Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

US likely already sent new light JLTV ‘Tomahawk’ launchers to Neo-Nazi junta

By Drago Bosnic | October 8, 2025

Supplying the “Tomahawk” cruise missiles to the Kiev regime has been “on the table” for years. The troubled Biden administration never delivered them, despite repeatedly suggesting it would. Interestingly, Donald Trump regularly criticized such moves as escalatory, insisting that the United States shouldn’t be involved and that it’s only antagonizing Russia. Ironically enough, as soon as he took office, this stance changed dramatically. In a matter of weeks, Trump’s initial promise of “ending the war in 24 hours” degenerated into the same sort of belligerent rhetoric (and moves) as during the Biden era. The new US administration increased American involvement, with military sources suggesting that the Pentagon is close to delivering the aforementioned “Tomahawk” missiles.

Worse yet, some claim that this has already happened and that Washington DC even raised the stakes by supplying new light launchers for the US-made cruise missiles. Namely, since 2019, the Pentagon has been acquiring the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), better known as the Oshkosh Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV). It was designed to replace the AM General High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), better known as the Humvee. One version of the JLTV has been modified for use by the US Marine Corps (USMC) under the Long Range Fires (LRF) program, designed to launch cruise missiles, specifically the infamous “Tomahawk”. The Pentagon intended to give the USMC similar capabilities to those of the US Army, which has the ground-based “Typhon”.

There’s been some confusion even in the US Congress regarding the official designation for the program, with some documents referring to it as the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF), while others still use the LRF. Either way, the US military’s ability to use operational and strategic weapons on such a small platform can certainly provide it with a significant advantage in terms of risk mitigation. Namely, because the launcher is essentially a modified JLTV truck that’s now in wide use (well over 20,000 have been delivered so far), it makes it very difficult to detect “Tomahawk” carriers. This enables shoot-and-scoot (sort of like hit-and-run) strikes at targets that are 1,600 km away, although some sources claim that it’s 2,500 km for the latest Block V iteration of the “Tomahawk”.

The latest reports suggest that these cruise missiles have already been delivered to the Neo-Nazi junta forces through the main logistics hub for NATO-occupied Ukraine in Rzeszów, southeastern Poland, and are now waiting for the “zero hour” somewhere in Western Ukraine. The Kiev regime lacks the necessary ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities to effectively use the “Tomahawk” to the maximum, meaning that the US/NATO would need to provide the targeting data. This has already been the case with other Western cruise missiles, most notably the Anglo-French “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” and the German “Taurus” (the latter is yet to be officially delivered and deployed). Both types are newer and more advanced than the 1980s-era US-made “Tomahawk”.

However, the aforementioned Block V would certainly give them a run for their money, especially if deployed from the highly mobile JLTV trucks. Its ability to move quickly through heavily forested areas makes it extremely difficult to detect, meaning that it could effectively act as some sort of a single-shot “Iskander-K” (uses the 9M728/R-500, with a range of up to 500 km and the Novator’s 9M729, which Western sources claim has a staggering range of up to 5,500 km). The launcher could instantly deploy at virtually any firing position, while its relatively low cost offers the key advantage in terms of mitigating losses. Military sources report that the US could produce 100-200 such units per month, while the number of missiles supplied in each batch can reach over 500 units.

In other words, such a mass production would make it a much bigger challenge than the expensive and overhyped Western European missiles that the United Kingdom, France and Germany can produce in single or double digits, at best. Obviously, this is not to say that the Russian military could be defeated solely with the use of “Tomahawks”, but it could certainly complicate logistics and other operations far behind the immediate frontline. The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) and its surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems have accumulated extensive experience in countering various types of missiles and drones; however, the mass deployment of different kinds of cruise missiles can pose a significant challenge. Namely, Russia is the largest country on the planet, making it extremely difficult to defend all of its territory.

Thus, the aviation, air defenses and ISR assets will need to work together and closely coordinate their actions in order to defend the most critically important areas (military-industrial facilities, bridges, thermal and nuclear power plants, substations, etc). A&WAC (airborne early warning and control) aircraft such as the A-50U will play a crucial role in this, as they can detect and track very low-flying cruise missiles. The sheer range of the “Tomahawk” puts virtually all of European Russia within striking distance, while the Block V expands that well into Western Siberia, putting even ICBM fields in jeopardy, including the Dombarovsky Red Banner Division of the 31st Missile Army of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN). This unit is armed with the monstrously destructive R-36M2 “Voyevoda” ICBMs (and likely the RS-28 “Sarmat”).

These missiles are also capable of deploying the Yu-71/74 “Avangard” HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), the world’s most advanced hypersonic weapon. The US calculus is pretty clear – deploying these missiles in NATO-occupied Ukraine puts Russia into an incredibly dangerous strategic position. It’s very similar to the geopolitical impact of having “Tomahawk” missiles permanently deployed in the Philippines and Japan, as these put Beijing and most major Chinese cities in range.

Thus, America has the capacity to strike both (Eur)Asian giants with medium-range weapons, while the two can only respond with their strategic arsenals. Although this effectively gives Washington DC the ability to dictate the pace of potential escalation, it still makes the world a far more dangerous place, forcing Moscow and Beijing to contemplate immediate strategic retaliation in order to defend themselves.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

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

Russia ratifies military deal with Cuba amid US escalation

Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

Russia’s Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, ratified an intergovernmental agreement on military cooperation with Cuba on Wednesday, formalizing a framework for strengthened defense collaboration between the two nations.

Legal framework for bilateral cooperation

The explanatory note accompanying the draft highlighted that ratification will facilitate the development and expansion of military cooperation, provide the necessary legal basis to define objectives, directions, and forms of collaboration, and ensure the protection of Russian personnel operating in Cuba from local jurisdiction.

The agreement allows both nations to coordinate military activities while safeguarding the interests of their personnel and national security objectives. It is worth noting that the agreement was originally signed in March 2025.

Moscow’s response to US threats

Military expert Alexander Stepanov, from the Institute of Law and National Security at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, told TASS that the ratification represents a symmetrical response to Washington’s threats to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Kiev government.

“This is about a symmetrical response to the potential supply of Tomahawks,” Stepanov explained.

“The ratified agreement maximally expands our military cooperation and allows, within the framework of bilateral interaction and in coordination with the government of the Republic of Cuba, to deploy virtually any offensive systems on the island’s territory.”

Strategic implications

The move comes amid heightened tensions over US plans to enforce Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. Moscow has warned that supplying Tomahawk missiles would represent a new level of escalation, prompting Russia to secure its strategic interests and regional alliances.

Earlier on Thursday, US President Donald Trump signaled a tougher stance toward Moscow, declaring that Washington would “get Russia taken care of somehow” as part of efforts to end the ongoing war in Ukraine. His remarks, delivered in an interview with One America News Network, come amid a deepening stalemate in peace talks between Moscow and Kiev.

“We’ll get Russia taken care of somehow. We’re going to get that [conflict done],” Trump said, suggesting a shift toward a more assertive US posture as the conflict enters a new and volatile phase.

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

US sent $21.7 billion to Israel to back Gaza genocide: Study

Press TV – October 7, 2025

An academic study has revealed that the United States has funneled $21.7 billion in financial and military assistance to Israel since the onset of the Gaza genocide on October 7, 2023.

The report released on Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs details how the US State Department and the newly renamed Department of War, under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, have collectively transferred at least $21.7 billion to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

According to the study, the United States supplied $17.9 billion to Israel in the first year of the genocide, during former US president Joe Biden’s tenure, and $3.8 billion in the second year.

A large portion of the assistance has already been delivered, while the remainder will be distributed in the coming years, the report added.

The study notes that Washington is expected to allocate tens of billions of dollars in future funding to Israel through various bilateral deals.

Another analysis, also published by the Costs of War Project, states that the United States has spent approximately $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in West Asia over the past two years.

US spending in the region, such as strikes on Yemen in March and May 2025 and attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, estimates total costs between $9.65 billion and $12 billion since October 7, 2023, including $2 billion to $2.25 billion for operations against Iran.

Although both reports rely on open-source data, they present detailed assessments of US military support for Israel and estimates of the cost of direct American involvement in the region.

Meanwhile, the State Department has not commented on the amount of military assistance given to Israel since October 2023. The White House referred inquiries to the Pentagon, which oversees only a part of the aid that is given to the Zionist entity.

The studies argue that without US backing, the regime would have been unable to maintain its genocidal campaign in Gaza for two years.

The principal study was produced in collaboration with the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Pro-Israel groups have accused the institute of isolationism and anti-Israel bias, allegations the organization firmly denies.

Meanwhile, Israel’s war machine continues its campaign of destruction, claiming countless civilian lives across Gaza and the wider region.

Since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, more than 76,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children and 12,500 women, have been killed or gone missing, while in its 12-day war with Iran last June, the regime killed at least 1,604 people.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board: When War Architects Become Reconstruction Consultants

By Tamer Mansour – New Eastern Outlook – October 7, 2025

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board

When Tony Blair was announced as co-chair of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza reconstruction, you might wonder whether this represents a genuine peace initiative or simply another iteration of a pattern that’s been refined over two decades across multiple Middle Eastern theaters.

It might sound paradoxical that the architect of the Iraq War, a conflict built on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, would now be positioned as the overseer of Gaza’s future. But in reality, that’s how these appointments work in the Western establishment.

Previous failures seem to qualify rather than disqualify candidates for new ventures.

The Iraq Blueprint

If you want to understand what awaits Gaza under Blair’s stewardship, the Iraq experience offers an instructive template. The Chilcot Inquiry found that Blair “misrepresented intelligence” and “failed to exhaust all peaceful options” before launching the 2003 invasion.

What’s particularly revealing is that British intelligence agencies knew evidence used to justify the war came from individuals who had been tortured, yet the decision to proceed was made regardless.

Blair and his administration spent a decade denying British complicity in the CIA’s torture programs, only to eventually face uncovered evidence that proves the UK’s deep involvement in the rendition programs. Not to forget the major role the UK played in creating a war that killed over a million Iraqis, further destabilized an already inflammable region, emboldened the mutation of what they called “Al Qaeda” into multiple versions, most famously ISIS, and caused a refugee crisis that Europe complains about the most.

Yet Blair has never faced legal accountability. Instead, he has been rewarded with lucrative consultancy contracts and, incredibly, now oversees yet another Middle Eastern territory devastated by military operations.

No wonder some observers view this appointment with skepticism, is there?

A Consultant’s Portfolio

Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has built what might be called an “advisory empire,” serving various governments. His client list makes for interesting reading, doesn’t it?

In Kazakhstan, Blair advised former President Nursultan Nazarbayev following the December 2011 massacre of at least 17 protesting workers. Leaked emails revealed Nazarbayev paid an estimated £20 million for Blair’s counsel on how to “present a better face to the West.

Blair chose to provide no response on two different occasions to Human Rights Watch when they requested a detailed account of his “consultancy” work and the results it has achieved.

Moving on to Rwanda, where Blair has built a special relationship with Paul Kagame’s regime, which has lasted for decades, dismissing UN reports directly accusing Kagame of committing war crimes in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and during his infamous involvement in the Second Congo War, which lasted for almost 5 years and was called by some “Africa’s World War,” as it involved 8 African countries and 25 armed militias and caused the death of millions of Africans.

Blair’s response to such accusations directed at him and Kagame would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame, as he said literally, “Our consultancy is not to tell the people of Rwanda what to do, but to help get done what the president wants.”

The Tony Blair Institute’s accounts show income reaching $121 million in a single year, with much of it from advising what reports described as “repressive”.

The pattern seems consistent: Blair provides Western legitimacy to governments willing to pay for it, while actual democratic reforms remain notably absent from the list of deliverables.

The same Western establishment that positioned itself as guardian of international law regarding various conflicts now promotes Blair for Gaza oversight. Yet Blair’s record demonstrates repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council when it suited Western objectives.

In Kosovo in 1999, Blair established his template: bypassing UN authorization, working with militias whose leaders now face war crimes charges, and claiming humanitarian motives afterward. The NATO bombing campaign never received Security Council approval and killed at least 488 Yugoslav civilians.

That intervention transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an organization “prepared to initiate war beyond the UN.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to reference NATO’s “illegal use of force” in Kosovo when responding to Western criticism.

The rendition operations tell their own story. Blair’s government was involved in the 2004 kidnapping of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj from Malaysia, delivering him to Gaddafi’s torture facilities. The UK government eventually paid £2.3 million in compensation to Sami al-Saadi, though characteristically, it never formally admitted wrongdoing or apologized.

The Gaza Plan: “Investment” or Control?

The leaked 21-page draft proposal outlines a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) with an organizational structure worth examining carefully. At the top sits “an international board of billionaires and businesspeople,” while “highly vetted ‘neutral’ Palestinian administrators” occupy the lower administrative positions.

The plan describes Gaza reconstruction as a “commercially driven authority, led by business professionals and tasked with generating investable projects with real financial returns”. Previous reporting linked Blair’s institute to proposals for transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” featuring resorts and manufacturing zones, with mentions of relocating up to 500,000 Palestinians.

Various analysts, both Arab and non-Arab, have expressed concern that the plan is designed to sideline any form of Palestinian governance, in favor of international bodies brought in to carry the load.

And with someone with Tony Blair’s record at the helm, one can understand these concerns only by reminding oneself of his previous tenure as the Middle East envoy of the “Quartet” between 2007 and 2015, a period during which he hardly did anything to stop the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and nothing that might remotely achieve anything for of statehood for Palestine.

The structure Blair proposes: wealthy foreign decision-makers controlling Palestinian land and resources while Palestinians serve in subordinate administrative roles. This bears a resemblance to governance models from a century ago.

Whether this represents “investment” or simply foreign control with better branding is a question worth considering.

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

If they accept the Blair plan, they get foreign control disguised as investment, with Palestinians in subordinate roles while “billionaires and businesspeople” make strategic decisions. If they reject it, they risk being portrayed as obstacles to peace and reconstruction, potentially losing access to funding and international support.

The Accountability Gap

Despite the Chilcot Inquiry findings about Britain’s role in the Iraq War, despite compensation paid to rendition victims, and despite documented intelligence manipulation, Blair has never faced legal consequences. Instead, he’s built a consulting empire worth hundreds of millions and has now been appointed to oversee Gaza’s future.

The British government has paid millions in compensation to torture victims without formally admitting responsibility. Blair himself has declined to comment on specifics regarding what he knew about torture programs and when.

This pattern raises questions about international accountability mechanisms. If the architect of the Iraq War faces no consequences, what message does that send about international law?

If involvement in rendition operations results in consultancy opportunities rather than prosecution, what does that suggest about deterrence?

The Accountability Question: The double standard regarding UN authority is worth examining.

The Destruction/Reconstruction Façade

But the pattern seems difficult to ignore. Now I think it’s logical to pose these questions, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions about the various conflicts discussed here:

  • What exactly is Blair bringing to Gaza that couldn’t be provided by someone without his particular history?
  • Who benefits from his appointment to this role?
  • Does the international community have mechanisms for accountability, or do Western leaders operate under different rules?

Gaza’s Palestinians deserve better than to have their future determined by someone whose previous interventions left trails of destruction across multiple continents. Whether they’ll get better is another question entirely. The pattern has been consistent: promise reform, deliver foreign control, profit from reconstruction contracts, and move on before accountability arrives, or do not respond to it at all.

There’s no particular reason to expect Gaza will be different, unless something fundamental changes about how the international system operates instead of it trying to convince anybody with such a destruction/reconstruction façade, or what one might comfortably call “investment imperialism,” that is being imposed by genocidal force on Gaza.

But for this change to happen, “We the People” worldwide need to wake up and realize who should be in control.

Tamer Mansour is an Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Our goal should not be to defeat Russia, but to end the war,’ says Slovak PM Fico

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | October 6, 2025

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has again denounced the European Union’s handling of the war in Ukraine, declaring that Slovakia’s goal is not Russia’s defeat but peace between “Slavs killing each other.”

Speaking during a televised discussion marking the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Dukla Pass, Fico said that “the war could have ended three months after it started,” accusing Western powers of prolonging the conflict to fight Russia indirectly.

“War is no solution. If the EU had spent as much energy on peace as it does on supporting the war in Ukraine, the war could have ended long ago. I will never be a wartime prime minister,” Fico said, insisting that if Slovaks wanted such a leader, “they should elect someone else.”

The prime minister added that he would “never allow Slovakia to be dragged into any war adventure,” citing “no moral, historical, or legal reasons” for the country to become involved in the conflict.

“It is not our war,” he said. “It is a regional conflict with historical roots. Why should Slovakia talk about war now?”

Fico also dismissed recent EU discussions on creating an anti-drone defense wall along the bloc’s eastern flank. “Let the experts talk about it. What can a prime minister who has never fired a gun say about drone protection? That is an expert question,” he remarked.

He also confirmed that a new round of talks between the Slovak and Ukrainian governments would take place in Michalovce on Oct. 17.

Marking the wartime commemoration, Fico warned against what he described as historical amnesia, saying that Europe was “forbidding” celebrations of the end of World War II and dismantling Red Army monuments. “We have to talk about what the hell is happening today,” he said, condemning leaders who “speak so lightly about war” and “talk about defeating Russia” without recalling “the terrible suffering” of past generations.

Fico’s comments are in sharp contrast to those made last week by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who told the Warsaw Security Forum that the Ukraine war is “our war.” Tusk described it as “central to Europe’s security and values,” warning that “if we lose this war, the consequences will affect not only our generation but also the next generations in Poland, all of Europe, in the United States, everywhere in the world.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán swiftly rebuked Tusk, posting on X: “Dear Donald Tusk, you may think that you are at war with Russia, but Hungary is not. Neither is the European Union. You are playing a dangerous game with the lives and security of millions of Europeans.”

The divide highlights the deep fracture running through Central Europe’s response to the conflict. Orbán and Fico, both critical of EU sanctions and weapons deliveries, have positioned themselves as advocates for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations with Moscow.

They have also acquired a new ally over the weekend in Prague after Andrej Babiš’s ANO movement won national elections, leaving Tusk isolated within the Visegrád Group.

Babiš has pledged to withdraw from a Czech-led initiative to procure artillery shells for Ukraine and declared that Kyiv is “not ready” for EU membership. “We have to end the war first,” Babiš told a Ukrainian journalist. “Of course, we can cooperate with Ukraine. But you are not ready for the EU.”

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Orban rejects Euro as EU ‘falling apart’

RT | October 6, 2025

Hungary will not adopt the euro as its currency, as the EU is “falling apart,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

Bloc members are obliged to eventually join the Eurozone, with the exception of Denmark, which secured an opt-out. Seven of the 27 EU member states still use their national currencies.

In an interview with economic news site EconomX on Monday, Orban was asked whether he would move towards adopting the euro in Hungary.

“It will definitely not be on my agenda,” he replied.

“The European Union is in trouble, in the process of disintegration, it is currently falling apart,” he said.

Orban argued that, in light of this, he did not want to tie Hungary’s fate to the EU any further.

The Hungarian leader has been progressively more critical of the EU in recent years, clashing with its leadership over arms supplies to Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, and a shift towards militarization.

Orban has also vowed to veto Kiev’s EU bid, arguing that Ukrainian membership would destroy the bloc’s economy, and directly embroil it in a conflict with Russia.

EU leaders are increasingly pushing to fast-track Ukraine’s accession and want to finance more military aid, clearly showing that “the Brusselians want to go to war,” he wrote on X last week.

His position has led to tension with Kiev, exacerbated in recent months by Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy facilities that supply oil to landlocked Hungary.

Kiev and certain senior figures in the EU are conspiring to influence Hungarian domestic politics to put a pro-Ukrainian government in power, Orban claimed on Saturday.

His accusation echoed a report from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), published earlier this year.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “is seriously studying regime change scenarios” in Hungary due to Orban’s overly “independent policy,” the spy agency claimed.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian drone targets nuclear plant inside Russia – operator

RT | October 7, 2025

A Ukrainian drone has targeted a nuclear power station in Russia’s Voronezh Region overnight, Rosenergoatom, a state-run company which operates the country’s nuclear power plants, has said.

The UAV hit a cooling tower of the sixth power-generating unit at the Novovoronezh NPP after being diverted by electronic warfare means, the company said in a statement on Telegram on Tuesday.

There was no damage or injuries as a result of the incident, the statement read. A dark mark was left in the spot where the drone struck the tower, it added.

The attack did not affect the operations of the station, with the radiation level on site remaining unchanged and corresponding to natural levels, Rosenergoatom said.

“This is yet another act of aggression by the Ukrainian military against the Russian nuclear power plants. Previously, it had attempted attacks against the main facilities of the Kursk and Smolensk Nuclear Power Plants,” the company stated.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

US admits F-35 program failure after decades and trillions spent

Al Mayadeen | October 7, 2025

Nearly 25 years after awarding Lockheed Martin the contract to build the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Responsible Statecraft analyst Dan Grazier says that the US government has finally admitted that the F-35 will never achieve the combat capabilities it was designed to deliver.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last month details the program’s ongoing issues and includes a key acknowledgment: “The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”

Grazier says that this statement, while phrased bureaucratically, is a quiet admission that the F-35 will not meet its original goals. “Reducing the scope of Block 4” effectively means that planned combat capabilities are being abandoned.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program began in the early 2000s as the Pentagon’s most ambitious weapons development initiative, a single aircraft platform meant to serve multiple branches of the US military and allied nations.

However, as the GAO report notes, many of the F-35’s core design elements remain incomplete. Officials were unable to finish the jet’s baseline development on time or within budget. Instead of admitting failure, they rebranded the process as the “modernization phase,” also known as Block 4, to mask ongoing design work.

Grazier says “reducing the scope” of this modernization effort confirms that many of the F-35’s touted features in areas like electronic warfare, weapons integration, and navigation will never materialize.

Lockheed Martin’s ‘modernization’ phase masks ongoing failures

The decision marks a stunning reversal for the Pentagon, which for years defended the F-35 as the future of aerial warfare. With costs exceeding $2 trillion, the program has become the most expensive weapons project in history.

For two decades, Lockheed Martin and US military officials promised a revolutionary fighter jet that would ensure American air superiority for generations. Instead, the GAO findings reveal a project mired in delays, performance shortfalls, and spiraling expenses.

The report also highlights how the Pentagon reclassified unfinished development work as “modernization” to secure continued funding and avoid scrutiny from Congress.

Fallout for US allies and global weapons sales

Grazuer states that the ramifications of the F-35’s shortcomings go beyond wasted money. 19 countries have purchased or plan to operate the aircraft, including the United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy, many of whom were partners in the program from the outset.

These nations invested heavily, expecting the world’s most advanced fighter jet. Instead, they now face rising costs and reduced performance. For allies that committed billions based on Washington’s assurances, the admission could strain future defense spending cooperation and arms sales.

If the US military cannot deliver the promised technology, Grazier says skepticism toward future US weapons programs may grow, reducing trust in the country’s defense industry.

A symbol of flawed defense spending and mismanagement

The Responsible Statecraft report says the F-35 program has become a cautionary tale of overreach, that of an effort to design one aircraft to meet the needs of multiple branches and allies, while serving political and industrial interests at home.

As critics note, trying to build a single jet to satisfy at least 15 militaries worldwide was doomed from the start. What was intended as a triumph of innovation has turned into a $2 trillion emblem of waste, inefficiency, and failed accountability in US defense policy.

For the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, Grazier says the F-35 may not stand as the future of warfare, but as a monument to the limits of ambition and the dangers of unchecked defense spending.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Pro-EU Czech PM concedes election defeat

RT | October 4, 2025

The right-wing party of agricultural tycoon Andrej Babis, branded the ‘Czech Trump’ by local media, has come out ahead in the Czech general election with 97% of the vote counted, according to official results.

The ANO movement is now set to replace the current center-right cabinet led by Prime Minister Petr Fiala. He has already congratulated Babis, conceding defeat and stating the outcome of the vote must be respected.

Speaking to reporters after his victory became evident, Babis once again rejected longstanding accusations of being anti-EU and insisted he merely wants to “save” the bloc.

“We want to save Europe… and we are clearly pro-European and pro-NATO,” Babis told Reuters.

ANO will seek a one-party cabinet but will have to enter talks with two minor parties to secure an outright majority, Babis said. One of the parties is believed to be the far-right SPD, which has long been considered a potential coalition partner.

“We went into the election with the aim of ending the government of Petr Fiala and support even for a minority cabinet of ANO is important for us and it would meet the target we had for this election,” SPD deputy chairman Radim Fiala said in a televised speech. In contrast to ANO, his party maintains an explicit anti-EU and anti-NATO stance.

Another potential coalition partner is the Motorists, who strongly oppose the EU’s environmental policies. They and the SPD received nearly 7% and 8% of the vote respectively, and joining forces with ANO would be sufficient to secure a majority.

During his campaign, Babis repeatedly criticized the EU’s handling of immigration and the Green Deal, as well as opposing EU membership for Ukraine. He also pledged to drastically cut aid for Kiev, promising more domestic spending instead. Babis signaled he would end the so-called ‘Czech initiative’ project, dedicated to supplying ammunition to Ukraine, calling the scheme overpriced.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US strikes another vessel off Venezuela, killing four

Al Mayadeen | October 3, 2025

The United States has escalated its military campaign in Latin America, carrying out yet another deadly strike off the coast of Venezuela under the false pretext of fighting narcotics trafficking.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the latest strike in a post on X, celebrating the destruction of a small vessel that US officials claimed was carrying drugs. A video accompanying the post showed the boat erupting into flames, a scene observers say reveals Washington’s growing reliance on extrajudicial force and its willingness to kill without evidence, trial, or accountability.

“Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Hegseth wrote, asserting that it “was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people.” He vowed, “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”

The latest strike brings the death toll to at least 21 people across four attacks in recent weeks, none of whom have been positively identified as traffickers. Washington has offered no independent proof linking the victims to drug networks, raising concerns that the US is unilaterally executing individuals in foreign waters under a fabricated pretext.

This new military doctrine stems from President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States is now in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, reclassifying them as “terrorist organizations”, a move legal scholars have condemned as an attempt to bypass international law. A Pentagon notice sent to Congress, obtained by AFP, claimed: “The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The same document described alleged smugglers as “unlawful combatants”, stripping them of legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Rights groups have warned that such terminological manipulation echoes past US practices, from the “war on terror” to the invasions of Panama and Iraq, where legal gray zones were exploited to justify preemptive violence and regime change.

Political Theater and Extrajudicial Killings

The Trump administration has openly celebrated these operations as demonstrations of strength rather than law enforcement. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, declared that traffickers had been “turned into stardust.” On Truth Social, Trump himself echoed the narrative, writing: “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”

But independent analysts and international law experts argue that the campaign bears all the hallmarks of a covert regime change operation. The strikes come amid an unprecedented US military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of F-35 warplanes to Puerto Rico, marking the largest show of force in the Caribbean in more than three decades. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino condemned the presence of US jets near Venezuelan airspace as “a provocation” and “a threat to our national security.”

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

32% of Mass Shooters Are Veterans. 0% of Media Outlets Will Say So.

By David Swanson | Let’s Try Democracy | September 29, 2025

Two U.S. military veterans allegedly shot and killed at least three people each this past weekend, Thomas Jacob Sanford in Michigan, and Nigel Max Edge in North Carolina. So, it is a safe bet that they will both be added (with, almost certainly, no mention of their status as veterans) to the database maintained by Mother Jones that I have for years been using as a starting point to track statistics on mass shootings.

It’s been almost two years since I posted an update. In that time, Mother Jones has added seven mass shootings to its database. These two new ones will make nine. Of those other seven, one of the shooters — bizarrely, and I hope nobody gets reprimanded — is actually identified as a veteran by Mother Jones. Another of the seven was 14 years old and yet another was 67; they don’t factor into calculations about men under 60. Another was a veteran of an institution that uses the word “veteran” to associate itself with the military: football. He blamed his football injuries for his crime. He counts statistically as NOT a military veteran. In a quick internet search, I’ve been unable to identify any of the others as military veterans either, so will count them as non-veterans. But it’s worth noting that often in the past I’ve managed to find out about veteran status only after lengthy searching.

So, the data has now changed from 40 of 127 mass shooters (who are men under 60) being military veterans when last I wrote about this to now 43 of 134 mass shooters being military veterans. That’s 32%, up from 31%. That figure has been between 31% and 36% for as long as I’ve been doing these calculations

In the United States, only a very small percentage of men under 60 are military veterans.

In the United States, at least 32% of male mass shooters under 60 (which is almost all mass shooters) are military veterans.

As I reported in June 2023, a University of Maryland report touching on this topic was virtually ignored by media outlets.

But here are the facts:

Looking at males, aged 18-59, veterans are well over twice, maybe over three times as likely to be mass shooters compared with the group as a whole. And they shoot somewhat more fatally.

The numbers have changed slightly since I began writing about this:

The training and conditioning and arming of shooters is of far less interest to media outlets than “motivation,” but what we should actually know about shooters’ ideology is not unrelated to the disproportionate presence of military veterans in the list of mass shooters. These are people who have been armed and trained and conditioned at public expense and then generally thanked for the supposed service of what they’ve done when it has not yet included shooting any of the wrong people.

All sorts of correlations are carefully examined when it comes to mass shooters. But the fact that the largest institution in the United States has trained many of them to shoot is scrupulously avoided.

Many of those mass shooters who are not military veterans tend to dress and speak as if they were. Some of them are veterans of police forces with military-sounding titles, or have been prison guards or security guards. Counting those who’ve been in either the U.S. military or a police force or a prison or worked as an armed guard of any kind would give us an even larger percentage of mass shooters to consider. The factor of having been trained and employed to shoot is larger than just the military veterans, yet carefully ignored by every single U.S. corporate media outlet (that sounds like an exaggeration, but can you prove it wrong?).

Some of the non-military mass-shooters have worked as civilians for the military. Some have tried to join the military and been rejected. The whole phenomenon of mass-shootings has skyrocketed during the post-2001 endless wars. The militarism of mass-shootings may be too big to see, but the avoidance of the topic is stunning.

Needless to say, out of a country of over 330 million people a database of 134 mass shooters is a very, very small group. Needless to say, statistically, virtually all veterans are not mass shooters. But that can hardly be the reason for not a single news article ever mentioning that mass shooters are very disproportinately likely to be veterans. After all, statistically, virtually all males, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, Nazi-sympathizers, loners, and gun-purchasers are also not mass-shooters. Yet articles on those topics proliferate like NRA campaign bribes.

There seem to me to be two key reasons that a sane communications system would not censor this topic. First, our public dollars and elected officials are training and conditioning huge numbers of people to kill, sending them abroad to kill, thanking them for the “service,” praising and rewarding them for killing, and then some of them are killing where it is not acceptable. This is not a chance correlation, but a factor with a clear connection.

Second, by devoting so much of our government to organized killing, and even allowing the military to train in schools, and to develop video games and Hollywood movies, we’ve created a culture in which people imagine that militarism is praiseworthy, that violence solves problems, and that revenge is one of the highest values. Virtually every mass shooter has used military weaponry. Most of those whose dress we are aware of dressed as if in the military. Those who’ve left behind writings that have been made public have tended to write as if they were taking part in a war. So, while it might surprise many people to find out how many mass shooters are veterans of the military, it might be harder to find mass shooters (actual veterans or not) who did not themselves think they were soldiers.

There seems to me to be one most likely reason that it’s difficult to find out which shooters have been in the military (meaning that some additional shooters probably have been, about whom I’ve been unable to learn that fact). We’ve developed a culture dedicated to praising and glorifying participation in war. It need not even be a conscious decision, but a journalist convinced that militarism is laudable would assume it was irrelevant to a report on a mass shooter and, in addition, assume that it was distasteful to mention that the man was a veteran. That sort of widespread self-censorship is the only possible explanation for the complete whiting out of this story.

The phenomenon of shutting down this story does not exactly require a “motive,” and I would like to recommend to reporters on mass shootings that they, too, devote a bit less energy to the often meaningless hunt for “a motive,” and a tad more to considering whether the fact that a shooter lived and breathed in an institution dedicated to mass shooting might be relevant.

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2025: 

Shockingly, CBS News did one article on this topic two years ago. Here it is. The seven people who wrote it used a database from the Violence Project and did not separate out men or men of any particular age. They concluded that 26% of mass shooters were veterans, as compared to 7% of all people. In other words, a mass shooter is over 3 times as likely to be a veteran.

It’s always seemed more relevant to me to remove the very few mass shooters who are female or young or old, and then compare to 18-59-year-old men in the general population. The closest I can come to putting an exact number on that is like this. The U.S. Census says that in 2024, males 19-59 were 88,300,644 or 25.96% of the population. (This is imperfect because it looks at only one year, because it is an estimate, because it leaves out 18 years olds, and because it includes non-citizens who were not eligible for or did not live in the United States at the age for being in the U.S. military.) According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of men aged 20-59 (so, missing 18-19-year-olds), 6,565,138 as of 2024 were veterans. That’s 7.43% of all men aged 19-59. If we compare 32% with 7%, mass shooters are over 4.5 times more likely to be veterans.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »