For decades, the debate over national defense in Brazil has been treated as a secondary issue. In a country with no significant border disputes and far removed from the world’s principal conflict zones, the prevailing perception has been that substantial military investments are unnecessary. The result of this mindset is an increasingly evident paradox: Brazil ranks among the countries with the largest military budgets in the world in absolute terms, yet it continues to display significant limitations in operational capabilities, strategic production, and deterrence.
Recently, I had access to a study prepared by Brazilian Navy Commander Robinson Farinazzo, based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which highlights a striking reality. Between 2015 and 2024, Brazil accumulated approximately US$214 billion in military expenditures, while Iran spent roughly US$134 billion during the same period. In other words, Brazil invested about 60 percent more resources in defense than Iran over the past decade.
However, a simple comparison of spending figures reveals very little about the actual military capabilities of each country. Brazil allocates the overwhelming majority of its defense budget to maintaining its existing structure. Salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses consume most of the available resources, leaving relatively little room for research and development, procurement, weapons acquisition, and technological modernization. This model preserves a large and professional military force, but significantly limits the pace at which its operational capabilities can be renewed.
Iran, by contrast, has followed a fundamentally different approach. Despite decades of economic sanctions, financial isolation, and severe restrictions on importing military equipment, Tehran invested heavily in building a comprehensive domestic defense industrial base. Unable to rely on foreign suppliers, the country directed its resources toward the development of ballistic missiles, drones, air defense systems, and local weapons production. Ironically, the sanctions intended to undermine Iran’s strategic autonomy ended up encouraging a high degree of self-sufficiency across multiple sectors of its defense industry.
This divergence in priorities has become particularly relevant in today’s international environment. In an era characterized by growing competition among major powers, the ability to manufacture weapons domestically, sustain national industrial supply chains, and rapidly adapt military technologies has become just as important as the nominal size of a country’s defense budget. In this respect, Iran’s experience demonstrates that the efficiency with which resources are allocated can be as decisive as the total amount spent.
The contrast with Brazil is unavoidable. The country possesses a respectable defense industrial base responsible for projects such as the KC-390 military transport aircraft, the ASTROS rocket artillery system, the Guarani armored vehicle, and the PROSUB submarine program. Nevertheless, these achievements coexist with decades of inconsistent investment, recurring budget cuts, and the absence of a long-term state policy aimed at continuously strengthening Brazil’s defense industrial and technological capabilities.
Even more concerning is the fact that Brazil operates in a geopolitical environment that is incomparably less hostile than the one confronting Iran. While Tehran has spent decades under international sanctions, surrounded by regional adversaries and subjected to sustained external pressure, Brasília benefits from regional stability, abundant natural resources, and relatively broad access to international markets. Yet Brazil has failed to transform these favorable conditions into a coherent strategy for strengthening its deterrent capabilities.
The principal lesson from this comparison is not that Brazil should replicate the Iranian model, nor should it overlook the profound political, economic, and strategic differences between the two countries. The conclusion is far simpler: financial resources alone do not guarantee military power. Without long-term planning, sustained investment, a strengthened domestic defense industry, and priority given to research and technological innovation, even substantial defense budgets produce limited strategic results.
The world is entering a period of growing geopolitical instability. In this context, Brazil’s real challenge is not simply determining how much to spend on defense, but defining which capabilities it intends to develop over the coming decades. Otherwise, it will continue spending billions merely to sustain an existing structure that, while important, fails to meet the strategic requirements of a continental-sized nation with increasingly significant interests on the international stage.
Raytheon sponsors the Girl Scouts of America. BAE Systems is reading your toddlers their favorite fairytale stories. And Lockheed Martin funds children’s math and STEM festivals. This is done with great fanfare, supposedly to empower and inspire children to pursue their passion for science. In reality, though, these companies are attempting to launder their images and enlist the next generation to become cogs in the military-industrial complex.
All the while, these organizations’ products are being used across the world by the United States and Israel to commit war crimes – in Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and beyond – to target children.
MintPress explores the murky world of the arms companies training kids to bomb kids.
Normalizing War to Kids
When many Americans think of Raytheon (now officially rebranded as RTX Corporation), they don’t envisage rockets and cruise missiles; they think of math. For decades, the second-largest arms manufacturer on the planet has bankrolled a wide range of organizations aimed at getting children excited about STEM subjects.
Since 2009, Raytheon has been the title sponsor of MATHCOUNTS, a non-profit organization that provides engaging math programs for middle school students in every U.S. state, as well as organizing math competitions to find the brightest children in America.
In 2005, Raytheon launched its MathMovesU program, aimed, in its own words, “to inspire middle school students to get excited about math and science.” In addition to the materials provided, it has also spent millions on scholarships, grants, and study awards to thousands of students, teachers, and volunteers.
And its MathAlive! traveling exhibit promises, in rather outdated branding, to take math “2theXtreme”. MathAlive! Has also traveled to several countries in West Asia, including Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – all of them among the biggest purchasers of Raytheon weapons technology.
The company also enjoys a longtime partnership with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). In 2017, for example, it launched the GSUSA’s first national computer science program and cyber challenge for middle and high school girls.
“The progress to diversify the STEM workforce needs to be accelerated… At a time when technology is transforming the way we live and work, we can – and should – show young women a clear path to taking an active role in this transformation,” said Thomas A. Kennedy, then-Raytheon CEO; “Working together, Raytheon and Girl Scouts will help girls build confidence to see themselves as the robotics engineers, data scientists and cybersecurity professionals who will create a better tomorrow.”
Raytheon also spearheaded the GSUSA’s “Think Like a Programmer” project, which encourages girls to explore the world of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and developed many of the programming badges available to the scouts.
GSUSA appears proud of this relationship. Its website profiles one former scout who now works at Raytheon as a success story and a model to follow. The article includes a step-by-step guide and a list of tips for those wishing to follow in her footsteps.
Unsurprisingly, Raytheon also works closely with the U.S. military on these matters, establishing four new STEM “centers of innovation” with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., all near military bases.
While some might be surprised by the closeness of the relationship between a children’s organization and an arms manufacturer, it is worth remembering that the scouting movement was originally established by Lieutenant-General Robert Baden-Powell, as a stepping stone towards boys joining the military. Baden-Powell was deeply concerned that English boys would not be physically fit enough to fight for their country in any upcoming wars, and designed an organization that would train them both physically and mentally to do so.
Kirsten Bayes from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade was unimpressed by Raytheon’s attempts to improve their image and to train the next generation of weapons manufacturers. “Our view is that arms companies have no place in schools or colleges, and should certainly not be working with children’s educational charities,” she told MintPress, adding:
“Schools and other places of education should be places where children learn, grow and develop their full potential. They should not be a recruiting ground where arms companies whitewash their activities.”
Lockheed Martin U
But Raytheon is far from the only weapons giant directly targeting America’s children. Lockheed Martin hosts CYBERQUEST, an annual high school competition that encourages children to pursue careers in intelligence and cybersecurity. The 2026 event was held in 11 locations across the country, as well as virtually around the world. The arms giant offers high school internship programs designed to fast-track America’s brightest young minds into careers in defense. Every year, Lockheed Martin hires thousands of young interns, and claims that 60% of these candidates go on to paid work at the company.
It also sponsors “young minds at work” days, setting up hands-on experiments for children to play with, including bottle rocket experiments and more.
Universities are a key recruitment ground. The corporation spends huge sums attracting top talent, including hosting “Lockheed Martin Day” at more than a dozen colleges nationwide, where company recruiters are allowed on campus to dazzle students with virtual reality exhibitions, flight simulators, and even landing helicopters directly on college greens.
Lockheed Martin has entered into partnerships with several top colleges. A $1.5 million donation to the University of Texas at Arlington, for instance, resulted in the renamed of one of their buildings as the Lockheed Martin Career Development Center.
The company touts its reputation as a safe space for women and LGBT employees, and is regularly listed as one of the best employers for inclusivity. One woman the company itself profiles is Haley, who, as a girl, dreamed of becoming an inventor. “As a child,” they write, “Haley clung to a notebook where she sketched her ideas and inventions. On the cover she scribbled, ‘Haley’s Way to Make Life Better.’ Her best idea? A self-folding Christmas tree cleverly called ‘Merry, Bright and Boxed’ to make cleaning up after the holidays more efficient.” Today, that child with dreams of making the world a better place is a missiles and fire control engineer with Lockheed Martin, developing weapons that efficiently kill people all across the planet.
Targeting Toddlers
Boeing, too, has developed a number of projects aimed at young children. Their “Engineering is Elementary” program is designed for pre-K, kindergarten, elementary and middle school students, and, like those from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is focussed on funnelling young minds into a career in weapons manufacturing. “Boeing has a strategic community focus to increase teacher effectiveness in math and science and to attract more students into STEM-related careers,” a company representative said, adding,
“Engineering is Elementary provides teachers and students a greater understanding of engineering, and it accomplishes that in a fun, interactive way. Our goal is to interest students in engineering at an early age and increase the number of scientists and engineers.”
Aerospace manufacturer BAE Systems, however, goes even further. The London-based giant that produces jet aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and warships published a series of bizarre videos featuring both its employees and members of the British Armed Forces reading classic fairytales to children. This included Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Hansel and Gretel. These came complete with worksheets to help extremely young children with their problem-solving skills.
Reading bedtime stories to babies is just part of a wider strategy BAE Systems is conducting in order to, in their own words, “improve our corporate reputation at both a local and national level.” Other initiatives include hosting school roadshows, robotics festivals, science camps, and local community outreach programs, all aimed at children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it also stepped in to provide schools with branded learning materials for children as young as five.
Bayes appeared appalled at the company’s actions, stating:
“We are aware that BAE Systems claims to spend as much as £100m [U.S.$134m] per year on educational activities. It claims its motives are community based, but we would say that this is part of their recruiting strategy: seeking to influence young people without presenting the full facts of what an arms company is, and what the consequences of working for them would be.”
Fairytales and Nightmares
As much as these companies attempt to present themselves neutrally as scientific entities, the reality is that their primary businesses revolve around producing the hardware and weaponry that the United States uses to dominate the world.
