Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Max Otte: How Germany Destroyed Itself – No Turning Back

Glenn Diesen | January 20, 2026

Max Otte discusses how Germany began to ignore and undermine its own national interests after the Cold War. Max Otte is an entrepreneur, political economist, investment manager, philanthropist and political activist. With 141 votes, he was the runner-up for the election of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany on 13 February 2022.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng

Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/…

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Europe is ‘run by German war troika’ – Orban

RT | January 20, 2026

The “German war troika” at the top of the EU is shaping the bloc’s bellicose policy, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has alleged.

Speaking at a political rally in Budapest on Monday, he identified the three “pro-war Germans” as European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the leader of the EU Parliament’s largest party, EPP, Manfred Weber.

“The fact is that Europe is controlled by a German war troika… These three people are the ones who shape Europe’s war policy today,” Orban said.

He cited the latest EU €90 billion ($106 billion) loan package to Kiev, arguing that the bloc was effectively financing the Ukraine conflict for another two years with money Brussels did not have. As Kiev will never be able to pay the money back, “our children and grandchildren will pay,” he added.

Western leaders are already openly discussing eventual troop deployments to Ukraine as so-called peacekeeping contingents, he said.

“Prior experience shows that European peacekeepers always tend to become warkeepers. That is why I do not recommend that Hungary send troops outside its own borders within any European peacekeeping framework.”

NATO troops in Ukraine under any pretext have long been an absolute red line for Russia, and initiatives to deploy them have been viewed in Moscow as undermining the US-brokered diplomatic efforts.

Russia has also pointed to an increase in warlike rhetoric from von der Leyen, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and the leaders of the UK, France and Germany.

“They are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation, and, in fact, are not even hiding it,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Moscow has long been focused on eliminating the core causes of the Ukraine conflict, which the West has been fueling for years in an effort to turn Kiev into a “threat to Russia’s security,” the top diplomat said.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

What happens when START-3 expires, and US doesn’t want to prolong it?

By Ahmed Adel | January 20, 2026

Although START-3, the last strategic arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, expires on February 5, the two countries will most likely continue to informally respect it, unless Washington violates it. Washington likely wants the treaty to expire so a new agreement can be signed that will not limit the development of new weapons.

US President Donald Trump considers all agreements made before he took office outdated and does not want to accept restrictions from a bygone era. Russia has prepared for that, since the proposal to extend the agreement was made more than a year ago and received no response from the American side.

The US and Russia together possess almost 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, but Russia remains the largest nuclear power. The first START treaty was signed on July 31, 1991, at a summit in Moscow between then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush, and entered into force on December 5, 1994. This was the first document of its kind between the Soviet Union and the US, aimed at ensuring parity between the two sides, with the nuclear potential of both countries to be reduced by 30%. The treaty remained in force for a full 15 years, when START-3 was signed, the last strategic arms control treaty concluded between Russia and the US after the end of the Cold War.

With the Prague disarmament agreement, signed in 2010 by heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, Washington and Moscow committed to having no more than 700 deployed warheads and no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. The contract expired in February 2021, but the Joe Biden administration decided to extend the agreement for five years, without any amendments or changes.

Washington does not want this arms control agreement because Russia is now a step ahead in the development of modern weapons systems. Russia has manufactured weapons incomparable to anything else in the world, such as the Oreshnik and Poseidon systems, as well as nuclear-powered missiles, while the Americans believe that the restrictions under this agreement hinder their development in this direction and therefore do not want to limit themselves.

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, said that the US is likely not prepared to accept the Russian proposal to voluntarily extend the key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for another year.

It is recalled that on January 8, the US president said regarding START, “If it expires, it expires,” adding, “We’ll just do a better agreement.”

All these agreements were concluded in different eras and under different conditions, and the Americans could, conditionally speaking, once impose many things on Russia. Now they cannot, because Russia has an advantage across a wide range of areas today, such as modernizing 95% of its nuclear forces, something the Americans have not done yet. Russia also has hypersonic missiles that have already been tested on the battlefield, which the Americans do not.

Trump stated in 2020 during his previous presidential term that the US possesses a “super-duper missile” about seventeen times faster than turbine-powered cruise missiles like the Tomahawk and unlike any other in the world, but such a missile has not been shown to the public to this day. Then the Trump administration claimed that Russia developed hypersonic weapons, allegedly stealing some technologies from the US.

Based on all this, the Trump administration considers the circumstances and refuses to enter into any agreements or treaties that limit US capabilities.

In reaching any new nuclear arms agreement, beyond Russia and the US, several other players would need to be involved, with the US president primarily considering China. From Washington’s perspective, Russia should persuade China to join the deal. However, China refuses to do so because its nuclear arsenal is much smaller than Russia’s and the US’s. Additionally, Trump might have also considered India.

However, if Moscow and Washington, for example, say that such an attitude is acceptable regarding China, there is the question of how they will handle England and France, which also possess nuclear weapons. It is clear, therefore, that American think tanks are working to develop different options for establishing a new world order, but it will mainly be ‘peace through force’ under United States dominance.

There is a possibility that Russia will announce it will continue to respect the limits of the agreement, as long as Washington does not violate them. What the Americans, for their part, will say is unknown, but there have been Trump’s statements about the necessity of resuming nuclear tests, which are banned. Moscow responded that they are against resuming, but if the US conducts nuclear tests, the Russians will immediately carry out their own in response.

In that case, a nuclear arms race could occur, which would lead to increased strategic risks and potentially threaten global security. Therefore, Moscow believes that responsible and restrained behavior by nuclear states is more important than ever and is firmly committed to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that it must never be started.

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

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO without America: Europe’s trial run ends in a reality check

Steadfast Dart 2026 exposes how fragile European security looks once the US steps aside

By Andrei Medvedev | RT | January 20, 2026

NATO has launched major military exercises – Steadfast Dart 2026. The drills involve over 10,000 troops from 11 countries: Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye. The primary goal is to assess the bloc’s readiness for the rapid deployment of substantial forces. The exercises will continue until mid-March.

At first glance, it might seem like just another NATO exercise. But here’s the catch: The US is not taking part. The initiative is purely European, and aims to achieve two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate that Europe is strong, unafraid of American influence, and capable of protecting its interests – not only by producing AI animations about heroic Vikings defending Greenland, but through real military strength.

The second goal is to find out whether Europe can operate independently, without US support. The answer is probably not. It’s no secret that 70% of NATO’s budget comes from US contributions. But beyond finances, NATO intelligence is primarily reliant on the US. Satellite communication, coordination, and command structures are also all built around a model in which the US acts as the ‘big brother’ to its European partners.

Russian journalists have witnessed this dynamic in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan (NATO did not officially conduct an operation there, but in reality, it entered the country). Who owns the largest and safest bases? Who oversees all sector units? Who plans operations and sets combat tasks? The big brother – the US. In Kosovo, for instance, NATO allies couldn’t just enter Camp Bondsteel. The base was American, and the Europeans had to get a special pass to enter.

Until recently, Europe seemed perfectly content with its ‘junior partner’ status. What fueled the EU’s prosperity? Cheap Russian (initially Soviet) resources with stable supply lines and minimal security expenses. Security was outsourced to the Americans: US bases, air support, missile defense… Then Trump came along, and in typical businessman fashion, said if you want protection, you’ll have to pay for it.

Is there a NATO without the US? That’s the question European military leaders will grapple with during these exercises – though they likely already know the answer. Sure, NATO would exist, but it would be very costly for the EU; or perhaps it won’t exist at all, which means Europe must concede that the master will do as he pleases. And the ‘master’ – America – is well aware of this.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently stated that the US will remain in NATO. But just look how he put it. Asked what’s more important to US security interests, NATO or Greenland, Bessent replied: “That’s a false choice. The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella.”

In the current climate, when Europe’s economy is struggling (for example, BMW and Mercedes are now using Chinese engines, and BASF is making only a third of what it used to), the idea of a European NATO seems far-fetched. Europe just doesn’t have the money for it.

Neither does it have the military equipment – most of it has been sent to Ukraine, and what’s left would last a month or so in a high-intensity conflict. Moreover, Euro-NATO doesn’t have that many armies with real combat experience outside of the bloc.

Sure, there is France, which has been engaged in prolonged operations in the Sahel. And Türkiye. However, even their combat experience is powerless in a situation in which there is no money. Fighting Bedouins in the Sahel or Kurds in Syria is worlds apart from facing an adversary like China or Russia – or, in the new reality, the US.

The fact that the US is not taking part in NATO’s latest military exercises (despite being able to easily deploy their troops from bases in Germany or Italy) is quite telling. America’s message to Europe is clear: Let’s see how you do without us and then come running back.

The lesson is humiliating. But after all, they got into this mess by themselves.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Diesen: How the Nordic Countries abandoned the Pursuit of Peace and went Confrontational

Max Otte | January 12, 2026

Did you know that Norway recently allowed over 30 US bases on its territory? (Without calling them “bases.”) The confrontation with Russia in the Arctic is heating up.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ continues to block US firms from acquiring Iron Dome code

Al Mayadeen | January 19, 2026

The Israeli Security Ministry has halted approval of a planned United States takeover of Amprest Systems, a company whose command-and-control software forms a core component of the Iron Dome specialized anti-air system, citing concerns over non-Israeli control of classified military technology.

The proposed deal would see US-listed Ondas Holdings acquire control of Amprest in a transaction valuing the company at more than $200 million. Under the proposed terms, Ondas would acquire the shares held by Amprest’s existing shareholders, excluding Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, in a transaction valued at approximately $100 million, leaving Rafael a minority stake in the company.

Security officials involved in the review have reportedly raised objections to a non-Israeli entity gaining control over Amprest, given the company’s central role in Iron Dome and other Israeli anti-air programs that involve classified command-and-control capabilities.

Prolonged review and internal tensions

The transaction is being reviewed by the Security Ministry’s “Department for Security of the Defense Establishment” (Malmab), headed by Yuval Shimoni. People familiar with the process say the review has dragged on for months, with no clear timeline or indication of whether the deal will ultimately be approved.

The delay has exposed internal tensions within the Security Ministry between officials seeking to attract external capital into “Israel’s” warfare technology sector and security bodies tasked with preventing sensitive military know-how from falling under external control. The lack of coordination has sent contradictory signals to investors. While the Security Ministry Director General, Major General (res.) Amir Baram, and the head of the ministry’s research and development directorate, Brigadier General (res.) Danny Gold, have publicly encouraged deeper cooperation with foreign investors, Malmab has effectively become a bottleneck.

“There is no holistic view,” a senior source familiar with the process told Israeli news website Ynet.

“Investors put tens of millions of dollars into Amprest years ago and are now told they cannot exit for security reasons,” the source said, explaining, “Under those conditions, who will want to invest in defense tech?”

Supporters of the deal contend it could proceed under strict safeguards, including limits on access, governance, and technology transfer, while critics say the process has been marked by unusually slow decision-making and heavy bureaucracy.

Amprest’s role in Iron Dome

Amprest was established around 25 years ago by Natan Barak, a retired Israeli Navy officer with the rank of colonel. Its profile rose significantly about 15 years ago after its command-and-control software was integrated into Iron Dome. In 2012, the company received the “Israel Defense Prize” for its contribution to the occupation’s specialized anti-air systems.

The company’s largest shareholder is Rafael, with the remaining shares held by Barak, the OurCrowd investment platform, and other investors. Most of Amprest’s activity is in the military sector, with Rafael as its main customer. According to people involved in the talks, Amprest had never been offered for sale before Ondas made its proposal, which one source described as “an offer shareholders couldn’t refuse.”

Ondas’ expanding footprint

Ondas, which trades on Nasdaq, has rapidly expanded its presence in “Israel’s” defense sector since October 7, 2023, assembling a portfolio of nine warfare-related companies. The firm says it has spent roughly $400 million on acquisitions to date.

Its purchases include Sentrycs, a counter-drone technology company acquired in November for $125 million in cash and $100 million in stock, and Roboteam, a military ground robotics firm bought for about $80 million. Other acquisitions include M4 Defense, Iron Drone, Apeiro Motion, Insight Intelligent Sensors, and S.P.O., a manufacturer of precision optical components. In late 2022, Ondas acquired Airobotics for about $15 million, folding it into American Robotics. Airobotics develops autonomous drones and received US Federal Aviation Administration approval to operate over populated areas.

The company’s leadership includes several former senior figures from Rafael, among them former Rafael CEO Major General (res.) Yoav Har-Even, who sits on Ondas’ advisory board, and Brigadier General (res.) Oshri Lugassy, a former senior engineering officer at Rafael who now serves as Ondas’ co-CEO and leads its most active division, Ondas Autonomous Systems (OAS). While Ondas is legally incorporated in the United States, its technological foundations, leadership, and current growth engine are deeply rooted in the Israeli military ecosystem, bringing forward questions regarding Malmab’s reservations.

Ondas and Full Spectrum

Ondas’ origins trace back to an Israeli startup known as Full Spectrum Inc., which developed the core technology behind what is now Ondas Networks, one of the company’s two main divisions. Full Spectrum was co-founded by Israeli engineer Menashe Shahar, who continues to serve as chief technology officer of Ondas Networks.

In September 2018, the current public entity, then operating as Zev Ventures, a US-based company, carried out a reverse acquisition of Ondas Networks Inc., the rebranded Full Spectrum, and subsequently adopted the name Ondas Holdings Inc.

Until late 2023, the company’s primary revenue stream came from a single wireless communications product developed by the original Israeli engineering team. Since then, Ondas’ growth has been driven largely by OAS, which has expanded rapidly through acquisitions of the aforementioned dual-use and warfare Israeli firms. Although Ondas is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, a significant portion of its research, development, and operational activity remains centered in Israeli-occupied territories.

Market concerns and unanswered questions

According to Ynet, some industry figures have expressed unease over Ondas’ rapid growth and surging market valuation, which has reportedly climbed to around $5 billion following a $1 billion stock offering. One market source likened the rise to the speculative SPAC boom in the early 2020s.

Questions have also been raised about what Rafael stands to gain from the Amprest deal, given that Rafael is expected to remain Amprest’s main customer even if Ondas were to take control.

“The Iron Dome name is a premium brand,” the source said, adding, “Ondas needs it to impress investors and open doors.”

At the same time, Ondas is reportedly in talks with Rafael over the potential acquisition of Controp, another subsidiary that develops electro-optical systems, including cameras for unmanned aerial vehicles. Unlike Amprest, Controp has been openly offered for sale, and last year, US-based AeroVironment was said to be interested in acquiring a 50% stake at a valuation of $600 million to $700 million.

Is Iron Dome software shielded from US access?

Despite close military cooperation between “Israel” and the United States, specifically on the Iron Dome program, the core command-and-control software underpinning Iron Dome has remained legally and technically protected from full American access, even at the cost of major procurement and integration opportunities.

As of January 2026, the Israeli government continues to retain strict control over Iron Dome’s source code, treating it as sovereign intellectual property tied directly to “national security”. While Washington has provided significant funding and participates in co-production, Israeli authorities have consistently refused to transfer the system’s key codes to the US military.

Lurking friction

This position has generated friction in the past. In 2020, the US Army abandoned a roughly $1 billion plan to fully integrate Iron Dome into its air defense architecture after “Israel” declined to share the source code needed to connect the system with American command-and-control networks. As a result, the two Iron Dome batteries currently operated by the US function as standalone assets, unable to fully interface with broader US radar and battle management systems.

The same concern has driven Israeli intervention in the takeover of Amprest.

Rather than sharing the original source code, Tel Aviv and Washington have relied on alternative mechanisms to maintain cooperation. These include tightly controlled technical escrow arrangements, under which limited integration work can be performed without transferring full ownership or visibility over proprietary software. In parallel, US defense contractors such as Raytheon have worked with Rafael to develop US-specific variants of Iron Dome components, including the SkyHunter interceptor, using modified or adapted software that can interface with American systems while preserving the core logic of the original Israeli command-and-control software.

These arrangements underscore that Iron Dome’s software, and by extension companies such as Amprest, remains legally protected and politically sensitive within “Israel’s” military establishment, even as such safeguards draw growing criticism for entrenched protectionism.

Read more: US throws itself into THAAD shortage for ‘Israel’s’ sake; 1/4 lost

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Kiev mayor proposes evacuating the city

By Lucas Leiroz | January 19, 2026

Apparently, Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, is nearing total collapse. The city’s mayor, Vitaly Klitschko, recently asked residents to leave their homes immediately and seek shelter in surrounding areas due to the inability to guarantee adequate electricity, heating, and water supply for all citizens. The supply crisis occurs amidst a dangerous escalation of the conflict that has forced the Russian side to intensify attacks against critical Ukrainian infrastructure. However, it is not possible to rule out that the local mayor is using the measure as a kind of political tool against the illegitimate president Vladimir Zelensky, who has long been his rival.

Klitschko urged Kiev residents to leave the city. He confirmed during an interview with Reuters that Kiev, for the first time in its history, lacks the capacity to guarantee heating for all residents. The situation is critical, severely aggravated by the harsh winter, with frosts more severe than in recent years.

He clarified that Ukrainian authorities are working continuously to resolve the problem, doing “everything possible and impossible” to ensure that as many cities as possible receive an appropriate supply. However, given the infrastructure difficulties in the capital, the most advisable course of action is for residents to simply evacuate.

“It’s the first time in the history of our city that, in such severe frosts, most of the city was left without heating and with a huge shortage of electricity (…) This winter will be difficult, but we are doing everything that’s possible and impossible (…) We’re not just working during the day now, we’re working at night too (…) There is no such thing as the start and end of the working day for us” he said.

The evacuation of Kiev is, in fact, not a surprise, considering that rumors about it have been circulating in Ukrainian society for months. For example, Ukrainian parliamentarian Maryana Bezuglaya had already stated last October that it would be necessary to create an emergency plan to evacuate the country’s capital. According to her, the strategic and symbolic value of the Ukrainian capital would make it a prime target for Russian attacks during the winter, which is why the best option would be to create a strategy to remove residents from the city before a major supply crisis arose.

“Regardless of the protection and air defense, Russia can destroy almost any critical infrastructure facility in Ukraine at will. The only question is the number of missiles and drones (…) The winter would be difficult, and there would be blackouts (…) The best thing is to consider temporarily moving out of the city this fall and winter. This especially applies to Kiev residents. Kiev is a strategic and symbolic target. It is possible that it will be completely ‘drained down’. Darkness without sewage and water supply in mid-winter,” she said at the time.

Obviously, Ukrainian authorities are trying to blame Russia for the crisis, but this narrative is unfounded. In fact, Moscow has intensified its attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure, but this tactic has only been used as a reaction. The Kiev regime continually attacks civilian targets in internationally recognized Russian territory, which Moscow considers terrorist activity. Russian forces simply have no option but to react by attacking the infrastructure that supplies the Ukrainian military – which, unfortunately, is often the same infrastructure that supplies civilian areas.

It is important to remember that during most of the special military operation, Russia avoided carrying out attacks against Ukrainian critical infrastructure, especially during winter. Unlike the Ukrainian side, which has a policy of exterminating civilians in Russian areas, Moscow sees the current conflict as a kind of “civil war” between brotherly peoples, which is why it avoids generating non-military casualties. However, the escalation in recent months has emerged as an unavoidable move in the face of constant enemy provocations.

Similarly, it is necessary to clarify how the Ukrainian government itself is responsible for the crisis. Bezuglaya’s statement in October shows how there have been concerns among authorities for months about a possible shortage of supplies in the capital. If her proposal had been considered by the authorities, a preventive evacuation plan could have been implemented before the arrival of the coldest winter days. This would have avoided a widespread crisis, as is expected to happen now. The government, however, chose to do nothing to protect its own citizens, allowing the situation to reach intolerable levels.

However, there is another possibility that must be considered, which is the political dispute between Klitschko and Zelensky. Experts have long considered Klitschko as one of Zelensky’s potential successors as president. It is possible that the mayor of Kiev is using the energy crisis in the capital to further increase Zelensky’s unpopularity, attempting to foment protests so that the president calls elections or resigns. Although there is clearly a supply crisis in Kiev, it is not possible to assess the real impact of the shortages to know whether the evacuation proposed by Klitschko is truly necessary or merely a political tool.

In any case, those who suffer most in this scenario are the Ukrainian people themselves, who are victims of the irresponsible actions of their own leaders.

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.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US Withdrawal From NATO Would Usher New ‘Post-Hegemonic’ Security Architecture

Sputnik – 19.01.2026

With the United States bearing down on Greenland and telling its European allies to stop complaining, the prospects of the US disengaging from NATO now practically becomes a “central pillar of the America First strategic doctrine,” London-based foreign affairs analyst Adriel Kasonta tells Sputnik.

The US, Kasonta explains, has two motivations in this ongoing “process of strategic de-prioritization”:

  • Strategic – the US has been gradually retreating from global primacy while instead focusing on the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific, seeking to switch from global hegemony to regional hegemony
  • Financial – as the US military spending soars while the European powers struggle to meet their more modest NATO spending commitments, the US regards the current arrangement as “an unsustainable subsidy of European social welfare at the expense of American fiscal health.”

If US does decide to formally disengage from NATO, it would likely do so in a “military-first, political-last” sequence, Kasonta suggests:

  • Since the current US legislation stipulates that a two-thirds Senate majority is needed for a formal treaty withdrawal, the White House might instead opt to “hollow out the alliance from within”
  • While the US would remain a member on paper, it would cease participating in the Integrated Military Command and ignore Article 5 commitments
  • The Pentagon’s efforts to restructure the US European Command may indicate this approach, as it allows the US to remain a NATO member on paper while shifting high-readiness US forces from Europe to the Pacific theater

According to Kasonta, we are witnessing the emergence of a “post-hegemonic” security architecture, with a US-led NATO being replaced by a ‘Europeanized NATO’ where “European states lead the defense of their own continent.”

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

What a War on Iran Would Really Look Like — Beyond the Regime-Change Fantasy

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 19, 2026

While the corporate media and social media influencers run non-stop regime change propaganda, replete with unverified statistics, fabricated claims, and the denial of objective reality, it is important to cut through this and ask the more important question: What will a regime change war on Iran look like?

The following analysis must be first prefaced by stating that the unrelenting wave of regime change propaganda currently being disseminated with the implicit intent of manufacturing consent for war is, in essence, no different from the claims and rhetoric used over decades to justify various other wars of aggression.

Last year, Israel attacked Iran in a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, and was later followed by the United States, which also participated in illegal aggression. Although it should be noted that using the metrics of International Law is at this stage redundant, as it has been rendered null and void by the US-Israeli alliance since October 7, 2023.

In the immediate aftermath of last June’s 12-Day-War, US-based pro-war think-tanks ranging from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) all the way to the Atlantic Council, all began scheming about what the next round should constitute and its intended outcomes. Meanwhile, on July 7, Axios News cited its sources claiming that Israel was already seeking a greenlight for a new attack and that it believed the US would grant it.

Fast forward to December 28, 2025, when peaceful protests erupted in Iran over government mismanagement of the worsening economic crisis, caused by Western economic sanctions. The very next day, December 29, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett posted a video talking about a mass anti-government uprising, which had not yet happened. His message was accompanied by countless old videos and AI-generated footage depicting such a rebellion.

As this was happening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was visiting US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where, according to several media reports, he was requesting an American attack on Iran and had received everything he had asked for. At the beginning of January 2026, violent elements suddenly emerged, and protests calling for the fall of the government began.

On January 8, 9, and 10, the situation dramatically escalated as Iran shut off the internet across the country. The footage revealed that the largest crowds participating in the riots and protests numbered only in the tens of thousands, yet numerous rioting groups emerged throughout the country.

The Western media and pro-Israeli social media influencers had by this time constructed their own narratives that deemed what was happening a “revolution” of “millions across Iran” and that peaceful protesters were being slaughtered for standing up for their freedom.

Without going into the fine details, it suffices to say that what we see portrayed in the corporate media about Iran is a reflection of a parallel universe. There is a total denial of any nuance, an inability to accept mass pro-government demonstrations that were bigger than the riots that occurred, a refusal to air the countless videos of armed militants on the streets and mass destruction caused by rioters.

Instead, Iran is an “evil regime” that is “slaughtering its own people” for absolutely no reason beyond that they are peacefully protesting for their freedom. There is also a particular focus on women’s rights when it comes to this propaganda. Even those who accept that over 160 members of the Iranian security forces were killed, including some who were beheaded and set on fire, still uphold that a peaceful revolution occurred. One that they all claimed would topple the government in days or weeks.

You need only look back over the past decades to see the same regime change scripts in action. The Colonial Feminism employed to justify these wars of aggression has been apparent throughout, especially in the case of Afghanistan. Yet, after 20 years of war and 2 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars later, it was clear that the US’s longest war had nothing to do with “liberating the women of Afghanistan”.

Bear in mind also that atrocity propaganda can come from so-called trusted sources, especially when used to drum up support for such a major foreign policy objective as overthrowing the Iranian government. For example, Amnesty International gave credit to totally fabricated claims that Iraqi soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators in the lead-up to the First Gulf War.

Former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was also accused of “killing his own people” as the justification for NATO intervention, while it was claimed that peaceful protesters sought to achieve democracy. Then came a tirade of totally fabricated statistics and outlandish stories, none of which the corporate media dare challenge.

Every time it’s the same cycle, a totally fictitious narrative is constructed as a means of justifying a kind of “humanitarian intervention”, after which everyone will later acknowledge much of it was exaggerated or outright false. Then, anyone challenging this is labelled a “regime puppet” and called names to delegitimise their arguments. Disgruntled members of that nation’s diaspora are also employed to come up with sob stories and advocate regime change, a cheap identity politics trick.

What Will A War On Iran Look Like

A war with Iran could go in many different directions, depending on a large number of variables and how countless actions factor into decision-making on all sides. Therefore, the first point of entry into this brief analysis should be the reality inside Iran and separating this from the fictional depictions provided by the corporate media.

Iran is not Venezuela, nor is it Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for a start, possesses military capabilities that are beyond any other player in West Asia, with exceptions of the Israelis and Turkish militaries. Even in these cases, they do not possess the volume of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or drones that Iran has mass-manufactured.

What Tehran lacks in terms of the latest in technological development, it makes up for with its offensive missile and drone arsenal, enabling it to hit the Israelis and US bases across the region. These capabilities are now tried and tested on the battlefield.

On the ground, Iran has its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) along with its regular army. The conservative estimates put the total active personnel of the IRGC at around 190,000 men strong, while the regular army is said to have 420,000 active duty members. In addition to this, there is a volunteer paramilitary force known as the Basij, which is said to be able to mobilise over a million fighters if needed.

The Iranian military is well trained, well armed and is constantly running exercises designed to combat insurgencies and foreign invasion forces. Iran’s terrain is also mountainous and vast, meaning that even in the event that mistakes are made, there is room for them to then regain lost ground. All previous US war games estimated that an invasion of Iran in the early 2000’s would have been a disaster for American forces. This was before the Iranians developed militarily in the way they have over the past decade or so.

Millions of Iranians who have demonstrated they will come to the streets in order to protest in solidarity with their government is also a strong sign of the base of support behind the current government. Although survey data is scarce, a large portion of the Iranian population is indeed socially conservative and believes in the religious doctrine of the Islamic Republic.

Another element to consider here is that the Iranian opposition has no real leader. The son of the Shah has a very small base of support inside Iran and is widely regarded as no more than an Israeli puppet. Then we have the Iranian minorities, who have managed to coexist much better under the Islamic Republic than the former Shah’s rule, as the Shia religious system does not rule for the Persian majority alone and does not have the same ethno-supremacist tendencies as previous Iranian leaderships.

On top of Iran’s own forces, there are also its regional allies. These include Ansarallah in Yemen, the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi, the Afghan Fatimeyoun, Pakistani Zeinabiyoun, the entire Palestinian resistance, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are the main players, but there are also various other groups that they have partnered with.

There is also a question mark surrounding what role China will play in support of Iran, while it is expected that Russia will also provide some kind of assistance. Beijing, in particular, cannot afford the fallout of losing Iranian oil and has already signed an economic partnership deal with Tehran.

Understanding all, there are clearly various cards that the Iranians have to play, and the idea that the government would simply fall without a fight and that its leadership would flee is pure fantasy. Several scenarios could play out given a war opens, including the following:

  1. Iran initiates a preemptive series of strikes.
  2. The US bombs Iran symbolically and tries to fight a limited conflict.
  3. An Israeli-US total regime change plot is hatched.

To address the first way this could unfold, it may be possible that, given the failure of the riots to create major fractures in the Islamic Republic’s system and drag the country to civil war, the US and Israelis may be trying to bait Iran into attacking first. The reason for this would be so they are able to gauge how broad the confrontation will be from the opening round of strikes and then adjust their own offensive from there. This kind of conflict would likely be limited.

The next option would be a US air campaign designed to deal a blow to Iran, with the hope that it could also lead to a change of events that results in regime change, but primarily to send a message and extend the conflict to another round. Such an exchange could end up getting out of hand, depending upon how both sides choose to retaliate against each other’s actions, yet the goal would be to avoid a long war.

If these kinds of 12-Day-War style rounds are to keep occurring each year or so, then this would greatly favour Iran. This is the case as Iran replaces its stockpiles infinitely quicker than the US and Israel.

Then there is the worst-case scenario, an all-out regime change war. Whether this arrives through a series of waves of attacks, both from the air and using militants on the ground, or through a tit-for-tat escalation that leads to it, expect enormous death and destruction on all sides.

There can be no disputing the US military edge here from the air, although an air campaign alone will not topple the government. If this happens, the worst-case scenario will be that the US will strike Iran repeatedly, perhaps alongside Israel’s attacks, assassinating political and military leaders, taking out weapons depots, missile launch sites, infrastructure targets, government buildings, and cultural sites. If Iran is unable to effectively defend from such an assault, it should be expected that it will take around 4 days to get on its feet.

This being said, such an assault would likely radicalise the population and make them double down. If the US and Israel succeed at assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, then we should expect an unprecedented war that may even extend beyond the region. More than being the Iranian Supreme Leader, he is also a Shia Spiritual leader, meaning his role transcends that of a leader of a country. It would be the equivalent of assassinating the Pope.

Iran itself has several options: to pound American bases, strike US aircraft carriers, launch much larger waves of ballistic missiles into Israel, and at this point, it is likely its allies would have mobilised. The Iranians themselves could shut down the Persian Gulf by locking the Gulf of Hormuz, inflicting a global economic crisis.

Hezbollah, Ansarallah, the Hashd al-Shaabi, Zeinabiyoun, Fatemeyoun, and Palestinian factions could all then participate in an all-out war, one from which there is no turning back. For the Shia in particular, their ideology is not one of backing down in these situations; they will very likely interpret such circumstances as their equivalent to the battle of Karbala, where the Prophet of Islam’s grandson Hussein was martyred.

If this becomes an all-out battle, everyone will take the gloves off, and the only way the Israelis will likely prove capable of escaping is to begin using nuclear weapons, which may not even work.

Although the doomsday scenario is possible, it is likely the war will end before it gets to that stage, and although all of Iran’s allies may participate this time, it would appear the US would like to refrain from entering a long, unpopular, and unwinnable war of aggression. The Trump administration likes quick wars that don’t take much time and runs away when things don’t go their way, as we saw with their attack on Yemen.

It should be expected that the Israelis and their Western allies throw the kitchen sink at Iran in an attempt to manufacture civil war, also. So far, the Syriaization of Iran has failed, but this isn’t to say they will give up on implementing such an agenda.

All of this is to say that regime change in Iran is not a simple matter of committing a few airstrikes; it is an ideologically driven State with mass support and a large number of allies willing to fight on its side. Therefore, the likelihood of the Islamic Republic of Iran falling in a few days or weeks is outlandish to say the least.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scott Ritter Hiding the Dominant Minority Behind Geopolitics?

Peace Activists Forced to Hide the Jewish Geopolitical Dots?

By Geurt de Wit | Ruling Elite Studies | January 18, 2026

Introduction

All political scientists and historians agree that some minorities have historically been able to dominate their host nations. Notable modern examples include the Spanish in South America, overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, and Tutsis in Central Africa. Sometimes host nations rise against a dominant minority, as seen in Southeast Asia, where local populations have implemented various quotas and measures—such as Malaysia’s Bumiputera policies—to curb the economic and social influence of the ethnic Chinese community.

Jews

There is another significant example of a dominant minority, yet naming it remains a taboo: the Jewish elite in the West. This group exerts influence through economic and media power, a “Culture of Critique,” and its maneuvers within the geopolitical “Great Game”. U.S. foreign policy, for instance, appears heavily influenced by Jewish Zionists, compelling even the supposedly “America First” Trump administration to adopt “Israel First” policies. While parts of the peace movement have begun to note the Jewish role in fomenting conflicts also beyond the Middle East, many activists still fail to see the broader connections. The conflicts in Ukraine and Taiwan are directly linked to the crisis in the Middle East.

The reason is simple: Jewish led neoconservative and neoliberal forces aligned with Israel seek to weaken Russia and China, both of which support Iran and the Shia “Axis of Resistance” in the Middle East. Consequently, the West attempts to encircle Russia and China with military bases and hostile alliances while undermining their economies through sanctions and high tariffs to facilitate regime change.

This is nothing new. For centuries, Jews have viewed Russia and China as “antisemitic” for opposing Jewish attempts to become a dominant minority within their borders. Historically, this has manifested as a prolonged struggle. Jewish elite dynasties like the Rothschilds, Sassoons and Kadooreis, for example, pushed Western empires to subjugate China during its “Century of Humiliation.” Similarly, they managed to organize various wars against Russia including the first Crimean War in the 1850’s and then later the Jewish led Bolshevik and Oligarch takeovers in the 1920’s and 90’s. The present Ukraine War is just the latest in a series of conflicts and wars between Jews and Russia going back a millennium.

The obvious Jewish role in geopolitics and various wars has always been known to political scientists and historians. It is also common knowledge in many parts of the world such as in Eastern Europe, China and the Arab world. However, in America the Jewish dominant minority has achieved such power that both academia and media now avoid the subject entirely. Only occasionally does the American public hear about it through random outbursts, such as Mel Gibson’s criticism of the Jewish role in instigating wars.

Putin and Xi

Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, Russia and China have regained their independence and power. Their geopolitical support for the Axis of Resistance has drawn the ire of Zionist Jews running Great Game geopolitics, while their nationalist anti-liberal policies have alienated liberal Jewish factions running the Culture of Critique movements. As a result, the Jewish dominated Western academia and media has totally demonized both nations, while Jewish led neoconservatives and neoliberals push for their encirclement and the targeting of their global allies.

The influence of Jewish dominant minority behind these conflicts remains such a taboo that even peace activists often ignore it. This gives Zionists a carte blanche to pursue military and cultural wars, regime change operations and proxy wars aimed at isolating Russia and China. By refusing to “connect the dots,” Western peace activists effectively allow this dominant minority to continue pushing for perpetual war.

Scott Ritter

In recent years, the peace movement has been bolstered by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. A prolific advocate, Ritter has tirelessly warned against the dangers of nuclear war, organized demonstrations and personally lobbied Congress. Despite his background as a leftist philosemitic Democrat, he has significantly influenced the Republican “MAGA” movement toward anti-war policies.

Ritter has gained a massive following as a commentator on the Ukraine War. However, during the conflict’s first year, he remained silent on the Jewish and even Israeli connection, blaming only the CIA, MI6 and the U.S. and British governments. In this, he was joined by libertarian figures like Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell, who focus on American “Primacists” rather than identifying a dominant minority.

Traditionally, both leftists and libertarians have avoided identifying the Jewish dominant minority to avoid being labeled as antisemitic. It was only during the recent genocide in Gaza that Ritter began to explicitly critique Israel’s geopolitical role, though he has yet to identify the dominant minority or even connect these dots to the broader global landscape.

Silent Peace Activists

Some suggest that platform policies, such as those on YouTube, drive this reticence. Peace activists like Andrew Napolitano, Alexander Mercouris, and Danny Haiphong reach hundreds of thousands of viewers daily through their Youtube channels. Openly discussing Jewish dominant minority and connecting Jewish geopolitical dots could lead to deplatforming and lost revenue. However, this doesn’t fully explain the silence, as they could simultaneously use alternative platforms like Rumble, X or Locals—a strategy successfully employed by the famous anti-Zionist, Candace Owens. Unsurprisingly she has been branded an “anti-Semite” by many Jewish organizations.

Alexander Mercouris

Another explanation is ideological. Many activists from leftist or libertarian backgrounds may instinctively view the concept of a “dominant minority” as inherently racist. The most dramatic example of this is the leftist peace activist and popular YouTube commentator Alexander Mercouris, who for years was oblivious to the Jewish connection. However, a few months ago, due to audience feedback, he admitted on his channel that he had never even thought about a possible connection between the Ukraine War and the Middle East Crises.

Afterward, he has not talked about the subject anymore, though he does seem to increasingly speak in code. For example, he repeatedly emphasizes that his channel will be shut down if he analyzes the Epstein case too deeply. At the same time, he seems to spell “Epstein” in the Jewish-German way, making Epstein’s ethnic background clearer. Mercouris also has the revealing habit of always following the arch-neocon warmonger Lindsey Graham’s name with the name Richard Blumenthal, possibly hinting that Graham is influenced by him and other Jews to a significant extent.

The third explanation for not openly noticing the dominant minority is that many prominent peace activists hope to attract the support of wealthy, anti-Zionist Jewish donors to finance the movement, a development that has yet to materialize.

Debanking

Certainly, the fourth and most important explanation is fear. Leading peace activists face tremendous pressure from various sides. Ironically, this pressure appears stronger in America than in Europe, despite stricter official censorship in Europe. However, Europeans benefit from strong employment and social security protections against firings and debanking. In America, people’s lives are more precarious and heavily dependent on high incomes, making it easier to intimidate them with threats to their reputation, job, income, or even bank accounts. The American media rarely discusses this, but hundreds of politically incorrect individuals have been debanked—not only in Canada but also in the U.S. Scott Ritter has now joined their ranks.

Video Link

In the above video Scott Ritter recalls his days as a highly connected American intelligence operative, working closely with the CIA, Israelis, and even the White House. He emphasizes that he was once the “Golden Boy” of intelligence, privy to “everything.” Clearly, he must be aware of America’s dominant minority and their potential to ignite a nuclear war. Yet, despite recent escalations in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Ritter in this video claims that the main problem is America itself, with Trump as a “prisoner of the CIA”—not the Mossad, Israel, or even the Zionists.

The next day, however, Ritter appeared in an interview with Andrew Napolitano. He admitted that after being debanked, he fell into depression and briefly felt hopeless, especially as his wife had grown weary of the persecution that had affected their entire family for decades. At that point, Napolitano played a clip of Jonathan Greenblatt, the Jewish ADL’s chairman, boasting about the organization’s role in training American police and officials. This ignited Ritter, who then openly declared that Zionists are running the American government.

Video Link

Trump’s chess moves

At the same time, Ritter suggested there might still be hope. He noted that many parts of the government resent Zionist dominance, and even Donald Trump could be among them. That wouldn’t be surprising, given Trump’s ego—he can’t be pleased with how Netanyahu and many other Jews publicly humiliate him. Being Israel’s bitch cannot be fun.

It could even be that Trump is deliberately undermining American influence abroad through his erratic behavior, bullying threats, and tariffs. After all, U.S. foreign policy is thoroughly dominated by Zionists, so disrupting the entire system might be the only way to halt it. For instance, threatening to annex Greenland would certainly fracture or weaken NATO, making it harder for EU NATO countries to sustain their warmongering. Perhaps Trump truly seeks peace through a “Fortress America” approach, dividing the world among American, Russian and Chinese spheres of influence. Maybe he’s really playing four-dimensional chess, with method to his madness. Of course, the alternative is that he’s simply a madman. As Scott Ritter admits, he doesn’t know—and neither does anyone else. Probably not even Trump himself.

People worldwide are deeply divided over Donald Trump. Some view him as a mastermind playing four-dimensional chess to save the world, while others see him as a narcissistic bumbler who sows chaos wherever he goes. So, which perspective aligns more closely with the truth? We do not know but let’s first assume that Donald Trump is a rational player in do…

Conclusion

Many in the peace movement believe that concealing the Jewish dominant minority and obscuring its role in numerous wars is essential for peace. However, this strategy may backfire, giving that minority a free hand to escalate proxy conflicts and try again and again to push the world toward “limited” nuclear war.

People often demand perfection from their heroes, which is counterproductive. No one is a superman—not even Scott Ritter. Of course, he must consider his family. Of course, he has been reticent about exposing Jewish power. The same applies to all other peace activists. But gradually, things are changing on both the left and right. They are beginning to point out the man and group behind the curtain.

In any case, peace activists perform invaluable work and deserve unwavering support. After all, they do what they humanly can. Without them—especially Scott Ritter—a nuclear war might already have begun.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe Economic Panic

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2026

When a prime minister advises his staff to rest because the coming year will be much more difficult, it is neither black humor nor fatigue. It is a moment of sincerity, the kind that only emerges when internal projections no longer support the public narrative.

Giorgia Meloni was not addressing the electorate. She was addressing the machinery of the state itself, the administrative core charged with implementing decisions whose effects can no longer be hidden. Her observation was not about a normal increase in workload. She was talking about constraints, about limits being reached, about a Europe that has moved from crisis response to a phase of controlled contraction, fully aware that 2026 is the year when deferred costs will eventually converge.

What has leaked out is what European ruling circles have already understood: the Western strategy in Ukraine has run up against material limits. Not with Russian messages, not with disinformation, not with populist dissent, but with steel, ammunition, energy, manpower, and time. Once these realities assert themselves, political legitimacy begins to erode.

The EU cannot sustain this war economically. Europe can strike poses of readiness. It cannot manufacture war.

After years of high-intensity conflict, both the US and Europe are rediscovering a long-forgotten truth: wars of this nature cannot be sustained with speeches, sanctions, or the abandonment of diplomacy. They require bullets, missiles, trained personnel, maintenance cycles, and industrial production that consistently exceeds battlefield losses. None of this exists, not in sufficient quantities, and it is not feasible in the timeframe preached in Brussels.

Russia is producing artillery ammunition in quantities that Western officials now openly admit exceed NATO’s total production. Its industrial base has shifted to near-continuous wartime production, with centralized procurement, streamlined logistics, and state-led manufacturing, without even total mobilization. Estimates place Russian production at several million artillery shells per year, already delivered, not just projected.

Europe, meanwhile, spent 2025 congratulating itself on targets it is structurally incapable of achieving. The EU’s stated commitment of two million shells per year depends on facilities, contracts, and labor that will not be available by the decisive period of the war, if ever. Even if achieved, the figure would still be less than Russian production. The US, despite emergency expansion, expects about one million shells per year once full ramp-up is complete, and only if that happens. Even on paper, combined Western production struggles to match what Russia is already producing in practice. The imbalance is clear.

This is not just a deficit, but a misalignment of timing. Russia is producing now. Europe is planning for the future. And time is the only factor immune to sanctions.

Washington, in fact, cannot indefinitely compensate for Europe’s eroded capacity because it faces its own industrial difficulties. Patriot interceptor production remains in the order of a few hundred per year, while demand simultaneously concerns Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the replenishment of US stocks: an imbalance that, as Pentagon officials admit, cannot be resolved quickly. Shipbuilding tells a similar story: submarines and surface ships are years behind schedule due to labor shortages, aging infrastructure, and skyrocketing costs, pushing significant expansion toward 2030. The assumption that America can indefinitely support Europe is no longer in line with reality. This is a systemic Western problem.

Unfounded war rhetoric

European leaders talk about a “state of war” as if it were a rhetorical position, but in reality, it is an industrial condition that Europe does not meet.

New artillery lines take years to reach stable production. Air defense interceptors are produced in long, batch-based cycles, not in sudden spikes. Even basic components such as explosives remain a critical issue, with plants that closed decades ago only now reopening and some not expected to reach full capacity until the late 2020s. This timeline is in itself an admission.

Europe’s weakness is not intellectual, but institutional: huge sums have been authorized, but procurement inertia, fragmented contracts, and a depleted supplier base have meant that deliveries are years behind schedule. France, often described as Europe’s most capable arms manufacturer, is capable of building advanced systems, but only in limited quantities, counted in dozens, while a war of attrition requires thousands. EU ammunition initiatives have expanded capacity on paper, while the front has exhausted ammunition in a matter of weeks.

These are not ideological shortcomings, but administrative and industrial failures, which are exacerbated in stressful situations. It is yet another example of the failure of European Community policy, so much so that the structural contrast is stark. Western industry has been optimized for shareholder returns and peacetime efficiency, while Russian industry has been reoriented to withstand pressure. NATO announces aid packages. Russia counts deliveries. You can already guess what the outcome of this situation will be, right?

This industrial reality explains why the debate on asset freezing was so important and why it failed. Europe did not pursue the seizure of Russian sovereign assets out of legal ingenuity or moral determination, but because it needed time: time to avoid admitting that the war was unsustainable in Western industrial terms, time to replace production with financial maneuvers.

When the effort to confiscate some €210 billion in Russian assets failed on December 20, blocked by legal risks, market repercussions, and opposition led by Belgium, with Italy, Malta, Slovakia, and Hungary opposing total confiscation, the Brussels technocracy settled for a reduced alternative: a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for 2026-27, with interest payments of around €3 billion per year. This further mortgages Europe’s future. This is not a strategy, but emergency triage. A collapsing political hospital. Pure panic.

Narrative, crisis, disaster

The deeper reality is that Ukraine is no longer primarily a military dilemma, it is a question of solvency. Washington recognizes this, because it cannot absorb the reputational discomfort, but they cannot take on unlimited responsibility forever. A way out is being explored, discreetly, inconsistently, and shrouded in rhetorical cover.

Europe cannot admit the same necessity, because it has ultimately adopted ‘Putin’s version’, i.e. it has framed the war as existential, civilising, moral – but do you remember when European politicians enjoyed calling Putin crazy for talking about a clash of civilisations?

Compromise has become appeasement, negotiation surrender. In doing so, Europe has eliminated its own escape routes. Well done, ladies and gentlemen!

On the narrative front, greetings to all. The aggressive enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act has less to do with security than with containment: building an information perimeter around a consensus that cannot survive open scrutiny. Translated: censorship as a solution. The truth of the matter must not be made known, and those who try to do so must be suppressed in an exemplary manner. This also explains why regulatory pressure now extends beyond European borders, generating transatlantic friction over freedom of expression and jurisdiction. Confident systems welcome debate. Fragile ones suppress it. In this case, censorship is not ideology, but a form of insurance.

The information crisis, rest assured, will very soon become… a social crisis ready to detonate into domestic conflict.

And the crisis is also one of resources and energy. We are witnessing the securitization of decline, whereby obligations are postponed while the productive base needed to sustain them continues to shrink. It’s a cat chasing its tail. Here too, you know how it will end, don’t you?

Europe has not only sanctioned Russia. It has sanctioned itself. European industry will continue to pay energy prices well above those of its competitors in the United States or Russia throughout 2026. Take a trip around Europe, read the headlines in local newspapers, look at people’s faces: the fabric of small and medium-sized enterprises, the true beating heart of entire EU countries, is quietly disappearing. And this is logically reflected in large companies too. This is why Europe cannot increase its production of ammunition and why rearmament remains an aspiration rather than a concrete operation.

Energy, we said. Low-cost energy was not a convenience, it was essential. If it is eliminated through self-inflicted damage, the entire structure is emptied. Even the most ambitious plans preached for years, such as the IMEC corridor, are still a mirage. There is a stampede towards Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to try to scrape together a few kilowatts. A ridiculous attempt to save what is now tragically unsalvageable.

China, observing all this, represents the other half of Europe’s strategic nightmare. It controls the world’s deepest manufacturing base without having entered into a position of war. Russia does not need China’s full capacity, only its strategic depth in reserve. Europe has neither.

A frightening 2026

2026 therefore looks set to be a terrible year, I’m sorry to say. The European elites find themselves losing control on three fronts at once. On finance, because the budget will be bitter and the money for the insane support to Kiev will no longer be the same. On narrative, because the question citizens will ask themselves will be ‘what was the point of all this?’. On the cohesion of the Alliance, both NATO and the EU, because Washington’s disengagement will force a review of the balance of power on the European continent to the point of no return and, perhaps, a break between the two sides divided by the ocean.

Panic, again. Not a sudden defeat, but the slow erosion of legitimacy as reality creeps in through gas that costs as much as gold, closed plants, empty stockpiles, obsolete rifles, and a future that is turning away.

This is not just a difficult situation for Europe, but a matter of civilization. A system incapable of producing, supplying, speaking honestly, or retreating without collapsing in credibility has reached its limit. When leaders begin to prepare their institutions for worse years, they are not anticipating inconveniences, but recognizing structural failure.

Empires proclaim victory loudly. Declining systems quietly lower expectations or, in this case, momentarily say the quiet part out loud. But the truth is that nothing is the same as before, and it is obvious.

For most Europeans, the reckoning will not come as an abstract debate about strategy or supply chains, but as a simple realization: this was never a war they consented to. It did not defend their homes, their prosperity, or their future. And so, again, how do you think it will end?

An ideological war has been fought in the name of imperial ambition and financed through declining living standards, industrial decline, and the prospects of their children. In the name of big pro-European capital, of the privileged few with robes, stars, and crowns.

For months, even years, it was said that “there was no alternative” and that this was the only course of action. And now?

Europeans are tired. They want peace, stability, and the quiet dignity of prosperity: affordable energy, a functioning industry, and a future unencumbered by conflicts they NEVER chose and, above all, they do not want the decline of millennia-old civilizations.

And when this awareness has taken hold, when the fear has faded and the spell has been broken, the question Europeans will ask themselves will not be technical or ideological. It will be existential. And all existential questions lead to radical choices, even terrible ones.

May this dramatic fear keep the mad leaders of this Europe awake at night.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Peaceful Finland? Think Twice: Nazi Alliance Was Pre-Planned Before WWII

Sputnik – 17.01.2026

The Western-spun fake image of Finland as a peaceful nation reluctantly dragged into wartime alliances is a “deliberately constructed myth,” Bair Irincheev, historian and director of the Karelian Isthmus Military Museum, tells Sputnik.

Immediately after gaining independence in 1918, the Finnish leadership launched an attack on Soviet Russia with clear economic goals, notes Bair Irincheev.
The failed attempt to annex Eastern Karelia was “straightforward expansionism—an attempt to seize forest-rich territories.”

For Finland in those years, timber was veritable ‘green gold’, and “whatever was said about tribal brotherhood and similar things, the primary motives were economic,” the pundit states bluntly.

Programmed Partnership in Hitler’s War

Finland was already integrated into Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa before the Great Patriotic War, and its entry into the war in 1941 was “pre-planned,” says Irincheev.

Finland’s leadership believed Europe was being completely redrawn, and chose to pursue the idea of a ‘Greater Finland’ alongside the Nazis.

Under the official pretext of merely reclaiming lost territory, Finnish forces crossed the 1920 border and occupied parts of the Karelian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Leningrad Region, advancing almost to the Vologda Region, he recalls.

“No one forced Finland in 1941 to let German troops onto its soil for an offensive on Murmansk. That was a deliberate decision by Finland’s top leadership,” points out the pundit.

Siege of Leningrad & Shattered ‘Humane’ Myth

Everything Finland did during WWII as an unofficial ally of Nazi Germany “demolishes” the notion of a reluctant, defensive warring side, according to the history pundit.

When Finnish forces launched their offensive in the summer of 1941, they broke through Soviet defenses on the Karelian Isthmus, captured Vyborg, and halted at the main line of the Karelian fortified zone.

In doing so, the Finnish army “became an active participant in the blockade of Leningrad from the north,” underscores the historian, noting that it “had the technical capability to shell Kronstadt.”

The high – roughly 30% – mortality rate among Soviet prisoners of war and the Slavic civilian population interned by the Finns in concentration camps dispels the myth of a supposedly “benevolent” Finland, according to the historian.

After invading Russia together with Nazi Germany in 1941, Finland showed no mercy to the civilians in the Russian territories occupied by their troops.
Russians, regardless of their age and sex, were robbed of their possessions and herded into prison camps.

The exact number of Russian civilians who perished in Finnish prison camps during WWII is difficult to establish, because Finland never really kept track of the deaths – for Finnish invaders, Russian lives simply did not matter.

Historical Pattern Informing the Present

Finland’s relations with Russia today are effectively destroyed — and Finland itself bears responsibility for that, says the analyst.

The country portrays itself as having emerged victorious from every conflict: the 1939–1940 war, despite losing 10% of its territory and its second-largest city, and the 1941–1944 war as well.

“Finland’s current leadership appears to be revisiting the 1941 scenario, hoping for revenge and access to resources,” speculates the expert, adding that this logic underpins Finland’s NATO accession and its frenzied militarization.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »