Back in September 2022, President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen gave a speech during the State of the Union Address. At the time, she said the following:
“Europe’s solidarity with Ukraine will remain unshakeable. From day one, Europe has stood at Ukraine’s side. With weapons. With funds. With hospitality for refugees.
Russia’s financial sector is on life-support. We have cut off three quarters of Russia’s banking sector from international markets. Nearly one thousand international companies have left the country. The production of cars fell by three-quarters compared to last year. Aeroflot is grounding planes because there are no more spare parts. The Russian military is taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware, because they ran out of semiconductors. Russia’s industry is in tatters.
It is the Kremlin that has put Russia’s economy on the path to oblivion.
The same is true for our financial support to Ukraine. So far Team Europe have provided more than 19 billion euros in financial assistance. And this is without counting our military support. And we are in it for the long haul.”
Fast forward to January this year and here’s what the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had to say at the EU Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Subcommittee on Security and Defense:
“When you look what Russia is producing now in three months, it’s what all of NATO is producing from Los Angeles up to Ankara in a full year.”
To better understand the sheer dichotomy of these two statements, here’s a video of both saying it out loud. For the last three years, all of us “conspiracy theorists” from truly independent media (not USAID-style “independent”) have been talking about these disparities between reality and endless myths facilitated by the mainstream propaganda machine. This also explains why we have been able to predict outcomes with far greater precision than anyone in Western media.
The reason for this is that we deal with facts, whether anyone likes them or not, and then we use scientific methods to come to viable conclusions. On the other hand, the political West created a massive echo chamber of endless self-quoting while engaging in the so-called “fact-checking” in an attempt to flag any information that’s not within their ludicrous narratives.
However, NATO still insists on the same long-debunked self-serving myths and outright lies. Namely, Rutte also said that “Russia is not bigger than the Netherlands and Belgium combined as an economy, the two of you together is the Russian economy, and they’re producing in three months what the whole of NATO is producing in the year”. When one claims that the economies of Belgium and the Netherlands are of the same size as Russia’s, it means they either have extreme difficulties with basic understanding of anything or are simply engaged in the most laughable propaganda in recent memory. Namely, Rutte is obviously referring to the nominal GDP, a metric that is often used by the political West to pat itself on the back by waving papers “proving” its supposed “economic superiority” over the entire world.
However, in an analysis of recent Russian military reforms and the resulting budget, I’ve argued that Moscow’s actual defense spending exceeds the equivalent of half a trillion US dollars. How else could one possibly explain Russia’s ability to not only defeat NATO’s crawling “Barbarossa 2.0”, but to also outproduce the world’s most vile racketeering cartel by three or even four times? Who in their right mind could believe that an economy the size of Benelux can outpace the production economies of a billion people living under NATO occupation? What’s more, Rutte himself admitted this indirectly by saying that “when you compare Russian numbers, what you can buy in Russia for the same money is, of course, much more”. He still attributed this to “our high salaries” or “our [massive] bureaucracy”, but conceded that “[Russia] can move at a higher speed”.
Rutte still insisted that the Kremlin “basically created a war economy” and that “the whole industry is now on a war footing”. However, this is not true. Russia is still maintaining a robust economic production, while Russian society is not as affected as the political West claims. All state institutions continue to function as usual, while economic activity is booming, as the sanctions siege resulted in the creation and/or growth of entire industrial sectors that either didn’t exist at all or were fairly small. The Russian market is the single largest in Europe and one of the largest in the world. Its needs didn’t just vanish into thin air when the US and EU/NATO launched their economic siege. Moscow’s carefully implemented import substitution programs have resulted in a massive boost for the domestic production economy.
The results have been staggering, to say the least. In just a few months of 2023, Russia overtook both Germany and Japan, becoming the fourth-largest economy in the world, which is perfectly in line with its ability to counter the entire political West. In addition, throughout 2024, it consistently outpaced both the US and EU in economic growth, despite waging a defensive war against NATO aggression.
Rutte himself confirmed this (albeit not without infusing more laughable propaganda) by saying that NATO “shouldn’t compare [Russian] 8% or 9% defense spending, 1/3 of the 8% or 9% of GDP, 1/3 of the whole state budget being spent on defense”, also adding that “when you cobble it all together, it might be less than what the European NATO is doing, but again, you can buy so much more, do so much more”.
This “much more” results from genuine differences between nominal and real GDP, but nobody in NATO will ever admit this publicly, as it would destroy their endless propaganda narratives. The entire notion of the “superior West” would collapse like a house of cards, which would rattle up the already disturbed North American and European societies. What’s more, even the strategic unity of the political West hangs in the balance as the new Trump administration is looking to either eliminate or drastically reform all Deep State-aligned institutions, be it domestic or “international”. In the case of the latter, this includes both NATO and the EU (as its geopolitical pendant). To that end, Washington DC is trying to appease Moscow, with Trump even saying he wants to ease the official UN General Assembly rhetoric about the “unprovoked Russian aggression”.
The obvious goal of this is to slow down the definite formation of a multipolar security architecture that would prevent the political West’s aggression against the world. However, while Russia and its leadership certainly welcome the defusing of tensions between the world’s two most potent military powers, it’s simply impossible that Moscow would ever sacrifice its role as one of the leaders of multipolarity for the sake of the US/NATO. That train left the station well over a decade ago.
America is Russia’s strategic adversary and this fact won’t change any time soon (if ever). However, if this confrontation between the two superpowers can be controlled to avoid a direct world-ending war, the Kremlin will certainly embrace this idea. It would be best for the entire political West to do the same (provided it really wants to survive).
As for the results of the special military operation (SMO), there have been analyses for the occasion of the two previous anniversaries. Among the things debunked in one of those is the myth that Russia wanted to “take Kiev in three days”, based on statements by former US top general Mark Milley.
However, while this claim sounded completely unrealistic, what would seem even more unlikely is that the Kremlin could inflict a crushing strategic defeat on the entire NATO in just three years. Well, it seems that’s precisely what we’re witnessing now. Moscow tried its best to resolve these issues diplomatically, but the political West understands nothing but the language of force. After centuries of barbaric aggression against the world, it seems it has completely lost touch with the civilized ways and is suffering the consequences.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The Ukraine conflict was “provoked” and it is wrong to solely blame Russia, Steve Witkoff, a senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, has said. Moscow had to respond to a security threat created by the West’s promises to accept Ukraine into NATO, he stated.
Witkoff made the remarks in an interview published by CNN on Tuesday, in which he was asked whether Washington was choosing the right side by holding talks with Moscow instead of continuing to funnel aid to Kiev.
The situation is not black-and-white, with Russians being “the bad guys,” Witkoff told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“The war didn’t need to happen, it was provoked,” he added. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians.”
According to Witkoff, “there were all kinds of conversations… about Ukraine joining NATO” prior to the conflict that were treated by Moscow as a direct threat to its security and prompted it to respond.
The US official also spoke about Russia’s readiness to swiftly end the conflict through negotiations, pointing to the talks held in Istanbul in the spring of 2022, shortly after Moscow began its military campaign.
The peace process came to an abrupt end in May of that year when Kiev withdrew from the talks after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged it to continue fighting.
Russian officials “have indicated that they are responsive” to ending the conflict by engaging in “cogent and substantive negotiations” in Istanbul, Witkoff said, adding that the two sides “came very, very close to signing something.”
The Türkiye-facilitated Russian-Ukrainian peace talks in 2022 resulted in a preliminary agreement for a treaty that would have seen Ukraine become a neutral nation with a limited military, backed by security guarantees from major world powers, including Russia.
According to Witkoff, the preliminary Istanbul agreement could be used by Washington as a framework and a “guidepost” for a future peace deal.
Last week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky described the Istanbul talks as “an important reference point and the platform where the parties came closest to an agreement.” He also named Türkiye an “ideal host” for potential negotiations between Kiev, Moscow, and Washington.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to the Istanbul agreements as a potential basis for any future peace deal with Kiev.
Following the Munich Security Conference last week, European Union leaders appeared shell-shocked by US Vice President J.D. Vance’s scathing attack on Europe.
He criticized the continent for multiple reasons, including the lack of free speech, arrests of European citizens for inflammatory social media posts, insufficient commitment to security, and destabilization due to both legal and illegal migration. Although Vance seemed to address Western European politicians and officials, it is likely he was speaking over their heads, directly to the public. His words resonated with widespread discontent about politics and politicians across the region, aligning with the prevailing sense of unfairness felt by many ordinary citizens.
Western European leaders, including British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, appeared agitated and uncomfortable with Washington’s tone. Perhaps the hard truths Vance presented have forced them to reconsider their consistently underfunded armed forces. Vance’s warnings made it clear that they cannot indefinitely rely on the US for military power and financial aid, particularly regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky also heard that signal and immediately called for a ‘European Armed Force’. Western European leaders arranged an emergency meeting in Paris hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and, astonishingly, Starmer indicated British soldiers could be sent to the Ukraine to enforce any peace deal.
The British public and Parliament were caught off guard by what many see as a reckless proposal from their PM. He announced the possibility of “British boots on the ground” just hours after the Munich meeting ended. This decision, or threat, appears to be a unilateral move by Starmer. It is unlikely to gain widespread support across the country and is already sparking outrage, particularly in the “Red Wall” – Britain’s former industrial heartlands. A poll in The Times just last week showed that only 11% of young people in the UK would consider fighting for their country, showing what we all know: that the UK is deeply divided over class, race, and region.
This is a problem for Starmer and the British liberals who have yet again found their war drums that were put away following the disastrous follies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was once the Labour heartlands, the de-industrialized parts of the country, have also been the typical recruiting fields for the British Soldier – the white working class. These communities have been badly let down by all politicians have become deeply resentful and detached from what is happening within the politics, media and chattering classes of London.
It is no coincidence that those beating the war drums in London are the same individuals who supported the Iraq invasion and opposed the outcome of the EU referendum that led to Brexit. There has been a distinct division throughout the country since Brexit and I suspect Starmer’s reckless offering up of our military to “peacekeep” for the EU is a signal that he wants a closer relationship with the bloc. Unfortunately for Starmer, his brand of Labour – middle-class metropolitan liberals – will never offer up their own children for military service and will look north towards the very people they have spent the nine years since the Brexit referendum accusing of being racists, bigots, and xenophobes.
Starmer and Macron are deeply unpopular in their own countries. Perhaps they think they can paint over the damage done in their countries by successive neo-liberal governments by pulling the patriotic chord through the threat of war. But Starmer must realise that this will never be his Falklands War moment – when an unpopular Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government turned around their unpopularity by going to war with Argentina in 1982. Working-class populations outside the big metropolitan cities, in places like Blyth, Sunderland, Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent, have traditionally been patriotic and supported the British military, but they will not follow Starmer and the failed EU leaders into a battle they see as ‘not theirs’.
The lesson here for the Western European political leaders is that ignoring sections of the population, allowing deep divisions and inequalities to fester, and then banging the war drums and expecting the working class to go and fight a war for you is not going to work. They can see right through this, and Vance’s words spoke to them more directly than a despised European elite class ever could.
Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners’ strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie is the author of ‘Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.’ She’s a political activist, writer and thinker.
NATO is supposedly set to extend its Cold War-era fuel pipeline system from western Germany into Poland and the Czech Republic, according to Der Spiegel citing an internal memo from the Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces. The move comes as the bloc makes “operational plans for a possible Russian attack on the eastern states”, the newspaper wrote on Friday.
NATO’s Central European Pipeline System was built in the late 1950s and was designed “to meet operational needs in central Europe in times of peace, crisis and conflict.” It transported large volumes of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel fuel through Germany, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and was also used by the United States.
The plans include “storing fuel as far east as possible near the potential area of operations,” according to an internal memo. Now the fuel distribution is limited to NATO’s eastern flank, the existing pipeline network currently ends in western Germany.
The project is to cost €21 billion ($22 billion) and is expected to be largely completed by 2035, according to the report. Germany is ready to contribute more than €3.5 billion ($3,7 billion) to the project, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told Der Spiegel. “For our soldiers, a reliable fuel supply is one of the essential requirements for their operational readiness,” he added.
A senior NATO official told Der Spiegel that while ammunition and spare parts could be airlifted, fuel transport by plane would be nearly impossible due to “immense consumption”. He told Der Spiegel there are “significant problems in the sustainable supply of fuel to the forces that would have to be relocated to the eastern border if necessary”. “The demand is gigantic,” the official claimed.
However, some factors could delay construction and increase costs, Der Spiegel added. The pipeline is to be laid under several rivers, including the Weser and Elbe, that should be “protected from possible accidents”.
In addition, there might appear “land issues” with the authorities and land owners that should be “clarified”, the newspaper wrote.
Russia has repeatedly argued that the Ukraine conflict was provoked by NATO expansion towards its borders, Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led military alliance, and Ukraine’s policies toward the Russian-speaking Donbass region. Western officials have suggested that Russia could pose a threat to NATO amid the Ukraine conflict, but Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed these claims as ‘nonsense,’ arguing they are used to justify Western military spending.
In December 2024, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov stated that Russia must be prepared for any scenario, including a possible military conflict with NATO in Europe within the next decade.
For the first time since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the US has refused to cosponsor a United Nations General Assembly resolution put forward by Europe and Kiev, saying it will instead propose its own resolution.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on his X account that on February 24 (the anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war) his country will submit to the UNGA a resolution on the settlement of the issue.
“The US will propose to the United Nations a landmark resolution the entire UN membership should support in order to chart a path to peace.”
A statement from the US State Department attached to the announcement said that US President Donald Trump is seeking “a resolution to the conflict that would ensure long-term peace.”
According to the US State Department, the resolution is consistent with Trump’s position, and with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in the UN Charter.
According to media reports, the language of the resolution has been significantly softened towards Russia compared to the wording used in earlier documents.
For the first time since the start of the military operation, the resolution does not describe Russia as the original aggressor.
The text of the document expresses grief over the tragic conflict and calls for a speedy end to it.
It “reaffirms the urgent need to end the war this year and redouble diplomatic efforts to reduce the risks of further escalation and achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the Ukraine.”
In response to years of military and political provocations by the US and European countries, Russia began its special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.
Russia has managed to gain control of a fifth of Ukraine and has been slowly advancing in the east for months. Ukraine’s military, supported by the US and European countries, grapples with manpower shortages and tries to hold a chunk of territory in western Russia.
Russia has demanded an end to the West’s military and political provocations on its borders and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality under any peace deal. Ukraine on the other hand has demanded Russia’s withdrawal from the captured lands and wants NATO membership.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva rejected an approach by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to purchase arms for Ukraine. The Brazilian head of stage stressed he wouldn’t sell weapons “to kill Russians” or anyone else.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday at a joint media conference with the Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, Lula reiterated Brazil’s neutral stance in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and Moscow.
Germany, in contrast, has been among Ukraine’s key backers, having supplied it with billions worth of military aid. Da Silva recalled that in January 2023, Scholz visited Brazil as part of a tour to drum up support for Kiev in South America and requested cannons for the war.
”I told my friend Olaf Scholz: ‘I will not sell weapons to kill a Russian, to kill anyone. So, I want to apologize, but Brazil will not sell the weapons you need because I want peace, and if I want peace, I cannot fuel the war. We want peace between Russia and Ukraine. Now, this is only possible if both are at the negotiating table’,” he said.
Lula has long advocated for talks to resolve the conflict and insisted that supplying arms would only escalate the situation, hindering prospects for peace.
Last May Brasilia and Beijing jointly issued a six-point plan for settling the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing “dialogue and negotiation” as the only “viable way out of the crisis.”
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky dismissed the proposal as “just a political statement,” accusing them of colluding with Russia.
Lula hit back, saying that Ukraine should heed Brazil’s advice about seeking peace in the conflict. “Those who want to talk to us now could have talked to us before the war had started,” he said.
On Thursday, Russia’s top diplomat Sergey Lavrov and his Brazilian counterpart Mauro Vieira discussed the need to address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict and this week’s Russian-US talks in Riyadh, the foreign ministry in Moscow said. Speaking on the sidelines of G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, they also discussed upcoming high-level meetings and plans for collaboration between Moscow and Brasília, especially within BRICS, the ministry statement added.
European countries are not capable of sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine as demanded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Italian General Giorgio Battisti in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper. The burden of supporting Ukraine is put on Brussels since US President Donald Trump has already begun the process of ending American contribution to the hot war, but the European Union does not have the military or economic might to support the country alone.
The former commander of NATO Rapid Reaction Force and current chairman of the Military Commission of the Italian Atlantic Committee said that sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine would imply the involvement of at least 600,000 troops, taking into account the necessary rotations every six to eight months.
The newspaper admits this is “beyond the reach” of the European Union, even with the United Kingdom’s involvement, since European governments need to ensure national security and continue participating in international missions.
“Each major country could send about 5,000 troops to Ukraine; perhaps France a little more,” Battisti said.
According to the Italian general, Western countries could assemble a contingent of 60,000 soldiers (20,000 in three periods), but these forces would only be sufficient for patrolling. In addition, there is a risk of “dispersion” of forces along a wide front line.
“Clear conclusion: any military initiative in Ukraine can only work with the support of the United States. But here politics comes in. Donald Trump repeats that he will not send even one marine to the Donbass front,” the general concluded.
What Battisi does not highlight is that any deployment of foreign troops will lead to their liquidation. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have consistently and repeatedly warned that the deployment of foreign troops would make them a “legitimate target” for the Russian military.
Despite the ominous warning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January that the West needs to send 200,000 so-called “peacekeepers” to Ukraine to resolve the conflict.
“200,000, it’s a minimum. It’s a minimum, otherwise it’s nothing,” he said, adding that “Europe must establish itself as a strong, global player, as an indispensable player.”
Trump decided to start talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to try to reach a political solution to the Ukrainian conflict, which was fueled by the former Biden administration and its European partners since Moscow launched its special operation in February 2022.
As the talks progress and the calls become public, Europe expects a repeat of Trump’s first term in the White House: a supposedly more isolationist stance that imposes on Europeans more responsibility for the defense and security of their own region, bearing their own costs.
Trump’s movements aim to demonstrate that the US has greater responsibility and weight in negotiating the Ukrainian conflict at this time. From now on, Europeans will face the great challenge of showing strength and unity to put their claims on the table.
Weakened by the costs of supporting Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, Europe faces challenges in retaliating directly against the US for not being included by Trump in the negotiations. Internal divisions make unified action difficult, weakening the bloc’s position.
Europe is now suffering immensely to support the Kiev regime. There have been military aid and economic impacts, such as the energy crisis after sanctions against Russia. The US contributed substantially. However, under the new Trump administration, such support no longer occurs. There is much talk of using frozen Russian assets to amortize Europe’s expenses, but such an option is legally complex.
Contrary to what was thought in March 2022, when the conflict became more intense, it is noticeable that the cohesion of NATO, such as generating greater unity and more efficiency, which was expected due to the Ukrainian conflict, occurred in a way that fell short of the expected result.
Although distrust is growing between Washington and Brussels, the transition to a fully autonomous Europe will be slow, given the lack of a unified defense infrastructure and internal political divergences. Trump’s return to the US presidency forces Europe to rethink its strategic dependence on Washington. The European bloc’s ability to respond to Washington’s withdrawal from Ukraine will depend on its unity and investment in autonomy, while the costs of supporting Ukraine will also fall mainly on the Europeans.
Yet, it appears that the Europeans have not woken up to the reality of the situation. Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas delusionally told Euractiv on December 18, “The Americans can meet with whomever they wish to, but for any peace deal regarding Ukraine to work, it has to involve the Europeans as well as the Ukrainians.”
“If some deal is agreed that we don’t agree to, then it will just fail, because it will not be implemented,” she added.
However, as the Italian general explained, Europe does not have the capabilities to serve Ukraine in the way that Zelensky demands, such as providing the 200,000 so-called peacekeepers. This makes any statements by Kallas and Zelensky about the war redundant and is precisely why Trump and Putin are bypassing Kiev and Brussels in their negotiations to end the fighting.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
I disagree strongly with those who seek to exonerate the Trump 45 administration of culpability for the war in Ukraine.
I submit it is indisputable that the trend line of US/NATO preparations of the #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine began to go parabolic during the 2017-2021 period.
Sure, the US/NATO had not yet provided the AFU with artillery, armor, or air defense systems — but the AFU didn’t NEED that kind of stuff at the time. They had, by far, the largest and most potent army and air defense array in Europe (ex-Russia).
They were provided with and trained on the use of US/NATO ATGMs (Javelin / NLAW). And it is obvious, in retrospect, that select AFU contingents were already being trained in the use of systems such as the American M-777 howitzer and HIMARS MLRS, both of which were introduced on the battlefield within about 90 days of the beginning of major warfare.
Most importantly — and I believe many are now conveniently overlooking this crucial element — the AFU was provided with and trained on advanced US/NATO secure communications systems and battlefield management software applications.
AFU command and operations were integrated with the US/NATO command structure, and comprehensive access was provided to US/NATO ISR — satellite, airborne, and “on the ground” personnel.
During the Trump 45 period, US “on the ground” intel bases numbering in the double-digits were operated throughout eastern Ukraine — manned by covert and “volunteer” NATO-affiliated personnel.
As I have argued repeatedly, it was precisely this access to US/NATO ISR capabilities that elevated the AFU from “potent” to “very formidable” in this war. And the training and preparation for this aspect of war-fighting rose in a steady crescendo in the five years preceding February 24, 2022.
Perhaps President Trump himself was “kept in the dark” regarding these preparations. I doubt it, but I consent to that possibility. In any case, it does not alter the fact that these developments occurred during his tenure, and constituted the final stages of the preparation for open warfare against Russia that ultimately commenced in early 2022.
Attempting to mitigate the culpability of the Trump 45 administration while simultaneously heaping all the blame on Biden and Zelensky is not only disingenuous, it is historically erroneous.
The empire carefully orchestrated and choreographed “Project Ukraine” over the course of many years spanning multiple US presidential terms, and there was no discernible diminution of their focus and efforts at any point along the time line.
In an incendiary post on X, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt called U.S. President Donald Trump the “greatest threat” to NATO, marking a sharp escalation in rhetoric, and potentially a threat to Trump himself.
“Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House. Blaming Zelensky for Russia’s war is outright Kremlin’s propaganda. He’s not just betraying the Atlantic alliance—he’s working to dismantle it. Europe, wake up NOW before it’s too late,” wrote Verhofstadt.
The remarks come after an increasing war of words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has now labeled a “dictator.” The U.S. president is seeking a peace deal to end the war in Russia and has sharply turned against Zelensky. Trump said he had “4% support” in the country and needed to call new elections. He has also raised questions about what he says is $350 billion in missing funds.
Zelensky was known to keep offshore accounts before the war and was named in the Pandora Papers. Accusations have swirled about Zelensky’s assets but much of it remains hidden in offshore bank accounts. Officially, he has approximately $4 million in assets.
As for Verhofstadt, the very wealthy left-liberal politician is known for his deep hatred of politicians who oppose his agenda, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán one of his top targets.
In 2022, for instance, Verhofstadt called Orbán a “traitor” for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
However, labeling Trump the “biggest threat” of NATO has borderline militaristic implications and calls into question what Verhofstadt thinks Europe should do about what he believes to be the biggest “threat” to the largest military alliance in history.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly rejected Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s help in brokering a ceasefire or mediating with the new American leadership. However, as Donald Trump now calls Zelensky a “dictator” and demands he step down and hold elections, it looks more and more like Zelensky should’ve taken up Orban’s offer, writes Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has no influence over Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine does not need his mediation in its relations with the United States,” Zelensky said in a speech delivered in December at a session of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Local and Regional Governments.
“Ukraine is a strong country and has proven it on the battlefield throughout Putin’s aggression. Does anyone else in Europe have this experience now? No. Does Orbán have such an army? No. How will he put pressure on Putin? With a joke, a smile? Let him keep it,” added the Ukrainian president.
When Viktor Orbán tried to reach a Christmas ceasefire with the warring parties in December, while Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed open to it, Zelensky flatly refused to help. He did so in a very disrespectful tone.
“We all hope Viktor Orban at least won’t call Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well. It’s absolutely clear that achieving real peace and guaranteed security requires America’s determination, Europe’s unity, and the unwavering commitment of all partners to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
Zelensky has consistently maintained that he has an excellent relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and that everything is in place to ensure they can cooperate well in implementing the Ukrainian president’s so-called “victory plan.”
“I think we agree that the war in Ukraine must end. Putin cannot win, Ukraine must win,” he said after their September meeting.
At a press conference in late January, the Ukrainian president said he supported President Trump’s desire to achieve success in creating a just peace. He added, however, that this could only be achieved together with Ukraine because Russia did not want to end the war. He also noted that Europe should also have a place at the negotiating table.
“I would like the European voice to be present. This is important for us because we will be members of the EU. But I cannot say today what the negotiation process will look like because we do not have a common plan yet,” said Zelensky, adding that Ukraine already has developed plans, the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan.
Now, with Trump in power, it appears Zelensky’s claims that they share the same vision for Ukraine was far from reality. In fact, Trump is now openly calling Zelensky a “dictator” and is looking to settle the conflict as soon as possible, without Zelensky even having a seat at the table.
Moscow is concerned by reports that NATO member states are considering deploying troops to Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, reiterating that such a scenario would be unacceptable to Russia.
On Wednesday, The Telegraph and Bloomberg cited anonymous Western officials as saying that the UK and France were preparing to present US President Donald Trump with plans for the establishment of a “reassurance force” for Ukraine, should Kiev and Moscow agree a peace deal.
In an interview with Fox News the same day, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirmed that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron would visit Washington next week.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said Moscow is “certainly following all these reports most closely.” Claims about the potential arrival of service members from NATO states in Ukraine “are causing concern,” he added, citing the ramifications this would have for Russia’s national security.
“This is a very important topic to us,” Peskov said. He noted that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had stressed on Tuesday that the “presence of armed forces from NATO countries [in Ukraine]… is completely unacceptable to us.” The remark followed high-level Russia-US talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the two nations agreed to work toward normalizing bilateral relations.
According to The Telegraph and Bloomberg, the Anglo-French plan would involve around 30,000 troops being stationed in key Ukrainian cities and ports, as well as at nuclear power plants. The scheme purportedly envisages equipping the contingent with surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft as well as patrol vessels to monitor a potential peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow, with the US providing air cover in case of escalation.
In an article for The Telegraph on Sunday, Starmer proclaimed that the “UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine,” including by “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, warned earlier this month that Western troops operating in Ukraine without Moscow’s consent would be seen as legitimate targets.
A number of EU leaders, most notably French President Emmanuel Macron, have been floating the idea of sending military personnel to Ukraine since at least last February.
Deliberations over such a move have reportedly intensified in recent months. Since Trump assumed office in January, his administration has signaled its willingness to scale down American involvement in Ukraine.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 