Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pentagon downgrades China threat, shifts focus to homeland, hemisphere

Al Mayadeen | January 24, 2026

The United States Department of War has released its long-delayed 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS), signaling a major shift in Washington’s military priorities by no longer treating China as the “primary threat” to US national security.

The document, published late Friday, places the defense of the US homeland and the Western Hemisphere at the center of Pentagon planning, a sharp departure from strategies issued under both former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump’s first term, which identified China as the foremost strategic challenge.

According to the strategy, past US administrations “ignored American interests,” allowing strategic vulnerabilities to emerge in areas such as the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the broader Western Hemisphere. The document explicitly calls for abandoning what it describes as “grandiose strategies” in favor of policies rooted in the “practical interests” of the US public.

Reduced emphasis on China, conciliatory tone in the Pacific

While China remains a key concern, the 2026 NDS no longer characterizes Beijing as an “acute” or “existential” threat. Instead, it refers to China as a “settled force” in the Indo-Pacific that must be deterred from dominating the US or its allies.

The document adopts a notably conciliatory tone, stressing that Washington does not seek to “strangle or humiliate” China. It argues that a “decent peace” is achievable under terms favorable to the US and acceptable to Beijing, emphasizing diplomacy, stable relations, and expanded military-to-military communication channels to avoid escalation.

Although the Pentagon continues to advocate a “strong denial defense” in the Pacific, the strategy does not specify what military assets will be deployed. Notably, Taiwan is not mentioned by name, marking a significant shift from the 2022 National Defense Strategy, which explicitly framed Taiwan as a central security concern.

Europe’s declining importance, new DPRK strategy

In contrast to the National Security Strategy released last month, the defense document avoids describing Europe as being in “civilizational decline”, but it nonetheless downplays the continent’s strategic importance.

“Although Europe remains important, it has a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power,” the strategy states, adding that while US engagement will continue, Washington will prioritize defending the homeland and its immediate sphere of influence.

The strategy also outlines a reduced US military role in deterring the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, shifting primary responsibility to South Korea, which currently hosts around 28,500 US troops.

“South Korea is capable of taking primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical but more limited US support,” the document states.

The strategy notably omits any reference to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, reinforcing speculation that Washington is moving toward managing the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities rather than seeking their elimination.

“This shift in the balance of responsibility is consistent with America’s interest in updating US force posture on the Korean Peninsula,” the strategy explains, noting that Washington seeks to make its forces more flexible and better positioned to respond to a wider range of contingencies across the region.

Burden-sharing and regional rebalancing in the Pacific

Across the broader Pacific region, the Pentagon is urging allies to assume greater responsibility for their own defense, linking continued US cooperation to increased military spending by allies, with benchmarks as high as 5% of GDP. The strategy emphasizes economic and maritime security over regime-change policies, describing the Indo-Pacific as the world’s most dynamic economic region and underscoring the need to protect trade routes and strategic access points.

Japan and South Korea are identified as central to this regional balancing approach, with the US seeking to “incentivize and enable” allies to play a more assertive role in collective defense.

Meanwhile, South Korea has raised its defense spending to 7.5% of GDP and continues to field upwards of 500,000 regular troops with approximately 3.1 million reservists. On its part, Japan is moving to decisively break with decades of post-war pacifism, accelerating a historic military buildup and adopting a more assertive security posture.

Tokyo is on track to reach defense spending equivalent to 2% of GDP by March 2026, abandoning the long-standing 1% cap, as part of a five-year rearmament plan totaling 43 trillion yen. The shift is accompanied by the development of “counterstrike” capabilities, marking a transition from an exclusively defense-oriented doctrine toward deterrence by punishment and the fielding of overtly offensive weapons. While Japanese officials frame the change as strategic maturity and greater alliance responsibility, critics have denounced it as a revival of Japanese militarism.

The release of the 2026 NDS comes after months of internal delays. US media reported that a draft reached War Secretary Pete Hegseth as early as September, but disagreements within the administration over how to characterize China’s threat, particularly amid ongoing trade negotiations, stalled its publication.

Despite references to Russia, Iran, and DPRK as sources of risk, the strategy treats these threats as secondary, reinforcing the Pentagon’s pivot toward homeland defense and regional retrenchment rather than expansive global confrontation.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NIAID Funds Gain-of-Function Study Engineering Novel Influenza Viruses

Despite claims the U.S. has stopped bankrolling gain-of-function experiments

By Jon Fleetwood | January 23, 2026

A new peer-reviewed study published this week states that federally funded researchers genetically engineered viruses that gained biological functions not present in any naturally occurring strain, including new host-entry mechanisms, cross-species antigen display, and mammalian lethality.

In multiple cases, viral surface proteins from one species and virus family were deliberately inserted into the genetic backbone of an entirely different virus, creating laboratory chimeras that bridge species and viral lineages that do not naturally mix.

The paper, “Immunogenicity and Efficacy of a Rabies-Based Vaccine against Highly Pathogenic Influenza H5N1 Virus,” appears in Emerging Microbes & Infections.

The study documents three distinct categories of functional gain:

  1. transfer of influenza entry machinery into foreign viral backbones,
  2. reprogramming of rabies virus to perform influenza functions, and
  3. creation of new influenza chimeras that are lethal in mammals.

(Editor’s note: This article makes no claims about virology and/or terrain theory. It is reporting what NIAID-funded scientists claim to be doing with American taxdollars.)

The authors state:

“This study was supported by… the Center for Research on Influenza Pathogenesis and Transmission (CRIPT), one of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response (CEIRR; contract # 75N93021C00014), and by NIAID contract SEM-CIVIC (contract number 75N93019C00051).”

NIAD is under the control of Director Jeffery Taubenberger, who is directing U.S. taxdollars toward influenza gain-of-function experiments while holding a patent for an influenza vaccine at the center of the Trump administrations $500 million influenza vaccine program.

This raises national security and conflict of interest concerns, as it represents the simultaneous creation of a lucrative problem and solution.

NIAD is under the authority of U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), which is led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Animal experiments were approved under:

“the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Thomas Jefferson University (TJU).”

Influenza Host-Entry Functions Transferred Into a Different Virus

The authors state that they created a vesicular stomatitis virus whose native entry protein was replaced with influenza H5:

“VSV∆G-H5-GFP encoding either the clade 1 H5 (A/Viet Nam/1203/2004(H5N1) or the circulating clade 2.3.4.4b cow was generated as described.”

This describes a virus that now uses influenza hemagglutinin to enter host cells—a function VSV does not naturally possess.

It also represents a direct cross-species and cross-virus transfer of host-entry machinery, merging an avian influenza protein with a livestock-associated strain and a human-infecting viral backbone in a single engineered system.

Rabies Virus Reprogrammed to Display & Deliver Influenza Antigen

The study confirms that a rabies virus was engineered to express influenza H5:

“We developed a rabies virus-based H5 vaccine (RABV-H5) by insertion of a synthetic full-length codon-optimized HA ORF of the Influenza virus A/Vietnam 1203/2004(H5N1) into the BNSP333 rabies vaccine vector between the N and P genes.”

The authors further state:

“Presenting both RABV-G and the antigen of choice on the surface.”

This confirms that a neurotropic virus was genetically modified to perform a new influenza-specific function.

The lab construct combines a mammalian neurotropic virus with an avian influenza surface antigen, creating a synthetic cross-species hybrid that does not exist in nature.

Creation of Novel Influenza Viruses That Did Not Exist in Nature

The paper says that new influenza viruses were constructed by genome segment replacement:

“PR8-H5N1, a recombinant Puerto-Rico 8 influenza A virus (A/PR8) in which the HA and NA genomic segments have been replaced with the respective segments of H5N1.”

A second engineered virus is identified:

“Influenza virus A/PR8-H5N1 bovine/Ohio/439/2024 (2024).”

These viruses did not exist prior to laboratory construction.

Engineered Viruses Demonstrated Mammalian Pathogenicity

The authors report intranasal infection of mice with the engineered viruses:

“On days 104 or 150, mice were challenged by IN instillation with 0.05 ml of either 1E5 TCID50 of Influenza A/PR8-H5N1 (Viet Nam 1203 or Cow) or with 100 pfu of HPAI-H5N1 Viet Nam 1203 (2004) diluted in PBS+1% heat-inactivated FBS.”

They further confirm the dose was lethal:

“[O]n day 104 were challenged by IN instillation with a 1E5 pfu lethal dose of A/PR8-H5N1 Viet Nam 1203 virus (>100LD50).”

The paper documents viral replication in lungs:

“While unvaccinated mice had about 1E6 TCID50/ml of replicating virus in the lungs.”

And describes lung pathology:

“Severe and chronic bronchiolocentric infection with bronchiolar and peribronchiolar infiltration of lymphocytes, associated with interstitial pneumonitis and expanded alveolar wall due to edema and inflammation.”

Bottom Line

The new study makes clear that gain-of-function virus creation is allegedly still being carried out with U.S. taxpayer dollars, despite the national security and biosafety risks such work poses to the very population funding it.

Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation.

Why does the U.S. continue to fund the same experiments that are said to have caused the last pandemic?

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

You reap what you sow: Ukraine’s blackout is Zelensky’s failure

By Armen Gasparyan | RT | January 23, 2026

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed that Russia is “trying to freeze Ukrainians to death,” referring to Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Of course, no decent person can stand by and watch people suffer. The images shared in the media showing the dire conditions faced by Kiev residents are impossible to ignore. Ukraine has already called this genocide, which is a bold claim. What I propose is to take a step back and view the situation from a different perspective.

Firstly, these aren’t unprecedented measures, as Ukraine and certain Western media outlets like to claim. Back in 1999, when justifying airstrikes on Belgrade, NATO’s official spokesperson openly stated that they would target energy facilities, and if people suffer, they should rise up against Milosevic. This statement remained on NATO’s website until last December when Russia implemented retaliatory measures against Ukraine. Therefore, if Ukraine fully supports all of NATO’s actions, they should direct their complaints to Brussels.

Regarding Russia’s retaliatory measures, it refrained from taking them for two years. Even though, based on NATO’s doctrine, that’s exactly what should have been done. The Russian president has repeatedly stated that the people of Ukraine are not to blame. But what did the Ukrainian government do? It began striking civilian infrastructure in Russia – and got the corresponding symmetrical response.

Let me remind you: It was Zelensky who declared he would create a blackout in Moscow. That’s a direct quote of the “expired” Ukrainian president. But there’s an old saying: “You reap what you sow.” Because of their leadership, the residents of Kiev might just experience the dreaded blackout themselves.

Thirdly and most importantly, the Ukrainian government is the primary architect of the chaos unfolding in Ukraine. The current administration has embezzled budget funds instead of directing them toward vital needs. I trust no one has forgotten the cases of Mindich and Tsukerman. Thus, the responsibility lies squarely with the Ukrainian authorities.

Lastly, since the term ‘genocide’ is frequently used in the West when discussing these events, let’s be clear: Genocide is when priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are thrown into prison. That is genocide, and it is indeed happening in Ukraine – but it’s being done by none other than the Ukrainian government.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Blackouts Caused by Zelensky’s Terrorist Attacks on Russia

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 23.01.2026

Volodymyr Zelensky acted as the main provocateur behind Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, prompting a predictable response from Russia, political scientist Evgeny Mikhailov tells Sputnik.

“Ukrainian experts also admit that without [Zelensky’s] aggressive rhetoric and attacks on Russian territory, the widespread blackouts in Ukraine might have been avoided, and the negotiation process could have taken a very different course,” the expert emphasizes.

Ukrainians are starting to blame the Kiev regime, regarding Zelensky’s vows to destroy the Russian economy and his terrorist attacks on strategic targets — including an attempted strike on the nuclear triad during Operation Spiderweb — as the trigger for Russia’s harsh retaliation, according to the pundit.

“Russia was forced to take steps that effectively strip the uncooperative regime of modern technological capabilities,” Mikhailov says.

“The current lull is likely driven by Zelensky’s attempts to open dialogue—but if the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi concludes the talks are futile, strikes on the [Kiev] regime’s critical infrastructure would resume within days.”

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Orban Hits Out at EU Green Light for $1.5 Trillion Ukraine Aid

RT | January 23, 2026

EU leaders will plunge member states further into debt if they back programs worth $1.5 trillion to cover Ukraine’s expenses, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned on Friday.

Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Orban said he had received an internal EU document he cannot disclose publicly. Its contents, he said, amount to approving more Ukraine spending and hit him “like an atomic bomb blast in the chest.”

“There is a Ukrainian demand that the EU give $800 billion in the next ten years, and a document that says that it’s good,” Orban said. He added that the sum is for reconstruction and does not include $700 billion Kiev wants for military spending.

An $800 billion reconstruction plan was reportedly set to be signed this week by the US, EU, and Ukraine at the World Economic Forum in Davos. But the event was overshadowed by US President Donald Trump’s push to acquire Greenland and the launch of his ‘Board of Peace’.

The reconstruction deal was reportedly postponed, leading Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to cancel his Davos trip – only to reverse course and travel there after Trump said the two would meet soon.

Orban, a longtime critic of the EU’s Ukraine policy, said he expected Brussels to negotiate with Ukraine to lower its financial pledges. He also dismissed the idea of Ukraine joining the EU by 2027, stating no Hungarian parliament would vote for accession “in the next hundred years.”

Last year, Brussels and some EU members pushed to use Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to fund Ukraine. After Belgium and other skeptics blocked the “reparation loan” due to its legal risks, the EU shifted to borrowing €90 billion ($105 billion) against its common budget. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic opted out.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Lebanese Resistance will inevitably triumph: Former President Lahoud

Al Mayadeen | January 22, 2026

Former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud affirmed that Lebanon remains committed to the current ceasefire, while “not a day goes by without the Israeli occupation violating it.”

Speaking amid ongoing tensions, Lahoud condemned on Thursday the continued aggression by “Israel”, accusing it of operating under a long-standing strategy of deception backed by US support. “For 80 years, this enemy has relied solely on deception, using unwavering American support as its cover,” he said.

Lahoud emphasized that Lebanon has two options: either accept the reality imposed by “Israel” or stand in solidarity with those under attack, particularly in the South and the Bekaa.

He reminded the Lebanese people of the country’s historic milestones, namely the liberation of South Lebanon in 2000 and the Resistance’s victory in 2006. “Our capabilities were also limited at that time, but internal unity around a single national position made those victories possible,” he said.

Addressing those he described as “playing the role of instigators from within, against their own people,” Lahoud warned that their actions would ultimately backfire. “This internal agitation will return to harm them first,” he said, accusing them of aligning, willingly or not, with the interests of the enemy.

Lahoud urged all Lebanese factions to take note of what even their adversaries have come to recognize. “Look at your undeclared Israeli ally,” he said, “who admitted that the Resistance’s greatest weapon is its unwavering spirit of defiance and steadfastness.”

He urged them to abandon any illusions about weakening the Resistance, asserting that such hopes are futile. “Stop betting on breaking the resistance… stop dreaming of its surrender,” he said, adding with confidence: “The resistance will inevitably triumph.”

IOF aggression on South Lebanon continues

His statements come after Israeli occupation forces launched a series of violent airstrikes across southern Lebanon on Wednesday, targeting several towns, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondents.

The attacks began in the town of Kfour in the Nabatieh district, where an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building. Subsequent raids struck multiple buildings in Qennarit, also in southern Lebanon. In Jarjou’, another airstrike destroyed a targeted building, while drones maintained heavy patrols over the area.

Al Mayadeen correspondent revealed that several reporters were injured following the airstrikes on Qennarit, as “there were 10 journalist colleagues near the site of the strike.”

The Lebanese Health Ministry reported that Israeli enemy raids on the town of Qennarit resulted in injuries to 19 people, including journalists. Later, our correspondent reported Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes on al-Kharayeb in the Saida district and Ansar in the Nabatieh district.

In response, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun denounced the ongoing Israeli assaults on Wednesday evening, describing them as a clear violation of international humanitarian law and a blatant breach of the most basic protections for civilians. He stressed that “Israel’s” repeated aggressive actions confirm its refusal to honor commitments under the ceasefire agreement, holding Tel Aviv fully accountable for the consequences of these violations.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: The Eurasian Lock

Iran’s geography makes it a strategic hinge – one that anchors Russia’s southern depth and gives China an escape from US maritime containment

By Abbas al-Zein | The Cradle | January 22, 2026

In the corridors of US strategic decision-making, Iran is no longer treated as a discrete regional file. Dealing with Tehran has become inseparable from great-power competition itself. Coordination between Iran, Russia, and China has moved beyond situational alignment, coalescing into what western analysts increasingly describe as a form of “structural synergy” that undermines Washington’s ability to isolate its rivals.

This assessment overlaps with conclusions reached by the Carnegie Endowment in its report on America’s Future Threats, which identifies Iran as a “central node” in the Eurasian landmass – one that prevents Russia’s geographical isolation while securing China’s energy needs beyond the reach of US naval control.

Any serious destabilization of the Islamic Republic would not remain confined within its borders. It would translate into a dual strategic blockade targeting both China and Russia: reviving security chaos across Eurasia’s interior while striking at the financial and energy platforms that emerging powers increasingly rely on to loosen unipolar dominance.

Geography as strategic depth

For Moscow, Iran’s importance begins with geography. It offers Russia a vital geopolitical opening beyond its immediate borders. According to studies by the Valdai Club, Iran’s significance lies not in formal alliance politics but in its function as the sole land bridge connecting the Eurasian heartland to the Indian Ocean via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

This route provides Russia with insulation from NATO’s maritime pressure in the Baltic and Mediterranean, effectively converting Iranian territory into strategic depth protecting Russia’s southern flank.

This geographic interdependence has produced a shared political interest that goes beyond tactical coordination. The stability of the Iranian state acts as a safeguard against the Caucasus and Central Asia drifting toward the kind of fragmentation that preceded the Ukraine war. Research by the Russian Council for International Affairs (RIAC) frames Iranian geography as a cornerstone of the “Greater Eurasia” concept, central to Moscow’s effort to dilute western hegemony across the continent.

For Beijing, Iran plays a comparable role within a different strategic equation. As US naval pressure tightens across the Pacific, China’s westward extension through Iran has become increasingly difficult to replace. Research by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) identifies Iran as one of the most critical geographic nodes in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), providing Beijing with a land-based corridor into West Asia that bypasses US-controlled maritime choke points – from the Taiwan Strait to the Mediterranean approaches.

Iran’s intermediate position between the Eurasian interior and open seas has therefore imposed a durable entanglement between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. In this configuration, political alignment is driven less by ideology than by physiogeographic necessity.

Any attempt to destabilize the Iranian plateau would likely trigger a cascading shock across Eurasia’s interior, escalating a regional confrontation into a systemic blockade aimed at arresting the rise of rival power centers.

Buffer state and security firewall

Beyond logistics, Iran functions as a stabilizing buffer within East Eurasia’s security architecture. One research report by RAND on “Extending Russia” speaks of adversary exhaustion strategies that emphasize the use of peripheral instability to drain rival powers. From this perspective, Iran represents a critical firewall.

Instability inside Iran would mechanically undermine security coordination across Russia’s southern periphery, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia. RIAC assessments warn that such a breakdown would open pathways for extremist networks, transcontinental smuggling, and militant spillover – threats Moscow has repeatedly classified as existential.

For China, the concern lies in contagion. Iran’s stability limits the transmission of unrest through Central Asia’s mountain corridors, where Tehran functions as an integral security partner within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This role provides Beijing with a degree of security insulation, allowing it to pursue global ambitions without being drawn into attritional border conflicts.

Energy and financial sovereignty

Economically, Iran’s role extends beyond conventional trade logic. Its partnerships with Russia and China increasingly form part of an alternative financial and energy architecture designed to blunt western leverage.

From Beijing’s perspective, Iranian oil has become a form of strategic insulation. Data indicates that China purchases roughly 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude – around 13.4 percent of its seaborne oil imports – with close to 80 percent of Iran’s exports flowing eastward. Increasing settlement through non-dollar mechanisms, including the digital yuan, has further reduced vulnerability to US pressure, particularly at choke points such as the Strait of Malacca.

Reports from the Electricity Hub confirm that China imported more than 57 million tons of Iranian – or suspected Iranian – oil in 2025, often routed via intermediaries such as Malaysia. The figures underscore the diminishing effectiveness of sanctions when confronted with geoeconomic necessity.

Russia’s calculus follows a different path to the same outcome. Cooperation with Iran has emerged as one of Moscow’s most important routes around SWIFT-based isolation. Government of the Russian Federation data shows bilateral trade rising by 35 percent following the Eurasian Economic Union free trade agreement implemented in May 2025.

A central shift has been monetary. In January 2025, the Central Bank of Iran announced full connectivity between Russia’s MIR and Iran’s Shetab payment systems, creating a protected financial corridor. According to Iranian officials, Iran and Russia aim to expand bilateral trade to $10 billion over the next decade, while Iran’s exports to Russia are expected to rise to about $1.4 billion by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2026).

Tehran has increasingly functioned as a re-export hub for Russian technologies and goods, frustrating efforts to economically isolate Moscow.

Washington’s strategy of separation

Against this backdrop, US strategy has evolved. Rather than relying solely on pressure or open confrontation, Washington has gravitated toward what western policy circles describe as a “strategy of separation.” This is an attempt to loosen the interdependence binding Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing by offering alternative pathways rather than confronting the bloc directly.

On the Chinese front, energy has emerged as the primary point of leverage. As the world’s largest oil importer, Beijing remains sensitive to supply stability and pricing. US moves in Latin America – particularly regarding Venezuela – are widely interpreted as efforts to reintegrate large oil reserves into global markets under western regulatory frameworks, potentially diluting Iran’s role in China’s energy security calculus.

In parallel, Washington has expanded its naval and coalition presence across key trade corridors stretching from the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific. This posture is framed not only as deterrence but as a persistent reminder that maritime supply security remains tied to US-led power balances.

On the Russian front, Ukraine occupies a central role. While sustained military and economic pressure aims to drain Moscow’s capacity, intermittent diplomatic signals suggest interest in compartmentalized understandings over European security. The underlying wager is that Russia’s core interests might be partially accommodated in Europe, reducing the long-term value of its partnership with Iran.

US engagement has also intensified across Central Asia and the Caucasus – regions that constitute strategic depth for Russia and critical corridors for China’s BRI. From Moscow and Beijing’s view, expanded security and investment ties in these areas represent an effort to geographically encircle Iran and weaken its role as Eurasia’s connective knot.

Why the bet fails

Despite the breadth of these efforts, the strategy of separation runs up against entrenched distrust in both Moscow and Beijing. For the two powers, the issue is not the scale of incentives on offer but the structure of the international system itself – and the accumulated experience of sanctions, coercion, and volatile western commitments.

From Russia’s vantage point, any trade-off between Iran and Ukraine constitutes a strategic trap. Iran anchors Russia’s southern access to the Indian Ocean; its collapse would expose the Caucasus–Central Asia arc to chronic instability. Gains in Eastern Europe would offer little compensation for a structurally weakened southern flank.

China’s reasoning is similarly grounded. Alternative energy suppliers remain embedded within supply chains that Washington can influence or disrupt. Iranian oil, by contrast, offers a higher degree of geographic and political autonomy. Its value lies less in price than in resilience.

The last barrier

At its core, the contest over Iran pits two logics against one another. One assumes geopolitical networks can be dismantled through incentives and selective realignment. The other recognizes that geography, accumulated experience, and the erosion of trust render such guarantees fragile in a world moving steadily toward multipolarity.

Iran’s collapse or prolonged internal destabilization would not merely reorder energy markets or regional alignments. It would reopen West Asia as a zone of near-exclusive US influence, completing a strategic arc across Western Eurasia. For more than a century, the region has served as a central theater of global power competition – from imperial rivalries to the Cold War and into the present transition toward multipolarity.

Therefore, Iran becomes more than a pivotal state. Much as Venezuela once represented the outer limit of resistance to US power in the Western Hemisphere, Iran now stands as the final geopolitical barrier to the consolidation of American hegemony across the heart of Eurasia.

Its cohesion serves not only its own national interest but also the broader objective shared by Moscow and Beijing: constraining unilateral dominance and preserving strategic autonomy in their immediate neighborhoods.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

France seizes tanker ‘coming from Russia’

RT | January 22, 2026

French commandos have boarded and seized a sanctioned tanker “coming from Russia,” President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday. The ship, Macron claimed, is part of Russia’s supposed ‘shadow fleet’.

The ship was intercepted by the French Navy in the Mediterranean, Macron said, adding that the vessel was “subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag.” The tanker has since been diverted to port, he added, where a judicial investigation will take place.

The ship, named ‘Grinch’, was sailing from the Russian port of Murmansk. According to publicly available maritime tracking data, ‘Grinch’ is a 250-meter crude oil tanker flying under the flag of Comoros.

The seizure was carried out by French naval forces with assistance from the UK, the French military said in a statement. According to an AP report, Britain provided intelligence support for the operation.

“We will not tolerate any violation,” Macron wrote in a post on X. “The activities of the ‘shadow fleet’ contribute to financing the war of aggression against Ukraine.”

There is no Russian-operated ‘shadow fleet’. Instead, the term refers to any vessel that transports Russian oil outside the coverage of London-based insurance brokers. While their cargo may be sanctioned, Western powers have no legal basis to enforce these sanctions on the high seas, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

According to Macron, the operation took place on the “high seas” in the Mediterranean, but was carried out in “strict compliance” with the convention.

The seizure took place a week after British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper promised to take “a much more assertive and robust approach” against “the Russian shadow fleet.” In October last year, Macron said that France and other EU countries would adopt a “policy of obstruction” against these vessels.

”Russian oil must be stopped, confiscated, and sold for Europe’s benefit,” Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos on Thursday. “Why not? If Putin has no money, there is no war,” he added.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Utility disaster in Ukraine as the fate of the country plays out

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | January 22, 2026

In the second half of January 2026, the largest cities of Ukraine — Kiev, Odessa, Dnipro, Kharkiv — and others are experiencing complete electricity blackouts. In some, there has been no electricity, heating or running water for more than one week. (Cities in Ukraine are all heated by modern, central heating systems, dating from the years of Soviet Ukraine and the Soviet Union). With cold weather (minus 20 degrees Celsius) having persisted for almost two weeks over the entire country, heating pipes and sewage drainage pipes have burst, even in the Ministry of Energy building in Kiev.

Between 100,000 and 150,000 Kiev residents whose pipes have burst will be left without heat this winter, reports Oleg Popenko, chairman of the Ukrainian Union of Utility Consumers, as reported on Telegram on January 16 by the Strana.ua online news service.

Kiev residents are warming themselves in their apartments with candles, gas cylinders, and gasoline stoves. In Kiev, Kharkiv, and Odessa, supermarkets where people could buy food are closing. Where stores are still open, food prices are skyrocketing. People are blocking roads, demanding electricity for at least a few hours a day. However, the situation overall appears to be nothing less than a collapse of the electricity system in the affected cities and regions.

One of the reasons for the collapses, as detailed in previous reports to Al Mayadeen English by this writer, is the large-scale theft that has taken place for years of Western aid funds otherwise intended to maintain energy sources. These were intended to help construct protective structures around energy producing and transmission facilities. Late last year, anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine began to report such large-scale schemes from which many in the entourage of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have profited handsomely. Many of the accused have since managed to flee to Israel.

Legislator Alexei Goncharenko, a pro-Western, ultra-nationalist loyal to former President Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019), has spoken out in Ukraine’s legislature about the energy crisis, as reported on Telegram by Politnavigator on January 16. “Nothing good is happening here, not with the war, not with energy supply, and not for peace. Ok, we are not talking about peace for now, but what about negotiations? There is complete silence from the government. Meanwhile, Miami basks at 23 degrees (Celsius) and Tel Aviv sits at 17 degrees (Celsius). Many of Zelensky’s friends now reside there, while here in Ukraine, ordinary citizens are struggling to survive in minus double-digit temperatures.”

Many Ukrainian analysts cite another reason for the societal disaster now taking place in the country, and that is the so-called energy infrastructure war which Zelensky has been waging against Russia since 2025, as part of what his administration calls “asymmetric actions”. But Ukraine under Zelensky is a much weaker state than Russia and cannot wage such a war on equal terms. It is Kiev’s Western allies that have advised Ukraine to undertake such a war, in the name of reducing Russia’s profits from oil sales. According to their fantastic claims, attacks against Russia’s fossil fuel production and revenues would cause both to decline, leaving insufficient funding for Russia to respond to the aggression by Ukraine and its Western imperialist backers.

Kiev has carried out several strikes against Russian oil tankers in the Black Sea and against Russia’s oil refineries. It was following such repeated attacks, and not before, that Russia commenced systematic retaliatory strikes, crippling Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Indirectly, ordinary Ukrainians became hostages in a war being waged by Western corporations to redistribute the sales and flows of oil and natural gas in world markets by reducing Russian capacities. Another side of this war is now on full display before the world in the form of U.S. aggression against Venezuela, including the kidnapping of the country’s president on January 3 and pirate-like seizures of oil tankers transporting Venezuelan oil.

Zelensky was warned in 2025 about the dire consequences of waging an infrastructure war with Russia. But the decision was made in the autumn of 2025 to barrel ahead. Zelensky’s presidential office apparently remains confident that it can withstand the pressure of harsh, public reaction to its actions and calmly continue its strategy of protracted war without concessions.

Analysts, however, warn of new problems as the critical situation in energy supply not only leads to blackouts but also hits the country’s economy and provokes new crises, comments the Ukrainian opposition Telegram channel ‘Resident’ carried on January 15. It wrote, “Analysts warn of new problems as the critical situation in the energy industry leads not only to blackouts but also hits the country’s economy and provokes new crises. It is simply impossible to now restore the energy production and distribution network because this will require major repairs for which there are neither financial resources nor time. A new energy strategy is needed, but for now the government is simply reassuring Ukrainians and advising them to ‘keep calm’”.

What Ukrainians want

Western politicians, especially in the European Union and the United Kingdom, following Zelensky’s lead, are fond of speaking on behalf of Ukrainians. They purport to know what conditions that Ukrainians will or will not accept in order to achieve an end to the war. But how can they know? There are no referendums nor elections in Ukraine in wartime conditions, and polling is simply unreliable. Ukrainian citizens live under an authoritarian, wartime regime and do not feel safe in expressing opinions. This has been true since at least the escalation of threats and provocations against Russia which escalated in late 2021.

The constant retreats by Ukraine’s army along the military front lines under the relentless steamroller of the Russian army, the terror of Ukraine’s forced, military conscription, and living in unheated homes without electricity are causing widespread depression among the people of the country. There is also great resentment directed against Zelensky and his administration, blaming them for forcing the population to endure the unendurable.

Even the Western media is being obliged to acknowledge this. Against the backdrop of attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, many Ukrainians believe the largely Russian-speaking and -loyal region of Donbas should be ceded to the Russian Federation in order to end the war and the bombings, writes the New York Times on January 15. The newspaper cites Kiev lawyer Vladimir Dorodko saying “many in Ukraine are tired”. According to him, “the difficulties are causing some Ukrainians to argue that the war should be ended even at the cost of great sacrifices such as territorial concessions.”

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba (2020-2024) believes that Ukrainians are willing to accept territorial concessions in order to end the war. “What everyone sees in the ratings and opinion polls is one thing. But what people say on the streets and in their kitchens is quite another”, reports Strana on January 12.

Legislator Anna Skorokhod has voiced her own indignation over the deteriorating situation in the country, Poliltnavigator reports on January 16. “People have so much hatred for everything that is happening. Every day begins with negativity. People are so angry and so tired. I heard yesterday from a stranger saying ‘I don’t care what flag I live under, as long as my family can live in peace’”, she acknowledges. Skorokhod was elected to the Rada (legislature) in April 2019 as part of Zelensky’s party/machine. She was expelled from the party six months later for voting against bills to liberalise Ukraine’s land market and break up the Naftogaz monopoly of the natural gas industry.

Either Zelensky or millions of Ukrainians

As Strana.ua wrote on January 16, Zelensky says he is entirely unwilling to make concessions in any peace talks with Russia. This was confirmed in a recent statement by Donald Trump, Strana reported, with Trump going so far as to rhetorically accuse Zelensky of impeding a peace process. All signals from the Office of the President, Strana continued, indicate it intends to continue fighting, believing that its military front will not collapse, that the energy industry and the population will somehow hold out until the end of winter, and that a collapse by Russia is ‘just around the corner’ due to the weight of Western sanctions, Ukrainian strikes on oil facilities, and other problems.

Former advisor to Zelesnky’s office, Alexei Arestovich (Dec 2020-Jan 2023), says that only a rapid change in Ukraine’s foreign policy can save the country from outright defeat. According to him, Zelensky is unable to change course because he is hostage to the established policy. “It is safe to say that the continuation of the anti-Russia foreign policy project and the domestic policy of monocultural ethno-nationalism will leave Ukraine in ruins and lead not only to military defeat but also to historic defeat. In the short term, five to seven years, I think the Ukraine state [ethno-nationalist as it became following the demise of Soviet Ukraine in 1991] will be finished”, Arestovich predicts.

Vasily Volga, a former businessman and legislature member, more recently leader (in exile) of the Union of Left Forces, believes that Ukraine’s worsening crisis is caused by the fact that Zelensky is personally trying to survive at any cost and therefore clings to power and a continuation of the war course. “I believe that Zelensky will cling to power with his teeth, to the last. When his teeth are pulled out, he will then use his claws, whatever it takes. He will not leave until the very end. Resignation is becoming less and less likely for Zelensky with each passing day”, says Volga, who is convinced that Zelensky is destined to suffer grave personal consequences at the hands of those still fighting for his government.

On January 14, Alexander Dubinsky, a legislator from Zelensky’s party from 2019 to 2021 and imprisoned since November 2023 under accusations of ‘treason’, has also written that for Zelensky, continuing the war is a guarantee of his personal safety. “He will do everything to disrupt any negotiations. It seems obvious that if this should require striking Russian nuclear facilities, he would do so. From the first days of his presidency, Zelensky surrounded himself with incompetent but very greedy friends who began frantically to plunder the country. There is a huge amount of compromising information on him in the hands of all Western intelligence services.”

All this, however, does not mean that Western imperialists will not try to place a new warmonger in Zelensky’s place. The problem with the current war is not only how quickly the Russian army seems poised to capture the city of Zaporizhia (fifth largest city in Ukraine). It is that the main issue for Russia is not the capture of territory but the creation of the common security system, which was disrupted by the West following the demise of the USSR in 1990-91.

The current war in Ukraine has now lasted longer than the war by Nazi Germany against Soviet Ukraine from June 1941 to October 1944 (1,418 days). The Russian authorities have repeatedly emphasized that what they consider to be the root causes of the current conflict must be settled in any peace agreement. For them, a major root cause is the threat of further NATO expansion to include Ukraine.

As if to mock Russian concerns, the risible ‘peace plans’ of Kiev’s supporters in the European Union constantly refer to ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine in the form of the introduction of French or British troops onto Ukrainian soil. This, they say, must be part of a peace agreement. This stance is a continued reminder of the EU’s unwillingness to end the war, and a reminder of its crazed goal of establishing British military bases, at any cost, on our Ukrainian soil.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »