Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hungarian officials condemn French general’s call for Europe to accept ‘losing its children’ in future war with Russia

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | November 21, 2025

Hungarian officials are sharply criticizing what they describe as a dangerous escalation in European war rhetoric after France’s top general warned the public to prepare for the possibility of losing “its children” and enduring economic hardship in the event of a future conflict with Russia.

In a post on X, Balázs Orbán, a Hungarian MP and political director to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, accused Paris of normalizing the prospect of war. “When Emmanuel Macron’s top general says Europe must be ready to accept losing its children and suffer economically for war, something is deeply wrong. Hungary rejects this logic — we work for peace, not for sending our children into war,” he wrote.

His criticism followed remarks by Fabien Mandon, the Chief of Staff of the French Armed Forces, who delivered a stark warning about Europe’s readiness. In a speech on Nov. 18, Mandon told an audience that Western European countries “must be ready for a possible clash with Russia within three to four years, and this cannot be kept secret from the public any longer.”

The general argued that deterring Moscow would require mobilizing national resources and societal resolve. “All knowledge, all economic and demographic power must be directed to deter the Moscow regime from trying any further,” he said.

Mandon stressed that young soldiers already serving, who are “between 18 and 27 years old,” rely on public backing. “They persevere in their mission if they feel that the country is with them,” he said. But he warned that France could be endangered if it hesitates in the face of potential suffering. “If our country backs down because it refuses to accept losing its children, or if it has to endure economic hardship because priorities are directed, for example, to defense production, then we are in danger.”

The comments sparked immediate backlash in Budapest, where officials argued that France’s top military leadership is preparing society for large-scale conflict instead of seeking de-escalation.

Budapest described the statements as evidence of “war psychosis” taking hold in Western Europe, reaffirming Hungary’s stance that peace negotiations should guide Europe’s approach.

Hungary has long been an advocate for a peace deal facilitated by U.S. President Donald Trump and has refused to provide ammunition to the frontline.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused the European Commission of “astonishing” irresponsibility after receiving a letter from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urging member states to provide additional financial support to Ukraine.

Orbán said the request came “at a time when it has become clear that a war mafia is siphoning off European taxpayers’ money,” claiming Brussels was asking for more cash rather than demanding oversight or suspending payments. He was referring to the recently exposed corruption scandal enveloping the country.

“This whole matter is a bit like trying to help an alcoholic by sending them another crate of vodka. Hungary has not lost its common sense,” he wrote.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Orban to EU Hawks: Embrace Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan or Risk Wider War

Sputnik – 22.11.2025

Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine has brought Europe to a decisive crossroad, warned Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Europe’s hardliners are staring at “two paths,” Viktor Orban wrote in a post on X.

“Brusselian bureaucrats” can still reverse course from a “dead end” and rally behind Trump’s peace initiative.

According to him, this would require pro-war politicians to finally confront an uncomfortable truth: that the past 3.5 years have been spent pouring Europeans’ hard-earned money into a conflict “that cannot be won on the battlefield.”

The second option, he warned, “leads straight into war.”

If Europe’s warmongers choose to keep funneling money and weapons to Ukraine without US backing, they will “pave the way for a European–Russian conflict.”

Orban reminded that Europeans “know all too well where that road leads”—and that history’s verdict on such choices has often been tragic.

For Hungary, he said, the decision is already settled, as it will take “the path of peace.”

“This is the mandate given to us by the Hungarian people, and it is what morality and common sense demand,” Orban noted.

He added that he is sending a letter to the President of the European Commission to formalize Hungary’s position.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Putin: Trump’s New Peace Plan May Become Foundation of Ukrainian Conflict’s Resolution

Sputnik – 21.11.2025

US President Donald Trump’s new peace plan could form the basis for a final settlement in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

Earlier this week, the Financial Times published a 28-point US peace plan for Ukraine that includes a reduction in US military aid, official recognition of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, granting the Russian language state status in Ukraine, reducing Ukraine’s armed forces, and banning foreign troops and long-range weapons on Ukrainian soil.

“I believe that it [Trump’s plan] can be the basis for a final peaceful settlement,” Putin said during a meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council today.

He also mentioned that Russia has the text of US President Donald Trump’s plan for Ukrainian settlement.

“We received it through the existing channels of interaction with the US administration,” Putin said.

Russia agreed to show flexibility in its approach to the Ukrainian settlement during the Anchorage meeting, Putin added.

“The main point of the meeting in Alaska, the main purpose of the meeting in Alaska, was that during the negotiations in Anchorage we confirmed that despite certain difficult issues and difficulties on our part, we nevertheless agree with these proposals and are ready to show the flexibility offered to us,” Putin said at a meeting with the permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

The United States, during discussions on the settlement in Ukraine, asked Russia to make certain compromises, Putin added.

“President Trump’s peace plan to resolve the situation in Ukraine was discussed before the Alaska meeting. And during this preliminary discussion, the American side asked us to make certain compromises, to show, as they said, flexibility,” he elaborated.

He added that after his talks with Trump in Alaska, the United States took a pause caused by Ukraine refusing the deal.

The US plan for the settlement in Ukraine has not been discussed publicly, only in general terms, he noted.

“We have hardly discussed it publicly [the US plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine], only in the most general terms,” Putin said at a videoconference meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

He did note, however, that the United States has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side on a peace settlement plan.

“The reason, I believe, is the same — the US administration has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side. Ukraine is against it. Apparently, Ukraine and its European allies are still under illusions and dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield,” Putin said.

Neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what a lack of understanding of the situation on the front line can lead to, he noted.

“This position is due to the lack of objective information about the situation, the real state of affairs on the battlefield. And, apparently, neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what this may eventually lead to,” Putin said, adding that Kiev has no objective information about the real situation on the battlefield, which is why it refuses a peaceful settlement.

If Kiev does not want to discuss Trump’s proposals, then they and Europeans should understand that events like in the city of Kupyansk will be repeated, Putin said.

Meanwhile, all of Russia’s friends and partners, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and the countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), support the potential agreements between Russia and the United States on a Ukrainian settlement, which were discussed at the Anchorage summit, Putin added.

“We have thoroughly briefed all of our friends and partners in the Global South on all these issues, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and many other countries, as well as the CSTO countries, of course. All of our friends and partners — I want to emphasize this, every single one of them — all supported these potential agreements,” he said.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Either the difficult 28 points or a very hard winter – Zelensky

RT | November 21, 2025

Vladimir Zelensky has said Ukraine must brace for a tough choice between accepting the “28 difficult points” of the US peace plan or risk losing a key backer. His comments come after the submission of a proposal and the leaking of its purported text by a Ukrainian MP.

According to Reuters, the administration of US President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off Ukraine from intelligence and military aid, should Kiev reject it.

In a video address to Ukrainians on Friday, Zelensky stated that the country is going through “one of the most difficult moments in our history.”

While not directly mentioning the US-proposed peace roadmap, he said that failure to accept the “difficult 28 points” would likely result in the “most difficult… winter” for Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022. Kiev confirmed receiving the newly proposed peace plan from Washington on Thursday, but stopped short of revealing its contents.

According to media reports, the roadmap features 28 points, including but not limited to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of Russia’s Donbass it still controls, downsizing the country’s military, and giving up on NATO aspirations. Kiev would also reportedly be required to make Russian an official language. In exchange, it would presumably be offered Western security guarantees.

In his Friday address to the nation, Zelensky said that Kiev would be working “calmly” and “quickly” with Washington and its European backers to ensure that “Ukraine’s national interests are taken into account.”

The Ukrainian leader vowed to present unspecified “alternatives,” while trying to avoid the impression that he “does not want peace.”

Zelensky also mentioned his latest phone call with a number of EU leaders, expressing confidence that “Europe will be with us.” He further claimed that Ukraine is “now the only shield” protecting Europe from Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense” claims made by some EU officials, who have accused Moscow of planning an attack on the bloc’s members.

In recent months, Russian forces have been steadily advancing in the Donetsk People’s Republic, making significant gains. The Ukrainian military, by contrast, is facing severe personnel shortages.

While Zelensky stopped short of directly acknowledging this in his latest speech, he did say that although Ukrainians are “made of steel… any metal” may eventually break under pressure.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

How Saudi F-35s would not erode Israeli air superiority: Report

By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | November 19, 2025

The Trump administration’s move to advance a potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Saudi Arabia might mark a significant turning point in regional military dynamics. Yet the central question remains: would the acquisition truly grant Riyadh a decisive edge, or will “Israel’s” deeply entrenched air superiority remain firmly intact?

The announcement, made as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited Washington, does not itself consummate a transfer. Any sale would require formal notification to, and likely scrutiny by, the US Congress, and would reopen the fraught question of how Washington preserves “Israel’s” qualitative military edge (QME) while exporting one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft. While the operational edge of Israeli pilots and aircrew is evident, the US retains the ability to constrain Saudi F-35 capabilities through technical and software-based controls.

The deal on the table and the road to congressional approval

When a US president signals willingness to sell F-35 aircraft, the next formal step is notification under the Arms Export Control Act and a review period during which Congress can raise objections or seek certifications. For decades, US administrations have treated QME for “Israel” as a legal and political constraint on certain arms transfers; that tradition has informed reviews of past F-35 discussions with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Any proposed sale to Riyadh will therefore be judged not only on price and offset packages but on assurances that “Israel’s” operational superiority will remain intact; a determination that is both technical and political and could trigger contentious hearings. Members of both parties have in the past conditioned or slowed high-end sales over human-rights concerns, counter-proliferation assessments, and explicit demands to preserve the QME.

However, competing pressures further complicate Washington’s calculus as the Trump administration attempts to solidify its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, secure a landmark normalization agreement with one of West Asia’s most influential powers, and counter the expanding Russian and Chinese footprint in the Kingdom’s defense and technology sectors.

Who in the region flies fifth-generation aircraft today

As of today, the Israeli Air Force is the only air force in West Asia operating the F-35s.

Abu Dhabi negotiated for the aircraft in 2020 but later suspended the talks; other Gulf air forces operate advanced fourth-generation fighters but not fifth-generation stealth airframes.

The practical consequence is that a US sale to Riyadh would not simply add another modern fighter to the region; it would introduce a category of capability that, until now, has been regionally singular.

Why the airframe is only half the story

It is important to separate the aircraft’s physical attributes from the invisible systems that make it decisive in combat. The F-35’s important advantages include low observable design or stealth, powerful sensors, sensor fusion, and integrated electronic warfare, which enable pilots and commanders to detect, identify, and engage threats at ranges and with a fidelity earlier generations cannot match.

Much of the F-35’s real combat power does not lie in the airframe but in the software stack that governs nearly everything the jet does:

  • Mission-data files (MDFs)
  • Electronic-warfare threat libraries
  • Radar-emitter databases
  • Electronic-attack and jamming profiles
  • Sensor-fusion logic
  • Weapons-employment algorithms

Most critically, the US controls every layer of this ecosystem for all export customers, except “Israel”.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” has a special agreement allowing the integration of sovereign Israeli-made sensors, electronic warfare systems, and locally developed software add-ons. While the core flight software remains a US product, “Israel” can add its own “plug-and-play” systems and has the authority for some domestic maintenance and upgrades, giving it a level of independence not afforded to other customers. In practice, the platform’s combat potential is as much a product of data and code as it is of metal and jet engines.

This creates a built-in mechanism for Washington to tilt the operational balance decisively toward “Israel,” even if other states receive the same aircraft on paper.

Update priority, withholding certain mission-data libraries, limiting weapons-integration permissions, and controlling sustainment services are all practical mechanisms to maintain an advantage for one operator over another.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” and operational freedom

Israel negotiated an unusually broad set of privileges for the Adir. Unlike most customers, the Israeli regime has been permitted deep customization, integration of indigenous sensors and weapons, unique mission-data development, and a degree of independence from the US sustainment cloud that most operators use.

Those permissions give the Israeli Air Force both practical freedom of operation and a pathway to maintain and evolve its fleet in ways other buyers cannot match.

Israeli mission data files are infused with intelligence drawn from decades of regional aggression. Their electronic-warfare tuning reflects specific threat libraries, and the backlog of locally developed weapons integrations further differentiates the Adir from standard F-35As.

The aircraft can fire the Israeli Python‑5 and Derby/Derby‑ER air‑to‑air missiles, giving it a sovereign engagement capability independent of US munitions. It also carries advanced stand‑off strike weapons such as the SPICE‑1000 and SPICE‑2000 precision‑guided kits and the Delilah loitering cruise missile, enabling deep, accurate attacks against heavily defended targets. Added to this is a bespoke Israeli C4I architecture and a classified electronic‑warfare suite installed directly into the aircraft’s systems, granting the Israeli Air Force full control over threat libraries, jamming profiles, and data links.

The airframe itself has also been adapted to support these systems. The Israelis received rare permission to incorporate custom apertures, access points, and internal wiring channels into the fuselage in coordination with Lockheed Martin, enabling installation and maintenance of its electronics. In addition, “Israel” is the only country known to operate F‑35s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), which add 600–800 gallons of fuel along the fuselage without compromising stealth or weapons capacity. These tanks extend the Adir’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and allow longer, deeper-strike missions, providing a level of flexibility and endurance unavailable to any other F‑35 operator.

Software and sustainment

The F‑35’s combat edge lies less in its airframe than in the software, mission-data, and sustainment systems that govern nearly every aspect of its operations. Historically, the US has used software-centric restrictions to preserve the advantage of favored partners, ensuring that certain operators maintain a decisive qualitative edge.

Key instruments include mission-data files (MDFs), which encode threat signatures, radar and SAM profiles, and geospatial threat maps. Operators with richer, bespoke MDFs detect and classify threats more quickly and respond more effectively. Denying or limiting MDF depth to a buyer is therefore a direct mechanism to sustain another operator’s superiority. Similarly, restricting electronic-warfare software, including emitter libraries, advanced jamming and deception modes, and the timing of mission-data updates, can materially degrade an F‑35’s ability to detect, classify, and suppress hostile radars. The operational effect is slower threat identification, narrower jamming envelopes, and less accurate geolocation for Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, giving the Israeli Air Force a persistent edge even if both sides operate the same airframe.

These fundamental differences could prove decisive in a theoretical Saudi-Israeli confrontation. An export-restricted Saudi F-35, with its potentially downgraded software, might detect Israeli emitters seconds later and with reduced precision. In contrast, the Israeli F-35I Adir, equipped with bespoke software, proprietary threat libraries, and its electronic warfare systems, could identify, geolocate, and suppress Saudi radar networks first.

These software controls illustrate how the US could maintain Israeli superiority should the Saudi deal move forward. While technically effective, such safeguards carry grave political and operational costs for the buyer, the same concerns Abu Dhabi cited when it stepped back from F‑35 talks in 2021.

Basing, geography, Israeli red lines

Unlike the UAE, whose main airbases are distant from Israeli interests, parts of Saudi Arabia lie relatively close to Israeli settler populations and military centers. Israeli officials have publicly signalled concern that basing F-35s in western Saudi Arabia would materially shorten flight times into Israeli airspace and therefore elevate risk perceptions in Tel Aviv. Reports also indicate “Israel” is pressing Washington to condition any sale on formal normalization and legally binding basing limits.

Those basing preferences are intimately linked to the software and sustainment controls described above. Even if Riyadh accepted software tiering, “Israel” still wants to condition the basing of F-35 jets to be outside Western Saudi Arabia airstrips.

Why Abu Dhabi balked despite normalization

The UAE’s experience is a near-perfect case study for what Riyadh may face. Abu Dhabi negotiated a package in 2020 under a broader normalization agreement but informed US officials in December 2021 that it would suspend discussions, citing “technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and cost-benefit analysis” as reasons.

Three interlocking fault lines explain why. First, as explained, export conditions on software, weapons, and mission systems sharply limit a buyer’s operational autonomy. Doing anything beyond the approved list requires US authorization and often a long, costly certification process. For a state that prizes independent strike options and rapid operational adaptation, those limits impose real political and tactical costs.

Second, sustainment architecture locks customers into US logistics and updates ecosystems. The F-35’s logistics and health-monitoring systems (ALIS originally, now the ODIN framework) and the global sustainment enterprise mean that maintenance and updates become levers Washington can control.

Third, and more prosaically, the practicalities of preserving stealth require specialized sustainment. Low-observable coatings, seam integrity, and specialized repairs demand trained personnel, approved materials, and certified processes; many of those tasks are regulated and performed under Lockheed-approved protocols or at regional hubs designated by the program. Buyers often cannot fully sustain the low-observable characteristics that make the jet survivable without continuing contractor or US support.

Finally, political and geostrategic concerns compounded the technical ones. Washington’s scrutiny of buyers’ ties to third parties, notably China, and congressional insistence on preserving “Israel’s” QME raised further strings the UAE found difficult to accept, from restrictions on sensitive supply-chain partners to conditioned access to high-end sustainment and software features.

“The Americans want to sell the Emiratis the planes but they want to tie their hands,” a Gulf source told Reuters at the time. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said defense deals include requirements for purchasing nations, but that the restrictions in this deal made it unfeasible.

Geopolitical considerations, only amplified by Riyadh’s larger strategic weight and geography, will determine whether Saudi Arabia accepts comparable limits, if imposed by Washington, or walks the same path as Abu Dhabi.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian MP publishes purported terms of new peace deal

RT | November 20, 2025

Ukrainian opposition MP Aleksey Goncharenko has published the text of a purported peace plan reportedly presented to Kiev by the US administration this week.

The lawmaker posted on social media what appeared to be screenshots of a Ukrainian-language electronic document detailing the 28-point peace plan to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev.

Earlier in the day, Vladimir Zelensky’s office confirmed the US presented Kiev with its new draft plan. The Ukrainian administration did not elaborate on its contents, only expressing a willingness to discuss it and stating that “in the American side’s assessment” the plan “could help reinvigorate diplomacy.”

Here’s the full text of the post:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to (6)00,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that it will not accept Ukraine in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to deploy troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.

10. US Guarantees: The United States will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine without cause launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the security guarantee will be considered invalid.

11. Ukraine retains the right to EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while the issue is under consideration.

12. A powerful global package of measures for the reconstruction of Ukraine, including but not limited to:
a. Creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth sectors, including technology, data-processing centres, and artificial intelligence.
b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine on the joint reconstruction, development, modernization, and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
c. Joint efforts to restore war-affected territories, including the reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
d. Infrastructure development.
e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis.
b. The United States will conclude a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centres, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
c. Russia will be invited to return to the G8.

14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another $100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to facilitate and ensure the fulfilment of all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control, including START-1.

18. Ukraine agrees to remain a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under IAEA supervision, and the generated electricity will be split equally between Russia and Ukraine (50:50).

20. Both countries undertake to introduce educational programmes in schools and society that promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures and the elimination of racism and prejudice:
a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and protection of linguistic minorities.
b. Both countries agree to lift all discriminatory measures and to guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
c. All Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:
a. Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk will be recognized de facto as Russian, including by the United States.
b. Kherson and Zaporozhye will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
c. Russia renounces other territories (probably referring to parts of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts – Ed.) that it controls outside the five regions.
d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast they currently control; this withdrawal zone will be regarded as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of violation of this commitment.

23. Russia will not obstruct Ukraine’s commercial use of the Dnepr River, and agreements will be reached on the free transportation of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be created to resolve outstanding issues:
a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the “all-for-all” principle.
b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
c. A family reunification programme will be implemented.
d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims.

25. Ukraine will hold elections 100 days after the agreement is signed.

26. All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for actions committed during the war and will undertake not to file claims or pursue complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump. Predetermined sanctions will apply in the event of violations.

28. Once all parties have agreed to and signed this memorandum, the ceasefire will enter into force immediately after both sides withdraw to the agreed positions so that implementation of the agreement can begin.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO has turned Baltic Sea into ‘confrontation zone’ – Moscow

The bloc’s attempts to oust Russia from the region will fail, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said

RT | November 20, 2025

NATO has turned the Baltic Sea into an area of military confrontation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said, lamenting that the bloc is unwilling to discuss de-escalation in the region.

Her remarks come amid rising anti-Russian rhetoric and military activity among NATO members, especially Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which all border Russia and the Baltic Sea.

Zakharova said the region had long been a space of trade and peaceful cooperation, but that the balance has been dismantled by NATO’s military buildup.

“This part of Europe has been turned into a zone of confrontation, which sharply escalated as a result of Finland and Sweden joining the bloc,” she told Russian media on Thursday.

The diplomat pointed to NATO’s 2025 launch of the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission, calling it an attempt to impose new navigation rules and turn the sea into the bloc’s “internal waters” – ambitions she said are doomed to fail. She insisted that Russia will remain a full-fledged member of the “Baltic community.”

NATO claims ‘Baltic Sentry’ protects critical undersea infrastructure after recent incidents involving energy and communications cables. It has deployed warships, submarines, and aircraft to the region, conducting regular patrols and drills. Moscow views the buildup as a direct threat.

”It is very difficult to see any potential for dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. And NATO countries… are not showing openness to an honest discussion on ways to de-escalate,” Zakharova said.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have adopted an increasingly confrontational stance toward Russia since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Officials such as EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who is a former Lithuanian prime minister, continue to invoke an alleged Russian threat to justify soaring military spending. Kubilius warned this week of a possible conflict with Russia within two to four years.

Moscow has rejected claims of hostile intent, denouncing what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.” Zakharova stressed that Russia will use all available legal instruments to safeguard its national security and interests.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

French General: We Must Be Ready To ‘Lose Our Children’ in War with Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 20, 2025

The head of the French armed forces said his country must be prepared to send its children to die in a war with Russia.

“Russia is convinced that the Europeans are weak. However, we are strong, fundamentally stronger than Russia,” Chief of the French Defense Staff General Fabien Mandon said. “We have all the knowledge, all the economic and demographic strength to dissuade Moscow’s regime. What we are lacking, and that is where you have a major role, is the strength of soul to accept pain to protect what we are.”

He added, “If our country is weak because it is not ready to accept losing its children — because it’s better to say things clearly — [and] to suffer economically because the priority will be the defence sector, then we are at risk.”

He made the remarks earlier this week at the congress of the Association of Mayors of France. He urged the local leaders in attendance to inform their constituents of his assessment.

French President Macron has emerged as a firm backer of NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. European leaders have warned that Moscow is planning to reconstitute the Soviet Union and invade NATO countries.

However, Russian forces only control about 20% of Ukraine, and President Vladimir Putin has offered to end the war with Ukraine only ceding the Donbas and parts of two southern provinces.

Ukrainian President Zelensky met with European leaders in France earlier this week. A significant issue that was discussed is the bloc’s attempt to cover a massive budget deficit in Ukraine. The President of the European Commission said that the EU would need to provide Kiev with $150 billion over the next two years.

Zelensky also signed an agreement to buy 100 Rafael fighter jets from France over the next two years. Paris said it would take at least three years to train Ukrainian pilots.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-proposed Ukraine peace plan

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. © Getty Images / Thierry Monasse / Contributor
RT | November 20, 2025

The European Union has pushed back against the latest US-proposed plan to end the Ukraine conflict, saying any settlement must reflect the positions of both Brussels and Kiev.

The 28-point draft framework agreement, which Western media claim was developed in coordination with Moscow, would reportedly require Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still under Kiev’s control, cut its armed forces by at least half, surrender some weaponry and abandon its NATO ambitions. Kiev on Thursday confirmed receiving the proposal, with Vladimir Zelensky saying he hopes to discuss it with US President Donald Trump “in the coming days.”

The draft plan has drawn criticism from Kiev’s supporters in the EU, who appear to have been caught off guard and convened a meeting in Brussels on Thursday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas insisted that any peace arrangement must reflect the positions of both the bloc and Ukraine, arguing that the US proposal offered “no concessions” from the Russian side. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was quoted by Reuters as saying that any agreement must not amount to a “capitulation,” while several other ministers reportedly said they had not seen the document and would need clarification before commenting.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the EU of obstructing US-Russian diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, arguing that the bloc is instead working to prolong the hostilities by supplying weapons, military equipment, and open-ended pledges of support to Kiev.

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, the EU has committed over €65 billion ($75 billion) in aid to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, with total pledges nearing €98 billion.

The Kremlin says it “remains open” to peace talks but says Kiev “is only seeking to keep the fighting going,” encouraged by the EU, which has severed any meaningful dialogue with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that EU states are now trying to elbow their way into the peace process despite what he called their openly hostile stance toward Russia – a “position of revanchism” that he believes should preclude the bloc from having a seat at the negotiating table.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 4 Comments

EU defense chief wants to use Ukrainian military as ‘security guarantee’

RT | November 18, 2025

EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has suggested using Ukrainian troops as an “additional security guarantee” to defend the bloc from the alleged threat of a Russian attack once the current conflict is resolved.

Western officials, particularly representatives of the Baltic states, have increasingly invoked the supposed Russian threat to justify major military spending spikes in recent months. Moscow has rejected claims it plans to attack anyone as “nonsense,” arguing the West is using Russia as a “monster” to stoke tensions, ramp up military budgets, and distract from domestic problems.

Speaking at the ‘Defending Baltics’ conference in Vilnius on Monday, Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister, said the bloc needs Ukraine’s “battle-tested” military to strengthen its borders.

“It would be good that a battle-tested Ukrainian army, after peace has been established in Ukraine, would be ready to be present in all the countries of our frontier region… next to the German brigade and the rotating US battalions as an additional guarantee for our security,” he stated.

Kubilius claimed Russia could attack the EU – starting with the Baltic states – within two-to-four years, and said Ukrainian troops can offer the bloc “the most precise answers” on how to defend itself. He suggested Brussels should find ways to integrate Ukrainian defense capabilities, soldiers, and industry into its military ecosystem.

The commissioner did not explain how Brussels could use the Ukrainian military without Kiev joining either the EU or NATO. While Kiev has demanded NATO accession, Moscow has opposed it, insisting Ukrainian neutrality and demilitarization must be part of any future settlement. The US and several other of Kiev’s backers are opposed to its membership.

Moscow has not yet responded to Kubilius’ remarks, but Russian officials have long accused the West of intending to fight “to the last Ukrainian” in their proxy war against Russia. Moscow has also warned that increased militarization only risks a wider conflict in Europe.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this week that Russia does not seek a confrontation with the West but could be forced to take measures to ensure its security in response to its increasingly “militaristic” rhetoric.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Western countries insist on failed strategy to defeat Russia – Mearsheimer

The US and its allies want to subordinate Moscow to their interests

By Lucas Leiroz | November 18, 2025

Western countries continue to insist on an irrational strategy of weakening Russia through military encirclement and economic pressure. This type of strategy has proven unsuccessful over the past few years, as Russia has managed to circumvent sanctions and embargoes, and is winning the conflict in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Western countries refuse to change their plans.

According to John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, the goal of defeating Russia is so important to the West that the US and its allies are even risking losing their own status as a global hegemon in this attempt. Moreover, Mearsheimer made it clear that Ukraine is not important to the West, being merely “cannon fodder” in this policy of hostilities against Russia.

He emphasized that Western countries even want to “defeat Ukraine” along with Russia – in other words, they want to neutralize the political and economic potential of a future integration between Ukraine and Russia. In this sense, the Kiev regime works as a junta in service of foreign powers that want the worst for the Ukrainian people – which explains the draconian policies of forced mobilization, which decimate thousands of Ukrainians without any effective military or strategic gain.

Mearsheimer stated that the West wants to “bring the Russians to their knees.” He acknowledges that so far no clear opportunity has arisen to do this, but makes it clear that the US and its allies would immediately take any opportunity to quickly defeat Russia. According to Mearsheimer’s assessment, the intention behind the conflict in Ukraine and the constant economic sanctions is simply to use military and economic pressure to progressively weaken Russia – but, unlike Western propagandists, he admits that these measures have not been sufficient to “finish Russia off as a great power.”

Mearsheimer also acknowledged the legitimacy of the Russian diplomatic position. He states that Russian President Vladimir Putin has sufficient reasons to distrust the intentions of the Collective West during the diplomatic dialogue. He praised Putin’s political abilities, describing him as a smart leader who understands the real international political situation and who acts considering the possibility of a worst-case scenario. Mearsheimer seems to believe that these virtues, which should be typical of any political leader, are currently rare in the West – which insists on strategies that have already proven useless.

“[The goal is] to defeat Russia and Ukraine, wreck the Russian economy with sanctions, and bring the Russians to their knees (…) We’ve been unable to do that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to do it, of course, we want to do it (…) If the opportunity to do it popped up tomorrow, we would leap at it in a second, we would love to finish Russia off as a great power (…) [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, the last time I checked, has a triple-digit IQ, and that means he’s figured this out, he understands what he’s dealing with (…) [Putin] is assuming worst case in good realist fashion,” he said.

It is important to remember that Mearsheimer is one of the most renowned authors in the field of International Relations in the West. Until a few years ago, he was widely recognized for his work as an academic, but now he has been frequently rejected and criticized in many Western universities for continuing to conduct realistic analyses and refusing to be a mere NATO propagandist. He does not speak as someone “pro-Russia” or “pro-West,” but as an international analyst trying to understand how states deal with global problems. And that is why he speaks publicly about the West’s real intentions regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

It seems increasingly clear that Ukraine has been used by the West since the beginning of the crisis, with no real intention ever to “militarily defeat Russia.” The Western objective is a long-term strategy focused on extinguishing Russian capabilities as a great power. In this game, Ukraine functions as a proxy whose objective is to “wear down” Russian defenses, but it has always been clear to the West that the Ukrainians would be defeated in this move.

On the “economic front,” the sanctions were similarly an attempt to isolate Russia from its traditional European partners – which failed to have an economic impact on Russia, since it is a self-sufficient country, with all the resources it needs, and a strong presence in the emerging Asian market.

Insisting on failed strategies is a serious mistake that could have an existential cost for the West. The path of pressure, isolation, and escalation can only lead to total war – which, in the case of Russia and NATO, would threaten the entire world. The best course of action, from a realistic point of view, is to negotiate while there is still time and establish mutually favorable terms of coexistence in a multipolar world.

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.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Signs Deal to Buy 100 Fighter Jets From France

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 17, 2025

During a meeting with French President Macron, Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a major weapons deal for Rafale fighters and drones. The warplanes will be delivered over the next decade, and Paris said training Ukrainian pilots will take at least three years.

“One of the most productive visits of this year, and certainly a new step in our strategic partnership with France. We have signed a historic agreement providing for a new fleet of fighter jets for Ukraine: 100 Rafales,” Zelensky wrote on X Tuesday.

He continued, “We will also receive highly effective French radars as well as new SAMP/T air defense systems, designed to precisely counter the types of missiles used against Ukraine. We have also agreed on the supply of air-to-air missiles and guided aerial bombs.”

The letter of intent signed by Zelensky will also see the transfer of drones and anti-drone systems to Ukraine.

Marcon and Zelensky did not provide a timeline on the transfer of the Rafales or who would pay for the weapons. Rafales cost over $100 million per plane. A French official said it would take at least three years to train the Ukrainian pilots.

Zelensky said Paris agreed to provide Kiev with some immediate security assistance. “France is additionally preparing a new package of military aid, which we will receive by the end of the year,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on X.

Zelensky was in France to attend a meeting of the “coalition of the willing.” The group is a bloc of European countries working to fill Kiev’s massive budget deficits. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to the leaders of the European Union’s member states, arguing that it was essential for the bloc to plug Ukraine’s $157 billion budget gap over the next two years.

Part of von der Leyen’s proposal calls for European nations to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Zelensky said he believed the coalition of the willing would be able to come to an agreement on this issue.

“I believe that in the end we’ll reach an agreement to push this topic to the end and be able to use Russian assets for the European defense package, for Ukrainian production, and for the most part for the air defense systems from the United States of America,” he said.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »