Iran’s Araghchi Raps “Deafening Western Silence” on Expansion of Israeli Nuclear Weapons
Al-Manar | September 6, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rapped what he called the “deafening Western silence” on the expansion of the Israeli nuclear weapons.
“Iran has long warned that the Western hysteria over nuclear proliferation in our region is all fluff. The issue, in their view, is not the existence—or expansion—of atomic weapon arsenals. It is about who gets to advance scientifically, even with peaceful nuclear programs,” Araqchi wrote in a post on his X account on Friday.
“It is therefore not a surprise that there is deafening Western silence over the apparent expansion of the only nuclear weapons arsenal in our region—the nukes in the hands of their genocidal ally. The E3 and the US may be in denial, but their silence is eliminating any credibility to utter anything about non-proliferation,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
The remarks by the top Iranian diplomat came as new revelations point to intensified construction at the Dimona nuclear site, long suspected of housing the Israeli regime’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.
According to a report published by the Associated Press on September 3, satellite images show intensified construction at the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona, a facility long linked to the Zionist regime’s secret nuclear weapons program.
Experts who analyzed the images suggested the work could either be a new heavy water reactor —capable of producing plutonium for atomic bombs— or a facility for assembling nuclear weapons. They highlighted that the Zionist entity’s current heavy water reactor, which dates back to the 1960s, may soon require replacement.
Is the West still capable of keeping its maritime trade routes functioning?
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 6, 2025
The West risks facing an asymmetrical response to its illegal restrictions on shipping. Unlike Russia, most developed countries depend on the stable and secure functioning of maritime trade routes. The application of the measures used by the West against itself could trigger a crisis in maritime supply chains due to disruptions in the delivery of strategically important goods and raw materials.
A difficult dependency to manage
Unlike Russia, the West bases its economy and strategic security on a widely interconnected and stable global maritime trade system, established as a founding principle of the maritime power of sea-faring civilizations (Seapower, in the classical geopolitics of Mackinder and Mahan). Most developed Western countries are heavily dependent on the smooth and secure functioning of maritime trade routes to ensure the continuous supply of strategic goods, raw materials, and energy products. Maritime trade is an irreplaceable and essential pillar of Western supply chains, with the increasing complexity and vulnerability of these systems due to geopolitical and environmental dynamics.
This dependence means that illegally imposed restrictions on navigation, or pressure on key maritime routes such as the Suez Canal or the Red Sea passage, can have significant not only economic but also geopolitical impacts. The West as a whole, unlike Russia, which has developed an autonomous strategy to diversify its trade routes, does not have established and functional alternatives for many of its maritime supply lines. And this is a problem that is not easily solved.
In military science, the term ‘asymmetry’ refers to the use of strategies, tactics, and tools that do not mirror those of the enemy, but aim to exploit differences in capabilities, organization, and objectives to strike at the enemy’s weak points. Applied to the maritime domain, asymmetry describes how an actor, often weaker in conventional terms, can challenge a superior naval power by avoiding a head-on confrontation and instead seeking to destabilize its freedom of maneuver, logistics, and route security.
In the current geostrategic context, in fact, a crucial aspect concerns the risk that the West will face asymmetric responses to its illegal restrictions on navigation. This concept of asymmetry is central to the theory of contemporary maritime threats: Western powers, by unilaterally imposing restrictions on the routes or maritime activities of other states (e.g., through sanctions, blockades, or “no sail zones”), could generate unconventional reactions that are difficult to manage structurally, especially now that dominance of the seas is no longer the exclusive preserve of the old Atlantic empires.
The case of Russia is emblematic: despite being heavily affected by sanctions and restrictions on global maritime traffic, it has developed a maritime strategy aimed at building autonomous infrastructure and new routes—such as the development of the Northern Sea Route—to bypass Western restrictions and ensure internal and external economic continuity. The West, on the other hand, despite having provided important regulatory and military tools to ensure freedom of navigation, finds itself exposed to more damaging forms of retaliation precisely because it is unable to easily circumvent the key routes on which it depends.
The application of the same restrictive measures used by the West against itself would, in perspective, result in a potentially acute crisis in maritime supply chains. Disruptions in access to and passage through key trade routes would cause delays in the delivery of strategic raw materials and essential goods, with knock-on effects on industry, agriculture, energy, and final consumption.
The consequences of blockages or restrictions on strategic passages such as the Suez or Panama Canals include not only higher costs due to longer and more expensive alternative routes (with additional costs for fuel, insurance, and sailing time) but also port congestion, increased emissions, and misalignments between supply and demand in global chains. Furthermore, insecurity in maritime routes can raise insurance premiums, contributing to increased international transport costs and fueling market volatility.
Structural differences between the West and Russia and growing instability
Western vulnerability must be viewed in light of the structural differences in maritime management and strategy between the West and Russia.
Russia is gearing up to become a major maritime power, investing in infrastructure, shipbuilding, and new logistics hubs on its territory, aiming for more direct control of its export routes for resources (natural gas, coal, agricultural products) to non-Western markets such as Asia, which are becoming geopolitical and economic priorities.
For example, the Navy’s key role in Arctic routes is already a global excellence, for which the collective West lags far behind. The West, on the contrary, relies on an international maritime trade network that is increasingly subject to high interdependence and multilateral cooperation, and has not yet developed an equivalent system of autonomous routes and infrastructure capable of circumventing unilateral restrictions. This creates an imbalance that can result in asymmetric risk: while Russia can tolerate or circumvent certain restrictions due to its alternative shipping options, the West cannot do the same without serious disruption in terms of trade flows and costs.
Current geopolitical trends increase the likelihood that illegal restrictions on navigation, applied for political reasons, will translate into significant crises in Western supply chains. The effects manifest themselves in:
- Increased delays and misalignments in the delivery of raw materials and finished products (e.g., critical materials, energy, agricultural products);
- Higher costs for maritime transport and insurance, reflected in higher prices and potential pass-through to end consumers;
- Risk of port congestion and logistical disruptions that can trigger temporary regional or global economic crises;
- Increased geopolitical tensions in key regions, with exposure to maritime conflicts or asymmetric actions by state and non-state actors.
The application of restrictive Western measures on oneself is not only a technical challenge, but also a factor that could trigger chain reactions that are difficult to control, as other maritime powers and regional actors could adopt asymmetric strategies, including the militarization of routes, piracy, and targeted sabotage.
A war of maps
But how did the West construct these restrictions? This corresponds to a ‘war of maps’: whoever controls cartography and security warnings dominates the very perception of freedom of navigation.
Three types of restrictive measures have been applied: economic sanctions, maritime exclusion zones (mainly in areas of open or potential conflict) and the updating of maritime charts. And when sailing, maps are essential.
The map war is a cognitive and regulatory domain, in which the representation of space becomes a weapon, more or less directly. Those who control the maps, i.e., decide what to show, what to obscure, and which routes are safe or prohibited to follow, effectively exercise strategic dominance that influences many actors.
The map war at sea is played out on several levels:
Cartographic: updates to official charts (e.g., NOAA for the US, UKHO for Great Britain) can delimit restricted areas, minefields, and training areas. This forces civilian and military ships to change their routes, even if the sea remains physically free.
Digital: ECDIS and AIS systems, which are mandatory in commercial navigation, receive updates from Western sources (Navtex, Inmarsat, IMO). By adding or removing “digital layers,” the West can channel traffic.
Narrative-legal: maps are never neutral; they reflect a vision of the law of the sea. A NATO map will show as “international waters” areas that Russia or China consider “territorial waters.” It is a form of “cartographic lawfare.”
Operational: navies reinforce on the ground what the map represents. If an area is marked as “restricted” and is patrolled by frigates or naval drones, the cartographic representation becomes reality.
Cognitively controlling space means dominating representation, i.e., conditioning the movements of commercial and military fleets, driving up insurance and logistics costs, legitimizing a certain view of maritime law and, most importantly, transforming the sea into a sort of “mosaic” made up of mandatory corridors and prohibited areas. In other words, it is no longer just the strength of ships that determines control, but also the use of the power of representation, which constrains reality geopolitically speaking.
The problem is that the West, with its maritime powers of glorious memory, cannot be denied, is still convinced that it has immeasurable and unchallenged power. However, this perception does not correspond to the truth. Western leaders have promoted sanctions and restrictive policies, driven by the desire to maintain control that has long since ceased to belong to them, and have ended up compromising their own economies and damaging their interests. The schizophrenia seems never-ending.
Even sanctions have not worked
Economic sanctions and export controls are now the main weapons of US national security. With a simple administrative act, Washington can exclude its adversaries from the dollar-dominated international financial system and limit their access to advanced technology supply chains. These tools, designed to reinforce foreign policy and defense objectives, are often used as an intermediate response: more effective than diplomacy alone, but less risky than direct military intervention. Their apparent low cost and ease of use have encouraged their frequent use, with the risk of gradually reducing their effectiveness and raising doubts about the stability of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
Over the past two decades, these tools have been applied against a growing range of adversaries. The campaign against Iran saw intensive use of financial leverage, in particular through pressure on European banks to sever ties with Tehran, a model that inspired the approach towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014: targeted sectoral sanctions were introduced, calibrated to affect future growth prospects without causing immediate shocks to energy markets. Subsequently, attention shifted to China, with technological restrictions directed at giants such as Huawei and ZTE in an attempt to slow down the development of advanced capabilities in areas such as artificial intelligence and defense.
After 2022, with the start of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the measures became more complex, with oil price caps and new controls on the export of advanced semiconductors introduced in addition to financial and trade blockades, the result of coordination with European and Asian allies. This combination of instruments showed how economic measures can be integrated into a single strategy, even if they fail to produce positive effects. Arrogant rhetoric clashed with harsh reality: sanctions are no longer as effective a deterrent as they once were, and their effect is much less controllable and predictable.
Behind every sanctions package lie intricate decision-making processes, in which coordination with allies and calculation of the effects on global markets play a decisive role, and, above all, a discreet sense of masochism. Countless hours of work, commissions, discussions, and proclamations in the media have produced only an unprecedented accumulation of disadvantages.
Because, to be honest, the sanctions system simply does not work. On the one hand, sanctions have evolved in response to increasingly sophisticated threats, combining financial, commercial, and technological levers, but entirely in a self-congratulatory sense, as they are not pragmatically effective. on the other hand, they have rarely produced significant political change in the affected states on their own, instead generating side effects on the global economy and tensions with the private sector or with Western partners themselves, creating a disastrous boomerang effect.
If the West does not decide to stop, it will be forced to pay the price for all its misdeeds, a price that is much higher and more painful than it can imagine. And then it will be too late to turn back.
‘Coalition of the Willing’ Ready to Deliver Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine — What Could Go Wrong?
Sputnik – 04.09.2025
Members of the “Coalition of the Willing” have expressed their readiness to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, Downing Street said on Thursday.
A meeting took place in Paris earlier on Thursday in a hybrid format, chaired by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron.
“The Prime Minister also welcomed announcements from Coalition of the Willing partners to supply long range missiles to Ukraine to further bolster the country’s supplies,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that Ukrainian forces could only carry out such operations with NATO personnel involved, signaling direct Western participation in the conflict. This could fundamentally change the nature of the confrontation, with NATO members effectively fighting against Russia.
At the same time, Europe’s vision of security guarantees for Ukraine involves stationing troops away from the front lines for demonstration and training purposes, the Washington Post reported Thursday, citing unnamed officials with direct knowledge of the plans.
The deployment will include a “demonstration” element, with troops serving as a deterrent against Russia, and a “regeneration” element, which implies training and rebuilding the country’s military force. The ultimate goal is transforming the Ukrainian military into what EU leaders call a “steel porcupine,” the daily reported.
On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that work on preparing security guarantees for Ukraine had been completed. The so-called coalition of the willing will meet in Paris on Thursday in a hybrid format to thrash out details of security arrangements. Following the meeting, several European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will call US President Donald Trump, French media reported.
On August 18, US President Donald Trump held a meeting in Washington with Ukrainian and European leaders, after which he announced that France, Germany and the United Kingdom want to deploy troops on Ukrainian territory. He added that there would be no US troops in Ukraine during his presidency. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said previously that the presence of NATO allies’ troops on Ukrainian soil — under any flag and in any capacity, including as peacekeepers — was a threat to Russia, and that Moscow would not accept it under any circumstances.
Zelensky’s dream is NATO-Russia war – ex-Polish president
RT | September 4, 2025
Vladimir Zelensky’s “dream” is to draw NATO directly into the conflict with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, former Polish President Andrzej Duda said Tuesday.
Speaking in an interview with journalist Bogdan Rymanowski, Duda recalled an incident in November 2022, when a Ukrainian air defense missile struck near a Polish border village, killing one person. Zelensky immediately blamed Russia and urged Warsaw to invoke NATO’s collective defense clause.
Duda said the Ukrainian leader pressured him to publicly declare the weapon Russian in origin, which he refused to do.
“From the very beginning, they’ve been trying to drag everyone into the war. That’s obvious,” Duda said. “Any leader of a nation in a situation like Ukraine’s would want the entirety of NATO to fight on its side.”
“Having NATO support for the army, NATO tanks and soldiers fighting side by side against Russia – that’s a dream [in such circumstances],” he added, stressing that “Poland, being a NATO state, could never have agreed to that.”
Poland has been one of Kiev’s staunchest backers, providing both arms and diplomatic support. Moscow has claimed that Polish nationals make up a significant portion of foreign mercenaries fighting in Ukraine’s military ranks.
The relationship between Warsaw and Kiev has also seen disputes. In 2023, several eastern European states, including Poland, banned EU-facilitated Ukrainian grain imports, citing market disruptions. Tensions have also repeatedly flared over Kiev’s veneration of nationalist figures responsible for the mass killing of Poles during the Second World War.
Moscow has long described the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war against Russia, warning that European members of the US-led bloc risk direct confrontation by fueling the hostilities.
Prior to the escalation in 2022, Russia sought a legally-binding pledge that NATO would freeze its expansion eastward, a proposal that was rejected.
The coming war on Iran will be regional, perhaps international
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 2, 2025
It is unlikely that the anticipated continuation of the war on Iran, spearheaded by the Israelis but led by the United States, will be confined to a simple tit-for-tat missile trade-off as we saw earlier this year. The reason for this is simple: too much is at stake if this front again flares up.
Since the US-brokered ceasefire between “Israel” and Iran went into effect on June 29, the United States and the Zionist regime have scrambled to move around military equipment, engage in mass surveillance flights over Lebanon and the Persian Gulf. More recently, the US began an early withdrawal of its forces from the Ain al-Assad base and other installations inside Iraq.
The first point of entry to understanding what is currently brewing across West Asia is understanding the mentality at play on both sides of the divide.
On one side, we have the Zionist regime and its Western allies, who are the aggressors and believe themselves to be fighting what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls a “seven-front war”. Although the front in the Gaza Strip has pervaded public consciousness over the past 23 months, overshadowing the wars on Lebanon, seizure of territory in Syria, bombing of Yemen, and attack on Iran, it is very much part of this wider war.
From the Israeli-American perspective, their ongoing war carries the goal of eliminating what is known as the Axis of Resistance, the leader of which is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The thinking clearly is that this period in time has provided a unique opportunity to crush the regional resistance and with it, achieve regime change in Tehran.
In June, the Israelis clearly got ahead of themselves and believed that they could inflict a similar blow in Iran to the blow they inflicted on Lebanese Hezbollah back in September of 2024. In the first few hours of the Zionist Regime’s illegal attack on Iran, their media boasted of landing such a blow. However, to everyone’s surprise, within 15 hours, the Iranians were back on their feet and began firing bursts of ballistic missiles into central “Tel Aviv”.
Even the US strikes didn’t inflict any kind of kill blow that degraded Iran sufficiently, as it proved more than anything that their nuclear facilities could survive US strikes, even if they were badly damaged. The United States certainly poses a major threat to Iran, but the takeaway here is that the Zionist regime can’t take them on alone.
If there is another battle between Iran and the Israelis, the Zionist Entity is already low on interceptor missiles, and its arsenal would be severely drained within around a week or so. We also still do not know the extent of the damage inflicted by Iran’s ballistic missile strikes, due to Israeli military censorship. Simply put, they don’t even allow the public to know the true number of soldiers killed and wounded in Gaza, so forget the notion that they’d admit what Iran did to them.
Another major player here is Lebanese Hezbollah, which appears to be successfully rebuilding itself and is at an intelligence deficit compared to what they had built up over decades and utilized late last year. Yet, what the Israelis do understand is that in the event that a conflict with Iran arises where Hezbollah chooses to enter the fight on the ground, they may face an existential battle for their very survival.
If, and this evidently depends on varying factors, Hezbollah chooses to launch an all-out ground offensive as Iran fires ballistic missiles in bursts across occupied Palestine, it is plausible that the Lebanese party will inflict a total defeat on the Israeli ground forces and seize huge swaths of territory in the north of Palestine.
The Zionist regime is now claiming to be preparing for mission impossible in the Gaza Strip, amassing troops in order to try and occupy Gaza City, an operation that would take between two to five years to complete, according to Israeli military estimates. It would also be extremely costly for the Israeli ground forces and their military vehicles. If they do commit to this, it would leave them open on the northern front. There is, however, the possibility that this is all a bluff.
If the Israelis are bluffing, they could be preparing for an offensive against Lebanon instead. The thinking here would be to try and halt Hezbollah’s rebuilding process, setting it back even further, and could even involve a ground operation, likely using Syrian territory to invade the Bekaa Valley area.
Such a conflict would be existential for Hezbollah, especially as the US works with the Lebanese government to impose a seizure of its weapons. A repeat of what occurred a year ago would work only to advance the US-Israeli goal of seizing Hezbollah’s weapons, while a victory could at the very least liberate Lebanese territory and represent a massive blow to the disarmament agenda.
Therefore, if Iran is currently in the scope of the Zionists, it would make strategic sense for them to either attack Lebanon first or launch a major offensive at the same time it attacks Iran.
The US withdrawal of forces from Iraq is another major indicator of a regional escalation involving Iran, specifically because of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and the potential they have to inflict enormous damage, given that they enter the fold of the war.
Iraq’s PMU is yet to be mobilized, and its role in the ongoing regional conflict has been minimal. The reason for this is that if some 230,000 men are mobilized, or even a portion of them, it is difficult to suddenly put a halt to their operations, and this will mean a dramatic regional escalation, the likes of which the United States will not be able to manage inside Iraq and will instead use their economic levers as a primary weapon of war.
Depending on how far such a conflict is going to go, there is even the possibility that it could go global. While there is currently no evidence to support this notion, there has been talk that the US naval deployment to the Caribbean, triggering a mass militia mobilization across Venezuela, could be connected. Additionally, China and Russia could use the opportunity of a major Iran-US war to carry out some of their long-desired goals, at a time when Washington has diverted its resources to West Asia.
There is again the possibility that another attack on Iran could look similar to what the world witnessed during what is dubbed the “12-day war”, yet the same stalemate outcome would only lead us back to square one again and beget yet another war. At some point, something will have to give.
The reason why the danger of an all-out regional conflagration appears high as of now is purely down to the Israeli-US refusal to end their genocide against Gaza, indicating that they seek total defeat of the Axis of Resistance and nothing less. Inevitably, one side must win and the other lose; there is currently no such thing as deterrence for either side, only who will triumph and carve out a new regional reality.
Department of War?
By Ron Paul | September 2, 2025
Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”
At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.
As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.
With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.
If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.
Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefitted the American people.
Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a “War Department,” however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these “wars” have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.
So go ahead and change it back to the “Department of War.” But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is “defense.” It’s not.
Germany “in conflict” with Russia – Merz
By Lucas Leiroz | September 2, 2025
The Russophobic madness of European leaders is leading them to make increasingly controversial statements. Now, the German Prime Minister claims that his country is “in conflict” with Russia, making clear Berlin’s bellicosity and his government’s willingness to maintain an escalatory hostility stance against the Russian Federation. The consequences of such statements could be serious, as they legitimize practical actions that directly impact the war between NATO and Moscow in Ukraine.
According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany is “already in conflict” with Russia. He said that Moscow is “destabilizing” Germany and Europe through tactical actions such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, which would be a form of hybrid warfare. Furthermore, Merz suggested that Russia plans to attack EU countries to regain former Soviet territories, again spreading the myth of an “imminent Russian invasion.”
During an interview with the French broadcaster LCI, Merz commented on French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent statement, calling Russian leader Vladimir Putin “an ogre who always wants to eat more.” Merz said he completely agrees with this assessment and sees Putin in precisely the same light as Macron. Merz links Putin’s alleged “hunger” to a supposed Russian ambition for more territory, describing Russia as an expansionist country that “destabilizes European democracies.”
“That’s how I see Putin. He destabilizes large parts of our country. He is interfering everywhere, particularly on social media (…) So we are already in a conflict with Russia,” he said.
As expected, Merz presented no evidence to support his arguments. It has become commonplace for European leaders to publicly accuse Russia and Putin of various crimes without presenting any evidence to support their allegations. Merz’s claims, though serious and provocative, ultimately come across as just another instance of weak rhetoric in the EU’s broader information campaign against Moscow.
However, by stating that Germany is already in conflict with Russia, Merz takes a dangerous step forward in the tense relations between the two countries. This is a serious statement, and, when made by a head of government, it has strong and direct consequences for real policy. Russia has simply been warned by the Germans that the authorities in Berlin consider themselves in conflict with it. If German decision-makers believe they are at war with Russia and implement policies with this in mind, then the Russians must be prepared for a possible escalation of hostility.
In fact, this isn’t the first time a German official has stated that Europe is embroiled in a conflict with Russia. In 2023, then-German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock openly and directly stated that Europeans are “fighting” against the Russians. She also stated that the correct way to fight this war is through the systematic sending of weapons to Ukraine, seeking a total “Ukrainian victory” against Russia. At the time, she was severely criticized by several leaders for this statement, but Baerbock never regretted her words, which were endorsed by the bloc’s Russophobic elites.
“We are fighting a war against Russia (…) Yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together, and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other (…) Obviously, Ukraine needs more military support, but not only by one country like mine or the US, by all of us. We can fight this war only together”, she said at the time.
Both the former top German diplomat and the current chancellor agree that Ukraine must continue to be armed to keep the “war against Russia” away from European borders. Their narrative is that if Ukraine falls, Russia will “invade” the EU, making it vital that support for Kiev be increased to prevent the EU’s collapse. This narrative has been central to legitimizing the sending of billion-dollar military and financial aid packages to the neo-Nazi regime in the eyes of the European public, although fewer and fewer people are believing this fallacious rhetoric.
The “arm Ukraine until victory” plan, however, has already failed. The Ukrainian army is almost completely collapsed, and Russian troops are advancing deeply on the ground, making Moscow’s total victory a mere matter of time. When Russia wins the war in Ukraine and no “invasion” occurs in Europe, the narratives of leaders like Merz, Macron, and Baerbock will be refuted, and European authorities will lose all value among European citizens, triggering a major crisis of legitimacy throughout the bloc.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
US escalates its crawling aggression on Venezuela as Caracas prepares defenses
By Drago Bosnic | September 2, 2025
The United States Navy (USN) and Marine Corps (USMC) keep increasing their military presence in the Southern Caribbean, more specifically in the vicinity of Venezuela’s coast. The last days of August saw a significant uptick in their activity, including American warships in eastbound transit through the Panama Canal. Only a week prior, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated that US President Donald Trump was “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into [the country] and to bring those responsible to justice”, also insisting that “many Caribbean nations and many nations in the region” supposedly “applauded the administration’s counterdrug operations and efforts”.
Interestingly, Mrs. Leavitt never mentioned which specific countries support such actions, nor did she explain how exactly warships armed with medium-range cruise missiles can be used in the supposed “heightened counternarcotics efforts”. Worse yet, the increasingly belligerent Trump administration is openly accusing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of supposedly “heading a narco cartel”, using it as a pretext to escalate its crawling aggression on the South American nation. The US State Department website unequivocally says that President Maduro allegedly “helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials”. Expectedly, without verifiable evidence.
“As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns”, the accusation reads.
“In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices,” the website adds, also claiming: “After initially offering a reward offer of up to $15 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Maduro in 2020, the Department of State on January 10, 2025, increased the reward offer to up to $25 million. On August 7, 2025, the Department announced the further increase in the reward offer to up to $50 million after the Department of Treasury sanctioned Cartel of the Suns as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on July 25, 2025.”
The US also brags that “Maduro, as leader of Cartel of the Suns, is the first target in the history of the Narcotics Rewards Program with a reward offer exceeding $25 million”. Once again, there’s zero evidence to support a single claim on President Maduro’s “corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy”. On the other hand, Washington DC has no qualms about backing actual narco-terrorist entities, such as the Albanian extremists currently based in NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia, to say nothing of well over half a century of CIA-run drug-related back ops in virtually every country south of the Rio Grande. However, despite decades of sanctions and other forms of pressure, Caracas refuses to budge.
During his first term, Trump was particularly aggressive toward both Venezuela and Iran. Back in 2017, he threatened that the US has “many options, including a possible military option, if necessary”. He made similar statements with regards to Tehran, although he never acted on either during his previous presidency. However, Trump is now far more belligerent and has attacked Iran. Although it largely failed (despite his insistence that it was a “total success”), this demonstrates his willingness to engage in direct armed aggression. American forces in the region are far too few to allow a full-blown invasion, but they’re enough to be used in limited long-range precision strikes, likely on critical infrastructure (particularly in coastal regions).
Washington DC certainly understands this would be nowhere near enough to defeat the Venezuelan military, but it’s possible that the Trump administration is hoping to destabilize Caracas politically. For instance, destroying or damaging the remaining oil refineries would disrupt normal economic activity and exacerbate the Latin American country’s troubles that stem from illegal US sanctions and constant pressure. In turn, Washington DC probably expects protests to erupt or even a full-blown rebellion. This approach is quite common whenever the US finds it more challenging to invade directly. And indeed, Venezuela’s complex geography effectively makes it a combination of Afghanistan and Vietnam, which is an absolute nightmare for any remotely sensible military planner.
Venezuela already deployed around 15,000 troops in the states of Zulia and Táchira (both bordering Colombia). These units are mostly comprised of special police and military personnel, indicating that Caracas is worried about cross-border raids and infiltration. Such measures are perfectly understandable given America’s propensity to use sabotage and terrorist attacks to undermine targeted countries. Back in 2020, the CIA launched the so-called “Operation Gideon” precisely from Colombia, with two boats carrying approximately 60 insurgents commanded by two former members of the US Army Special Forces (better known as “Green Berets”). Both were employed as mercenaries by Silvercorp USA, a Florida-based PMC.
Such private military enterprises are quite common in the US and are used by the Pentagon in order to maintain plausible deniability in case of failure. Precisely this happened to “Operation Gideon”, which was effectively some sort of Trump’s “mini-Bay of Pigs” moment. This failure was attributed to multiple factors, with several US intelligence services accusing one another of “major security breaches”. In fact, back in January, Jordan Goudreau, the head of Silvercorp (himself a former “Green Beret”), accused the CIA and FBI of “sabotaging the operation”. However, whether that’s true or not is irrelevant, as Venezuela needs to be prepared for any similar incursions, particularly now that such actions might serve as the vanguard of direct US aggression.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Sahra Wagenknecht: Europe Subjugated & Propagandised for War
Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025
Sahra Wagenknecht is a prominent figure in German politics, a former member of the Bundestag and the European Parliament. Wagenknecht discusses Europe’s suborindation to the US, the need for an external enemy, the demonisation of Russia, and war enthusiasm that is destroying Europe.
Zelensky threatens ‘new deep strikes’ into Russia
RT | August 31, 2025
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has threatened new strikes into Russia, days after claiming that Kiev possessed a brand-new long-range missile capable of reaching Moscow.
Zelensky wrote on Telegram that he had been briefed by Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Syrsky, on the current battlefield situation.
“We will continue our active actions exactly as needed to protect Ukraine. Forces and means are prepared. New deep strikes have also been planned,” he said on Sunday, without providing further details.
Earlier this month, Zelensky claimed Ukraine had developed the long-range Flamingo missile with a reported range of 3,000 kilometers – which would be enough to reach not only Moscow but also Russian cities beyond the Ural mountains. The Ukrainian leader, however, said that mass production is not expected for the next several months.
British media outlets cast doubts on whether the Flamingo was developed in Ukraine, noting similarities with the FP-5 cruise missile produced by the UK-based Milanion Group and unveiled at an arms expo in Abu Dhabi this year. The UK has also been supportive of Kiev’s long-range strikes, having provided it with Storm Shadow missiles in the past.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that there is “nothing surprising” in the similarities, adding that “Ukraine has long turned into a testing ground for Western weapons. There are more than enough examples.”
On Friday, the Kyiv Independent also reported that Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau has launched an investigation into Fire Point, the defense firm linked to the development of the Flamingo missile, after reports it misled the government on pricing and deliveries.
Earlier this month the Wall Street Journal reported that the US had blocked Ukraine from carrying out strikes deep inside Russian territory. Throughout the conflict, some of Kiev’s Western backers have been wary of authorizing unrestricted strikes into Russia using Western-supplied weapons, citing concerns over escalation with Moscow.
Ukraine has regularly carried out long-range attacks inside Russia, which Moscow says frequently hit civilian areas and critical infrastructure. Russia has retaliated with strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities and defense enterprises but maintains that it never targets civilians.
Benoît Paré: OSCE Observer Exposes Lies About the Ukraine War
Glenn Diesen | August 30, 2025
Benoît Paré, a French army reserve officer and former defense ministry analyst, brings his expertise and experience as an OSCE observer in Donbas.
Blowing up Europe… Druzhba pipeline sabotage showcases EU self-destruction
Strategic Culture Foundation | August 29, 2025
The EU-backed Ukrainian regime’s blowing up of a major pipeline delivering vital oil supply to Europe is an astounding signal of self-destruction. It demonstrates how insane the European Union’s leadership has become in its obsession with defeating Russia, no matter the cost. The insanity means that the interests of EU member states and European citizens are willingly sacrificed. Russophobic Eurocrats who have shunned all diplomatic engagement with Moscow are in effect funding the destruction of Europe.
In another development, as Russian airstrikes on Kiev this week hit European Union and British government sites in the Ukrainian capital, EU and British politicians were outraged, condemning Russia for “barbaric attacks” on their delegations. Yet it is these same European and British politicians who are pushing conflict to the brink of no return as they insist on arming a NeoNazi regime to continue striking Russian civilian targets and refuse to listen to Russia’s historic grievances about how this conflict evolved.
The Ukrainian regime, bankrolled by EU taxpayers, launched multiple drone and missile attacks on the Druzhba pipeline, which supplies EU member states Hungary and Slovakia. The pipeline supplies those states with about 50 percent of their oil imports. The attacks knocked out pipeline infrastructure in Russian territory. Hungary and Slovakia were cut off from crude oil supplies for several days. Budapest and Bratislava angrily protested to the European Union leadership that the sabotage was an unacceptable assault on the sovereign, vital interests.
However, the European Commission in Brussels responded with remarkable indifference, noting that Hungary and Slovakia’s 90-day emergency stockpiles of oil were sufficient to carry the countries over the interruption in supply. The complacency of the EU leadership is extraordinary. So, a non-EU state cuts off the energy supply of EU members, and there is no reprimand for the sabotage. The insouciance is tantamount to giving the Ukrainian regime a green light to carry out more such attacks.
The background is even more sinister. Earlier this week, the Kiev regime’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, made a veiled threat to Hungary and Slovakia that his forces would continue to blow up the pipeline if Budapest and Bratislava did not lift their vetoes on Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union. To their credit, Hungary and Slovakia have both consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, warning that such a move will exacerbate the conflict with Russia and destabilize internal markets from cheap Ukrainian imports. They have also opposed doling out more EU taxpayer funds for military weapons and prolonging a slaughter.
In other words, Hungary and Slovakia have become an obstacle to the proxy war against Russia. That is not merely annoying to the Kyiv cabal and its war racket; it also, more importantly, frustrates the Eurocrat elites’ desire to expand the war, with the Russophobic obsession of defeating Russia.
The Kiev regime has for a long time been haranguing Hungary and Slovakia to terminate all oil imports from Russia, and get in line with the rest of the EU. Ukraine accuses Hungarian and Slovakian leaders of buying Russian oil with blood money and fueling the war. This is similar to the United States castigating India for continuing to purchase Russian oil, with Trump aide Peter Navarro this week absurdly calling the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” in a snide reference to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Hungary, Slovakia, India, and others retort that it is their national prerogative to buy oil from Russia. They say it is not up to the Kiev regime or the United States to determine from whom they obtain their vital energy supplies. The Kiev regime and Washington are acting like bandits and mafia. It was the United States under the Biden administration that blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea in September 2022. That act of terrorism cut off Germany from Russia’s natural gas supply and led to the destruction of the German economy.
The Kiev regime shut down unilaterally the Brotherhood natural gas pipeline to the rest of Europe at the end of 2024 because it decided not to renew a decades-old transit contract with Russia. Later, the Kiev regime attacked the Turk Stream gas pipelines linking Russian gas to southern Europe. Now the regime is bombing that last oil pipeline into Europe from Russia. And all this banditry holding Europe hostage is countenanced by the Eurocrat leadership.
Where is European sovereignty here? Where is European leadership insisting that the basic rule of law must be respected and vital civilian infrastructure must not be interfered with, especially when that interference amounts to blatant acts of terrorism? Incredibly, the European Commission and the governments of Germany and Denmark, among others, continue to ignore the Nord Stream terror attacks by their American ally as if those crimes never happened. Every so often, the EU authorities find some ridiculous scapegoat to blame, like low-level Ukrainian saboteurs.
The fact is, the European elites do not care that the vital interests of European citizens are being destroyed by the Americans or the puppet regime in Kiev.
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó correctly suggests that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other elites, like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, no doubt knew and gave their approval to the Kiev regime to deliver on its threats to blow up the Hungarian and Slovakian oil supplies. For these elites, some of whom have Nazi Third Reich heritage in their veins, their obsession with defeating Russia is all that matters, Über alles!
Of course, they will support a fascist regime in Kiev before the democratic needs of European citizens. The same mentality has led Europe to self-destruction in two world wars. Here we go again, if they have their way.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Would Have No Qualms About USS Liberty-Style FALSE FLAG If Iran Campaign Falters – Analysts
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025
Donald Trump is mulling whether or not to join Israel’s aggression against Iran as Tel Aviv faces problems sustaining its defenses against growing counterstrikes, and apparently lacks a realistic game plan for an end to hostilities after failing to achieve its goals. Analysts told Sputnik how the US could be ‘nudged’ into the conflict.
“The US is already assisting Israel with supplies, intel, refueling support, etc. One of the many US posts in the region could be attacked for a casus belli,” former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski explained.
“If Trump doesn’t comply with Israel’s demand” and join its aggression voluntarily, “a false flag may be needed” to drag the US in, Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lt. Col.-turned Iraq War whistleblower, fears.
Netanyahu has a diverse array of options at his disposal, according to the observer, including:
- a false flag against US assets abroad blamed on Iran or one of its Axis of Resistance allies, like the Houthis
- a US domestic attack or assassination blamed on Iran
- Iranian air defenses ‘accidentally’ hitting a civilian jetliner carrying Americans
- use of a dirty bomb or nuclear contamination somewhere in the region blamed on Iran
- even blackmailing by threatening to use nukes against Iran if the US doesn’t join the fight
Kwiatkowski estimates that Israel probably has “enough blackmail power” against President Trump and Congress to avoid the necessity of a false flag operation, but a “USS Liberty-style” attack, targeting the soon-to-be-retired USS Nimitz supercarrier that’s heading to the Middle East, for example, nevertheless cannot be ruled out entirely, she says. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The US bombed the Shahs house lol
- The London Ambulances Attack: Of Course It Was A False Flag
- Embarrassing Pivot: U.S. considers dropping Iran oil sanctions amid war
- US has 2 months of rare earths left to replenish weapons amid Iran war: Report
- Strait Of Hormuz closure brings Empire to brink
- Iran controls Strait of Hormuz, dictates terms of war and peace as US excursion backfires
- Outlasting the Superpower: The Reasons Why Iran is Beating uhe US and Israel
- Top PMU commander, over a dozen fighters killed in new US strikes on Iraq
- Is Netanyahu’s war gamble threatening the future of ‘Israel’?: FT
- Smotrich calls for annexation of South Lebanon to Litani River
- If Americans Knew
- ‘Forever live by the sword’: Understanding Israelis’ massive support for Iran war
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
- Gaza says 6–10 patients die daily waiting for treatment abroad as Israel blocks medical evacuations
- ‘Substantial evidence’ of double-tap strike in killing of Gaza’s Hind Rajab
- ‘Do Not Want To Die For Israel’: Doubts About Trump’s Iran Strategy Spread Among Troops
- Instead of taking Joe Kent’s claims seriously, the media is disregarding him as an antisemite
- Joe Kent’s Explosive Interviews about his Resignation over the Iran War
- Israel poised to take over southern Lebanon; settlers wreak havoc in West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 165
- From Sde Teiman, the truth about Israel’s military justice system has been set free
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 