Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

One million pounds and a war without end: Boris Johnson’s intervention in Kyiv changed Europe’s future

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – October 17, 2025

When history revisits the Ukraine conflict, one episode may stand out as a turning point: Boris Johnson’s sudden visit to Kyiv in April 2022, just after a tentative peace agreement had been initialed in Istanbul.

At that moment, a ceasefire was within reach. Yet Johnson, then British Prime Minister, reportedly urged President Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign, assuring him that the West would arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” That decision, now under renewed scrutiny following revelations by The Guardian, may have changed the course of the conflict—and Europe’s political destiny.

The Istanbul Agreement That Never Was

By early April 2022, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed in principle to a framework that could have ended hostilities. Ukraine would forgo NATO membership in exchange for security guarantees. But after Johnson’s unannounced visit to Kyiv, talks collapsed.

Following The Guardian investigation, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.

According to leaked documents published by The Guardian, sourced from Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), a US-based transparency collective, Johnson had other motives for discouraging compromise.

The investigation traces a £1 million payment from businessman Christopher Harborne, a major shareholder in a British drone manufacturer supplying the Ukrainian military, to a private company created by Johnson shortly after leaving office. Harborne also accompanied Johnson to Kyiv, raising questions about direct lobbying and influence-peddling at the highest level of government.

Following the Money

Harborne’s donation, ostensibly legitimate under UK law, takes on a darker significance in this context. As Johnson lobbied Zelensky to prolong the war, Harborne’s company stood to benefit from expanded arms contracts. The Guardian’s exposé describes this payment as “a reward for services rendered,” a euphemism for bribery in geopolitical disguise.

Johnson dismissed the report as “a pathetic Russian hack job,” yet neither he nor Downing Street has provided a transparent accounting of the donation or its timing. The optics are damning: a former prime minister allegedly persuading a wartime ally to reject peace while personally profiting through associates linked to the arms trade.

The Price of Prolongation

Since that fateful spring, the toll has been catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians have perished. More than three trillion US dollars in Western aid and military spending have flowed into the conflict, much of it financed by debt and by diverting funds from social programmes.

European citizens are paying the price. Budgets once earmarked for welfare, healthcare, and pensions have been repurposed to sustain the war effort. Energy costs have soared, industrial competitivity has sunk, inflation has eroded savings, and social unrest has become regular across the continent.

The narrative of European solidarity has given way to anger and fatigue. Populist and far-right parties are sweeping across Europe. In this sense, Johnson’s intervention did not only prolong a war; it accelerated a social and political crisis within Europe itself.

From Peace Project to Proxy War

The European Union once prided itself on being a “peace project.” Yet its handling of the Ukraine conflict has projected a very different image: that of a continent complicit in militarisation and escalation. France and Germany, the supposed guardians of diplomatic balance, quietly aligned themselves with Washington’s maximalist stance.

No leader publicly questioned why the Istanbul Agreement was abandoned. No parliamentary inquiry has addressed whether Johnson’s visit influenced European policy and why European leaders did not censure Johnson.

In retrospect, Europe’s passivity reveals both dependency and cowardice. The EU’s foreign policy has become an echo of Washington’s strategic interests and those of arms manufacturers, such as Mr. Harborne, while dissenting voices were marginalised as “pro-Russian”. This reflex has stifled honest debate about the human and economic costs of the war and about who truly benefits from its continuation.

The Corruption Business

War has always been fertile ground for corruption, and Ukraine is no exception. From inflated procurement contracts to opaque aid transfers, vast sums have disappeared without audit. Johnson’s alleged bribe merely symbolises a broader pattern: the convergence of political ambition, corporate profit, and ideological fervour.

Bribery and influence-trading have evolved into sophisticated transnational systems cloaked in legality: foreign lobbying, consultancy fees, and donations to foundations. Such practices blur the line between governance and outright corruption. They ensure that conflicts endure not because peace is impossible, but because war remains profitable.

Europe’s Crisis of Leadership

The scandal surrounding Boris Johnson’s intervention in Ukraine exposes a deeper political and strategic crisis within Europe. The same continent that once championed diplomacy and human rights now finances a proxy war that has devastated a nation and destabilised an entire region.

European leaders invoke solidarity while diverting resources from welfare and pensions, tolerating rising inequality and industrial competitivity decline to sustain arms deliveries. The rhetoric of democracy has been replaced by the logic of deterrence.

Across the continent, disillusionment is fuelling the ascent of populist and far-right parties. Citizens who once viewed the EU as a guarantor of peace now perceive it as complicit in perpetual conflict. From Slovakia to the Netherlands, voters are turning against Brussels’ alignment with Washington, revealing a growing mistrust of supranational elites and foreign-driven policy agendas.

Johnson’s defenders claim his visit to Kyiv stemmed from moral conviction, not financial interest, but conviction cannot erase consequence. Had the Istanbul peace framework been pursued, thousands of lives and trillions in resources might have been spared. Instead, Johnson’s theatrics helped entrench a war whose primary beneficiaries are defence contractors and political opportunists.

That the European Union tolerated this manipulation without investigation or accountability reflects a failure of leadership, not merely a lapse of ethics. By outsourcing strategic direction to NATO and moral authority to Washington, Europe has strayed from its founding principles of peace and autonomy.

The result is a continent economically weakened, politically fragmented, and increasingly defined by the conflicts it once sought to prevent.

In sum, The Guardian investigation has done what official institutions would not: follow the money and expose the moral bankruptcy behind the rhetoric of freedom. Whether courts or parliaments act on these revelations remains uncertain. But the evidence is clear enough for history’s judgment.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics

October 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Strongman Persona Inevitably Results in Lies and War

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 17, 2025

Trump’s claim that Prime Minister Modi had promised to end the purchase of Russian oil was obviously false; in fact, there was apparently no phone call between the two leaders at all. Such fabrications, portraying world leaders as deferential to him and as praising his greatness, constitute a recurring pattern—one that parallels his militaristic approach to peace.

As the president of a declining hegemon, Trump is convinced that the weakness of his predecessors was the source of decline. Trump has therefore concluded that projecting strength can reverse the erosion of American power. In constructing himself as the ultimate strongman—allegedly respected by all—he positions himself as the sole saviour of the US. The image of a powerful, decisive and respected leader capable of restoring US dominance also functions domestically to consolidate political support and project stability during the country’s uneasy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar international order. The American public is seemingly prepared to look the other way or justify the dishonesty and moral disgressions as the price worth paying for a return to greatness.

The central problem with the strongman image is that it sustains unrealistic expectations of reviving US primacy rather than adapting to the realities of a multipolar world. The outcome is a pattern of deception and conflict that ultimately undermines, rather than strengthens, the United States.

When the strongman cannot coerce his counterparts into subservience, the only recourse is retreat into fantasy. In this imagined world, other leaders allegedly regret their decisions of not falling into line, tremble as Trump wags his finger, shower him with compliments, offer tribute to the United States, and in Trump’s own words, line up to “kiss my ass.” Within the Trumpian bubble of superpower cosplay, these scenes of deference are celebrated as signs of a return to greatness, yet in the real world, American credibility declines and decadence deepens. As the gap between fantasy and reality widens, Trump becomes increasingly reckless. Case in point, the threats against India to sever ties with Russia and India backfired spectacularly as Prime Minister Modi instead went to China to cement India’s relations with Russia, China and the SCO.

Great powers and independent states cannot simply fall in line, for doing so would predictably lead to their destruction or subjugation. The ultimate aim of an aspiring hegemon is not to reconcile differences in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, but to defeat rival powers and capture independent states. The objective of the economic confrontation with China is not to renegotiate trade agreements, but to undermine China’s technological capacity and contain it militarily to restore US primacy. The purpose of the proxy war against Russia is not peace in terms of finding a new peaceful status quo, rather it is to use Ukrainians and increasingly Europeans to bleed and weaken Russia until it can no longer sustain great-power status. Similarly, the goal of the confrontation with Iran is not to reach a new nuclear accord—Tehran has already accepted such terms in the past—but to achieve Iran’s capitulation and disarmament by linking the nuclear issue to restrictions on missiles and regional alliances. Any power that concedes even marginally to US pressure ultimately finds itself in a weaker and more vulnerable position—one that the aspiring hegemon will inevitably exploit. Any peace agreements are therefore temporary at best, as an opportunity to regroup.

India presents an intriguing case, as it is not an adversarial power. Its commitment to non-alignment makes strong relations with the United States desirable, yet the very same non-alignment necessitates strategic diversification to reduce excessive reliance on Washington. Should India be persuaded to sever ties with other major powers such as China and Russia, it risks becoming too dependent on the United States and absorbed into a bloc-based geopolitical system. Subordination to a declining empire would be perilous, as the United States would predictably use India as a frontline against China, and simultaneously demand economic tribute and cannibalise Indian industries in pursuit of renewed dominance. In essence, India must avoid becoming another Europe.

The strongman act is most effective with weaker and dependent states—such as those in Europe—that are willing to subordinate themselves entirely in order to preserve American commitment to the continent. European states lack the economic capacity, security autonomy, and political imagination to envision a multipolar world in which the United States wields less influence and holds other priorities than a close partnership with Europe. Consequently, European leaders appear willing to sacrifice core national interests to preserve the unity of the “Political West” for a little while longer. In private, they may express disdain for Trump; in public, they pay tribute to “daddy” and line up diligently in front of his desk to receive praise or ridicule. Yet this subservience is inherently temporary: leaders who disregard fundamental national interests are, in time, swept aside by the very forces they seek to suppress.

The strongman does not create any durable peace the underlying problems are never addressed. The mantra of “peace through strength” can be translated into peace through escalation, with the assumption that the opponent will come to the table and submit to US demands. However, rival great powers that have nowhere to retreat will respond to escalation with reciprocation. The delusions of the strongman in the declining hegemony will therefore inevitably trigger major wars.

October 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian soldiers busted over torture spree – police

RT | October 16, 2025

Ukrainian police have announced having dismantled a criminal gang of soldiers accused of abducting, torturing, and extorting civilians in western Ukraine. Media reports alleged the suspects were helping enforce mobilization and linked them to the Third Assault Brigade, a frontline unit notorious for its neo-Nazi roots.

In a statement on Wednesday, the National Police said it had arrested seven suspects who are allegedly implicated in a multitude of violent crimes. They were operating in Ternopol Region in Western Ukraine.

“The perpetrators took the victims out of the city, beat them and demanded money or valuable property,” police noted, adding that “the greatest cynicism was that the attackers mocked people who were seriously wounded in the war and were undergoing rehabilitation.”

In one case, the suspects allegedly stole a KIA car from a 27-year-old Ternopol resident and used it for their own purposes. Another victim was shot, abducted in broad daylight, and beaten while being held captive. The attackers demanded 50,000 hryvnia ($1,200) for his release, police said.

A third man was sprayed with tear gas, stripped naked, doused with gasoline, and forced to run in front of a car before being detained for three days “in inhumane conditions.”

Local activist Roman Dovbenko claimed the group had ties to the Third Assault Brigade, which he said had been assisting the local authorities with mobilization efforts. Ukrainian officials earlier confirmed they were bringing in “combat veterans” to help enforce the draft, a policy being touted as a way to “boost public trust” and ensure “lawfulness.”

Ukraine’s mobilization drive has long been marred by violent confrontations between recruitment officers and reluctant conscripts.

The Third Assault Brigade neither confirmed nor denied that its members were involved but said it was “aware” of the situation and “open to cooperation” with investigators, while condemning violence against civilians.

Formed in 2023, the brigade is a successor to the Azov Regiment, a far-right formation created in 2014 by nationalist figure Andrey Biletsky. The Azov movement has been accused by UN investigators and human rights groups of torture, war crimes and adopting symbols associated with the Waffen-SS.

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

Israel to resume Gaza onslaught once all captives repatriated, threatens war minister

Press TV – October 15, 2025

Israeli minister of military affairs Israel Katz has declared that the occupation army will resume its military onslaught on the besieged Gaza Strip once the remaining captives are returned, marking an open defiance of the newly agreed ceasefire agreement between the Hamas resistance movement and the Tel Aviv regime.

In a post on the social media platform X on Wednesday, Katz said that once the first phase of the deal is ended with the release of all captives, the Israeli military will resume its offensives to destroy Hamas.

“Israel’s great challenge after the phase of returning the captives will be the destruction of all of Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, directly by the army and through the international mechanism to be established under the leadership and supervision of the United States,” he added.

“This is the primary significance of implementing the agreed-upon principle of demilitarizing Gaza and neutralizing Hamas of its weapons.

“I have instructed the Israeli army to prepare for carrying out the mission,” Katz said.

The remarks came less than a day after Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire framework brokered by Qatar, Egypt and the United States, and intended to end Israel’s two-year-long genocide in Gaza.

Katz’s statement made it clear that Israel views the truce not as a step towards ending the military assault on the Gaza Strip, but rather as a temporary pause before re-launching its military offensive.

Israel killed at least nine Palestinians on Wednesday as the regime’s military warned Gaza residents to stay away from the areas it still occupies.

Additionally, Israeli tanks fired at Palestinians in the town of Bani Suheila and the Sheikh Nasser neighborhood, east of Khan Younis. There were no immediate reports of possible casualties and the extent of damage caused.

At least 67,913 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children, and another 170,134 individuals injured in the brutal Israeli onslaught on Gaza since October 7, 2023, according to the health ministry of Gaza.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

NATO keeps massive forward military presence on Russia’s doorstep – defense minister

RT | October 15, 2025

NATO is keeping a large-scale military presence near Russia’s borders, Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov has said, pointing to what he called the bloc’s increased training and reconnaissance activities.

Belousov made his remarks at a joint session of the Russian and Belarusian defense ministries on Wednesday. Cooperation between Moscow and Minsk remains a key factor in maintaining regional stability in light of the “openly hostile actions” of the West, he stated.

“The Alliance maintains a massive forward military presence on its eastern flank,” Belousov said. “The total strength of NATO troops involved in the exercises held on its eastern flank amounted to roughly 60,000.”

This year alone, the US-led military bloc held almost a dozen drills in Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Baltics and the Black Sea, which involved thousands of soldiers each.

Just one series of exercises, dubbed Defender 25, which was held throughout May and June, involved a total of 25,000 troops. The forces were deployed along the entire eastern border of the bloc, from Norway in the north to Bulgaria and Greece in the south, as part of the three-phase drill.

Other major NATO exercises included the 10,000-strong ‘Joint Viking 2025’ held in Norway in March, as well as the 16,000-strong ‘Hedgehog’ held in Estonia in May. The developments came amid increasingly belligerent statements from the European NATO members, which have repeatedly presented Russia as a threat since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has no intention to attack any NATO nations, calling such accusations unfounded.

It nonetheless warned that the bloc’s active involvement in the Ukraine conflict through weapons supplies and other assistance to Kiev risks a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Last month, Politico reported that EU officials were increasingly worried about tensions with Moscow potentially spilling into a major conflict akin to World War I. Russia, in turn, expressed its concerns over the fact that World War III was seriously being discussed in the West as a potential scenario.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NATO must buy more US arms for Ukraine – Pentagon chief

RT | October 15, 2025

European NATO members should purchase more American-made weapons to sustain Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s defense ministers.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western arms shipments cannot change the balance of power on the battlefield, arguing that Ukraine’s chronic manpower shortage, fueled by mass draft avoidance and desertion, undermines any material advantage.

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Hegseth praised the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative and said the European members must spend more funds through it.

“Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine,” Hegseth said. Rutte noted there was “firepower coming out of our defense industry” to bolster Ukrainian forces.

US President Donald Trump recently claimed that with European funding for American weapons, Ukraine could still achieve its territorial goals – a reversal of his earlier assessment that the county had “no cards” to play. Trump is expected to soon announce whether the US will approve deliveries of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev, a move Moscow has warned would mark a serious escalation but would not significantly alter the frontline situation.

The Russian government has accused European backers of Kiev of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, arguing that the former are unwilling to admit the failure of their strategy.

Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic fallout of their sanctions policy against Russia. Having rejected affordable Russian energy, many EU economies have faced surging production costs and widespread industrial bankruptcies, while the US has benefited from increased investment inflows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.

October 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Talk of Sending Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine is Calculated Psy-Op to Pressure Russia

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.10.2025

The US won’t allow strikes on Russian refineries, says Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis.

Psy-op in the Making

“I don’t see any military prospects for using Tomahawks against Russia, except for attempts at informational blackmail and political pressure,” Mikhailov tells Sputnik.

No Tomahawks have been sent or launched, yet Western media frenzy suggests a pressure tactic.

It’s all connected:

  • Washington raises the stakes by hinting at sending Tomahawks to Russia
  • Western media, aligned with Washington, hype the story — discussing targets, launches, and control
  • The impression is the missiles are already on their way

A Tomahawk launcher might even be rolled out at a test range somewhere simply for PR videos, Mikhailov suggests. But it would be similar to the Taurus missiles Germany promised: hyped by the media – yet still absent from Ukraine.

Washington Isn’t Suicidal

The Kremlin has repeatedly said Ukraine cannot launch Tomahawks on its own.

“Every Tomahawk fired at Russia from a US-made system by American crews would mark the start of a war between the US and Russia,” Mikhailov says.

  • The idea of US-made Tomahawks striking energy infrastructure inside Russia is a fantasy
  • Such an act would cross a red line that would trigger a response the US is 100% not ready for
  • Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine explicitly states that a massive cruise missile attack (like a volley of Tomahawks) can be met with a NUCLEAR response
  • Are the Americans ready to “collectively die” for this? The expert is clear: “I am absolutely sure, no.”

What Does the West Want?

The real target would be the “shadow fleet” moving Russian oil, according to the pundit. To that end, NATO holds provocative Baltic drills and tries to seize Russian ships.
The Nord Stream sabotage exemplifies economic attacks to choke Russia’s energy exports abroad.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The EU isn’t at war with Russia – it’s at war with the minds of its own citizens

European leaders are trying to gaslight their populations into believing that it’s Moscow that wants a fight, not them

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 14, 2025

Among other things, this particular moment in history will be remembered – whether in whole books, mere chapters, or (if we are lucky) forgotten footnotes – as the Great European Drone Scare. For weeks now, the populations of NATO-EU Europe have been subjected to a barrage of vague but scary reports about drone sightings. The drones have appeared – seemingly – over various places and installations, prominently including airports in Denmark and Germany.

They are of unknown origin and unknown purpose. And, quite often, it is actually also unknown whether they are even real. Indeed, there is no proof of Russia being responsible for any of these incidents, as even Western media admit. We are once again asked to simply trust our politicians and “experts.”

That is, the same ones who took months to stop pretending that Russia – absurdly – blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. As late as spring 2023, Germany’s Carlo Masala, for instance, who also believes “Girkin” and “Strelkov” are two different individuals (just like “Santa” and “Claus”), was still spreading groundless speculation – really, a conspiracy theory – about a “false flag attack” on Nord Stream, that is: Russia, Russia, Russia.

And – oh, coincidence! – also recently, Moscow, we are told, has had nothing better to do than oblige Western information warriors with three further sort-of incidents: a purported electronic-warfare attack on the plane of EU despot and de facto US proconsul Ursula von der Leyen over the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, an alleged incursion into Estonian airspace, and low fly-overs over the German frigate Hamburg during a recent NATO exercise.

In reality, those three stories share only one thing with the great drone saga: They don’t hold up to scrutiny. The case of the alleged Plovdiv GPS attack is so shoddy and cratered so badly so quickly that it’s been consigned to oblivion. The incursion into Estonian airspace did not happen either. Due to an agreement that Estonia itself signed in 1994, it cannot claim a 12-mile but only a 3-mile zone in the relevant area. Estonia’s case is hysterical to begin with; the 1994 agreement deprives it of even the flimsiest pretext of legality. Regarding the so-called buzzing of the Hamburg, finally, even Western military officials admit that it was not “imminently dangerous.” Instead, they complain, it was “unfriendly and provocative.” Frankly: Boohoo. What do you expect holding exercises on Russia’s doorstep while fighting an indirect war against it in Ukraine? A friendly chat among sailors over a stiff grog?

And yet everyone in NATO-EU establishment politics and its mainstream media has been singing the same old tired song, once again, sotto voce: Russia is coming, Russia is already here, Russia is everywhere. The new head of Germany’s spy agency – the Bundesnachrichtendienst – seems to believe that his job is not to do secret things quietly but to join the chorus of the panic-mongers: He also has sleepless visions of the Russians attacking just any day now. Maybe from right under his bed or out of his cupboard, one must suppose.

It is almost as if they were all reading from the same hymn sheet, that is, memo. And, of course, the new wave of self-induced hyper-ventilation has been milked for all it’s worth – a lot, as in billions of Euros – for yet more money to be spent on armaments, including but not limited to a “drone wall,” while ordinary people are subjected to ever more brutal austerity. Even more disturbingly, there is a clear drive to concentrate ever more powers with those same political establishments that can’t stop ruling by frightening and confusing their own citizens.

That the drone stories are already crumbling makes no difference: A dramatic French attempt – special forces and all – to pin nefarious drone activity on a tanker, for instance, has failed miserably. In Germany, a recent sighting has actually been cleared up quickly. The culprit? A hapless German drone amateur who must be living under a rock.

And perish the thought that Ukraine itself might have anything to do with those mystery drones! Its regime has plenty of motive, and, by now, even the West has been compelled to acknowledge that it is perfectly capable of massive sabotage operations and lies to manipulate its European backers. Because that is now even the official story of the Nord Stream terror attack. But: thinking logically – verboten!

Instead, let’s pretend that we know what we don’t know (Russia, Russia, Russia!) and start overreacting, again, based on our ignorance and panic at best, on a malevolent, deliberate strategy of cognitive warfare against our own countries at worst. In Germany, for instance, both Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius have made the bizarre claim that while the country is not (yet?) at war, it is also no longer at peace. And the-Russians-are-coming head of the BND? He feels the current peace is “icy” at best and – drum roll – “could turn into heated confrontation at any moment.”

What is that even supposed to mean? Is there a backhanded admission, finally, that Germany has made a deliberate and awfully self-harming choice to fight Russia through Ukraine? If so, thank you, Hauptmann Obvious: during last year’s Ukrainian Kamikaze offensive, German tanks got shredded once again in the vicinity of Kursk – at the 1943 site of the largest tank battle in history. (And guess who lost?) We have noticed that much. How about you, our supposed leaders, stop playing with fire?

Or are these fear-mongering statements meant to prepare the ground for a concrete power grab? That is what Roderich Kiesewetter, an ultra-Russophobe and war fantasist from Merz’s own center-right CDU party has already suggested explicitly: he wants the German parliament to declare the so-called “Spannungsfall,” literally “situation of tension.” In the mainstream media, for instance the important newspaper Welt, the usual information warriors are already amplifying Kiesewetter’s message. And – yet another striking coincidence – a recent military exercise called “Red Storm Bravo,” in Hamburg, one of Germany’s biggest cities, was dedicated to cosplaying the “Spannungsfall” – with maximum publicity.

The consequences of initiating a “Spannungsfall” – a kind of official pre-war – are complex and severe: Open-ended, compulsory, and universal military service is only one of them; the army can be used domestically; citizens can be drafted for work; civil rights are painfully restricted; those critical of government policy, NATO, or the “Spannungsfall” itself can be cajoled even worse than usual.

Last but not least, the “Spannungsfall” allows the government to postpone or otherwise influence elections. In Germany, it would be an ideal vehicle for the traditional parties to at least stall the consequences of their own failure, unpopularity and decline, on one side, and the rise of challengers on the so-called “populist” new right and left, on the other.

Carl Schmitt, Germany’s 20th-century version of Niccolo Machiavelli – brilliantly smart, ruthlessly realistic, and morally badly questionable – defined ultimate political power as the ability to declare a state of exception. In essence, Schmitt’s logic was simple: we live together by having rules; hence, the power that trumps all others is to decide when those rules do not apply.

Schmitt explained extremes. In reality, governments don’t raze all rules in one fell swoop. Why should they? To unshackle themselves and become even less accountable than usual they proceed stealthily and gradually. No need to trumpet a state of exception in its pure, all-or-nothing form. Why needlessly scare the subjects and, perhaps, provoke resistance?

Instead, what usually happens is the invocation of an emergency – either simply made-up or greatly exaggerated – to justify chipping away at citizens’ rights, first a little then a lot, while boosting the unchecked powers of the rulers and their bureaucrats. Call it the salami-slicing tactics of Western liberalism.

Dialing up the state of exception in handy instalments – that is also the most plausible explanation of the recent great drone scare in NATO-EU Europe. Yet another phase in the years-long Putin-is-gonna-get-you cognitive warfare campaign that Western establishments and mainstream media have been waging on their own fellow citizens, the great drone scare serves the general purpose to promote even more panic over an allegedly impending Russian attack on NATO states.

The techniques for escalating the war scare are dishonest and repetitive, but highly developed. As a high-ranking NATO general has told us, their aim is not simply to manipulate “what people think.” That, in NATO-speak, would be mere propaganda and just so old-hat. Rather, the state-of-the-art approach is to “exploit vulnerabilities of the human mind” to influence “the way” people think. Targeting “human capital” – yes, that’s us, all of us – “from the individual to states, to multinational organizations, across everyday life.”

Of course, the official pretense is that all of the above is what the enemy – read: Russia (and China) – does or, at worst, what NATO will do to that enemy. But is in the nature of the cognitive warfare shtick that it easily allows for turning the psychological disruption guns on the West’s own populations. Because – so the pretext – those populations are already under cognitive attack by the enemy. So what can you do, except fight back on the battlefield you claim is under attack: their minds? We have seen and experienced the results of this nifty little sleight of hand for years already.

But there also is something special. In the words of Jonas Togel, one of the few Western experts daring to notice Western information warfare, “it is worse than it has ever been.” Indeed, but there is no guarantee that things won’t get even worse again. The real question is how much longer our cognitive warriors-in-chief will have a free hand to drive us all mad with fear.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Patriot defenses ‘down to 6%’ effectiveness – retired general

RT | October 12, 2025

Kiev’s US-made Patriot air defense systems are proving increasingly ineffective at repelling Russian missile strikes, former Deputy Chief of General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Igor Romanenko has claimed.

The first of the missile systems arrived in Ukraine in April 2023 and they have been supplied by a number of NATO countries, including the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Kiev does not “have that many Patriot batteries,” and the effectiveness of those at its disposal has “fallen from 42% to 6%” recently, the retired lieutenant general told Ukraine’s Espreso TV on Friday.

Romanenko attributed the development to software upgrades the Russian military has made to its Iskander missiles, which have reportedly increased their speed and maneuverability as they approach their targets.

Last week, the Financial Times, citing anonymous Ukrainian and Western officials, similarly reported that Russian missiles are now capable of following a normal arc before veering into a steep terminal dive or performing maneuvers that “confuse and avoid” Patriot interceptors. According to the paper, Moscow has likely upgraded the Iskander-M mobile system and the air-launched Kinzhal.

According to the FT, a former Ukrainian official described the improved maneuverability of the Russian missiles as a “game changer.” The outlet cited data released by the Ukrainian Air Force indicating that the interception rate of Russian ballistic missiles had improved over the summer, reaching 37% in August, but then falling to just 6% in September.

In May, Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yury Ignat stated that the ballistic trajectories of the Iskander-M missiles had been “improved and modernized.”

The Kremlin has consistently maintained that no amount of Western military aid to Ukraine can change the course of the conflict, and only serves to unnecessarily prolong the bloodshed.

On Friday, the Russian military reported launching a “massive strike” against Ukraine’s military-industrial complex and the energy facilities supporting its operations. The Russian Defense Ministry said the attack was in response to Ukrainian “terrorist attacks” on civilian facilities.

The strikes caused a large-scale blackout in Kiev, according to local media and officials. Power outages were also reported in several other regions across Ukraine. Vladimir Zelensky claimed that rainy weather and fog had prevented the Ukrainian air defenses from performing optimally.

October 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

No ground for negotiations with E3 anymore: Iran FM

Al Mayadeen | October 11, 2025

Tehran no longer sees a basis for nuclear talks with the E3 countries, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated on Saturday evening, adding that the country is not seeking it either.

Speaking to the Iranian state TV, Araghchi revealed that Washington had asked to hold direct talks with Tehran on the sidelines of the UN meetings, a message conveyed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Iran, according to Araghchi, expressed readiness to engage, but only on the condition that representatives from the E3 countries and the IAEA Director, Rafael Grossi, be present, which the latter refused.

In this context, the top Iranian diplomat revealed that “the United States has always sought to integrate regional issues into nuclear negotiations, but we have never allowed that,” describing Washington’s positions as “constantly changing”.

Iran’s interests are red line

Regarding Tehran’s red lines, Araghchi confirmed that the interests of the Iranian people are paramount, emphasizing that while Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium, it is willing to provide the international community with assurances, if need be, about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.

He further criticized Europe, stating it has demonstrated a lack of independence, and indicated that Iran remains open to studying any new, fair plan from Washington as long as it respects the interests of the Iranian people, expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue.

On the topic of the Cairo Agreement, Araghchi stated, “It is currently frozen, and our cooperation with the Agency is only conducted within the framework of the Iranian parliament’s law and through the Supreme National Security Council.”

Araghchi addressed the prospect of renewed war with “Israel”, disclosing that, following an exchange between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several days ago, Russian officials subsequently informed the Iranian ambassador in Moscow that Netanyahu has no interest in returning to a state of war with Iran.

Gaza ceasefire solely a Palestinian Resistance matter

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi addressed the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, denying that any discussions had taken place with Steve Witkoff concerning it, while affirming Iran’s support for any plan that would halt what he described as Israeli crimes.

Araghchi said Trump shared his view on Iran’s statement about the Gaza deal, but no messages were exchanged with Washington, adding that only the Palestinian Resistance and people can decide on a ceasefire, and no one else.

He stressed that “Israel” is not trustworthy, citing past experiences like Lebanon, which is clear proof that the entity does not honor its commitments, based on which Iran raised its concerns and issued the necessary warnings. He added that while Washington has made positive promises regarding the Gaza deal, there are doubts about its seriousness in fulfilling them, as these promises are constantly shifting.

Araghchi also noted that most foreign ministers in the region are skeptical about the future of the subsequent phases of the Gaza agreement.

On the issue of the normalization agreements, Iran’s FM noted that “these deals intrinsically constitute a sinister plan to deprive the Palestinian people of their rights,” adding that Iran’s position on such agreements is clear: “it will never join them.”

Regarding the trade war imposed by Washington, Araghchi stated that Iran would reciprocate in kind if its commercial ships were obstructed in any way under the pretext of sanctions, affirming that escalating tensions is not in anyone’s interest.

October 12, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why is a ‘regime change’ in Venezuela a stupid idea?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 11, 2025

It would be a mistake to say that with Trump’s return to the White House, Venezuela is once again under pressure. It never stopped being under pressure since the final years of the Obama administration. But it is legitimate to say that Trump 2.0 has initiated a new phase in the over-10-year hybrid campaign against the Bolivarian state.

We have already seen sanctions, attempts at color revolution, attempts to install an “alternative” president, the theft of Venezuelan gold reserves, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of elections, provocations at the borders, and even the blocking of its entry into BRICS (sadly spearheaded by Brazil).

Now, however, we see military threats looming on the horizon against Caracas.

Harbingers of this had already occurred.

In 2020, for example, there was an attempt to infiltrate Venezuelan territory with mercenaries hired by the American company Silvercorp with the goal of overthrowing the government of Nicolás Maduro.

In 2024, the CEO of the former private military company Blackwater started the “Ya casi Venezuela” project to raise funds with the alleged aim of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro. Recently, he also stated that the $50 million bounty should apply not only to Maduro’s capture but also to his assassination.

And, as we know, between late August and early September, we saw a series of events that raised tensions in the Caribbean Sea, such as the deployment of warships to the Caribbean and the bombing of four Venezuelan boats that were allegedly transporting drugs.

Now, despite the official line that U.S. maneuvers in the Caribbean Sea are aimed at combating drug trafficking, it is noteworthy that Venezuela accounts for only 3% of all drugs reaching the U.S.. Washington does not seem to be deploying the same level of effort to stifle more important sources, such as the Colombian route, for example.

Thus, even without any official declaration, one cannot rule out the possibility that the U.S. is considering moving forward with a new attempt at regime change in Venezuela – but this time in a more direct way, whether through naval and aerial bombardments, drone attacks, or a black ops operation using mercenaries and/or special forces. Or, of course, a combination of all these options.

Naturally, one thing is to set this objective, another is to achieve it, and yet another thing is to deal with the consequences afterward.

From what is known about the fall of Assad, for example, it was apparently achieved, at least in part, by bribing military officers and co-opting Syrian intelligence. The classic tactic of “divide et impera,” divide and conquer, was used to liquidate Syrian power and facilitate the state’s conquest by Al-Julani’s irregular forces.

Any similar attempt regarding Venezuela will fail. Indeed, Venezuela, as a poor country, would in theory suffer from this fragility facing the possibility of its officials being bribed by foreign economic powers, but the Venezuelan Armed Forces were built in a different way from other states, as is the very foundation of Venezuelan state power. The degree of civilian-military integration in Venezuela is such that the supervision of numerous economic activities in the country is carried out by high-ranking military officers.

The Venezuelan state is, at least in part, a military state. The military does not represent an isolated institution separate from political power, available, therefore, for the possibility of co-option and instrumentalization against other institutions. Instead, in terms explained decades ago by the Argentine philosopher Norberto Ceresole, the military constitutes the guard of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Furthermore, Venezuela’s intelligence agencies, SEBIN and DGCIM, are very closely linked to both military and political power. It is these agencies that have been instrumental in all infiltration attempts in Venezuela, and it is unlikely that dissent can be cultivated within these structures.

Finally, although the Bolivarian militias are not very useful against long-range missile attacks, from the perspective of law and order and guaranteeing national stability in the face of the possibility of trying to take advantage of a potential chaotic situation to organize a color revolution, the armed Bolivarian militias can play a subsidiary and supportive role for the authorities, stifling potential foci of dissent and rebellion.

Now, even the goal of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro’s government presents difficulties even if eventually achieved. Other hierarchs could take his place, as they would have the support of the Venezuelan Armed Forces; this could lead to a scenario of prolonged conflict on Venezuelan territory.

As in all cases of a country’s destabilization, emigration tends to increase rather than decrease, due to the greater difficulty of ensuring the common good in the first months after a hypothetical overthrow of Maduro.

Although the U.S. has a tendency to destabilize nations to keep them in a state of permanent chaos, in theory, the same could not be done in Venezuela lest the instability reach the U.S. itself through increased migration and the collapse of law and order.

U.S. security itself also depends on maintaining a stable Venezuela, so the U.S. would truly be forced into “nation-building” in Caracas, facing a heavily armed country, including at the civilian level, and one that is predominantly hostile.

Instead of such adventurous delusions, Washington should be directing its efforts towards reinforcing Venezuelan stability, especially through the withdrawal of sanctions.

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The silent collapse of the United States

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 11, 2025

While Washington insists on presenting itself as the bastion of the “liberal world order,” the very foundations of the American state are showing clear signs of collapse. The internal reality of the United States today is marked by an insurmountable fiscal abyss, chronic political polarization, and an alarming inability to maintain even the most basic national security systems. The recent escalation of public debt, combined with the imminent breakdown of nuclear monitoring infrastructure, reveals that American hegemony is not just in decline — it is on the verge of functional collapse.

According to data from the U.S. Treasury, the gross national debt surpassed $37.5 trillion in 2025 — the highest level in the country’s history — exceeding 120% of its GDP. What is most alarming is the speed of this growth: in just the last 12 months, the debt increased by more than $2 trillion — without any emergency context such as war or a global pandemic. It is an unsustainable trajectory, typical of failed states, yet it is happening at the heart of the Western financial system.

At the same time, budget cuts imposed by Congress itself — deadlocked in endless partisan disputes — have directly jeopardized the security of the American nuclear arsenal. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), responsible for overseeing and maintaining the country’s atomic warheads, publicly admitted that its funds would only guarantee operations for “a few more days.” Once this period expired, a shutdown process for monitoring systems began — something unthinkable for any minimally functional power.

How can a country that spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fund wars in foreign territories — such as Ukraine and the occupied Palestine — be unable to finance the security of its own nuclear arsenal? The answer is simple: the United States is no longer a rational country, but a decaying “empire” driven by corporate lobbies, military-industrial interests, and a political elite entirely disconnected from national reality.

The current Republican administration tries to blame the Democratic opposition for the budget paralysis, while the Democrats sabotage any attempt at agreement in order to politically undermine the government. This argument is partially valid, but it also exposes the weakness of the Republicans themselves, who fail to counter the Democratic sabotage. This bipartisan theater is not only dysfunctional — it is suicidal. The U.S. is at the mercy of its own internal disorder, becoming a threat not only to itself but to the entire world, given the sensitive nature of the nuclear systems involved.

Thousands of NNSA employees and contractors have already been affected by shutdowns and funding freezes. Although the government claims that “critical operations” will continue, there are no guarantees or transparency about what exactly remains functional. A mistake, maintenance failure, or even a delayed response to an incident could have catastrophic consequences — including radioactive leaks or accidental detonation.

Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China continue to strengthen their energy sovereignty, defense systems, and institutional stability. The multipolar approach being built by these nations — particularly within the expanded BRICS+ framework — demonstrates strategic maturity and responsibility toward global order, in stark contrast to what is observed in Washington.

America’s decline is not expressed solely through numbers or economic graphs. It is visible in the inability to protect its own population, maintain basic infrastructure, or prevent political games from eroding the state’s structural integrity. When even the nuclear arsenal — supposedly the ultimate red line — is left vulnerable to budget cuts, the message is clear: the U.S. is no longer capable of leading the world.

The collapse on the horizon will not be merely economic. It will be institutional, military, and geopolitical. And in the face of this scenario, the world must begin looking to other — multiple, stable, sovereign, and genuinely peace-oriented — leaderships to guarantee global security.

October 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment