Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 2, 2025

When western pundits resist efforts to bring an end to fighting in Ukraine, they never provide an alternative vision of what they would do differently.

A respected associate of mine asked me today if a ceasefire and peace process in Ukraine would simply embolden China and Russia to further aggression.

This is a line oft repeated among the majority of politicians, journalists and so-called academics in the west, who are opposed to an ending of the war. ‘We can’t stop the war, because if we do, China will invade Taiwan and Russia will invade Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.’

My view, for what it’s worth, is that an end to the war in Ukraine might embolden China longer-term over Taiwan in particular. I’ve seen no evidence that it will embolden Russia to invade NATO, precisely because Russia sees itself, in large part, as a country of Europe, even if it has been excluded.

However, and critically, if both China and Russia were so emboldened, then should we not ask ourselves how we have ended up in this position?

Russia’s decision to go to war was driven by a belief that it’s core strategic interests in preventing NATO expansion to its border via Ukraine was being ignored, and that it was subject to permanent sanctions with no possibility of removal through any concessions it might make.

That’s my opinion and one I know that many ‘realists’ share.

But, in any case, the ‘what next’ question should have been considered as part of a longer-term strategic assessment when western nations pushed the NATO enlargement agenda.

We have known since at least 2008 that this was a redline for Russia.

Did we expect Russia’s position to change and if so, how? If Russia’s position did not change, how far would we go to advance Ukraine’s NATO aspiration, including through direct military confrontation?

I’m not aware that those questions were ever asked or, if they were, considered rather than dismissed. And I was at the heart of British government decision making from the latter part of 2013, before the Ukraine crisis started (and must therefore accept some of the blame).

Without the United States, a war in Ukraine was never going to be sustainable for Europe, financially, politically or militarily.

Yet no one thought this through. Or, if they did, they didn’t factor in the eminent risk of America doing an about face on policy one day, as is now happening.

With America now withdrawing, sustaining a losing war in Ukraine rather than calling a halt to the killing cannot be considered a legitimate strategy if its only goal is to avoid losing face.

That makes us look weaker and more feckless.

If other states are now emboldened by the failure of western policy in Ukraine, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid an end to the bloodshed now.

Our self-righteousness indignation to peace is merely a figleaf covering the deflated genitals of our policy failure.

The west so badly mishandled relations in the eight years between the flashpoint of the Maidan and the start of war, not thinking through the consequences.

Russian actions and reactions in Ukraine have always been predictable.

They were predictable in February 2014.

They were predictable in February 2022.

They were predictable in February 2025.

We were never going to fight for Ukraine.

I have heard senior British Ambassadors say that we were never going to fight for Ukraine. And we are the most hawkish nation in Europe.

Why were we never going to fight?

Because it would never be possible to ensure that the 27 nations of the EU or the 31 nations of NATO would come to a collective agreement to fight.

Someone would always block fighting.

Compromises would be made.

We would pursue a lowest common denominator. That led us to a sanctions-only approach.

As I have said many times before, in the game of geostrategic chess, President Putin always knew that large, chattering teams of politicians around the table couldn’t outmanoeuvre him.

In fact, they would take weeks and months just to agree on the meaning of pawn, let alone whether to move it on the board.

We lost through indecision and have yet to learn the lesson.

You can’t fight wars by committee. But you can make peace in a group.

As Albert Einstein said, ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. That is seen by some as the source of the misattributed saying, ‘the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different result.’

As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach.

They are not introducing new ideas to up the ante, if that is what they want to do. In fact, I don’t know what they want to do, because they’ve been saying exactly the same things for three years and I am epically bored right now.

The problem here, is that neither are they advancing a credible argument against ending the war.

Their position seems to be, the war is bad, it’s all Russia’s fault and if we give in now, Russia will be emboldened to strike elsewhere.

Their defensive position is held together by straplines not substantive arguments.

In a recent speech, the veteran U.S. Democrat politician Bernie Sanders said,

‘Russia started the war, not Ukraine,

Putin is a dictator, not Zelensky.’

While I am sure he may believe that it’s just another banal outburst, intended more to rail against the political leaders in his own country, rather than to bring peace in Ukraine.

Of course, people view the origins of the war differently and people are entitled to their views.

Debate on the war in Ukraine has become reduced to ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ with voices of reason and realism in the west, like mine, stifled by the mainstream.

But we will never reach a position in which there is a universally accepted view of who was at fault and who was not.

Instead, let’s try to accept that every side in this conflict takes some share of the blame, be that Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., UK and everyone else.

Let’s have a frank but polite discussion about a way forward.

President Trump has advanced a new policy proposition that engagement and dialogue is vital if we are to bring an end to the fighting. British and European leaders can’t continue unchallenged, carrying on as if the world hasn’t changed.

They need to come up with genuinely new and constructive ideas, rather than continuing to say the same things. And reengage in dialogue with Russia.

March 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

A dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat: What now for the humiliated Zelensky?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 1, 2025

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.

And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.

“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist ); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel ); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde ); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times ) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.

The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.

Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.

Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long ago have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.

In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.

And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.

The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.

Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.

The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.

Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.

Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.

There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.

Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.

It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.

The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.

What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump gives Zelensky bum’s rush and flushes the European ploy to escalate war against Russia

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2025

After his mauling from President Trump live on TV and then being booted out of the White House, Ukraine’s Zelensky immediately phoned European leaders.

That reaction shows that the Ukrainian actor-turned-president had flown to Washington from Kiev not to merely sign a supposed minerals deal with the U.S., but to inveigle Trump into a trap to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

No doubt there is consternation and alarm among the Europeans that their agenda for prolonging the war against Russia is in disarray. Worst still, a furious Trump may now cut Ukraine loose and leave it completely at the mercy of Russia.

European leaders are huddling in London on Sunday for an emergency meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Zelensky is to attend and be showered with European expressions of support and billions more of taxpayer money. Incredibly, they still champion the impudent conman as a “Churchillian hero”.

The fallout in the Oval Office on Friday was a sordid spectacle. Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, tore into Zelensky under the full glare of TV cameras for daring to make more demands for U.S. security guarantees as part of a deal giving American companies access to Ukraine’s alleged mineral wealth, including oil, gas and rare earth metals.

The meeting started cordially, but Trump refrained from giving specific “security guarantees” to Ukraine. Zelensky’s sniveling insistence on getting explicit U.S. commitments for military support following any peace deal with Russia triggered Trump and his officials to rebuke the Ukrainian leader for wrangling in public and not being respectful.

After their fireside fireworks, an incensed Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush. No minerals deal was signed and Zelensky left Washington empty handed. That’s not the end of it either. Trump later told reporters that Zelensky is not welcome back until he is ready to make the peace with Russia.

Trump was astute to the attempted rumble. He told reporters on the White House lawn following the slap-down of Zelensky: “We want peace. We’re not looking for somebody to sign up a strong power and then not make a peace deal because they feel emboldened. That’s what I saw happening. He wants to fight, fight, fight. I am not looking to get into anything protracted.”

Zelensky’s immediate phone calls to French President Emmanuel Macron and the NATO chief Mark Rutte after the White House fiasco is the big reveal here.

Days before Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday, European leaders had lobbied Trump for U.S. security guarantees as part of any peace deal with Russia.

Macron met Trump on Monday. On Thursday, it was Starmer’s turn to ingratiate with Trump. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas was also in Washington. Significantly, her meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was abruptly called off “due to scheduling issues.”

The main objective for Macron and Starmer was to extract a commitment from Trump for a military “backstop” in Ukraine to beef up their proposal to deploy French and British troops under the guise of “peacekeepers”.

The British wanted American “air cover” for their troops, according to the BBC.

Both Macron and Starmer were palmed away with vague nothings despite the bonhomie and compliments, and a British sweetener from King Charles to invite Trump on a royal visit.

Trump’s diplomatic overture to Russian President Vladimir Putin, beginning with a phone call on February 12 followed by a high-level meeting of U.S. and Russian diplomats in Saudi Arabia on February 18, has sent shockwaves across the European NATO members.

They feel aggrieved that Trump is going to make a peace deal with Putin without them. The Europeans are still beholden to the propaganda narrative of the previous Biden administration about “defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine from Russian aggression.”

Trump wants out of the extravagant mess in Ukraine. He recognizes that the conflict was always a proxy war with an ulterior agenda to defeat Russia. Hundreds of billions of dollars and euros have been wasted fueling a futile proxy war that, as it turns out, Russia is decisively winning.

Marco Rubio, the U.S. top diplomat, disclosed in an interview to CNN after the Oval Office spat, that a European foreign minister had told him that “their plan” was to keep the war in Ukraine going for another year in the hope that it would eventually “weaken Russia” and make Moscow “beg for peace.”

The callousness of the Europeans and their Russophobic obsession are grotesque. The three-year conflict in Ukraine has cost up to one million military deaths, millions of refugees across Europe, and broken economies, not to mention the danger of it turning into World War Three.

Sneakily, the Europeans are covering their desire for continuing the proxy war with a belated apparent concern for making peace and backing Trump’s diplomacy.

Macron and Starmer ostensibly commend Trump (after initially being in a flap over this call with Putin) and they talk about “finding a path to a lasting peace.”

However, their seeming offer of deploying French and British soldiers as “peacekeepers” is a Trojan Horse that has nothing to do with keeping the peace. For its part, Moscow has categorically stated that any NATO troops in Ukraine will not be acceptable and will be attacked as combatants.

That is why Macron, Starmer and other European leaders were so insistent on trying to get Trump to give “security guarantees”. The so-called American military “backstop” would be a way to escalate the proxy war against Russia.

Zelensky was in Washington on a mission to beguile Trump into giving a security guarantee while dangling the bait of a lucrative minerals deal.

It was reported that the Trump White House wanted to cancel the meeting for Friday before Zelensky departed from Ukraine on Thursday. But Macron intervened and implored Trump to go ahead with the reception.

Zelensky, having got used to being indulged with endless blank checks, thought he could wheedle more out of Trump than just a mining deal. He was expected to extract the direct U.S. military involvement that the European Russophobic leaders want. In that way, the proxy war would escalate and those riding the war-racket gravy train would continue to extort the world’s biggest security crisis.

Fortunately, Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush and flushed out the European ploy.

The irony is that Trump had earlier in the week lavished praise on Macron and Starmer, exalting France for being America’s “oldest ally” and Britain for its “special relationship”. Trump might want to radically revise those cliched notions.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian attack on TurkStream threatens Hungary’s sovereignty – FM

RT | March 1, 2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has condemned a recent drone attack on a compressor station of the TurkStream gas pipeline, labeling it an assault on his nation’s sovereignty due to the conduit’s critical role in its energy security.

Szijjarto’s comments came on Saturday after the Russian military reported thwarting a Ukrainian drone attack on the Russkaya compressor station on Friday night. This station is a critical facility for the TurkStream, also known as Turkish Stream, pipeline in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, serving as the point of exit on Russian soil for gas deliveries. The Defense Ministry stated that three drones were neutralized by air defense systems, preventing any damage to the station’s operations.

“The Turkish Stream pipeline is the guarantee of Hungary’s natural gas supply security; therefore, any potential disruption would seriously jeopardize our energy security,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook. “Energy security is a matter of sovereignty, and therefore this type of attack should be considered an attack on sovereignty.”

The pipeline, which has been operational since January 2020, delivers Russian natural gas to Turkish customers and several European countries, including Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece.

The Hungarian minister also called on the European Commission to clarify its stance on the matter, reminding it of its recent assurance that Ukraine would not target EU-bound infrastructure.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov informed Szijjarto about the attempted attack during a phone conversation initiated by Hungary, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. He explained the incident and its implications for the pipeline’s security.

The incident is not the first involving the facility. Back in January, Ukrainian forces attempted to attack it with nine kamikaze drones, according to the Russian military. All of the UAVs were intercepted, but debris from the explosions caused minor damage to the station.

Commenting on the incident at the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused Ukraine of engaging in acts of “energy terrorism.”

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump takes on the ‘collective west’

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 1, 2025

The dramatic scene in the Oval Office on Friday evening signals that  President Donald Trump is decoupling the US from the ‘forever war’ in Ukraine that his predecessor Joe Biden left behind. The war is poised to end with a whimper, but its ‘butterfly effect’ on our incredibly complex, deeply interconnected world will define European and international security for decades to come. 

The western media which is hostile toward Trump, have seized the opportunity to caricature him as an impulsive figure in a role reversal with Zelenskyy. In reality, though, Trump has been literally driven to this point by the Biden administration. 

The highly charged emotional reaction by the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen commiserating with President Zelensky speaks for itself: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Trump’s refusal to give Von der Leyen an appointment may partly explain her fury as a woman scorned. Truly, the ‘Collective West’ find themselves at a crossroads and do not know which road to take. Without US air cover and satellite inputs, western troop deployment in Ukraine will be impossible. Even French Emmanuel Macron would agree that his troops will be put through a meat grinder. 

Both Von der Leyen and Macron had a whale of a time as cheerleaders of Biden’s war but any further adventures in Ukraine will be suicidal, to put it mildly. Ukraine’s military will collapse if Trump freezes support. None of the European powers will risk a collision with Russia. 

Trump knows by now that the western narrative of Biden’s war is a load of bullshit peppered with falsehoods and outright lies, and that the war erupted only out of the diabolic western plot to poke the bear, which got provoked finally and hit out. 

The CIA’s coup in Kiev in February 2014 was a watershed event paving the way for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil. Indeed, terrible things happened, which have been shoved under the carpet — for instance, then German foreign minister (current president) Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s dubious links with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian groups who acted as storm troopers in the 2014 coup. Just think of the grotesqueness of it — a German social democrat patronising neo-Nazi groups!  

Most certainly, Trump knows that the US deep state had set in motion an agenda to destabilise the Russian Federation and dismember it as the unfinished business no sooner than the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Chechen War has no other explanation. In fact, Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding the insurgents. 

Again, the Bill Clinton administration floated the idea of NATO expansion as early as in 1994. It came out of the blue but was obviously a work in progress since the disbandment of the Soviet Union. By the mid-nineties, even Boris Yeltsin understood that he was played nicely. The return of Evgeny Primakov to the Kremlin and Yeltsin’s overture to Beijing were the surest signs of a course correction. 

Those familiar with Soviet history had known all along that Ukraine would be the theatre where the US would try to seal the fate of Russia. If further confirmation was needed, it came with the CIA’s colour revolution in Ukraine in 2003 where the election was rigged (as is happening in Romania today) and carried to a third round till the proxy emerged victorious and surely, Viktor Yushchenko brought the NATO membership issue to the table. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted that the alliance formally offered membership to Ukraine!       

Today, Britain’s MI6 calls the shots in Kiev. Zelenskyy admitted recently that much of the money given by Biden simply ‘disappeared’. Sordid tales of massive kickbacks and corruption are galore. Biden ignored them. The Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s cesspools is widely known. Contrary to his pledge earlier not to do so, Biden felt constrained finally to grant a presidential pardon to son Hunter Biden so that he wouldn’t end up in jail. 

Suffice to say, Zelensky’s ‘strategic defiance’ stems out of his quiet confidence that western leaders — starting with Boris Johnson and Biden — who have been fellow travellers in the gravy train during the past three years of the war are beholden to him till eternity. 

The axis between Zelensky and his European Union supporters is cajoling Trump, pressuring him and flattering him in turn to get him on board the bandwagon so that the war rolls on for another four years. Last week alone, the presidents of France and Poland and the British prime minister descended on the White House one after another seeking assurance that the war in Ukraine will continue. But Trump has refused to oblige.

Zelensky and his European backers want a ‘forever war’ in the western border lands of Eurasia, the traditional invasion route to Russia. And last week Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. He also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”

Trump repeated last week that the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” Basically, he realises that this is an unwinnable war, and is apprehensive that a prolonged war may transform into a quagmire sinking his presidency and derailing the grand bargain he hopes to strike with the two other superpowers, Russia and China, to create synergy for his ambitious MAGA project. 

Trump has chalked up 2026, the Quarter Millennial of the United States Declaration of Independence, for hosting the leaders of Russia and China on American soil to celebrate the high noon of his quest for world peace. The European political elites weaned on the liberal-globalist ‘rules-based order’ cannot understand Trump’s deep-rooted convictions and his abhorrence of war. 

The big question now is wether the unprecedented fracas in the White House yesterday could backfire on Zelensky, since Washington has significant leverage vis-a-vis Kiev and given the latter’s heavy dependence on the US for some of the critical elements of its defence.

Following the Oval Office argument, Zelenskyy has issued a lengthy statement admitting that it is “crucial” for Ukraine to have Trump’s support. A patch-up cannot be ruled out but the transatlantic system has received a big jolt, as the overwhelming majority of European countries have voiced support for Zelensky. In fact, there hasn’t been a solitary voice censuring Zelensky. Britain kept mum. Keir Starmer, UK prime minister is hosting a meeting of European leaders on Sunday which Zelensky is due to attend. It is unlikely that Europeans will push the envelope further   

In this dismal scenario, the best hope is that Zelensky’s ouster, which seems probable, will not be a violent bloody event, considering the power rivalries within the regime in Kiev. At any rate, his replacement may not be a terrible thing to happen since it would necessitate holding the long overdue election and lead to the emergence of a legitimate leadership in Kiev, which has now become a dire necessity for what Trump would call ‘common sense’ to prevail.  

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US State Department slashes USAID assistance to Ukraine – NBC

RT | Marh 1, 2025

The US State Department has terminated a US Agency for International Development (USAID) initiative for a large-scale effort to restore Ukraine’s energy grid, which has been severely damaged by Russian strikes, NBC News reported on Friday, citing sources.

USAID, Washington’s primary agency for funding political projects abroad, found itself in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump shortly after taking office, accusing it of corruption and inefficiency. He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the State Department.

As part of the crackdown, the State Department not only stopped a USAID program that invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine’s power grid, but also sharply reduced the agency’s footprint in Ukraine, the network said.

Before the reported cuts, 64 American government employees and contractors were on the ground supporting the agency’s mission; now only eight are expected to remain, with the Trump administration placing the remaining USAID personnel on administrative leave and ordering all but “critical” staff to return to the US, NBC reported.

”It significantly undercuts this administration’s abilities to negotiate on the ceasefire, and it’d signal to Russia that we don’t care about Ukraine or our past investments,” a USAID official working on the Ukraine mission told the outlet, adding that the decision would significantly undermine the country’s economic resilience.

In 2024 alone, USAID allocated $825 million to support Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The move comes as Russia continues to carry out drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s defense-linked energy infrastructure to undermine the country’s military effort, resulting in recurring rolling blackouts. Moscow insists that it never targets civilians.

The timing of the reported USAID pullout coincides with a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in the White House, in which the US president accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the substantial aid provided to Kiev, and of being unwilling to negotiate an end to the conflict with Russia. As a result of the heated exchange between the two sides, an agreement granting the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources as compensation for past aid was not signed.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Trump and Zelensky Clash in the Oval Office

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | February 28, 2025

The disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates why sensitive diplomacy should be done behind closed doors and not in front of the public. At such press conferences, one speaks to both the leader of the other country and the public. Both Zelensky and Trump escalated the rhetoric as they were in front of the cameras to win over the public and not appear weak. The need to prioritise the public as the main audience is a wider problem for diplomacy as, for example, the Europeans have for three years refused to engage in basic diplomacy with Russia (that could have reduced the risk of nuclear war) because it can “legitimise” Putin in the eyes of the public. The immense focus on narrative control in international politics makes it even more important to defend diplomacy.

The Trump-Zelensky meeting was predictably sensitive, as the issue of security guarantees had not been resolved before the press conference. Subsequently, the press conference became a battleground to win over the public. The purpose of the meeting was to sign an agreement that would give the US significant control over Ukraine’s natural resources, yet the document prepared in advance was deliberately vague. Trump was confident that Zelensky would fall in line as the US enjoys overwhelming leverage, while Zelensky had hoped to pressure Trump into offering security guarantees in return for the resources.

A security guarantee would pull the US into a direct war with Russia if a future peace agreement broke down. Such a security guarantee would deter Russia from breaking the ceasefire, yet it would also incentivise Ukraine to restart the fighting as the US would then be pulled into the war on the side of Ukraine to assist with reconquering lost territories. A likely outcome would be World War III with a possible nuclear exchange.

The visits by Macron and Starmer in the days before Zelensky’s arrival were also intended to prevent the US from decoupling itself from the conflict by obtaining US security guarantees. Europe cannot send troops into Ukraine without the promise of a US military “backstop”. Macron and Starmer probably also wanted to shower Trump with flattery to warm him up before Zelensky visited with economic incentives to get the US entangled in the war. The appeal to Trump’s vanity and greed did not work, as Trump seems to recognise that the war has been lost and that nuclear war is a growing possibility in the absence of peace negotiations.

The positive outcome of this very undiplomatic confrontation is that Zelensky may abandon his delusions. The Biden administration and the Europeans have been stringing along Ukraine for more than a decade on a path to its destruction. Trump and Vance seemed genuinely bewildered that Zelensky would not change course as his country is obliterated. The Europeans’ promises of NATO membership, return of territories and ironclad security guarantees are presented as expressions of support, but in reality they are fantasies to uphold dangerous delusions. NATO lost the proxy war in Ukraine, and there are no good solutions left. However, this should not have been done in public.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The American perestroika is gaining momentum

By Vladimir Mashin – New Eastern Outlook – February 28, 2025

Only a month has passed since Trump’s inauguration, but the U.S. has witnessed a real revolution (some call it a ‘perestroika’ in reference to our country’s history).

Previous Democratic administrations tried in every possible way to impose new ‘transgender ideas’. Trump immediately stated that there are only two sexes (male and female), and not 32, as the media shouted. All government agencies, schools and educational institutions are being instructed with this information (15,000 transgender people are already mere steps away from being removed from the army, and all government benefits for such individuals have been cancelled.) The 47th President of the United States calls this a revolution of common sense.

The fusion of power and big capital is accelerating

The Republican Party has traditionally expressed the interests of America’s wealthiest strata, however, under Trump, this approach has outdone itself, with vigorous support for major corporations and oligarchs, and assistance to them through tax cuts.

In fulfilling his campaign promise of the absolute priority of American interests, Trump is imposing new trade tariffs on many countries, striving for balanced export and import relations.

It so happens that the vast majority of the media in the United States belongs to supporters of the Democratic Party. Therefore, many newspapers write that Trump’s actions are only leading to an increase in the wealth of billionaires and limit social spending for the poorest segments of the population (the press claims that there are 14 billionaires in Trump’s new cabinet, and the clearest evidence of this is the incredible wealth of the oligarch closest to him, Elon Musk).

The US media mentions that billionaire Peter Thiel, who has been preaching the idea of reducing social support for society for many years, is a kind of éminence grise of the new Republican government. It is notable that Vice President Vance considers him one of his most important mentors in life.

At the very end of the 20th century, Thiel and another billionaire, David Sacks, who was responsible for the fields of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency in the Trump administration, wrote the book ‘The Diversity Myth’, where he sharply criticised the ideas of positive discrimination, political correctness and multiculturalism. 20 years later, in one of his essays, Thiel condemned the ‘green agenda’ that prevents science and technology from building a “bright future”.

Republicans have always accused Democrats of restricting freedom of the press by imposing solely their own point of view. It is noteworthy that Vice President Vance’s speech in Munich on February 14 shocked the Europeans, whom he reproached for not listening to the wishes of their people, instead looking to blame Russia and China as an excuse for their problems. “This was”, wrote Bloomberg on February 15, “an attack of unbridled rage in the name of freedom of speech, exposing the long-standing hostility that Donald Trump and his senior aides feel towards the European Union. They see the bloc as a symbol of big government that restricts the activities of American companies”.

These ideas are clearly reflected in the activities and statements of Elon Musk, and generally highlight the philosophy of ignoring rules for the sake of progress and innovation. This approach is shared by many Silicon Valley oligarchs.

To some extent, they express the views of the main figures of the Trump team, who are sceptical of traditional institutions, which, according to CNN on February 16, failed them during the years of inconclusive wars in the Middle East. This worldview clearly corresponds to Trump’s messages, including his stated reluctance to use the U.S. military abroad and his broader distrust of government agencies and the so-called ‘deep state’.

The United States is currently experiencing a historically unprecedented concentration of technological, financial and political power.

Trump is clearly in a hurry, especially considering the results of his first term as president, when the resistance of the deep state prevented him from realising his plans.

During the first month of the Trump administration, much has already changed in the United States and around the world. However, it is safe to say that the main battles are still ahead. The opposition to his course from the Democratic Party and European liberal hawks will not weaken.

Vladimir Mashin, political observer, Candidate of Historical Sciences

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

EU’s Kallas blasts Trump over ‘Russian talking points’

RT | February 28, 2025

The European Union’s top diplomat has suggested that US President Donald Trump has adopted Russian narratives about the Ukraine conflict. Kaja Kallas also expressed concern over Washington’s supposed drift away from its long-time European allies.

Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and former Estonian Prime Minister (2021-2024), is known for her hawkish views on foreign policy.

In an interview with the media outlet Axios on Thursday, she said it had been “uncomfortable” to hear Trump and other senior US officials “repeating Russian narratives and talking points” in recent weeks.

“The statements made towards us are quite strong. The statements regarding Russia are very friendly. It is a change,” Kallas observed. She claimed that if Russia is allowed “back around the international table like nothing has happened,” more armed conflicts will follow, and not only in Europe.

The diplomat also insisted that while US officials are free to “talk with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin all they want… in order for any kind of deal to be implemented, they need the Europeans.” Failure to include the EU and Ukraine in negotiations would prevent any agreement from being implemented, Kallas argued.

Both the bloc’s representatives and officials from Kiev were excluded from the US-Russia negotiations held in Saudi Arabia earlier this month. Washington and Moscow have argued that no other parties were invited because the talks centered on first restoring bilateral relations.

Kallas also balked at criticisms regarding the state of democracy in the EU voiced by US Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference – a speech praised as “brilliant” by Trump. “I refuse to accept that criticism, because it’s just simply not true,” she said.

On Monday, the diplomat similarly remarked that “if [we] look at the messages that come from the US, then it is clear that the Russian narrative is there, very strongly represented.”

Last week, she warned Washington against walking “into the Russian traps,” alleging that Moscow had emerged as the “winner” from the talks in Riyadh.

In recent weeks, Trump has made several critical remarks toward the Ukrainian leadership, characterizing Vladimir Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” and suggesting that Kiev bears responsibility for letting the hostilities flare up in 2022. While the US head of state has since somewhat toned down his comments, a marked departure from the policy course pursued by his predecessor, Joe Biden, remains evident.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The EU in Panic as Peace May Break Out

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2025

I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Sachs after his speech at the European Parliament. How did we end up in a position where the EU has become the leading actor to oppose diplomacy and negotiations, and instead aims to prolong a war that devastates Europe and cannot be won? How did the Europeans reach a consensus on absurd notions such as Russia should not have a say in where NATO expands, and that the Europeans cannot sit down and talk to Russia without Ukraine? Professor Sachs attended the Istanbul negotiations in early 2022, but why are these negotiations now largely absent in the EU’s war narrative?

Jeffrey Sachs’ Explosive Address at the EU Parliament Sends Shockwaves Across Europe!

Putin invaded Ukraine ‘to stop NATO’, alliance chief tells EU

Jeffrey Sachs’ Full Address

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Defense Budget Proposal to Russia & China Aims to Give US Military Edge

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 26.02.2025

President Donald Trump floated offering Russia and China to join the US in slashing their defence budgets in half when speaking to reporters at the White House on earlier in February, adding that he hoped to take this up with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping “when things calm down”.

Washington hopes to drag Moscow and Beijing into “deceptive” 50% military spending cuts, staking on their desire to “avoid appearing disinterested in peace overtures by the US,” geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic told Sputnik.

The proposal is a ruse by Donald Trump aimed at rectifying the “disparity between the bloated US military budget” and the “more efficient ones of Moscow and Beijing,” noted the former US Marine.

“A genuine agreement would not be based on a percentage cut, but an equal reduction in […] explicitly capabilities the US has used for decades to project power abroad, including its global-spanning network of military bases, its membership in aggressive blocs like NATO, its sea and airlift capabilities, and various types of missiles and drones (both naval and aerial) the US is right now developing to menace nations like Russia and China along, and within their own borders,” he said.

Even if the US, Russia, and China were to slash military spending by 50%, proportionately America would “still enjoy greater overall spending than both nations combined, speculated the pundit.

Despite this proposal sounding promising at face value, he added, without further details from the US government’s side, it “appears to be an attempt to provide the US an overwhelming military advantage all while appearing to pursue global peace.”

US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States, Russia, and potentially China each reduce their defense budgets by 50%, saying: “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that.”

Following this proposal, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin indicated Moscow’s openness to negotiations: “We are not against it. The idea is good: the US cuts by 50%, we cut by 50%, and if China wants, they can join later.”

China’s defense spending “is completely out of the need of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, and the need of maintaining world peace,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a press conference on February 25.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025

The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.

Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.

Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.

Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?

The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.

Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.

It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?

Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.

That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.

Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.

It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.

Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.

What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.

Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.

The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.

Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.

Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.

How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.

In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.

The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.

It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.

So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.

Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.

Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.

If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.

It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.

The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.

Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.

Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »