Mark Rutte wants to triple military aid to Zelensky, with Western taxpayers footing the bill
RT | May 14, 2026
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte wants NATO members to cough up 0.25% of their GDP for Ukraine. This figure seems minuscule, but how much hard-earned taxpayer money does it add up to?
Rutte floated the idea at a closed-door meeting of NATO ambassadors last month, and will likely be raised at the bloc’s annual summit in Ankara in July, Politico reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed NATO diplomats.
How much money does Rutte want to give Ukraine?
The combined GDP of NATO’s 32 member states adds up to $57.2 trillion, according to the bloc’s figures from 2025. Assuming that the US backs Rutte’s proposal, Ukraine stands to receive a windfall of $143 billion, or more than three times the amount of military aid it received from its Western donors last year.
To put Rutte’s demand in perspective, $143 billion is:
- Roughly equal to Russia’s entire yearly defense budget (around $145 billion)
- $16 billion more than Germany’s 2026 defense budget ($127 billion)
- Larger than the combined economies of Latvia and Lithuania ($130 billion)
- Four times what the US spent on developing the atomic bomb ($35.5 billion, adjusted for inflation)
- Almost six times what the US has spent on the war with Iran to date ($25 billion)
- Enough to buy more Patriot missile batteries than currently exist (around 200)
This princely sum is separate to the 5% of GDP that NATO requires its members to spend on their own militaries, and separate to the unrepayable, debt-financed loan of €90 billion ($105 billion) that the EU has already started to funnel to Kiev.
Whose idea was this?
Unsurprisingly, the idea was first suggested by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. “Ukraine is part of Europe’s security, and we want 0.25% of the GDP of a particular partner country to be allocated to our defense industry and domestic production,” he told reporters last June.
Is every NATO member on board?
Rutte’s aim is to balance military aid to Ukraine among member states, as to date, Nordic countries like Denmark and Baltic countries have been making outsized contributions compared to some of the bloc’s larger economies. Denmark, for example, has given 3.25% of its entire GDP to Kiev since 2022, while Germany has given 0.55%. On the lower end of the scale, Hungary has given the smallest share of any NATO country at 0.04%.
France and the UK are reportedly unhappy with the proposal, even though both nations already exceed the 0.25% target. London and Paris both refused to comment when contacted by Politico. Furthermore, some unnamed EU countries reportedly want their contributions to the aforementioned €90 billion EU loan counted towards Rutte’s target.
Where will the money go?
Western military aid to Ukraine is typically spent on purchasing weapons from abroad, paying military salaries, and the research, development, and manufacture of arms within Ukraine. Zelensky insists that the money will go to Ukraine’s defense industry and domestic production – a sector that is a hotbed of corruption and graft.
In late April, surveillance tapes revealed that Timur Mindich, a business magnate and associate of Zelensky known as ‘Zelensky’s wallet’, was secretly running one of the country’s largest defense contractors from exile in Israel, and colluding with former Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to secure government contracts.
All but one of Ukraine’s wartime defense chiefs have been tied to corruption and bid-rigging scandals, Mindich is wanted on separate embezzlement charges, and Zelensky’s former chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, was arrested in May and accused of a connected money laundering scheme.
It will likely be up to individual donor countries to stipulate how their 0.25% is spent. However, RT has already covered some of the endemic rot within the Ukrainian defense sector, and the picture so far suggests that whatever the Western taxpayer sends to Kiev, there is no telling how much will be skimmed off the top along the way.
NATO member’s government collapses after Ukrainian drone incident
RT | May 14, 2026
Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has announced her resignation amid a government crisis caused by an incident involving Ukrainian kamikaze drones hitting an oil depot near the Russian border.
Silina announced the decision at a press briefing on Thursday. Just hours earlier, Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis, a member of Silina’s liberal-conservative Unity party, stated that the prime minister has no intention of leaving office. Meanwhile, the opposition was planning a procedural maneuver to circumvent the five-day pause required under Latvian law before a request for a no-confidence vote is granted.
The crisis in the Baltic state was triggered by an incident last week in which two Ukrainian long-range kamikaze drones hit an empty oil depot near the town of Rezekne, around 40 km from the Russian border. No casualties were reported on the ground.
Defense Minister Andris Spruds, who has supported Ukraine’s attacks against Russia and called the incident regrettable but understandable, resigned over the weekend. The Progressives party member said he did not want the military to be dragged into political squabbling.
MP Andris Suvajevs, who leads the Progressives parliamentary faction, stated earlier in the day that the ruling coalition was certain to collapse if a no-confidence motion is put to a vote. The prime minister was expected to take part in a session of parliament, but instead invited the media to her office to announce her resignation. She blamed “political jealousy and narrow party interests” for the crisis.
Moscow has accused NATO nations of tacitly allowing Ukraine to use their airspace to conduct strikes on targets in northwestern Russia, particularly oil export terminals in Leningrad Region. Officials in several countries where incidents involving Ukrainian drones were reported since mid-March have expressed concerns with Kiev’s military planning.
Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said he told Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki regards Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace as unacceptable. Estonian Defense Minster Hanno Pevkur said the Ukrainians should “keep their drones away from our territory [and] control their activities better.”
Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls
By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | May 14, 2026
When President Donald Trump arrived in Beijing yesterday for his summit with Xi Jinping, much of the American foreign policy establishment framed the meeting through the familiar lens of “great power competition.” Analysts will scrutinize every handshake, communiqué, and trade announcement for signs that Washington is either “standing up” to China or “conceding” ground to its principal rival.
But the more important reality is that the summit will likely underscore just how much the balance of leverage has shifted over the past several years—and how little appetite Beijing has for rescuing Washington from the consequences of its own strategic blunders.
The prevailing assumption in Washington remains that China is an aggressive revisionist power poised to overturn the international order through military expansion and economic coercion. Yet the actual picture is considerably more complicated. Beijing’s posture today looks less like that of a state eager for global confrontation and more like that of a rising commercial empire patiently exploiting American overextension.
That overextension is now impossible to ignore.
Washington’s latest entanglement in Iran has once again demonstrated the limits of American power projection. Years of interventionism, sanctions escalation, proxy commitments, and military signaling have produced precisely what critics of U.S. foreign policy long warned about: another unstable regional crisis with no clear off-ramp and no coherent strategic objective.
And notably, China has shown almost no interest in helping Washington navigate the mess.
Despite endless warnings from hawks that Beijing and Tehran are inseparable strategic partners, China’s actual behavior has been far more restrained and transactional. Beijing benefits from Iranian energy flows and prefers regional stability, but it has little reason to actively bail out an American foreign policy establishment that helped create the crisis in the first place. From Beijing’s perspective, every additional dollar and hour Washington spends bogged down in the Middle East is a dollar and hour not spent in East Asia.
That reality carries profound implications for Taiwan.
For years, American policymakers have insisted that Washington could effectively deter—or if necessary defeat—a Chinese effort to forcibly reunify Taiwan with the mainland. Yet recent events reveal how implausible that confidence increasingly appears. If the United States struggles to maintain readiness, logistics, and political cohesion while managing comparatively limited Middle Eastern operations thousands of miles from China, what exactly convinces anyone that it could successfully wage and sustain a high-intensity conflict directly off the Chinese coast?
The uncomfortable truth is that Beijing likely sees America’s Iran difficulties not as a warning, but as confirmation of long-standing Chinese assumptions about U.S. decline and strategic exhaustion.
China, meanwhile, has continued strengthening the areas that matter most in long-term competition: trade, industrial capacity, and monetary influence.
Over the past year especially, Beijing has deepened commercial ties throughout the Global South while accelerating efforts to denominate trade outside the dollar system. None of this means the dollar is about to collapse tomorrow, as breathless commentators sometimes claim. But it does mean that Washington’s ability to weaponize the global financial system is gradually eroding at the margins.
That erosion matters because American coercive power increasingly depends less on productive economic strength and more on financial leverage, sanctions architecture, and control of chokepoints. China understands this perfectly, which is why it has spent years systematically reducing vulnerabilities while building leverage of its own.
Perhaps nowhere is that leverage more obvious than in rare earths processing.
Washington often speaks as though China’s dominance in rare earth supply chains is merely an unfortunate market distortion that can easily be corrected with sufficient industrial policy. In reality, Beijing possesses something far more significant: a near-stranglehold on the processing infrastructure necessary to convert raw materials into usable industrial inputs for advanced manufacturing, electronics, defense systems, and green technologies.
This gives China a remarkably effective whip hand.
Even modest Chinese export restrictions over the past year have demonstrated how fragile Western supply chains remain. Despite years of rhetoric about “reshoring” and “de-risking,” the United States still lacks the capacity to rapidly replace China’s processing ecosystem. Building mines is difficult enough. Replicating decades of accumulated industrial infrastructure, refining expertise, environmental tolerance, and integrated supply chains is another matter entirely.
This reality may help explain why the Trump-Xi summit will likely focus less on ideological confrontation and more on managed coexistence.
Speculation about some form of institutionalized “Board of Trade” arrangement, floated by Michael Froman at the Council on Foreign Relations, may sound fanciful at first glance, but it fits the emerging logic of the relationship. Neither side appears genuinely interested in comprehensive economic decoupling because neither side can actually afford it. The likely trajectory instead is selective compartmentalization, with tariffs and controls in sectors deemed strategic, combined with continued deep integration elsewhere.
Ironically, such arrangements would represent a tacit admission that decades of maximalist rhetoric from Washington about fundamentally remaking China’s economic system have failed.
And that failure may be the central story to watch in Beijing.
For all the alarmism surrounding the so-called “China threat,” the summit may ultimately reveal something much simpler. Beijing increasingly believes time is on its side, while Washington appears trapped between military overextension abroad, industrial weakness at home, and a foreign policy establishment still struggling to distinguish genuine national interests from ideological crusades.
Trump may well secure commercial deals, soybean purchases, aircraft orders, or even the outline of some new trade-management framework—but beneath the symbolism and spectacle, the larger reality will remain unchanged.
China does not appear eager for war with the United States.
It simply appears increasingly confident that it can outlast it.
Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 13, 2026
Iran sues US at Hague tribunal, demands war reparations for June 2025 aggression
Press TV – May 12, 2026
Iran has filed a complaint against the United States at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), demanding compensation for damage inflicted on the country during the June 2025 war of aggression.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency said in a Tuesday report that the Iranian complaint at the Hague-based PCA was filed in February.
The report said the complaint accuses the US of violating the 1981 Algiers Accords, in which Washington committed to refraining from interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, whether directly or indirectly, politically or militarily.
It said Iran has demanded reparation from the United States over its imposition of sanctions, its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and its use of threats.
The complaint also calls on the PCA to force the US to immediately cease its direct and indirect interventions in Iran, provide guarantees that it will not repeat those actions, and pay full compensation for the damage caused to the country by its military and non-military actions, Tasnim said.
It said the complaint only demands compensation for the damage caused to Iran during the 12-day Israeli war of aggression in June 2025, in which the US participated.
The United States contributed to the Israeli attacks on Iran by providing intelligence and military support to the regime.
Washington also carried out a midnight attack on Iran’s nuclear installations on June 22, 2025, causing considerable damage to underground facilities in central parts of the country.
The report did not mention whether Iran may take a separate legal action against the US for the damage inflicted during the recent war of aggression that began in late February and was halted as part of a ceasefire on April 8.
A $1.5 Trillion Military Budget is a Gift to the Grifters
By Ron Paul | May 11, 2026
Last week “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth insulted Americans by claiming that a 50 percent increase in the US military budget – from an incomprehensible one trillion dollars to an impossible one and a half trillion – was a “fiscally responsible investment.”
“Thanks to President Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget, this War Department has moved from bureaucracy to business,” he said last Thursday.
In a way he was right, though. The huge increase is much more about “business” than what is needed to protect the United States from potential invasion.
But it isn’t the kind of “business” that most supporters of free markets would applaud. On the contrary, this is the business of transferring massive amounts of wealth from the struggling middle and working classes to the well-connected Beltway elite based on lies and scare tactics.
The US mainstream media is crucial in manufacturing the fairy tale that if we don’t mortgage our children’s and grandchildren’s future to finance this obscene military budget, we will be attacked or invaded by some evil foreign power.
It’s not difficult to do a little research and see why the mainstream – and even some “independent” – media outlets push these scare tactics: they are owned or funded by giant corporations with close ties to military contractors.
This unhealthy relationship is known as “corporatism” – the intermingling of pseudo-private companies with the government. It is the precursor to actual fascism, where the government takes a stake in such companies.
We’re getting there faster than most Americans understand.
The whole scam is not about protecting the citizens of the United States. It’s about protecting the US empire overseas, which actually harms the citizens of the United States.
Yes, they rob us to fund their empire and lie to us that it keeps us safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our constant military interventions on virtually every continent of the globe only build resentment among the rest of the world’s population. Anyone who thinks people overseas welcome US bombs has been watching too much Fox News or reading too much Washington Post.
And what do we get for the most expensive military on earth – larger than the combined militaries of the next dozen or so countries? Not much. Iran’s military budget is less than one percent of ours, yet Iran destroyed or disabled every US military base in the Middle East.
It turns out that Iran has destroyed dozens of multi-million dollar US spy drones – and several near-billion dollar spy radar stations – with their own drones costing mere thousands of dollars each.
The US surprise attack was supposed to make Iran cower and beg for mercy, but it did the opposite: it showed that despite the trillions extorted from Americans for the most expensive military on earth, the US military can no longer win the wars that US presidents illegally force them into fighting.
The US military continues to fight World War II – with massively expensive aircraft carriers that do not dare get close to combat – while warfighting has evolved into something entirely different.
The only good thing about the Iran war is that it demonstrates how much the special interests have lied to us about the need to continue our suicidal military spending increases.
It was never about protecting the United States. It is about protecting the ever-growing bank accounts of the special interests at the expense of the rest of us. It needs to stop. Now.
The Battle for Zaporizhzhia – Part 34 of the Anglo-American War on Russia
Tales of the American Empire | May 7, 2026
Springtime in Ukraine melted snow turning farmland and dirt roads into deep slush that vehicles could not cross. The ground has dried and Russian forces quicken their advance and will reach the big Dnieper River this summer. The most likely crossing point is the city of Zaporizhzhia with a population of 700,000.
It is unclear if Ukraine will fight to defend Zaporizhzhia or fall back behind the Dnieper River. If Ukraine evacuates this city, its big buildings could provide a great fortress. But Ukraine has nowhere for its 700,000 people to live and not enough transport to move them anyway. In addition, as Russian forces soon approach, their drones will patrol Zaporizhzhia bridges and attack any transport, effectively blockading the city. Ukrainian forces could become trapped on the east side of the river.
It will be interesting to see if NATO can destroy all the Dnieper bridges despite opposition from many Ukrainians, who may disrupt plans with police and military units. The Russians want them to support major forces once they cross the river. The Ukrainians know these bridges are vital national assets and not easily replaced. If all bridges are destroyed, this can delay the Russian advance for months.
_________________________________
“Military Summary” channel; YouTube; daily war updates;
/ @militarysummary
Related Tales:
“The Anglo-American War on Russia”;
• The Anglo-American War on Russia
Trump ‘frustrated’ with Cuba’s ability to withstand pressure, considers military action
Press TV – May 11, 2026
US President Donald Trump has grown “increasingly frustrated” with Cuba and its ability to withstand months of US pressure, and is considering waging an act of aggression against the Caribbean country, according to a report.
NBC News reported on Monday that American officials have told Trump that the government of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel “could still fall by the end of the year” without military action, but the US president is not willing to wait that long.
Trump’s impatience, the report added, has prompted the Pentagon to ramp up planning for a possible attack against the island country.
Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Cuban government had rejected $100 million in humanitarian aid offered by Washington.
He also called it “an unacceptable status quo” that the US has, “90 miles from our shores, a failed state that also happens to be friendly territory for some of our adversaries.”
For more than six decades, Cuba has been subject to increased inhumane US sanctions in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.
The Trump administration has intensified the campaign of pressure against Cuba since January, when the US kidnapped Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro following an illegal military assault.
In February, the US president imposed an oil blockade on Cuba, while also repeatedly hinting at a possible “regime change” operation against the Latin American state.
Last month, the Cuban president told NBC News that he is willing to sacrifice his life for his homeland.
“If the time comes, I don’t think there would be any justification for the United States to launch a military aggression against Cuba, or for the US to undertake a surgical operation, like the kidnapping of a president,” Díaz-Canel said, referring to the abduction of Maduro.
“If that happens, there will be fighting and there will be a struggle. And we’ll defend ourselves. And if we need to die, we’ll die, because as our national anthem says, ‘Dying for the homeland is to live.’”
The Trump administration is looking for a face-saving way to escape the Iran war quagmire it has become trapped in.
Earlier, Trump said that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” in reference to the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 and stopped under a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on April 8.
US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst
Press TV – May 11, 2026
In a noteworthy mea culpa from one of America’s most influential neoconservative commentators, Robert Kagan believes the United States has suffered a “total defeat” in its ongoing war against Iran, which has permanently shattered its global standing.
Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was a vocal advocate of the war against Iraq and a lifelong champion of American military interventions in West Asia.
But in a recent article for The Atlantic, he offered a grim verdict on the current war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on February 28.
“The US suffered a total defeat,” Kagan writes, describing the loss as having no precedent in American history and one that can “neither be repaired nor ignored.”
While acknowledging that previous American military failures carried heavy costs, Kagan insists this war is fundamentally different in nature.
“The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world,” the prominent commentator writes.
“Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”
At the heart of this catastrophe, Kagan noted, is Iran’s newfound ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategic waterway, without any challenge.
“Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations,” he writes.
According to Kagan, Iran has no interest in returning to the pre-war status quo. Most Persian Gulf states, he believes, will have no choice but to accommodate Tehran, effectively making Iran the dominant regional power.
“The United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the (Persian) Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran,” Kagan writes.
He also dismisses any notion that a coalition of allies could rectify the situation.
“If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either,” he states.
Kagan frames the collapse not as a regional setback but as a global strategic failure that fundamentally alters America’s position in the world.
“America’s once-dominant position in the (Persian) Gulf is just the first of many casualties,” he warns. “America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
Compounding the strategic humiliation is a staggering depletion of American military resources during the ongoing war, which has been widely documented in the US media.
“Just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Kagan writes.
He hastens to add that the United States now finds itself unable to control the consequences of a war it initiated – a war it has already lost.
In Her Attack On Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Hypocrisy Is On Full Display
The Dissident | May 9, 2026
Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently came out against the idea of a non-partisan Anti-War and Anti-Zionist coalition between the populist left and right, through an attack on the former Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.
“I personally do not trust someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, a proven bigot and antisemite, on the issues of what is good for Gazans and Israelis,” AOC said, adding, “I don’t think that it benefits our movement, in that instance, to align the left with white nationalists, I don’t think it serves us”.
AOC faced major backlash for these comments, including from her own base of support, such as political commentator Cenk Uygur, who previously launched the Justice Democrats organization that helped AOC get elected, who said, “This is just terrible. She sounds just like the establishment. She’s attacking an opponent of Israel as an antisemite. This is exactly what Israeli supporters want – split the anti-war movement and the critics of Israel’s genocide. Deeply counterproductive. And selfish”, in response to AOC’s attack.
Through this attack on Marjorie Taylor Greene, AOC showcased her hypocrisy and what an unserious fraud she really is.
MTG Took On The Republicans Over Zionism, AOC Covered For The Democrats
Looking at AOC and MTG’s record on Zionism, and who was able to stand up to their own party over it, MTG’s record stands up to AOC’s.
As journalist Ryan Grim noted , “MTG sacrificed her political career to stand against genocide, against Trump, against the Epstein Class, and to defend the survivors of Epstein’s trafficking. If that doesn’t earn credibility, I don’t know what possibly could.”
When it came to Donald Trump backing the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Marjorie Taylor Greene bucked her own party and stood up to Donald Trump’s funding and arming of the genocide.
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene said in July of 2025 , while Trump was in power, arming and funding the genocide.
The next month, she called on Trump to stop sending arms to fuel the genocide in Gaza, saying , “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for genocide in a foreign country against a foreign people for a foreign war that I had nothing to do with, and I will not be silent about it.”
MTG also introduced legislation to “cancel $500 million in funding for Israel’s missile defense system” in July of last year, saying, “My amendment would strike $500 million in funding for nuclear-armed Israel’s missile defense system, and it’s important to emphasize it that way. Israel is a nuclear-armed nation, which is very capable of defending themselves … I also want to point out that Israel bombed a Catholic church in Gaza, and that an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza”.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, in November of 2025, was pushed to resign from Congress after attacks and a primary campaign from the Trump administration because of her standing up to her own party over Zionism, as well as other issues such as the release of the Epstein Files.
“I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election, while Republicans will likely lose the midterms. And in turn, be expected to defend the President against impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions of dollars against me and tried to destroy me” MTG wrote in her resignation letter.
She added, “If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can’t even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well” adding, “When the common American people finally realize and understand that the Political Industrial Complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected leader like me is able to stop Washington’s machine from gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that they, common Americans, The People, possess the real power over Washington, then I’ll be here by their side to rebuild it.”
No matter what one thinks about MTG, the truth is she stood up to her own party for selling out to the Zionist lobby and military industrial complex, and fought against its backing of the Genocide in Gaza, and lost her political career as a result.
The same cannot be said about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
When AOC similarly had the chance to stand up to the Biden administration over backing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, she blatantly lied to cover for Biden’s backing of the genocide.
Then Vice President and Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, along with the Biden administration, AOC falsely said , was “working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home”.
In reality, Israeli officials and Biden administration officials have admitted to fully backing Israel’s genocide in Gaza and never once putting pressure on Israel to end it.
“At the most significant political peril of Joe Biden’s political career, the easiest thing for Joe Biden would have been, if he was worried about the votes in Michigan, is to basically be a little soft; he refused to do it. There was enormous pressure within the White House on him to change his position. When I hear comments about ‘he wasn’t good enough, or he didn’t have Israel’s back,’ am I disgusted by it? One hundred percent. Is it true? 100 percent no,” admitted the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, on Israeli TV .
In the same TV special, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Herzog, admitted, “God did the State of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought for over a year, and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.”
“After more than $20 Billion military support, largest in Israel history, 2 aircraft carriers rushed to the region, deterring a massive regional war, defeating Iran missile/drone attack x2, defending israel at most vulnerable moments, after SAVING countless lives of Israelis – only acceptable response to POTUS Biden and American people is THANK YOU”, the Biden administration advisor Amos Hochstein later admitted in response to claims from Benjamin Netanyahu that the Biden administration was not deferential enough to Israel and it’s genocide in Gaza.
Soon after, Philip H. Gordon, the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States under the Biden administration, admitted that , “Biden resisted enormous pressure to condition aid, as required by U.S. law, even as Israel rebuffed calls to facilitate more humanitarian assistance and reduce civilian casualties”.
Furthermore, when it comes to a weapons embargo on Israel, Marjorie Taylor Greene goes further than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
AOC voted against MTG’s aforementioned amendment to cut off U.S. funding to Israel, stating that she favoured funding “defensive” weapons for Israel while it was in the middle of committing a modern-day Holocaust in Gaza.
AOC wrote on Twitter:
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.
What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.
I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established.
I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.
In reality, as Dylan Saba noted in Jewish Currents, “By almost entirely negating the ability of militant groups in Gaza to respond to Israel’s incursions, the purportedly defensive Iron Dome allows Israel to strike without fear of repercussion”.
He wrote, “because the cost is so low when measured in Israeli casualties, Israel can wage perpetual war without suffering domestic political consequences, and is under negligible pressure to pursue diplomacy with the Palestinians” adding, “while the Iron Dome may prevent the deaths of Israeli non-combatants, it has made it easier for Israel to engage in deadly operations that take Palestinian lives”.
AOC’s Hypocrisy On Working With ‘White Nationalists’
AOC’s main argument for not working with conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene on anti-war issues was over her labeling of Marjorie Taylor Greene as a “white nationalist”.
AOC labeled Marjorie Taylor Greene as a “white nationalist” for her standard-issue conservative social views, but previously voted repeatedly to send weapons to Ukraine, many of which ended up in the hands of open Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist militias.
It has been well documented that after the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists were mainstreamed in the Ukrainian government and military.
“The driver of this violence was largely the Ukrainian far right, which, while a minority of the protesters, served as a kind of revolutionary vanguard. Looking outside Kyiv, a systematic analysis of more than 3,000 Maidan protests found that members of the far-right Svoboda party — whose leader once complained Ukraine was run by a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ and which includes a politician who admires Joseph Goebbels — were the most active agents in the protests. They were also more likely to take part in violent actions than any group but one: Right Sector, a collection of far-right activists that traces its lineage to genocidal Nazi collaborators,” journalist Branko Marcetic reported in reference to the U.S.-backed militants that led the coup effort.
“The uncomfortable truth is that a sizable portion of Kyiv’s current government — and the protesters who brought it to power — are, indeed, fascists,” Foreign Policy magazine reported after the coup, and the UK’s Channel 4 news reported that the “far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum”.
Flash forward to the proxy war in Ukraine, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted for every U.S. arms and funding package to the Ukrainian government and military that continued to be infested with these open white nationalist elements.
AOC continued to support the arms flow to Ukraine even after the Biden administration lifted the ban on weapons sales to the Azov Battalion, an openly Neo-Nazi battalion, in 2024.
U.S. representative Ro Khanna has previously gotten through an amendment banning the sale of weapons to the Battalion, saying, “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine”, which was reversed by the Biden administration in 2024.
In 2019, AOC met with supporters of the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia, which helped temporarily install a fascist government led by Jeanine Áñez who had openly racist views towards the country’s indigenous population, including by calling them “satanic”.
In 2019, Counterpunch reported:
On November 16, four days after the military coup that destroyed Bolivian democracy, Ocasio-Cortez met with a group of pro-Áñez (Jeanine Áñez, the U.S.-backed leader installed after the coup), pro-Camacho activists led by one Ana Carola Traverso.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez symbolically embraced the coup by posing for a photo with this group as they brandished the tricolor Bolivian flag, which during that period had become a signal of support for the golpistas (as opposed to the Wiphala flag, which symbolized popular resistance to the takeover). She told them that she supports their ‘democratic grassroots movement’ and offered them ‘direct lines of communication’
Furthermore, as journalist Max Blumenthal noted, AOC previously worked alongside Republicans such as Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz – who have the same right-wing social views as Marjorie Taylor Greene – to place sanctions on China.
In all of these cases, a pattern emerges: AOC has no problem working with the far-right if the agenda is in support of the U.S. empire, but refuses to work with anti-war conservatives opposed to it.
AOC’s attack on Marjorie Taylor Greene shows yet again what AOC really is: a career politician who will not take on the establishment Democratic Party, U.S. Empire, or Israel if it means risking her political ambitions.
US-Iran ‘Calibrated Escalation’ Risks Sliding Into All-Out War – Expert
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 08.05.2026
A “calibrated escalation” is likely to follow the overnight US-Iran clash in the Strait of Hormuz, veteran war correspondent Elijah J. Magnier tells Sputnik.
“Return to full-scale war remains possible, but neither side appears eager for an immediate all-out confrontation,” Magnier says.
“What is more likely in the near term is a continuation of calibrated escalation, which means maritime incidents, allies being attacked, cyber operations, targeted strikes, and limited exchanges designed to impose pressure without triggering a wider or regional war.”
Both sides assess different forms of leverage, according to the pundit:
- The US can escalate vertically by deploying additional military forces and intensifying confrontation
- Iran can escalate horizontally by widening pressure geographically and economically without engaging in direct confrontation
- Both sides show restraint, but prolonged escalation increases the risk of miscalculation
“Therefore, one strike causing mass casualties, damage to strategic energy infrastructure, or a direct attack on senior leadership — such as targeted assassinations — could rapidly push both sides beyond the current threshold,” Magnier warns.
