Ukraine War Will Now Be Resolved on Battlefield
John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | July 25, 2025
I had the great pleasure of speaking with John Mearsheimer and Alexander Mercouris about developments in Ukraine. The Ukrainian frontlines are falling apart with greater speed and NATO’s recent plans of rearming Ukraine will not be able to turn the tide. Yet, the NATO countries have not sought to end the war through a peace agreement and instead continue to push for an “unconditional ceasefire” without a political settlement. Without an agreement to end NATO expansion, Russia will impose its own settlement through a military victory. Such an “ugly peace” will not benefit anyone.
German foreign minister makes new threat against Russia
RT | July 24, 2025
Ukraine will soon have the capability to strike targets inside Russia, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said on Wednesday, raising the prospect of Berlin supplying long-range weapons that Moscow has warned could escalate the conflict.
Speaking to Die Zeit, Wadephul did not name specific systems, but appeared to reference the Taurus missile – a long-range weapon capable of hitting targets up to 500km away, including inside Russian territory.
”Ukraine will also have the means to strike back into Russian territory,” he said. “However, we will not reveal to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin… which weapons systems we are providing to Ukraine.”
Wadephul added that he had been cautious about weighing in on the Taurus debate, citing the missile’s technical complexity as the reason for the delay in coming to a decision.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that supplying Taurus missiles would make Germany a direct party to the conflict. Russian officials have long criticized Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, saying they prolong hostilities and risk a broader confrontation.
Berlin has resisted supplying the Taurus system to Kiev for months. Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz repeatedly blocked the transfer, citing a risk of escalation. His successor, Friedrich Merz, has since stated that no decision has been taken on the matter.
Since taking office in May, Merz has adopted a hardline stance toward Russia. Earlier this month, he declared that diplomatic options in the Ukraine conflict had been “exhausted” and reaffirmed his commitment to arming Ukraine. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused him of fueling escalation by abandoning diplomacy.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius reiterated earlier this month that Berlin would not send Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
Senior German General Christian Freuding said recently, however, that Ukraine would receive its first batch of long-range missiles financed by Berlin before the end of July. He did not specify the type, but suggested that Ukrainian forces consider striking Russian airfields and weapons factories to relieve pressure at the front.
NATO Expansion — The Root Cause of the War in Ukraine
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 23, 2025
I know there is a lot of interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story and the new revelations from Tulsi Gabbard about Barack Obama and his team’s efforts to fan the flames of Russiagate. I have been all over the Russiagate matter since 2017. Here is the link to a piece I published on December 18, 2018 with the nifty title, The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic. I am glad the information is finally coming out, but I knew this seven years ago. What took them so long? While Tulsi’s revelations are legit, I think she is releasing this information now to distract attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Trump is getting killed in the polls — reportedly he is down 40% points on this issue.
For now, I want to focus on the war in Ukraine, i.e., the Special Military Operation (SMO), and clarify Russia’s motivation and objective for ending that conflict. We keep hearing the phrase, root causes. Russia wants the West to address the root causes. Ok, what are those? I think it is pretty simple — read the draft treaty that Vladimir Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2021 and then you will understand. To spare you reading the entire document (I have linked to it in the next paragraph) I am going to summarize the key points.
The draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021, outlined a series of far-reaching security demands, reflecting Russia’s intent to reshape the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Here are the key points from the published text:
- No Further NATO Expansion
• The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.
• This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. - No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries
• The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
• NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations. - Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles
• Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory. - Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities
• Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.) - Nuclear Weapons Restrictions
• All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
• Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad. - Mutual Security Pledge
• Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party. - Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms
• Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline. - Indivisibility of Security Principle
• Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalizing Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.
Instead of engaging the Russians in negotiations on these matters, Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, essentially told Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, that Russia could take the treaty and shove it up its own ass. So much for diplomacy. Had the US agreed to discuss the draft treaty with the Russians, the SMO would not have been launched in February 2022. But that is the critical point… The US had no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement with Russia. For example, the CIA, using DOD cover, had already invested tens of millions of dollars in bio labs scattered throughout Ukraine. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, it recovered documents that identified a network of 30 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine that were conducting research on dangerous pathogens as part of a bioweapons program. Ukraine was nothing more than a pawn in a Western game of strategic chess, with the ultimate goal of wrecking Russia and taking control of its natural resources. The West was not ready to quit that game.
Until NATO’s threat to Russia is taken off the table, Russia’s war with the West will continue… It represents an existential threat to the Russian people. The talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine do nothing to address or resolve the root causes.
Trump’s weapons plan for Ukraine bound to fail
By Ahmed Adel | July 24, 2025
The idea of resuming the supply of weapons to Ukraine began with applause in the West, but was followed by shock as it turned out that many countries in Europe are not ready for various reasons, either because they themselves do not have the weapons or they openly admit that they do not have the money for such an adventure.
United States President Donald Trump recently said that the Europeans will take on the burden of sending weapons to Kiev by purchasing them from the US, and as a start, they will send the Patriot missile defense systems.
The problem is that there are neither as many Patriot systems nor as many cruise missiles as Ukraine would need to change the catastrophic situation on the front. Some Europeans have caught on to this issue, but in general, most are unwilling to go to Ukraine militarily, to wage war and fight against the Russians, but they are all ready to verbally support it.
Patriot systems are not a miracle weapon that will mark a turning point in the war. Although some analysts have claimed that the Patriot is capable of shooting down some Russian missiles, the system is not capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile traveling at 12,000 kilometers per hour.
Even the US itself does not have enough Patriot missiles after transferring a significant number to Israel. As a result, the total stock of these missiles in the US is 25% depleted, which is why Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has decided, on his own initiative, to halt deliveries of these missiles to Kiev. Moreover, it takes between one and two months to produce one missile.
An additional factor is the price: it is a huge and expensive scale of construction that costs nearly $2 billion, and each rocket costs an average of $1.5 to $2 million.
Another problem is the training of personnel to operate the Patriot systems. Each battery has 92 crew members, and with 17 units, in addition to a reserve, Ukraine will face difficulties in finding so many personnel. Furthermore, training for one Patriot system according to NATO standards takes a year and a half without evaluation. It is also worth noting that in 2023, Kiev sent trained crews to the infantry, but many of them were subsequently lost.
At the same time, Radar stations are not mobile and are often targeted by drones, rendering them ineffective.
Finally, the American logistics system means that if a Patriot malfunction or maintenance cannot be performed in the field, it must be packed, transferred from Ukraine to Rzeszów, Poland, and then loaded onto cargo planes and sent to the US.
Previously, the F-16 fighter jets, as well as the Leopard and Abrams tanks, were also praised as “miracle weapons” in Ukraine. Now, no one mentions that Russia has better weapons that are doing their job on the front to deadly effect.
Europe’s financial situation is a weak point in the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, with many European countries refusing to participate in Trump’s project to purchase American weapons for Kiev. Italy openly admitted that it did not have the necessary funds.
The European Union is on a rather gloomy downward trajectory, following several blows, including the migrant wave, COVID-19, and the Ukrainian crisis, and is clearly starting to lag behind the BRICS and G20 countries, which have several comparative advantages over it.
Brussels lacks relevant resources. Russia has the largest resources among all the power centers, the US has somewhat fewer, and China has even fewer. European military power is dwarfed compared to that of the US, Russia, and China.
At the same time, Russia is a prominent member of intercontinental economic alliances, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. European goods are becoming more expensive and less competitive, yet they want to give more money for weapons to Ukraine.
Trump’s entire plan is a game in which, as a businessman, he tries to make the best possible deal for the US. He is aware of the limited scope of the American role in Ukraine, which will have an inglorious end. The billionaire is realistic and understands that no success can be achieved and that time is not on Ukraine’s side.
In general, things are not going well for the West because Europe is falling even faster, and Trump is facing several ambitious world powers that possess real spheres of influence. He wants to play a subtle game where there is no clear winner. But he does not want a repeat of Saigon or Afghanistan, where American collaborators were grabbing onto departing helicopters. Trump wants to avoid those humiliating scenes and make a deal, showing collegiality with the Russian president as much as possible.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Romania Strong-Armed Into Buying $2.3 Billion Israeli Anti-Aircraft Systems
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 23, 2025
Having managed to derail populist, NATO-skeptical presidential candidates through a variety of extraordinary means, Romania — bowing to pressure from NATO and President Trump — announced it will spend $2.3 billion on Israeli anti-aircraft systems to fend off the supposed Russian menace.
The big-ticket, Israel-benefitting purchase comes even as Romania is poised to impose dramatic austerity measures to address its deteriorating financial condition. Romania’s 2025 deficit will be the largest in the country’s history. At roughly 9% of GDP, its deficit is also the EU’s highest by that measure. The alarming numbers have triggered reprimands from the European Commission, which asked Romania to bring its deficit down to 2.8% of GDP by 2030. At last month’s NATO summit, the organization’s members bent to Trump’s long-running demands, agreeing to more than double their targeted military spending — from 2% of GDP to 5% — by 2035.
Working hard to rationalize the outlay, Reuters’ report on the Israeli deal notes that Romania “has had Russian drone fragments fall in its territory repeatedly over the past two years.” The Times of Israel bolstered the narrative with a headline claiming “Romania [is] on edge over Russia.”
Last year, Romania seemed poised to elect the deeply NATO-skeptical populist Calin Georgescu, who won the first round of Romania’s two-round presidential election. Citing supposed Russian interference, the country’s Constitutional Court threw out the election and ordered it to be started anew. In a May triumph for the EU establishment, centrist Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan prevailed.
Romania’s pending redistribution of $2.3 billion of its wealth to Israel’s booming arms industry comes as the government is poised to unleash drastic austerity measures that are certain to stoke resentments. Potential moves include firing 20% of the country’s civil service workers, increasing value-added taxes, and increasing taxes on profits and dividends from 10% to 16%. “This correction is so extensive, so far-reaching, that pain cannot be avoided,” former finance minister and current head of the Romanian Fiscal Council Daniel Daianu told Politico.
Meanwhile, Romania will shower $2.3 billion on an Israeli arms industry already enjoying record revenues. Hitting a new high for the fourth consecutive year, Israeli weapon sales totaled just under $14.8 billion in 2024. European customers accounted for 54% of exports, the Times of Israel reports.
Under the new arms agreement, Romania will buy short-range and very-short-range anti-aircraft systems from Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, with contracts encompassing training, logistical support and ammunition. The first two V/SHORAD systems will be delivered within three years of the contract’s signing, which is expected this fall. The Defense Post reports that Rafael submitted its SPYDER missile systems in the bidding competition. Rafael defeated South Korea’s LIG Nex1, European multinational MBDA and Germany’s Diehl Defence.
Too many conservative Americans clap like seals when Trump demands that European countries spend more money on “defense” — seemingly oblivious to the fact that higher defense spending by European governments is not geared to achieving lower defense spending by the US government. Indeed, in a matter of several weeks during his new term, Trump went from oratorically aspiring to partner with Russia and China to cut the three countries’ military budgets in half, to enthusiastically announcing his approval of a Pentagon request to lift spending to a record $1 trillion.
Fittingly, Trump did so in an Oval Office session with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side. Turning to the man who would soon drag Trump into a war on Iran launched on false claims about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said, “You’ll like to hear of this.”
Thai-Cambodian Сonflict Only ‘Suits’ America
Sputnik – 24.07.2025
Earlier on Thursday, there was an escalation of clashes between troops of Thailand and Cambodia on the border, which began with a shootout between ground forces in a disputed area.
The US sees the Thailand-Cambodia escalation “through the lens of divide and rule,” Brian Berletic, geopolitical analyst and former US Marine, told Sputnik.
He warned that if the conflict spirals out of control, it could add to regional conflicts the US is also playing a hand in.
“It will create regional instability, slow growth and development, and give the US an opportunity to reassert influence over the region,” Berletic pointed out.
The analyst noted that the standoff sets back the very economic and political unity China has encouraged across the region. That unity allowed many regional nations “to work out from under generations of Western primacy and outright colonialism,” according to him.
“While both the US and China see the region as a sphere of interest – China sees it through the lens of cooperation and joint development,” Berletic emphasized.
China enjoys close relations with both Cambodia and Thailand, he stressed, adding that Chinese authorities “will almost certainly encourage peace and stability and a quick resolution of the conflict.”
‘Peacemaker’ Trump beats Biden’s bombing record since return to office: Report
The Cradle | July 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump has ordered hundreds of airstrikes across West Asia and Africa since his return to office, carrying out more attacks in the first five months of his second term than former president Joe Biden did during his entire presidency, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).
“In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US airstrikes (529) as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration (555),” said ACLED President Clionadh Raleigh.
Among the countries bombed by Trump are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The majority of strikes were carried out against Yemen.
“The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn’t about geography – it’s about frequency,” Raleigh added.
The surge in attacks contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, which framed him as “anti-war.”
In March this year, Trump renewed the Biden government’s campaign against Yemen with much greater intensity.
Months of brutal and deadly attacks struck the country in response to the Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) naval operations against Israeli interests and its missile and drone strikes in support of Palestine.
Yemeni forces consistently responded to US attacks by targeting US warships in the Red Sea, during both Biden and Trump’s terms.
A ceasefire between Sanaa and Washington was reached in May, after the US campaign burned through munitions and failed to impact Yemeni military capabilities significantly.
However, the campaign took a heavy toll on civilians and compounded the humanitarian crisis the country has faced due to over a decade of war.
An investigation released by Airwars last month revealed that Trump’s war on Yemen killed almost as many civilians in less than two months as in the last 23 years of Washington’s military action in the country combined.
“In the period between the first recorded US strike in Yemen to the beginning of Trump’s campaign in March, at least 258 civilians were allegedly killed by US actions. In less than two months of Operation Rough Rider … at least 224 civilians in Yemen [were] killed by US airstrikes – nearly doubling the civilian casualty toll in Yemen by US actions since 2002,” it said.
In Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, Trump has also continued to strike what Washington says are ISIS and Al-Shabab targets.
Despite vowing to end “forever wars,” Trump has recently threatened to expand them.
On 22 July, the US president threatened to launch new attacks on Iran, after late June bunker-buster strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities which were carried out on behalf of Israel.
West Doubles Down on Failed Wars in Ukraine & Middle East
Glenn Diesen | July 22, 2025
Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the West is doubling down on the failed wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
More Reckless Than Ever: NATO’s Proxy War with Russia
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
The strategy that the United States and its European allies have adopted to use Ukraine as their military proxy in a war to weaken Russia has always involved a sizable element of risk. At some point, Russian leaders might no longer be content with just attacking the puppet that NATO members were using to torment their country. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues could decide to attack one or more of the puppeteers. The chances of such an escalation are increasing. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s principal deputy, issued a warning on July 17 that his country might launch “preemptive strikes” if the Western powers continued to boost their support for Ukraine’s military efforts.
Medvedev’s statement occurred just after President Donald Trump executed a major U.S. policy reversal regarding Ukraine. Instead of phasing out military aid to Kiev, the administration announced a resumption of weapons shipments, including Patriot air defense missiles that other NATO members would purchase from the United States. Such a stance was reminiscent of President Joe Biden’s enthusiastic support for Ukraine’s war effort, and it stood in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign and the initial weeks of his second term that indicated a determination to end Washington’s entanglement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Unfortunately, the new sale of Patriots is just the latest in a long series of provocations that the United States and NATO have conducted against Russia since full-scale fighting between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022. Both Medvedev and Putin have contended previously that NATO is already at war with their country, given the extent of military assistance that alliance members have extended to Kiev—especially the provision of long-range missiles. Medvedev specifically raised the prospect of Russian retaliatory strikes on NATO bases.
Their charge has merit. Not only have NATO members collectively provided a tsunami of weapons to their military proxy, but also several of them have assisted Ukraine’s war effort in other crucial ways. There is credible evidence that both British and American intelligence agencies (and possibly those of other NATO countries) have provided crucial data to Ukrainian forces attacking Russian military transport planes and other targets. A similar form of assistance apparently was given to Ukrainian forces that attacked Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea.
Providing such assistance to one party in an ongoing war could quite reasonably be interpreted as an act of war against the opposing party. Yet several alliance members are incurring such risks. A German general justified his country’s decision to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. But as one critic noted, what the general conveniently left out “is that these weapons will be operated by German personnel from Wiesbaden. In other words, Germany is turning one of its own cities into a legitimate target for Russian retaliation.”
Although the evidence of committing an act of war is less definitive in other cases, there were strong indications that one or more NATO member states were involved in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The accounts that American and European media propaganda campaigns circulated certainly lacked even minimal credibility. The original cover story that Russia (for reasons that remained both vague and implausible) destroyed its own multi-billion-dollar pipeline did not even pass the proverbial laugh test. Even U.S. and other NATO officials quickly backed away from that attempted explanation. However, the substitute version was even more preposterous. That iteration asserted that a band of Ukrainian activists (but activists who had absolutely no connection to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government) conducted the sabotage raid using a civilian yacht manned by divers not in the country’s military.
Since those attempts at a plausible cover story flopped, NATO officials and their pet media outlets have gone strangely silent. Hopes by the transatlantic foreign policy “blob” that the pipeline story will just go away are understandable, since Moscow would have grounds for regarding the attack on its pipeline as a brazen act of war.
More recently, murkiness surrounds Ukraine’s bold move deploying swarms of drones to attack Russia’s strategic bomber fleet stationed at four air bases deep inside Russia. Kiev understandably bragged about such a military and propaganda victory. However, Washington’s possible role in this episode remains a matter of conjecture. Media outlets friendly to Ukraine asserted that the United States knew about the operation and expressed no objection. The White House initially contended that Ukraine had given no advance notice, but the U.S. account has become less clear with the passage of time.
It is an important detail. It seems unlikely that Ukrainian forces could have carried out such a complex operation so deep inside Russian territory without intelligence information similar to that given to Kiev in its earlier assaults against Russian troop transports and warships. The probable conclusion is that Kiev likely was aided by either U.S. intelligence operatives or operatives from another NATO. In either case, it would be yet another act of war committed against the Russian Federation. One can readily imagine the reaction from the United States if Russia (or any other adversary) waged an attack on the U.S. strategic bomber fleet and destroyed a significant portion of the fleet.
Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine acted totally alone, that scenario would mean that NATO’s proxy had gone rogue and is now acting on its own. In mid-July, President Trump raised tensions with the Kremlin even more. With typical Trumpian verbal incontinence, he asked Zelensky if (apparently in light of the successful raid on the bomber bases), Ukraine could strike a target such as Moscow deep inside Russia. It appeared to be an unsubtle hint that the United States would not be displeased by such a move. Trump did say many hours later that he was not calling on Ukraine to attack Moscow, but that poisonous idea was now firmly planted. On July 20, Ukraine launched a drone assault on Moscow.
The United States and its NATO allies are engaging in irresponsible behavior that could turn the already dangerous Ukraine proxy war against Russia into a direct armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia. Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Soviet and American leaders had the good sense to implicitly keep their respective homelands off limits. The current crop of “leaders” on the Western side are not exercising such wisdom or basic prudence. They are playing the international equivalent of Russian roulette.
German opposition slams Ukraine aid
RT | July 21, 2025
Frustration is growing in Germany over increased aid to Ukraine while domestic spending lags, co-chair of opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alice Weidel has said.
Berlin has been one of Kiev’s largest military backers since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Earlier this year, the German Defense Ministry announced that it would provide €5 billion ($5.6 billion) to finance long-range weapons production in Ukraine.
In an interview with the broadcaster ARD on Sunday, Weidel criticized the allocation of funds to Kiev, citing unmet domestic needs. Asked about alternative uses for public funds, she pointed to a shelved proposal to abolish electricity taxes, which would have cost the state €5.4 billion – comparable to what Berlin is spending on weapons for Ukraine, she argued.
“And then our government, the Friedrich Merz government, gives Ukraine nine billion in German tax money and now wants to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine for five billion. Nobody understands that anymore,” Weidel said.
She was referencing a US-backed plan to funnel Patriot air defense systems to Kiev via NATO members, with Germany covering the costs. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth in Washington last week that the terms of the arrangement could be finalized “within days or weeks,” though the actual transfer of the missile systems to Ukraine might take months. Berlin has indicated its readiness to cover the cost of at least two Patriot batteries to Ukraine – estimated at approximately $1 billion each.
Since taking office in May, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pursued a hardline stance against Russia. Earlier this month, he declared that diplomatic options in the Ukraine conflict were “exhausted” and doubled down on his policy of providing weapons to Kiev. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Merz of choosing escalation by abandoning diplomacy.
Last week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that European nations are funding the “death” of Ukraine by paying for weapons sent to Kiev. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they do not change the overall course of the conflict and merely serve to prolong the bloodshed and risk further escalation.
Pentagon Quietly Returns Nuclear Bombs to UK for First Time Since 2008
Sputnik – 21.07.2025
WASHINGTON – The United States has reportedly returned its nuclear weapons, including an unspecified number of B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bombs, to the British Lakenheath air force base in Suffolk, the UK Defense Journal reported, citing multiple sources.
For the first time since at least 2008, the United States has transported weapons from the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico to a newly established secure storage facility in Suffolk, UK, the journal reported on Sunday.
The Lakenheath base stored US nuclear weapons during the Cold War, with their removal occurring in 2008 as part of disarmament initiatives. The potential reintroduction of nuclear bombs to Europe coincides with worsening relations between NATO and Russia, particularly due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the military alliance’s efforts to enhance its readiness.
The B61-12 bomb is an enhanced version of the B61 nuclear bomb, featuring advanced guidance systems and variable yield capabilities. As a key element of the United States’ strategic nuclear arsenal, it is designed for deployment through various delivery systems, including F-35A Lightning II aircraft and other platforms.
Is Azerbaijan Considering Hosting a Turkish Military Base?
By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – July 21, 2025
As Azerbaijan-Russia relations cool, discussions emerge in Baku about the potential deployment of a Turkish military base. Is this a random development — or is chance merely revealing an underlying pattern?
Between Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan chooses Turkey. At one point, when describing the political geography of modern Azerbaijan, Geidar Dzhemal — a Russian Islamic political and public figure, philosopher, and poet — characterized it as extremely vulnerable, considering its southern border with Iran and northern border with Russia. At the time, the Karabakh issue remained unresolved for Baku, and the goal of regaining full control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory was still pending. In other words, despite being technically at war with Armenia, Baku did not perceive it as an existential threat.
Dzhemal’s assessment reflected Azerbaijan’s geopolitical choice to align with NATO-member Turkey, and to build partnerships with the UK, Israel, and the US. These allies, carefully selected by Baku, have political and economic agendas that are at odds with those of Russia and Iran.
Despite historical ties with Iran and its shared Shia Islamic heritage, Azerbaijan opted in the 1990s for an alliance with Sunni-majority Turkey. Turkey became a key facilitator in the implementation of the so-called “contracts of the century” in the oil and gas sector, with Britain playing a leading role.
Recognizing the deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Iran, Baku forged a pragmatic partnership with Tel Aviv. Azerbaijani oil — making up 60% of Israel’s overall oil imports — in exchange for Israeli weaponry and military technologies laid the foundation for robust bilateral relations. Israel, for its part, assisted Azerbaijan in strengthening ties with the US and Europe, both directly and through lobbying by the Jewish diaspora.
In return, Azerbaijan did not hinder the activities of Israeli intelligence services on its territory, particularly when directed at Iran. Azerbaijan’s military success in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, with direct Israeli support (weapons deliveries, intelligence sharing, UAV operations), significantly expanded the operational scope of Israeli intelligence targeting Iran. The results of the twelve-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025 have once again raised questions about Israeli security structures potentially using Azerbaijani territory.
Today, Tehran is unlikely to escalate tensions with Baku. On one hand, both sides have only recently emerged from a serious diplomatic crisis (following the terrorist attack at Azerbaijan’s embassy in Iran, the withdrawal of Baku’s ambassador, and the later restoration of ties). On the other hand, Iran’s conflict with Israel remains unresolved and without a peace agreement.
Azerbaijan’s relationship with Russia in the post-Soviet era has fluctuated — swinging between partnership and hostility. Moscow initially adopted a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, trying to retain both Armenia and Azerbaijan within its sphere of influence, and took the lead in conflict resolution efforts. Indeed, both Karabakh wars ended under Russian mediation, but with radically different outcomes. From the 2000s onwards, Russia began pursuing a more pragmatic approach in the South Caucasus, shifting toward a strategic partnership with Baku. As a result, Azerbaijan secured access to $5 billion worth of modern Russian weapons, expanded its business presence in Russia, and acted as a mediator — particularly after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 by Turkish forces — in restoring and advancing Russian-Turkish ties.
Russia’s distant approach during the Second Karabakh War and the Azerbaijan-Armenia tensions of 2021–2023 allowed Baku to achieve military success and regain lost territories in Karabakh. Following its pragmatic logic, Azerbaijan did not join anti-Russian sanctions and, like Turkey, has maintained business ties with Russia, receiving considerable benefits from transit and re-export arrangements.
However, despite its strategic partnership with Russia, Turkey has not hastened to implement the Russian-proposed gas hub project in Eastern Thrace. Ankara continues to demand favorable financial terms (lower gas prices, deferred payments, joint trade) and also seeks Russian consent for its plans to access Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and tap into Turkmen gas.
Since autumn 2020, the “Turan Project” has begun to take more tangible shape. Ankara envisions the creation of an alternative alliance to the EAEU and the EU, involving Turkic states and Pakistan.
Iran opposes the Zangezur Corridor, Russia — due to Armenia’s position — cannot establish control over the project, and Azerbaijan may reconsider its support for the North–South International Transport Corridor, possibly obstructing Russia’s access through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. This scenario could trigger new diplomatic — or worse, military-political — crises in the South Caucasus.
Amid all this, Azerbaijan is placing its hopes on Turkish military bases. Following the latest escalation in Azerbaijan-Russia relations — sparked by Baku’s harsh reaction to the tragic downing of a civilian aircraft and the detention of Azerbaijani diaspora members in Yekaterinburg (with investigations still ongoing) — former presidential aide Eldar Namazov raised the prospect of hosting a major Turkish military base in Azerbaijan. He even suggested that part of the base could be leased to the Pakistani Air Force as a potential deterrent against alleged provocations from Russia and Iran.
Namazov is far from a fringe figure, and his statements are likely aligned with the presidential administration — at the very least, with the President’s foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev.
In fact, Turkey has long been involved in Azerbaijan’s defense and security — from the two Karabakh wars to military reforms and personnel training. Joint military drills are held regularly. After the Second Karabakh War, a Turkish-staffed monitoring center operated in Aghdam from November 2020 (Russian peacekeepers have since left the region, but no official information suggests Turkish forces have followed suit). Turkish military advisers remain active in Baku. The 2021 Shusha Declaration explicitly provides for mutual military assistance upon request. Iran is acutely aware that any attack on Azerbaijan would trigger Turkish intervention.
Should Azerbaijan decide to host a Turkish NATO base on its territory, it would usher in a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. This would compel Russia and Iran to take additional security measures, plunging the region into uncertainty. Baku, while not necessarily hoping for a repeat of its Karabakh victory, risks forfeiting significant advantages — namely, threats to transit routes vital to its economy, and potentially even the loss of its hard-won control over Karabakh.
In chess, logic demands the elimination of reckless moves that may lead to failure. In political chess, the stakes are even higher: a miscalculated diplomatic move can result not only in defeat, but in far more serious consequences — human, material, and strategic. Sadly, history has shown that wars often spell the downfall of some states, while paving the way for the birth of others. President Aliyev, a diplomat by training with years of presidential experience and a cool, calculated approach, is unlikely to let the Azerbaijan–Russia crisis escalate unchecked. Most likely, this period of tension will soon give way to renewed cooperation — perhaps even in the form of a formal declaration of alliance.
Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East
Featured Video
Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Voters’ Self-Induced Matrix
By Jeb Smith | The Libertarian Institute | April 20, 2026
In Collective Illusions: Conformity, Complicity, and the Science of Why We Make Bad Decisions, Professor Todd Rose explains that to belong to a group, people “keep twisting [themselves] into pretzels, trying to conform to what we falsely believe everyone else expects of us.” Seeking acceptance from the group, we conform in language, behavior, beliefs, and practices. As a result, we lose our individuality and aggregate into herds. Within our group we create an alternate reality to fit whichever collective mindset we attach ourselves to, and interpret the world through those lenses—our innate desire to belong overrides reality.
Rose says these illusions “have become a defining feature of our modern society.” In other words, the collectivist mindset is a great conduit for spreading illusions; thus, it is the politician’s favored form of governance.
Rose points to studies in psychology and neuroscience showing we delude ourselves into believing what the majority does, even if it is not what we desire or know to be accurate. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US nuclear official accused of leaking data on Iran, nerve agents
- The Voters’ Self-Induced Matrix
- Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
- How A Fake Iranian Terror Group Was Invented To Proscribe IRGC in Europe
- Iran’s judiciary rejects Trump’s claim on ‘planned execution’ of 8 women
- Israeli army blows up school in southern Lebanon in violation of ceasefire
- The desalination front: Water as Israel’s Achilles heel
- Washington cuts flow of US dollars to Iraqi central bank until ‘acceptable’ government formed
- China blames US for diplomatic impasse with Iran, urges it to show ‘sincerity’ in talks
- Iran announces new Hormuz restrictions after US ceasefire violations
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli soldiers using sexual assault to force Palestinians out of West Bank, report says
- Top Biden Official Supports Trump Iran Attack, Says Biden May Have Done The Same
- A history of Israel’s invasions of Lebanon
- How the powerful pro-Israel lobby keeps controlling Democrats in the US
- Replay: Israel’s slow ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Holy Land
- 5 times Israelis desecrated Christian sites in the past two years
- US running out of weaponry for Israel’s war; Iran has plenty – Daily Update
- Israel is (still) killing aid workers in Gaza
- Catholics finally splitting with Trump over Iran war and Israel
- Israel’s “Black Wednesday” Massacre Leaves Lebanese Families Giving DNA To ID Loved One’s Remains
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
Aletho News 