Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran received no concrete US proposal in Oman talks: Security chief

Press TV – February 11, 2026

Iran’s security chief says the country received no concrete proposal from the United States during the first round of talks aimed at resolving disputes around Tehran’s nuclear program.

Ali Larijani, who leads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), said in remarks published on Wednesday that Tehran and Washington had only exchanged messages in talks held in Oman last week.

However, Larijani said that Washington has taken the “wise and logical” decision to enter talks with Iran rather than threatening the country with military action.

He said that talks with the US will continue and that Iran views them positively, while insisting that countries in the region are also contributing to efforts aimed at bringing the Iran-US talks to a successful conclusion.

The top security official made the remarks in an interview with Qatar-based Al Jazeera Arabic TV during a visit to the country, where he met with senior officials to discuss developments related to the Iran-US nuclear talks.

Responding to a question about US demands for Iran to entirely halt its nuclear enrichment program, Larijani said that the country will never accept the zero enrichment condition, as it needs the technology for energy production as well as for manufacturing certain medicines.

He reiterated Iran’s previous warnings that any US attack on its territory will receive a harsh and decisive response.

“If the United States attacks us, we will target its military bases in the region,” said the SNSC chief, according to a Persian transcript of the interview published by the Tasnim news agency.

Larijani also said that the Israeli regime has been trying to sabotage the Iran-US talks and is seeking to draw the region into a new war.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

World on the verge of uncontrolled deployment of nuclear weapons in space

By Ahmed Adel | February 11, 2026

The militarization of space threatens to trigger a new global arms race and undermine stability and security. The world is already on the brink of uncontrolled deployment of nuclear forces and assets regarding American plans to establish dominance in space.

International law, especially the Soviet-American agreement of 1967, prohibits the placement of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in space, as well as military activities in orbit, such as exercises and maneuvers. The agreement remains in place, but the issue of space militarization has resurfaced.

Although the law remains in effect and all space states are respecting it for now, other questions arise. When the United States asserted claims to space during Ronald Reagan’s administration (1981-1989) and began developing the concept of deploying missile defense in space, the Soviet Union responded by initiating the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.

Perhaps most importantly, the Americans eventually suspended the program because missile defense assets were never deployed in space, and space activities by both the USSR and the US were limited to deploying satellites for missile launch warning, meaning satellites that track missiles over the territory of the Soviet Union and the US.

After that, a new phase started, not only in the militarization of space but also in the military-technical exploration of space. Now, reconnaissance satellites monitor Earth, along with communication satellites, including next-generation systems that provide broadband internet access.

The US and China are both actively involved in this, with large companies such as Elon Musk’s Starlink also participating in American projects. Meanwhile, Russia plans to develop its own satellite network by 2030, while China is rapidly deploying satellites in orbit for broadband internet.

It is precisely these systems that enable modern connectivity, battlefield communication, and control of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are currently being actively tested on the Ukrainian battlefield. The Americans started this with Ukraine, and now Russia is also actively using similar technologies.

In fact, this is the future. The next step for the Americans is the Golden Dome – an orbiting missile defense system. However, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START) is no longer in force because the US declined to extend it.

Ultimately, extending the treaty in its current format has become nearly impossible, or at least very uncertain, because of the development of the Golden Dome system. This system does not align with either the current START or any future version of the treaty, or with any new nuclear security framework.

Although the 1967 Outer Space Treaty remains formally observed, the absence of a new comprehensive agreement, such as a potential New START, creates opportunities for the US to conduct military activities in orbit. This could set a dangerous precedent and effectively undermine the existing international framework that, for decades, has prevented the direct militarization of space.

Over the past fifteen years, there have been heated debates about space and its militarization. The main reason is that the 1967 Treaty was mostly designed to ban nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, because there was a significant threat of nuclear weapons being deployed in orbit.

Today, however, attention is shifting toward the potential deployment of weapons that are not classified as weapons of mass destruction. In this context, in 2008, Russia proposed at the Conference on Disarmament a comprehensive ban on any weapons in space, including new systems like anti-satellite weapons, which can be used to forcibly disable the satellites of other countries.

The idea of formally establishing a comprehensive international ban on deploying any weapons in outer space has so far only remained at the discussion stage. No document entirely prohibits the deployment of weapons that are not classified as weapons of mass destruction in outer space.

Russia has already unilaterally pledged that it would not be the first to deploy weapons in space, during a period when these discussions were especially intense.

It is currently difficult to assess the extent to which the US is truly ready for this, as well as the extent to which the Golden Dome system is technically prepared for introduction into service. US President Donald Trump is consciously raising the stakes, seeking to draw Russia, China, and other key space powers not so much into an open arms race in space as into the process of forming and subsequently signing a new international agreement that would be based on American positions.

This means that if the US advances its positions, it would provide itself with a legal basis for deploying non-nuclear weapons systems in space, for example, anti-missile systems or other missile-defense-related weapons. How all this will ultimately fit within the new international legal framework remains uncertain.

In any case, the world needs an international instrument to regulate the deployment of weapons in space, a position Moscow has insisted on and promoted.

It is recalled that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth stated in early February that the US must establish dominance in space, because, as he said, whoever controls the heights controls the battle, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously indicated that the US is actively working on deploying weapons in space and rejects Russia’s proposal to agree to abandon such activities, limiting itself only to opposing the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that Russia, together with other countries, including China, is committed to preventing an arms race in space.

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

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia warns of countermeasures if Greenland militarized

Al-Mayadeen | February 11, 2026

Russia has signaled it will take “adequate countermeasures”, including military-technical measures, should Greenland be militarized in a way that targets Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday.

Speaking at the government hour in the State Duma, Lavrov stated, “Of course, in the event of the militarization of Greenland and the creation of military capabilities there aimed at Russia, we will take adequate countermeasures, including military-technical measures.”

Arctic tensions, NATO activity

Lavrov emphasized that resolving Greenland’s status is unlikely to affect the broader situation in the Arctic, noting NATO’s efforts to turn the region into a theater of confrontation. “Militarization is underway, and Russia’s indisputable rights over the Northern Sea Route are being challenged,” he said, citing past provocations, including French vessels entering the Northern Sea Route without prior notice or permission.

The minister expressed confidence that such provocations at sea would soon decline as their organizers recognize the potential consequences.

US interest in Greenland

Lavrov’s remarks follow statements by US President Donald Trump regarding Greenland, made after abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 4. Trump claimed Greenland was surrounded by Russian and Chinese vessels and insisted that if the United States did not acquire the island, it could allegedly fall under Russian or Chinese influence. He subsequently announced intentions to neutralize the perceived Russian threat.

Lavrov also framed the Greenland issue within a larger geopolitical context, describing the world as entering “an era of rapid and very profound changes,” potentially lasting years or decades. He pointed to recent events, including US actions in Venezuela and Cuba, destabilization attempts in Iran, and the Greenland dispute, as evidence of these shifts.

“The dramatic events of the beginning of this year… have confirmed our assessment that the world has entered an era of rapid and very profound changes,” Lavrov said.

“This stage may last for many, many years, or even decades,” the top Russian diplomat underlined.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Is Nixing Aid to Israel a Poison Chalice?

Ending the existing arrangement could result in even more extensive forms of involvement

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | The American Conservative | February 9, 2026

There is a lot of talk about getting rid of the massive agreement that guarantees Israel billions of dollars in military aid each year. And it’s not just critics of Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Lindsey Graham have even said they want to “taper off” the money because Israel is ready to stand on its own two feet.

But while a debate over the annual package would be a most welcome one given the enormous sums of American taxpayer money that has flowed to Israel’s wars in recent years, it is important to keep an eye on what might be a bait and switch: trading one guarantee for a set of others that might be less transparent and more expensive than what’s on the books today.

When President Bill Clinton announced the first Memorandum of Agreement, a 10-year, $26.7 billion military and economic aid package to Israel, he expressed hope that it would complement the advancement of the Oslo Accords, the peace process he had shepherded between the Israelis and Palestinians earlier in his term.

The peace process tied to Oslo pretty much fell apart after expected Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank as outlined in the Wye River Agreement in 1998 never happened; today Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law have exploded, with more than 700,000 settlers living there today and Israelis controlling security in most of the territory. But the 10-year MOU lived on.

Not only has it been renewed through the Bush and Obama administrations; the total outlays have increased. The current one, signed in 2016, pledged $38 billion over the decade, just under $4 billion a year and now all of it military aid. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Israel is by far the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in history, some $300 billion since its founding, with the greatest proportion coming from those MOUs.

Supporters of the aid say it comes with military and strategic partnerships that are supposed to help keep the neighborhood safe for the U.S., Israel, and its “allies” (there are no treaty allies in the region), but the last 40 years have been pockmarked with wars and waves of human displacement and misery. Beyond financially and militarily supporting Israel’s wars, the U.S. has been bombing, regime-changing, occupying, and fending off terrorist insurgencies created by its own policies in Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East since 1999. Today, with Israel’s encouragement, President Donald Trump is poised to bomb Iran for the second time in his current term in office.

On February 3 the Congress passed the latest installment of the current MOU—$3.3 billion. It was a bipartisan affair, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer assuring a group of Jewish leaders the previous weekend, that “I have many jobs as leader … and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs.”

But not everyone is on board with the open spigot. And a spigot it is. According to CFR, the U.S. gave $16.3 billion (which included its annual $3.8 billion outlays) to Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks. Israel’s retaliation for those attacks, which killed 1,200 Israelis, has resulted in more than 71,000 recorded Palestinian deaths in Gaza so far, a blockade that has left the 2 million population there largely homeless, starving, sick, and unsafe. Americans have reacted by rejecting the prospects of further aid, with a plurality now—42 percent—saying they want to decrease if not stop aid altogether. That is up from the mid-20 percent range in October 2023.

Beyond Americans’ aversion to funding the slaughter of civilians in Gaza, a conservative fissure over continued, unconditional support for Israel has opened wide over the last year, exposing another rationale for discontinuing the aid: It is not “America First.” It not only siphons off aid from much needed renewal at home, but forces Washington to aid and abet another country’s foreign policy, which is increasingly counterproductive and contrary to our own politics and values.

The region is not safer, and moreover, it has not allowed for the United States to reduce its military footprint as guarantor of security there.

One then-congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), was vocal in her opposition to this aid. Israel, she pointed out, has nuclear weapons and is “quite capable of defending itself.” She has pointed out Israel’s universal health care and subsidized college tuition for its citizens, “yet here in America we’re 37 trillion dollars in debt.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY.) posted on X that he voted against the spending bill on February 3 in part to deny Israel the $3.3 billion in aid. He has said the aid takes money out of Americans’ pockets and proliferates human suffering in our name. “Nothing can justify the number of civilian casualties (tens of thousands of women and children) inflicted by Israel in Gaza in the last two years. We should end all U.S. military aid to Israel now,” he said in May of last year.

In an interview with The American Conservative last week, he said he is speaking for his Kentucky district and despite a retaliatory 2026 primary challenge driven largely by Trump and donors linked to the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he will continue to raise the issue in Congress. He said he has asked his GOP constituents every year whether to maintain, increase, or cut Israel annual aid since 2012.

“I’ve polled that every election cycle in my congressional district among likely Republican voters, and this was the first year that a majority of people answered nothing [no aid] at all, or less,” said Massie. “It’s not a third rail back home. It’s a third rail inside of the Beltway.”

According to reports last month, Israel is “preparing for talks” with the Trump administration to renew the MOU for another 10 years. One might be flummoxed to hear, however, that Netanyahu is giving interviews in which he says he wants to “taper off” American aid in that decade “to zero.” Israel has “come of age” and “we’ve developed incredible capacities,” he said in January.

Immediately after, Graham, who seems to spend more time in Israel than Washington these days, said he heartily agreed and hoped to end the aid sooner. “I’m going to work on expediting the wind down of the aid and recommend we plow the money back into our own military,” he said. “As an American, you’re always appreciating allies that can be more self-sufficient.”

The idea of self-sufficiency and furthermore the concept of Israel releasing itself from any “ties” that might come from the aid is not a new one among supporters here and especially the hardline right in Israel. “Cut the US aid, and Israel becomes fully sovereign,” Laura Loomer charged on X in November. In March of last year, the Heritage Foundation called for gradually reducing the direct grants in the next MOUs starting in 2029 and transitioning gradually to more military cooperation and then finally arms transfers through the Foreign Military Sales by 2047.

Israel, the report concludes, should be “elevated to strategic partner for the benefit of Israel, the United States, and the Middle East. Transforming the U.S.–Israel relationship requires changing the regional paradigm, specifically advancing new security and commercial architectures.” The plan also leans heavily on future Abraham Accords ensuring trade and military pacts with Arab countries in the neighborhood.

Therein lies the fix, say critics. The reason these staunch advocates of Israel including Netanyahu, the most demanding of its leaders over the last 30 years by far, is willing to forgo MOU aid, is that they envision it will come from somewhere else, less politically charged.

“The emerging plan is to substitute formal military funding—known as Foreign Military Financing—with greater U.S. taxpayer-funded co-development and co-production of weapons with Israel,” says the Institute for Middle East Understanding, which adds that instead of extricating from Israel’s messes, the U.S. will be further “enmeshed” in them.

The think tank points out that the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the most unreconstructed pro-Israel organ in the United States, came out with its own report on the aid, and surprise, also advocated phasing out the MOU. In addition to a commitment by Israel to spend more of its GDP on defense and other co-investments with the U.S. on research and development, the U.S. would “provide Israel $5 billion each year through what would be known as a Partnership Investment Incentive—or PII. This PII would provide funding via existing foreign military financing (FMF) mechanisms that Israel would use to procure American military hardware.” The difference would be that it would have to be spent entirely in U.S. industry and on cooperative partnerships in the region, all while maintaining Israel’s “Qualitative Military Edge.”

Geoff Aronson, longtime Middle East analyst and occasional TAC contributor, said the aid has been “an important if not vital component in ensuring American and Israeli hegemony in the region” and is linked intrinsically to balancing U.S. strategic relations and normative Israeli peace with Egypt and Jordan, which gets billions in military aid (not as much) from the U.S. too. None of this is going to go away, he surmised to TAC.

“The question that is being posed is how can we continue to support Israel’s ability to work its will in the region without committing ourself to X, Y, Z or committing to a new partnership, a new agreement,” he said. “Watch what you wish for, because it might come true.”

February 10, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Türkiye-NATO: Strategic Security Or Strategic Revision?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – February 9, 2026

Currently, Turkish interests and NATO logic are diverging increasingly. Turkish society and expert circles are actively discussing both the prospects of maintaining NATO membership and the possibility of leaving the bloc.

Historical roots of the Turkish dilemma

Türkiye’s complex relations with Western powers have deep historical roots. During World War II, demonstrating inconsistency in choosing a strategic partner, Türkiye effectively supported Hitler’s Germany. Hoping for German military success against Russia – as in World War I – Ankara was forced to hastily join Great Britain and the USA in February 1944 to avoid direct military conflict with the USSR. Joseph Stalin characterized Türkiye’s policy during that period as “hostile neutrality,” denounced the Soviet-Turkish treaty, and put forward territorial claims, including control over the Black Sea Straits and Western Armenia.

Thanks to flexible diplomacy, Türkiye managed to restore its strategic alliance with Great Britain and the USA. However, this required accepting Washington’s political conditions: transitioning from a one-party to a multi-party system of governance, becoming NATO’s “southern anchor,” and entering into a diplomatic alliance with the West against the USSR. As a result, Türkiye was able to curb the Soviet threat, obtain security guarantees under the US nuclear umbrella, and become a full member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in February 1952.

Ankara’s geopolitical ambitions and the price of NATO membership

The alliance with the West, however, significantly limited Türkiye’s economic and political sovereignty, drawing it into a tenacious dependence on US diktats. Ankara, like many European capitals, lost the ability to independently determine its allies and adversaries – these decisions were made in London and Washington. The West dictated the parameters of Türkiye’s strategic security, determined the pace of its economic development, and controlled its domestic politics. All military coups that occurred in Türkiye in the second half of the 20th century (in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997) were the result of US interference through the Turkish General Staff in the country’s internal political affairs under the pretext of protecting the secular regime.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the “Soviet military threat,” Türkiye’s strategic significance for NATO began to decline. The NATO accession of Black Sea countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, as well as Georgia and Ukraine looking to integrate with the West, is shifting the focus in the Black Sea basin. In the Middle East, the main ally of the USA and NATO besides Türkiye is Israel. Furthermore, the US gained operational room for maneuver in Iraq, Syria was destroyed by years of civil conflict, Iran was weakened under American-Israeli pressure, the Palestinian issue shifted towards the reconstruction of Gaza, and the resource-rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf remain in financial and military dependence on the West.

Ankara’s geopolitical ambitions are not widely supported by the US and Europe: none of these powers are interested in the emergence of a strong and independent Türkiye as a new geopolitical center. Türkiye’s plans to revive the Turkish golden age by controlling parts of North Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia (the doctrines of Neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Pan-Turkism), are viewed by the West, led by the USA, merely as a tool for penetrating these regions, especially the post-Soviet space, via Turkish hands.

Intra-bloc contradictions and searching for a policy orientations  

Intra-bloc contradictions are a common phenomenon for NATO. A striking example is Turkish-Greek disagreements and the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus in 1974. It is worth noting that this event did not occur without the consent of the US, which sought to punish Greek nationalists and Archbishop Makarios III for their pro-Soviet orientation.

Relations between the two NATO allies, Greece and Türkiye, are still far from ideal today. The difficult relations between these two NATO members are also reflected in Greek Minister of National Defense Nikos Dendias’ speech before the Greek parliament, who believes that Türkiye represents a geostrategic risk for Greece. During a discussion of the 2026 budget at the end of December, the minister stated that Türkiye is the main and fundamental threat to Greece. To support his thesis, Dendias cited statistical data: Türkiye spends 28.7 billion euros annually on its defense industry, while Greece has a military budget of 5-7 billion euros. Reminding Athens of its participation in European military plans, Dendias stated that the European defense structure is inadequate. The US has moved away from its historical role as a security guarantor in the region and insists on a compromise end to hostilities in Ukraine, including territorial concessions by Kiev. Meanwhile, Europe continues to militarize without the protection of a reliable guarantor.

Türkiye at a crossroads between the multipolar world and NATO

During the years of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rule, Türkiye, by developing mutually beneficial partnerships with key Eurasian powers such as Russia and China, has significantly strengthened its economic and political sovereignty.

The idea of a multipolar world where Türkiye will be one of the key geopolitical centers, possibly leading a “Turkic pole,” is actively discussed in Ankara. Calls for the creation of a new military alliance, a “Turan Army” led by Ankara, are increasingly common within Turkish expert and political circles. Some politicians, such as the leader of the opposition Vatan Party, Dogu Perincek, and the head of the ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party, Devlet Bahceli, openly call for Türkiye’s withdrawal from NATO.

 NATO from the view of the Turkish military and Ankara’s ambitions

Retired Rear Admiral Cem Gurdeniz, who held important positions in the Navy from 1987 to 1991 and is considered the ideologist of the Blue Homeland concept, argued that the US and NATO have repeatedly dragged Türkiye into local conflicts against its interests, for example, in Libya in 2011. According to the admiral, the unipolar world led by the US has ceased to exist, and NATO, as a relic of the Cold War, should become a thing of the past. Gurdeniz is convinced that the world is moving towards a multipolar system, where Türkiye is destined to become an important geopolitical center. In an interview with the Tele-1 TV channel, he emphasized the need to revise Türkiye’s security strategy and withdraw from the crisis-ridden NATO.

Another retired lieutenant general, former head of the General Staff Intelligence Department, Ismail Hakki Pekin, in an interview with a Russian publication, also criticized NATO, accusing the alliance of insufficiently helping Türkiye in the fight against international terrorism, implying Kurdish armed groups in Syria.

Türkiye sees obvious contradictions between the US and the EU related to the creation of a European NATO Bureau. In this context, Ankara does not exclude the possibility of creating an Asian NATO Bureau with Türkiye’s simultaneous participation in the European strategic security system. However, despite public discussion of this idea, the Turkish elite so far presents it as a way to expand NATO eastward and strengthen the alliance through an Asian (Turkic) bureau.

Despite all its revanchist ideas, the Turkish elite maintains a realistic view of things. It understands that it cannot alone create and lead a combat-ready and self-sufficient military alliance, as it lacks modern military technologies and production capacities comparable to the West and Israel. To this day, Türkiye cannot launch production of the 5th-generation KAAN fighter jet due to the lack of its own engines and the US refusal to supply them. The Turks still hope for a military deal on modernized F-16s and F-35s or the purchase of Eurofighters. Finally, Türkiye realizes that a premature exit from NATO could entail serious geopolitical costs for the country’s territorial integrity in the event of intervention by the US and Europe.

Thus, Türkiye is in a difficult geopolitical situation, balancing between wanting to strengthen its influence in a multipolar world and the need to maintain pragmatic relations with existing alliances. Ambitions to create its own military bloc clash with objective technological and production limitations, as well as potential risks to national security in the event of a sharp break with NATO. The idea of an Asian NATO Bureau can be seen as Ankara’s attempt to find a compromise solution that would allow it to strengthen its regional influence without leaving the Western military-political bloc.

Alexander Svarants – PhD in Political Sciences, Professor, Expert in Turkish Studies and Middle Eastern Countries

February 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Why didn’t China protect Venezuela from the US?

Beijing is regrouping to adapt to the new hemispheric world order, but not retreating from Latin America

By Ladislav Zemánek | RT | February 9, 2026

The US military intervention in Venezuela in January 2026 – known as Operation Absolute Resolve – sent shockwaves far beyond Caracas. By striking targets in the Venezuelan capital and capturing President Nicolás Maduro, Washington signaled a decisive return to hard power in the Western hemisphere. The operation was not merely a tactical move against a hostile regime; it was a strategic message about influence, hierarchy, and control in the Americas. For China, which had invested heavily in Venezuela’s political and economic survival, the intervention raised immediate questions about the limits of its global reach and the evolving rules of great-power competition in an increasingly multipolar world.

China’s response to Operation Absolute Resolve was swift in tone but cautious in substance. Official statements from Beijing condemned the US action as a violation of international law and national sovereignty, framing it as destabilizing and emblematic of unilateral hegemony. Chinese foreign ministry officials repeatedly urged Washington to respect the UN Charter and cease interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, positioning China as a defender of state sovereignty and multilateral norms.

Yet the rhetoric was not matched by escalation. Beijing avoided threats of retaliation or offers of direct military assistance to Caracas. Instead, it confined its response to diplomatic channels, reaffirmed opposition to unilateral sanctions, and issued travel advisories warning Chinese citizens to avoid Venezuela amid heightened instability. Chinese analysts emphasized that the priority was damage control: protecting long-standing economic and strategic interests without provoking a direct confrontation with US military power in the Western Hemisphere.

This measured reaction highlights a defining feature of China’s approach to Latin America. Beijing has pursued deep economic engagement and vocal support for sovereignty, but it has consistently avoided military competition with the US in a region where American power remains overwhelming. Operation Absolute Resolve exposed both the strengths and the limits of that strategy.

China’s relationship with the Maduro government was neither symbolic nor superficial. Over the past two decades, Venezuela emerged as one of Beijing’s most important partners in the Americas. In 2023, the two countries elevated ties to an “all-weather strategic partnership,” China’s highest level of bilateral designation. This status reflected ambitions for durable cooperation across energy, finance, infrastructure, and political coordination, and placed Venezuela among a small circle of states Beijing regarded as strategically significant.

Chinese policy banks extended large-scale financing to Caracas, much of it structured as oil-backed loans that allowed Venezuela to maintain access to global markets despite US sanctions. Chinese companies became involved in energy projects, particularly in the Orinoco Belt, while bilateral trade expanded substantially. Venezuelan heavy crude, though difficult and expensive to refine, accounted for a meaningful share of China’s oil imports, contributing to Beijing’s broader strategy of supply diversification.

Security cooperation also developed, albeit cautiously. Venezuela became one of the largest buyers of Chinese military equipment in Latin America, and Chinese technicians gained access to satellite tracking facilities on Venezuelan territory. At the same time, Beijing drew clear red lines. It avoided formal defense commitments, permanent troop deployments, or the establishment of military bases – signals that China did not seek to challenge US strategic primacy in the hemisphere.

Beijing’s interests in Venezuela extended well beyond oil and arms sales. The country served as a key node in China’s wider Latin American strategy, which emphasized infrastructure development, trade expansion, financial integration, political coordination, and cultural exchange within multilateral frameworks. This model sought to build influence through connectivity and economic interdependence rather than coercion or force, reinforcing China’s image as a development partner rather than a security patron.

The post-intervention reality, however, has significantly altered this equation. With Maduro removed from power, the US assumed effective control over Venezuela’s oil exports, redirecting revenues and setting the terms under which crude reaches global markets. While Washington has allowed China to continue purchasing Venezuelan oil, sales are now conducted strictly at market prices and under conditions that erode the preferential arrangements Beijing previously enjoyed. This shift directly affects China’s energy security calculations and weakens the leverage embedded in its oil-backed lending.

US control over oil flows also grants Washington influence over debt restructuring and creditor negotiations, potentially complicating China’s efforts to recover outstanding loans. The result is a sharp reduction in Beijing’s bargaining power in Caracas and a reassessment of the long-term viability of its investments. For China, the dilemma is acute: how to defend economic interests without crossing a strategic threshold that would invite confrontation with the US.

These developments align closely with the broader direction of US policy articulated in the 2025 National Security Strategy. The document places renewed emphasis on the Western Hemisphere as a core strategic priority and reflects a clear revival of Monroe Doctrine logic. It signals Washington’s determination to assert influence in the region and to limit the military, technological, and commercial presence of external powers – particularly China.

For Beijing, this creates a structural asymmetry. Decades of investment, trade, and diplomatic engagement cannot offset the reality of US military dominance in the Americas. China’s preferred toolkit – economic statecraft, infrastructure finance, and non-interference – faces inherent constraints when confronted with decisive uses of hard power. At the same time, Beijing’s emphasis on sovereignty and multilateralism continues to resonate with segments of Latin American political opinion that are wary of external intervention and eager to preserve strategic autonomy.

A comparison between US and Chinese strategies reveals different worldviews. The US approach, as outlined in the 2025 strategy, treats the hemisphere as a strategic space to be secured against external challengers through security partnerships, economic inducements, and military readiness. China’s approach prioritizes integration, development cooperation, and respect for national choice, relying on gradual influence rather than explicit enforcement.

Viewed through the lens of ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and the transition to multipolarity, the Venezuelan episode marks a critical inflection point. The US has reasserted hemispheric dominance in unmistakable terms, while China has been forced to acknowledge the limits of its reach far from home.

China may well lose ground in Venezuela, but this does not necessarily signal retreat from the region. Instead, it suggests adaptation. Diversified partnerships with countries such as Brazil and Mexico, along with continued engagement through trade and investment, offer alternative pathways forward. More broadly, the emergence of implicit spheres of influence may align with China’s interests elsewhere, particularly in Asia, where Beijing seeks greater recognition of its own strategic space.

In an international system increasingly defined by negotiated boundaries rather than universal dominance, both Washington and Beijing are testing how far their power extends – and where restraint becomes strategic. The outcome will shape not only Venezuela’s future, but also the evolving architecture of global order in a multipolar age.

Ladislav Zemánek is a non-resident research fellow at China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

No Grounds for Talks About New Negotiations With US on New START – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister

Sputnik – 09.02.2026

There are no grounds for talking about launching new negotiations with the United States on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Monday.

“There is currently no basis for discussing the launch of such a negotiation process. We have repeatedly spoken about the need to see deeper, far-reaching changes for the better in the US approach to the issues we are discussing,” Ryabkov said on the sidelines of the BRICS Sherpa meeting in New Delhi, adding that when US policy towards Russia changes for the better, then the preconditions for launching a corresponding dialogue will arise.

Russia regrets that the US administration perceives the New START Treaty as something that requires replacement with something else, the deputy foreign minister added.

“In any such hypothetical process, nothing would come of it without the involvement of the United Kingdom and the French Republic, as the United States’ closest allies, both possessing nuclear weapons and, in the current, highly tense international situation, pursuing a highly aggressive course toward our country. Therefore, ignoring their nuclear arsenals would be irresponsible. They must be at the negotiating table, I repeat, if and when something like this becomes relevant,” Ryabkov also said.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky tried to kill the chance for Russia-Ukraine peace, again

The attempted assassination of a high-ranking Russian general is an attempt to sabotage talks and extend the Kiev regime’s stay in power

By Nadezhda Romanenko | RT | February 8, 2026

The assassination attempt on Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, first deputy chief of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is clearly the Zelensky regime’s latest desperate bid to sabotage the emerging Russia-Ukraine-US negotiations channel in Abu Dhabi and prolong the war.

When negotiations gain traction, spoilers surface. That’s Negotiations 101. And this week’s second round in Abu Dhabi was precisely the kind of movement that unnerves actors who fear ballots, reforms, and accountability more than inevitable defeat on the battlefield.

The target choice reinforces the point. Alekseyev is the second-in-command of GRU chief Igor Kostyukov – who sits on the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi. Striking the No. 2 as the No. 1 shuttles between sessions is both a very deliberate message and an attempt to rattle Russia’s delegation, inject chaos into its decision loop, force security overdrive, and ultimately, provoke Moscow’s withdrawal from the talks.

Nor is this the first time kinetic theater has tracked with diplomatic motion. Recall the attempted drone strike on President Vladimir Putin’s Valdai residence in late 2025, which coincided with particularly intense US-Russia exchanges. You don’t have to be a cynic to see a pattern: whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone tries to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets – then retreats behind a smokescreen of denials and proxies. Call it plausible deniability as policy.

Why would Kiev’s leadership gamble like this? Start with raw political incentives. Vladimir Zelensky extended his tenure beyond the intended March 2024 election under martial law. If hostilities wind down and emergency powers lift, the ballot box looms. His standing has eroded amid war fatigue, unmet expectations, and a massive corruption scandal swirling around the presidential administration that has infuriated many Ukrainians and dealt his image a blow. End the war without a narrative of total victory, and he risks owning a messy peace, grueling reconstruction, and a reckoning at the polls. Facing voters at a stadium famously worked well during Zelensky’s initial presidential campaign, but now endlessly moving the goalposts is his only hope of clinging to power.

Then there’s the strategic logic of spoilers. Negotiations compress time, clarify tradeoffs, and create deadlines – none of which benefit maximalists. If an agreement would force Kiev to accept hard limits or expose fissures with its more hawkish backers, creating a pretext to stall makes sense from a narrow survival lens. A brazen hit inside Moscow during talks does exactly that: it dares the Kremlin to harden its stance, fractures trust at the table, and lets Kiev posture as unbowed while keeping the war‑time rally frame at home. Even if direct authorship can be obfuscated (at least on paper – because nobody will buy claims Kiev had nothing to do with it at this point), the practical effect is what counts.

Predictably, defenders will object: Kiev has every incentive to keep US support flowing, so why risk alienating Washington with an operation that screams escalation? But ‘incentives’ aren’t monolithic. They’re filtered through domestic politics, factional competition within security services, and the temptations of a successful spectacle. And remember: spoilers don’t have to be centrally ordered to be useful. A wink, a nod, and a green light to ‘make pressure’ can travel a long way in wartime bureaucracies.

The most important thing for Russia and the US at this stage is to firewall the talks from such bloody theatrics. For the negotiation process to provide real results, it must be built to survive shocks – because the shocks will keep coming. That means insulating prisoner‑exchange and humanitarian working groups from headline provocations, revalidating military deconfliction channels, and demanding verifiable behavior changes rather than trading barbs about attribution in the press.

The larger point is simpler: if we let every well‑timed bullet dictate the pace of diplomacy, we are outsourcing strategy to those who most fear peace. The Alekseyev attack fits a familiar script – choose a symbolically loaded target, hijack the narrative, and hope negotiators flinch. The right response is the opposite: call the bluff, keep the calendar, and raise the cost of sabotage by refusing to let it reset the table.

Zelensky’s regime may calculate that its political survival depends on endlessly throwing up hurdles for peace and call it ‘resistance’. If so, the fastest way to test that proposition is to keep pressing at the negotiating table. Talks are not a favor to one side; they are a filter that separates leaders who can face an endgame from those who can only survive in the fog of “not yet.”

February 8, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Somalia president warns against Israeli interference, vows to prevent any military base in Somaliland

Press TV – February 8, 2026

The president of Somalia has strongly denounced the Israeli regime’s interference in his country’s internal affairs and vowed to “confront” any Israeli military presence in the breakaway region of Somaliland.

In an interview on Saturday, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as an independent state is a “reckless, fundamentally wrong and illegal action under international law.”

Somaliland is a breakaway region in northwestern Somalia, covering territory that was once part of the British Protectorate. Despite its unilateral separation, it remains internationally recognized as part of Somalia.

The region occupies a strategic position along one of the world’s most vital maritime choke points, an area already surrounded by overlapping conflicts in the Horn of Africa and West Asia.

In recent years, Somaliland has sought foreign support by developing ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a signatory to the Abraham Accords with Israel, as well as Taiwan, in an effort to gain international acceptance outside Mogadishu’s authority.

Israel’s move followed reports that the regime had contacted actors in Somaliland to discuss using the territory for the forced displacement of Palestinians during its genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians and wounded another 172,000, most of them women and children.

While Israeli and Somaliland authorities rejected those reports, a Somaliland official told Israel’s Channel 12 in January that an Israeli military base is “on the table and being discussed,” with its establishment tied to specific conditions.

Somalia has described Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a direct assault on its territorial integrity and national unity, a position endorsed by most African and Arab countries, and has demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reverse the decision.

Mohamud also made clear that Mogadishu will resist any Israeli military presence on Somali soil: “We will fight in our capacity. Of course, we will defend ourselves … And that means that we will confront any Israeli forces coming in, because we are against that and we will never allow that.”

He said Israel’s actions, which are “interfering with Somalia’s sovereign and territorial integrity,” also “undermine stability, security and trade in a way that affects the whole of Africa, the Red Sea and the wider world.”

Mohamud stressed that Israel’s deadly use of force against Palestinians in Gaza cannot be separated from developments in Somaliland, saying both reflect the erosion of global norms and restraints.

“Key among the global concerns is the weakening of the established rules-based international order. That order is not intact anymore,” he said.

He warned that institutions created after World War II “are under grave threat,” as the idea that “the mighty is right” increasingly replaces respect for international law.

The administration of US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has yet to signal a significant change in its position on Somaliland.

February 8, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

General Harald Kujat: NATO’s Attempt to Defeat Russia Destroys Ukraine

Glenn Diesen | February 6, 2026

General Harald Kujat is a former head of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and the former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. Having held the top military position in both Germany and NATO, General Kujat offers his expertise on how the West and Russia ended up fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. General Kujat warns that NATO’s obsession with defeating Russia will result in the destruction of Ukraine.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal

This dramatic escalation in military spending is a recipe for more waste, fraud, and abuse

By Ben Freeman and William Hartung | Responsible Statecraft | January 8, 2026

After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.

The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.

This would fly in the face of the purported savings of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In fact, a $500 billion increase in Pentagon spending would be more than double all of the alleged budget cuts wrought by DOGE, even according to DOGE’s own exaggerated figures. The $500 billion increase in Pentagon spending would also be more than the entire military budget of any country in the world, and more than China, Russia, and Iran spend on their militaries combined.

And, the Pentagon budget is already enormous, at $1 trillion per year, with more than half of that going to Pentagon contractors, and untold more lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Exactly how much of our tax dollars devoted to propping up the Pentagon are wasted is unclear, because the Pentagon has never passed an audit.

We do know that spending on dysfunctional, unnecessary or unworkable systems like the F-35, highly vulnerable $13 billion aircraft carriers, the impossible dream of a leak proof Golden Dome missile defense system, and an unnecessary across-the-board scheme to spend up to $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons over the next two decades will waste tens of billions of dollars every year for a long time to come.

Add to this the Pentagon’s moves to weaken its independent weapons testing office and reduce oversight of bloated weapons contractors, and we have a perfect recipe for increasing waste, fraud, and abuse on the part of the Pentagon and its contractors. And, as always, the bedrock of overspending on the Pentagon is America’s hyper-militarized, “cover the globe” military strategy, an approach that seeks to maintain the ability to intervene anywhere in the world on short notice.

The president also claimed that his $1.5 trillion Pentagon spending proposal, if implemented, will fund our “dream military.” More likely, it will initiate a period of blatant waste and underwrite misguided and dangerous military adventures like the occupation of Venezuela.

Even with a Congress that has been giving the Pentagon a blank check for years, the $1.5 trillion figure is unlikely to pass muster. If we want a safer nation, we should be going in the other direction, towards a lower Pentagon budget, driven by a more intelligent and restrained strategy, and a more rigorous approach to devising, developing, and producing weapons.

Ben Freeman is Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute and the author of “The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home” (2025)

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | | Leave a comment

NATO’s ‘Agent Rutte’ in blatant sabotage of Ukraine peace negotiations

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 7, 2026

NATO chief Mark Rutte declared in a high-profile address to the Ukrainian parliament this week that alliance troops would be deployed in Ukraine immediately on signing any peace deal with Russia.

He asserted that the NATO forces would be British and French, deployed “on the land, in the air, and at sea.” He added that the coalition would have the “crucial backstop” of a U.S. security guarantee if “Russia tried to subjugate Ukraine again.”

It seems more than a coincidence that three days after Rutte spoke in the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament), there was an assassination attempt in Moscow on a top Russian general. Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseev, the deputy commander of Russian military intelligence (GRU), was shot several times in the back by a gunman.

This was while delicate negotiations were being conducted in Abu Dhabi to find a peace settlement to the nearly four-year war in Ukraine. Russian delegates met with American and Ukrainian counterparts for a second round of talks this week.

Rutte’s speech in Kiev and the assassination attack in Moscow appear to be calculated moves to sabotage the negotiation efforts that the Trump administration has been pushing.

First, the NATO chief knows full well that Russia is adamant that any settlement in Ukraine will not involve the presence of NATO troops, whether they are called “peace monitors” or “coalition of the willing.” Moscow has repeatedly expressed in the clearest terms that such a contingency is out of the question and non-negotiable.

So, Rutte’s forcing the issue of deployment can only mean that the real aim is to make any agreement with Russia impossible. This is while the mealy-mouthed former Dutch prime minister was also saying that he backed efforts by Trump to end this “terrible conflict”.

“Some European Allies have announced that they will deploy troops to Ukraine after a deal is reached. Troops on the ground, jets in the air, ships on the Black Sea. The United States will be the backstop; others have vowed to support in other ways… The security guarantees are solid, and this is crucial – because we know that getting to an agreement to end this terrible war will require difficult choices,” said Rutte with double-think.

Moreover, in his latest pronouncements, Rutte dispensed with the deceptive terms of NATO forces supposedly acting as “peacekeepers”. His gung-ho rhetoric of troops “on the land, jets in the air, and ships at sea” sounded more like a stealthy plan for NATO military intervention to escalate the confrontation from a proxy one to a full-on war.

Significantly, too, Rutte declared that NATO was gearing up to increase military supplies to Ukraine. He said that an additional $15 billion was earmarked by the European members to buy weapons sourced from the U.S. He concluded his speech with the World War Two fascist slogan “Slava Ukraini!” (Glory to Ukraine!). It was a rallying call for the Kiev regime and its NeoNazi adherents to keep fighting.

As with the assassination plot on the GRU deputy commander, the objective seems to be to frustrate any negotiations to end the war. The head of the Russian security delegation in Abu Dhabi is reportedly GRU Director, Admiral Igor Kostyukov. That his deputy was shot several times in his Moscow home as talks were taking place outside the country would appear to be a calculated provocation.

The irony is that the European NATO members constantly accuse Russia of not wanting to make peace. They make the preposterous claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is intent on conquering the rest of Europe when Ukraine is defeated. The fact is, Moscow has consistently called for a diplomatic process to resolve the root causes of the conflict (NATO’s historic expansion) and to formulate a new collective security treaty for Europe based on indivisible security for all. Russia also wants to keep the territories that are historically Russian.

It is the transatlantic axis of U.S. and European NATO hardliners who don’t want a diplomatic settlement. They want the proxy war against Russia to persist indefinitely. It was they who instigated the hostilities with the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, and, before that, with numerous color revolutions after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

It is not clear what Trump’s agenda is. Is he an inconsequential maverick, or is the deep state pulling his chain? He talks about making peace with Russia, yet his administration is sanctioning Russia’s vital oil exports, seizing cargo ships in international waters, coercing India and other nations to halt trade with Russia, and threatening its allies like Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Is his Ukraine diplomacy a guise for continuing aggression in another form? Or is it muddled thinking? Moscow appears to be giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and is engaging in talks to explore a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.

That said, however, a red line for Moscow is the proposals to deploy NATO troops in Ukraine. That’s not ending root causes. It is fertilizing them.

The transatlantic imperialist nexus (the U.S. and European ruling class, the CIA and its intelligence counterparts, and the military-industrial complex) is driven by hegemonic goals. Russia, China, and the non-Western multipolar world must be contained or rolled back, as during the Cold War.

The proxy war in Ukraine demonstrated that Russia could not be strategically defeated, as the Western hegemons desired. Their next best option is to keep Ukraine militarized and to keep Russia on guard to drain its resources. It still amounts to a war agenda.

Mark Rutte’s performance this week is that of a minion for the war agenda. His every word and deed speak of deliberately inciting aggression while he duplicitously talks about supporting peace. Eight decades ago, the Nuremberg Trials defined such aggression as the “supreme crime”.

Even some mainstream European politicians have taken note of Rutte’s sinister psychology. Charles Michel, the former European Council President, said in a media interview last week: “I want to be clear, Mark Rutte is disappointing and I’m losing confidence… I’m not expecting [him] to be an American agent.”

Agent Rutte should be in a modern-day dock. He and his masters want to push the world into catastrophe.

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »