Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Scott Ritter: New US National Security Strategy Marks Death Blow to NATO Expansion

Sputnik – December 5, 2025

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy has sent shockwaves across the globe, dropping ‘Russian threat’ language completely and crossing out the vision of NATO “as a perpetually expanding alliance.” Sputnik asked prolific geopolitical analyst Scott Ritter to break down the document and its implications.

The new US National Security Strategy is based on “the reality that Russia is not a threat to Europe or the United States, recognition that Russia has been artificially cast as such a threat now for decades, and [that] the consequences of this miscasting” have been an unmitigated “disaster for Europe and a threat to the national security of the United States,” the former Marine Corps intelligence officer told Sputnik.

The document signals that the White House has been “able to free itself… from the legacy of post-Cold War-era Russophobia” seeking to weaken and “strategically defeat” Russia, Ritter said.

“The Trump administration recognizes that this is an inherently destabilizing policy,” not to mention “extraordinarily dangerous,” since confrontation with Russia “ultimately means nuclear war,” the observer stressed.

In this new geopolitical calculus, Europe in its current trajectory is far more of a threat to itself, the US, and international peace and security than Russia, Ritter argues, reiterating that European Russia hawks’ policy is “incompatible” with US national security objectives.

No More NATO Expansion

The new NSS also “puts an end and drives a stake through the heart of the beast of Ukraine’s unrealistic expectations regarding NATO membership, and Europe’s equally unrealistic expectations that at some point in time, Ukraine could become a member of NATO,” Ritter says, commenting on the NSS’s prioritization of “ending” NATO’s status “as a perpetually expanding alliance.”

The document effectively signals “the end of the European enterprise” and the idea that Europe is a geopolitical equal of the US, and one able to “dictate” policy outcomes to Washington, Ritter says. “That’s over. The United States says no, you’re done. Moreover, we say the trajectory that you’re on is incompatible with the national security of the United States.”

Behind the scenes, things get even more interesting, Ritter believes, pointing to “whispers from people who are knowledgeable” about the intent behind the document to the effect that the US will not bail out Europe if it starts a war with Russia.

“This is an extraordinarily important document because it literally represents a divorce of decades of legacy policy that postured the United States and Russia as opponents who should be preparing to fight each other,” Ritter emphasized.

Beyond that, the NSS’s point on ‘no NATO expansion’ and lack of positioning Russia as a threat effectively means “there’s no legitimate reason for NATO to exist,” unless it can transform into a genuinely defensive alliance.

“NATO, as it currently exists, will no longer exist. If [it] is to continue to survive, it must re-identify itself as a defensive alliance focused on securing a reasonable and rational Europe, and not this alliance capable of standing toe-to-toe with Russia, expanding… ever eastward towards confrontation with Russia, and a NATO that embraces a strategy of the strategic defeat of Russia. That NATO is dead. That NATO will never be resurrected,” Ritter summed up.

December 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

US rushes loitering drones built based on Iranian blueprint to West Asia

Press TV – December 3, 2025

The US has deployed “its first squadron” of one-way attack drones, developed following reverse-engineering of a much-sought-after and versatile Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle, to the West Asia region.

On Wednesday, US Central Command announced establishment of Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS) that will oversee the first of its kind operational deployment by the US military, various American outlets reported.

The aircraft in question was identified as the Iranian Shahed-136 long-range UAV.

The reports also cited CENTCOM as noting that Washington had additionally set up Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS) to oversee the drone’s so far unprecedented deployment.

Observers also pointed to the unique nature of the taskforce, saying its development signaled urgency in Washington’s approach towards the drones’ deployment.

“This new taskforce sets the conditions for using innovation as a deterrent,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander.

‘Cutting-edge drone capabilities’

“Equipping our skilled warfighters faster with cutting-edge drone capabilities showcases US military innovation and strength,” the official added.

According to one report, the system’s deployment was spurred in part by War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “drone dominance” initiative that was deployed to accelerate delivery of low-cost and effective drones to US forces.

The Islamic Republic deployed the aircraft during the Israeli regime’s and the US’s unprovoked and illegal war against its soil in June.

December 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | | Leave a comment

The Ukraine War Hawks Sabotaging America First

By Harrison Berger | The American Conservative | December 2, 2025

As the White House moves to negotiate an end to the yearslong Ukraine proxy war, establishment members of Congress, elements of the deep state, and their corporate media allies work overtime to sabotage the president’s efforts.

The aggressive establishment campaign seeks to derail a draft settlement, negotiated largely in Washington, that would bar Ukraine from NATO in exchange for U.S. security guarantees, grant Russia de facto control of Crimea and the Donbas, and limit the size of the Ukrainian armed forces, among other measures.

By pursuing a negotiated resolution to the Ukraine war, the Trump administration is doing exactly what it was democratically elected to do. Voters who wanted to continue the proxy war against Russia were told to—and overwhelmingly did—vote for the defeated candidate, Kamala Harris.

But even though President Donald Trump and voters may prefer restraint and diplomacy with nuclear powers like Russia, the Washington political establishment that drives U.S. foreign policy has long made clear that it does not—and that it will take aggressive measures to subvert democratically decided policies in favor of its own. With a peace deal possibly within reach, this remarkably bipartisan campaign has become increasingly overt.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers last week floated the rumor that the Trump administration’s 28-point peace plan was secretly a Russian-authored “wish list.” The claim has since fallen apart—and never made sense in the first place—because, as Steve Bannon has pointed out, the terms of the deal are, if anything, overly favorable to Kiev, not Moscow. Under the proposal, the Ukrainian military would be permitted to build a fighting force of up to 600,000 troops. “That’s unacceptable to the Russians,” says political scientist John Mearsheimer. And while the draft would formally rule out NATO membership for Ukraine, it nonetheless commits the United States to extending security guarantees, a provision that leaves the door open for future rounds of confrontation between Ukraine and Russia.

Nonetheless, bipartisan factions continue to argue that Trump’s proposal favors Moscow, branding the pursuit of peace as Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement. Joining them to do it has been former Trump official Mike Pompeo, who argued against the 28-point plan on X, saying that “any so-called peace deal that limits Ukraine’s ability to defend itself would look more like a surrender.”

The former CIA director has in recent weeks emerged as a regular guest on Fox News to sabotage Trump’s peace plan, while simultaneously serving on the advisory board of the Ukrainian defense company FirePoint. The Murdoch-owned news network, which previously partly fired Tucker Carlson over his opposition to the Ukraine war, does not disclose that the former CIA director stands to profit directly from the war he goes on air to promote.

The most brazen and revealing effort to derail the Trump administration’s diplomacy comes from anonymous leakers, likely from the U.S. security state, which, through their servants in corporate media, repeatedly leak classified information in what has so far been a failed attempt to embarrass and undermine the president’s lead negotiator, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

The campaign against Witkoff began when Reuters reported that unnamed “U.S. officials” were “increasingly concerned” by Witkoff’s discussions with Russian diplomats to end the war. Soon after, Bloomberg published a selective leak of a classified call transcript, claiming Witkoff had “advised Russia on how to pitch Ukraine plans to Trump,” framing his diplomacy as improper.

The bipartisan pro-war establishment took their cue and seized on the leak, deploying the same strategy wielded against Trump’s first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in 2017, when classified surveillance material was leaked to derail détente with Moscow. Now in the case of Witkoff, routine diplomatic back-channeling has again been framed as sinister and improper, in a controversy likely manufactured by unelected elites in northern Virginia to sabotage the foreign policy agenda of the elected president.

Their efforts fell flat, however, when the next morning, Trump reassured the press that nothing improper had occurred with Witkoff’s diplomacy. “That’s a standard thing… he’s got to sell this to Ukraine. He’s got to sell Ukraine to Russia. That’s what a dealmaker does,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

While negotiations with Russia nonetheless continue to advance, the episode reveals an unsustainable tension for the Trump presidency: the figures actively sabotaging its foreign policy agenda are largely the same Republican establishment actors the president continues to defend and campaign for.

At the same time, Trump has now spent several months campaigning against the chief opponents of Ukraine war spending in the House of Representatives—retiring Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky—mainly because they dared to consistently apply America First principles. Yet the actual saboteurs in the GOP work hard to subvert Trump’s foreign policy agenda without any consequences.

With the administration’s disapproval ratings now approaching record highs, there has never been a better moment for Trump to cut loose those saboteurs from his coalition and rediscover the America First instincts that first carried him to the White House.

December 4, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Denmark hit by boomerang effect: War vs. welfare

By Ron Ridenour | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 3, 2025

The Social Democratic Party (SD), which has led two governments since 2019, experienced the worst regional election in a century thanks to its leading role in spending more on the Ukraine-Russia war than any other country per capita, and number four in absolute sums—$13 billion, with another billion in the pipeline.

That is $2,100 per person. It is also three times Denmark’s defense budget as of three years ago. The U.S. has appropriated $184 billion for a population of 340 million, according to the March 2025 Department of Defense figures. That is $410 per person.

According to EU figures from August, the EU has spent $186 billion, committed $54 billion more, and has “mobilized” $3.9bn of Russian assets kept in western finance institutions for Ukraine. More than $300bn Russian funds have been “immobilized” and might be used to kill Russians and Ukrainians. Danes think they are protecting Ukraine’s “democracy and sovereignty”, and do so at greater cost to them than any of the 57 countries citizens lined up against Russia.

SD Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen heads a three-party coalition government, including the conservative Moderate party and the land-owner conservative Liberal (VenstreParty. Moderate Party is a recent off-shoot of the Liberal Party. Frederiksen’s ratings before the proxy war against Russia fluxed between 27% and 35%. Following November 18 regional elections, Frederiksen’s rating fell to 17%.

Social Democrats lost mayor posts in most towns and main cities, including the over-mayor post in Copenhagen, which it has held for over 100 years. Leading members of Frederiksen’s party are calling for a new leader already a year before parliament elections.

None of the 12 parliamentary political parties in Denmark, or the handful of Communist and Trotskyist parties, consider that Russia has the right to protect its sovereignty against the ever-encroaching NATO alliance, which now has six countries bordering Russia out of 14 countries around its border. Schools do not allow pro-Russian views to be taught, nor does the media allow pro-Russian views to be expressed.

Nevertheless, for the first time to this reporter’s knowledge, state-sponsored TV news, and other msm, began reporting following the November election that many voters are tired of spending so much money for Ukraine, and less for welfare. Voters mainly blame the key spokesperson for war, Social Democrat Frederisken.

The Social Democrat-led governments have increased NATO funding from 1.3% of its GNP to 3.5% since 2022, and plan to reach 5% to meet President Trump’s demand. Defense budgets have tripled since 2022.

The mass media usually does not report on Ukrainian corruption, but they did when on November 10 anti-corruption investigators revealed that at least $100 million was siphoned from contracts to rebuild energy losses, plus money laundering conducted by Justice Minister German Galushchenko and, ironically, the Energy Minister, Svitlana Grynchuk.

Investigators also searched Tymur Mindich’s house just hours after he fled to Israel, in order to avoid possible prosecution. Mindich is considered President Zelenskyy’s close associate and confidant. Among other roles, he is co-owner of the TV production company “Kvartal-95,” which Zelenskyy helped set up.

In reality, Ukraine’s government officials have skimmed scores of $billions from at least $400 billion sent to Ukraine. It is no longer taboo to be wary of continued support despite the population’s traditional culture of not challenging Denmark’s authority powers. This scandal created skepticism about just what this war is all about only a week before Danes went to the polls.

Even the CIA-friendly Wikipedia admits that corruption is endemic. “Corruption in Ukraine is a significant issue that effects society going back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.”

Welfare Down $4 Billion

The largest magazine in Denmark is Ældre Sagen (Senior’s Cause) with a 750,000 circulation out of six million people often reports on how the governments are spending less on welfare. Since 2015, welfare spending has deceased three percent ($4 billion).

The current issue of “Senior’s Cause” shows how much less support there is for seniors who cannot care for themselves without communes’ health care. Lack of help for bathing when needed has increased to 37% from 20% in 2021, just before the war. Percentage of elders need for cleaning homes has increased to 45% from 33% in the same period. Only 40% of those who have need for help at home or take a walk receive any whereas it was 56% just four years ago.

Sanctions against Russia cause a boomerang effect, because Danes have to use much more money to import expensive oil and gas energy sources from Norway and the U.S. after they sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipelines, with Sweden and Denmark’s assistance.

Food prices have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. Just before the war, average Danes used 15% of their income for food and now 17%. Moreover, some favorite items have skyrocketed in price: coffee by 67%, hamburger meat by 50%, cheese 47%, milk 44%.

Despite silent but growing war weariness, PM Frederiksen spent time during her local election campaign to provoke Russia even though the election had nothing to do with foreign policy. She blamed Russia for sending drones over Denmark for which no evidence has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, some elected politicians proposed to shoot down drones that fly over these “targets” even if it may not be known that “they” are drones, or even if the senders are unknown.

Among false accusations was her claim that a Russian tanker, Boracay, which was sailing peacefully in international waters close to Denmark, was a “provocation”. At that time, Frederiksen was entertaining 26 heads of state on the Prime Minister grounds to discuss how to keep the war going in Ukraine. Her French sidekick, President Emmanuel Macron, then sent a war ship with soldiers to seize Boracay with the intention of putting its captain on trial.

Macron said: “We want to increase pressure on Russia to convince it to return to the negotiating table… [we are moving] towards to a policy of obstruction when we have suspicious ships in our waters that are involved in this trafficking.”

“Trafficking” means shipping oil to-and-fro countries, which is what the world’s capitalist economies do.

The Danish government is also encouraging more youth to join the military for longer times than the 11-month draft increased from just four months. The draft now includes women. The proposal to have women forced into military garb came during this war by a former communist party, now called Enhedslisten (Red Green Alliance or Unity List). It has nine of the Parliament’s 179 members.

Denmark invites Ukraine to produce rocket fuel

In September, the Danish government announced that it will build a factory for Ukraine missiles by the military Skrydstrup airport near the town of Vojens. Skrydstrup is where most of Denmark’s F-35s are located and where the U.S. will have one of its military contingents. This is the first time that a NATO country has invited a Ukrainian firm to produce weaponry on its soil.

The Ukrainian company Four Points is behind the project. It is best known for developing the 3,000-km range Flamingo cruise missile, which is having difficulties when fired. Four Points and Denmark will employ a couple hundred workers. They will produce rocket fuel and parts for at least two types of ballistic missiles, FP-7 and FP-9. These missiles will be transported to Ukraine where the military will fire them at targets inside Russia. FP-7 has a range of 200 kilometers at a speed of 1,500 meters per second. FP-9 has an 855-kilometer range at 2,200 meters per second.

At first, it was left unstated whether fuel will be made for the Flamenco in Denmark. Nevertheless, Denmark is considering buying some Ukrainian missiles and/or U.S.’s long-range Tomahawks. Denmark has put up $80 million for the rocket fuel project.

The media reported the response of Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin: “Denmark is determined to continue the bloodshed in Ukraine. If Ukraine produces rocket fuel for cruise missiles on Danish soil, then it is increasingly difficult not to consider Denmark a direct participant in the conflict. The Ukrainian side has stated very openly that these missiles are intended to carry out attacks deep inside Russia.”

Then, a week after Zelensky’s buddy Minditi fled to Israel, it was revealed that he is the “mastermind” behind Four Points. Vojens citizens and opposition political parties now demand that their government assure people that no corruption will take place when the Ukraine team comes to work beside Danish workers to build the rocket fuel factory. No one is yet publically questioning why do this when it is all too apparent that Russia will win this war soon.

That scandal, though, was not enough. On November 30, the main war commander and peace negotiator, Chief-of-Staff Andriy Yermark, was forced to resign due to new economic corruption revelations, the extent of which is not yet out. These scandals tell the world that Zelensky only wants personal loyalty for his side-kicks, and not honesty and competence.

Nevertheless, construction of the war factory began as planned on December 1, under the name FPRT ApS. The media let many local citizens express concern that something amiss could occur, such as explosions of fuel inside the factory, and concern about what Russia might do.

Denmark Supports Palestinian Genocide While Preparing for Total War

Denmark’s government is also a supporter of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There was even an arms fair last August with seven Israel weapons firms selling their wares and Danish weapons sold to Israel. The weapons festival was held at the invitation of Denmark’s military. Two parliamentary parties complained about Israel’s participation. What was the Danish government’s explanation? “We need to quickly rearm for national security to meet the Russian threat.”

Frederiksen and company have concocted one falsehood after another about how Russia will attack first one of its non-NATO neighboring countries, then one NATO neighbor, and within five years invade the entire of Europe: 32 NATO countries have a total of 3.33 million troops (2022) compared to Russia’s 850,000. Six hundred million people inhabit the 30 European NATO countries, compared to Russia’s 140 million. The two North American NATO countries have 335 million and 40 million.

Allegedly, the only obstacle for Russia’s total invasion is to finish the war in Ukraine. Denmark’s only intelligence service, the Defense Intelligence Service (FE), subordinate to the CIA (about which I have written extensively), purports this scenario without offering one iota of evidence.

Since this hypothesis-as-truth surfaced last February, we are repeatedly told by politicians, military experts, and the media to prepare for war by storing water, food, medicines, hygiene articles, warm clothes and blankets, batteries, flashlights, cash, sun-cell or battery radios for three days. Shelters should be constructed or repaired. Land-owner-associations shall call community meetings to learn how best to prepare for war. Military experts are available to give advice.

Following the recent economic corruption cases, the media is open to question how long the war will last as enthusiasm is waning. For instance, some media reports that very few people are actually following the government’s advice to hoard necessities in case of war.

TV stations have long run several one-sided war programs daily. However, on November 26, DR TV’s “War’s Day” weekly program closed with a truthful and cynical Major in the Defense Academy stating: “If the Americans pull out completely, it will be very difficult for Ukraine but still better for us Europeans to continue fighting there, and cheaper than fighting Russians elsewhere.”

Danish Voters Getting Tired of War Cries

In September, dozens of drones (possibly) of various sizes popped up over civilian and military airports. Some were in the air for four hours the first day. Earlier reports of the like turned out to be that the “drones” were sun reflections, but this time they were real, averred the government.

Should unannounced drones be shot down, asked msm and some politicians? The hard-core right says yes. Middle-of-the-roaders point out that when Poland shot down a drone, its own missile destroyed a Polish house.

The key tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet went bananas. Its September 26 headline, “Drone Catastrophe-Denmark Humiliated” started seven pages of text and photos with front and back cover—one-fourth of the newspaper. Its reporters sharply criticized the government-military management for not either shooting them down or intercepting them, or knowing where they came from or where they went.

However, the tone in some media changed. I was pleasantly surprised to read the front-page story in the Christian Daily, November 28, headlined: “Critique: Drone-Communication Has Created Fear and Wild Theories”.

The article opens with a staunch supporter of Ukraine war. “Frederiksen and government rhetoric brings Denmark more in danger than what is necessary, and that worries me…Denmark’s interference in the war is too quick-tempered.”

The article points out that after several days of government shouting about how the Russians are threatening “our skies, our airports… ” silence ensued. No proof of what the “drone interference” really was, not even if they were drones, or where they came from. Nevertheless, Frederiksen wouldn’t give up her rhetoric about the evil Russians. The newspaper quoted her: “It is primarily one land that constitutes a threat: Russia.”

The daily ended with the conclusion that the government presents its people with “a lack of information. [Regardless of what the disturbances were] the point is the government wishes to frighten the people and in that way keep them in an iron cage.”

Just three days before this seminal front-page story, PM Frederiksen spoke on TV about how it was still possible for Ukraine with even more massive European aid to win the war. She said so after Russia completely rejected Europe’s “Coalition of the Willing” 19-point peace proposal as a substitute to Trump’s 28-point plan, which the government and media imply is pro-Russian and supported by President Putin. Both suppositions are false.

The only peace plan for the inevitable Russian victory will be:

  1. a) Crimean and Donbas regions now in the Russian Federation since the peoples’ referendum remain in Russia.
  2. b) Ukraine will not be in NATO nor have associated “military security”.
  3. c) Legal protection for ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
  4. d) A de-Nazification process must begin to re-educate the rampant fascist mentality instilled in the government and military, and much of the population since the 2014 neo-fascist coup financed and organized by the Obama-administration.

November 2025 will be remembered as the beginning of the end for PM Mette Frederiksen’s political career, and the end of silence among the Danish population: Enough is Enough!

December 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Why Rachel Maddow and Bill Kristol Attended Cheney’s Funeral

The neoconservative right has merged with the anti-Trump left

By Jack Hunter | The American Conservative | November 26, 2025

Twenty years ago, there was no greater villain to the left than Dick Cheney. The vice president was called a fascist. He was called a warmonger. He was called Hitler. He was the center and soul of left-wing derision and Democratic identity.

Their ire? The George W. Bush administration’s 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, for starters, considered today to be one of America’s greatest foreign policy mistakes. Even a majority of veterans believe it was not worth fighting. Then there was the torture, the rampant due process violations, and the fact that Cheney’s advocacy for extreme executive power made him an enemy of the Constitution.

Concerning Cheney and national depravity, there’s a lot to work with.

The progressive pundit Rachel Maddow was once all in on this left-wing hate. She built her early career on it.

Last week, Maddow attended Dick Cheney’s funeral.

Cheney never apologized for or even said he regretted Iraq. He was seemingly down to torture until the day he died.

Maddow was not at Cheney’s funeral to show grace to a once wayward man who had since repented. Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald noted of MSNBC’s biggest star, “Maddow’s career as a commentator began during Bush/Cheney, when she’d frequently compare Cheney to the worst monsters in history (I was on her programs when she said it).”

Greenwald added, “For so many liberals, Cheney is now rehabilitated despite regretting nothing: solely for opposing Trump.”

That’s it. Cheney was against Trump. In 2025, even for dead fascists, warmongers and Hitlers, that’s all it takes for the left to sing your praises.

If this sounds simplistically silly, it’s because it is.

Once Donald Trump finally replaced former villains Dick Cheney or George W. Bush as the Great Satan in leftist minds, there was virtually no self-awareness in Democrats’ drift into turning these neocon Republicans they once despised into heroes. Dubya gets the same love.

In their blind hatred for Trump, mainstream Democrats also ended up becoming something closer to 2003-era Republicans in their foreign policy. One X user commented on the service for Cheney, “Anyone that attended Cheney’s funeral is going to be upset with an end to war.”

Greenwald agreed, “Exactly: I bet if you were to survey the people in attendance at Dick Cheney’s funeral—from Rachel Maddow and Kamala Harris to Lindsey Graham and George W. Bush—opposition to ending the war in Ukraine would be close to 100%, if not unanimous.”

He has a point. After “Resistance” posters and Covid-era virtue signaling got stale for the left, pro-Ukrainian yard signs and social media flag icons became as popular with Democrats as they were with Lindsey Graham.

Democrats and neocon Republicans like Graham ended up with the same foreign policy. The former came to it as an emotional reaction to “America First” Trump. The latter just never changed, welcoming their reformed pro-war Democrats with open arms.

To be fair, mainstream Democrat attitudes toward Israel and Gaza have varied. On the United States’ proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, they have not.

The 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris not only received an endorsement from Cheney and his congresswoman daughter Liz; Cheney fille hit the campaign trail with Harris, seemingly signaling to the neoconservative foreign policy establishment that she was their gal.

When candidate Harris repeatedly accused Trump of admiring dictators—that is, engaging in diplomacy as an alternative to war—she sounded like every GOP hawk who ever criticized Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, or any other antiwar Republican. “Putin’s puppet” became an institutionalized Democratic attack on Trump.

Maddow attending Cheney’s funeral wasn’t surprising or a departure for the current American left. It was, however, an indicator.

She and the “War on Terror” Republicans in attendance weren’t simply friendly adversaries paying their final respects. They’re not adversaries anymore.

This has been true for some time. J6 helped seal the deal.

The “insurrection” mythology surrounding the January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riots has been as important to Never Trump neocon identity as it has been to Democratic identity. Dick Cheney was on the Never Trump and Democratic side of that event. Donald Trump was on the other side. That line has long been crystal clear, at least on the Never Trump–Dem side—that it was an organized attempt by MAGA forces to overthrow democracy—even if that view is not based in reality.

But the reality of J6 as an actual insurrection was always beside the point. Political identity, and reinforcing it—Never Trump/Democrats good, MAGA bad—was the entire point.

Hence, longtime Democrat Rachel Maddow accepted the invitation to “maestro of terror” Republican Dick Cheney’s funeral.

Bill Kristol was there too. Anyone who has followed politics for any amount of time would expect the neocon scion to be at the funeral service of the most impactful neoconservative of the 21st century. Kristol had wanted a U.S. war with Iraq since the 1990s, and 9/11 finally gave his small band of neocons an excuse to lie their way into it. Team Cheney ultimately delivered it.

Cheney is unquestionably their hero.

Kristol is a Democrat now. He appears to be pro-choice these days. He’s flipped on immigration. The former Weekly Standard editor recently endorsed New York City’s socialist mayor-elect. So Kristol has definitely changed some of his beliefs in joining his new party.

On foreign policy, Bill Kristol has never budged any more than Dick Cheney did. Both were always for all U.S. wars, anywhere, for any reason, by any means, no matter how much death or damage was wrought.

War is the goal. It is who they are. Their beef with Trump—in the most basic, concrete terms—is that he poses a threat to their mission at times.
Democrats hate Trump so much they now dismiss this evil, finding common cause with neocons in more ways than one.

President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance were not invited to the former vice president’s funeral. They wouldn’t have belonged, even if it is unusual for a sitting president and vice president to be excluded from such a service.

But Rachel Maddow belonged at Dick Cheney’s funeral. The left she represents belonged too.

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US-led regime change in Venezuela angering MAGA

Al Mayadeen | December 3, 2025

United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion of an imminent land strike against Venezuela has jolted the America First movement he built on avoiding foreign entanglements, sparking divisions among his supporters and reviving debates reminiscent of the war on Iraq, part of what supporters describe as “forever wars”.

On Tuesday, Trump hinted not only at an intervention in Venezuela but also at possible attacks against other countries. The remarks rattled anti-interventionists, a core Make America Great Again (MAGA) constituency, who fear that toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could mire the US in a years-long conflict, destabilize the region, and damage both Trump’s legacy and the movement’s political brand.

Republicans redraw the lines on intervention

Despite his long-standing criticism of US interventions, some Republican allies are now defending the possibility of military action. They argue that operations within the Western Hemisphere are more defensible than the West Asia wars they once denounced, and contend that the US is not seeking “regime change” but an adjustment in Venezuelan leadership without reshaping its political structure.

“He’s not trying to play God with what regime is in which country,” said Alex Gray, former National Security Council chief of staff.

Gray argued the move represents a refocusing of US strategy toward “core American interests,” describing Venezuela as central to hemispheric security.

Pressure mounts as US military presence grows

The administration insists it is not pursuing regime change; instead, it continues to level baseless accusations against the Venezuelan president, describing him as a leader of a “drug cartel”.

Still, the scale of US deployments, including a carrier strike group and roughly 15,000 troops, and Trump’s reported private ultimatum to Maduro last week, have amplified expectations of imminent action. Two people familiar with the call said Trump threatened Maduro, demanding he step down or face the “consequences.”

“No one is more bullish than the president on this,” another individual familiar with internal discussions told Politico, adding that the initiative “comes from the top.”

MAGA skeptics warn of Iraq-style pitfalls

For anti-interventionist MAGA figures, the moment represents a deep ideological test. Many had hoped for an administration focused exclusively on domestic priorities. Now they hope any action resembles the recent limited aggression on Iran, where the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in June.

“Let’s not turn into George W. Bush and before you know it, we’re in charge of Venezuela,” said a former senior Trump advisor.

Boots on the ground and nation-building remain “red lines” for the America First movement.

Vice President JD Vance, once a fierce critic of foreign interventions, has shifted as well, defending limited strikes on Iran while framing any action in Venezuela as essential to combating “narco terrorists in our own hemisphere.”

Concerns over fallout, regional stability

Opponents of interference in Venezuela argue that Maduro’s removal could spark migration surges, empower criminal networks, or disrupt global energy markets, consequences that evoke the results of the US invasion of Iraq.

Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group noted Trump never campaigned on regime change, calling unilateral intervention “a NeoCon idea… discredited around the world.”

Still, some conservative realists believe Trump may ultimately avoid escalation. Curt Mills of The American Conservative said Trump may yet decide a full-scale conflict would be “a disaster in the making.”

At a Cabinet meeting, top officials emphasized a simple America First litmus test. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a staunch backer of military action in the Latin American country, stated, “Is it going to make us richer? Is it going to make us safer? If it is, he is for it.”

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

European leaders welcome in Moscow for talks – Kremlin

RT | December 3, 2025

Russia is open to resuming dialogue with European nations, presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists on Wednesday. Western European leaders are the ones who have shunned contact, not Moscow, he added.

“The Europeans are refusing all contacts… even though [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has repeatedly said that if any European leaders want to talk, they are welcome to come to Moscow.”

“For our part, we have nothing against resuming contacts,” Ushakov told a news briefing.

The EU and the UK have taken a hardline stance on the Ukraine conflict and have virtually severed all contacts with Moscow since the escalation of hostilities in February 2022.

The EU has been actively supporting Kiev with both financial and military aid and has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia. The bloc has also been seeking to seize Russian sovereign assets frozen at the Euroclear clearing house in Belgium to fund Ukraine. Moscow has warned that it would regard any such move as outright “theft.”

The bloc has de facto rejected a Ukraine peace plan presented by the administration of US President Donald Trump last month, and has put forward its own set of conditions, which Moscow dismissed as “unconstructive.”

On Tuesday, Putin said the EU is still living under the illusion that it can inflict a “strategic defeat” upon Russia through the Ukraine conflict. He stated that the concept was unrealistic from the very beginning, but Brussels cannot bring itself to admit that it has been wrong all along.

The bloc “does not have a peaceful agenda. They are on the side of war,” Putin told journalists on the sidelines of the ‘Russia Calling!” business forum.

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

No security guarantees for Ukraine – Finnish PM

RT | December 3, 2025

Finland will not offer Ukraine NATO-style security guarantees, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo has declared.

Kiev has been seeking formal security assurances from Western backers and insists they should come before any peace agreement with Moscow. Some media reports claimed that last month’s US peace roadmap included a NATO-style guarantee for Kiev modeled on Article 5, committing guarantor states to defend Ukraine in case of a potential attack, and listed Finland as one of the potential guarantors.

Asked about this at a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson on Tuesday, Orpo said he had neither seen the plan nor been consulted on it.

“I don’t know why Finland was mentioned in the paper,” he told the media. “We have to understand that a security guarantee is something very, very serious. We’re not ready to give security guarantees, but we can help with security arrangements. The difference between them is huge.”

Orpo stressed that helping Kiev with security differs fundamentally from mutual defense obligations referenced in the leaked US plan. He suggested major powers such as the US or larger European states should commit to guarantees, while Finland’s role would be limited to logistical and organizational support.

Sweden, while not mentioned as a potential guarantor in the leaked draft, believes European support should focus on helping Ukraine maintain a capable military as Kiev’s “most important security guarantee”, according to Kristersson.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that security guarantees remain unresolved after the latest talks between Kiev and Washington in Florida. Moscow has said it does not oppose security guarantees for Ukraine in principle but insists they must not be one-sided or aimed at containing Russia, and should follow a peace deal rather than precede one. Russia confirmed receiving the “main parameters” of the US roadmap last week but has not commented on details or whether guarantees are included.

Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, visited Moscow on Tuesday for further talks on the peace plan. According to President Vladimir Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov, the discussions were constructive and Moscow agreed with some American proposals, but deemed others unacceptable, and “no compromises have been found as of yet.”

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Europe is driving the continent toward war: Putin

Al Mayadeen | December 2, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused European leaders of steering the continent toward confrontation, saying Moscow has repeatedly tried to avoid escalation while European governments continue to inflame the situation.

Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Putin said that Russia is not the party seeking a clash. “We don’t intend to go to war with Europe, I’ve said this a hundred times, but if Europe suddenly wants to fight us and does, we are ready right now. There can be no doubt about that,” he said, placing responsibility for rising tensions squarely on the West.

Russia reports encirclement of Ukrainian forces as European states expand military involvement

Putin said Russian troops have locked a sizeable Ukrainian contingent in a difficult position near Kupyansk, describing the frontline situation as the result of relentless Western pressure on Kiev to continue a war it cannot win. “Let me remind you that, on the left bank of the river [in the town of Kupyansk], an enemy group numbering 15 battalions is trapped. And Russian troops have begun eliminating it,” he noted.

He said ongoing battles in Kupyansk-Uzlovoy are moving in Russia’s favor and predicted that the settlement will soon be fully brought under Moscow’s control. According to Putin, Russian units control both banks of the broader Kupyansk area and hold hundreds of buildings in the settlement.

These battlefield developments come as European governments accelerate weapons deliveries and publicly reject discussions of compromise. Russian officials argue that the political leadership in the EU, rather than Kiev, is pushing this phase of the war, ignoring humanitarian costs and attempting to prolong hostilities for geopolitical purposes.

Black Sea tensions rise as Moscow calls Ukrainian strikes ‘piracy’

Putin sharply criticized recent Ukrainian attacks on tankers  in the Black Sea, attacks that Russian officials say are carried out with Western backing. The president said these operations took place in another country’s exclusive economic zone, calling the strikes a criminal act. “I know that this happened. Attacks on tankers in neutral or even non-neutral waters. But in a special economic zone of another state, a third state, this is piracy. Nothing else,” he said.

He also signaled that Russia would respond not just to Ukraine, but potentially to vessels belonging to countries that enable Kiev’s maritime operations. “The most radical way is to cut off Ukraine from the sea. Then it will be genuinely impossible for it to engage in piracy,” he said, suggesting that Russia may take stronger measures to secure the region if European powers continue encouraging naval escalation.

Moscow to widen its target set as Ukraine intensifies attacks on ports

Putin said Russian forces will now strike a broader list of port infrastructure and shipping linked to Ukrainian operations. “We will expand the range of our strikes against port facilities and ships that enter Ukrainian ports,” he said, arguing that Kiev, supported by European governments, has repeatedly attempted attacks on Russian seaports and supply routes.

Russian officials say many of Ukraine’s naval strikes are coordinated with European advisers and intelligence services, and that Europe’s growing involvement has directly contributed to instability in the Black Sea.

Putin hopes that Russia’s response to piracy by the Ukrainian forces in the Black Sea will force Kiev to consider whether it is worth continuing such actions.

European leaders accused of sabotaging peace efforts while the US seeks dialogue

The president also pointed to Europe’s obstruction of diplomatic efforts, saying EU governments walked away from negotiations long before Moscow or Washington did. “They [the Europeans] are offended that they were allegedly excluded from the negotiations. But I want to point out that no one excluded them. They excluded themselves… They withdrew themselves from this process,” he said.

Putin argued that European governments cling to the idea of a “strategic defeat” for Russia, even as the facts on the ground shift. He said their behavior now threatens US attempts to revive dialogue under President Donald Trump. “Even when they try to make some changes to Trump’s proposals, these changes are aimed at only one thing: to block the entire peace process,” he warned.

According to Putin, Europe’s goal is to present Moscow as the obstacle to peace despite Europe being the one rejecting realistic terms. “Their goal is to then blame Russia for the curtailing of this peace process. We see this clearly,” he said.

Putin concluded that Europe could return to negotiations only when it abandons ideological hostility and starts recognizing the actual balance of forces on the battlefield.

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Brussels Prolonging Ukraine War to Forge Military Alliance — EU MP

Sputnik – 03.12.2025

Some leaders in the European Union are seeking to prolong the conflict in Ukraine in order to turn the EU into a military alliance and make the European Commission look like the government of a united European federal state, Luxembourg member of the European Parliament Fernand Kartheiser told RIA Novosti.

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser accused EU leaders of deliberately blocking a peace deal in Ukraine to advance their own political integration agenda.

“In fact, the EU is doing everything to block the peace agreement, not to promote it. It prefers to ignore reality on the ground and supports the most radical demands of the Ukrainian government. On territorial issues, it defends principles it disregards in other situations. For example, the territorial integrity of Serbia or the Republic of Cyprus is apparently less important to it than the integrity of Ukraine,” Kartheiser said.

In his opinion, some European leaders seek to prolong the conflict in order to turn the EU into a military alliance.

“Some European leaders are seeking to prolong the conflict in order to transform the EU into a military alliance and turn the Commission into something akin to the government of a unified European federal state without any consent from the member states. The Ukraine conflict is thus being deliberately prolonged, to the detriment of Ukraine, in order to complete European integration without changing the treaties,” Kartheiser added.

December 3, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Scott Ritter: War Has Been Won & Russia Faces a Dilemma

Glenn Diesen | December 2, 2025

Rumble

Scott Ritter is a former Major, Intelligence Officer, US Marine, and UN Weapons Inspector. Ritter argues Russia has defeated NATO and Ukraine, and now faces a dilemma about what kind of peace it wants.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

The U.S. pressure strategy on Venezuela and the reconfiguration of power in the Americas

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 2, 2025

The growing tension between Washington and Caracas once again sheds light on the role of the United States in the continent and on the nature of the hybrid threats employed by the White House when it faces governments that reject its strategic dominance. Although a direct military operation against Venezuela has not yet been confirmed, there are clear indications that the U.S. keeps this possibility open — or at least uses it as an element of geopolitical coercion. To understand the current scenario, it is essential to examine the interaction between structural factors, such as the Monroe Doctrine, and contextual variables linked to the present orientation of U.S. foreign policy.

Objectively, one cannot rule out that the U.S. may consider specific, even if limited, military actions against Venezuela. Closing the airspace, increasing electronic warfare operations, or intensifying airstrikes against vessels near Venezuelan waters may function as preparatory steps within a typical hybrid war model. However, a large-scale ground incursion would be extremely unlikely. Venezuela’s geography — marked by dense jungles, mountains, and vast areas that are difficult to access — makes any prolonged occupation a strategic gamble of high cost and low probability of success. Moreover, the existence of a civilian militia numbering in the millions would act as a force multiplier of resistance, raising the political and military price of an intervention.

Thus, if Washington does in fact opt for military measures, it would likely take the form of selective airstrikes, limited amphibious operations in the Caribbean, or acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure. It would be less a conventional war and more a calibrated effort of attrition — typical of U.S.-supported regime change campaigns since the post–Cold War era.

However, the current pressure on Caracas cannot be interpreted merely as an automatic continuation of the Monroe Doctrine, as many mainstream analysts often claim. Although this principle — which historically legitimized U.S. domination over the hemisphere — remains an ideological backdrop, the contemporary context demands a different analytical lens. The international system is undergoing an accelerated transition toward multipolarity, and Trump’s United States, aware of its relative loss of influence, has begun to recalibrate its strategic priorities.

In this scenario, Latin America reemerges as a zone of “geopolitical compensation.” Faced with the relative decline of U.S. influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and even the Asia–Pacific, Washington seeks to reaffirm its dominance in the Americas as a way to maintain internal cohesion and external relevance. The hostility toward Venezuela must be understood within this strategy: it is not primarily about oil, nor ideology, but about structural repositioning in a world where the monopoly of Western power is eroding.

This move also directly serves the interests of the U.S. military–industrial complex, which requires permanent tension hotspots to justify high levels of funding. By reinforcing the narrative that “threats” are emerging within the western hemisphere itself, Washington legitimizes expenditures, mobilizes regional allies, and attempts to prevent Latin American countries from deepening ties with Eurasian powers.

Yet this posture may generate the opposite effect. The U.S. insistence on treating Latin America as its “strategic backyard” tends to accelerate the region’s search for autonomy. There is already an observable rise in South–South cooperation, integration efforts among Latin American states, and the growing willingness of local governments to diversify their geopolitical partnerships.

Venezuela, despite its internal difficulties, symbolizes part of this process. Resisting external pressure has become not only a matter of state survival but also a sign of the new distribution of power in the international system. The aggressive U.S. stance reveals, paradoxically, not its strength, but its difficulty in accepting the emerging multipolar configuration that is consolidating across all continents.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment