Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

No ground for negotiations with E3 anymore: Iran FM

Al Mayadeen | October 11, 2025

Tehran no longer sees a basis for nuclear talks with the E3 countries, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated on Saturday evening, adding that the country is not seeking it either.

Speaking to the Iranian state TV, Araghchi revealed that Washington had asked to hold direct talks with Tehran on the sidelines of the UN meetings, a message conveyed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Iran, according to Araghchi, expressed readiness to engage, but only on the condition that representatives from the E3 countries and the IAEA Director, Rafael Grossi, be present, which the latter refused.

In this context, the top Iranian diplomat revealed that “the United States has always sought to integrate regional issues into nuclear negotiations, but we have never allowed that,” describing Washington’s positions as “constantly changing”.

Iran’s interests are red line

Regarding Tehran’s red lines, Araghchi confirmed that the interests of the Iranian people are paramount, emphasizing that while Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium, it is willing to provide the international community with assurances, if need be, about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.

He further criticized Europe, stating it has demonstrated a lack of independence, and indicated that Iran remains open to studying any new, fair plan from Washington as long as it respects the interests of the Iranian people, expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue.

On the topic of the Cairo Agreement, Araghchi stated, “It is currently frozen, and our cooperation with the Agency is only conducted within the framework of the Iranian parliament’s law and through the Supreme National Security Council.”

Araghchi addressed the prospect of renewed war with “Israel”, disclosing that, following an exchange between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several days ago, Russian officials subsequently informed the Iranian ambassador in Moscow that Netanyahu has no interest in returning to a state of war with Iran.

Gaza ceasefire solely a Palestinian Resistance matter

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi addressed the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, denying that any discussions had taken place with Steve Witkoff concerning it, while affirming Iran’s support for any plan that would halt what he described as Israeli crimes.

Araghchi said Trump shared his view on Iran’s statement about the Gaza deal, but no messages were exchanged with Washington, adding that only the Palestinian Resistance and people can decide on a ceasefire, and no one else.

He stressed that “Israel” is not trustworthy, citing past experiences like Lebanon, which is clear proof that the entity does not honor its commitments, based on which Iran raised its concerns and issued the necessary warnings. He added that while Washington has made positive promises regarding the Gaza deal, there are doubts about its seriousness in fulfilling them, as these promises are constantly shifting.

Araghchi also noted that most foreign ministers in the region are skeptical about the future of the subsequent phases of the Gaza agreement.

On the issue of the normalization agreements, Iran’s FM noted that “these deals intrinsically constitute a sinister plan to deprive the Palestinian people of their rights,” adding that Iran’s position on such agreements is clear: “it will never join them.”

Regarding the trade war imposed by Washington, Araghchi stated that Iran would reciprocate in kind if its commercial ships were obstructed in any way under the pretext of sanctions, affirming that escalating tensions is not in anyone’s interest.

October 12, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why is a ‘regime change’ in Venezuela a stupid idea?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 11, 2025

It would be a mistake to say that with Trump’s return to the White House, Venezuela is once again under pressure. It never stopped being under pressure since the final years of the Obama administration. But it is legitimate to say that Trump 2.0 has initiated a new phase in the over-10-year hybrid campaign against the Bolivarian state.

We have already seen sanctions, attempts at color revolution, attempts to install an “alternative” president, the theft of Venezuelan gold reserves, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of elections, provocations at the borders, and even the blocking of its entry into BRICS (sadly spearheaded by Brazil).

Now, however, we see military threats looming on the horizon against Caracas.

Harbingers of this had already occurred.

In 2020, for example, there was an attempt to infiltrate Venezuelan territory with mercenaries hired by the American company Silvercorp with the goal of overthrowing the government of Nicolás Maduro.

In 2024, the CEO of the former private military company Blackwater started the “Ya casi Venezuela” project to raise funds with the alleged aim of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro. Recently, he also stated that the $50 million bounty should apply not only to Maduro’s capture but also to his assassination.

And, as we know, between late August and early September, we saw a series of events that raised tensions in the Caribbean Sea, such as the deployment of warships to the Caribbean and the bombing of four Venezuelan boats that were allegedly transporting drugs.

Now, despite the official line that U.S. maneuvers in the Caribbean Sea are aimed at combating drug trafficking, it is noteworthy that Venezuela accounts for only 3% of all drugs reaching the U.S.. Washington does not seem to be deploying the same level of effort to stifle more important sources, such as the Colombian route, for example.

Thus, even without any official declaration, one cannot rule out the possibility that the U.S. is considering moving forward with a new attempt at regime change in Venezuela – but this time in a more direct way, whether through naval and aerial bombardments, drone attacks, or a black ops operation using mercenaries and/or special forces. Or, of course, a combination of all these options.

Naturally, one thing is to set this objective, another is to achieve it, and yet another thing is to deal with the consequences afterward.

From what is known about the fall of Assad, for example, it was apparently achieved, at least in part, by bribing military officers and co-opting Syrian intelligence. The classic tactic of “divide et impera,” divide and conquer, was used to liquidate Syrian power and facilitate the state’s conquest by Al-Julani’s irregular forces.

Any similar attempt regarding Venezuela will fail. Indeed, Venezuela, as a poor country, would in theory suffer from this fragility facing the possibility of its officials being bribed by foreign economic powers, but the Venezuelan Armed Forces were built in a different way from other states, as is the very foundation of Venezuelan state power. The degree of civilian-military integration in Venezuela is such that the supervision of numerous economic activities in the country is carried out by high-ranking military officers.

The Venezuelan state is, at least in part, a military state. The military does not represent an isolated institution separate from political power, available, therefore, for the possibility of co-option and instrumentalization against other institutions. Instead, in terms explained decades ago by the Argentine philosopher Norberto Ceresole, the military constitutes the guard of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Furthermore, Venezuela’s intelligence agencies, SEBIN and DGCIM, are very closely linked to both military and political power. It is these agencies that have been instrumental in all infiltration attempts in Venezuela, and it is unlikely that dissent can be cultivated within these structures.

Finally, although the Bolivarian militias are not very useful against long-range missile attacks, from the perspective of law and order and guaranteeing national stability in the face of the possibility of trying to take advantage of a potential chaotic situation to organize a color revolution, the armed Bolivarian militias can play a subsidiary and supportive role for the authorities, stifling potential foci of dissent and rebellion.

Now, even the goal of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro’s government presents difficulties even if eventually achieved. Other hierarchs could take his place, as they would have the support of the Venezuelan Armed Forces; this could lead to a scenario of prolonged conflict on Venezuelan territory.

As in all cases of a country’s destabilization, emigration tends to increase rather than decrease, due to the greater difficulty of ensuring the common good in the first months after a hypothetical overthrow of Maduro.

Although the U.S. has a tendency to destabilize nations to keep them in a state of permanent chaos, in theory, the same could not be done in Venezuela lest the instability reach the U.S. itself through increased migration and the collapse of law and order.

U.S. security itself also depends on maintaining a stable Venezuela, so the U.S. would truly be forced into “nation-building” in Caracas, facing a heavily armed country, including at the civilian level, and one that is predominantly hostile.

Instead of such adventurous delusions, Washington should be directing its efforts towards reinforcing Venezuelan stability, especially through the withdrawal of sanctions.

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The silent collapse of the United States

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 11, 2025

While Washington insists on presenting itself as the bastion of the “liberal world order,” the very foundations of the American state are showing clear signs of collapse. The internal reality of the United States today is marked by an insurmountable fiscal abyss, chronic political polarization, and an alarming inability to maintain even the most basic national security systems. The recent escalation of public debt, combined with the imminent breakdown of nuclear monitoring infrastructure, reveals that American hegemony is not just in decline — it is on the verge of functional collapse.

According to data from the U.S. Treasury, the gross national debt surpassed $37.5 trillion in 2025 — the highest level in the country’s history — exceeding 120% of its GDP. What is most alarming is the speed of this growth: in just the last 12 months, the debt increased by more than $2 trillion — without any emergency context such as war or a global pandemic. It is an unsustainable trajectory, typical of failed states, yet it is happening at the heart of the Western financial system.

At the same time, budget cuts imposed by Congress itself — deadlocked in endless partisan disputes — have directly jeopardized the security of the American nuclear arsenal. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), responsible for overseeing and maintaining the country’s atomic warheads, publicly admitted that its funds would only guarantee operations for “a few more days.” Once this period expired, a shutdown process for monitoring systems began — something unthinkable for any minimally functional power.

How can a country that spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fund wars in foreign territories — such as Ukraine and the occupied Palestine — be unable to finance the security of its own nuclear arsenal? The answer is simple: the United States is no longer a rational country, but a decaying “empire” driven by corporate lobbies, military-industrial interests, and a political elite entirely disconnected from national reality.

The current Republican administration tries to blame the Democratic opposition for the budget paralysis, while the Democrats sabotage any attempt at agreement in order to politically undermine the government. This argument is partially valid, but it also exposes the weakness of the Republicans themselves, who fail to counter the Democratic sabotage. This bipartisan theater is not only dysfunctional — it is suicidal. The U.S. is at the mercy of its own internal disorder, becoming a threat not only to itself but to the entire world, given the sensitive nature of the nuclear systems involved.

Thousands of NNSA employees and contractors have already been affected by shutdowns and funding freezes. Although the government claims that “critical operations” will continue, there are no guarantees or transparency about what exactly remains functional. A mistake, maintenance failure, or even a delayed response to an incident could have catastrophic consequences — including radioactive leaks or accidental detonation.

Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China continue to strengthen their energy sovereignty, defense systems, and institutional stability. The multipolar approach being built by these nations — particularly within the expanded BRICS+ framework — demonstrates strategic maturity and responsibility toward global order, in stark contrast to what is observed in Washington.

America’s decline is not expressed solely through numbers or economic graphs. It is visible in the inability to protect its own population, maintain basic infrastructure, or prevent political games from eroding the state’s structural integrity. When even the nuclear arsenal — supposedly the ultimate red line — is left vulnerable to budget cuts, the message is clear: the U.S. is no longer capable of leading the world.

The collapse on the horizon will not be merely economic. It will be institutional, military, and geopolitical. And in the face of this scenario, the world must begin looking to other — multiple, stable, sovereign, and genuinely peace-oriented — leaderships to guarantee global security.

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

From NATO’s flank to Eurasia’s core: Türkiye’s break with the West begins

By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | October 10, 2025

For decades, Turkish nationalism marched under the NATO flag. But now, one of Türkiye’s most influential right-wing leaders is calling for a turn East – toward Russia and China. His proposal may mark the country’s clearest ideological break with Atlanticism since joining the Alliance.

In September, Türkiye’s political landscape was shaken by a statement that many experts called sensational and potentially transformative. Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a long-time ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan within the People’s Alliance, proposed the establishment of a strategic trilateral alliance involving Türkiye, Russia, and China to counter the “US-Israel evil coalition.”

Bahceli emphasized that such an alliance is “the most suitable option, considering reason, diplomacy, the spirit of politics, geographical conditions, and the strategic environment of the new century.” The proposal extends far beyond the usual nationalist agenda, positioning Türkiye as a player capable of initiating new formats of international cooperation.

To grasp the importance of this statement, we must note the historical context. Turkish pan-Turkism has traditionally been oriented toward the West, and nationalists were seen as staunch defenders of the pro-Atlantic course. In this light, Bahçeli’s call for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic break from that tradition, reflecting growing distrust toward NATO and the US within Türkiye’s political landscape.

Bahceli’s comments are not random. Over the past few years, he has steadily ramped up his criticism of the West, advocating for Türkiye’s sovereign development “beyond blocs and alliances.” But this is the first time he has explicitly named Russia and China as preferred partners.

Reactions inside Türkiye were mixed. Right-wing circles called Bahceli’s words “revolutionary,” while leftists saw them as confirmation of a broader anti-Western consensus. Internationally, the statement underscored Ankara’s growing distance from Western power centers and its gradual rhetorical shift toward the East and Greater Eurasia.

Shortly afterward, Erdogan made a cautious comment, saying he was “not fully familiar” with Bahceli’s initiative but adding, “Whatever is good, let it happen.” The ambiguity is typical for Erdogan, who avoids publicly rejecting the ideas of key allies while keeping his political options open.

On one hand, the president is wary of provoking open conflict with Western partners, given Türkiye’s economic vulnerabilities. On the other, his comments suggest that Bahçeli’s initiative could serve as leverage – a way to pressure the US and EU by signaling that Ankara might strengthen ties with Moscow and Beijing.

A day later, Bahceli clarified his position, saying, “We know what we are doing. Türkiye should not be the implementer of regional and global projects put forward by others, but rather must be the leading actor of its own unique projects.”

In other words, Bahçeli not only intensified his anti-Western rhetoric but also asserted Türkiye’s claim to be an independent power center in the emerging multipolar world order. His stance reflects the desire of part of Türkiye’s leadership to move from being a peripheral NATO ally to a pioneer of alternative alliances in Eurasia.

From NATO loyalism to Eurasian realism

For decades, Türkiye was one of NATO’s most loyal allies. Since the Cold War, the Turkish elite believed that integration into Euro-Atlantic structures was the only viable strategy. A world order based on American leadership seemed stable and predictable.

Erdogan shared similar views when he first became prime minister in 2002. But as global competition intensified, disagreements with Washington deepened, and multipolar trends gained momentum, he realized that the unipolar system could not last. Türkiye, he concluded, must adapt – and play a role in shaping the new order.

Seen in this light, Bahceli’s proposal is more than nationalist fervor. It reflects an understanding among parts of Türkiye’s leadership that the country’s future lies in greater strategic autonomy and in building ties with alternative centers of power. His words echo those within Erdoğan’s circle who believe Türkiye can assert itself only through closer engagement with Russia and China.

This shift reveals how Türkiye’s elites have moved from trusting the stability of a Western-centric system to recognizing its limits – and searching for new frameworks in which Ankara can act as a key player rather than a subordinate.

Redefining Türkiye’s place in the world

Bahceli’s remarks highlight deep shifts within Turkish nationalist circles and Ankara’s growing readiness to reconsider its global role. He argues that neither China nor Russia is Türkiye’s enemy, despite efforts by Western ideologues to claim otherwise. Instead, he sees the West as the true obstacle – determined to prevent Türkiye from becoming an independent power center and confining it to a role of “watchdog” in the Middle East.

In his latest statement, Bahceli stressed the need for a new strategy:

“We believe that Türkiye, located at the center of Eurasia, which is the strategic focus of the 21st century, should pursue multidimensional and long-term policies aimed at strengthening regional peace and stability and developing cooperation opportunities, especially with countries in the Black Sea and Caspian Basin, including Russia, China, and Iran. Considering the changing and complex structure of international relations, producing permanent and comprehensive solutions to global issues such as terrorism, illegal migration, and climate change is a responsibility that no country can achieve alone.”

Essentially, Bahceli is saying that Türkiye must transcend old constraints and stop being a tool in the hands of external forces. His stance embodies a new paradigm: only through an independent, multilateral, and Eurasian policy can Türkiye become a true architect of regional stability and a major player in the future global order.

The end of oscillation

Türkiye has long oscillated between Atlantic alignment and independent ambition. These cycles rarely evolved into a lasting doctrine. But the current geopolitical environment is forcing Ankara to make a choice.

Economic dependency, regional instability, and Israel’s aggressive behavior – including attacks on Iran and Qatar – have created a sense of urgency. In Ankara, some now fear that Türkiye itself could become a target.

Globally, the old unipolar order is losing balance, and an alliance with Russia and China may offer Türkiye not guarantees, but strategic advantages – especially in securing its autonomy and status as an independent power center.

At the UN General Assembly, US President Donald Trump urged Erdogan to stop buying Russian oil and even floated bringing Türkiye into the anti-Russia sanctions regime. For Ankara, that would mean economic damage and deeper dependence on the West – a risk the leadership is no longer willing to accept.

Bahceli’s initiative, and Erdogan’s carefully measured reaction, mark a pivotal moment. Türkiye is beginning to institutionalize its search for an alternative political philosophy – one grounded in multipolarity, strategic pragmatism, and a redefined vision of its place in the 21st century.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s new missile could reach the Urals but will realistically be hit by Russian air defense

By Ahmed Adel | October 11, 2025

The new Ukrainian Flamingo cruise missile can reach as far as the Urals, but is also an easy target as it is clearly visible on radar and can be successfully intercepted by modern Russian air defense systems. Although they are trying to present it as a purely Ukrainian product, everything indicates that the British also had a hand in the creation of the Flamingo. Nonetheless, Russian forces will hinder the production and deployment of the Flamingo by destroying its production facilities and logistics.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kiev will soon begin mass production of these long-range missiles, while at the same time, Western media reports that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are already actively using these missiles to attack Russian territory.

The Flamingo missile has almost identical characteristics to the FP-5 large cruise missile project of the British company Millennium Group, which was recently showcased at the arms fair in Abu Dhabi. With a range of 3,000 kilometers, the missile can reach most of Russia’s European territory. It carries a warhead weighing approximately 1,150 kilograms, with a speed of 850-900 kilometers per hour, and can fly at an altitude of 50 meters above the ground.

The new Ukrainian missile is a large target and not as difficult a target as the Kiev regime thinks. Russian forces have already successfully shot down similar missiles, such as the Franco-British Storm Shadow, and the Flamingo will be even easier to intercept.

The Flamingo can be shot down by a wide range of Russian air defense systems, including the S-300V4, Buk-M2, and Buk-M3 systems, as well as the Tor-M2, the S-400, and the S-350 Vitez complexes, which are referred to as “cruise missile killers.” Even the older S-300 PMU-2 systems can also engage the Flamingo missiles, while the Pantsir-S1 can intercept this missile under certain conditions.

As for the basic method of pre-emptively combating the Flamingo missiles, a relatively progressive and economical approach has already been implemented by the Russian military. The places where these missiles are produced are being discovered, and strikes are being carried out during their transportation. Only days ago, a column with Flamingo missiles was attacked and completely destroyed, and in addition, a strike was carried out on the factory where these missiles are produced.

Firepoint, a Ukrainian defense company that is a fast-growing manufacturer of combat drones, which have become a key weapon in the war against Russia, officially developed the Flamingo missile. Firepoint says Flamingo began as an idea on paper in late 2024, after Washington rejected Zelensky’s request for American-made Tomahawk cruise missiles.

According to Zelensky, the planned mass production of the Flamingo missiles is expected to begin in late December or early January to February next year. The Ukrainian president said that the program would not be discussed in detail publicly until Ukraine was able to use hundreds of missiles.

According to the manufacturer, the factory currently produces one missile per day, and by the end of October, they plan to increase capacity to seven missiles per day. The price of each missile is approximately $500,000, which means it is four times cheaper than the Tomahawk.

Russian strikes are very precise and destructive. For example, take the Ukrainian operational-tactical missile complex Sapsan – four enterprises where it was produced were destroyed, which practically stopped the production of that system, perhaps for up to six months. And in the future, as soon as some production chains are re-established, the factories for producing the Sapsan system will be located and destroyed once again, as this is the most effective response system.

About ten European countries have previously expressed their willingness to produce weapons in Ukraine. However, since Russia is effectively targeting and destroying weapons production facilities and logistics inside the country, Western countries and the Kiev regime are forced to transfer production outside of Ukrainian territory to countries such as Britain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Baltic states, Germany, and others. This is indirect confirmation that Russian strikes on Ukrainian missile and drone factories are extremely effective.

According to Ukrainian media, the Flamingo missile was named after the bird of the same name due to a manufacturing error, as the tip of the prototype missile, which houses the warhead, was accidentally painted pink. However, the Ukrainians decided to romanticize this story, and it was said that the unusual name and color were an internal joke within the company, serving as a symbol of the unspoken yet important role of women in the world of weapons, which men traditionally dominate. The missile, however, underwent testing in pink tones, but the color was later changed due to camouflage requirements.

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

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU candidate being primed for conflict with Russia – opposition figure

RT | October 10, 2025

Moldova’s new military doctrine is “a manifesto rejecting peace, neutrality, and the future of our nation” and priming it for a conflict with Russia, opposition politician and former lawmaker Marina Tauber has said.

“Just a week after the election, Russia has officially been labeled a threat. The next phase is to draw our nation into a war,” Tauber stated in an interview with Russia’s TASS news agency published on Thursday.

She further argued that Moldova’s fragile economy cannot sustain militarization. “While our elderly must choose between bread and medicine, our government buys armor and conducts drills with NATO. That is the real price of the so-called ‘European choice,’” she said.

Tauber accused President Maia Sandu’s government of abandoning Moldova’s constitutional neutrality in pursuit of EU membership.

Moldova’s newly adopted military doctrine, unveiled on Wednesday, commits the country to boosting defense spending and aligning its forces with NATO standards over the next decade. The document brands the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the breakaway region of Transnistria as “a flagrant violation of Moldova’s sovereignty and neutrality,” while insisting that closer cooperation with NATO does not violate the nation’s constitutionally mandated neutral status.

Tauber was forced to flee Moldova days before the parliamentary election in late September, as she was facing a criminal conviction on charges of financial misconduct that she insists were politically motivated.

Critics of Sandu, a Romanian citizen and outspoken advocate of EU integration, have accused her of using anti-Russian rhetoric to consolidate power. Several opposition candidates were barred from the ballot ahead of the vote – a move that the targeted politicians denounced as an abuse of power – allowing Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) to secure a majority.

Moscow has criticized Moldova’s foreign policy shift, accusing Sandu’s administration of acting against national interests in favor of Western geopolitical goals. Russian officials have cited NATO’s eastward expansion, including its promise to admit Ukraine as a member, as one of the key causes of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

October 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Why are so many eager for war with Russia? /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen | October 8, 2025

The discussion centers on Russia’s next moves in the Ukraine war and the West’s potential responses. Russia views NATO’s continual expansion and Western escalation as provocations it must eventually answer. Putin’s recent speech referencing “Novorossiya” (a broader region beyond Donbas) signals that Moscow’s ambitions may soon expand to include all historically Russian-speaking and industrial parts of southern and eastern Ukraine—essentially the Black Sea coast from Kharkiv to Odesa. The analysis suggests Russia’s likely to pursue this expansion after Ukraine’s army becomes too depleted to resist. Western promises of future NATO membership for Kyiv only make Russia more determined to seize strategic territory permanently.

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Italian PM Meloni Embroiled in ICC Complaint Alleging Complicity in Gaza Genocide

21st Century Wire | October 9, 2025

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a number of ministers are confronted with an ICC complaint that accuses them of complicity in genocide, as a group of jurists and attorneys point to ongoing arms collaboration with Israel and a lack of protection for the Global Sumud Flotilla. Jurists and Lawyers from Giuristi e Avvocati per la Palestina (GAP) have initiated two legal actions aimed at holding Italy accountable for its involvement in the Gaza conflict. The first initiative, submitted to the ICC, charges the Italian government with complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The second initiative addresses the government’s purported negligence in safeguarding the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civilian fleet transporting humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters.

According to a report from Lavialibera, the initiative has garnered backing from more than fifty notable figures in Italy, many of whom are active in politics and culture. The initiative has currently attracted the support of nearly 6,000 citizens. Gianluca Vitale, one of the GAP lawyers behind this action, explained to Lavialibera:

“We are calling for proceedings to be initiated against the Italian government, namely Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni , Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani , and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto , as well as Leonardo Spa CEO Roberto Cingolani” adding, “If there is substantial collaboration with Israeli authorities who are committing crimes, it means that the Italian authorities are complicit in the crime being committed.”

In a recent interview with Italian state broadcaster RAI 1, Meloni acknowledged that she and the aforementioned individuals faced a complaint at the International Criminal Court for their alleged involvement in the Gaza genocide.

Despite Meloni’s nervous reaction, the move is not unexpected, given that comparable actions have already been taken throughout Europe. In Germany, legal actions have been filed with the ICC and local courts targeting government officials and arms manufacturers for their alleged involvement in supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Furthermore, more than 100 lawyers in France have officially requested the ICC to look into France’s potential complicity in genocide concerning Gaza.

In her July 2025 report, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, indicates that eight states and at least 1,650 companies, including Italian manufacturer Leonardo S.p.A., contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of components and parts for the Israeli F-35 fleet, which Israel customizes and maintains in partnership with US defense contractor Lockheed Martin and local companies. INVESTIGATE, a project run by Action Center for Corporate Accountability of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which exposes corporate complicity in state violence, issued a comprehensive report regarding Leonardo S.p.A., Italy’s largest weapons manufacturer and its dealings with Israel.

As per information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Italy was among just three nations that exported “major conventional arms” to Israel between 2020 and 2024. However, it is noteworthy that the United States and Germany accounted for a staggering 99 percent of the exports in the broader category of larger weaponry, which encompasses aircraft, missiles, tanks, and air defense systems.

Furthermore, the Jurists and lawyers for Palestine organization (GAP) formally cautioned the Italian government on September 24, urging it to “take all necessary measures to genuinely safeguard the Global Sumud Flotilla and its participants.” With civilian ships trying to breach the Israeli naval blockade and provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza being intercepted and their crew members detained, legal proceedings are being contemplated to assess the potential accountability of the Italian government regarding the actions of the Israeli Navy. It is generally recognized that the Israeli military’s recent actions against the Global Sumud Flotilla are deemed illegitimate, as they took place in international waters where Israel lacks the legal right to intervene, intercept and abduct its passengers against their will, making such actions a potential act of piracy.

In accordance with the recommendations issued by the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), all state parties the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—which Italy ratified on July 26, 1999—are required upon learning of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed, to implement reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide. However, according to GAP, Meloni’s Government has not only refrained from doing so but, to the contrary, contributed to Israel wae crimes against the Palestinians.

According to GAP’s lawyer, the Italian government’s liability hinges on two key factors:

Firstly, demanding compliance to the Israeli blockade and thus deeming it legitimate amounts to complicity in the crime. The blockade is integral to Israel’s criminal actions, whether they be war crimes or genocide, as it plays a role in perpetuating the offensive within the Gaza Strip and employs starvation as a weapon.

The second factor pertains to the choice to withdraw the Navy vessel that was only briefly sent to escort the Global Sumud Flotilla. Withdrawing and consequently denying assistance signifies a failure to fulfill the duty of protection and, once again, inadvertently aids in the perpetration of a crime.

Full article

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Mystery of Trump, Ukraine, and Russia

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 18, 2025

Hardly anyone in the mainstream press addresses the mystery of how Trump went from what was supposedly a secret agent of the Russians to an ardent opponent of Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war. My hunch is that the commentators in the mainstream press are so excited that Trump has turned pro-Ukraine that they don’t care that they were, not so long ago, accusing him of being a secret agent of Russia.

After all, who can forget the daily refrain during Trump’s first term in office. “Robert Mueller is going to save us!” We had to be subjected to that refrain from both Democrats and the mainstream press for more than a year. The notion was that Trump was, as president of the United States, secretly serving the interests of Russia. Democrats and most of the mainstream press were convinced that Robert Mueller, a lawyer who had been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter, was going to save us all by concluding that Trump was, in fact, serving as a secret agent of Russia, which would then result in Trump’s removal from office through impeachment.

As we all know, Robert Mueller did not save us because there was nothing to save us from. The entire matter was one great big ridiculous conspiracy theory on the part of the mainstream press and Democrats. After a year of extensive investigation by a huge and very expensive staff of lawyers, Robert Mueller ended up concluding that the allegation was bogus.

Nonetheless, most everyone thought that Trump would do everything possible to establish friendly and peaceful relations with Russia. Such a policy, of course, wouldn’t make him a secret agent of Russia, any more than President Kennedy’s efforts in that direction made him a secret agent of Russia.

Yet in his first term in office, Trump ended up taking a fairly adversarial stand toward Russia. It was reasonable to conclude, however, that one reason he did that was an effort to bend over backwards to show that the secret-agent accusations were entirely bogus.

This time around as president, however, there was nothing that Trump had to prove. During his 2024 campaign, he made it clear that he intended to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war as soon as he took office. Of course, the easiest and fastest way to have done that was to immediately cut off all U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine. For a while, it appeared that that was precisely what Trump was going to do. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited Trump and Vice President Vance in the White House, both of them berated, insulted, humiliated, and dressed down Zelensky in public. Zelensky ended up leaving that meeting with his tail between his legs. Trump even stated that it was Ukraine that had started the war. The message seemed clear — U.S. aid to Ukraine was going to terminate, which would, of course, have been the logical course of action given Trump’s conviction that it was Ukraine that started the war.

However, sometime afterward, Trump did an about-face and began berating Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin for not doing enough to end the war. He began threatening Putin with more economic sanctions. He made it clear that the U.S. government would continue supporting Ukraine, especially with weaponry. He has also taken an increasingly aggressive position toward Russia and Putin.

The mainstream press treats all this as perfectly normal. I myself find it extremely mysterious. How does a guy who is accused of being a Russian agent go all the way to becoming a Russian adversary? For me, that’s quite a switch.

The following is my opinion as to what has happened to bring about this very radical turnaround. As longtime readers of my blog know, I have long maintained that it is the national-security branch of the federal government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — that is in charge of the federal government, especially in foreign affairs, and that the other three branches simply operate in support of the national-security branch.

It was the national-security branch that used NATO to successfully provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine. It did that by having NATO, an old relic from the Cold War racket, move eastward toward Russia’s borders knowing full well that Russia would object and ultimately invade Ukraine, after which they could condemn Russia for its “aggression.” The objective was to use a war with Russia to “degrade” Russia, give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” and bring about regime change within Russia. The U.S. would supply the weaponry and cash to Ukraine to accomplish this. It would only be Ukrainian soldiers, not American soldiers, who would be dying and so the American people wouldn’t care about what the national-security branch had done to bring about the war.

What the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA failed to confront was the distinct possibility that Russia would end up winning the war, which would necessarily mean a defeat of the United States. After the deadly 20-year U.S. fiasco war in Afghanistan and the installation of a pro-Iranian regime in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq, the last thing the national-security branch wants is the humiliation of another military defeat, especially at the hands of Russia — its adversary in its old Cold War racket.

So, it’s my opinion that the national-security establishment has put the squeeze on Trump and made him see how important it is to “national security” that Russia not be permitted to win this war. It is my opinion that Trump has caved in to such pressure, just like Congress and the federal courts have long deferred to the national-security branch. That, to me, is a logical explanation for Trump’s about-face on Russia and also why he no longer heavily emphasizes the need to “drain the swamp” and bring an end to the “deep state.”

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

NATO eyeing ‘forceful’ response to Russia – FT

RT | October 9, 2025

NATO is considering easing restrictions on pilots to allow them to fire at unauthorized Russian aircraft, and drastically increasing its military footprint on the country’s border, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing sources. This comes amid Western claims that Russia violated EU airspace, which Moscow has denied.

Last month, Estonia and Poland claimed that Russian aircraft illegally entered their airspace. Western media has also speculated that Russia may be behind drone incidents in other EU nations, which at times disrupted air traffic. Moscow has said the West has not provided any evidence for the claims.

Several NATO members are now debating “a more forceful response” to Russia, according to the Financial Times.

The reported proposals include arming surveillance drones that currently gather intelligence on Russian military movements and lowering the threshold for fighter pilots on NATO’s eastern border to take down perceived threats. Other options under discussion involve conducting military exercises directly along the Russian border, the report said.

Two NATO officials told the FT that one urgent task is to simplify the rules of engagement, which now differ among member states. Some nations require pilots to visually identify targets before firing, while others permit engagement based on radar data or the perceived direction and speed of an approaching aircraft.

FT sources noted that the talks, initiated by states bordering Russia and backed by France and the UK, later developed into a bloc-wide discussion – which, however, is said to be in the early stages. Some governments reportedly advocate for strong deterrence policies, though others urge restraint to avoid direct confrontation.

The article comes on the heels of last week’s EU summit on creating a ‘drone wall’ to deter alleged Russian incursions, with Politico reporting that the meeting “descended into a familiar stalemate.”

Russia has accused NATO of escalating tensions near its borders through expanded military deployments and exercises. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also stated that NATO is “de facto at war” with Russia due to the bloc’s support for Ukraine.

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Europeans negatively react against Brussels’ war psychosis – Peter Szijjarto

By Lucas Leiroz | October 8, 2025

The success of Hungarian pragmatism is apparently influencing other European countries to adopt a policy that diverges from the Brussels establishment—also encouraging ordinary people to vote for dissident candidates who advocate peace and diplomacy, rather than war and sanctions. This is the assessment of Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who recently commented on the election results in the Czech Republic, applauding the victory of Andrej Babis’s ANO party.

Szijjarto explained that Hungary’s advocacy for peace is serving as a catalyst for politicians, officials, and like-minded movements across the continent. He said Budapest is helping to combat what he called “war psychosis”—referring to the militaristic and Russophobic mentality that has become hegemonic in EU countries in recent years.

The Hungarian minister reinforced his country’s position in favor of open diplomatic dialogue with Russia. Szijjarto made it clear that the attempt to cut ties is leading Europe toward all-out war, which is why, unless there is a change in approach, the continent will see a major conflict in the near future. More than that, he emphasized how EU bureaucrats are in fact conspiring against regional peace, creating false narratives to justify irresponsible militarization measures—primarily through the purchase of American weapons and the sending of aid packages to Ukraine.

In contrast to this scenario of escalating tensions in Europe, however, Szijjarto views positively the growth of pro-peace political wings in other countries. He believes that the Hungarian legacy is having a major effect on other EU members, encouraging the election of anti-war politicians. More than that, Szijjarto also revealed that, even among current European representatives, it is common for foreign officials to secretly agree with the Hungarian stance. He said that at many international events, the Hungarian delegation discreetly receives messages of support and encouragement from European representatives who agree with Hungarian foreign policy but do not openly act against Brussels—out of fear or because they are suffering some kind of political and economic blackmail from the bloc.

“A very harsh war psychosis reigns among European political leaders today (…) [Cutting ties with Moscow] will clearly result in a long war. (…) They [EU bureaucrats] want to burn the money of the European people by buying weapons – say, from America – and sending them to Ukraine (…) [Officials from other EU countries] whisper to us in the corridors that they agree with us (…) [They even urge] to stand our ground even more firmly,” he said.

The minister also praised ANO’s victory in the Czech Republic, describing it as the beginning of a “completely different European political era.” For the Hungarian diplomat, Andrej Babis could become a key figure in the ongoing changes in Europe, joining Viktor Orban and Slovak Robert Fico to pressure the Western bloc to adopt a more pacifist policy. Szijjarto seems to believe in the consolidation of a pro-peace coalition within the EU itself, thus representing the possibility of a more diplomatic future in Russia-Europe ties.

Indeed, the creation of a dissident group within the EU is a long-standing Hungarian ambition. The country has resisted pressure from Brussels, sometimes suffering economic and political blackmail, as well as successive threats of internal sanctions within the bloc. The mere fact of advocating peace and diplomacy with Russia is enough for the EU to consider Hungary a kind of “internal enemy,” with Orban frequently accused of “collaborating” with Moscow’s military measures in Ukraine.

Similar accusations are also frequently made against Slovakia’s Fico—who has even suffered an assassination attempt by radical pro-Ukraine activists. Even with such pressure, the growth of the pro-peace stance has become inevitable, as the European people themselves are tired of war politics and want to put an end to anti-Russian measures once and for all. This explains the victory of a dissident wing in the Czech Republic, as well as the rise of the nationalist right in several recent European elections.

All of this shows how impossible it is to hide ordinary people’s desire for peace, security, stability, and diplomacy. Ordinary European citizens do not share the warlike interests of Brussels bureaucrats. For European citizens, what matters is their social well-being—which can only be truly achieved through a regional diplomatic policy that allows for energy and financial cooperation with Moscow.

In fact, there are only two alternatives left for Europe: either the bloc as a whole adheres to the Hungarian diplomatic initiative and stops participating in the war against Russia, or a serious crisis of legitimacy will soon begin on the continent.

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.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Merz reveals details of clash with Orban

RT | October 7, 2025

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has admitted to having a heated argument with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over their approaches to dealing with Russia.

The two clashed at an EU summit in Copenhagen last week, Merz said in an interview to a German broadcaster ntv on Monday.

“He accused [me] of not wanting to negotiate,” the chancellor said, referring to Orban. According to Merz, he responded by stating that Orban’s own diplomatic efforts last year, which involved visits to both Moscow and Kiev, led to nothing. “That’s not the path I want to take,” he added.

When further pressed by host Pinar Atalay whether just saying: “I won’t even try it” would solve the problem, Merz dodged the question by claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not want to negotiate.”

Russia has repeatedly stated throughout the Ukraine conflict that it was ready to sit down at the negotiating table at any time as long as the reality on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed during the talks.

Last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is ready to pursue a “compromise” to resolve the conflict if “our legitimate security interests, as well as the legitimate interests of Russians living in Ukraine, are respected in the same way as those of other parties.”

Hungary has been one of the most vocal critics of the EU’s belligerent approach toward Russia. Orban warned after the Copenhagen summit that the EU leaders “want to go to war” with Russia.

Germany has been Kiev’s second largest arms supplier after the US since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Berlin’s position on the conflict has hardened under Merz, who claimed that diplomatic options were “exhausted” and declared that Germany was “already in a conflict” with Russia.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »