They like the bedtime story: Europe was peacefully humming along in its post-history spa — open borders, cheap energy, NATO as a charity, Russia as a gas station with a flag… and then, one day, the barbarian kicked the door in for no reason at all.
That story is not just dishonest. It’s operational. It’s the propaganda you tell yourself so you can keep the addiction going without ever admitting how self-destructive it is.
Because the truth is uglier and far more incriminating:
In Munich, on February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin stood on the most flattering stage the Atlantic system owns — the Security Conference where Western officials applaud themselves for maintaining “order” and he laid out, to their faces, the skeleton of the coming disaster. He didn’t whisper it in a back channel. He used the microphone to deliver some much needed medicine, however hard it would be for the Empire to swallow.
He even signaled he wasn’t going to play the usual polite theatre — the kind where everyone agrees in public and stabs each other in classified annexes. He said the format allowed him to avoid “pleasant, yet empty diplomatic platitudes.”
And then he did the unforgivable thing, (gasp!) he described the empire as an empire.
He named the unipolar intoxication — that post–Cold War hallucination that history had ended, that power had found its final owner, that NATO could expand forever without consequences, that international law was optional for the enforcer class and compulsory for everyone else.
Putin’s core argument was brutally simple: a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, it’s impossible.
Not “unfair.” Not rude. Impossible.
(Because in a world with) “one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making” is a world where security becomes privatized — where the strong reserve the right to interpret rules (with exemptions for themselves), and the weak are told to accept it as morality. (And yes, he put it in exactly those terms — one center, one force, one decision — the architecture of domination.)
And when you build that kind of world, everyone else does the only rational thing left: they stop trusting the wall of law to protect them, and they start arming for survival.
Putin said it outright: when force becomes the default language, it “stimulates an arms race.”
This is where the Western client media — professionally disengious as ever, clipped one or two spicy lines and missed the larger point: Munich 2007 wasn’t “Putin raging.” It was Russia publishing its redlines in front of the class.
And then came the part that should have frozen the room. Putin named it – NATO expansion.
Putin didn’t argue it as nostalgia. He argued it as provocation — a deliberate reduction of trust. He asked the question no Western leader ever answers honestly:
“Against whom is this expansion intended?”
And then he drove the blade in: what happened to the assurances made after the Warsaw Pact dissolved? “No one even remembers them.”
That line matters because it goes well beyond grievance — it’s a window into how Russia saw the post–Cold War settlement: not as a partnership, but as a rolling deception. Expand NATO, move offensive infrastructure, then call it “defensive.” Build bases, run exercises, integrate weapons systems, and insist the other side is paranoid for noticing.
Putin’s formulation was clean: NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”
Now pause and look at the psychology of the West in that room. They didn’t hear a warning. They heard audacity. They didn’t hear “security dilemma.” They heard “how dare you speak like an equal.”
That’s the cultural glitch at the heart of the Atlantic project: it believes its own core lie and cannot process sovereignty in others without treating it as aggression.
So Munich 2007 became, in Western memory, not the moment Russia told the truth — but the moment Russia “showed its hand.” The implication: Russia’s “hand” was evil, and therefore any response to it was justified. Which is exactly how you sleepwalk into catastrophe.
The real prophecy: not mysticism — mechanics
What was prophetic about Putin’s speech isn’t that he had a crystal ball.
It’s that he understood the West’s incentive structure:
A security system that expands by definition (NATO) needs threats by definition.
A unipolar ideology needs disobedience to punish, otherwise the myth collapses.
A rules-based order that breaks its own rules must constantly produce narrative cover.
An economic model that offshore-outs its industry and imports “cheap stability” must secure energy routes, supply chains, and obedience — by finance, by sanctions, by force.
Putin was saying: you can’t build a global security architecture on humiliation and expect it to be stable. Russia had lived through the wreckage of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and that this playbook would be used again and again, with Georgia, with Syria, Libya, Iran and Russia itself if Putin did nothing.
He was also saying and this is where the Russophobic mass hysteria accelerates — that Russia would not accept a subordinate role in its own neighborhood, on its own borders, under a wannabe hegemon’s military umbrella.
This is where the Western catechism kicks in: “neighborhood” is called “sphere of influence” when Russia says it, and “security guarantees” when Washington says it. And so the hysteria machine warmed up.
You saw it in the immediate reception: Western elites, including Merkel and McCain treating the speech as an insult rather than a negotiation offer. You saw it in the years that followed — the steady normalization of the idea that Russia’s security concerns were illegitimate, and therefore could be ignored with moralistic lectures, free of consequences.
Ignore, expand, accuse, repeat.
That loop is your road to 2022 and to today, in Munich 2026. Groundhog day without learning the vital lessons to end the loop of utter madness.
Munich, Feb 13 (2026): Merz admits the order is dead — and calls it “uncertainty”
Fast forward. Same city. Same conference. Same Western liturgy, just with more panic in the eyes and the nucleus of a terrifying realization.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz using his best perfomative courage, murmured that the world order we relied on is no longer there. Framing the post–Cold War “rules-based order” as effectively crumbled and almost begging for a reset in transatlantic relations.
He goes further: he talks up a stronger European defence posture, and pointed to discussions with France about a European nuclear deterrent concept, a “European nuclear shield.”
And then comes the line that should be carved into the marble of the Munich conference hall as Exhibit A: Merz argues that in this era, even the United States “will not be powerful enough to go alone.”
Read that again.
The BlackRock chancellor on NATO’s spiritual home turf is effectively saying: the empire is overstretched, the illusion of old certainties are gone, and Europe will be left hung out to dry. Talk about strategic vertigo!
And it is exactly what Putin was talking about in 2007: when one axis tries to act as the planet’s owner, the cost accumulates — wars, blowback, arms races, fractured trust, until the system starts to wobble under its own contradictions.
Merz also reported begged the U.S. and Europe to “repair and revive” transatlantic trust. Repair trust with what currency?
Because trust isn’t repaired by speeches. Trust is repaired by reversing the toxic and suicidal behaviors that destroyed it.
And those behaviors were precisely what Putin named in 2007:
expanding military blocs toward another power’s borders,
treating international law as a menu,
using economic coercion as a weapon,
and then pretending the consequences are “unprovoked.”
Europe is now gasping at the invoice for that policy set: industrial stress, energy insecurity, strategic dependency, and a political class that can’t admit how it got here without indicting itself.
So instead of confession, you get moral performance. Instead of strategy, you get hysteria and cartoon slogans.
Instead of peace architecture, you get escalation management — the art of walking toward the cliff while calling it deterrence.
Merz’s remarks underscore that Europe is being forced to contemplate a harsher security environment and greater responsibility, all of its own suicidal making — but it still frames the Russia question in the familiar moralizing register.
Which is the whole tragedy: they can feel the tectonic plates shifting beneath them, yet they keep reciting the same old prayers that summoned the earthquake.
Why we’re here: the Western addiction to expansion — and the manufactured Russophobia that lubricated it
Russophobia is more than just bloodthirsty prejudice. It’s the (failed) policy tool of choice of the last few empires against Russia.
It’s what you pump into the Mockingbird media bloodstream to make escalation feel like virtue and compromise feel like treason.
You don’t have to love everything Russia does to see the mechanism: a permanent narrative of Russian menace makes every NATO move sound defensive, every EU economic self-harm sound righteous, and every diplomatic off-ramp sound like appeasement.
It creates a psychological environment where:
NATO expansion becomes “freedom,”
coups become “democratic awakenings,”
sanctions become “values,”
censorship becomes “information integrity,”
and war becomes “support.”
And once you install that operating system, you can torch your own industry and still call it moral leadership.
That’s the dark comedy of Europe since 2014 — accelerating post 2022: self-sanctioning, deindustrializing pressure, energy price shocks, and strategic submission to Washington’s delusion of carving up Russia, sold as “defending democracy.”
Meanwhile, Moscow reads the West’s behavior the same way it read it in 2007: as a hostile architecture closing in, dressed up as virtue.
Putin’s Munich speech — again, not mysticism — warned that when the strong monopolize decision-making and normalize force, the world becomes less safe, not more.
So what did the West do?
It made the “rules-based order” a brand — while breaking rules (international law) whenever convenient. Exceptionalism at almost biblical levels, God’s chosen people.
It expanded NATO while insisting the expansion was harmless.
It treated Russian objections as evidence of Russian guilt — which is circular logic worthy of an inquisitor.
And it nurtured a media culture that could not imagine Russia as a rational actor responding to a pattern of ugly regime change behavior — only as a cartoon villain driven by pathology. Not analysis but theological warfare.
The punchline Munich won’t say out loud
Here’s the line Munich still cannot speak, even in 2026, even with Merz admitting the old order is gone:
The West didn’t misread Putin’s warning. It rejected it because accepting it would have meant limiting itself.
Munich 2007 was a chance — maybe the last clean one — to build a European security architecture that wasn’t just NATO with better PR. A chance to treat Russia as a Great Power with legitimate interests, not a defeated adversary to be regime changed and broken apart.
And now, in Munich 2026, they stand amid the wreckage and call it “uncertainty,” as if the storm blew in from nowhere. The BlackRock Chancellor calls for resets, for revived trust, for Europe to become stronger, for new deterrence ideas.
But the reset Munich needs is the one it refuses:
reset the premise that NATO will remain a viable alliance beyond the war in Ukraine,
reset the premise that Russia must absorb strategic humiliation and accept the inverse, the reality as it is – where it’s in fact Western Europe that is wearing the humiliation.
reset the premise that international law is a tool of the powerful,
reset the premise that Europe’s role is to be the forward operating base and European sovereignty sacrificed to buy the Empire time .
Until that happens, Munich will keep happening — every year, more anxious, more militarized, more rhetorical, more detached from the material reality its own disastrous policies created.
And Putin’s “prophecy” will keep looking prophetic — not because he conjured the future, but because he correctly described the machine.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Saturday that Europe has decided to go to war with Russia by 2030 and that preparations are already underway in certain European countries.
“Europe has decided that it will go to war [with Russia] by 2030. Not that it wants to, might, or plans to – it has decided. It has made the decision,” Orban said.
Preparations for war are being carried out across Europe, except in Hungary and Slovakia, he added.
“Nine [European] countries already have compulsory military service. In some places, it also applies to women. The population is being sent instructions on what to do in the event of war. Military spending has risen sharply. Agreements have been signed to send troops to Ukraine,” he said.
In recent years, Russia has noted unprecedented NATO activity near its western borders. The alliance has expanded its initiatives, describing them as measures to deter alleged Russian aggression. Russian authorities have repeatedly expressed concern over the buildup of NATO forces in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that Russia remains open to dialogue with NATO on an equal footing, provided that the West abandons its course toward militarizing the continent.
This will be a rather lengthy article, but you need to know what Russia and China are doing in a closely coordinated series of actions that show a serious commitment to counter US actions to punish and isolate Iran and Cuba. Let’s start with Iran… Since the June 2025 12-day Iran–Israel war (which ended with a US-brokered ceasefire on 24 June 2025), Russia and China have provided Iran with a combination of diplomatic, economic, military-technical, and strategic support. This has helped Tehran recover from strikes on its nuclear sites, air defenses, and missile infrastructure, while deepening their “axis” alignment against Western pressure. Support has been pragmatic rather than unconditional—neither offered direct intervention during the conflict, leading to some Iranian frustration—but has accelerated in the months since.
The biggest news — a development that has been largely ignored in the West — was the signing of the Trilateral Strategic Pact (signed 29 January 2026), which provides a comprehensive framework for diplomatic, economic, and security coordination (emphasizing sovereignty, sanctions resistance, and multipolarity; no formal defense alliance). The signing occurred through simultaneous ceremonies in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow, as confirmed by state media in all three countries and reported across outlets like Middle East Monitor, GV Wire, and others. It represents a significant escalation in coordination among the three nations, building directly on their existing bilateral frameworks.
It formalizes a trilateral coordination mechanism for the first time, linking the three powers in a shared strategic framework. It builds on the bilateral agreements that Iran had signed previously with Russia and China:
The Iran-Russia 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (signed January 17, 2025, entered into force October 2025), focused on economic, political, defense, and sanctions-evasion ties.
The Iran-China 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement (signed 2021), emphasizing trade, infrastructure, energy, and Belt and Road Initiative projects.
While the full text has been released incrementally (with portions still emerging as of early February 2026), public descriptions and official statements highlight the following core elements:
Diplomatic coordination — Unified stances on international issues, including opposition to Western sanctions, support for multipolarity, and mutual backing in forums like the UN.
Economic resilience and cooperation — Enhanced trade (e.g., energy exports, yuan/ruble-based mechanisms), sanctions circumvention, and infrastructure projects (e.g., expanding Belt and Road ties, North-South Transport Corridor involvement).
Strategic and security alignment — Military-technical cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint exercises (e.g., building on annual “Maritime Security Belt” drills; a major joint naval exercise involving all three that will take place in the Gulf of Oman and northern Indian Ocean in the coming weeks).
Nuclear sovereignty — Emphasis on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear development and resistance to external interference.
Trilateral nuclear and military talks — Including IAEA discussions and coordinated exercises.
No mutual defense clause — It explicitly stops short of a formal military alliance (unlike NATO’s Article 5), focusing instead on coordination and mutual support without automatic defense obligations.
State media in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow described it as a “cornerstone” for a new multipolar world order, with Chinese messaging highlighting opposition to “unilateral coercion” and Russian/Iranian outlets framing it as bolstering sovereignty against external threats. While I do not believe that Russia and China will join the fray if Iran is attacked, they are making a concerted, substantive effort to ensure that Iran can effectively defend itself and thwart US attempts at regime change.
Both Russia and China are providing important military assistance to Iran, but China appears to be playing a bigger role in supplying hardware while Russia is supplying Iran with critical intelligence. According to press reports and photographic evidence, Russia has deliveried Mi-28NE attack helicopters (confirmed in early 2026) and possible MiG-29 fighters. Russia also has sent a large number of military transport flights to Iran, but there are no reports about what was on board. The most likely case is that Russia is fulfilling supplies of weapons based on prior contracts and in defiance of reinstated UN/EU arms sanctions via the JCPOA “snapback” mechanism.
China has focused on upgrading Iran’s air defense system by supplying HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems (a long-range SAMs comparable to Russia’s S-300; deliveries reported from July 2025 onward, with Iranian officials confirming integration to replace losses from Israeli strikes). In addition, China has deployed the YLC-8B long-range surveillance radars (for detecting stealth aircraft like the F-35), and shipped missile components (e.g., solid-fuel propellants, guidance systems) to rebuild ballistic missile production lines damaged in the war. Iran is in a much stronger position militarily than it was on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched its surprise attack.
CUBA
Russia and China also are providing significant political, economic, humanitarian, energy, and material support to Cuba, especially amid the island’s severe fuel/energy crisis, food shortages, and economic strains intensified by the longstanding US blockade and recent US actions under President Trump (e.g., pressure on Venezuelan/Mexican oil supplies and threats of tariffs on countries aiding Cuba).
Russia and China are coordinating rhetorically (both denounce US “inhumane” tactics and reaffirm support in bilateral calls and statements). They also are coordinating the kind of aid that each supplies to Cuba… Russia focuses on supplying direct oil/fuel while China is aiding Cuba with financial/renewables/food assistance. There is not a formal trilateral mechanism like the one they signed with Iran, but both countries frame their support as countering US pressure in the Western Hemisphere. This support is ongoing and responsive to Cuba’s acute needs (fuel rationing, blackouts, food scarcity). Deliveries and projects continue despite US threats, with both countries emphasizing it as humanitarian and sovereign cooperation.
Russia’s Support
Russia emphasizes solidarity, political backing, and practical material/energy assistance, framing it as opposition to “suffocating” US measures. Russia’s help consists of the following:
Energy Aid (Oil and Fuel): Russia is preparing to deliver crude oil and petroleum products to Cuba “in the near future” as humanitarian aid. The Russian Embassy in Havana confirmed this to Izvestia. Russia last sent a major shipment in February 2025 (100,000 metric tons of crude under a $60 million state-backed loan approved by Putin). The Kremlin (via spokesman Dmitry Peskov) states it is in active contact with Havana to discuss assistance options and has described Cuba’s fuel situation as “critical.” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed Russia is providing material assistance, including supplies already underway.
Political and Diplomatic Support: Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (phone call with Cuban FM Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Feb 2, 2026) reaffirmed Russia’s “principled position” that economic/military pressure on Cuba is unacceptable and committed to continued political and material/financial support. Russia repeatedly condemns the US blockade, opposes any military intervention, and expresses solidarity with Cuba (and Venezuela). Ambassador Viktor Koronelli has stated Russia “will not abandon Cuba.”
Historical/Longer-Term Ties: Russia wrote off ~90% of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt (~$32 billion) in 2014. Ongoing cooperation includes trade, scientific/academic exchanges, and past energy deals.
China’s Support
China has positioned itself as a major strategic partner, focusing on humanitarian aid, energy infrastructure, food security, and debt/investment cooperation (Cuba is a Belt and Road Initiative partner). The recent Emergency Aid Package (Approved by Xi Jinping, Jan 2026) provides $80 million in financial assistance (in euros equivalent) for purchasing electrical equipment and other urgent needs — specifically to help resolve the energy crisis (blackouts affecting >60% of the country). China also donated 60,000 tons of rice in emergency mode (first shipment of ~4,800 tons arrived Jan 2026; rest in coming months) for food security.
China also is expanding support that builds on prior commitments. Previously it was helping Cuba with a 200 MW photovoltaic (solar) energy projects and, recent days, has delivered 5,000 solar panel kits for isolated homes (new executing company established with Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Trade). Shortly after Venezuelan President Maduro was abducted, China, acting under an emergency program, delivered 30,000 tons of rice (first shipments in Jan 2026)… This was in addition to prior donations of solar lamps, roofing materials, mattresses, and generator sets.
In the face of the US effort to crush Cuba economically, China is helping Cuba with debt restructuring negotiations (banking/financial/corporate debts). Cuba also is being Integrated into China’s CIPS payment system and increased use of yuan in trade (announced 2025). China is in effect helping wean Cuba off of the US dollar. China also is helping Cuba with biopharma (e.g., technology transfers for aspirin production), digital transformation (Phase 4 program), high-definition TV projects, mining, oil exploration, sugar industry recovery, and renewables (China investing in solar to help Cuba reach 25% renewables by 2030).
The support that Russia and China are providing to Iran and Cuba sends a clear message to Donald Trump and to the nations of the global south: i.e., Russia and China are building a new financial and security infrastructure designed to immunize countries against US coercion and threats. They are doing more than just offering words of solidarity… They are backing up their words with concrete economic, diplomatic and military actions. The foundation of the American hegemon is crumbling.
I started my vlogging day with Nima and Colonel Wilkerson:
NATO countries are plotting an illegal maritime blockade of Russia, particularly in the Baltic and the Arctic regions, Moscow’s ambassador to Norway, Nikolay Korchunov, has said.
In an interview with RIA Novosti published on Saturday, Korchunov accused the bloc’s members, including Norway, of “putting the Baltic-Arctic region on a barrack-like footing” by holding a series of exercises. This, he added, is aimed at “restricting freedom of navigation and violates international law norms.”
According to the envoy, NATO is also developing plans for “a partial or complete naval blockade” of Russia. In addition, such NATO members as Norway, Sweden, and Finland “are working together to increase military mobility through the development of transport and logistics corridors from west to east, as well as through cross-border use of bases and other military infrastructure.”
These preparations increase tensions and represent a direct threat to Russia’s national security and would force Moscow to take countermeasures, Korchunov warned.
His remarks come after Bloomberg reported on Friday that UK Defense Secretary John Healey had met with counterparts from Baltic and Nordic nations on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to discuss seizing Russia-linked oil tankers.
In recent months, Western countries have detained several Russia-linked cargo vessels under various pretenses. Moscow has consistently condemned the seizures as “piracy” and a blatant violation of international maritime law.
Last year, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev warned that NATO is seeking to undermine Moscow’s economy by considering a blockade of the country, including by paralyzing Russian ports in the St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad regions. He also pointed out that the bloc is seeking to turn the Black and Baltic Seas into “internal waters of the alliance,” adding that Moscow is preparing countermeasures in response.
It appears the main topic of discussion at Wednesday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu was Iran’s ballistic missile program. It really was not a discussion… Instead it was Bibi, with his advisers, trying to sell Trump and his team on the necessity of ending Iran’s ballistic missile capability. Why the emphasis on those missiles when, until recently, the big concern was whether Iran could build a nuclear bomb? The US and Israeli narrative about Iran’s missile and drone strikes in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 insists that Iran did little damage and that the combined might of US and Israeli air-defense systems knocked down 90% of the Iranian ballistic missiles. If that was true, why is Netanyahu pressing Trump touting on the need for Iran to eliminate its ballistic missile force?
I have the answer… We need only look at the damage Iran’s ballistic missiles caused in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 — based on reporting and independent analyses of the conflict (much of the detailed damage was initially censored or not fully disclosed by Israeli authorities, but independent and foreign sources have provided information).
Iran launched more than 1,000 ballistic missiles toward Israel over the 12 days, often in large salvos that overwhelmed the Israeli and US air defenses. Israel’s multilayered missile defense systems intercepted some, but a significant number still penetrated and struck targets. Hundreds of buildings in major cities such as Tel Aviv suburbs (Bat Yam, Ramat Gan) were damaged — with some buildings so badly hit they were later demolished. In Tel Aviv alone, analysts mapped damage to around 480 buildings across multiple strike sites.
Iranian missiles damaged key public facilities, such as the Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva, which was hit by an Iranian missile, causing structural damage and chemical leaks; the affected wing was evacuated. Power and water infrastructure also were hit, contributing to service disruptions.
Iran’s ballistic strikes hit high-value facilities as well. The Weizmann Institute of Science (a major research institution in Rehovot) was severely damaged — with an estimated 90% of structures affected, destruction of dozens of labs, and suspension of about 25% of its operations.
Independent radar data and reporting showed that Iranian missiles directly hit around five Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) facilities, including an air base, intelligence center, and logistics base. Israeli authorities did not publicly confirm these hits at the time, due to military censorship. Israeli oil refining infrastructure — especially in Haifa Bay — also suffered direct hits and damage from Iranian missiles, including to critical units and pipelines at the Bazan refinery and associated casualties. The strike on the Bazan oil refinery complex in Haifa Bay, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities, heavily damaged the power generation unit and other infrastructure critical for operation.
Wednesday’s meeting between Trump and Netanyahu lasted nearly three hours (longer than scheduled) and, according to Israeli media, also included US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Israel’s ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, Military Secretary Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman, acting director of the National Security Council Gil Reich, Michael Eisenberg, Ziv Agmon, and advisor Ofir Falk.
So what did President Trump and Bibi talk about on Wednesday. According to the Jerusalem Post :
[T]he prime minister presented intelligence on Iran’s military buildup, including developments related to its ballistic missile program. He also conveyed the message that if Trump decides to strike Iran, the operation should include targeting the ballistic missile project as well.
Haaretz echoed the Jerusalem Post’s report, but also noted that Netanyahu is worried that Trump will strike a deal with Iran that ensures Iran does not and will not have a nuke. Netanyahu thinks that would be bad for Israel:
Messages from the Prime Minister’s Office indicate that such a deal would be bad not only for Israel but for the entire Middle East. Netanyahu was expected to attempt to thwart an agreement that does not include significant restrictions on ballistic missile production in Iran, while at the same time avoiding being perceived as encouraging the United States to go to war with unpredictable outcomes.
Remember all the times that Bibi showed up at the UN and the US Congress with pictures of an imaginary Iranian nuclear bomb? The bomb is no longer the Israeli priority… Eliminating Iran’s ballistic missiles is now number one on the hit list because Israel took a severe beating last June and Netanyhu fears what Iran could do if Iran makes good on its threats to unleash its missile force if attacked.
Trump tried to placate Bibi by announcing that he has ordered the Navy to PREPARE to deploy another carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea. The key word is PREPARE… Preparing is not the same as a Deployment Order. I am happy to say that I was wrong about the US launching an attack this week. Based on Trump’s account of the session with Bibi, there is going to be at least one more round of talks in Oman between the US and Iran before a new attack on Iran is unleashed.
Despite Trump’s constant boasting about the mighty prowess of the US military, the US lacks the capability to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile force. For starters, the Iranian missiles are stored below ground in hardened tunnels that are scattered across Iran. The US military embarrassed itself last March when it failed to destroy the Houthi ballistic missiles during the seven weeks of Operation Rough Rider… Finding and destroying a mobile missile launcher is damn hard. Unlike Yemen, which did not have an integrated air-defense system or an air force, Iran has both. The lack of air supremacy by the US complicates the task of locating and destroying ballistic missiles in Iran. And that is assuming that Iran is not also using decoys in order to deplete the US inventory of missiles it would use to destroy the Iranian capability.
Iran is willing and ready to make a deal that will assure Trump that it is not building a nuke. And, based on Rick Sanchez’s recent interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi, Iran is willing to make concessions on the enrichment of uranium. While Trump will be loathe to admit it, if he accepts Iran’s offer then he is in effect reviving the JCPOA.
Apparently, NATO officials are beginning to admit that the organization is not in a position of military superiority over the Russian Federation. In a recent statement, a senior NATO official admitted that Russia has an advantage in adapting to new forms of warfare and military technology, warning of the Western alliance’s obsolescence.
The warning was issued by Admiral Pierre Vandier, who holds the position of NATO’s technological transformation commander. He commented on how world powers adapt to ever-changing military technologies and made it clear that Russia has greater adaptive capacity than NATO.
Vandier described NATO as “static and predictable.” According to him, the bloc fails to perceive in time the constant changes in the global military and geopolitical scenarios. He draws special attention to the issue of military technology, warning how the bloc is still bound to an outdated mentality about combat technology – which proves useless on the battlefield in contemporary conflicts. Meanwhile, Russia is perfectly adapted to the new reality of war, knowing how to use technology satisfactorily in the pursuit of its strategic objectives.
“Russia is very good at adapting and probably better than we are today (…) We have been very static, very predictable,” he said.
In fact, Vandier is merely admitting something that has already been commented on by many military analysts over the past four years: NATO’s inability to understand how to correctly use military technology in a combat context. What appears to be happening is a conflict of mentalities and ideologies. Russia prioritizes the military objective and how technology can help achieve it, while, on the other hand, NATO prioritizes profit and the impact on public opinion generated by technological development.
This logic is strongly aligned with the military, political, and economic principles that guide Russia and NATO. As a pragmatic state focused on achieving its strategic interests, Russia is concerned with developing military technology aimed at ensuring the rapid neutralization of the enemy and sparing as many Russian soldiers’ lives as possible. This is deeply aligned with the illiberal mentality of the Russian Federation at the political and economic levels.
On the other hand, the Collective West continues to guide its decision-making process with a mentality typical of the post-Cold War period, when neoliberal ideology became hegemonic. At that time, without worthy competitors, the West no longer prioritized clear strategic objectives, but rather technological development for financial and media purposes.
Since then, Western countries have developed extremely expensive military hardware, often designed by civilian specialists with no connection to the military sphere, with the sole objective of generating an impact on public opinion, inflating the price of the equipment and selling it to client states, creating relationships of economic dependence and indebtedness.
This has been a recurring issue in Ukraine in recent years. The fascist regime in Kiev has imported Western military technology described as “advanced,” when in fact it is merely overpriced hardware, fueled by Western financial economies. These technologies are designed to impress and sell, not to defeat the enemy in a real combat situation. The result is being seen in the special military operation: cheap Russian drones obliterating tanks, missile launch systems, and all types of “sophisticated” equipment imported from the West.
The warning issued by Vandier is important for Western countries if they truly want to adapt to the circumstances of an increasingly polycentric and multipolar world. The 1990s are over, the neoliberal era no longer exists, and the West now has worthy enemies. Russia, China, Iran, India, and other emerging countries maintain strong industrial economies capable of producing military technology on a massive scale – and they are not guided by liberal principles that prioritize profit and media impact.
However, despite the warning, it is unlikely that this situation will change. The West is not governed by politicians interested in what is best for their countries, but by transnational financial elites interested only in their own selfish gains and unconcerned with any strategic issues. For these elites, the more useless military technology is produced, overpriced, sold and discarded, the better – since this way they will continue to profit, regardless of the real military benefit to the West and its client states.
The best thing that can be done in the West is to dismantle NATO and decouple individual states from these transnational elites, creating sovereign governments focused on their real strategic interests.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Germany is willing to supply five interceptor missiles for US-made Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine, but only if other European countries agree to provide 30 more, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has said.
It usually takes two Patriot missiles, priced from to $3.5 to $5 million each, to intercept a single target. Russia deploys dozens of missiles and hundreds of drones in its airstrikes on Ukraine.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov asked for more munitions for the air defense systems during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, also known as the Ramstein group, in Brussels on Thursday.
Vladimir Zelensky previously blamed the lack of supplies by Kiev’s Western backers for Ukraine’s inability to repel Russian attacks on military and dual-use infrastructure, which led to rolling blackouts in major cities. “There will be no light because there are no missiles for defense,” he said.
Following the meeting in the Belgian capital, Pistorius told journalists that he made a “spontaneous proposal” to his European partners to provide 35 additional Patriot interceptors to Ukraine.
The European governments have not yet approved the 30+5 formula, the minister said, but added that he is “very optimistic” about it.
If it’s accepted, “it’s a matter of days and not a matter of weeks or months” before Kiev receives the missiles, he added.
UK Defense Minister John Healy said members of the group agreed a total of $35 billion in new military aid to Kiev. The UK will also allocate £500 million ($682 million) for urgent supplies of air defense systems, he added.
The Russian military said on Thursday that it conducted another attack on Ukraine, hitting 147 targets, including an airfield, military infrastructure facilities, bases, and foreign mercenary camps.
The strike was a response to Kiev’s “terrorist attacks” inside Russia, it stressed. It came a day after the Ukrainian military launched hundreds of drones as well as US-made HIMARS missiles and glide bombs targeting civilian infrastructure in several Russian regions.
Moscow has warned against Western weapons deliveries to Kiev, arguing that they will not prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the conflict, but will only prolong the fighting and increase the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO.
People in key NATO nations are reluctant to tighten their belts to fund increased defense spending, despite believing that the world is “heading toward global war,” according to a Politico poll published on Friday.
The poll, which surveyed at least 2,000 people from the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany each, found that majorities in four of the five countries think “the world is becoming more dangerous” and expect World War III to break out within five years.
Nearly half of Americans (46%) consider a new world war ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ by 2031, up from 38% last year. In the UK, 43% share this belief, up from 30% in March 2025.
French respondents matched British levels at 43%, and 40% of Canadians expect war within five years. Only Germans remain skeptical, with a majority believing that a global conflict is unlikely in the near term.
The survey suggested a stark disconnect, however, between the growing alarm and willingness to pay for a defense buildup. While respondents support increased military spending in principle, support fell dramatically when specific trade-offs were mentioned.
In France, support dropped from 40% to 28% when those being surveyed were told about the potential financial and fiscal consequences. In Germany, it fell from 37% to 24%, with defense spending ranking as one of the least popular uses of money.
The survey also suggested significant skepticism about creating an EU army under a central command, with support at 22% in Germany and 17% in France.
While the poll suggests that Russia is perceived as the ‘biggest threat’ to Europe, Canadians view the administration of US President Donald Trump as the greatest danger to their security. Respondents in France, Germany, and the UK rank the US as the second-biggest threat – cited far more often than China.
The findings come after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged members states in December to embrace a “wartime mindset” amid the stand-off with Russia. This also comes amid Western media speculation that Russia could attack European NATO members within several years. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” while accusing EU countries of manufacturing anti-Russia hysteria to justify reckless militarization.
Col Douglas Macgregor argues that Trump ran on ending “endless wars” and prioritizing America First, yet instead presides over a massive, unaccountable $1.5 trillion defense budget and a widening set of military confrontations. Rather than reducing foreign interventions, U.S. policy is escalating tensions—especially with Iran and Russia—while failing to end the war in Ukraine.
They criticize U.S. seizures of Russian, Iranian, and Venezuelan oil tankers as symbolic, economically trivial, and strategically pointless actions that risk provoking Russia without meaningfully weakening its war effort. These moves are framed more as political theater and economic self-interest (boosting U.S. oil exports) than serious strategy.
The discussion rejects claims—circulating in European media and think tanks—that Russia would quickly attack NATO or the Baltics after a Ukraine ceasefire, calling such scenarios absurd fear-mongering designed to justify perpetual conflict and sustain Cold War–era institutions. The argument is that Russia lacks both the interest and incentive to expand westward and would prefer normalized economic relations.
Overall, the segment contends that Washington, European leaders, and influential think tanks are more invested in maintaining hostility and ongoing wars than in pursuing negotiated settlements. Trump’s instincts may lean toward ending conflicts, the speaker concludes, but he has failed to act decisively, allowing wars and tensions to continue despite campaign promises to the contrary.
Israel says it will attack Iran if Tehran does not agree to a deal that includes restricting the range of its missiles to 300 kilometers (186 miles).
According to Ynet, Israel is demanding that any deal the US makes with Iran include Tehran eliminating its uranium enrichment program, limiting the range of its ballistic missiles to 300 kilometers, and cutting ties with its allies in the region.
President Donald Trump has suggested he will order an attack on Iran if Tehran does not make a deal with the US. Tel Aviv says any deal between Washington and Tehran must include missile range restrictions or Israel will attack Iran.
Iranian officials have stated that Tehran is unwilling to place restrictions on its missile program. Limiting the range of its missiles to 300 kilometers would prevent Iran from having a meaningful retaliatory capability.
Israeli officials, according to Ynet, do not believe that Iran will accept limitations on its missile program.
Trump met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday about Iran. Officials said that Washington and Tel Aviv would continue to prepare for war with Iran, and an immediate attack is unlikely.
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had ordered a second aircraft carrier strike group to prepare for deployment to the Middle East.
Since the war started, voices in the alternative media have said that Ukraine cannot win a war against Russia. Indeed, John Mearsheimer has been saying this since 2014.
Four years into this devastating war, those voices feel at one and the same time both vindicated and unheard. Ukraine is losing yet western leaders in Europe appear bent on continuing the fight.
Nothing is illustrative of this more than Kaja Kallas’ ridiculous comment of 10 February that Russia should agree to pre-conditions to end the war, which included future restrictions on the size of Russia’s army.
Comments such as this suggest western figures like Kallas still believe in the prospect of a strategic victory against Russia, such that Russia would have to settle for peace as the defeated party. Or they are in denial, and/or they are lying to their citizens. I’d argue that it is a mixture of the second and third.
When I say losing, I don’t mean losing in the narrow military sense. Russia’s territorial gains over the winter period have been slow and marginal. Indeed, western commentators often point to this as a sign that, given its size advantage, Russia is in fact losing the war, because if it really was powerful, it would have defeated Ukraine long ago.
And on the surface, it might be easy to understand why some European citizens accept this line, not least as they are bombarded with it by western mainstream media on a constant basis.
However, most people also, at the same time, agree that drone warfare has made rapid territorial gains costly in terms of lost men and materiel. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that since the second part of 2023, after Ukraine’s failed summer counter-offensive, Russia has attacked in small unit formations to infiltrate and encircle positions.
Having taken heavy losses at the start of the war using tactics that might have been conventional twenty years ago, Russia’s armed forces had to adapt and did so quickly. Likewise, Russia’s military industrial complex has also been quicker to shift production into newer types of low cost, easy build military technology, like drones and glide bombs, together with standard munitions that western providers have been unable to match in terms of scale.
And despite the regular propaganda about Russian military losses in the tens of thousands each month, the data from the periodic body swaps between both sides suggest that Ukraine has been losing far more men in the fight than Russia. And I mean, at a ratio far greater than ten to one.
Some western pundits claim that, well, Russia is advancing so it is collecting its dead as it moves forward. But those same pundits are the ones who also claim that Russia is barely moving forward at all. In a different breath, you might also hear them claim that Russia is about to invade Estonia at any moment.
Of course, the propaganda war works in both directions, from the western media and, of course, from Russian. I take the view that discussion of the microscopic daily shifts in control along the line of contact is a huge distraction.
The reality of who is winning, or not winning, this war is in any case not about a slowly changing front line. Wars are won by economies not armies.
Those western pundits who also tell you that Russia will run out of money tomorrow – it really won’t – never talk about the fact that Ukraine is functionally bankrupt and totally dependent on financial gifts which the EU itself has to borrow, in order to provide. War fighting for Ukraine has become a lucrative pyramid scheme, with Zelensky promising people like Von der Leyen that it is a solid investment that will eventually deliver a return, until the day the war ends, when EU citizens will ask where all their tax money disappeared to.
Russia’s debt stands at 16% of its GDP, its reserves over $730 billion, its yearly trade surplus still healthy, even if it has narrowed over the past year.
Russia can afford to carry on the fight for a lot longer.
Ukraine cannot.
And Europe cannot.
And that is the point.
The Europeans know they can’t afford the war. Ukraine absolutely cannot afford the war, even if Zelensky is happy to see the money keep flowing in. Putin knows the Europeans and Ukraine can’t afford the war. In these circumstances, Russia can insist that Ukraine withdraws from the remainder of Donetsk unilaterally without having to fight for it, on the basis that the alternative is simply to continue fighting.
He can afford to maintain a low attritional fight along the length of the frontline, which minimises Russian casualties and maximises Ukraine’s expenditure of armaments that Europe has to pay for.
That constant financial drain of war fighting is sowing increasing political discord across Europe, from Germany, to France, Britain and, of course, Central Europe.
Putin gets two benefits for the price of one. Europe causing itself economic self-harm while at the same time going into political meltdown.
That is why western leaders cannot admit that they have lost the war because they have been telling their voters from the very beginning that Ukraine would definitely win.
Europe’s leaders are hiding from the political reckoning that they will face, as their voters wake up to the fact that they were lied to.
Who will want to vote for Merz, Macron, Tusk, Starmer and all these other tinpot statesmen when it becomes clear that they have royally screwed the people of Europe for a stupid proxy war in Ukraine that was unwinnable?
What will Kaja Kallas do for a job when everyone in Europe can see that she’s a dangerous warmonger who did absolutely nothing for the right reason, and who failed at everything?
Zelensky is wondering where he can flee to when his number’s up, my bet would be Miami.
So if you are watching the front line every day you need to step back from the canvas.
When the war ends, Putin will reengage with Europe but from a position of power not weakness.
The German government is wasting taxpayers’ money by continuing to fund Ukraine, veteran politician Sahra Wagenknecht has said.
European nations have largely compensated for the sharp reduction of American support to Kiev under the administration of US President Donald Trump, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). EU military and financial aid to Ukraine grew by 67% and 59% respectively in 2025, it said in a report this week.
Germany, which has already provided almost €44 billion ($52 billion) to the government of Vladimir Zelensky since the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in 2022, has taken on a larger part of the burden, and according to current budget plans aid from Berlin will be increased to around €11.5 billion ($13.7 billion) this year.
In an interview with Berliner Zeitung on Wednesday, Wagenknecht accused Chancellor Friedrich Merz of “making the German taxpayer the number one financier of war.”
Instead of substantively working on a peace plan and “demanding compromises” from Zelensky, the German government is “issuing a blank check after a blank check to Ukraine,” she said.
According to the politician, who served in the Bundestag for more than 15 years and founded the Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht party, the extra billions sent to Kiev are not making peace closer but are merely prolonging the conflict.
Financing Zelensky’s government has become an “embezzlement of German taxpayer money” that only increases the suffering of the Ukrainian population, Wagenknecht stressed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this week that a settlement of the Ukraine conflict had been “entirely feasible” after the summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, in Anchorage last August, but Kiev and its European backers have since acted to sabotage the efforts to end the fighting.
Lavrov previously called the Europeans “the main obstacles to peace,” saying they have been “blinded” by their fruitless desire of “inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.”
Russia has decried Western arms deliveries to Kiev, arguing that they will not prevent Moscow from achieving its goals in the conflict and will only increase the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO.
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a well-timed ploy to ramp up defense spending? Germany’s evidence-free claim that a drone found lying between Ukrainian cargo planes on the canopy of Leipzig/Halle airport is part of a pattern.
Last year’s late-autumn drone sighting hysteria that swept across Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, was used by the bloc to amplify and entrench an anti-Russia stance that has seen it throw hundreds of billions it cannot afford into weapons and a war its chosen side cannot win.
Tens of millions of Euro has since been spent on the back of a ‘scare’ that has been shown to have been irrational, exuberant and driven by vested interests.
The most bizarre national security scare in recent European history began at Copenhagen’s Kastrup Airport on September 2 last year. According to Denmark’s Frihedsbrevet news site, an airport employee told her supervisors that she saw two drones approach the area “stealthily,” adding that “they are big. They are not toys.”
The airport was temporarily shut down, and within hours, reports of a similar drone incursion came in from Oslo, Norway. […]
Not only is there no proof that Russia was connected with these sightings, there is no evidence that any drones were present at all. No wreckage has been recovered, no perpetrators have been identified, and no footage of the drones exists, except for the video from Copenhagen that apparently shows a light aircraft.
Despite being certain that Denmark was under “hybrid attack,” Mette Frederiksen acknowledged in late September that there could be an “alternate explanation” for the sightings. Six months later, six government sources told Denmark’s TV2 that they don’t “have any technical evidence to support that Denmark was subjected to a hybrid attack with drones.” Frihedsbrevet’s sources came to a similar conclusion, with the airport employee who reported the initial sighting admitting that she could have been mistaken. […]
Danish troops reportedly opened fire on a drone over Borris Camp on September 28. According to an investigation by TV2, the only aircraft operating in the area at the time was a turboprop passenger plane. The Danish military, if TV2’s reporting is correct, nearly shot down a civilian aircraft over a false alarm. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 