In the past twelve months alone, the United States has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. And it is companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that make this kind of extraordinary planetary violence possible.
For example, on February 28, the United States launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran. A Tomahawk cruise missile – one of the most precise guided weapons on the planet – was launched from a nearby warship and pummelled the building, causing the school to collapse in on itself. Soon after, a second missile hit the school’s courtyard, where desperate survivors were gathering.
The attack was timed precisely for maximum damage: 10:45am on a school day. At least 156 people were killed, most of them pupils at the school, which neither served any military purpose, nor was located near any military target. Over 100 more were injured.
The event was immediately denounced as a major war crime. But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth brushed it off, and later stated that, “The only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they’re going to live.”
The Tomahawk cruise missile is produced by Raytheon, and subsystemsused in the operation were made by a subsidiary of BAE Systems.
Washington also uses its primacy in weapons to keep its allies in power. Saudi Arabia is by far the U.S.’ top arms customer, purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hi-tech weaponry, which it immediately uses against Yemen, and to suppress domestic dissent.
Riyadh has pursued a genocidal attack on civilian infrastructure in Yemen, including against farms, sewage, and water facilities, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In August 2018, it dropped a 227 kg (500lb) laser-guided bomb on a school bus in Dhahyan, northern Yemen. Fragments found at the scene identified the bomb as having been produced by Lockheed Martin. Forty children were killed in the attack – a far from uncommon occurrence during the Saudi-led campaign to topple Ansar Allah from power.
If Saudi Arabia is Washington’s biggest customer, then Israel is its prime recipient of welfare. A study from Brown University found that in the two years following the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel, including aircraft, missiles, and all manner of small arms munitions.
Israel has used these weapons to systematically target children in Gaza and beyond. At least 97% of schools in the densely-populated strip have been hit. One of the more notable examples was the Khadija Girls’ School in Deir al-Balah, which was targeted on July 27, 2024. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Israel dropped at least two GBU-39 bombs on the school – munitions manufactured in the United States by Boeing.
Thus, while arms manufacturers read fairytales to Western kids, children across the world are forced to live out a very real nightmare, thanks in no small part to these companies.
Whether they live in the United States or one of the countries under its boot, however, children everywhere are being targeted by these weapons firms, though in different ways. In the United States, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others have stepped in to bolster cash-strapped education departments. While their rhetoric emphasizes empowering children – especially girls – to follow their science dreams, their true intent is to launder their reputations as merchants of death, and to train up the next generation of Americans to become willing members of the American war machine.
Children on the other side of the globe, however, are given no such illusions, and have to live with the constant terror that they be these companies’ next victims. This image, is not the one the likes of Raytheon want us to think about when we picture their products, and so they spend millions attempting to distract us with stories of empowerment and discovery. What a world we live in, where weapons companies are training kids to bomb kids.
In an unusual statement given the turbulent relations of recent years, Brazilian President Lula defended the rearmament and modernization of Brazil’s Armed Forces. According to him, Brazil must have strong armed forces, even if it does not intend to use them, but as deterrent forces to prevent direct interference from foreign powers in the country.
The statement took place at an event organized under the auspices of Avibras Aeroco, an important strategic company in the Brazilian defense sector. Avibras is best known for producing the Astros anti-aircraft systems, which are operated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, Angola, Indonesia, Malaysia and, naturally, Brazil itself. In addition to the Astros, Avibras also produces various types of armored personnel carriers and some other anti-aircraft equipment such as the SKYFIRE and the EDT-FILA. The company is also developing an anti-ship missile, a laser-guided missile, a fiber-optic guided missile, an air-to-air missile and an upgrade to the Astros.
Such a high level of activity on Avibras’s part is notable because the company only resumed its operations in May-June 2026, after more than 4 years of total operational standstill. Avibras’s problems began during the pandemic era (which leads us to reflect once again on the role of health crisis management in the deindustrialization of numerous countries and the destruction of their middle classes). While most relevant defense industry companies worldwide are subsidized or receive some type of government support, Brazil had been treating its companies in this sector as private enterprises like any other for decades. Thus, with reduced orders and the impossibility of travel, Avibras gradually became unable to pay its debts, salaries and cover its operational costs. In 2022, all activities are halted and a strike begins over more than 1 year of overdue wages.
Meanwhile, foreign companies (especially from Australia, Saudi Arabia and China) showed interest in acquiring Avibras, which could result in an uncomfortable and uninteresting situation, especially if Avibras were acquired by Australia.
A mobilization of patriotic sectors of Brazilian society, however, throughout this entire period, managed to exert enough pressure on the government to convince it of Avibras’s importance, leading to new contracts with the Armed Forces, a bankruptcy protection agreement and the end of the workers’ strike.
The Avibras case – which points to a renewal of interest in military affairs on the part of the Brazilian State – is not isolated, however.
Brazil’s military spending rose about 13% in 2025, but the country remained in 21st place globally – a ridiculous level given the country’s size and its international leadership aspirations. For 2026, a 6% increase was forecast, and at the end of 2025, approximately 6 billion extra dollars were also approved, due to budgetary limits for specific modernization projects.
The modernization projects in question fall within the logic of the Transformation Policy, a document built from observation of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East. Based on this document, Brazil’s Armed Forces defined as part of their objectives the expansion of military drone use, the development of anti-drone systems, the national-level integration of sensor and radar systems and the expansion of cyber warfare capabilities.
Specifically, the project aimed at integrating and connecting military sensors, radars, satellites, aircraft and electronic systems is SISFRON (Integrated Border Monitoring System), which is set to receive approximately 600 million dollars. The drones used in this system will be from Israel’s Elbit.
Another program receiving historic attention from Brazil is Prosub, aimed at developing conventional submarines and nuclear-powered submarines, the result of a partnership with France dating back to 2008. Needless to say, for 14 years of cooperation this Brazil-France partnership has little to show so far, but there are promises that this year and next summer will see the delivery and launching of submarines.
The Brazilian Navy also expanded its fleet through the incorporation of a new frigate – to NATO standards – developed jointly by Brazil’s Embraer and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp.
The Air Force’s focus, in turn, is the Gripen Program, the result of a long-standing cooperation between Brazil and Sweden, which is only now yielding results. The Gripen fighters are assembled in Brazilian factories, and Brazil recently set aside a budget of approximately 400 million dollars for this program, which eventually envisions a fleet of 56 modern fighters.
There is also the recent formalization of a contract with the Italian CIO consortium for the acquisition of Centauro II armored vehicles, for use on Brazil’s borders, with a budget of approximately 1 billion dollars to acquire approximately 100 combat vehicles.
It is important to note that the fact that Brazil has understood the need to improve its Armed Forces is reassuring, and we imagine that the U.S. attack on Venezuela was one of the elements that reinforced this conviction and facilitated the acceleration of plans and the expansion of budgets.
It is also noteworthy that few of the projects and plans under development involve the U.S., which is peculiar considering the umbilical ties that exist between the U.S. Armed Forces and Brazil’s Armed Forces since World War II. Recently, the Commander of the Brazilian Navy, Marcos Olsen, reaffirmed the commitment to a doctrinal alignment of Brazil’s Armed Forces with the U.S. in an interview with CNN. But now, Brazil is preferring not to acquire its equipment or develop joint projects with the U.S., with the exception of the recent plan to acquire outdated (and used) Black Hawk helicopters.
It should also be noted that most of these partnerships developed by Brazil involve technology transfer, which is always of interest to Brazil and has guided Brasília’s international cooperation decisions. Agreements with the U.S. rarely involve technology transfer.
At the same time, however, it is striking that all the projects involve cooperation with NATO countries or their close allies, such as the State of Israel. Even with technology transfer, cooperation with countries like France and Israel raises concerns.
France is a country already notorious for handing over Argentine military secrets to its British allies during the Falklands War. Meanwhile, Israel has a history of placing backdoors in all electronic systems sold to foreign countries since the PROMIS case of the 1980s.
This is, then, clearly a crossroads situation in which the Brazilian government’s stance of not taking a geopolitical position and maintaining a certain “neutrality” facilitates the strengthening of ties with countries that are very clearly involved in international conflicts on the globalist and Atlanticist side of the equation.
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
This week, the Navy retired a littoral combat ship only halfway through its lifespan.
The USS Fort Worth, a surface combatant ship which cost $400 million to build, entered service in 2012. It was originally meant to serve until the late 2030s, but was retired early due to chronic repair issues and related costs, and longstanding concerns regarding its overall viability.
A major issue for the USS Fort Worth was its combining gear, which connects its gas turbine and engines to its water jet shafts. The combining gear took critical damage back in 2016 when crew members failed to follow proper procedures while testing its engines, rendering the boat functionally unusable.
The Navy initially scheduled the USS Fort Worth’s retirement for 2022, after only ten years of service. However, the Navy repurposed the ship instead, using it to test new technologies at a port in San Diego.
“By retiring early-hull test platforms like Fort Worth, the Navy redirects investments toward upgrading the remaining LCS inventory with enhanced capabilities,” the Navy said in a statement this week. Its retirement helps ensure “the active ships remain relevant, combat-credible, and reliable throughout their service lives.”
But, as Dan Grazier, the director of the Stimson Center’s National Security reform program, tells RS : “The whole Littoral Combat Ship concept has failed.”
“It’s a poorly designed ship that [has an] excessive maintenance burden,” Grazier said. To Grazier’s point, a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found the Navy “hasn’t demonstrated that this type of ship can perform its intended missions,” and that it was less likely than its counterparts to withstand combat.
The USS Fort Worth’s untimely demise is representative of a broader procurement crisis, where the Navy has repeatedly failed to deploy reliable ships that can perform their intended function.
Rather, as Grazier tells RS, the Navy has often opted to build elaborately designed ships with unproven technologies, which often do not work as planned.
“The Navy’s now feeling the real consequences of years of bad policy,” Grazier said. “The size of the fleet is shrinking.”
The Navy originally planned to buy 55 littoral combat ships; it cut back to 32 in 2014 as questions mounted about the program’s viability. It now has 27.
A July 24 Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital hit a drone factory belonging to Terminal Autonomy – a Delaware-HQ’ed maker of low-cost UAV and AI navigation systems.
The attack deprived Ukraine’s military of a key long-range strike drone capability in the form of AQ-400 Scythe (32kg payload, 750km range) and AQ-100 Bayonet (4kg, 60km) drones.
More importantly, it sent Zelensky’s NATO “partners” an unmistakable message: if they set up shop in Ukraine, their manufacturing facilities will be targeted.
“I do expect that the strikes on Western facilities as and when they are identified will continue and probably intensify,” veteran French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik, adding that he expects “growing dissention and disagreement” within NATO on how to react.
“So far the EU and its allies, particularly the US, have hidden as far as they could any losses and even denied that their facilities or personnel were attacked and hit. That policy will probably continue for as long as possible, but the resolve will also probably be very weakened eventually,” given the difficulty of “selling” it to these countries’ respective populations.
As for immediate consequences, they may include:
the “postponement” of new NATO weapons manufacturing contracts in Ukraine
more production in neighboring countries
most importantly, a blow to Ukraine’s attempt to sell itself as a nascent global manufacturer of drone hardware, including for the conflicts in the Middle East.
July 31, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | NATO, Russia, Ukraine |
Comments Off on Russian Strike on US Drone Factory in Kiev Makes Clear – NATO’s Overseas MIC Footprint Is Fair Game
The German government is developing a “secret plan” to prevent regional authorities from potentially obstructing the deployment of NATO troops to the Russian border, according to a joint investigation by The Telegraph and Die Welt.
The “contingency” measures are reportedly driven by fears that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could secure enough support in upcoming regional elections in two eastern states to form local governments.
Known for criticizing Berlin’s anti-Russia policies as harmful to Germany’s national interests, the right-wing party has grown to become the country’s most popular political force after once again being excluded from last year’s federal coalition talks.
In the state of Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD currently enjoys the support of 41% of voters, a recent survey suggested, compared with only 24% for Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In the northeastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD is polling at 36%, seven points ahead of its closest competitors, the Social Democratic Party.
Berlin has long accused the AfD of extremism, while Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has claimed that the party has “undeniable” ties to Russia and must be deprived of access to classified information if it comes to power.
The federal government is now seeking a way to rein in what The Telegraph bluntly described as “pro-Kremlin traitor states” in the event that NATO decides it is time to go to war with Moscow.
NATO roundabout
The scenario centers on NATO’s Reinforcement and Sustainment Network, which involves moving large troop contingents, heavy equipment, and logistical supplies to bloc members in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. Germany is set to play the role of what The Telegraph and Die Welt described as NATO’s “roundabout,” with its geographical location making it a central logistics hub.
The head of Germany’s Joint Operations Command, Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, stated last year that Berlin is prepared for a war with Moscow and stands ready to facilitate the deployment of 800,000 NATO troops toward the Russian border in less than six months.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of attacking NATO unless attacked first and has dismissed such allegations as “nonsense” designed to justify Russophobic hysteria and rampant militarization.
Nevertheless, the NATO mechanism could be triggered without any hostile move by Russia, “at the first sign” reported by a Western intelligence service that Moscow was preparing an attack, according to The Telegraph.
Protests and obstructionism
The issue poses significant challenges for Berlin because such a deployment would technically take place before any conflict with Russia had actually broken out, while regional authorities enjoy broad powers over activities on their territory during peacetime.
An uncooperative regional government could potentially delay troop movements through “bureaucratic obstructionism” by withholding the necessary permits or refusing to provide NATO troops with police escorts and priority access to local roads.
Merz’s government also reportedly expects the deployment to trigger protests among local residents and debates within regional authorities about the extent to which they want to become involved in a process that could “expose them as part of NATO’s logistical hub.”
Bending the rules
Under German law, the federal government has very few ways to limit states’ independence short of declaring a state of emergency or imposing martial law. “The key question is how to circumvent a state not adhering to the federal idea without violating the constitution,” Roderich Kiesewetter, an MP from Merz’s CDU, told The Telegraph and Die Welt, adding that the Interior Ministry is drawing up relevant plans.
Berlin has already set the secret plan in motion to “create mechanisms that would make it possible to overrule individual states or to take the necessary measures,” added Tobias Krull, deputy chairman of the Saxony-Anhalt parliament’s Interior Committee.
Few details have emerged about what such plans could entail, but nationwide emergency regulations are reportedly being revised as part of the scheme. “Federal law takes precedence over state law – it’s as simple as that,” an unnamed lawmaker told the outlets.
Germany’s Basic Law allows for so-called “federal enforcement” if a regional government violates an obligation under federal law, but the clause has never been invoked.
During a state of emergency or under martial law, the federal parliament could also activate certain provisions allowing the government to intervene in state affairs and simplify military logistics. This would still require a two-thirds majority – something Merz’s government would be unlikely to secure, given that the AfD controls more than 23% of the seats in the Bundestag, while another 10% are held by the Left – another party the chancellor has ruled out cooperating with.
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses how the dramatic developments in the Ukraine War conflict with NATO’s “Ukraine is winning” narrative. Prof. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago
NATO announced Thursday that the air forces of Italy, Spain, and Turkey will deploy fighter jets to the alliance’s eastern flank as part of efforts to reinforce air patrols and strengthen NATO air defense operations.
“The Italian Air Force, Spanish Air and Space Force and Turkish Air Force will deploy their fighter jets to contribute to the security of NATO airspace along the Eastern Flank, as part of the NATO Air Defence mission,” the alliance said in a statement.
NATO said the deployments are intended to support allied deterrence, protect its airspace, and reinforce military readiness along the eastern flank.
Turkey sends F-16 fighters to Estonia
NATO said Turkey will deploy five F-16 fighter aircraft and around 80 personnel to Estonia’s Amari Air Base for the first time.
The Turkish deployment will contribute to NATO’s air policing mission as the alliance continues rotating forces across its eastern members.
Italy will also send four Typhoon fighter jets and more than 100 personnel to Lithuania’s Siauliai Air Base.
Italy and Spain reinforce NATO air patrols
Spain will deploy seven F-18 fighter jets and around 200 personnel to Romania’s Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, according to NATO.
The Spanish deployment will also include an A400M aircraft for aerial refueling and three NH-90 helicopters assigned to counter-drone operations.
NATO said the new units will replace Portuguese, Romanian, and French forces currently involved in the alliance’s eastern flank air defense mission.
The deployments come as NATO continues strengthening its military presence along its eastern borders amid heightened tensions in Europe.
Russia warns of escalating NATO activity in Baltic
Russia accused NATO earlier this year of significantly expanding its military operations in the Baltic Sea, particularly near the Kaliningrad region, warning that the alliance’s growing presence poses risks to regional stability and international navigation.
Artem Bulatov, special envoy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, stated that NATO is intensifying efforts to enhance its combat capabilities and infrastructure in areas adjacent to Kaliningrad, pointing to a sustained military buildup under various operational frameworks.
According to Bulatov, NATO launched its Baltic Sentry mission in January 2025 under the stated aim of protecting critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, while continuing extensive air patrols and expanding the scope of its exercises.
Member states engaging in ‘provocative’ actions
He added that the scale and frequency of NATO drills have increased, alongside provocative actions by member states targeting vessels involved in transporting goods to and from Russia.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko warned that these activities are creating “serious threats” to international shipping routes and economic operations in the region, suggesting that NATO’s mission is effectively aimed at controlling key logistical corridors.
Grushko further argued that the alliance’s operations are designed to restrict the movement of goods linked to Russia, raising concerns in Moscow over the militarization of maritime routes in the Baltic.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has issued a diplomatic warning to Bulgaria over reports that the country is preparing to host US military aircraft, while simultaneously securing assurances from Cyprus that foreign bases on its territory will not be used for hostile actions against the Islamic Republic.
In a telephone conversation with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ventsislava Petrova on Thursday, Araghchi firmly condemned Sofia’s reported agreement to allow the United States to station military aircraft at the Bezmer air base.
Tehran views the move as a direct contribution to US military posturing and tension-building in West Asia.
“Allowing the territory of one state to be used by another state for the purpose of committing an act of aggression against a third state constitutes an act of aggression itself,” Araghchi stated, citing Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which defines acts of aggression under international law.
The Iranian foreign minister emphasized that such a decision is unacceptable and contradicts the traditional friendly relations between the two nations, urging the Bulgarian government to urgently reconsider its stance.
He reiterated that the Islamic Republic will not hesitate to defend its national security and interests, warning that “any party that participates in any way in a military attack against Iran must bear responsibility for its consequences.”
In response, the Bulgarian foreign ninister recalled the historically good relations between the two countries, asserting that Bulgaria has no intention of participating in any war and reaffirming its commitment to diplomacy and regional de-escalation.
Securing neutrality in Cyprus
In a separate diplomatic push, Minister Araghchi spoke with Cypriot Foreign Minister Konstantinos Kombos, stressing the critical importance of preventing hostile forces from misusing foreign military bases stationed in Cyprus to target Iran.
The Cypriot foreign minister affirmed his country’s commitment to the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Kombos announced that Cyprus has been in direct contact with the UK government and has received explicit assurances that the foreign military bases on the island will not be used against any country, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The diplomatic warnings come amid reports that the Bulgarian government is seeking parliamentary approval to station up to eight US aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the Bezmer military facility, located southeast of Sofia.
These aircraft are primarily used to extend the operational range of US or Israeli strike fighters, a move Tehran interprets as logistical preparation for potential military escalation.
The development occurs against a backdrop of heightened regional tensions.
Following the unraveling of a previous interim ceasefire, the United States has intensified its military footprint and aggressive rhetoric in the region.
Iranian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, have previously warned that any activity facilitating US attacks on Iran amounts to complicity in aggression and war crimes.
Tehran has consistently maintained that it will not tolerate its sovereignty being threatened by foreign military buildups in the region.
Donald Trump entered the July 7th/8th NATO summit having recently condemned the alliance as a “paper tiger” over its collective failure to abet the calamitous Zionist-American war on Iran and repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe, with reveries of Greenland’s annexation still abounding. He left boasting of the intense “love” and “unity” within NATO, while praising member states for their reaffirmed commitment to spending ever-increasing vast sums on ‘defense’. Meanwhile, the Ukraine proxy war’s world-threatening continuation appears assured for potentially years to come.
As such, the NATO summit signifies a significant triumph in Britain’s never-ending battle to exploit the US Empire to further its own objectives. Highly revealing leaked files amply spell out how the alliance is a key mechanism by which Washington’s “interest” in Europe and West Asia is insidiously maintained, via London’s covert and overt machinations. NATO provides an invaluable “umbrella”, by which Britain projects economic, intelligence, military, and political power throughout these regions and the wider world, while countering competitors.
The documents were authored in March 2021 by Chris Donnelly, a veteran British military intelligence apparatchik who masterminded NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Now an influential Ministry of Defense advisor guiding London and Kiev’s escalatory strategies in the proxy war, he writes in the leaks of Britain’s perpetual struggle to retain the “security” provided by “US military power.” This, combined with access to Washington’s globe-spanning intelligence network, “underpins our own position in the world.”
From Britain’s perspective, “the political solidarity between member nations” within NATO and “the permanent political and military mechanisms that enable collaboration between its members and with its partners,” are as vitally important as the alliance’s capacity for “collective defence and security.” For example, “interoperability” between NATO members is considered “both a political and a military asset” and “a valuable product”, enabling countries “with vastly different political and military systems to operate together.” That includes “[undertaking] complex and stressful military activities,” and other joint functions.
This makes NATO “a civilian-led political organisation… whose main tool is armed force,” intimately entrenched within its 32 members. Lacking any democratic structures internally and accountable to none externally, the alliance exerts enormous, often unseen influence over members’ constituent governments, security and intelligence services, militaries, police forces, and more. These “extensive political collaborative mechanisms” mean states can be corralled into adopting policies or taking actions regardless of local public will, or whether such moves actively harm their safety and/or national interests.
“Without the US, there is no NATO,” Donnelly notes. Hence, to “keep the US interested” in the alliance, Washington “must see a return on its (still very large and disproportionate) investment.” The 2026 NATO summit ended with European leaders pledging to plunge tens of billions into US-made military equipment for Kiev over this year and next, a prospect offering Washington quite some “return”. But the British have other means of encouraging and maintaining US hegemony, for their personal profit.
‘Symmetrical exchange’
Elsewhere, Donnelly writes of the “special relationship” – the “political/military/security/intelligence” alliance between Britain and the US, “which has existed since World War II.” He notes how from inception, Washington was driven “by how much the US needed something from the UK to help the US develop and maintain its superpower status.” In other words, “what the UK could provide the US… the US could not itself produce.” Accordingly, London “traditionally contributed” its historical “knowledge and experience” to Washington’s crusade for global domination.
This frequently entailed “intelligence-gathering and analysis; technical expertise, especially inventiveness, ideas, and scientific information; the experience of having dealt with a situation new to the US.” Meanwhile, “political and military support” was provided by London “wherever this supported US policy interests and to help the US get what it wanted in the world.” While Britain’s methods in every regard have evolved significantly over time, these ultimate underpinning and overriding objectives in so many matters military, intelligence, foreign, and even domestic have not changed:
“Being able to provide something the US wants and needs is still the only reliable way to get US respect and to maintain the ‘special relationship’… Today, this is translated into whatever will help the US maintain its position in the world, promote US interests… and ensure US economic well-being. If we can still provide something useful for the US, something they cannot do for themselves, then they will be prepared to reciprocate very generously.”
Donnelly frames this concord as a perpetual “barter deal” – not a “symmetrical exchange” or “issue of cost and payment,” as “if the US can buy what it is deficient in on the world market, then there is no basis for the ‘special relationship’.” He references Britain’s consistent “willingness and ability to deploy a significant contingent of effective army… to reinforce US military operations… readiness to share casualties… [and] continued readiness to host US forces on UK soil or on overseas dependencies” as historic pull factors.
Britain can also “employ other kinds of power to achieve an effect which supports US policy or interests.” This includes “economic power, political influence, a technical ability, such as cyber-warfare, or a civilian state-building or humanitarian relief capability.” Accordingly, files leaked by Edward Snowden indicate British signals intelligence agency GCHQ is acutely aware it “must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight” by its NSA ‘partner’, to reap vast US funding for elaborate foreign spying operations.
Donnelly concludes, “On balance, the special relationship is of real importance to the UK, but also of some worth to the US… The burden of sustaining the special relationship falls principally to the UK. The US may well lose out if the relationship fails, but it will not notice the loss as much as the UK will. However, the special relationship is neither permanent nor guaranteed. We cannot take it for granted. It needs to be worked at constantly, refreshed and renewed.”
‘Defense capabilities’
On the subject of renewal, Donnelly lamented how London’s utility to the US Empire had been “significantly diminished” over recent years. This resulted from the British Army’s “indifferent military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the “run-down of our intelligence capability,” and “the perception (on the part of the US and other allies) the UK is no longer investing sufficiently in its military to be able to play the leading role it used to do in Europe, both as an operator and as a technical innovator.”
Donnelly moreover noted Britain “used to be at the cutting edge of some aspects of military thinking,” but had in many respects “lost this edge.” For example, “we can no longer instruct the US on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations.” Furthermore, the “special relationship” was “put under pressure” by President Barack Obama’s “reorientation of US strategy to focus on China.” Instituted in 2011, this “pivot to the Pacific” was sustained under subsequent administrations, with varying degrees of intensity.
Donnelly cheered how “the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts have reawakened US interest a little” in Europe and West Asia, meaning “Russia can no longer be ignored” by Washington. Nonetheless, he warned, “we have not yet turned the corner.” Unmentioned by Donnelly was his personal role in disrupting Washington’s “pivot” toward China by inflaming the Ukrainian war, to ensure the Empire didn’t “ignore” Russia. He openly articulated this malign mission while testifying to a British parliamentary defense committee in July 2014.
Donnelly proposed establishing a permanent British “standing force” in the Baltics, to conduct military exercises on Russia’s border, while serving as a “tripwire” to “dissuade and deter” Moscow. He believed it “very important” for London to pursue this strategy, as “Britain’s leadership… will encourage the Americans to take a greater interest in NATO and reinforce their support of the organisation.” He added, “we have an important role to play in bringing the Americans in more,” as “US eyes” had recently been directed “away from Europe.”
Resultantly, London provocatively dispatched thousands of soldiers to Russia’s periphery. Moreover, Britain took the lead in training Ukrainian forces – including notorious Neo-Nazi paramilitary factions such as the Azov Battalion. At the time, Washington adhered to the “Obama Doctrine”, which stipulated the US should avoid escalation against Moscow and prohibited provision of “lethal aid” and other military assistance to Kiev. A February 2015Kyiv Post report on Britain’s training program quoted Donnelly at length, suggesting his central involvement in its delivery:
“This is just the sort of help Ukraine needs now. The British Army obviously brings considerable operational experience and a pretty good reputation.”
As Donnelly predicted in his defense committee testimony, Britain’s tutelage of Ukrainian forces had the desired effect of “bringing the Americans in more.” In July 2015, it was announced the US would formally begin training Kiev’s military by the end of the year. Still, a State Department spokesperson stressed the effort was merely “small unit training… to help strengthen Ukraine’s internal defense capabilities.” They firmly asserted Washington’s focus in the country remained on “nonlethal aid” and “there is no plan to change that.”
Fast forward to December 2017, and Trump greenlit the provision of weaponry to Kiev. It was among a number of hostile acts during his first term that ratcheted tensions between Washington and Moscow, placing Ukraine firmly on the warpath with Russia. The recent NATO summit, and subsequent pledges by the US to assist Ukraine directly with drone and patriot missile production, show the Empire has “turned the corner” at last. US “interest” in Europe is assured, for at least as long as the proxy conflict endures.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Russia is receiving significant military support from North Korea, Iran, and China.
“I think three moments on which we have to focus. First, North Korea will send to Russia 30,000 soldiers. The second point Iranians will send missiles to Russia,” Zelensky said in an interview with Sky News on Sunday. “Then what is the really big problem: China began to work with Russia, and they work on satellites and on technologies to be more precise.”
The statement follows a Ukrainian attack on an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea. “Ukraine continues applying long‑range sanctions in response to Russian strikes,” Zelensky wrote on X Saturday. We also achieved very strong results with long‑range strikes in the Caspian Sea – including vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran, as well as a warship.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said the attack would not go unanswered.
“Zelenskyy has attacked an Iranian commercial vessel, killing a sailor. A blatant UN Charter violation done at Israel’s behest to drag Europe into its war,” he wrote on X Sunday. “In calls with EU High Rep Kallas and FM Lavrov, I made clear that what the freeloader in Kyiv did CANNOT GO UNANSWERED.”
Zelensky was asked if he was concerned about an Iranian response. He argued that Iran had already attacked Ukraine by providing drones and missiles to Russia. “We have to be cautious. We have to do everything not to open a new front in any way. But we have to be honest. Iranians and North Koreans already attacked us,” he said.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded to Zelensky’s remarks on Monday. “The behavior of the Ukrainian President is reminiscent of the behavior of anarchists who, on the eve of World War I, carried out theatrical and very dangerous actions whose consequences affected all of Europe,” he said. “The Ukrainian regime downgraded its country to a tool for geopolitical disputes between powers starting four years ago.”
Dr. Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, warned that Zelensky is attempting to merge the wars in Ukraine and Iran. “Ukraine is not trying to just enter the war with Iran. Rather, it appears it is trying to merge the Ukraine war with the Iran war,” he explained. “Why? Because if these two wars merge, Ukraine will be a belligerent in the Iran war and America will be a belligerent in the Ukraine war.”
… The New York Native also was the first to publish Larry Kramer’s historic 1983 tirade, 1,112 and Counting, at the same time as Lauritsen published his first warnings to the gay community about the potentially lethal toxicities of amyl nitrites, or “poppers.”
Lauritsen compellingly documented the key role poppers played in the etiology of Kaposi sarcoma and immune collapse among gay men, and the nefarious role Fauci played in downplaying this association.
The principal manufacturer of poppers was AZT distributor Burroughs Wellcome, the company that, with Fauci’s help, became a primary beneficiary of the AIDS crisis. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 