Burevestnik and Poseidon: Russia’s New Double Deterrent Against First Strike Aggression
Sputnik – 01.11.2025
President Putin has announced the back-to-back successful testing of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable unlimited range cruise missile, and the Poseidon nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable unmanned underwater vehicle. Sputnik asked a seasoned US Army vet and military analyst to comment on Russia’s new twin deterrence potential.
“The Burevestnik and the Poseidon are very interesting weapons… pretty much designed as defensive in nature,” retired US Army Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen told Sputnik, characterizing the pair of nuclear doomsday scenario strategic systems as an effective new “counter strike type of capability.”
Touting the twin systems’ miniaturized nuclear engines as their key standout capability, Rasmussen noted that nuclear power essentially means unlimited range and loitering.
The weapons fundamentally enhance Russia’s nuclear deterrence, according to the observer. “There are some crazy generals out there that think they can win, do a preemptive strike and win a nuclear war, which is insane, essentially,” Rasmussen recalled, alluding to ideas like the Prompt Global Strike (PGS). Burevestnik and Poseidon are designed to nullify them.
With a system like the Poseidon, “you don’t have to strike anything. You could detonate it, probably flood and wipe out the entire British Isles or the entire east coast of the United States. So the impact could be quite devastating,” and far beyond the ‘acceptable loss’ calculations of any PGS-style planners.
“Like I said, I don’t look at Russia using them as a pure offensive-type weapon. I look at them as more of a defensive weapon and as a counterstrike type of capability. But it really, really enhances that capability to counter an adversary’s offensive actions against Russia,” Rasmussen summed up.
Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk Encirclements Make Ukraine’s Defeat ‘Too Big to Hide’
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.11.2025
Volodymyr Zelensky and his Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrsky are infamous for sacrificing Ukrainian lives to prolong fighting, Mikael Valtersson, former officer of the Swedish Armed Forces and Air Defense, tells Sputnik, commenting on the Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) and Kupyansk encirclements.
“[Their] policy has left up to 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers in a very precarious position. They are left with two bad alternatives, either being eliminated defending hopeless positions or taking heavy losses during a very hard withdrawal. In both cases Ukraine will lose invaluable military units,” Valtersson notes.
There is a little, if any, chance that Zelensky could order a surrender, as “the worst thing that could happen from Kiev’s point of view would be thousands of retreating or surrendering Ukrainian soldiers,” according to the pundit.
Zelensky’s team has put on a brave face, insisting there are no encirclements, while barring foreign journalists from the area.
“Such journalists would only expose Kiev’s lies about the situation and crush Ukrainian credibility,” Valtersson says.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s defeat is a thing too big to hide, the military expert notes, projecting that Russia’s advance in November and December would lead to Ukraine losing several cities.
“Large cities like the Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Konstantynivka urban area, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov might be up for grabs,” the pundit suggests. “The worst is yet to come for Ukraine in 2025. We are now witnessing the final fall of Krasnoarmeysk and Kupyansk.”
US Atomic Tests Could Open Pandora’s Box for ‘New Arms Race and Nuclear War’
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 31.10.2025
A nuclear war risk is growing and Washington’s apparent readiness to resume nuclear tests is making it more grave, warns Professor Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, in an interview with Sputnik.
“All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making them more efficient and more deadly. On top of that, there’s pressure to expand the nuclear arsenals,” Kuznick tells Sputnik.
To complicate matters further, other countries – including South Korea and Ukraine – are flirting with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons, the professor notes.
The world is going the wrong direction and becoming more dangerous.
US Unready for Nuclear Tests
If the US resumes nuclear tests, Russia and China will follow suit, according to the professor.
“They actually have more to gain from this than the US does,” he says, adding that it would probably take years before the US would be able to conduct new nuclear tests, as the Nevada test site has effectively atrophied.
At the same time, it would mean the end of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which have not been ratified by the majority of nuclear powers. Up until now, the US, Russia and China have abided by it: the last Russian nuclear test took place in 1990, China’s – in 1996.
Reaction to Russian Wonder-Weapon?
The idea of resuming nuclear tests followed Russia’s trials of its cutting-edge weapons. Could the US boast anything like that? Not yet — and it would take years to catch up, according to the pundit.
“The Burevestnik and the Poseidon [missiles] are new science fiction-like, new generation of nuclear delivery systems. You add that to the Oreshnik test back in November 2024,” Kuznick notes.
Give Peace a Chance
The most logical response to Washington’s breaking the de facto moratorium on nuclear tests should be “the United States is out of control,” Kuznick says.
“That would be what [Russia and China] should say and do and call for new talks to end this expansion, intensification of the nuclear arms race,” the professor underscores.
US President Donald Trump in the meantime said that it will be known soon whether the United States will resume underground nuclear testing.
“You will find out very soon,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, as quoted by Reuters.
Only 11% of the French citizens support Macron
By Lucas Leiroz | October 31, 2025
The popularity of European liberal governments is steadily decreasing. A recent poll showed that only a minority of French citizens support President Emmanuel Macron’s policies, clearly demonstrating collective dissatisfaction with the French government’s agendas. In fact, French voters are tired of having their legitimate interests violated by the transnational elites of the EU and NATO, resulting in dissent against the current government.
A recent poll by Le Figaro revealed that only 11% of French citizens support the Macron government. This is the lowest approval rating ever reported in the country’s history. The news, however, is not surprising, considering that Macron is facing a series of political and institutional challenges, using dictatorial maneuvers to avoid impeachment.
Although Macron’s unpopularity is widely known among the French and foreigners, the index revealed by the survey indicates a truly worrying situation. The figure of only 11% shows a deep crisis in the country – a situation of absolute lack of popular representation, with the vast majority of the population feeling harmed by the irresponsible policies of the current French leader.
Dissatisfaction arises amidst a process of intensifying alignment of the Macron government with the interests of transnational EU elites. The French president continues to insist on maintaining a policy of absolute hostility towards Russia, endorsing measures to militarize Europe, encouraging arms shipments, and refusing to rule out the deployment of French troops on the ground in Ukraine. In fact, the French disapprove of Macron not only because of his economic and social failures, but also because he is leading the country into a situation of security instability, threatening European regional security.
Furthermore, Macron’s domestic administration has been chaotic. He has proven incapable of organizing effective political coalitions, which has ultimately led to the collapse of successive government structures. Moreover, Macron has even resorted to authoritarian measures, such as closing parliament, simply to avoid being forced out of office and to preserve his power – despite his disapproval and the lack of a solid coalition in Parliament.
Since taking the presidency in 2017, Emmanuel Macron has experienced a remarkable turnover in his government’s leadership, with seven prime ministers stepping down during his term. Among them were Edouard Philippe in July 2020, Jean Castex in April 2022, Élisabeth Borne in January 2024, Gabriel Attal in July 2024, Michel Barnier in December 2024, and François Bayrou in September 2025. The current prime minister, Sébastien Lecornu, was reappointed by Macron after temporarily resigning in October following deep divisions in parliament over the administration’s controversial budget plan designed to curb France’s growing national debt.
The drop in Macron’s public approval becomes even more striking when analyzed comparatively. In January 2025, 21% of the French still supported Macron. By September, this number had already fallen to 15%. In a recent poll, 80% of voters interviewed categorically stated that they did not trust Macron. All of this shows the seriousness of the local situation, giving clear signs of an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy.
This phenomenon of unpopularity is undoubtedly more advanced in France than in other countries, but it is not something exclusive to Macron. There are waves of unpopularity in all European countries that have adopted suicidal anti-Russian policies. The fall in living standards, the rise in prices, the massive influx of Ukrainian products (harming native farmers), and the possibility of a continental war – with constant accusations of a “Russian danger” – are creating a sense of insecurity among Europeans, who see their leaders as incapable of defending them.
In addition to this, there is also the cultural and identity issue. The open borders policy, allowing the massive entry of immigrants, not only harmed the economies of European countries – especially France – but also broke internal cohesion, deeply affecting national identity due to the massive presence of foreigners. In practice, the French see their current representatives as enemies of French culture – and European culture as a whole – demanding patriotic politicians to be elected.
Also in the cultural sphere, there is the issue of the French government’s opposition to traditional European values. Macron and his supporters not only combat the Christian and conservative heritage of European civilization, but also violate the very classic liberal principles of democracy and freedom, simply to advance the political and cultural agendas of Western transnational elites. All of this contributes to Macron’s unpopularity.
Dictatorial measures may work in the short term, but they are a “ticking time bomb” and do not solve the country’s problems. Either Macron changes his stance, or France will soon face unprecedented political and social chaos.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Pressure against Venezuela as hybrid war against Russia and China
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2025
A common vice found among geopolitically anti-imperialist analysts and journalists is the attempt to explain all international conflicts by the “single cause” of the imperialist quest for natural resources — almost always oil. This is how the Iraq War is classically explained, for example: “Big Oil” would have used the Bush administration to open markets, once closed, through bombing and territorial occupation.
This type of clearly materialist explanation stems from an evidently Marxian premise, insofar as it aims to treat all social, cultural, and political phenomena as epiphenomena before the preponderant and structural reality of economic transformations and interests.
Like a good part of the 19th-century pseudo-scientific efforts to reduce reality to a single principle (as was the case with Freudianism and Positivism), this economist materialism also does not hold up under the hammer of critical analysis.
Just as an example, in the Iraqi case, the generic materialist explanation does not withstand the empirical discovery that the major U.S. oil companies were, in fact, already on a path of dialogue with the counter-hegemonic countries of the Middle East and, precisely for that reason, tried unsuccessfully to pressure for non-intervention and the pacification of American-Iraqi relations.
Nonetheless, the “oil myth” persists in the study of the Middle East. So we are not surprised that it is appealed to once again to explain the U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The narrative says that Trump’s pressure on Maduro, and the threats to overthrow his government, are due to Trump’s interest in Venezuela’s 300 billion barrel reserves — the largest in the world.
The problem with this narrative, however, is that according to all indications, Maduro would have offered to close extremely advantageous partnerships with the U.S. for the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, given that the current level of extraction in Venezuela is minimal. From a material perspective, the deal would be quite interesting for the U.S. oil industry, as the country consumes a vast amount of oil and its reserves are “only” the ninth largest in the world.
Everything indicates, however, that Trump would have rejected the offer of a deal.
The U.S., apparently, wants something that is worth more than the largest oil reserve in the world.
This is where geopolitical science comes in.
Generally, geopolitics is confused with “geo-economics,” in the sense that many people believe they are seeing a “geopolitical analysis” when they see an attribution of economic causes to some international conflict. But geopolitics is, fundamentally, the science that studies the correlation between geography and power. In this sense, resources can enter into geopolitical analyses, but only as part of a general context.
And in the Venezuelan case, even the very important and abundant oil is of secondary importance in the conflict with the U.S.
More important than oil, for the U.S., is to guarantee hemispheric hegemony — especially in the Americas. It is about, as defined in an arrogant and classic manner, the U.S. “backyard,” a space in which the U.S. elite in the 19th century decided to no longer tolerate any European presence.
Let’s fast forward 200 years. How are the international relations of Ibero-American countries?
China is the main commercial partner for most countries in the region, several of which have joined the Belt & Road Initiative (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.). Some countries in the region (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba) have also joined BRICS, which works towards the de-dollarization of international trade. Specifically Russia, in turn, has developed military ties — which consist of supplying equipment and conducting exercises — especially with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with a military rapprochement also with Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Peru and Brazil.
In a context where pressure on the U.S. in other regions of the world is growing, it is dangerous for U.S. hegemony to see the growth of Russian-Chinese influence in its “backyard.”
Venezuela is a significant and priority target there because it is precisely the country with the deepest strategic relations with Russia and China. Venezuela is one of the main sources of oil for China, while at the same time Caracas seems to play a relevant role in the multifaceted Russian strategy of “pushing” for multipolarity by strengthening countries around the world that try to challenge the hegemonic order.
To confirm this thesis, we would need to analyze U.S. relations with the rest of the continent to verify if there is any movement by the U.S. to try to pull countries in the region away from Russia and China.
And it seems very clear: the strategy of rapprochement with Brazil is based precisely on an effort to pull the country out of the “Chinese orbit.” The U.S. also pressured Mexico to remain outside the New Silk Road. The U.S. increased its presence in Ecuador and pressured Milei to abandon plans for a Chinese base in its territory. Examples abound to indicate that we are facing a broad continental offensive whose goal is to update the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century.
It is not, therefore, about oil, but about hegemony.
Iran’s FM condemns US nuclear weapons testing resumption as global threat
Press TV – October 31, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has issued a warning in response to Washington’s announcement to resume nuclear weapons testing, calling it a regressive and irresponsible move.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Araghchi slammed Washington for rebranding its “Department of Defense” to the “Department of War” and denounced the US as a “nuclear-armed bully.”
“The same bully has been demonizing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and threatening further strikes on our safeguarded nuclear facilities, all in blatant violation of international law,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
He condemned the US for its longstanding criticism of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program while simultaneously resuming its own atomic weapons tests, actions he claims violate international law.
“Make no mistake: The US is the World’s Most Dangerous Proliferation Risk,” Araghchi stated, arguing that the resumption of nuclear tests poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
He further urged the global community to unite in holding the US accountable for normalizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, calling the announcement of renewed testing a regressive and irresponsible move.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday boasted that Washington’s nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world, and attributed this status to updates and renovations made during his administration.
Trump acknowledged the destructive power of nuclear weapons and expressed reluctance about the need for testing, stating, “I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”
He elaborated that due to the nuclear developments in other countries, he had directed the newly named so-called Department of War to initiate nuclear tests, asserting that this process would begin immediately.
In June, Trump again made the debunked claims of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
In response, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Grossi acknowledged what Iran has repeatedly stated and the UN nuclear agency has also confirmed in its reports.
Imran Khan wasn’t overthrown — Pakistan was
Former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan [ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images]
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 30, 2025
From the barracks of Rawalpindi to the halls of Washington, a sordid alliance stalks the republic of Pakistan: a military caste addicted to power, a civilian class cowed into servitude, and a foreign patron ever ready to pull the leash. What unfolds is less a grand strategy than a tragicomedy: generals trading sovereignty for sinecures, soldiers harbouring contempt for their officers, and a once-promising democratic movement crushed under the twin weights of imperial ambition and martial tutelage.
At the summit of Pakistan’s national hierarchy sits the uniformed elite—high-command officers whose benefit resides not in defending the people, but in ensuring their own station remains unchallenged. The vast majority of junior officers and ordinary soldiers know the drill: they march at a command, live off state hand-outs, yet watch in silence as their rulers gamble everything in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Beneath their boots pulses a latent contempt: not for the institution of soldiering, but for the generals who confuse war-games with governance, who mistake subservience for sovereignty. They know the charade: a military that catalogues enemies abroad yet fails its citizens at home; a top brass more at ease with arms deals and alliances than with schools or clinics.
Meanwhile, in Washington and its allied capitals, they observe the last great outsourcing of empire. The US sees Pakistan not as an independent partner, but as a subcontractor—an air-strip here, a drone base there, a pliant nuclear state with acceptable risks. When Imran Khan—in office—moved, albeit imperfectly, toward a new Pakistan: one marked by social justice, independent foreign policy, and friendship with all nations, he ran head-first into this alliance. He derailed the pat-scripts: refused US basing rights, challenged embassy diktats, and dared to recast Kashmir and Palestine not as trophies of patronage but as tests of principle. His mistake was not corruption—it was defiance. And the consequence was swift: a regime-change operation dressed in parliamentary garb, a military and intelligence complex that salivated at the smell of capitulation, and a Washington that nodded, funded and quietly applauded.
From here the narrative spirals into farce. Pakistan’s flag-waving elite collect defence pacts as one might souvenirs—each a badge of fidelity to the imperial order, each certifying that the country’s violent and unjust alignments will continue unimpeded. The generals embrace those pacts not because they secure Pakistan—they don’t—but because they secure the elite’s privilege: a share of the deals, a veneer of patriotism, a shield against accountability. And while their generals trade in hardware and geopolitics, the cries of the oppressed vanish into night: Pashtun civilians bombed under the guise of “counter-terror,” Afghan refugees reviled as villains by a state that once nurtured their tormentors.
Yes, nuclear-armed Pakistan could not muster a single bullet for Gaza. It did not send a protection force. It does not lobby the United Nations for justice, despite the occasional meaningless rhetoric. Instead, it signs on to the next big defence contract, brushes its hands of the Palestinian plight, and turns its back on the ideal of Muslim solidarity. What kind of state is this that boasts nuclear weapons yet lacks the moral will to send aid—or more than a token gesture—to fellow victims of aggression? A state that lectures others on terrorism while shelling its own Pashtun tribes. A state so short on legitimacy it must invoke the bogeyman of the Afghan refugee, call entire populations “terrorists,” then crush any dissent with tanks and tear-gas.
Speaking of dissent—when Imran Khan’s movement rose, the state responded with idylls of terror. Cadres of young activists, women, students, social justice advocates—whether Karachi or Khyber—found themselves in dungeons sanctioned by a military-political complex. The hearings were stacked, the charges manufactured, the message simple: move for justice and you move into our sights. The generals clapped their hands, Washington twisted the strings, and the civilian face of Pakistan trembled. The officer class may nominally obey the high command—but in quiet mess halls and among soldiers’ wives the whispers of outrage gather: “Why are we policing our own people? Why is Urdu-speaking Karachi the victim of our operations? Why do we trespass into forests and valleys and call them terror zones?”
In the borderlands the farce becomes terrifyingly concrete. The army, having once nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan to secure “strategic depth,” now bombs them—and blames them for terrorism. In this brain-twist of national strategy, the creator is recast as the adversary, the patron transformed into the provoked. The Pashtun civilian watches as homes are razed near the Durand Line, as refugees arrive on Pakistani soil bearing the costs of wars Pakistan helped manufacture, and as the generals portray them as fifth-column terrorists. The irony would be comical were it not so brutal.
And what of Kashmir? In the so-called “free” Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, huge anti-government demonstrations rage. A region whose inhabitants yearn for dignity, not just slogans. Under Imran Khan, new polling suggested the unthinkable: Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, despite seeing the abysmal conditions in Azad Kashmir, began to seriously consider joining Pakistan—not as another occupier but as a fortress of self-determination. The generals would rather you not notice that: they prefer the pre-scripted dispute, the perpetual conflict, the tortured rhetoric of “we stand with Kashmir” while the state stands with its own survival. The polls are telling: if Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is failing, the state itself is structurally unhealthy.
To be sure, the Pakistan military remains an institution of extraordinary capability. But capability is not legitimacy; nor is turf-control a foundation for national purpose. The generals continue to conflate war-power with nation-power, forgetting that true power is fostered by schools, by hospitals, by trust in institutions—and by consent, not coercion. And when a regime trades in foreign patronage—be it Washington’s dollars or Beijing’s infrastructure—but cannot deliver justice or dignity at home, the bargain has already been lost.
As the Iranian–Israeli conflict rages, as Gaza bleeds, and as the great-game intensifies in South Asia, Pakistan stands at a crossroads: obey its patrons, shrink its sovereignty, and reclaim the empire-client script—or reject the military’s primacy, embrace true independence, and build a republic that answers not to external powers but to its people. The generals will tell you that the choice is security; the civilians will whisper it is dignity.
Here is the truth the generals, the politicians, and the strategists don’t want you to admit: you cannot rule a nation by telling its people to be silent while you thunder abroad. You cannot build strategic depth on the graves of your own citizens. You cannot pretend to champion Palestine while allying with its oppressors. You cannot call yourself a sovereign state when your alliances define you more than your aspirations.
Pakistan’s military may still march on; its generals may still wield the levers of power; Washington may still fax orders and funnel funds. But the people—they are waking up. And once the echo of Imran Khan’s voice becomes a roar, no amount of bayonets, no arsenal of deals, no drums of war will silence it. The generals may hold the fortress of Rawalpindi, but they cannot hold the conscience of a nation. The struggle for that is already well underway—and the verdict will not wait.
US planning war with Venezuela to undermine Russia and China’s presence in South America – US mercenary
By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2025
Tensions in South America continue to escalate. Washington is promoting a naval siege of Venezuela, sending several military vessels—including aircraft-carriers and nuclear-capable submarines—to the Caribbean Sea. Furthermore, bombings of Venezuelan boats arbitrarily classified as belonging to drug traffickers have become frequent, resulting in the death of several Venezuelan citizens whose identities are still unknown.
There are many concerns about the future of this escalation. Some experts believe there will be an all-out war in South America, with US troops invading Venezuela in amphibious and aerial assaults, leading to a large-scale armed conflict. Other analysts believe that US President Donald Trump is simply bluffing and that no war will occur—or that there will be only a moderate conflict, with small-scale bombings.
Information from sources familiar with American military affairs seems to indicate an actual American willingness to attack the South American country. Jordan Goudreau, a well-known American mercenary and founder of Silvercorp PMC, recently stated that the US is interested in overthrowing the Venezuelan government to undermine “Moscow and Beijing’s influence” in the Americas.
Goudreau disagrees with analysts who emphasize the economic issue. According to him, the US has little interest in capturing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, with the real reason for the conflict being purely geostrategic in nature. The American mercenary asserts that the US does not want to allow its main geopolitical rivals, Russia and China, to have a strong partner country in the Americas, as this would give them an advantage in a hypothetical conflict scenario with Washington.
In this sense, for Goudreau, Washington will simply attempt to overthrow the government to gain political and territorial control of Venezuela, preventing it from continuing to engage in partnerships with Russia and China. He stated that there will be no improvement in the country if the Western-backed opposition takes power. He made it clear that the well-being of Venezuelans is not a concern for Washington, whose focus is on neutralizing Venezuela’s geostrategic potential for powers like Russia and China.
It is important to remember that Goudreau became globally known for his involvement in a previous regime change attempt in Venezuela. He revealed that in 2020 he signed a contract between his PMC and the Venezuelan opposition to launch a military operation against President Nicolás Maduro. At the time, American, Colombian, and Venezuelan expatriate mercenaries orchestrated the so-called “Operation Gideon,” launching an amphibious assault on the Macuto Bay region. The operation was a failure, with several mercenaries being killed or arrested by Venezuelan authorities, and the entire plan behind the assault—including the direct involvement of American authorities under the first Trump administration—became public.
Furthermore, Goudreau is also a prominent public figure on American military affairs in South America, particularly in Colombia—a country that, despite its current stance of solidarity with Venezuela, is historically aligned with the US and home to several American bases and PMCs. Goudreau is a military instructor in Colombia and leads a private security project for schools in the Cartagena region. This demonstrates his familiarity with American military affairs in South America. He certainly has access to strategically valuable information about Washington’s decision-making process in that region.
There’s another issue that few analysts are commenting on: the “compensatory” factor in Trump’s foreign policy. The American president was elected on a pacifist platform, promising to end the conflicts in which the US was involved, especially in Ukraine and the Middle East. Obviously, peace in Ukraine won’t be achieved so easily, as it involves factors that go far beyond the American president’s political will. However, he has been able to act as a mediator in other arenas, such as the Middle East, where Trump brokered an agreement between Hamas and Israel.
As well known, the military-industrial complex is one of the main lobbying groups in the US and exerts profound influence on Washington’s domestic and foreign policy. It is therefore normal that, given the de-escalation in some regions, domestic lobbyists are pressuring Trump to launch a new military campaign. Furthermore, Trump also claims a kind of US “right” to control political processes on the American continent, as a way to compensate for his policy of reducing the US’ global presence. Therefore, it is possible that Trump is artificially inflaming the crisis in Venezuela to “compensate” for his less aggressive stance in other regions.
However, starting a conflict in Venezuela could be a nightmare for the US. Venezuela’s geography makes it extremely difficult for military operations. The country is situated between the Caribbean and the Amazon rainforest. Ground operations would be nearly impossible in much of the Venezuelan territory. The US would have to rely almost exclusively on bombings from ships and fighter jets, as well as moderate amphibious raids. This could cause profound damage to Venezuela, but it would not be enough to neutralize local military—which include not only the armed forces and the Bolivarian Guard, but also a popular militia of millions of armed civilians.
Furthermore, Russia and China would not stop cooperating with Venezuela in all the sectors in which they already cooperate, including economic, technological, and military. Moscow and Beijing would obviously not intervene directly in the war, but they would not stop supporting Caracas—which is why the plan to neutralize Russian-Chinese “influence” would fail.
The best the US can do is de-escalate while there is still time and acknowledge that sovereign countries in the Americas have the right to cooperate with any power they choose.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Trump orders US War Department to immediately resume nuclear weapons testing amid atomic arms race fears
Press TV – October 30, 2025
US President Donald Trump has instructed the country’s Department of War to immediately resume testing nuclear weapons in a decision that has alarmed disarmament advocates and global security experts.
Posting on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump said he had issued the order “because of other countries testing programs.”
“That process will begin immediately,” he added.
The US president described Russia and China as respectively the second and third biggest nuclear armed powers in the world, alleging that if Washington did not resume the testing, the countries would catch up with it “within five years.”
The testing process is expected to provide data on how new warheads function and whether aging stockpiles remained reliable.
Trump’s remarks marked the most direct US call for renewed nuclear testing since Washington conducted its last live detonation in 1992.
Critics have warned that reviving live tests could destroy decades of painstaking non-proliferation efforts and invite a cascade of retaliatory tests worldwide, eroding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The United States opened the nuclear era in July 1945 with the detonation of a 20-kiloton bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, and weeks later resorted to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The latter catastrophe has etched Washington’s name in history as the only party in the world to ever actually deploy the non-conventional arms.
Observers say Trump’s Thursday move threatens to undo efforts by generations of global leaders to ensure the tragedy would never be repeated.
They have also warned about potential efforts by the Israeli regime, the US’s closest ally in West Asia and the only possessor of nuclear arms in the region, to try to justify further enhancing its deadly nuclear arsenal using the knowhow, which is to be acquired by Washington from the tests.
Trump, however, alleged that he “HATED” to issue the order “because of the tremendous destructive power,” but “had no choice!” because of his self-proclaimed fear of other nuclear armed powers’ catching up with Washington.
Last year, a report revealed that the United States planned to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on modernizing its nuclear arsenal.
Kremlin vows response if US violates nuclear moratorium
RT | October 30, 2025
Russia will respond “accordingly” if the US violates a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, citing strategic competition with Russia and China. “That process will begin immediately” in response to “other countries’ testing programs,” he said.
When asked about the issue by journalists later in the day, Peskov noted “the statement by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, which has been repeated many times, that, of course, if someone abandons the moratorium [on nuclear testing], then Russia will act accordingly.”
“The US is a sovereign country and has every right to make sovereign decisions,” he stressed.
Responding to Trump’s claims of other countries carrying out nuclear tests, Peskov said “we are so far not aware of this.”
“If it is about Burevestnik, then it is not a nuclear test,” he insisted. “All nations are developing their defense systems, but this is not a nuclear test.”
The Burevestnik is a new Russian state-of-the-art nuclear-capable cruise missile, powered by a small nuclear reactor that gives it a virtually unlimited range. The Russian military successfully tested the missile last week.
Washington test-fired an unarmed, nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile in February and launched four Trident II missiles from a submarine in September.
Russia last tested a nuclear weapon during the Soviet period in 1990. The US halted its testing in 1992 under a Congress-mandated moratorium.
According to a recent estimate by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US has 5,177 nuclear warheads, Russia has 5,459, and China is projected to reach 1,500 by 2035.
Russia reacts to NATO state minister’s threat to ‘wipe Moscow off the map’
RT | October 29, 2025
Russia has accused Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken of irresponsible rhetoric after he suggested that NATO could “wipe Moscow off the map.”
In an interview with De Morgen newspaper published on Monday, Francken brushed off concerns that the currently shelved delivery of US-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine could trigger an all-out war between Russia and NATO. He argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not use nuclear weapons because the US-led alliance “will wipe Moscow off the map.” Francken added that he did not fear a conventional attack on Brussels since it would result in Moscow getting “flattened.”
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko told the Russian daily RBC on Wednesday that Francken’s words were in line with “the atmosphere of military psychosis” prevalent in Western Europe.
The Russian Embassy in Belgium condemned Francken’s “provocative and irresponsible” statements as “sheer absurdity and total disconnect from reality.”
“Francken’s escapades are the most glaring manifestation of the militarist frenzy that is increasingly consuming the European war party,” the embassy said. It added that EU officials like Francken are “posing a threat to the continent’s future and [are] capable of plunging it into a new war.”
Moscow has repeatedly stated that the flooding of Ukraine with Western weapons would not stop its troops but only cause further escalation.
Leaked: Britain’s Ukrainian sniper training plot
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | October 29, 2025
Since the Ukraine proxy war’s eruption, a shadowy cabal of British academics has secretly advised the US National Security Council on escalatory strategies. Many of their recommendations – some inspired by ISIS – have been adopted by Washington. It’s uncertain whether one of the boldest proposals – to train Ukrainian snipers on American soil – was one way or another greenlit. More gravely, this effort was intended to set a trap for the Biden administration, luring the US into deeper involvement in the conflict.
A leaked document, authored in April 2022 by St. Andrews University lecturer and the British cabal’s chief NSC contact Marc DeVore, sets out a bold vision for Washington’s “non-profit associations, civil society and private sector businesses” to tutor Ukrainian sharpshooters. US citizens were reputed to possess “the wherewithal and… motivation to provide such training,” while DeVore judged Donbass’ “slow-moving” battlefield – with its emphasis on “urban combat” – to be “an environment ideal for snipers.”
DeVore believed neither Ukraine nor Russia were “well-provided with snipers”, due to their common military “Soviet heritage”. By contrast, the US was “ideally placed to help Ukraine fill this ‘sniper gap’”, due to the country’s “surfeit of snipers, including US Army and Marine Corps veterans with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the police snipers belonging to large numbers of SWAT teams.” Moreover, DeVore venerated “high standards of civilian marksmanship” in the US, due to “large” national networks of “rifle ranges and shooting clubs.”
The ability to purchase “the world’s most competitive sniper rifles” legally Stateside was an added bonus. Nonetheless, the true icing on the cake, per DeVore, was triangulating the Biden administration into formally endorsing Western arming and training of Ukrainian forces. The academic bemoaned how to date, Washington had been “timid” in offering direct assistance to Kiev, such as avoiding “overtly providing heavy weaponry”, due to “excessive fears of Russian retaliation/escalation,” and a “desire to maintain…deniability” in delivering such assistance.
As such, DeVore believed the sniper training program would offer war-ravenous Republicans the opportunity to “pressure and shame the [US] government into more overtly training Ukrainian forces,” and “openly [criticise] the President for not using the government’s resources to do so.” The academic predicted Biden would “respond to this criticism by publicly revealing more of the US government’s training activities.” That, combined with “Russia’s likely non-response”, would “open the door for the US to further increase the training and equipment it is providing,” DeVore fantasised.
“However, the Biden Administration [responds] to the private-sector training would hand hawkish Republicans a victory,” he forecast. A US-based Ukrainian sniper training program “would also give Republican politicians valuable talking points” for attacking the President. Were the White House to resultantly increase open support for Kiev, “then Republicans could claim credit for forcing him to do so.” If Biden alternatively “sought to circumscribe the training,” gun rights organisations and opposition governors could “wage a popular legal battle against the federal government” to force its reinstatement.
Both would “stand to benefit substantially from the positive public relations” generated both by overseeing the sniper training program, and the ensuing opportunity to “embarrass the Biden administration much more” over its supposedly lackluster backing for the proxy conflict. Still, the ultimate goal was to ensure “much more widespread training of Ukrainian military personnel in the West.” US acquiescence was “necessary for NATO to be able to enhance Ukrainian military capabilities to such a level that Ukraine can bring this war to an acceptable conclusion.”
DeVore drew inspiration for the project from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, when US military magazine Soldier Of Fortune instigated sniper training for Bosniaks and Croats fighting Belgrade’s forces. The outlet, read by wannabe mercenaries and US army veterans, was founded by Robert K. Brown, a retired Lieutenant Colonel “who felt deeply sympathetic to the Croatians and Bosnians fighting for their independence.” Brown thus bankrolled and encouraged readers “with sniping experience” to travel to the region, “and organize a crash course” for sharpshooters.
Locals who were “pretty good shots” were identified, “and swiftly trained…to a standard where they contributed powerfully” to their wars against the Yugoslav army. Moreover, pupils “wrote articles on their activities for Soldier of Fortune, selling magazines and raising awareness” of their independence struggles. DeVore sought to repeat the success of this “non-governmental” training on a “larger scale”. He envisaged enlisting “firearms related non-profits and businesses… to contribute to bringing this about.”
DeVore believed “ideally”, a “major national gun rights” organisation in the US, such as the National Rifle Association “or one of its rivals” would “play a coordinating role.” He foresaw “rifle ranges [being] asked to donate range time, ammunition makers to contribute bullets, and individuals with relevant marksmanship or sniper experience to volunteer their skills.” Pro-proxy war state governors “could also publicly embrace the movement by allowing state forests and National Guard facilities to be used for training”:
“Launching a civil society sniper training program in the [US] could therefore benefit from ideal circumstances, including; a networking of long range ranges where marksmen can be trained; highly skilled snipers and firearms instructors capable of teaching Ukrainians both the fieldcraft and weapons skills they need, and; a significant Ukrainian diaspora in the USA and Canada who could provide volunteers for training.”
DeVore went on to declare that “a large number” Ukrainians living abroad “who want to fight” in the proxy war were “being held back by their [lack] of experience,” suggesting “offering specialist training to… volunteers” among Kiev’s diaspora. Once taught, they would “return home with valuable skills, materially aiding Ukraine’s cause.” More generally, “if friendly governments and civilians help by training critical specialists, it will speed up the process of forming new units and make those that are formed significantly more effective.”
DeVore believed the training should “take place in a two stage process.” First, students would be taught “marksmanship”, during which they fired “thousands of rounds of ammunition to develop the necessary accuracy, rifle maintenance and range estimation skills” at rifle ranges across the US. “The infrastructure and teaching skills needed for this variety of training are fairly common,” he wrote, adding, “the dispersed nature of the training would simplify the accommodation of trainees,” with only a “small number” of pupils housed “near each individual range”.
Once trainees achieved “an adequate level of marksmanship,” they would be schooled by former snipers “in the more specialized skills of camouflage, concealment, infiltration, stalking and other forms of tradecraft.” DeVore proposed conducting this phase “in a combination of forested lands and simulated urban environments” – “large disused factories such as exist in the upper Midwest would be ideal for this purpose.” Upon completing this cycle, “snipers will be transported to Ukraine, where they can put their new-found skills to use.”
DeVore suggested “positive publicity” from being associated with the program “would be a major inducement for guns rights groups” due to “Financial corruption scandals and the need to defend permissive firearms laws in the wake of mass shootings,” which have “tarnished the image” of these organisations at home and abroad. “Training volunteer snipers for a popular war would provide a public relations bonanza for the organization that spearheads the effort,” the academic mused.
If training for Ukrainian snipers was provided on US soil, it wasn’t conducted in the highly public, politicised manner DeVore advocated. Nonetheless, the mainstream media has acknowledged Kiev’s sharpshooters are dependent on high-end American-made rifles and ammunition, and ongoing shipments of this equipment are no secret. Yet, the profusion of US sniper rifles on the battlefields of Donbass has failed to tilt the frontline in Ukraine’s favour one inch – in the precise manner of so many other British-influenced and concocted proxy war grand schemes.
As this journalist has extensively documented, all Kiev’s gravest military disasters, such as the October 2023 – June 2024 Krynky catastrophe, were planned in London. That effort saw wave after wave of British-trained Ukrainian marines attempt to secure a beachhead in Russian-occupied territory, before marching on Crimea and outright victory in the war. Planning was heavily-informed by a desire to recreate the Normandy landings – D-Day – based on fantastical, Hollywood conceptions of that operation. Coincidentally, so too was DeVore’s sniper training program.
In the leaked document, DeVore suggested his plan would have significant political and public appeal due to “the popularity of fictional resistance narratives, going back to Red Dawn.” In that movie, a gang of American teenage guerrillas successfully beat back an invasion of the US by Soviet forces – a compelling filmic narrative, but hardly a basis for actual war-fighting tactics, one might reasonably think. Such are the dangers of outsourcing battle strategy to academics thousands of miles removed from the frontline, with no military experience.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Crusades – colliding narratives
Ashes of Pompeii | June 13, 2026
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
- Iran deputy FM says MoU with US finalized, to be signed in Geneva on Friday
- With one strike, Netanyahu tries to kill two peace deals
- Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
- Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
- Desperate Starmer choosing piracy as distraction over UK crime crisis – Putin envoy
- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- If Americans Knew
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 