Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Arms Ukraine, Europe Pays the Bill

Sputnik – 23.01.2025

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on Thursday that European taxpayers would have to pay for US military supplies to Ukraine if the new US administration agreed to provide them.

“On Ukraine, we need US also to stay involved and to do as much as possible to get Ukraine in a position of strength, whenever peace talks start. But I can tell the Europeans, if this new Trump administration is willing to keep on supplying Ukraine from its defense industrial base, the bill will be paid by the Europeans,” he said at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.

The NATO chief said during the annual Ukrainian Breakfast event he was convinced that Europeans needed to be willing to pull their weight because, in his view, Americans were paying more despite being farther away from Ukraine than Europe.

Rutte also added that the alliance should increase its support for Ukraine in order to change the “wrong direction” in which the conflict is moving.

“We have to step up, not scale back, the support for Ukraine, we have to change the trajectory of the war which is ongoing, and so far we know the frontline is moving in the wrong direction,” Rutte said.

The annual WEF forum takes place from January 20-24 in the Swiss resort of Davos.

Russia believes arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the settlement process and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the United States and NATO not only supply weapons to Kiev but also train personnel in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and elsewhere, which he argues is not conducive to peace.

January 23, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Trump knows Ukraine conflict means nuclear WWIII, gives peace a chance with Russia’s Putin

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 23, 2025

The chances of a peace deal in Ukraine are suddenly a lot higher under President Donald Trump only because he has a realistic sense of a nuclear Third World War happening between the United States and Russia if that conflict is not ended promptly.

Peter Kuznick, an esteemed American professor of history, says that the Biden administration brought the world closer to a nuclear conflagration than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Biden did this by relentlessly arming Ukraine with weapons to strike deeper and deeper into Russia instead of trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Indeed, there was no diplomatic effort from Washington under Biden. It was ideologically and propaganda-driven for confrontation, as was the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris.

Kuznick points out that Trump is no John F Kennedy in terms of the latter’s depth of historical and philosophical knowledge. But in comparison with Joe Biden, Trump has shown more humanity and common sense by not insulting Putin and in reaching out for a peaceful end to the slaughter in Ukraine. Biden called Putin a thug and said he would back Ukraine as long as it takes to defeat Russia. The last Democrat administration spent $175 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money propping up a NeoNazi regime in Kiev that has lost over one million military casualties since the war erupted in February 2022.

By contrast, newly inaugurated President Trump says that he wants to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a priority to find a peaceful way out of the conflict and to avoid a catastrophic escalation between nuclear powers. Putin has welcomed a meeting with the new president and said he appreciates the urgent concern to avoid a nuclear disaster.

Kuznick is author of The Untold History of the United States, which was coauthored with acclaimed film director Oliver Stone. The book was turned into an award-winning television series aired on Showtime, Netflix and other channels. Kuznick deplores the way the U.S. and NATO partners undermined international security by expanding on Russia’s borders despite earlier promises to the Soviet leaders that would not happen.

If peace is to be found in Ukraine, it must be based on a bigger picture of lasting global security that considers all nations’ concerns.

That means the United States must treat Russia’s national security concerns over NATO’s expansion seriously and respectfully. Can the Trump administration deliver? It is packed with hawkish figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Donald Trump is better placed than the Biden adminstration to cut a deal with Russia for peace in Ukraine and thereby avoid nuclear disaster, says Kuznick.

Trump’s cabinet is filled with billionaires and his mercurial, superficial understanding of the world can be deprecated. Maybe his peaceful aspirations are muddled and not feasible given that Trump is surrounded by hawkish figures.

But at least he is willing to give peace a chance with Russia over Ukraine. That alone makes Trump a welcome change from the vile warmongering of Biden and his would-be successor Kamala Harris.

January 23, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | January 22, 2025

On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development.

The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind.

Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried.

According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.”

‘Direct Conflict’

One objective was “avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO.” Miraculously, despite the US and its allies consistently crossing Moscow’s clearly stated red lines on assistance to Kiev, providing Ukraine with weaponry and other support Biden himself explicitly and vehemently ruled out in March 2022, on the grounds it could cause World War III, and greenlighting hazardously escalatory strikes deep inside Russian territory, so far all-out hot war has failed to materialise. On this front perhaps, the former President can be said to have triumphed.

However, another “was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.” This prospect dwindles daily, as the proxy war’s frontline teeters constantly on total collapse. Kiev is facing an eventual and seemingly inevitable rout of some magnitude, with the conflict likely settled solely on Russia’s terms, and Zelensky – or whoever replaces him – having no negotiating position to speak of. In December 2024, Empire house journal Foreign Policy even openly advocated cutting Kiev out of eventual peace talks.

Biden also “wanted the US and its allies to remain united.” It is this objective that most obviously failed, and quite spectacularly. As this journalist has repeatedly documented, British intelligence has consistently sought to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out war between the West and Russia, and encouraged Kiev in its maximalist aims, to the extent of covertly plotting grand operations for the purpose, and training Ukrainians to execute them. London’s overriding ambition, per leaked documents, is “to keep Ukraine fighting at all costs.”

The Western media has acknowledged Ukraine’s calamitous August 2024 invasion of Russia’s Kursk region was to all intents and purposes a British operation. London provided a vast welter of equipment to Kiev “central” to the effort, and “closely” advised their Ukrainian counterparts on strategy. The aim was to draw Russian forces away from Donbass and boost Kiev’s bargaining position, which has proven a staggering embarrassment on both fronts. But there was a wider, more insidious goal behind the incursion.

Britain openly and eagerly advertised its fundamental role in the Kursk misadventure to bolster public support at home for continuing the proxy war, and “persuade key allies to do more to help.” In other words, to normalise open Western involvement, and create the “direct conflict” the Biden administration was so keen to avoid. London was also at the forefront of pressuring NATO member states to permit Ukraine to use foreign-supplied weaponry and materiel inside Russia, which could likewise produce their long-sought hot war against Moscow.

Several Western countries – including the US – have offered such authorisation. Yet, Russia has consistently responded to strikes deep inside its territory with heavy duty counterattacks, which Kiev has been unable to repel. Meanwhile, London’s invitation to its allies to become more overtly involved in the proxy war was evidently rebuffed. In November 2024 too, pro-government outlet Ukrainska Pravda published a startling investigation, documenting in forensic detail how the October 2023 – June 2024 Krynky operation was, à la Kursk, essentially British.

Never spoken of by Ukrainian officials today, the nine-month effort saw wave after wave of British-trained and equipped marines attempt to secure a beachhead in a river-adjacent village in Russian-controlled Kherson. Poorly prepared, many died attempting to reach Krynky, due to relentless artillery, drone, flamethrower and mortar fire. Of those that survived the nightmarish journey, most were then killed under a constant and ever-intensifying blitz, in marsh conditions. Russia’s onslaught grew so inexorable, evacuating casualties or providing forces with even basic supplies became borderline impossible.

Survivors of the Krynky catastrophe – one of the absolute worst in military history – who spoke to Ukrainska Pravda revealed it was hoped the beachhead would be a “game-changer”, opening a second front in the conflict, allowing Kiev’s invading marines to march upon Crimea and all-out victory in the proxy war. They hoped to recreate the June 1944 Normandy landings – D-Day. It is all too easy to envisage British intelligence filling the heads of their Ukrainian trainees with such fantasies.

‘Settle Up’

Fast forward to today, and Britain and France are openly discussing sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine, to “help underpin” whatever “post-war settlement” emerges between Kiev and Moscow. This is after in February 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested formally deploying his country’s forces to Ukraine to halt Moscow’s advance. The proposal was summarily dropped and forgotten when Russian officials made abundantly clear each and every French soldier dispatched to the frontline would be killed without hesitation, and Paris could become a formal belligerent in the war.

It appears the “peacekeeping” plan is likely to suffer the same fate. On January 20th, coincidentally or not the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, CIA-created Radio Free Europe published an explainer guide on why sending European troops to Ukraine is “a nonstarter”. Among other things, as the Russians are unambiguously winning, they are unlikely to offer many concessions, particularly allowing foreign soldiers to occupy Kiev’s territory. Furthermore, “as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Moscow can block any peacekeeping mission.”

As if the message to London and Paris wasn’t emphatic enough, two weeks earlier, at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump made numerous comments reiterating his commitment to ending the proxy war. “We’re going to have to settle up with Russia,” he declared. Notably, the President sympathised with Moscow’s “written in stone” determination Kiev not be enrolled into NATO, warned the situation “could escalate to be much worse,” and stated his hope the conflict could be wrapped up within six months.

Markedly, Zelensky was not invited to Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he was unable to attend, as it wasn’t “proper” to do so “during the war”. Amusingly, Trump’s son Donald Jr. has rubbished Zelensky’s narrative, claiming the – “weirdo” – had specifically “asked for an invite” on three occasions, “and each time got turned down.”

For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance.

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

Ukraine Was Always Just Anti-Russian ‘Battering Ram’ to US – Ex-Pentagon Analyst

Sputnik – 21.01.2025

The Trump administration has little interest in wasting money on Ukraine, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, former analyst for the US Department of Defense, tells Sputnik while commenting on Trump’s decision to suspend US foreign aid programs.

Withholding monies to Ukraine is a “starting point in explaining to Zelensky that the gravy train is over,” the expert thinks.

It has become increasingly obvious that the United States “doesn’t care for Ukraine,” regarding the latter merely as a “battering ram,” a “tool” to be used against Russia, Kwiatkowski remarks.

“So if Ukraine is a tool, it’s now a tool that is no longer very useful. It’s a tool that is hard to maintain. It’s not worth it. So we’re going to throw that tool away,” she says.

US Senator Lindsey Graham’s declaration about fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” however heartless it may sound, “reflects how the Senate and how the politicians and the oligarchy in the United States really feel about Ukraine,” she added.

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

Trump’s Second Act: What it means for Russia and the global order

By Andrey Ilnitsky | Kommersant | January 16, 2025

The idea of inflicting “strategic defeats” on Russia has been a cornerstone of US policy for a long time. It transcends party lines and is implemented regardless of which administration occupies the White House. The only real differences lie in the methods used to achieve this objective. In this era of global transformation, it is critical for Moscow to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of its opponents. By understanding the nuances of US President Donald Trump’s administration – now back in power – Russia must craft its own strategy of resilience and development, rooted in sovereign interests.

This is not a new game. In 2014, Foreign Affairs published an article by John Mearsheimer, the renowned American political scientist behind the theory of offensive realism. In his piece, Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, Mearsheimer argued that NATO’s strategic ambitions in Eastern Europe provoked Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine. His insights, dismissed at the time, have since been vindicated by events.

Fast forward to December 2024: Mearsheimer’s skepticism resurfaced in an interview with Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, published by UnHerd. Mearsheimer doubted that Trump, despite his unconventional rhetoric, would bring meaningful change to US policy. “Trump is surrounded by hawks with deeply entrenched Russophobia,” he observed. While Trump’s personal views might differ from Washington orthodoxy, the forces shaping his administration remain aligned with America’s long-standing ambitions of hegemony.

Trump’s first term demonstrated this paradox clearly. Despite his campaign promises to “get along with Russia” and even consider recognizing Crimea, little changed. While Trump and President Vladimir Putin met six times and engaged in what seemed like constructive dialogue, US policy continued to push Russia out of global energy markets, impose sanctions, and arm Ukraine. At a 2023 rally, Trump himself dismissed accusations of being “soft on Russia,” boasting that he had sent “hundreds of Javelins” to Ukraine while the Obama administration sent “pillows.”

Expecting Trump’s second term to usher in a multipolar and equitable global order would be naive. The real power behind Trump’s administration – interest groups, corporations, and donors – has little incentive to pursue peace. His 2023-2024 campaign received significant backing from military-industrial giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as well as Silicon Valley’s venture capital elite. These forces thrive on perpetual conflict, where war is repackaged as “peace through strength.”

Trump’s geopolitical priorities are clear: undermine China’s rise as an economic and technological powerhouse while maintaining pressure on Russia. Elbridge Colby, a key figure in Trump’s foreign policy team, has articulated this strategy bluntly. Writing in May 2024, Colby argued that America must prioritize Asia – specifically China – over Europe and Russia. “The logic of Cold War strategy,” he wrote, “once led America to Europe; today it suggests that America should focus on Asia. China is the main rival.”

The inclusion of Marco Rubio in Trump’s foreign policy apparatus reinforces this anti-China focus. Rubio, a staunch critic of Beijing, has long warned of China’s ambitions to become the world’s dominant power “at the expense of everyone else.” Trump’s pivot to Asia is clear, but his strategy remains rooted in American exceptionalism and hegemony.

Domestically, Trump’s team envisions America as a “subcontinental fortress,” invoking a modernized Monroe Doctrine. This vision includes greater control over Canada, Greenland, and Panama, and a tighter grip on Central and South America. The goal? To secure America’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere while sidelining external powers like China and Russia.

Technology and military innovation are central to this vision. Trump’s administration aims to leverage artificial intelligence and cutting-edge dual-use technologies to maintain global superiority. This requires a complete reboot of the US military-industrial complex and a closer alignment between civilian industries and defense objectives. However, the question remains: can Washington, with its internal divisions and waning influence, successfully implement such an ambitious strategy?

For Russia, this geopolitical landscape poses serious challenges but also offers opportunities. The unipolar world order led by the US is undeniably weakening. Multipolarity is no longer just an aspiration; it is becoming a reality. However, the US and its allies are not retreating quietly. Instead, they are intensifying hybrid warfare against nations like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – countries labeled as “revisionist regimes.”

Trump’s rhetoric may appear bold and unconventional, but his administration’s actions are predictable. The MAGA doctrine of 2024 is less about genuine transformation and more about reasserting US dominance at any cost. Whether through economic coercion, military intervention, or ideological posturing, the goal remains the same: enforce a world order dictated by Washington.

For Russia, the path forward is clear. We must remain steadfast in defending our sovereignty and values. Unlike the West, which prioritizes hegemony, Russia stands for a multipolar world where nations have the right to determine their own destinies. The challenges are immense, but so are the opportunities. In this new era of great power competition, Russia’s resolve will be tested, but our commitment to our people and our principles will guide us through.

Andrey Ilnitsky is a member of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy and senior research fellow at the Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

This article was first published by the newspaper Kommersant and was translated and edited by the RT team.

January 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Blinken slammed by NYT as the “Secretary of War” for continuing war in Ukraine, Gaza

By Ahmed Adel | January 21, 2025

During his final trip as America’s top diplomat last week, Antony J. Blinken was described by French President Emmanuel Macron as “an eminent servant of peace” at a ceremony at the Élysée Palace in Paris before being awarded the country’s highest tribute, the Legion of Honour medal. However, Blinken’s reception in the US during the last few days as Secretary of State has been the polar opposite, with the New York Times describing him as the “Secretary of War” and protestors slamming him for having a “legacy” of genocide.

“Secretary Blinken! Your legacy will be genocide! You will forever be known as ‘Bloody Blinken, Secretary of Genocide,’” shouted a protester who had infiltrated an Atlantic Council event on January 16. Security officers led the protestor out of the room, as well as a man who waved a sign that read “Blinken: War Criminal.”

The founder and editor of the Grayzone website, Max Blumenthal, also interrupted the press conference, telling Blinken: “In Gaza, 300 journalists have been targeted by your bombs. We all know there was an agreement in May. Tony, you didn’t stop the flow of bombs. Why have you sacrificed a rules-based order for your commitment to Zionism?”

The Biden administration faced consistent criticism for its military and political support for Israel through its war against Hamas, which has only elevated since US President Donald Trump, days before he entered the Oval Office, managed to coerce Israel to accept a peace deal that had been on the table for most of 2024.

However, beyond activist-journalists, even the mainstream media in the US began slamming Blinken, but only days before stepping down as Secretary of State.

Blinken’s term began with the disorderly withdrawal of US personnel from Afghanistan, where Washington had accumulated forces and assets for 20 years and left everything in only a few days in August 2021. The situation was so precarious that some Republican Party congressmen demanded that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken resign, recalls the New York Times.

In a recent interview with the same newspaper, Blinken admitted that Washington began discreetly arming Kiev even before the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, specifically in September and December 2021.

In the new article, the newspaper said that the US Secretary of State was more of a war strategist than a peacemaker in the Ukrainian conflict.

“When the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark A. Milley, suggested in late 2022 that Ukraine should capitalize on battlefield gains by seeking peace talks with Moscow, Mr. Blinken insisted the fight should go on,” the New York Times reported.

However, it was a new armed conflict that significantly damaged the reputation of the former head of US diplomacy. After the attack by Hamas against Israel on October 7, 2023, Blinken stressed not only the historic alliance between Tel Aviv and Washington but also his Jewish ethnicity on this issue.

But the more frightening Israel’s methods of warfare in Gaza became, the more public disillusionment with the Secretary of State grew against the backdrop of the declining effectiveness of his numerous visits to the Middle East.

“Of everyone in the cast of characters at the top, Antony Blinken has been the most disappointing,” the newspaper quoted diplomat and Iraq war veteran Michael Casey, who resigned last year from his State Department post in Jerusalem, where he worked on Gaza.

In fact, Blinken’s propensity for war has led to the New York Times finally acknowledging, albeit too late since Trump is already in power, as the “Secretary of War.”

“So entwined are Mr. Blinken’s work and his reputation with conflict that he could just as easily be called by a retired cabinet title that is still on office plaques in the old State Department building — secretary of war,” the newspaper added.

Following the chorus condemning Blinken’s passion for war, Hala Rharrit, a diplomat who resigned from the US State Department in April, said that the former Secretary of State’s choice to support Israel would “haunt” him for the rest of his life.

“When I became a diplomat, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. They are circumventing the process to continue the flow of arms, knowing how catastrophic that is. For me, it’s really unforgivable, and it is criminal,” Rharrit said.

“This will haunt him for the rest of his life. History, for sure, will judge him, and it is already doing so today,” she added.

Blinken’s legacy is tarnished, and he will forever be remembered for encouraging the continuation of war in Ukraine and Gaza when he had the power and influence to establish peace deals.

This was completely exposed when Trump managed to achieve an agreement between Israel and Gaza even before he returned to the presidency, confirming that prolonged war, and therefore the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, was because of Blinken’s decision.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

January 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Can Trump Fix Our Broken Foreign Policy?

By Ron Paul | January 20, 2025

By the time most of you read this column, we will have a new US President. Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated for his second term today at 11:30 AM, Eastern time, and many Americans are hopeful that the disastrous foreign policy of the past four years under Biden will be improved. There is good news and bad news.

First the good news. It is no surprise that Trump’s appointees to foreign policy and national security positions are to the person very hawkish on China. However Trump, as he often does, has defied conventional wisdom on what his China policy might be by not only inviting Chinese leader Xi Jinping to attend the inauguration, but actually picking up the telephone and having a conversation with his Chinese counterpart.

According to a read-out of the call, the two discussed “trade, fentanyl, TikTok, and other subjects” and agreed to remain in regular contact. Winston Churchill is often (inaccurately) credited with the phrase “jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” but nonetheless it is an accurate statement. It is much better to engage even with “adversaries” than to refuse contact and add more sanctions. Those who prefer sanctions over communications are the true isolationists.

On TikTok, the popular application has credited Trump with preventing the Congressional ban from taking effect. If true, it is another good Trump move in favor of our Constitutional free speech guarantees.

Likewise with Russia, media reports suggest that holding a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin will be among the first things Trump does as President. That is great news for all of humanity, as Biden’s dangerous proxy war in Ukraine and refusal to communicate with the Russian president has brought us to the very edge of a once-unimaginable nuclear exchange. When the end of life on earth is at stake, it is reckless to ignore the possibility of de-escalation.

In the Middle East, incoming President Trump is being credited with securing a ceasefire in Gaza, an achievement the Biden Administration seemed incapable of or uninterested in seriously attempting for the past year. Does Trump deserve all the credit? We don’t know. But we do know that thousands have been needlessly slaughtered while Biden dithered and sent more weapons. The wholesale destruction of Gaza with US bombs and financial support will be Biden’s enduring legacy and a stain on everyone involved.

The bad news is that because of President Trump’s decision to appoint the most hawkish advisors, he will be surrounded by individuals who will constantly encourage him to confront rather than disengage. For example, his special envoy on the Ukraine war has recently boxed Trump in on Iran by declaring a return to the failed “maximum pressure” campaign of his first Administration. The policy failed to achieve the desired results when first implemented and it will fail again if adopted again. Why? Iran has developed far more extensive trade ties outside the influence of the US government, for example among the BRICS countries. It is not possible to isolate Iran as it has been in the past. As with China and others, with Iran it would be far better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. Let’s hope President Trump understands that.

We will no doubt see some disappointments in incoming President Trump’s foreign policy, but there are solid reasons to be cautiously optimistic. Particularly when measured against his predecessor.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Americans say US spends too much on Ukraine – poll

RT | January 20, 2025

The majority of Americans believe the US government is spending too much on aid for Ukraine, a recent New York Times/Ipsos opinion poll suggests.

According to the findings, 51% of respondents say the country is “spending too much” on Kiev, while 28% believe the current amount is appropriate. Only 17% say the country should boost spending on Ukraine.

Similarly, 53% of those surveyed say US aid to Israel is excessive, with 30% considering it adequate. The survey, conducted from January 2 to 10, involved 2,128 people nationwide.

Public sentiment reflected in the survey suggests that most Americans want Washington to prioritize domestic issues over foreign aid. Among the respondents, 60% say the US “should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home,” while only 38% believe the country should continue to be active in global affairs. The poll also indicates that 60% believe the US government is “almost always wasteful and inefficient,” while 72% say it is “working to benefit itself” and its own agenda, not the people.

This comes after the government’s recent decision to provide Ukraine with an additional $500 million military aid package, announced on January 8. Congress has appropriated a total of over $175 billion on assistance for Kiev since the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022, of which $65.9 billion has been direct military assistance, according to the latest data from the Pentagon.

US spending on Ukraine has recently drawn criticism from Marco Rubio, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state in the upcoming administration. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as part of his confirmation last week, he said the US should no longer give Kiev indefinite support and criticized the outgoing administration of President Joe Biden for failing to clearly delineate the “end goal” of the funds it has been pouring into the conflict.

“What exactly were we funding? What exactly were we putting money towards?” he asked, saying the current approach of “however much it takes for however long it takes” is not realistic.

Moscow has warned that Western aid to Ukraine only serves to prolong the conflict without changing the outcome. It has said it is willing to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, but maintained that any settlement must begin with Kiev ceasing military operations and acknowledging the reality that it will not regain control of former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia. Moscow has also insisted upon Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification.

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

With FPÖ party in government Austria might stop supporting Ukraine

By Patrick Poppel | January 20, 2025

FPÖ delegation leader in the EU Harald Vilimsky criticized the video of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the attitude of the President of the European Parliament, who wants to wage war “as long as necessary.” The video of Zelensky in the European Parliament was once again accompanied by questionable statements.

In particular, the statements by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, who emphasized the EU’s support for Ukraine with the vague attribute “as long as necessary,” raise serious questions for the Freedom Party delegation leader. “Does ‘as long as necessary’ mean that this war will be fought to the last Ukrainian soldier, without giving peace and diplomacy a real chance?” Vilimsky asked.

He also criticized the stance of the European Parliament, which he believes reflects a frightening level of war rhetoric. “It is noteworthy that even factions such as the Socialists and the Left, who otherwise present themselves as peace parties, are now calling for more weapons and ammunition,” said the head of the Freedom Party delegation.

He stressed that the FPÖ, on the other hand, is clearly sticking to its line. “We are committed to de-escalation, diplomacy and peace negotiations. In this context, we expressly support the peace plans of the newly elected US President Donald Trump, which could enable a rapid end to the war.”

This situation in the European Parliament clearly shows the difference between the established structures and the opposition. But now this opposition is on the rise. The FPÖ is receiving more and more support not only in the EU elections, but also in the national elections.

The FPÖ will most likely be part of the government in Austria and then what those responsible in the party have always demanded will happen. FPÖ federal party chairman Kickl, for example, said earlier: “A possible ceasefire must be the starting signal for peace negotiations on neutral ground.”

“Now is the time to bring Austria’s importance as a neutral country into play in order to end the bloodshed in Ukraine,” said Herbert Kickl. “In the tradition of great statesmen like Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian federal government is called upon to use this new situation to actively offer Austria as a neutral place for further negotiations in order to finally end this senseless conflict.”

The FPÖ has been the only party in Austria since 2022 to call for peace in Ukraine as soon as possible and has been wrongly ridiculed as a party of “Putin’s friends”. The party also does a very good job of linking the issue of conflict and sanctions with social issues. The poor economic development is clearly seen as a consequence of the sanctions and this is how it is communicated to the people.

With an “FPÖ government”, Austria will become another state alongside Hungary that will actively work for peace in Europe. This trend could also reach many other states. In addition, this must always be seen in the context of the inauguration of Donald Trump. Geopolitically, the cards are now being reshuffled.

The FPÖ’s participation in the government is also the first step towards reviving Austrian neutrality, which was de facto abolished by the previous government through the sanctions policy. Historically and practically, Austria would then again be a good place for diplomatic projects and thus also a good place for future Ukrainian peace talks.

The rise of the FPÖ in Austria could therefore also have a geopolitical aspect and be of great international importance. Together with Hungary and other serious patriotic forces, a possible FPÖ government is also a problem for the globalist forces in the EU.

Particularly in the question of sanctions policy, there could be a development that could lead to the EU’s course being questioned more and more by individual member states. Austria and Hungary are being heard within the European Union.

The parliamentary platform “Patriots for Europe” within the EU will also gain a political weight as a result of the FPÖ’s victory. Indeed, one can clearly see a trend in the political landscape of Europe. And the best example of this trend is a general movement to defend national interests against the leadership of the EU. This development is now continuing in other countries. It is a movement critical of the EU, but one that is “very European”.

Patrick Poppel, expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Blinken overruled America’s top general on Ukraine peace talks – NYT

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in front of a memorial for fallen Ukrainian soldiers, Kiev, Ukraine, May 14, 2024. © Getty Images / STR/NurPhoto
RT | January 20, 2025

Outgoing US State Secretary Antony Blinken urged Ukraine to continue its military efforts against Russia rather than pursue peace negotiations in 2022, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

In late 2022, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley advised Kiev to capitalize on its battlefield successes by seeking peace talks with Moscow. However, Blinken insisted that Ukraine should press on with its military campaign, the newspaper wrote.

“Less a peacemaker than a war strategist,” the US diplomat frequently argued against more “risk-averse Pentagon officials,” lobbying for advanced American weaponry to be sent to Ukraine, NYT wrote.

Washington has spent “approximately $100 billion” on Ukraine since the conflict escalated in February 2022, while allies and partners have contributed an additional $150 billion, Blinken said during a January appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The outgoing Biden administration has expedited arms deliveries to Kiev ahead of the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump, who has indicated that he might reduce military aid to Ukraine in favor of addressing domestic priorities.

The Biden administration had been covertly arming Ukraine months before the conflict intensified, Blinken admitted in a January interview with the NYT. “Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defend themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use,” he said.

Russia and Ukraine initially engaged in peace negotiations in early 2022 in Istanbul. Both sides provisionally agreed to a truce under which Kiev would renounce its NATO membership ambitions, adopt neutrality, and limit its military size in exchange for international security guarantees. However, Ukraine later withdrew from the talks at the urging of then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, according to David Arakhamia, a Zelensky-allied MP and chief negotiator for Kiev.

Last month, Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch similarly accused the US and UK of derailing peace talks between Kiev and Moscow. Speaking to the French-language media outlet Anti-Thèse, Ruch claimed that Johnson acted “on duty for the Americans.”

Moscow has reiterated its willingness to resume peace negotiations, provided they are based on the Istanbul draft agreements and reflect the “new territorial realities,” including the accession of four former Ukrainian regions to Russia and recent battlefield developments.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russian Victory or Political Settlement in Ukraine?

Ambassador Chas Freeman, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | January 15, 2025

I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Ambassador Chas Freeman, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Besides being a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman’s career included opening China with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon in the 1970s and developing the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe.

We discussed the messy world that the Biden Administration is handing over to Trump. There is seemingly a genuine desire to end the proxy war in Ukraine, and Trump may also achieve a ceasefire in Palestine. However, NATO’s escalations in Ukraine to sabotage possible negotiations and the reckless support for HTS in Syria have reduced the possibilities available to Trump. Will the Ukraine War be resolved by a Russian victory or a political settlement?

January 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Graham Calls on Trump to Take Out Iran Nuclear Facilities

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 19, 2025

Ultra-hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham said incoming President Donald Trump should take out Iran’s nuclear facilities once he returns to power. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, but the South Carolina Republican said Trump should take advantage of Iran’s weakened position to strike the Islamic Republic.

Graham was interviewed Sunday by Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.” “The next topic I will be engaging in with President Trump, is to take this moment in time to decimate the Iran nuclear program,” he said. “I don’t think diplomacy works. [Iran’s] proxies [are] incredibly weakened. Israel can go anywhere they wanna go.”

Graham claimed Iran had been weakened in the Middle East, making it an opportune time to attack Tehran. That view is also shared by Trump’s envoy to the Ukraine conflict. Last week, retired General Keith Kellog said there was an opportunity “to change Iran for the better” but said it wouldn’t last for long. Adding, “We must exploit the weakness we now see. The hope is there, so must too be the action.”

While Tehran has limited its nuclear program to civilian purposes, for decades, politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv have warned that Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons. The US intelligence community recently restated that the Islamic Republic is not attempting to weaponize its nuclear program.

In 2015, then-President Barack Obama negotiated a deal with Iran that placed unprecedented safeguards and inspections on Tehran’s nuclear program. Graham was a stalwart opponent of the Iran Nuclear Deal, and Trump broke the deal during his first term when Tehran was in compliance.

Trump brands himself a great negotiator and said on the campaign trail that he would “have to make a deal” with Iran if reelected. Graham told Brennan that it was impossible to engage diplomatically with Iran.

“This is a … religious Nazi regime,” he said. “They want to destroy the Jewish state. They wanna purify Islam and drive us out of the Mideast. It’d be like negotiating with Hitler. I am hoping there will be an effort by Israel to decimate the Iran nuclear program supported by the United States, and if we don’t do that, it’ll be a historical mistake.”

Earlier this month, Axios reported that there was a “real possibility” of American strikes on Iran during Trump’s second term.

January 19, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »