Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The ball is in Russia’s court? Russia is winning a war, not playing tennis

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2025

The ball is in Russia’s court, according to the Trump administration regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.

The proposed truce was announced following discussions on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and representatives of the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Rubio said it was now up to Russia to reciprocate with the Ukrainian side’s purported willingness to hold a ceasefire.

In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin tactfully said that Russia was open to a ceasefire but only if it led to a complete and comprehensive peace settlement. Putin repeated that any durable resolution must address the root causes of the conflict and Russia’s fundamental strategic security concerns.

The Russian leader then met with Trump’s special envoy on Thursday. Following the discussions in Jeddah between the U.S. and the Kiev regime, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow where he met with Putin. The details of their conversation were not disclosed. But it was reported that Witkoff delivered “additional information” from Trump to Putin regarding the proposed ceasefire. It was reported that Witkoff returned to Washington with details from Putin. It may be surmised that the Russian position on its terms was reiterated. Trump hailed the discussions as “productive.”

Herein lies the rub. The essential underlying issues are the aggressive expansion of NATO and its weaponizing of a NeoNazi Ukrainian regime. The United States and its NATO partners instigated the conflict in Ukraine over several decades since at least the end of the Cold War in 1991. The past three-year war in Ukraine is but a symptom of a longer and systematic hostility. Trump seems to be cognizant of those issues.

The Trump administration has abandoned the false war-propaganda of the Biden administration. It is now acknowledged in Washington that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO axis and Russia.

As the spectacular military defeat of the NATO proxy forces in Kursk this week demonstrates – as well as the rapid gains Russia is making against the crumbling Kiev regime – the U.S.-led “Ukraine Project” has been vanquished. Russia has all but won the proxy war.

The Americans (factions within) and their NATO surrogates are trying to avoid the admission of defeat by contriving a superficial peace process that only ends up as a “frozen conflict” on Russia’s borders.

The best way to bring the war to an end is for the United States to stop arming the Kiev regime and supplying it with intelligence and logistical support.

This week Trump resumed military and intelligence supplies to the Kiev regime to coincide with the apparent offer of a ceasefire from the Ukrainian regime. That amounts to one step forward, two steps back.

It was rather risible to hear Marco Rubio, the U.S.’ top diplomat, affecting the image of an honest peace broker telling Russia that the ball was in its court to reciprocate for peace as “a compromise” with Ukraine.

The Trump administration has a misplaced view of the conflict if it thinks Russia can be pressured according to U.S. one-sided and pretentious demands.

Russia is winning a momentous war, not playing tennis.

In any case, the ball, so to speak, is and will remain firmly in the United States’ court until it accepts defeat and Russia’s victory terms. It is the U.S. and not its European vassals nor its catspaw Kiev regime that will have to make that call.

Those terms have been repeatedly stipulated by Moscow: a lasting security treaty in Europe consonant with Russia’s just and basic demands for NATO to roll back and desist from its aggressive tendencies; for Ukraine to be a neutral state in perpetuity never being a member of NATO; for the NeoNazi regime to be eradicated and the cultural rights of ethnic Russian people to be guaranteed and respected; and for the historic Russian territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye and of course Crimea to remain intact as part of the Russian Federation.

Moscow reserves the right to change the terms per conditions on the ground if the conflict persists, such as reclaiming its historic territory of Odessa, Kharkiv, Nikolaev, and enforcing a no-fire zone in Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from where the failed NATO Kursk offensive was launched last August.

On Russia’s successful recapture of Kursk, as Putin points out, there are serious contingencies that need to be dealt with even before a ceasefire is contemplated. The invaders, including NATO mercenaries, committed war crimes against civilians. Are they expected to be let go freely? This is no doubt a reason why the U.S. and Ukraine are suddenly pushing the idea for a ceasefire as a way to salvage failure and rearm.

Trump will have to deal with the reality of Russia’s dominant position: its military victory and its historically righteous cause to confront NATO aggression.

It remains to be seen now how Trump responds. He needs to disabuse arrogant misconceptions that Washington is acting as a peace broker. The U.S. is the main protagonist in a proxy war against Russia. The Kiev regime is but a bit player. Moscow has no need or inclination to engage with a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a puppet president who no longer even has the semblance of legitimacy after cancelling elections last year and ruling by martial law.

If Trump is serious about ending the proxy war in Ukraine, he can do so promptly by ending the weapons flow to that country. His resumption of weapons supplies this week does not bode well.

Trump should also ignore the bleating of the European lackeys, in particular the British, who have nothing positive to offer. London was “intimately” involved in the latest ceasefire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine, according to the BBC. That should be seen as a warning of a dirty trick.

It is a negative sign that the U.S.-Ukraine joint statement this week in Saudi Arabia peddled vile lies about Russia abducting Ukrainian children. It was also contemptible that the statement called for “future security guarantees for Ukraine” (the aggressor!) while saying nothing about Russia’s security concerns. The absence of the latter indicates the U.S. side has little understanding about “root causes” of the conflict.

Moreover, the U.S.-Ukrainian joint statement called for the involvement of European partners in peace talks. The present crop of European leaders has no intention or capability of negotiating a lasting peace with Russia. They insist on Ukraine becoming a future member of NATO and they want to insinuate themselves into the dialogue to scupper a peace deal by deploying “peacekeeping” troops. The British and French reportedly want the U.S. to provide air cover for what would be their trip-wire troop presence, thereby escalating the war.

Will Trump be duped by the perfidious British, French and other European Russophobes? Perhaps with a false-flag provocation?

American and European political leaders have negligible credibility for offering a ceasefire to Russia, never mind a durable peace. They started this war and surreptitiously want to continue it by other means under the guise of a peace process that does not address the root causes of conflict.

That implies that the only way to deal with the root causes and to establish a lasting peace is for Russia to defeat the NATO enemy with an explicit, unconditional surrender. Can Trump’s ego handle that?

Peace begins when the guns cease, but for true peace to last, the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia must be defeated. Can the U.S. imperial deep state handle that?

Either way, we will soon see.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Provoking Russian Intervention – Part 26 of The Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | March 13, 2025

The first parts of this series focus on decades of American provocations that caused the war in Ukraine, which was a plan to weaken Russia. Losing this proxy war was not considered, and no strategy exists to prevent a Russian victory. Recent interviews appeared in American corporate news that exposed even more provocations. The CIA built a series of small bases in Ukraine along Russia’s borders a decade ago to conducted covert operations in Russia.

President Joseph Biden admitted the United States had placed nuclear armed missiles in Ukraine. Russia can cite gross violations of the 1991 Belovezha Accords by Ukraine as a reason to intervene with military forces, or cite its right in the UN Charter to take enforcement actions against enemy states from World War II.

_______________________________________________________

“CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian intelligence”; ABC News; January 16, 2025;    • CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian…  

“Biden Shares ‘Serious Concern’ for U.S. Democracy”; MSNBC interview; January 16, 2025; https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w…

“UN Charter, former World War II enemies can be invaded by the USA or Britain”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Enem…

Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia  

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , | Leave a comment

NATO countries should restore ties with Russia – bloc chief

RT | March 14, 2025

Europe and the United States should gradually normalize relations with Russia once the Ukraine conflict is over, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said.

The statement comes a day after the head of the US-led military bloc met President Donald Trump at the White House and amid ongoing efforts by Washington to establish a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev.

Trump has also expressed interest in restoring economic ties with Russia, an idea that was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Friday, Rutte recalled that he had “many dealings” and “many negotiations” with Putin while prime minister of the Netherlands.

“Long-term, Russia is there, Russia will not go away,” he said. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he argued.

Ukraine’s possible membership of the bloc is off the table in the current peace process, Rutte confirmed, a point Moscow has insisted upon.

Most EU leaders, with the notable exceptions of Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, have advocated for continued confrontation with Russia, despite the ongoing peace process.

European NATO countries have been supplying weapons to Kiev since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. Some bloc members, such as France, have floated the idea of deploying troops in Ukraine to monitor a truce. Russia has denounced the idea and insisted that any NATO contingent in Ukraine deployed without a UN mandate will be considered a legitimate target.

Moscow has accused the EU of militarizing against Russia, after the bloc’s leaders backed €800 billion ($860 bn) in debt and tax-breaks for its military industrial complex.

As NATO’s biggest financial contributor, Trump has consistently criticized the bloc’s European members for not meeting the defense expenditure targets.

NATO has maintained a hostile position towards Moscow since Crimea joined the Russian Federation in 2014 and the subsequent escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The developments led to the suspension of practical cooperation and a significant military buildup in NATO countries on Russia’s borders.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s presidential diplomacy is surging

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 14, 2025

The US President Donald Trump by far outstrips any of his predecessors in post-cold war diplomatic history in the transparency both in connecting the public opinion with his America First ideology and in his presidential diplomacy.

Trump’s media briefings have become a daily occurrence and are an absolute ‘must’ for any serious analyst / observer of world affairs.

Trump’s press conference at the White House on Thursday during the visit of the NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte, a 48-minute event, stood out for the following signposts in his foreign policy agenda:

One. Whereas the expectation was that this was just the right occasion for Trump to reclaim the leadership of the transatlantic alliance system and “to project American power” (Rutte’s words), he was instead simply uninterested in NATO — although Rutte praised him sky-high for his contribution to making the alliance a “strong” organisation by boosting its budget.

Two. On the contrary, Trump spoke at length on the Ukraine peace process and expressed hope that the war is ending, taking even a swipe at NATO for having squandered its budget wastefully under the Biden presidency by intervening in a war that should not have happened.

By the way, Rutte is known to be a super hawk on Russia (which actually inspired President Biden to handpick him for the present job late last year.) Rutte was a prominent fixture in the family photos of the recent string of EU summits that were pioneered by French President Emmanuel Macron to choreograph the future trajectory of the Ukraine war the downstream of the perceived US retrenchment,

Three. Trump taunted Rutte openly by proposing a potential role for NATO in his major foreign policy venture to make the Greenland and integral part of the US. Trump severely questioned the basis of the claim by Denmark, a NATO member, to Greenland. Rutte tried to change the topic but Trump would have none of it and reminded him of NATO’s “relevance”. To be sure, NATO finds itself like a cat on a hot tin roof if Trump’s strong hint of a likely boost in the US troop presence in Greenland goes ahead. Trump spoke in the presence of Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Four. Trump point blank rejected the narrative that Russia posed a military threat to Europe. It not only knocks the bottom out of the legitimacy of the NATO and Europe’s intervention in Ukraine but also casts doubts on the raison d’être of the NATO. (Earlier in his remarks, Rutte had spoken forcefully of the imperative need to build up Europe’s defence industry to meet the threat from Russia.)

Five. Trump hinted that he may resume talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, which he began in the first term but got derailed as his presidency came under siege from the deep state and the neocon lobby with the support of the Democratic Party.

Six. Most important, Trump disclosed that behind the scene, much serious discussion has been taking place with Russia on the various aspects of the Ukraine crisis, including the seemingly intractable territorial issues, and the future status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in southeastern Ukraine, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world, and has been under Russian control since 2022.

Trump flagged that the White House and the Kremlin as interlocutors are rather familiar by now with each other’s respective stances and the parameters of the Ukraine crisis, which has created conditions for serious negotiations going forward.

Specifically, Trump commented that the Russian reaction to the US’ offer this week of a thirty-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict is incomplete and he hopes to meet Putin in this connection. This disclosure enables us to read between the lines the various contrarian pronouncements emanating from Moscow and put in proper perspective the tenor of Putin’s statement of March 13.

There is no question that Trump spoke with great deliberation in Rutte’s presence, knowing that European capitals would be keenly listening. Trump left them in no doubt that without US participation, Europeans will chicken out no matter their rhetoric in recent days.

The ‘Trump effect’ is no longer restricted to Hungary and Slovakia. On Tuesday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced that “We will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine .” She announced that Italy, a major NATO member country, shall not be taking part in any future European summits held in this connection. Meanwhile, Meloni’s predecessor Giuseppe Conte told Euronews that the European Commission (read Ursula von der Leyen) “is exaggerating the Russian threat” to boost military expenditure and is “throwing money away to allow all the member states to continue increasing military spending in an uncoordinated and disorderly manner.”

The bottom line is that the misadventure spearheaded by the UK and France and the EU bureaucracy in Brussels to create a “coalition of the willing” to carry the war forward in Ukraine is crash landing even before it got under way. Trump has shown no interest in Western troop deployment in Ukraine in any peacekeeping role; nor does he envisage any European participation in the US-Russia dialogue.

Above all, Trump sees this as a deal between Putin and him. He sounded confident that Russia’s concerns can be properly addressed.

Indeed, in his remarks, Trump never once mentioned Zelensky whose continuance in power Russia regards as the single biggest impediment to peace.

The video of Trump’s press conference is below:

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Western media suggests Zelensky will be replaced

By Lucas Leiroz | March 14, 2025

Western media are apparently already announcing the “end” of Zelensky’s rule in Ukraine. Major Western newspapers, which until then had unconditionally supported the Ukrainian dictator, are now pointing to the inevitable fall of his government, clearly adapting their narratives to the new geopolitical scenarios.

Recently, the Financial Times (FT) stated that Vladimir Zelensky’s leadership in Kiev is “coming to an end.” Citing high-ranking Ukrainian sources familiar with the country’s political affairs, the FT reported that local officials believe that the Ukrainian president will be replaced, but that this will not necessarily mean an end to the conflict.

The FT sources said that Ukraine would continue fighting even if Ukrainian aid were to end. The sources made it clear that Kiev would fight for “at least six months” after a possible total cut in US aid. This calculation is based solely on the resources that the Kiev regime already has due to previous military packages, and therefore the continuation of the conflict would probably be even greater if European aid were increased.

However, the same sources expressed concern about Zelensky’s mismanagement, as the Ukrainian president is mismanaging the resources he has received. Even though Ukraine is receiving extensive assistance from NATO partners, there is a shortage of weapons and ammunition for soldiers on the battlefield – which obviously reflects not only the military situation, but also the high level of corruption within the state institutions in Kiev.

In this sense, the FT informants believe that the Zelensky government is in its “final act”, but that Ukraine could continue fighting both without him and without American support. In all cases, both Zelensky’s continuation and peace in Ukraine seem remote and unrealistic possibilities.

Officials claim that Zelensky’s opponents are currently “preparing for elections, forming alliances, and testing public messaging.” There is a combination of factors favoring this scenario. Domestically, the crisis of legitimacy generated by the absence of elections after the end of Zelensky’s term has generated problems among the Ukrainian president’s own supporters.

Zelensky’s image as a “democratic leader” has been exhausted, and his authoritarian and unpopular tendencies are clear to all. Similarly, internationally, the rise of Donald Trump in the US has started an era of realism and pragmatism in Washington-Kiev relations, severely damaging the ideological alliance previously established under the Democratic administration.

Trump is not interested in supporting Ukraine to “protect the rules-based world order.” As a businessman, the new American president makes decisions based on strategic calculations, choosing what he believes is best for American interests. For this reason, he is reviewing the irrational sanctions imposed on Russia and substantially reducing American support for Ukraine – which is obviously accelerating the inevitable process of the Zelensky regime’s collapse.

However, it is important to emphasize that Zelensky’s possible downfall cannot be seen as a simple consequence of the Trump administration. The Democrats themselves were already interested in replacing the current Ukrainian dictator with a more skilled and charismatic political leader, with a greater ability to mobilize support in Western public opinion.

Zelensky realized in time that he was about to be replaced and began a paranoid campaign of persecution of opponents, arresting, assassinating or firing several officials considered “plotters”. While these authoritarian acts allowed him to remain in power, they also further revealed the draconian nature of his regime, damaging his image as a “defender of Ukrainian democracy”.

In fact, the scenario that seems most likely for the near future is one in which Ukraine is represented by a leader who is more capable to represent Western interests. Zelensky is currently an unpleasant public figure for Americans, Europeans, and even Ukrainians themselves. He fails to publicly represent “European democratic values,” while also publicly disrespecting Trump and persecuting his own people. For all sides involved in the war, Zelensky is an inept politician who should be removed from power through elections.

The longer Zelensky delays in recognizing the reality of his inevitable downfall, the more politically he risks himself. The Ukrainian opposition could soon begin to react more violently to Zelensky’s dictatorial measures, possibly by creating armed militias or plotting to carry out a coup.

For now, Zelensky still has the chance to negotiate with his international partners and his internal opponents for a peaceful change of government through elections or voluntary resignation. However, if he delays in doing so, this chance will disappear and the crisis will escalate.

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

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

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US to send upgraded long-range bombs to Ukraine – Reuters

RT | March 14, 2025

The United States has upgraded the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB) to counter Russian jamming and is set to “reintroduce” them onto the battlefield in Ukraine within days, according to a Reuters report.

The GLSDB, jointly developed by Boeing and SAAB AB, combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb with the M26 rocket motor, creating a weapon with a range of approximately 100 miles (161 kilometers).

The administration of former President Joe Biden sent an undisclosed number of GLSDB units to Kiev, but it has been “months” since Ukrainian forces last used the bomb against Russia after it proved ineffective last year, sources told Reuters.

Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities rendered precision-guided Western munitions – including GLSDB and GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shells – ”useless,” the Wall Street Journal reported in July. With their guidance systems scrambled, some of these weapons were reportedly retired within weeks of being deployed.

Since then, Boeing has introduced several upgrades, including reinforced internal connections to enhance resistance to jamming. According to Reuters sources, at least 19 GLSDBs were test-fired in “recent weeks” to assess the effectiveness of the modifications. The US has stockpiled a significant number of these relatively inexpensive bombs in Europe and is “poised” to resume shipments to Kiev within days, the publication reported.

The potential replacement comes amid reports that Ukraine has depleted its stockpile of US-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), which have a longer range of 300 km.

Kiev began using ATACMS missiles for strikes into internationally recognized Russian territory in the autumn of 2024, particularly targeting the border regions of Kursk, Bryansk, Belgorod, and Rostov. However, the stockpile was fully exhausted by late January, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.

Moscow has repeatedly warned the US and its allies against permitting long-range Ukrainian strikes, arguing that such attacks would make NATO a direct participant in the conflict due to Kiev’s reliance on Western-supplied weapons.

In response to Ukraine’s first ATACMS strikes in November last year, Russia launched its new hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile at the Yuzhmash military-industrial facility in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Collapse of Kursk: Narratives versus Reality

Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 11, 2025

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

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

UPDATED – Russia ready for ceasefire: Putin

RT | March 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sergey Poletaev | Kommersant | March 12, 2025

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

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

Europe sidelined

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

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

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

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

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

What this means for Russia

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

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

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

A fragile peace?

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

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

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

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

Western Europe’s next move

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

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

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

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

This article was translated and edited by the RT team.

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

Netherlands rejects EU militarization agenda

RT | March 12, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »