Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Path to peace lies beneath our feet; strength will not bring true peace: Chinese foreign minister

Global Times | July 5, 2025

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Friday criticized the notion of “might makes right,” questioning where rules and justice stand under such logic at a joint press conference in Paris with his French counterpart Jean-Noel Barrot. “Strength will not bring true peace; it may well open ‘Pandora’s box’. How should countries lacking strength, especially small and medium-sized ones, find their place? Are they to be laid out on the table, left at the mercy of others?” said Wang.

Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, is visiting Europe from June 30 to July 6, at the invitation of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU Kaja Kallas, Federal Foreign Minister of Germany Johann Wadephul, and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Noel Barrot.

Responding to questions about China’s stance on the Iran nuclear issue and the current situation in the Middle East, Wang said that the Iran nuclear issue could have been a model for resolving international disputes through dialogue and negotiation. However, it has now triggered a new round of crisis in the Middle East. Despite hearing the knock of peace, the door to peace remains shut. China deeply regrets this outcome and believes there are profound lessons to be learned.

Wang reiterated China’s clear and consistent position on the Iran nuclear issue. “We value the repeated public commitments made by Iranian Supreme Leader that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, and we also respect Iran’s right, as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” he said.

Based on this, relevant parties should accelerate negotiations to reach a new international agreement on resolving the Iran nuclear issue, placing Iran’s nuclear activities fully under the strict supervision and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wang said.

He emphasized that the path to peace lies beneath our feet, and history will question the sincerity of all parties involved.

The Chinese foreign minister said that military conflicts between Israel and Iran should not be repeated as war cannot resolve the Iran nuclear issue, and preemptive strikes lack legitimacy. The excessive use of force will only escalate conflict and breed more animosity, warning that the US’s brazen bombing of a sovereign country’s nuclear facilities has set a dangerous precedent and if it leads to a nuclear disaster, the entire world will bear the consequences.

Wang also emphasized that the genuine resolution of the Iran nuclear issue cannot ignore the core issue in the Middle East, which is the Palestinian question. The humanitarian disaster in Gaza must not be allowed to continue. The Palestinian issue must no longer be marginalized. The legitimate aspirations of the Arab nation should be fulfilled as soon as possible, and the just voices of the broader Islamic world must be given due attention.

The “two-state solution” remains the only realistic path to resolving the chaos in the Middle East, and the international community should take more concrete and effective action to support this goal, Wang said.

Wang called for China and France, both as permanent members of the UN Security Council, to uphold justice and take responsibility by supporting conflict resolution through dialogue and negotiation, opposing double standards, and basing their positions on the merits of the matter itself. The UN and its Security Council should play their due role in promoting peace. China is willing to work with France to make unremitting efforts toward these goals.

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Putin drops truth bomb on Macron

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 4, 2025

NATO started the conflict in Ukraine, but Russia will end it on its terms, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart this week in a wake-up call.

It’s always refreshing and necessary to bring reality into a conversation, assuming, of course, that the purpose of the dialogue is genuinely to resolve a problem.

France’s Emmanuel Macron requested the phone call with Putin this week. It was the first time the two leaders had spoken in nearly three years. The long absence was due to Moscow claiming that Macron breached diplomatic protocol after the last phone call in 2022 by leaking details to the media.

In any case, Putin showed magnanimity and a willingness to engage diplomatically by taking the call this week from Macron. The two leaders talked for over two hours.

Apart from Ukraine, another topic discussed was the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites. Macron agreed with Putin that Iran has the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy production, and both appealed for diplomacy to prevent escalation, according to the Kremlin’s statement on the phone conversation.

Critics might note, however, that France, Britain, Germany, and the other European states have played a double game with Iran, undermining Iran’s legitimate rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and giving political cover for the unlawful Israeli and US aggression against Tehran. Therefore, Macron’s concern for peace in the Middle East sounds hollow, if not hypocritical.

The Ukraine conflict was also discussed. But here, there was no pretense of diplomatic accord.

Macron urged Putin to “call a ceasefire as soon as possible” and to proceed with peace talks, said the Elysee Palace, as reported by French media.

For his part, Putin rebuffed the trite talk. He reminded Macron of some necessary reality.

According to the Kremlin’s statement: “When discussing the situation surrounding Ukraine, Vladimir Putin reiterated that the conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by the Western countries, which had for years been ignoring Russia’s security interests, creating an anti-Russia staging ground in the country, and condoning violations of rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens, and at present were pursuing a policy of prolonging hostilities by supplying the Kiev regime with a variety of modern weaponry. Speaking about the prospects of a peaceful settlement, the president of Russia has confirmed Moscow’s stance on possible agreements: they are to be comprehensive and long-term, provide for the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis, and be based on the new territorial realities.”

In other words, Russia will end the conflict that Macron and other NATO powers started illegally, and the ending of it will be on Russia’s terms.

Who does Macron think he is? Telling Russia to call a ceasefire as soon as possible? Earlier this year, in March, Macron gave a televised nationwide address declaring Russia to be an existential threat to Europe. He even made the madcap suggestion of France using its nuclear weapons to protect all of Europe. Such crazed talk by Macron is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Macron, along with Britain’s Starmer and Germany’s Merz, are prolonging the more-than-three-year war in Ukraine by pledging more military aid to the NeoNazi Kiev regime.

That regime owes its existence to an illegal coup d’état that the Americans and Europeans orchestrated in 2014. The ongoing conflict, which has slaughtered more than one million Ukrainian soldiers and burdened Europe with huge immigration costs, is the responsibility of Macron and other NATO states. They are the instigators, not Russia.

If Macron genuinely wants peace in Ukraine, there is a straightforward solution. Stop arming the NeoNazi regime and stop telling lies about “defending democracy in Ukraine” from alleged “Russian aggression.” Macron and his gang of NATO war criminals could end the bloodshed promptly if they dropped the evil charade.

U.S. President Donald Trump also had a phone call with Putin this week. That was on Thursday, two days after Macron’s.

As with the French leader, Putin told his American counterpart that Russia was insisting on achieving its aims in Ukraine: removing the root causes of the conflict and retaining all territories. Like Macron, Trump sounded impatient for a quick peace deal and later complained to the American media, “he had made no progress” with Putin in his phone call this week.

What Trump, Macron, and other Western leaders need to understand is that Russia wants a permanent peace based on its legitimate strategic security interests. This conflict is not a localized one between two parties. It is a proxy war between Russia and NATO, engendered by NATO. Pretending otherwise, as Macron is doing by conceitedly calling for a quick ceasefire, is a deception.

At least Trump seems to recognize that the supply of weapons to Ukraine has to stop if there is any chance of ending the conflict. This week, the Pentagon announced it was halting the flow of munitions. A big part of the reason is practical reality: the U.S. has depleted its arsenal after three years of weaponizing the Kiev regime.

The European leaders need to come to their senses too, and stop fueling the war machine that is the Kiev regime. It is a lost cause. Russia is winning the war and will eventually eradicate the regime and NATO’s threat to its national security. Europe does not have the capability or the resources. The grand deception projected by Macron and others, including EU top officials Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and NATO’s Mark Rutte, is destroying Europe.

Therein lies the fatal dilemma. What Putin said to Macron is the truth. If the conflict has any chance of being resolved peacefully, then the starting place is to recognize the historic causes of the conflict, not the delusional stuff that Macron is peddling.

But for Macron and all the NATO states to do that would be to admit their culpability for creating the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War. The political and legal repercussions would be explosive for Macron and the entire Western leadership. They are caught in the web of a Big Lie that they have spun.

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

31 Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire in Gaza ground war: Report

MEMO | July 4, 2025

At least 31 Israeli soldiers have been killed by friendly fire during the ongoing ground offensive in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Army Radio reported Friday.

According to the broadcaster, 72 soldiers have died in total due to “operational incidents” since Israel launched its ground invasion of Gaza on Oct. 27, 2023, representing about 16% of the 440 Israeli soldiers killed in ground operations.

The breakdown of operational deaths includes 31 killed by friendly fire, 23 in ammunition-related incidents, seven run over by armored personnel carriers, and six in unspecified shooting incidents, the report said.

Since the resumption of Israel’s military assault on Gaza on March 18, two soldiers have been killed in operational incidents out of 32 total deaths recorded during that period, according to the broadcaster.

Five additional deaths were attributed to workplace accidents, including falls and mishandling of engineering tools, Army Radio added. One of those incidents occurred Thursday night, though no further details were provided.

Israeli military data shows 882 soldiers have been killed and 6,032 injured since the start of the war on Oct. 7, 2023.

Despite international calls for a ceasefire, Israel has continued its genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to health authorities in the enclave.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its actions in the enclave.

July 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ faces massive economic fallout from its war on Iran

Al Mayadeen | July 4, 2025

Israeli media sounded the alarm over $14 billion in losses, a surging defense budget, and tens of thousands of compensation claims, as economic strain deepens in the aftermath of the 12-day war on Iran.

According to a report by the Israeli daily Maariv, the war has inflicted severe financial damage on the Israeli economy, with the total impact estimated at over 52 billion shekels (approximately $14 billion USD). The report noted that the war has delivered a major blow to “Israel’s” total economic activity and threatens broader budgetary stability.

“It’s no longer just about rebuilding damaged buildings, it’s about rebuilding the economy,” Maariv reported, highlighting that daily life during the war was “nearly impossible” due to constant sirens, rocket fire, destroyed infrastructure, and casualties.

Even under optimistic recovery scenarios, the paper noted that half of the damage is unlikely to be recuperated, leaving a net loss of 26 billion shekels, or 1.3% of GDP, a substantial economic blow.

Defense budget grows into a ‘bottomless pit’

The financial strain is further compounded by the ballooning costs of the Israeli occupation’s defense spending. Maariv reports that the 2025 defense budget, recently approved by the Knesset, stands at 135 billion shekels, or 21.8% of the national budget. This includes 75.7 billion shekels in debt repayments to the National Insurance Institute.

The newspaper described both the security establishment and debt servicing as “a bottomless economic pit,” given the continued war-related expenditures.

Of the allocated defense budget, 67 billion shekels had already been spent within the first five months of 2025. Now, the Israeli military is reportedly requesting an additional 55–60 billion shekels to fund recent wartime expenses, further straining fiscal resources.

Infrastructure damage, compensation soar

In parallel to military spending, the Israeli entity faces rising compensation obligations. According to Maariv, more than 36,000 compensation claims have been filed with the Property Tax Authority and the Compensation Fund at the Tax Authority, with an estimated added cost of 5 billion shekels.

The claims include:

  • 3,392 for destroyed vehicles
  • 3,758 for household damage
  • 10,996 from evacuated settlers
  • Nearly 4,000 settlers were forced to relocate to their relatives’ residential units

Thousands more claims are still being submitted, the paper added, warning that the financial toll on “Israel” is rapidly escalating and may continue to rise sharply in the coming months.

This report follows earlier findings from Calcalist, which estimated the total cost of direct damage at over 5 billion shekels (approximately $1.3 billion), though thousands of cases remain under review or are yet to be formally filed.

Israeli censorship hindering assessment of damage from Iranian strikes

“Israel” has admitted to being struck by more than 50 missiles during its 12-day war on Iran, but the full scope of the damage may never be revealed due to strict press censorship.

Such media restrictions are long-standing in “Israel”, where any content, written or visual, considered potentially harmful to the vaguely defined notion of “national security” can be legally suppressed.

Recently, the Israeli entity has further tightened its grip on wartime reporting.

July 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia warns of Israeli ‘war party’ seeking to reignite aggression against Iran

Press TV – July 4, 2025

Russia has warned about various Israeli officials’ efforts to trigger the resumption of aggression against Iran.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the remarks during a press conference alongside his visiting Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Moscow on Friday.

“We sincerely hope that the so-called 12-day war is indeed over,” the Russian top diplomat said.

He was referring to the Israeli regime’s launching attacks against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear, military, and civilian targets on June 13. The assaults claimed the lives of at least 935 Iranians, including senior military officials and nuclear scientists, the latter group being targeted inside their residential buildings.

The Islamic Republic responded with decisive defensive maneuvers and counterstrikes, hitting critically sensitive nuclear, military, and industrial infrastructure across the occupied Palestinian territories. The retaliation forced the regime to request a ceasefire.

Lavrov, however, warned, “We intend to stay vigilant, as the ‘war party’ remains highly active in the Middle East.”

“We keep hearing a variety of statements from some representatives of the Israeli leadership,” he added, suggesting that those officials were persistently agitating for the resumption of aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Iran has, on many occasions since the cessation of the attacks, cautioned that its next reprisal against potential renewed aggression would be of far more intensity and magnitude to the extent that it would take Tel Aviv and its allies by surprise.

‘European states role in war’

Elsewhere in his remarks, Lavrov criticized some European states’ “aggressive” anti-Iranian efforts, which saw them force the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Board of Governors to issue its most recent anti-Iranian resolution.

He pointed out how the European countries “unnecessarily and aggressively pushed through anti-Iranian resolutions, which did nothing to ease tensions or advance negotiations, but instead created a pretext for forceful measures.”

The Israeli regime used the resolution as a pretext to launch the war. The resolution was also used by the United States, the regime’s biggest ally, as a plea to join it in attacking Iran towards the end of the warfare.

“I sincerely hope that European nations will come to recognize their responsibility and their share of the blame,” Lavrov said.

For his part, the Saudi foreign minister also underlined that differences with the Islamic Republic had to be resolved through diplomatic processes.

July 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Time for Qatar to review its hosting of US Al Udeid military air base

By Thembisa Fakude | MEMO | July 3, 2025

The assassination of one of the highest-ranking Generals and the Commanders of Al Quds Force – part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) – Qasem Soleimani, opened an unprecedented form of conflict in the Gulf region. Soleimani was killed in Iraq on 3 January 2020 by an US drone strike in Iraq, while travelling to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi. Iran retaliated by targeting the US military facilities in Iraq, it fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi air bases housing US forces days after the assassination. According to The Times of Israel, Israel helped the US in that operation.

The leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh was killed by Israel in Tehran after attending the inauguration of the President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian. Another pure violation of the sovereignty of Iran and international law. The killing of Haniyeh in July 2024 came on the heels of the attack and killing of a number of Iranian diplomats at the embassy of Iran in Damascus, Syria on 01 April 2024. Israel – with the support of the US – has continued to assassinate Iranian officials at will inside Iran.

Qatar had joint military operations with the US during the Operation Desert Storm in Iraq in 1991. After the operation, Qatar and the US signed a Defence Cooperation Agreement. The agreement was expanded in 1996 to include the building of Al Udeid Military Air Base at a cost of more than $1 billion. The Al Udeid Military Air Base is the largest US military base in the Middle East. Iran attacked Al Udeid in retaliation to the US’s attacks of Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan in Iran in June 2025. Although the retaliation strikes were downplayed by the US and Qatar, the attacks seemed to have been carefully choreographed, exposing a new fault line in US-Qatar military cooperation.

The question in the minds of most Qataris is; what will happen next time when the US decides to attack Iran, will Iran retaliate by attacking Qatar again? Notwithstanding the repeated mantra of “a friendly, brotherly love and appreciation” between Qatar and Iran, the biggest threat to Qatar’s security and political stability now and in the near future is a possible war between Israel and the US against Iran. The targeting of Iran by Israel and the US presents a new security threat in the region.

Al Udeid has served as “a symbol of protection for the State of Qatar against potential attacks and other forms of hostilities”. However, when put to the test, Al Udeid has failed to meet those expectations. Besides the recent Iran attacks of the US military installations in Al Udeid; when Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt led a blockade against Qatar in 2017, there was no forewarning from the US notwithstanding Al Udeid’s superior military intelligence. According to the Qatari Defence Minister, Khalid al Attiyah, “Actually it was not a mere intention. There was a plan to invade Qatar”. The “plan was set into two phases, imposing the siege with the aim of creating an overall state of panic, which would have a direct impact on the Qatari street, then executing a military invasion”.

The possible future conflicts involving the US and Iran have raised serious concerns about the safety of US assets and personnel in the region. It has also triggered a debate, particularly within the US media, of the viability and rationale of the country’s continued involvement in Israel’s wars in the region. The Make America Great Again (MEGA) leading supporters such as the executive chairman of Breitbart News, Stephen Banon and right-wing journalist and social media influencer Tucker Carlson have questioned “the US continuing blind support Israel’s wars in the Middle East”. Tucker Carlson a known Trump supporter and a right-wing voice has been the loudest. He has been “urging the US to stay out of Israel’s war with Iran”. Bannon and Carlson are part of a broader effort to overturn the “GOP’s hawkish consensus on Israel”. Notwithstanding his unwavering support of Israel, Trump has been critical of Benjamin Netanyahu war mongering strategy in the region. Trump has entered into lucrative business relationships with countries in the Arab/Persian Gulf recently; Netanyahu stands to disturb that relationship. The US and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have agreed to turn Abu Dhabi “to a site of the largest artificial intelligence campus outside the US”. The US will allow “the UAE to import half a million Nvidia semiconductor chips, considered the most advanced in the world in the artificial intelligence products”. According to The Guardian, Saudi Arabia struck a similar deal of semiconductors, obtaining the promise of the sale of hundreds of thousands of Nvidia Blackwell chips to Humain, an AI start-up owned by the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Indeed, given these interests and the strengthening relationship between the US and the Gulf countries, the US has much more to lose if it continues to blindly support Israel’s wars.

The relationship between Iran and the State of Qatar is very strong, both countries share gas exploration sites in the South Pars/North Dome. They are the gas condensate fields located in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. They are by far the world’s largest natural gas fields. There is also the people to people relationship between Qatar and Iran dating back to time immemorial. The next attack of Iran by the US or Israel could escalate and spread the war to Qatar. Although the US managed to move its assets from Al Udeid to other locations in Qatar before Iran’s attacks last month, the question remains. What guarantees do Qatar have that in future Iran would not target those locations? There is a possibility that if attacked Iran will once again retaliate. What will happen then? The retaliatory attacks could go beyond a mere violation of Qatar’s airspace and sovereignty; it could also cost Qatari lives. The State of Qatar has to take serious decisions regarding Al Udeid if it wants to maintain its future relationship with Iran and other countries in the region. It must close Al Udeid. It has more valid reasons to do that now. The threat has morphed in the region. Consequently, new defence infrastructure needs to be considered by Qatar. Al Udeid presents more political and diplomatic challenges than opportunities.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

“NATO cannot disguise Ukraine’s plight”: FT reveals diminishing Ukrainian morale

By Ahmed Adel | July 3, 2025

Active missile strikes on targets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in different cities undermine the morale of Ukrainians and sow a sense of hopelessness in the country, the Financial Times writes. Combined with Ukraine’s NATO membership hitting another roadblock, it seems that there is no chance of Ukrainian morale ever recovering.

“The increased intensity of Russian missile attacks on Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is also damaging Ukrainian morale,” the article details, adding that there are “some shortfalls — in particular in Ukrainian troop numbers — that the country’s western allies cannot fix.”

According to the London-based newspaper, without a clear outline of victory, there is a risk that Ukraine will fall into despair.

The author of the article also notes that following the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the end of June, there was renewed hope for the supply of Patriot anti-aircraft systems, which are necessary due to the depletion of Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. However, Trump can easily change his mind or forget about it, the newspaper writes.

According to a cited official, Russia’s main goal is now to capture Odessa, as without the city, “Ukraine would lose access to its main port.”

“A group of former European leaders — including Carl Bildt of Sweden and Sanna Marin of Finland — visited Ukraine recently and picked up on the deteriorating mood. They wrote afterwards that ‘while Ukrainians will never stop resisting, without more military support, Ukraine can lose more territory. More cities might be captured’,” Financial Times wrote.

“Off the record, some western officials are even bleaker, warning of a risk of ‘catastrophic failure,’ if the Ukrainian military is stretched to breaking point — and does not receive a significant increase in military and financial aid from its western allies,” the newspaper added.

Responding to FT’s article, Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, delusionally claimed that Kiev was “planning the destruction” of the so-called “regime” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but without elaborating on how this would be achieved.

“These publications about Putin planning to occupy something — that’s something. Putin actually wants to completely destroy Ukraine, but he can wish for anything he wants. There is no point in writing about his plans to occupy Odessa or anything else. He can plan all he wants, but he won’t succeed,” Kovalenko confidently said.

Nonetheless, despite Kovalenko’s bravado, the diminishing morale within Ukraine cannot be ignored and is now even being reported in Western pro-Ukraine media. What Kovalenko does not note is that Ukrainian morale is set to take another significant hit after Zelensky consistently promised NATO membership, something that is far from happening, if at all.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would be akin to igniting a powder keg amid escalating tensions in Europe.

“Ukraine in NATO? That would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day. Meanwhile, the EU’s reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe. This isn’t diplomacy, it’s insanity – you don’t throw matches on a powder keg,” Orbán wrote on X.

According to Orbán, such an approach must not be allowed to turn Europe into a battlefield.

Orbán’s statement came after Hungary blocked the start of negotiations on Ukraine’s entry into the EU on June 26, with Budapest citing that 95% of Hungarians voted against Ukrainian accession in a recent survey, in which almost 2.3 million citizens participated.

Following Orbán’s comments, Poland’s President-elect, Karol Nawrocki, stated that Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not a viable topic for discussion at this time, citing the ongoing conflict as a barrier to membership.

“Today, there is no possibility for Ukraine to join NATO. It is at war. This would be the reason for all NATO countries to participate in the war. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss in this regard,” Nawrocki said in an interview with Polsat broadcaster on June 30.

In February 2019, Ukraine amended its Constitution to consolidate its strategic course towards EU and NATO membership. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that ensuring Ukraine’s neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear-free status is one of Russia’s conditions for resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

Yet, despite Moscow’s demands being clear since 2022, Zelensky famously announced in February this year that he would be willing to “give up” his presidency and “trade it for NATO membership, if there are such conditions.” However, Ukrainian morale is not being boosted by his performative rhetoric. Only an end to the war, especially before the onset of another difficult winter, will achieve this, since Ukrainians, unlike Zelensky and his regime, have finally accepted the reality that they cannot defeat Russia.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

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

Does the AUKUS have a future?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 3, 2025

The Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS pact exposes deep uncertainties in U.S. commitment and capabilities, offering Australia a strategic opportunity to reconsider its role in the trilateral alliance.

Conceived during the Biden era to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region, the trilateral treaty involving Australia, the UK, and the US appears to have been hit by the Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral defence pacts. Underneath, however, also lie serious problems affecting American ability to live up to the pact’s demands, presenting Australia a rare opportunity to walk away from the pact.

The AUKUS in Disarray

When the Trump administration launched early in June a “review” of the multibillion-dollar AUKUS pact, it sent a shockwave across the Pacific, causing Canberra to tremble. The review announcement, according to the US Department of Defence, is meant to ensure that the pact is properly aligned with the President’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda. In effect, part of it means asking both Australia and the UK to raise their shares of the cost of the programme, which was originally supposed to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia before the allies make a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge research and technology. Both the UK and Australia have thus far not confirmed their readiness to meet America’s demands. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart in early June that the country should increase defence spending to 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, echoing demands that the Trump administration has been making of allies in Europe. But Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said this week that “I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that”. There is, thus, a very clear disagreement affecting the pact.

In reality, this dissonance is not difficult to understand, given that the pact was signed by leaders in all three countries no longer in power. This is particularly the case in the US, where the Trump administration has a credible history of withdrawing from agreed pacts. The first Trump administration, for instance, withdrew from the Iran-nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015–a decision that directly paved the way for the Iran-Israel war and the US recent bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In addition, President Trump also withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after assuming office in 2016. Will the AUKUS be put into the dustbin of history similarly?

Many in the US share this fear. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back the Pact. Their fears are only compounded by the fact that the review is headed by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the AUKUS. In a speech last year, he publicly questioned why the US would give away “this crown jewel asset when we most need it.” In Australia, however, the review means not only a potential end of the pact itself but also an assessment about the extent to which Canberra can rely on Washington to build its defences. If Trump scraps the AUKUS, or even if he significantly alters its provisions, Washington’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region will be majorly diminished.

Facing Practical Problems

For the US, however, what matters more than its standing in the Indo-Pacific region is its capacity to project power in an uncompromising manner. At the heart of the review—which once again is aimed at making the pact properly align with Trump’s America First agenda—are practical problems facing America’s ship building industry. Can America build enough (Virginia-class) submarines for its own use by 2030, i.e., when it is supposed to transfer (some of its) its existing submarines to Australia?

For the pact to work—which is supposed to transfer 18 submarines to Australia by 2040–the US needs to be able to produce at least two submarines every year until 2028 and 2.33 per year thereafter. However, reports show that the US shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, facing workforce shortages and budget constraints, making it problematic to meet sales to Australia and address a production backlog. These challenges have limited production to about 1.2 submarines per year since 2022. Because the US is unable to meet the pact’s demands and because meeting these demands could put Washington’s own strategic needs in jeopardy, the Trump administration might find the pact violating its America First agenda. In that case, the AUKUS might hit the bottom of the Pacific sooner than expected.

Is this bad news for Australia?

If the US withdraws from the AUKUS, does it necessarily mean bad news for Australia? While AUKUS might give Australia access to (used) submarines, the downside of this pact is that it also massively increases Canberra’s dependence on the Anglo-American axis. On the contrary, if the US withdraws from the pact, it gives Canberra strategic flexibility to manage its ties with the US and the EU and China in ways that best serve its national interests. In fact, the second scenario works best for Australia in all possible ways.

The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there is little denying that China and Australia don’t have any direct disputes between themselves, making it highly unlikely that China will ever want to attack Australian territory. On the other hand, Australia can do well to manage its ties with China—which is also its largest trading partner—by further deepening its trade ties with Beijing.

The Trump administration’s decision to review—and possibly scrap or downgrade—the AUKUS could be a blessing in disguise for Canberra. A realistic counter review by Canberra should allow it to pursue alternative approaches.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

$1.5bn up in smoke: US THAAD missile stockpile dries up defending Israel against Iran

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | July 2, 2025

According to American media, defense news outlets, and independent analysts, the 12-day Israeli military aggression against Iran significantly depleted the US stockpile of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptor missiles.

Citing official sources, American magazine Newsweek reported on Friday that the US transferred a substantial portion of its advanced missile defense capabilities to support the Israeli regime, an effort with questionable results and a critical impact on US strategic reserves.

THAAD, developed by Lockheed Martin arms manufacturing company, is a key component of Israel’s multi-layered air defense architecture. It is designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles, including those launched from Iran and Yemen.

The US-made system is capable of targeting short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles during their terminal phase, whether inside or outside Earth’s atmosphere.

THAAD uses a “hit-to-kill” method, relying on kinetic energy rather than explosive warheads to destroy incoming threats, intercepting at altitudes of up to 150 km and ranges between 150-200 km.

Operated exclusively by American personnel, the US military maintains eight THAAD batteries with an estimated 350–400 interceptors in total. The eighth battery was activated during the June 20 Israeli aggression against Iran and is capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles.

Deployment in the occupied territories

At the outset of the Israeli aggression against Iran, seven THAAD batteries were operational, two of which had been deployed in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The first THAAD battery was stationed there in October 2024, following Iran’s “True Promise 1 and 2” operations, during which Israel’s domestic air defense systems, David’s Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3, suffered notable failures. A second battery was deployed in April 2025.

These US-operated systems played a crucial role during the June 2025 confrontation with Iran, although their exact deployment locations remain classified for military reasons.

THAAD air defense system

Based on available information, of the remaining US THAAD batteries, two are deployed within the United States, one in Texas and another in Guam.

The rest are stationed overseas in South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with the UAE being the only country to have formally purchased its own THAAD systems.

A THAAD battery is a mobile, self-contained missile defense unit. Each battery typically comprises six truck-mounted launchers, with each launcher carrying eight interceptor missiles, amounting to a total of 48 interceptors per battery.

In addition, the system includes an AN/TPY-2 radar for long-range detection and tracking (up to 2,000-3,000 km), a fire control and communication system for coordinating intercepts, along with support equipment and approximately 100 personnel to operate the unit.

Given the deployment of two batteries in the occupied Palestinian territories, it can be estimated that the Israeli regime had access to at least 96 interceptor missiles.

However, the actual number was likely higher due to frequent resupply efforts during engagements with Yemeni ballistic missiles and in preparation for the broader conflict with Iran.

Mixed performance against Yemeni missiles

Despite being touted as one of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world, THAAD’s performance against Yemeni ballistic missile attacks has been mixed, even according to Israeli and Western sources.

While some interceptions have been claimed as successful, there have been notable failures.

By the end of March 2025, six successful interceptions of Yemeni missiles had been reported. However, on May 4 and May 9, THAAD failed to intercept missiles targeting Ben Gurion Airport.

In both instances, Israeli sources asserted that the incoming missiles were ultimately intercepted by the Arrow missile defense system instead.

This claim has been met with skepticism, as the Arrow system typically engages threats at far greater distances, tens or even hundreds of kilometers away, yet the airport was struck directly.

The Israeli regime’s own admission that multiple systems were used against the same class of Yemeni missiles suggests that the interception cost is significantly higher than commonly assumed. Rather than a one-to-one missile-to-interceptor ratio, several interceptors, possibly from different systems, may be required to ensure a successful shootdown.

Despite ongoing claims by American and Israeli officials about the effectiveness and reliability of both THAAD and Arrow systems, Yemen has continued to target Ben Gurion Airport as part of its retaliatory operations. The continued threat and perceived vulnerability led nearly all international airlines to suspend flights to and from Israel.

Yemeni missile hits Ben Gurion Airport on May 4, after unsuccessful interception with THAAD

The most commonly used long-range weapon in the Yemeni arsenal is the Palestine-2 – a two-stage hypersonic ballistic missile capable of reaching speeds up to Mach 16 and equipped with a maneuverable warhead. This type of missile poses a significant challenge to traditional missile defense systems, including THAAD.

Technologically, THAAD faces several limitations. These include radar difficulties in distinguishing between actual warheads and decoys, vulnerability to saturation by large-scale missile barrages, and diminished effectiveness against newer hypersonic and maneuverable missile designs.

The system also relies exclusively on US personnel for its operation, which can limit rapid adaptability in dynamic combat scenarios.

THAAD has experienced test failures in the past, raising concerns about its reliability and operational readiness. These failures have been linked to software bugs, mechanical faults, and targeting system errors, factors that cast doubt on its real-world performance under pressure.

Failures against Iranian missile strikes

During the 12-day war of aggression against Iran, THAAD’s performance deteriorated significantly, highlighted by its low interception rate and the rapid depletion of US and Israeli interceptor stockpiles.

On the eve of the Israeli aggression, approximately 100 THAAD interceptor missiles were positioned in the occupied Palestinian territories. In response, Iran launched between 370 and 500 ballistic missiles during its retaliatory operations, a volume that far exceeded available THAAD capacity.

While Israel also relied on other systems such as David’s Sling, Arrow-2, and Arrow-3, the sheer scale and intensity of Iran’s response shifted the strategic balance. The damage inflicted throughout Israeli-occupied territories underscored this imbalance.

In the initial days of the war, Iran deliberately used older liquid-fueled ballistic missiles to exhaust enemy air defenses. More advanced and maneuverable missiles were introduced only after Israel’s interceptor supply had been significantly drained.

Although no official statistics have been released regarding the number of THAAD interceptors used or their success rates, available evidence suggests a poor performance.

High-altitude kinetic interceptions, hallmarked by bright explosions visible across the region, were rare, and many may have involved Arrow systems instead of THAAD.

A particularly telling open-source analysis, based on video footage by Jordanian photographer Zaid M. Al-Abbadi, missile ignition signatures, and geolocation data, estimated that Israel used 39 THAAD, 34 Arrow-3, and 9 Arrow-2 interceptors during just one of more than 20 Iranian missile barrages.

Given such high rates of interceptor use, analysts believe THAAD batteries likely exhausted their missile supply within the first four to five days of the conflict.

This rapid depletion, combined with underwhelming interception success, highlights the system’s limitations in a high-intensity, multi-wave missile war.

THAAD interceptor launch

Exhausted stockpiles and soaring costs

Estimates from military experts and news outlets place the unit cost of a single THAAD interceptor between $12 million and $15 million. However, other sources suggest the real cost is significantly higher.

In a statement to Newsweek, Sidharth Kaushal of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) noted that while the production cost of a THAAD interceptor is approximately $18 million, the total cost rises to $27 million when research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) expenses are factored in.

Estimates of total THAAD-related spending during the recent conflict vary. Analysts suggest that between $500 million and $800 million worth of interceptors may have been expended, corresponding to the use of 40 to 60 missiles.

On Tuesday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, citing Israeli military sources, reported that approximately 200 American and Israeli interceptor missiles were launched in total, at an estimated cost of 5 billion shekels – nearly $1.5 billion.

What all sources agree on is that the THAAD interceptor stockpile has been significantly depleted. At least one full battery’s worth, 48 interceptors, is believed to have been expended.

Considering the two THAAD batteries deployed and the high operational tempo due to prior Yemeni missile attacks, the actual figure may be closer to 96 interceptors. This would represent a reduction of roughly 30 percent of the entire US THAAD interceptor stockpile.

Open-source analysts also highlight the limited pace of US procurement: only 41 THAAD interceptors have been ordered over the past three years, including units designated for export customers. This slow replenishment rate underscores the vulnerability of even advanced missile defense systems when faced with sustained, high-volume missile warfare.

In stark contrast, Iran and China maintain vast ballistic missile arsenals, numbering in the thousands, making the rapid depletion of the US inventory, largely to defend Israeli territory, all the more striking.

Newsweek contacted the Pentagon for comment regarding the depletion and cost implications. The Department of Defense declined to elaborate, stating only that it had “nothing to provide.”

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

Germany announces deployment of warships to Arctic

RT | July 2, 2025

Germany will send navy ships to patrol Arctic waters in response to Russia’s growing military presence in the region, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on Monday. Russia has insisted that it is mirroring NATO moves in the far north to maintain balance.

Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Moscow is closely monitoring the situation in the region and is implementing an appropriate response strategy to potential encroachments on the country’s sovereignty. Russia’s Arctic coastline stretches over 24,000km.

“As early as this year, Germany will show its presence in the North Atlantic and the Arctic,” Pistorius said at a joint press conference with his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, in Copenhagen.

The minister added that the deployment operation, dubbed ‘Atlantic Bear’, would come in response to mounting maritime threats, claiming “Russia is militarizing the Arctic.”

Pistorius specified that one of Germany’s support ships would “go from Iceland to Greenland and then on to Canada” to take part in joint military drills with NATO allies, including Denmark, Norway, and Canada.

“In addition, we will deploy our maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and frigates to demonstrate our commitment to that region,” he added.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in April that members of the US-led military bloc are “working together” in the Arctic to “defend this part of NATO territory.”

The Kremlin has insisted that NATO’s continuing militarization of the region is unwarranted, and that Russia will mirror the moves taken by the bloc.

In March, Putin reiterated that Moscow is “concerned by the fact that NATO countries as a whole are more frequently designating the far north as a bridgehead for possible conflicts.”

“I would like to emphasize that Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” the Russian president said. He stressed, however, that Moscow would “reliably protect” its interests in the region by reinforcing its military contingent in response to Western actions.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Denmark subjects 18-year-old females to the draft starting July 1

RT | July 1, 2025

Women in Denmark are now subject to conscription, following a change to the relevant law made by the country’s parliament a few weeks ago.

The move comes as NATO, of which Denmark is a member, increases its military readiness, citing a perceived threat from Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. At the bloc’s summit in The Hague last week, member states agreed to ramp up defense spending.

In May, the European Union approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing plan to support its own military buildup.

The Kremlin has consistently dismissed allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations as “nonsense” and fearmongering.

The newly adopted Danish legislation mandates “full equality between men and women in relation to military service.” It requires that “women who turn 18 on or after 1 July 2025 will have to… draw a [draft] lottery number and thus could be ordered to serve military service if there are not enough volunteers.” Female conscripts will serve under the same conditions as men.

The bill also extends the mandatory service period from four to eleven months, according to media reports.

Denmark’s armed forces rely on both volunteers and conscripts, who are called up when volunteer numbers fall short. Roughly 4,700 Danes completed military service in 2024, with women accounting for approximately 24% of that figure.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen unveiled plans to conscript women in March, framing the decision as part of a push for “full equality between the sexes.”

Latvia, another NATO member, is planning to conscript women by 2028. It reintroduced mandatory service in 2023 after scrapping it in 2006.

Norway and Sweden have already implemented gender-neutral conscription, in 2015 and 2018 respectively.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has also proposed reinstating the draft for men, which was abolished in 2011.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘Remains Largely Intact’ After US Strikes

Sputnik – 01.07.2025

There are key factors casting doubt on the effectiveness of recent US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Russian nuclear expert Alexei Anpilogov tells Sputnik.

Iran’s uranium stockpiles remain large:

• About 3 tons enriched to 2%
• Over 3.5 tons enriched to 5%
• Hundreds of kilograms enriched to 20% and even 60% uranium-235

No signs of radiation leaks or toxic gas releases were reported after the strikes, suggesting the attacks did not reach underground uranium stores.

Satellite images show quick repairs:

• Explosion crater near the Natanz nuclear site filled in within 2 days
• Implies the damage was shallow and repairable

The US bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57) penetrates up to 60 meters only in soft soil:

• Iranian facilities are mostly under hard rock where penetration is limited to 2.5–18 meters — likely too shallow to destroy key targets.

Two likely scenarios:

1. Strikes damaged only surface structures (vent shafts, entrances).
2. Uranium was moved beforehand to secret sites unknown to US intelligence.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »