others, the Syrian National Army includes Chinese Uyghurs, notorious for their brutality among head-choppers.
Little known by the Western public is that the so-called Syrian National Army was active in Karabakh during the 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Turkey provided military support to Azerbaijan by supplying the terrorists of the Syrian National Army. This proxy army of international mercenaries, controlled by the U.S. and Turkey, has been fighting in Ukraine for the NATO-backed Kiev regime. The most brutal of its senior members is Abu al Shishani, who has been hiding in Ukraine for years – despite his U.S. handlers declaring him dead in 2017.
Of course, the Western terrorist sponsors wash their hands of blood. After all, there are supposed to be no real U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria, they will argue, but there is an army base coordinating the terrorists who fight for them. The same applies to Turkey.
Turkey has two faces: it is a member of NATO while trying to realize, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a political aspiration for a great Ottoman empire based on Islam. Some say it is utopian or a lie, but it is not. The Syrian people know this very well; for 14 years, this has been going on and, unfortunately, has come true.
Then there is the other “superpower” in the region, the tiny Zionist apartheid project called Israel. No one, not even the International Atomic Energy Agency, knows what its nuclear weapons arsenal is, and it has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Since 2022, Israel has become a fully-fledged fascist regime, the most ultra-right government in the history of the colonialist project, which carries out the agenda of the settlers. These settlers are dangerous terrorists and, like ISIS (Daesh), use religion, racism and murder as weapons against all other beliefs and opinions. Yet the United States and its European lackeys continue to brazenly back the Zionist rogue state. The U.S. has supplied it with $20 billion in military aid over the past year despite the genocide in Gaza.
One of the seven political parties that govern Israel is the Otzma Yehudit Party. This party advocates for the deportation of those they consider to be the “enemies of Israel”, such as the Arabs. The party has been described in the international press and also in Israel itself as an extremist, ultra-nationalist, fascist, and racist organization.
One of the supporters of this party is Daniella Weiss, who watched with her extremist settler friends as “Gazans” were murdered on a boat off the coast of Gaza and cheered. She and her group are invited to the inauguration of Donald Trump, who himself is a Zionist and his entire incoming administration consists of nothing but Zionists.
After the attack of the U.S. and Turkish-sponsored terrorists in the north of Syria, Israel attacked the south, in Dara’a, which was agreed upon, planned and coordinated with the U.S. and Turkey. Dams and bridges were blown up, and large-scale bombardments on the Syrian army were carried out. Large parts of the army were captured and imprisoned, left in the desert, or the former prison Sednaya. They surrendered; the superior force was too great. Remnant army forces, mainly from the “Tiger Forces”, are fighting the terrorists in the hills around Hama and Latakia.
The Western media was there suspiciously quickly, after a day or so, visiting Sednaya for photo-ops. All kinds of so-called Western journalists arrived in Syria, mainly to promote the narrative that the terrible regime was gone, Syria was “free”, and Assad had turned the former Sednaya prison into a “human slaughterhouse”.
Many fake stories, especially by CNN, about so-called prisoners who were hung on ropes, photos were distributed, which later turned out to be photos from a museum in Iraq. There were also stories about prisoners in underground dungeons, yet no proof of this has ever been found.
Certainly, everything was prepared for the “journalists”; they were already waiting in Jordan, primed to cross into Syria when the “surprise fall” happened.
Years ago, there was a report made by Amnesty International called the “Slaughter House”, but now, in 2025, no evidence has been found for this fake report. What has become clear is that a large number of the prisoners were ISIS (Daesh) members, who have now been released and are imposing a terror regime on minorities such as the Alawites, Christians, and Kurds.
The West is now professing innocence and wants good relations with what they call the new government. All kinds of Western politicians have visited the terrorist leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani. He is dressed up in a new suit and his beard is trimmed. The West wants to send the Syrian refugees back from Europe. There are also flight connections again. The airport of Damascus is changed into a mosque. Is the new caliphate going to send its terrorists on holiday? To do what? Commit attacks, perhaps? Russia, in particular, must be careful, especially after the mass murder at the Crocus City shopping complex last March when 145 people were killed by Daesh-linked terrorists. Many terrorists in the new Syria are from the Caucasus and have years of experience.
Transferring terrorists to Idlib after the fall of Aleppo in 2016 was never a good idea. History has proven it.
The U.S. and its European partners want to freeze the conflict in Donbass, which can result in the same problem as in Syria. That was the biggest mistake by Assad and the former government, which took too humane a position on terrorists.
Is Australia willing to serve as a ‘beachhead’ for the US?
Global Times | January 16, 2025
“I see Australia as the beachhead to counter China… That’s why AUKUS is so important,” said Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a roundtable meeting on Wednesday.
The term “beachhead,” according to the dictionary, refers to an area on a hostile shore occupied to secure further landing of troops and supplies. This is how the US views Australia: as a frontline base in the Asia-Pacific to maintain US’ strategic and military presence in the region and to serve the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” aimed at countering China’s rise.
With the thawing of China-Australia relations, the US is growing anxious. Even the Australian media has noticed this: “McCaul’s remarks add to impressions that with Republicans controlling Washington, Australia may be asked to do more to challenge China in the Asia-Pacific, despite the stabilization of relations achieved by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.”
“This once again highlights how Australia is being instrumentalized and weaponized by the US, at the sacrifice of Australia’s political, economic and security interests, disregarding its sovereignty to serve US national interests,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center of East China Normal University, told the Global Times.
Recently, Australia has been promoting the stabilization, improvement and enhancement of its relationship with China. In June last year, Albanese published an opinion piece, saying, “Working productively with China will benefit everyone in the region.” Three months later, before the visit of Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers to China, he made it clear that the discussions would focus on “stabilizing the economic relationship with China.”
The Asia-Pacific region has maintained relative peace and stability. Clearly, this is a situation the US doesn’t want to see, so it once again uses AUKUS to remind Australia: Your role is simply to serve as America’s “beachhead.”
But from its inception, AUKUS has been a burden and a liability for Australia. On September 15, 2021, the US, the UK and Australia announced the creation of AUKUS. Australia’s total investment in the plan is a staggering 368 billion AUD (about $242 billion), with an additional 555 million EUR (about $585 million) to be paid to France as compensation for the cancellation of a previous submarine deal.
What’s worse, due to the US’ limited submarine production capacity and inadequate investment in UK and Australian shipyards, the AUKUS agreement is currently facing several challenges. More and more Australians believe that the US will ultimately fail to deliver the Virginia-class nuclear submarines. A possible alternative is that the US may station its nuclear submarines in Australian ports. Given that a US official has previously declined to explicitly guarantee that Australia will have full control of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, Australia may ultimately face the loss of sovereignty over its submarine capabilities.
More importantly, Chen said the nuclear submarine fleet under the AUKUS framework is not tailored to Australia’s defense needs but serves the US’ military adventure plans against China. McCaul’s remarks about the US’ vision for the Asia-Pacific further support this point. “A third world war – if it occurred – would most likely break out in the Indo Pacific region… That’s why Australia, in my view, is the power in the Pacific that we need to fortify,” he said.
Albanese concluded his June article with the words, “Building a more prosperous and secure future for all who call the Indo-Pacific home.” This contrasts sharply with McCaul’s statement. For Australia, this is a strategic issue that requires deep thought and reflection: To what extent should Australia achieve its strategic autonomy and truly serve its own interests? Is the vision of the Asia-Pacific in the US blueprint the future Australia wants?
New US Nuke Deployment in Europe Raises Serious Questions About NATO’s True Nature
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.01.2025
The United States has begun the forward deployment of a new generation of its B61 nuclear gravity bomb at bases in Europe, a senior administrator has announced. What signal does the deployment send to Moscow? What impact will it have on strategic security in Europe? Sputnik turned to a senior former Pentagon insider for answers.
“The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed, and we have increased NATO’s visibility to our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements,” US National Nuclear Security Administration chief Jill Hruby revealed in a talk at the Hudson Institute this week.
“Our strategic partnership with the UK is very strong, as is their commitment to their nuclear deterrent. And we have advanced our thinking together about critical supply chain resilience. NATO is strong,” Hruby added, hinting at the prospects for ‘enhanced’ nuclear cooperation.
Reports have been swirling in recent years about US plans to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in the UK at the RAF base at Lakenheath, although no official announcements have been made to date.
The B61-12, also known as the B61 Mod 12, is the latest upgrade to the US variable yield nuclear gravity bomb design first rolled out in the late 1960s. The Mod 12 is set to replace the older Mod 3, 4 and 7 variants of the weapon, and features a 0.3-50 kt yield.
Testing of the B61-12 was completed in 2020, with production starting in late 2021, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists expecting 400-500 of the weapons to be produced, in part for deployments abroad.
Older variants of the munition are currently deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye’s Incerlick Air Base. NATO has approved the weapons to be used in battle by select alliance members as part of the bloc’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements.
The announcement of the bombs’ deployment in Europe is meant to “signal to Moscow that NATO and particularly the UK… are prepared for any ‘attack’ on any NATO country,” says ex-DoD analyst Michael Maloof.
What it really signals is just how much of a US protectorate Western European countries and the UK have allowed themselves to become, Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst with the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, said.
“When I used to live there on a military base, we used to joke how the UK was nothing but a floating aircraft carrier because of all the US bases on the RAF facilities there,” the observer, who grew up in southern England during the Cold War, recalled.
The nukes’ deployment once again “underscores how NATO has evolved not into a defensive alliance, but an offensive alliance,” with the bases where the bombs are stored obvious targets for Russia in the event of a deadly escalation, Maloof said.
Can Trump Fix a Broken Alliance?
Maloof hopes that under Trump 2.0, “a total reevaluation of the deployment of US bases throughout NATO” will take place, especially in Germany but possibly also the UK.
NATO’s continued existence, the alliance’s “Cold War 2.0” against Russia and the bloc’s eastward expansion have been a disaster for European security, the observer said.
“I think it’s the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it. This perennial cycle has just got to cease. And given how we don’t even have a defense against hypersonics… it really shows that we’re reaching a very dangerous pinnacle here of escalation.”
The nuke deployment, the termination of the INF Treaty during Trump’s first term and other factors have “made Europe an all the more dangerous place to be,” Maloof emphasized, with reaction time in case of a nuclear escalation being “virtually nil.”
“I think that this posturing that we continually see to ‘show deterrence’ is actually making the West even more vulnerable to attack because it is an agitating factor,” the observer added.
Kremlin reacts to UK plans for military build-up in Ukraine
RT | January 17, 2025
The possible appearance of NATO-linked military infrastructure in Ukraine is a concern for Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday, commenting on a new security deal between London and Kiev.
The 100-year bilateral agreement, signed by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday, states that the two nations will “explore options for deploying and maintaining defense infrastructure in Ukraine, including military bases, logistics depots, reserve military equipment storage facilities and war reserve stockpiles.”
While the establishment of such facilities would in itself not amount to Ukraine joining NATO, a scenario that Moscow strongly opposes, the British plans are “certainly worrisome”, Peskov told a media briefing.
He also relayed the Russian government’s negative attitude toward British statements that its defense cooperation with Ukraine would include enhanced “collaboration on maritime security” near Russian borders, including in the Azov Sea. Peskov emphasized that the Azov Sea is a Russian inner body of water, so that “interactions between Ukraine and Britain can hardly happen there.”
Moscow views NATO as a hostile entity and has accused its members of waging a proxy war against Russia, using Ukrainian soldiers as ‘cannon fodder’.
The UK has been one of the most vocal supporters of Kiev’s war effort. In the 100-year agreement, it has committed to no less than £3 billion ($3.66 billion) in annual military assistance to Ukraine until financial year 2030/31.
NATO’s eastward expansion since the 1990s – conducted in violation of assurances given to Moscow to secure its acceptance of Germany’s reunification – is one of the primary causes of the current hostilities, according to Russian officials.
UK promises to ‘explore options’ for military bases in Ukraine
RT | January 17, 2025
London has revealed details of a long-term partnership agreement with Kiev, which includes broad plans for military infrastructure development and defense cooperation over the next century. The document suggests the potential establishment of military bases in Ukraine, with an emphasis on aligning these initiatives with NATO standards for maximum effectiveness.
The 15-page declaration, signed on January 16, 2025, lays out a framework for cooperation between the United Kingdom and Ukraine across various sectors, with a primary focus on military collaboration. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky formalized the deal during a ceremony in Kiev on Thursday.
“The Participants will explore options for deploying and maintaining defence infrastructure in Ukraine, including military bases, logistics depots, reserve military equipment storage facilities and war reserve stockpiles,” the document states.
The agreement also emphasizes maritime cooperation, particularly in the Black Sea region. The UK has pledged to enhance Ukraine’s interoperability with NATO in the maritime sphere through joint naval operations, port visits, and the development of Ukrainian naval bases.
“We will work together to ensure NATO learns the lessons from Ukraine’s experience in the Black Sea to inform its development of future maritime capabilities. We will promote the development of naval bases on the territory of Ukraine,” the document reads.
Another section highlights plans to “deepen cooperation on long-range strike capabilities,” integrated air and missile defense, and the stockpiling of complex weapons to bolster “deterrence.”
Additionally, London has committed to providing Ukraine with annual military assistance of no less than £3 billion until at least 2031, and “for as long as needed to support Ukraine.”
While the agreement lacks detailed, binding commitments beyond promises to expand, intensify, and facilitate collaboration across multiple sectors, Zelensky hinted at potential “secret” components within the pact.
The UK has been one of Ukraine’s prime backers since the escalation of conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. It has committed 12.8 billion pounds ($16 billion) in military and civilian aid to Ukraine and reportedly trained 50,000 Ukrainian troops on British soil.
Russia has sharply criticized London’s continued support of Kiev as a sign that the UK government “clearly does not seek to resolve the conflict.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously said “they are doing everything possible to make it drag on, thus prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people.”
Meanwhile, reports suggest that US President-elect Donald Trump, set to take office next Monday, may propose deploying Western troops as peacekeepers along a demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine. The rumored plan reportedly excludes US forces, relying instead on “European” soldiers acting outside NATO’s command structure.
London remains cautious about the idea of sending British troops to Ukraine as part of any peacekeeping force, even though Starmer is said to have discussed the matter with French President Emmanuel Macron, according to The Telegraph.
Accepting the Truth About Ukrainian Casualties is the Only Real Path to Peace
Will the Truth About Ukraine’s Staggering Death Toll Finally Bring an End to the War?
By Michael Vlahos | Landmarks: A Journal of International Dialogue | January 10, 2025
They say “all wars must end.” Yet how does this actually happen? First, all parties must agree — to go down that path together. Next, they must enter into formal negotiation, which almost always means horse trading, compromise, and accommodation. Finally, and most important, all belligerents must want the war to end.
Russia almost certainly wants this. Its minimum territorial objectives are within reach. Moreover, the destruction of Ukrainian military potential — equipment, infrastructure, and stockpiles — is almost complete. Furthermore, the General Staff’s strategy of attrition is approaching its endpoint. The Ukrainian Army is breaking, and Ukrainian national society is literally on the eve of destruction.
Within the “collective West,” the new “Decider” and the majority of Americans also want this war to end. Yet powerful constituencies in EU and American politics are emotionally invested in keeping war going. Red Hawks and most of the Blue Establishment are committed to defanging Russia and demonstrating Alliance strength and cohesion. A settlement that reeks of defeat, they say, will only embolden predatory “autocracies” and further fissiparous “extreme right wing” populism in Europe.
The Trans-Atlantic War Party Establishment, therefore, is determined to deny the Decider a free hand. If Mr. Trump gives away too much to Mr. Putin, he will be derided as an “appeaser.” Red Hawks — including barons in his new administration — will pressure him to bargain from “a position of strength,” creating an instant fissure in his authority if he shows weakness, and an instant, exploitable opening for Blue. Their bitter establishment, still licking its electoral wounds, will leap at the opportunity to tar Trump as a Paper Tiger, abdicating America’s predestined world leadership while also abdicating the sovereignty of the American Century: They will declare, “Even his advisers say so.”
However, if the new president gives in, and “shows strength” by up-arming Ukraine, and offering only a suspension of hostilities, the war will likely go on. Putin has declared that Russia will not accept a truce, armistice, or ceasefire in lieu of a permanent settlement. A long-term compact can be achieved, he insists, only by accommodating Russia’s inviolable strategic needs. Absent this, negotiation will fail, and failure would surely lead to much buyer’s remorse and dismay among those millions who voted for Trump’s promise to bring the fighting to an end.
For “45/47” it would represent a personal failure as well. After all, he vowed to end the war with speed and éclat: Éclat in the sense of “acclamation” as well as “brilliant success.” This is no trivial matter for him: Success could only elevate and enhance his now-mythic persona. In contrast, failure would be a body blow to his stature.
Thus, failure now beckons from two directions. If Trump “appeases,” then Blue will launch him into the meme trajectory of “weak king, enemy comprador.” However, if his Peace Ship fails, and the war goes on, he will be fatefully captured by the War Party, and the conflict will become “Trump’s War.” He will then be well and truly stuck tight in their hand-crafted Tar Baby and its tender snare.
So how then can a new president thread a course between the Scylla and Charybdis of antagonists, foreign and domestic? Perhaps, like Odysseus, the best course might be to “choose the lesser of two evils.”
Here, the lesser evil is a settlement that both accommodates Russia and saves Ukraine. The greater evil is a continuation of the war, leading to the destruction of Ukraine and the breakup of NATO — and just possibly, another world war.
All this means taking on, and overthrowing, the grip of the War Party (Red and Blue) on this nation’s affairs. There is only one way, moreover, to do this: He must break the iron narrative of “Appeasement” — where the only strategic choice is between war and surrender. Thankfully, the hammer and chisel that will break it is at hand.
It means, simply, that the president must tell the whole truth, at long last, about this war.
The Ukraine proxy war against Russia was sold through the greatest Black-and-White story ever told: Of naked aggression unleashed by a maniacal dictator, the latest threat in a long lineage of Evil, from Kaiser to Hitler to Stalin to Mao, and now, the tyrant Putin.
The truth is that the United States, after 2009 (and especially 2014), relentlessly curated conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with the ultimate intent of expanding NATO and breaking Russia. This is the real story. Highly authoritative expert commentary on how it happened is easily accessed: For example, the lectures and videos of John Mearsheimer, and the almost biblical epic volume of Scott Horton, Provoked. There are many, many sources, both scholarly books and an Internet library of unimpeachable analysis.
Yet official “truth” — from the US and NATO governments — has never veered from the iron narrative that is the Manichaean testament of Putin perfidy, Russian savagery, and a “long, twilight struggle” of good vs. evil, of democracy vs. tyranny, of light against the darkness. Moreover, the “commanding heights” of “the collective West” — its entire ruling establishment — sold its credulous electorates this story, supplemented daily by full injections of Ukrainian propaganda. This “Information Op” was itself fully funded by the US and NATO, and orchestrated by a contractual alliance between intelligence agencies and hundreds of PR firms.
This united front presented by Government, Mainstream Media, Intelligence and the propaganda industry effectively marginalized the voice of actual reality. Those advocating for “foreign policy restraint” were labelled “isolationists.” Those who presented the actual backstory to the war were dismissed as Putinists or Orc lovers or Vatniks.
Over three long years of war, however, actual reality began to sink in. More and more Americans became disenchanted with the war and increasingly suspicious of the official story, and of a Biden administration that, on so many fronts, and with so many issues, had simply, brazenly, lied to the American people. Moreover, by the autumn of 2023, the Ukrainian war effort was visibly failing, a reality that propaganda could no longer conceal.
Today, Ukraine stands at the precipice of national existence.
Ukraine in 1994 was 52 million strong. Then the draining began. The best and the brightest sought opportunity in the EU and Russia. Ukraine was a nation of perhaps 33 million in 2022. Today, a quarter of that already-diminished country’s population has fled to the European Union, and another quarter is in the now Russian oblasts, or residing as new migrants in the Russian Federation. The nation itself has shrunk by half.
Yet this is only one edge of the cliff. Ukraine’s fertility has collapsed. Prewar, it was already one of the lowest in Europe. The years of war have pushed it down below 1.0, perhaps even to 0.7. In the war, Ukraine has sustained shockingly massive casualties. Combined with the sheer number of able-bodied men who are fleeing the country, both draft-dodgers and deserters, or those who were migrants loath to come home, Ukraine — sans settlement — is poised to keep shrinking. Within a generation it may wither to the size of Belgium, perhaps even that of Belarus.
Then there is the matter of casualties. Kiev and Washington — and the entire Media and Official Propaganda industrial complex — has been silent on the subject of battlefield losses until recent months, when the yawning catastrophe could no longer be denied. Yet all along there have been signs and signals and harrowing data points. Stitched together, this is the story they tell.
In the first 18 months of the war — simply counting military obituaries and dead SIM cards — comes to ~330,000 Ukrainian soldiers KIA. Moreover, more than 50,000 lost one or more limbs. Moreover, in the last 18 months, monthly losses intensified. Kiev itself has declared that the army needs 30,000 replacements a month just to maintain the current force. Does this mean that, from September 2023 to date, another ~540,000 soldiers were lost?
Here, it is necessary to be mindful of what Soviet historians call “irrecoverable” losses. Hence, a soldier who will never return to the fight is “irrecoverable.” Killed, crippled, missing: This is the true sum of an army’s losses in war. For Ukraine, arithmetic says that number is not less than ~920,000 men.
Yet not all of these are dead or crippled. Deserters also represent, in a very real sense, irrecoverable casualties, as these are the able-bodied who have fled the country, or who have gone to ground inside Ukraine. Eurostat reports that 650,000 men of fighting age have fled Ukraine. Furthermore, reeling under Russian hammer-blows across the Donbass Front, desertions are reportedly over 200,000 in 2024. Thus, Kiev has been forced to raise its monthly mobilization target from 30,000 to 40,000.
Ukrainian journalists cite a desertion rate of 160 per day in early 2024, rising to 200 by summer, and then jumping to 380 by autumn. This suggests that desertion, over the past year at least, has accounted for a thick slice of irrecoverable losses, perhaps 4500-5000 per month. The sudden surge in desertion after September 2024 has been driven by crushing exhaustion and defeat. This in turn has pushed the state to desperate measures. All “conscription” in Ukraine today takes the form of violent kidnapping, even of the sick, aged, and infirm. Yet in spite of the utmost brutality, that 40K per month target is now short about 20,000 each month.
Moreover, actual irrecoverable losses, across the board, are almost certainly understated. For example, many platoon and company commanders simply do not report desertions, for fear of punishment by their field grade superiors. Likewise, the number of missing KIA is massive, given the sheer number of Ukrainian corpses left on the battlefields. A recent composite of casualty estimates puts the KIA total at 780,000. Adding in the severely wounded, total irrecoverable Ukrainian battle losses could be as high as 1.2 million, after 1000 days of war.
To put all this in perspective: Today’s shrunken Ukraine is half the size of the French Republic in 1914. In World War I, France lost 3.6 percent of its population: A monstrous and unnecessary national bloodletting, and a stain on the very idea of “Civilization.”
America’s proxy war against Russia — goading and pitting Ukraine against a nation nearly 8 times its size — has led to yet another unnecessary bloodletting. Ukraine has lost 3.9 percent of its population. Hidden from us for years, in plain sight.
What hath America wrought? Biden’s narrative narcissism would have us believe the United States has been heroically defending democracy against tyranny and pure evil. How he boasted, loudly, that America was bleeding Russia white — all for the price of not one American soldier. What a bargain! However, in sharper focus, an American emperor and his court, in their lust to bring Russia to its knees, destroyed another nation (and this time, not a “primitive,” but rather a “European” nation) to no purpose but to fulfill its own vanity.
Unwittingly perhaps, the real effect of Biden’s fulmination was to fulfill the enemy’s existential need. Curating and handcrafting this naked American proxy war, ironically, gave Russia the signal opportunity to halt NATO expansion, and buy itself strategic breathing room. Biden’s assault served to mobilize and renew Russian national identity. Eager and blind, an addled Emperor thus became Russia’s strategic helpmate.
Now try out this counterpoint. Imagine an alternative reality where Mr. Putin actually agrees to a ceasefire in-place. This is the last fallback wet dream of the US/NATO War Party. An armistice — with NATO “peacekeepers” — would surely let the collective West rejuvenate and rearm Ukraine. A new army, drafted from the 18-25 age cohort, including even women, might then be harnessed by the War Party to have another go at Russia, and give us yet another vicarious national bleed.
In this fantasy, a nation of 20 million (or less) would be trumpeted as the return of Ulysses, i.e., the million fighting men who fled, and their families, would return to their homeland to “fight the good fight” yet again. In the next war, a righteous Ukraine, eager and steel-annealed to exact revenge, would unleash “Fire and Sword” on the Russian serpent: A summoning of NeoCon Nirvana.
Yet think: An armistice premeditating another war could lead only to the further, final hollowing-out of Ukraine. Any male person in that cursed country — given the terrors they know — will surely flee: “Get out now before it’s too late!” The irreversible downhill slope in fertility keeps singing, ominously, of an irreversible path toward national extinction. Ukrainians will never, ever embrace yet more blood after the sheer terror of 2022-2025.
The Ukraine Question must be permanently settled.
Only this argument can silence Red Hawks and the Blue War Party alike. All the peoples American Empire has ravaged and wrecked this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — stand as mute witness to the dark descent of a once stainless and world-redemptive American Mission. The new president could make use of this American myth about itself to proclaim to the world that “The Fall” stops here.
Bringing peace to Ukraine is the very smallest mercy this nation might ever offer to those millions of innocents betrayed by America’s supremely venal, exiting emperor. Adding further to the argument that this all must end: Russia too has suffered in this war. Their KIA is about twice what America suffered in Vietnam, from a population slightly smaller than the US in 1960. Russia will seek no more wars, whatever ever-ardent keyboard War Hawks declare.
Surely, President Trump can end the madness of another “Forever War” — cold or hot — with Russia. This, without hesitation or reservation, is the greater evil we face.
Surely, a permanent settlement in Ukraine is the lesser of two evils.
Michael Vlahos is author of the book Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change. He taught strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the Naval War College and joins John Batchelor weekly on CBS Eye on the World. Follow him on @Michalis_Vlahos
Trump unable to end Ukrainian conflict – media
By Lucas Leiroz | January 16, 2025
Western media apparently does not believe in Donald Trump’s ability to end the war in Ukraine. After months of desperate campaigning against the US president-elect, accusing him of being “pro-Russian” and neglecting the Ukraine issue, Western mainstream outlets are now claiming he never had such ability or intention, and that his campaign promise was simply “bluster.”
Reuters published an article on January 15 claiming that Trump’s promise to end the conflict between Ukraine and Russia “in 24 hours” was a bluff with no basis in reality. According to the news agency, people close to the president-elect said that any negotiations or agreements are still long away, and that an end to hostilities is not possible in the near future.
“Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump now concede that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise – to strike a peace deal on his first day in the White House. Two Trump associates, who have discussed the war in Ukraine with the president-elect, told Reuters they were looking at a timeline of months to resolve the conflict, describing the Day One promises as a combination of campaign bluster and a lack of appreciation of the intractability of the conflict and the time it takes to staff up a new administration,” Reuters’ article reads.
The assessment coincides with some recent statements in which Trump has expressed frustration at not being able to advance his diplomatic plans before his inauguration. He repeatedly said he plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin “long before” six months of his presidency, but at the same time has expressed some skepticism about the future of the conflict. For example, Trump recently said that it would be easier to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza than in Ukraine – which proved true, given the end of hostilities between Israel and Hamas announced on January 15.
“I think, actually, more difficult is going to be the Russia-Ukraine situation [than Gaza] (…) I see that as more difficult. (…) I don’t think it’s appropriate that I meet (Putin) until after the 20th, which I hate because every day people are being – many, many young people are being killed,” Trump said.
Reuters’ journalists, citing their sources, claim that despite the apparent impossibility of achieving a quick peace, there is a consensus among members of Trump’s team on the need to take some emergency measures, such as canceling Ukraine’s accession process to NATO, as well as trying to “freeze the battle lines”. In addition, Trump’s advisers warn the president to demand “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which they consider to be an important and necessary step to create the conditions for a peace agreement.
“While the exact contours of a Trump peace plan are still being mulled, Trump’s advisers generally support taking the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, at least for the foreseeable future, and freezing the current battle lines. Most high-ranking Trump advisers also support giving Ukraine a material security guarantee, such as the creation of a demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops. So far, the Trump team’s attempts to end the war have proceeded in fits and starts, underlining the degree to which campaign promises can run into the reality of complex diplomatic negotiations,” the article adds.
In fact, this all seems like a real waste of time on the part of Trump’s advisers. Whether Ukraine’s NATO membership process continues or ends does not change anything in the conflict, since it is already certain that Kiev will not be allowed to join. It is a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that NATO should not admit Ukraine as a member, but rather use it as a proxy in the war. Although Biden and the Democrats show a supposed “support” for such membership, this seems to be a mere rhetorical tool, without any practical meaning.
In the same sense, it is pointless to talk about “freezing the lines” or “giving guarantees to Ukraine”, since only the Russians can decide on these matters. Moscow will not freeze the front lines at least until all of its reintegrated territories are liberated and fully protected by demilitarized border zones.
Moreover, it is not Kiev that is in a position to demand “guarantees”, since Russia is the aggressed side in this war, with the special military operation having begun in 2022 precisely as a response both to NATO expansion and to the massacre of Russians that Kiev has been carrying out since 2014. The position to demand security guarantees belongs to the Russians, not to Ukrainians or Westerners.
In the end, it seems that the Western media is beginning to admit what analysts have been saying since the elections: Trump’s promise to end the war was never feasible. It is not the US that is in a position to demand an end to hostilities, since only the winning side can end a conflict. In fact, the war will end only when Moscow assesses that its strategic objectives have been achieved.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
‘NATO Lost’: Ukraine War Backfires, Brings Russia and China Closer Together
Prof. Glenn Diesen on BreakthroughNews
Glenn Diesen | January 14, 2025
I discussed on BreakthroughNews how NATO lost the Ukraine War. NATO has also discredited itself as a security provider by provoking the war, rejecting what were initially reasonable Russian security concerns, and then boycotting all diplomacy and negotiations for three years.
In 2014, NATO based the coup in Kiev despite knowing that pulling Ukraine into NATO’s orbit would likely trigger a war and only 20% of Ukrainians even wanted NATO membership. From the Minsk peace agreement to the Istanbul negotiations, every path to peace since was rejected and sabotaged by NATO due to maximalist objectives. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, NATO could not defeat Russia on the battleground, it could not collapse the Russian economy, and it could not isolate Russia in the international system. Russia has now aligned itself closer with China and a just peace in Ukraine is likely not achievable.
For the next decades, Russia’s economic connectivity will be directed to the East and its increasingly powerful military will be primarily tasked to deter the West. While the Ukrainians suffered the most in this war, Europe also suffered a great defeat as its security, economy, political stability, and geopolitical relevance will continue to decline.
Settlers abandoning ‘Israel’ amid economic instability and wars
Al Mayadeen | January 15, 2025
A recent report by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics has intensified political discord within the Israeli occupation, highlighting a significant surge in reverse migration at the start of 2025.
According to the report, some 82,000 individuals have left the occupied Palestinian territories, a figure that has shaken its political and security circles. This outflow, prominently featured in Israeli media, underscores a growing disenchantment among Israelis, particularly professionals, doctors, and technicians, with the occupation’s current trajectory.
The data in question led to intense political discourse. Right-wing factions have been particularly vocal, condemning those leaving as government opponents use the data to criticize the incumbent regime. The phenomenon has become yet another battleground in the Israeli occupation’s already fractured political landscape.
Experts attribute this migration to several factors, including restrictive laws, stifling personal freedoms, and a lack of opportunities for creativity and economic growth. The exodus reportedly began during protests against judicial reforms, with the ongoing war on Gaza and the accompanying threats further cementing the decision for many to leave.
Additional contributing factors include the government’s economic policies, the refusal of Haredi communities to perform military service, and attacks on institutions like the Supreme Court. These issues, combined with the war on Gaza and the unresolved fate of the captured soldiers, have exacerbated fears among Israelis about the future.
Israeli research centers have noted a troubling trend: the emigrants are predominantly young, educated individuals aged between 20 and 45, with a significant portion being children and adolescents. This demographic shift threatens to weaken the Israeli occupation’s economy and social structure. High living costs, limited housing and employment opportunities, and inadequate public services are driving these individuals to seek a better quality of life elsewhere.
Despite the alarming implications, the right-wing government has responded with superficial criticisms rather than substantive solutions. The emigration highlights a diminished sense of belonging and trust among those leaving, further strained by war, economic instability, and internal divisions.
Impact of the war on Gaza
The October 2023 war on Gaza triggered a surge in departures, with 14,816 settlers leaving that month alone—more than double the monthly average of 7,145 for the rest of the year.
The northern territories were particularly impacted as heightened tensions and the war on Lebanon, which saw Hezbollah wreaking havoc along the borders drove significant numbers of settlers to abandon these areas.
Explainer: What makes Iran’s Rezvan and Raad loitering munitions prized assets?
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | January 15, 2025
During the Great Prophet 19 military drills, Iranian armed forces displayed and tested cutting-edge loitering munitions, highlighting rapidly advancing capabilities.
At an important military facility, the Rezvan loitering munition was officially unveiled in the presence of the media alongside new-age combat drones and precision-guided missiles.
At the same time, the Raad loitering munition underwent testing in western Kermanshah province.
Just days later, the Iranian military announced the delivery of a new fleet of 1,000 domestically produced drones. These advanced drones boast radar-evading capabilities and can strike targets over 2,000 kilometers away, further solidifying Iran’s growing defense prowess.
What is a loitering munition?
Loitering munitions, a class of expendable drones equipped with built-in warheads, are designed to “loiter” over a target area, waiting patiently for the perfect moment to strike by crashing into it.
Often referred to as suicide, kamikaze, or one-way-attack (OWA) drones, these weapons differ from their basic counterparts. Unlike preprogrammed kamikaze drones that function as mini-cruise missiles, loitering munitions can alter their mission mid-flight or even return to base if no target is detected.
Outfitted with sophisticated sensors, precision guidance systems, and versatile warheads, loitering munitions can search, identify, track, and engage both static and mobile targets with precision.
Depending on their model and design, they can hover for several minutes or even longer, with target acquisition managed either by a ground operator using real-time imagery or autonomously, without human intervention.
Compact, transportable, and easy to deploy, loitering munitions are extremely difficult to detect or intercept, making them a powerful tool for crippling enemy forces and morale.
In recent years, these drones have seen a surge in use, demand, and technological development, becoming a cost-effective, reliable alternative to traditional high-value platforms.
The Russia-Ukraine war highlighted their versatility, with long-range loitering munitions striking targets hundreds of kilometers away and tactical variants reshaping frontline battles.
Despite their growing prominence, there remains no foolproof defense against loitering munitions, particularly on the tactical battlefield. Existing countermeasures are expensive, limited in availability, and often unreliable, according to military experts.
The evolution of loitering munitions presses on, incorporating cutting-edge advancements such as enhanced sensors, AI-driven capabilities, jamming resistance, quieter and more efficient engines, and aerodynamic designs for seamless flight and agile dives.
These innovations continue to solidify their place as a game-changing weapon in modern warfare.
What are the characteristics of Raad and Rezvan?
Iranian military sources have unveiled the Raad and Rezvan loitering munition systems, providing their names, photos, and footage, though technical specifications remain sparse.
Footage of the Raad test was first shown in February last year, then as an unnamed weapon, while its name was revealed in recent days.
Last April, based on similarities to the Russian Lancet system, Iranian media estimated a flight endurance of 30 to 60 minutes, a range of 40 kilometers, and a warhead of 3 to 6 kilograms.
Rezvan, however, made its debut just last Thursday. Only its front half was visible, protruding from a cylindrical launcher. With a reported range of 20 kilometers and a 20-minute flight duration, it’s positioned as a short-range tactical drone.
Both drones feature tactical X-wings for enhanced maneuverability during dives but differ in launch methods. Raad utilizes a booster and is launched from a tripod, distinguishing it from Russia’s catapult-launched Lancet and Scalpel systems, which feature a different wing configuration.
Raad boasts four fixed lifting wings and four smaller tail fins, manually mounted before launch. Rezvan, on the other hand, has foldable wings that deploy mid-launch.
It is not known what kind of tail fins Rezvan has, as there are configurations without them, such as the Russian Izdeliye-53, nor what kind of propulsion it uses, but it is most likely a propeller.
Also, considering the aforementioned range, it is expected to have an electric motor that is significantly quieter than a fuel-powered piston engine, making it a greater surprise for the enemy when diving.
Raad and Rezvan have a similar rotatable pod with cameras and sensors positioned in the lower half of the nose, which distinguishes them from similar foreign drones.
One notable difference compared to last year’s and the recent launch of Raad is that the latter features an antenna installed vertically on the frame.
Both loitering munitions were developed by Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) military experts in cooperation with domestic knowledge-based companies.
Raad and Rezvan are ideal tactical equipment for protecting Iran’s borders in mountainous areas, especially in the northwest and southeast where foreign-backed terrorist groups operate.
In recent years, these groups, with knowledge of the local geography, have tried to bring their sabotage teams inside the country and in most cases were ambushed.
The newest loitering munition systems provide a more effective way to deal with such terrorist and sabotage groups at safe distances, without fear of human casualties.
What are similar Iranian and foreign systems?
The IRGC has made a big investment in the development of loitering munitions in recent years and a range of advanced systems have been employed in various military exercises across Iran.
Shahed-131, Shahed-136, Shahed-238 and Omid belong to the category of loitering munitions, but they differ in many ways from tactical Raad and Rezvan because they use gasoline engines, have a cropped delta-wing shape, a long-range (from 1,000 to 2,500 km) and are intended for strategic targets.
The latter category also includes Ababil-2, Raad-85, Arash-1 and Arash-2, cylindrical blunt-nosed fuselage designs, with different wing and fin configurations.
Smaller tactical drones similar to Raad and Rezvan are Shahin-1, Meraj 521, and Sina, all launched from tubes and with foldable wings and fins.
Partial similarities also exist with the 358 missile, a loitering munition intended for searching for and destroying air targets.
Of the foreign drones, the most similar based on the X-wing design are the Russian drones Lancet, Scalpel and Izdeliye-53, the German HX-2 and an unnamed North Korean loitering munition.
The Zionist regime’s media claimed that the Rezvan is an alleged “copy” of one of their X-wing Hero loitering munitions, however, there are significant differences in the design details, including frame, rotating pod, wings, tubes, etc.
Tactical tube-launched loitering munitions have multiple obstacles and are limited to a few basic designs, so there is not much room for radical new ones.
There is also no evidence that Rezvan does not predate its so-called archetypes and was developed long ago, as was the case with numerous other systems such as the Shahed-136 and 358-class missile, which were publicly presented years after the first sightings.
Featured Video
Bombing Hitler’s Hometown
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
‘Conspiracy Theory’ Now Fact: Greater Israel Has Arrived
By Kit Klarenberg | Mint Press News | January 28, 2025
Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab and Muslim lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims this territory was promised to Jews by God. The mainstream media typically dismisses this concept as antisemitic conspiracy theory, or at most the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of extremist Israelis.
In reality … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Seizing the Kharg: Washington’s path to defeat in the Persian Gulf
- Iran reports 500 US casualties in strikes on covert US military sites
- Pro-Israel terrorist arrested before assassination of pro-Palestinian activist
- Bombing Hitler’s Hometown
- German journalist threatened with homelessness as German court upholds EU sanctions in landmark free speech case
- US Tells Allies That Ukraine-Bound Arms Could be Sent to Middle East
- Organized terrorism: Iran condemns killing of its diplomats in Lebanon
- Why could Gaza enter the regional war?
- Hamas official rejects Mladenov Plan linking disarmament to Gaza reconstruction
- Two Primary Elections for the Soul of ‘America First’
- If Americans Knew
- Researchers at Human Rights Watch Resign Over Blocked Report on Palestinian Refugee Return
- Jewish Groups Are Backing a War Americans Don’t Want
- Eric Fingerhut Thinks He’s the President of the Jews
- Top Jewish Philanthropists, Rabbis Urge Israeli President to Take Action Against ‘Jewish Extremists’
- Don’t Be Fooled. Zionist Leaders Have Always Wanted to Control Southern Lebanon
- Israel’s widespread use of torture is a core element of its genocide against the Palestinian people
- In Israel’s War on Iran, Many Middle East US Bases Rendered “All But Uninhabitable”
- ‘Burn the lawn’: Israel pursues ‘Rafah model’ in southern Lebanon
- A genocide here, an amputation there
- Reports: Iran mobilizing 1M fighters, Israel-US run low on ammo, Israeli army faces shortage – Not a ceasefire Day 168
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 
