Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Journalists persecuted for exposing Ukrainian military’s crimes

By Lucas Leiroz | June 30, 2026

The Kiev regime has long been known for its authoritarian and dictatorial practices, constantly violating the most basic democratic principles and values, such as freedom of speech and the press. Journalists have been censored, arrested, sanctioned, and – in the most extreme cases – even murdered by the regime, revealing its deeply anti-democratic nature, despite Western propaganda’s insistence on portraying it as a “guardian of European values.”

In a recent incident involving violation of press freedom, Ukrainian military threatened to use force to “punish” journalists who exposed abuses committed by recruitment centers. An officer from Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skelia” (formerly “Skala”) recently threatened journalists who had revealed allegations of torture among the regiment’s recruits.

The journalists had previously reported various types of abuse within the unit, noting that new recruits were subjected to torture – with some even dying as a result of the physical mistreatment they endured. According to information shared by the journalists, at least 26 Skelia soldiers have died in the last six months. These deaths occurred at the unit’s training grounds, where recruits were forced to withstand severe torture.

The reported practices included “beatings, forced confinement, people being bound with tape or handcuffs, and cases of draftees with serious health issues being subject to grueling assault training.” It is important to note that forced mobilization policies in Ukraine are being implemented in a draconian manner; practically any man is mobilized once located by the authorities. Consequently, individuals with health issues or no prior military experience end up in these training centers, where they are subjected to rigorous physical tests for which they are neither physically nor mentally prepared.

The allegations caused an upheaval in Ukrainian society and generated intense public pressure on military authorities. To suppress the public outrage – particularly that of the victims’ families – the government decided to remove the unit’s commander, Lieutenant Colonel Yury Harkaviy, from his post. Investigations into the matter are ongoing, at least in theory. It remains unclear whether the commander and his team will face criminal charges for the torture and murder of the soldiers who died during training.

However, the authorities’ action against the unit’s commander does not appear to be truly effective. In practice, this seems to be merely a way to contain public pressure and mask what is actually happening: the persecution of the journalists involved in the report. An officer from the unit, Nikolay Kharlan, posted a video threatening the journalists, insulting them, and accusing them of “spreading misinformation for cash.” He claimed that no illegal acts occurred during the recruits’ training and harshly criticized the decision to remove his commander.

Kharlan criticized the government, accusing it of failing to fulfill its duty to protect Ukrainian military personnel. Furthermore, he stated that, given the government’s inaction, the troops themselves would take the initiative to protect their unit, thus suggesting that reprisals would be imposed on journalists. He also said he did not believe that 26 soldiers had died due to training abuses, describing the allegation as “Russian propaganda.”

“There should be criminal liability for this (…) [The government] removed itself from fulfilling its duties (…) In this case, the units of the armed forces will be able to defend themselves (…) Of the 26 people who died, 18 died in medical institutions – not at Skelia. This s**t is absolutely insane. Nine suicides? This information is false, and does not correspond to reality (…) [This is] Russian propaganda,” he said.

Although Kharlan spoke out against the government and threatened other Ukrainian citizens in his statement, no action has been taken by the authorities to punish him so far. This is due to a simple reason: the Ukrainian government lost control over its military long ago. Kiev is held hostage by military units formed by fanatical nationalists, with the formal authorities serving merely as the public face of an extremely violent and authoritarian dictatorial regime.

The decision to remove the commander will likely have only a temporary effect, intended to ease public pressure and prevent popular demonstrations in support of the victims’ families. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the military are taking the initiative to go after journalists – who, unless they take appropriate protective measures or flee the country, will face critical danger to their lives. The government will also do nothing to protect these journalists or prevent the military from attacking them, given that the government itself is known for constantly violating press freedom and turning a blind eye to crimes committed by the military.

This case clearly reveals the true nature of the Ukrainian regime, which bears no resemblance to the European media narratives of “democracy and freedom.” In reality, the Ukrainian people live under one of the most brutal dictatorships in the 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.

June 30, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Journalists persecuted for exposing Ukrainian military’s crimes

Congress blocks Massie-Khanna effort to kill US-Israel integration

By Ben Freeman | Responsible Statecraft | June 29, 2026

Congress has refused to even allow a full House vote on a provision that would pave the way for an unprecedented integration of the U.S. and Israeli military industrial complexes.

The move came through the House’s Rules process for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which determines which of the more than one-thousand proposed amendments to the defense policy bill will be publicly debated and voted upon by the full House. Unfortunately, after no debate on Monday, the Rules Committee chose to reject a bipartisan amendment introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that would have stripped the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” from the bill.

The committee released a list of amendments that were ruled “in order” for a vote on Monday night, and theirs was not on it.

This provision they wanted to squelch, previously known as Section 224, creates an executive agent within the Department of Defense whose sole responsibility is furthering U.S. and Israeli military tech integration across nearly every facet of the defense process, from co-producing weapons to “data fusion.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described this shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship as “my plan.”

Top-ranking former national security officials have lambasted the proposal and raised serious alarms about what its passage would mean for U.S. national security. Joe Kent, the former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center explained that, “The dangers of allowing any other nation to access our sensitive military technologies are obvious, including the fact that back doors and spyware can be installed that will most certainly be used by the Israelis to influence U.S. policy.”

Paul Pillar, who spent more than a quarter century working at the Central Intelligence Agency, has raised serious concerns about Section 224 and a related measure that would effectively force the U.S. to share intelligence with Israel. “In intelligence, Israel is more of an adversary than an ally. Being an adversary in intelligence means indulging in the hostile act of espionage. Israel has a long record of conducting that type of hostile act against the United States,” Pillar wrote in Responsible Statecraft.

To Pillar’s point, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials recently revealed that Israeli espionage efforts in the U.S. have been deemed “critical,” the highest threat level in the DIA system.

By rejecting the Khanna and Massie amendment, the Rules Committee on Monday ensured the American public would not even get to see how their representatives would vote on this pivotal issue. This is despite unprecedented levels of public distrust in the Israeli government and widespread public outrage directed at these proposals.

Constituents from across the country have let their representatives know, in every way possible, that they do not support any further military industrial integration with Israel. The story went viral on social media, with commenters flagging the issue for their representatives. Letters to the editor opposing Section 224 have appeared in papers all over the nation, and, critically, Republican and Democratic staffers who have spoken to Quincy Institute colleagues have reported being inundated with calls from constituents about this issue.

While the Rules Committees decision is undoubtedly a setback for those worried about this unprecedented U.S.-Israel military industrial integration, the Senate is considering its own version of the Section 224 proposal, and ultimately the two versions of the NDAA will have to be negotiated in a Conference Committee.

All of these points are opportunities to strip this dangerous provision from the defense policy bill. If they fail and this provision is enacted, the U.S. will find itself inexorably tied to the Israeli military. As my Quincy Institute colleague Steve Simon has written, “The measure risks tethering the US military to its Israeli counterpart technologically and making it difficult to uproot should conditions change.” In short, there may be no turning back if this provision becomes law, so the next few months may very well decide the U.S.-Israel relationship for decades to come.

Ben Freeman is Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute and the author of “The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home” (2025)

June 30, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Congress blocks Massie-Khanna effort to kill US-Israel integration

Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

The Cradle | June 29, 2026

Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, said on 29 June that the new US-brokered agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv – reached in violation of Lebanese law – “will not be implemented.”

“This agreement will not pass, and it will not be implemented,” Berri said in an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper.

He stressed that his opposition to the agreement will remain “within constitutional frameworks,” and that his party – which is closely allied to Hezbollah – “will not boycott any cabinet session in which the agreement is discussed.”

“That is where we will confront it and state our position,” he added.

“The greatest danger posed by the agreement is not only its political content but also the possibility that it could fuel internal divisions and provoke Lebanese factions into confronting one another – something that would serve Israel above all else.”

Berri also responded to reports and claims that Lebanese authorities were planning to dismiss Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) chief Rudolphe Haikal.

“No one should even joke about such an idea, and no one should play games with the army. The military institution is a red line and one of the pillars of national stability and the primary guarantee for preserving civil peace,” the parliament speaker told Al-Akhbar.

Haikal, over the past year, has reportedly refused to move ahead with Hezbollah disarmament plans while Lebanon remains occupied and under attack. He is also said to have threatened resignation over the matter in 2025.

During a trip to Washington weeks before the latest war, Haikal angered US officials after he refused to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization at a meeting in Washington.

Hezbollah official Nawaf al-Moussawi recently said that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had plans to dismiss the army chief.

During Monday’s interview with the Lebanese parliament speaker, Berri went on to refer to the Lebanon–Israel agreement as a series of “dictates.”

The speaker called the deal “10 times worse than the 17 May Agreement of 1983,” referring to a Lebanese–Israeli peace deal decades ago which failed to materialize.

Berri, who at the time was at the start of his political career, played a key role in collapsing the 17 May 1983 agreement.

“I’d take 17 May 10 times over this agreement,” Berri stressed.

Berri also affirmed that the only way to achieve the country’s national goals “lies in the US–Iran negotiations,” rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to separate Lebanon from the Islamic Republic.

The US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) is “the only framework capable of creating a balance of power that would force Israel to meet its obligations.”

Berri added that “separating the Lebanese file from that process, or entering into separate negotiations with Israel under American and Israeli terms, would merely prolong the occupation and give Israel more time to impose new realities on the ground without providing Lebanon with any genuine guarantees.”

On 28 June, several Hezbollah officials slammed the agreement brokered by Washington – following months of direct talks that were conducted in violation of Lebanon’s laws and constitution.

MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan reiterated Berri’s previous calls to avoid civil strife, but warned that the Lebanese state “bears the responsibility” for whatever “outcome” results if Beirut attempts to actually implement the outcome.

The US-Lebanese-Israeli deal signed in Washington on 26 June stipulates that Hezbollah must be disarmed before any withdrawal of occupation forces can take place.

The agreement also builds on aspects of earlier direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, specifically the establishment of “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would deploy in order to dismantle “non-state armed groups,” including the resistance.

“Two initial zones have been agreed to by the [Israeli army] and the LAF, and future pilot zones will also be agreed upon by mutual consent,” Clause 3 of the framework stipulates, in effect forcing the Lebanese army to take permission from Israel on where it would deploy.

The deal would also bar Lebanon from filing legitimate international legal complaints against Israel, which has killed over 4,000 Lebanese and displaced over a million since the start of March this year.

This is represented by Clause 13 of the Lebanon–Israel deal, which calls for “the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.”

One of the clauses also explicitly states that the “Government of Lebanon herewith requests the support of international and, particularly Arab partners, under the leadership of the US, to achieve this outcome.”

Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik said this was among the “most dangerous” clauses, and interpreted it as a legitimization of a Syrian military assault against Hezbollah.

This is something US officials have repeatedly threatened, including President Donald Trump.

According to Israeli news outlet Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.

The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.

It adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.

It also says the two agreed “pilot zones” are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.

Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the ‘security zone’ that Israel has illegally established inside Lebanon.

According to Israel’s Channel 15, the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel grants the Israeli army the right to enter the “pilot zones” to verify that they have been cleared of weapons and military infrastructure by the LAF.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

Israel sold advanced defense systems to Qatar, Saudi Arabia: Report

The Cradle | June 28, 2026

Israel has sold advanced defense systems to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, including sophisticated missile defense systems to protect the Qatari royal family and components for advanced fighter jets, Haaretz reported on 28 June.

Citing documents and photographs, the left-liberal Israeli paper revealed that Israeli Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries have sold hundreds of millions of shekels’ worth of missile defense systems and helmets for advanced F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The sales occurred even though both Gulf monarchies have refrained from joining the Abraham Accords and have no formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv.

Haaretz writes that when Qatari ruler Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani flew to Iran last year, his private jet was equipped with an air defense system manufactured by Israel-based Elbit Systems.

A photograph of the Qatari emir’s arrival in Algeria in March 2024 clearly showed an Elbit defense system installed on the underside of his aircraft.

The Qatari royal fleet consists of 11 aircraft, including two Boeing 747s and an Airbus A340-500, all equipped with Elbit’s C-MUSIC system, known in Israel as Magen Rakia.

The C-MUSIC system detects the launch of a heat-seeking surface-to-air missile and emits an infrared beam that disrupts the missile’s ability to lock on to the aircraft.

It is especially effective against shoulder-fired missiles known as MANPADS.

The cost of the deal with Qatar is unknown. However, it likely exceeds $200 million, given the value of similar deals with European countries and NATO.

Elbit and other Israeli companies also produce parts for Qatar’s US-supplied F-15 fighter jets.

According to a US Defense Department contract with Boeing, Israeli companies were awarded subcontracts worth $150 million to $250 million to supply advanced parts and systems for the Qatari F-15s.

Elbit subsidiaries, Elbit America and Cyclone, were awarded contracts, along with Collins Elbit Vision Systems, a joint venture with RTX.

Among the items provided by the Israeli weapons firms to Doha is the advanced JHMCS combat helmet, which projects flight data onto the visor, allowing the pilots to visually lock on to a target and fire a missile at it.

Elbit also supplied AN/AVS-9 night-vision goggles for Qatar’s F-15 warplanes.

Additional contracts to provide equipment for the Qatari F-15 program were awarded to Israel Aerospace Industries, TAT Technologies, and Beth-El Industries.

Official State Department documents and photographs also reveal that Saudi Arabia received 462 advanced JHMCS combat helmets and 462 AN/AVS-9 night-vision goggles produced by Israeli firms for its own F-15 warplanes.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel sold advanced defense systems to Qatar, Saudi Arabia: Report

Russia stops record number of Ukrainian drones overnight – MOD

RT | June 26, 2026

Russian air defenses stopped 660 Ukrainian kamikaze drones overnight, the military said on Friday. The figure was the largest ever reported for the metric, reflecting an escalation of Western-funded strikes inside Russia.

The Russian Defense Ministry normally reports the total number of drone interceptions conducted between 10 PM and 7 AM Moscow time every day. The previous record was 556 in mid-May, while earlier this month the Russian military downed 555 Ukrainian aircraft overnight. Other standout figures since 2025 were in the 300s.

Kiev is ramping up long-range strikes against energy infrastructure as Ukrainian frontline troops suffer setbacks caused by manpower shortages and Russian weapons superiority. Ukrainian officials claim the economic damage will force Moscow to agree to a ceasefire along the current front line, and have threatened to withdraw the offer unless it is accepted soon.

Both sides are developing more affordable ways to intercept long-range drones, such as cheap interceptor aircraft, and are trying to protect their weapons from countermeasures. Ukrainian operations are supported by Western funding, intelligence gathering, and an industrial base that supplies drone components.

Russia maintains that the pressure campaign will not make it abandon its key security goals in the conflict. However, officials have suggested that Ukrainian military logistics in NATO states could be targeted in some way in response to the escalation of the drone war.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Russia stops record number of Ukrainian drones overnight – MOD

How Darializa Avila Chevalier Is Different From Other Elected Progressives

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 25, 2026

Among the Zohran Mamdani endorsed progressives to win primaries in New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated 5-term Congressman Adriano Espaillat in NY congressional district 13, has faced the most backlash from mainstream media across the spectrum for old social media posts.

While I certainly don’t agree with her on every issue and disagree with some of the statements made in the tweets, they do show that on some important issues, she is different from other elected progressives within the Democratic Party.

In this article, I will showcase how on some important issues, Darializa Avila Chevalier seems more willing to take on the establishment than other elected democrats.

She Will Actually Withhold Her Vote For Establishment Democrats

One positive that came from Darializa Avila Chevalier’s old tweets is the fact that she- unlike other elected progressives- won’t sheepdog the left into voting for corporate democrats.

“Y’all really sitting here talking about how we HAVE to vote for one rapist over the other rapist,” Chevalier said about the 2020 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

She similarly refused to vote for Biden in 2020 over his long history of supporting war crimes, writing, “I’ve voted in every election since I turned 18, but you’re out of your mind if you think I’m voting for a war criminal” in reference to Joe Biden.

She similarly wrote, “Y’all clearly don’t want my vote, so I guess y’all ain’t getting it” in reference to the establishment, pro-war Democratic Party in 2020.

If Darializa Avila Chevalier stays on this trend, it shows that she will not follow the “vote blue no matter who” mantra that other elected progressives have, and actually withhold support for corporate, pro-war, establishment democrats.

She’s Actually Anti-Zionist

Another positive about Darializa Avila Chevalier is that she’s an actual anti-Zionist, opposing the full occupation of Palestine and Zionism, instead of only opposing the Benjamin Netanyahu government, or sticking to two-state solution fantasies.

In response to a question about the Palestinian resistance, Chevalier correctly said, “The premise of that question, to me, ignores the 75 years of occupation that the Palestinian people have been subjected to and the conditions that folks were living under before this genocide began”.

She similarly has a long history of activism in support of Palestine and boycotting Israel. She “joined Students for Justice in Palestine in 2014 after a summer internship in the West Bank city of Nablus” and “co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a campaign aimed at coercing the Ivy League school to cut financial ties with Israel”.

She has said , “I’m an anti-Zionist full stop”.

She has also been willing to criticize the liberal zionism of other elected progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC, saying “I’m no fan of Bernie’s liberal Zionism to be clear” and was critical of “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for voting ‘present’ on Israeli military funding.”

She Opposed The Proxy War In Ukraine

Darializa Avila Chevalier also differentiates herself from other elected progressives by opposing the proxy war in Ukraine, correctly stating that it was provoked by the United States, and that the war was a racket for the military industrial complex.

In response to a question asking why the United States was involved in Ukraine, she correctly said, “Cause the Cold War ended, and we’ve been bullying Russia ever since. Also, war is lucrative for these sociopaths”.

More Interesting Than Your Average Democrat

Whether one agrees with Darializa Avila Chevalier’s politics or not, there is no doubt she seemingly is more bold than other elected progressives on important issues like opposing the corporate democratic party, opposing Zionism, and opposing all neocon policies, including things like the Ukraine proxy war.

Whether Darializa Avila Chevalier will stick to these positions or not is yet to be seen, but as of now, it seems she is a far more interesting and subversive politician than the average democrat or even average progressive democrat.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on How Darializa Avila Chevalier Is Different From Other Elected Progressives

Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran

Press TV – June 25, 2026

The recent war imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States and its Zionist ally was built around many sweeping and ambitious objectives, including “regime change,” dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, destruction of its missile capabilities, and the containment of its regional influence.

Instead, Iran not only survived the most intense and no-holds-barred military onslaught in its modern history but emerged stronger, more cohesive, and more influential than ever before.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed digitally between the presidents of Iran and the United States last week is a testament to Iran’s strategic victory. Every clause reflects Tehran’s battlefield success and Washington’s battlefield failure.

Objective 1: “Regime change” – A fantasy that died on the battlefield

The United States launched the unprovoked and illegal war with the publicly declared goal of toppling the Islamic Republic. For decades, Washington had dreamed of a Tehran that would be compliant, pliable, and free of the ideological and strategic independence that has defined Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini.

The war was presented as the moment when that dream would finally become reality.

The strategy was classic American “regime-change” doctrine: all-out aerial bombardment, economic strangulation, psychological warfare, and the cultivation of a fifth column within Iranian society. The assumption was that sustained pressure would crack the system and trigger a popular uprising against the government.

Instead, the opposite occurred.

Iran’s leadership remained intact and unified. The assassination of the beloved Leader of the Islamic Revolution did not fracture the system but galvanized it.

The Iranian people, whom Western strategists had assumed would rise against their government under the pressure of war, instead poured into the streets by the millions.

Night after night, for over 110 consecutive days, Iranians have demonstrated in support of the country’s leadership and armed forces. The “Janfeda” (Self-Sacrifice) campaign became a nationwide phenomenon, with ordinary citizens expressing their unwavering commitment to the system governing the Islamic Republic and the armed forces.

The “regime-change” fantasy died not because of diplomatic maneuvering, but because it was never rooted in reality. The Iranian system proved resilient. Its institutions functioned under extreme duress. Its armed forces fought with cohesion and courage, maintaining operational effectiveness despite the loss of senior commanders.

And, most importantly, its people refused to betray their nation. The American intelligence community miscalculated catastrophically. They had assumed that economic pressure would translate into political discontent, but it translated into defiance. They had assumed that military strikes would break the people’s will, but they strengthened it.

The MoU contains no provision for “regime change” because the US simply could not achieve it. It is an admission from Washington that its project failed. The American dream of a post-Islamic Republic Iran is effectively dead, and the war proved it beyond any doubt.

Objective 2: Destruction of Iran’s nuclear program – A complete failure

The nuclear program was one of the primary justifications for the unprovoked war. Washington and Tel Aviv claimed that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon and that military action was necessary to prevent that outcome.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities – first in June last year and now during the Ramadan War – were intended to set the program back years, if not destroy it entirely. The goal was “zero enrichment” – a complete cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, the dismantling of its centrifuges, and the removal of all enriched uranium from Iranian soil.

Yet Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact. The enrichment facilities continue to operate. The centrifuges continue to spin. The “zero enrichment” goal, so cherished by Israel and its American backers, has been effectively abandoned.

Iran’s nuclear scientists, despite being targets of assassination campaigns for years, have continued their work even amid the war. The underground nuclear sites survived the bombardment, and the country’s nuclear program demonstrated its resilience.

The MoU reflects this reality. There is no commitment from Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. There is no suspension of enrichment. There is no transfer of enriched uranium. The only nuclear-related commitment in the agreement is Iran’s reaffirmation of its NPT pledge not to produce nuclear weapons – a commitment Tehran has always maintained and which is fully consistent with its peaceful nuclear program.

The United States has been forced to accept that Iran’s nuclear rights are not negotiable.

This represents a complete reversal of American objectives. The US launched the war intending to end Iran’s nuclear program. It ended the war by accepting that the nuclear program is permanent.

Objective 3: Weakening Iran’s defensive missile power – Strengthened instead

The missile program of the Islamic Republic was another primary target. American and Israeli strategists believed that relentless bombardment would cripple Iran’s production capabilities, destroy its stockpiles, and degrade its ability to project power.

The goal was to leave Iran defenseless and unable to retaliate. A thousand airstrikes were launched against missile production facilities, storage sites, and launch pads. The objective was to destroy Iran’s ability to threaten its adversaries or defend itself.

Instead, Iran’s missile industry has been strengthened. The war provided a real-world testing ground for Iranian technology. The use of older ammunition and equipment paved the way for newer, more advanced systems.

Iran’s underground missile cities – carved deep into mountains – proved resilient to bunker-busting bombs. The production lines never stopped. In fact, they accelerated.

The strategic calculus of Iranian planners proved prescient. By distributing production facilities across the country, by situating them deep underground, and by maintaining redundant supply chains, Iran ensured that no single bombing campaign could cripple its missile industry. The US could destroy surface targets, but it could not reach the heart of Iran’s missile production.

The MoU makes no mention of Iran’s missile program. It was not discussed or negotiated. It is not even on the table. Even Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif admitted on Tuesday that it was not on the agenda during the Islamabad-mediated talks.

The US has been forced to accept that Iran’s missile capabilities are a fact they have to live with. The program that was supposed to be destroyed is now stronger than ever, and the United States has signed an agreement that does not even mention it.

Objective 4: Containment of Iran’s regional influence – Expanded instead

Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped to use the war to roll back Iran’s regional influence. They wanted to break the Axis of Resistance, isolate Tehran, and redraw the regional map in their favor. The strategy was to sever Iran from its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Yemen, and to create a new regional order that excluded Tehran.

Instead, Iran’s influence has significantly expanded. The Resistance Front is more cohesive and powerful than ever. The war demonstrated that Iran cannot be isolated, that its allies are strategic partners, and that any solution to regional security must include Iran.

Hezbollah, Ansarullah, Hamas, and Iraqi resistance groups fought alongside Iran’s military, coordinating their efforts and demonstrating the depth of the strategic relationship. This axis proved itself to be a genuine alliance, not a collection of clients.

The war also exposed the weakness of the American regional alliance system. The Persian Gulf states, having relied on the US security umbrella for decades, watched in horror as American bases were systematically targeted and American deterrence collapsed.

The “paper tiger” metaphor took on new meaning as Iranian missiles struck deep into the heart of US military infrastructure in the region. The Persian Gulf monarchies, facing the reality of Iranian military power, have been forced to recalibrate their regional calculations.

This is why the MoU explicitly demands the cessation of the enemy’s aggression on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran did not just protect itself, but it also protected the entire Resistance Axis. The inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement is a clear recognition that Iran’s regional role is now a permanent and non-negotiable reality. The US has effectively acknowledged that it cannot eliminate Iran’s influence; it must accommodate it.

The recent war against Iran was supposed to be the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic. Instead, it was the beginning of the end for American hegemony in the region.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran

Starmer’s exit exposes dirty secret: UK can’t afford Ukraine War

By Ian Proud | Responsible Statecraft | June 24, 2026

Sir Keir Starmer bowed to the inevitable Monday and resigned from leadership of the Labour Party and, therefore, from his role as prime minister.

The resignation had been brewing for some time. While Starmer led the Labour Party to an astounding landslide election victory in July 2024, by September 2025, he was already being labeled the most unpopular prime minister since polling began; this followed a series of U-turns and poorly handled crises. After heavy losses of council seats in local elections in May, the Labour Party moved quickly to remove him.

Former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is expected to become prime minister after an internal Labour Party leadership contest. (Labour maintains a majority in parliament, so it maintains the right to form a government.) Burnham will quickly find that he doesn’t have the money to fix public services, double defense spending, and continue to fund an unwinnable war in Ukraine. He also faces an almighty struggle to convince his party that aligning with the Trump administration on peace in Europe is the right approach, both politically and fiscally.

Up until June 17, Burnham wasn’t a member of parliament. But after a sitting MP gave up their seat, he won the ensuing bi-election by a landslide. A cabinet minister under Tony Blair, he is by far the most popular Labour politician and the person viewed as most able to take on the surging right-wing Reform party. Having been out of frontline British politics for nine years in Manchester, Burnham has built up a reputation as someone who gets things done and is relatable, qualities Starmer appeared to lack.

To outfox Reform, Burnham will have to reinstall public confidence that the government is improving the lives of ordinary Britons in the face of an ongoing immigration surge, a cost of living crisis and a knife crime epidemic, typified by the at times violent street protests that followed the killing of Henry Nowak.

His biggest challenge? Finding the money to deliver real change with anemic growth and the national debt at 94% of GDP.

An obvious place to look would be the blank check approach Britain – under both Conservative and Labour governments – has taken to supporting the proxy war in Ukraine, which has so far cost $29 billion (£21.8 billion).

That might not sound like a huge proportion of government spending. But Starmer’s government faced stiff resistance and had to back away from making a much smaller cut of £5 billion to welfare spending. When your budget is so tight that you have to look at cutting winter fuel payments to the elderly, then it becomes harder to justify funnelling billions towards a distant war.

Aligning with the Trump administration to press for a peace settlement would be the rational and realist thing to do. But there’s a catch. The Labour Party and Burnham himself dislike Donald Trump. In 2025, for example, the putative prime minister accused Trump of “bringing instability to the world.”

Starmer had a troubled relationship with Trump throughout his mandate. The night before Starmer’s resignation, Trump had posted on Truth Social that Starmer was leaving after “failing badly on immigration and energy.” That was hopefully the last on a long list of snipes by the U.S. President. But Burnham will struggle to change the script in an anti-Trump Labour Party. Starmer’s cabinet was littered with ministers who had criticized Trump over the years, including one who called him an “odious, sad, little man.”

Further complicating relations was Starmer’s appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington, which proved to be a catastrophic mistake after further revelations about the depths of his association with Jeffrey Epstein came to light.

To his credit, Starmer invested some effort into papering over the cracks. The visit of His Majesty the King to Washington in May offered a rare bright spot, focusing on the strong ties that bind the United States and the United Kingdom.

However, the flip-flopping of U.K. support for the U.S. war against Iran cast a shadow across the relationship. And it was on Ukraine policy where Starmer was most at odds with the U.S. President.

While Trump was and is able to surface some uncomfortable truths about the state of Ukraine — i.e. that it cannot win a war against Russia — Starmer remained a true believer in eventual victory.

Where Trump has met President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and spoken to him several times, Keir Starmer didn’t speak to the Russian President once during his two years in office.

Where Trump tried to orchestrate the skeleton of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, Starmer rejected its key aspect, on the complex issue of territorial concessions, out of hand.

The list is long and not distinguished. Starmer made himself one of the biggest obstacles to Trump’s aspirations to bring the war in Ukraine to a close, aligning himself with the Europeans who hold to the same view.

And yet Burnham will quickly find that something’s got to give. He can’t fix decrepit public services in Britain, double defense spending, and continue to support an unwinnable war in Ukraine. The math will never add up.

He should be aware that Reform Party leader Nigel Farage is close to Trump and spends most of his time talking about domestic policy challenges, which is clearly resonating with ordinary voters.

For much of my diplomatic career, my European counterparts regularly sniped about the depth of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, and how this eroded European solidarity. Yet, right now, the British and the American position on the Ukraine war could not be further apart.

With Britain having left the European Union, Burnham will arrive in power with a brief window of opportunity to realign with America in the interests of European peace. The tides of British domestic politics suggest that this may help him to rebuild Labour popularity against an onrushing Farage while also delivering much needed savings. I doubt, however, that the Labour party will like this idea at all. Burnham’s honeymoon period may prove to be as truncated as his rise to power.

Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Starmer’s exit exposes dirty secret: UK can’t afford Ukraine War

BEN-GVIR: “ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN” — w/ Mouin Rabbani

Mario Nawfal | June 23, 2026

Col Douglas Macgregor: Pressure to REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE Growing

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026

Europe/US/Ukraine Barreling To War w/Russia

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on BEN-GVIR: “ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN” — w/ Mouin Rabbani

Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 23, 2026

The Arctic has been one of the main critical points of Donald Trump’s strategy since his rise to power. The increase in American presence (military and civilian) in the region is part of Trump’s broader strategy to “control the Western Hemisphere.” The main challenge for the U.S. is to try to overcome Russia’s long-standing presence in the region – as well as China’s growing presence. Many analysts doubt the American capacity to neutralize the advance of its geopolitical rivals in Arctic technology.

Recently, the U.S. has made Arctic affairs a strategic priority in its foreign and defense policy. Several of Trump’s supposedly “irrational” actions (such as his obsessive pursuit of annexing Greenland) are based on a relentless effort to expand American influence in the Arctic region. This is consistent with Trump’s hemispheric strategy, which can be summarized as reducing U.S. global presence (tacitly accepting a multipolar reality), while compensating for this retreat by strengthening positions in the western half of the world.

Obviously, several recent events have undermined Trump’s original hemispheric strategy. His illegitimate and anti-strategic decision to go to war in the Middle East, for example, was one of the greatest violations of MAGA principles in foreign and defense policy. On the other hand, a substantial part of the original strategy persists, as can be seen, for example, in interventions in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba) and in the Arctic. Trump seeks to consolidate an exclusive American sphere of influence in the western half of the planet, and a large Arctic portion clearly “belongs” to that half.

Among the main U.S. measures to expand its presence in the Arctic is the increase in military activity. Washington sees deterrence capability as a central element in its containment strategy of the “Russian-Chinese presence” in the region, which is why there has been a gradual escalation of NATO military activity in the Arctic. In recent times, specialized joint military exercises have been carried out by NATO countries in Arctic zones, making this one of the most important topics on the alliance’s strategic agenda.

In this context, the Pentagon has sought to align its initiatives with NATO’s operational axis in the High North, prioritizing a logic of joint exercises at high latitudes that emphasize full interoperability between land, naval, and air forces. This approach is not limited to climate training, but reflects an attempt to establish a permanent standard of joint readiness in polar environments, where the degradation of sensors, communications, and logistics requires continuous multinational coordination. In practical terms, this translates into more frequent cycles of combined Arctic and sub-Arctic exercises, integrating U.S. and allied commands under unified planning and response structures.

At the same time, there is a projected increase in the U.S. and NATO military presence in the region, with significant forces deployed in regular rotations and a strengthened naval presence in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. This includes recurring transits of allied naval groups, the maintenance of a continuous presence of nuclear submarines in strategic patrol areas, and the intensification of strategic bomber operations along routes crossing the High North as a form of deterrence signaling. Together, these measures aim to create a permanent layer of military pressure and surveillance, raising the cost of any alleged attempt by Russia or China to challenge the region.

However, there is a clear problem in this entire scenario that the U.S. seems not yet to have realized: Russia’s status quo in the Arctic is quite secure. The country has, over decades, developed all kinds of appropriate technologies specifically designed for the polar environment. For obvious reasons of survival in the northern part of its own territory, Russia has historically been forced to become a major Arctic power, with a vast fleet of icebreakers and an entire specialized industrial sector dedicated to science and technology specifically for the Arctic. For Russia, this has never been a matter of extravagance or expansionism, but of survival in its own strategic environment.

More recently, China, which is not an Arctic country, has begun expanding its presence in the region through cooperation with Russia. As Russian-Chinese integration advances within the framework of the unlimited strategic partnership, with both countries engaging in various forms of political and economic cooperation, it is natural that their converging interests in Arctic affairs facilitate Beijing’s participation in the region. The Chinese do not have a military strategy for the Arctic, focusing instead on logistics, economics, and science, but even this concerns the West.

Indeed, Western countries, especially the U.S., are in an endless race. They aim to surpass decades of Russian presence in the Arctic in just a few years. The West does not even possess a specialized Arctic technical-industrial sector like Russia, and is far behind in capabilities such as navigation (especially icebreakers), geolocation, infrastructure construction, and overall operational capacity in the Arctic. It is worth questioning how long it will take for the West to even approach Russia’s level of Arctic technology – let alone surpass it -, especially at a time of deep Russian-Chinese integration, in which Moscow can rely on China’s industrial heartland as a partner to further strengthen its Arctic sector.

In the end, the American strategy seems destined to fail. The U.S. inherited much of its geopolitical thinking from the British, and this appears to have come at a high cost. Classical geopolitical theorists historically ignored the Arctic, since the region was seen as inhospitable and impossible to explore, focusing instead on well-known strategies of containing Eurasia – which became an American specialty. Now, however, the Arctic is accessible to humans thanks to modern technology, but the U.S. does not have a geopolitical strategy for this new reality.

Perhaps the best path for Trump would be to reduce his hemispheric ambitions, acknowledging that control of the Arctic is no longer among the achievable goals for the United States. It is important to remember that this obsession with Arctic conquest was inherited and deepened, but not created by Trump. Even before he took office, Democrats had already launched an expansionist military strategy in the region during the Biden administration, under the 2024 Arctic Strategy. So, if Trump truly wants to reverse the harmful legacy of his predecessor, revising Arctic policy could be a good initial step.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties

Report highlights US munitions crisis: Missiles cannot be replenished quickly even with al the money in the world

Al-Manar | June 22, 2026

The supply chain constraints affecting US missile production are structural in nature; they cannot be solved merely by throwing money at them, The National Interest website introduced its article written by by Harrison Kass and titled “Why Can’t America Make More Interceptor Missiles?”.

The article maintained that one of the sharpest conflicts stemming from America’s wars in the Middle East is the rapid depletion of its anti-air interceptor missile inventory, adding that months of operations in the Middle East during the Trump administration—first Operation Rough Rider against the Houthis in Yemen, then the far more expansive Operation Epic Fury against Iran, alongside consistent support for Israeli air defenses in the post-October 7 period—have consumed advanced interceptor missiles at a pace far faster than America’s existing defense industrial base can replace them.

The article warned, “Although most Americans do not worry about missile production rates, the problem is non-trivial. In fact, it is serious enough that the United States’ depleted missile inventories are now influencing broader strategic planning and force-posture decisions, particularly in Asia.”

“So why can’t the US just build more of these systems? The primary constraint is not money, but industrial capacity; a handful of inputs are difficult to ramp up production for, creating bottlenecks for the rest of the missile supply chain.

  • Solid Rocket Motors: In spite of their differing designs, nearly every advanced interceptor missile depends on the same highly consolidated rocket-motor section, which is difficult to build and requires human expertise.
  • Skilled Labor: Production of many missile components requires specialized technicians who need years of training in order to complete their jobs. Nor is expertise the only constraint; many technicians in sensitive jobs must complete thorough security vetting to ensure they will not share production secrets with US adversaries, taxing the limited resources of government investigators.
  • Precision Tooling: Many components depend in turn on advanced machines, which are costly to build and subject to their own supply chain constraints. Though production of these is ramping up, many take time and cannot simply expand overnight.”

Recent defense budgets have dramatically increased procurement funding. Funding for SM missiles jumped from $1.26 billion to $8.5 billion from Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) to FY27. The goal is to rebuild inventories while expanding future production capacity, the article noted.

“Unfortunately, missiles cannot be replenished quickly. Even with all the money in the world, the SM-6 won’t be restored to pre-2025 magazine depth until 2028 or 2029; the PAC-3 until mid-2029; the THAAD until late 2029; the Tomahawk, a cruise missile also used extensively in Iran, around 2030. Many advanced interceptors require roughly two years from component production to final delivery.”

“The strategic consequences of this lag are significant. The Pentagon’s plans for the Pacific rely heavily on SM-6 interceptors, Patriots, and THAAD systems. These weapons would be absolutely critical in a conflict involving China. Every interceptor fired in the Middle East means one interceptor unavailable for the Pacific. So using multi-million-dollar interceptors to defeat cheap drones in the Middle East is a strategic loss,” the article concluded.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on Report highlights US munitions crisis: Missiles cannot be replenished quickly even with al the money in the world

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »