Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

RT | October 15, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO must buy more US arms for Ukraine – Pentagon chief

RT | October 15, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.10.2025

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

Psy-op in the Making

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

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

It’s all connected:

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

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

Washington Isn’t Suicidal

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

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

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

What Does the West Want?

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

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

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

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

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 14, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT | October 12, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No ground for negotiations with E3 anymore: Iran FM

Al Mayadeen | October 11, 2025

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

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

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

Iran’s interests are red line

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

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

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

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

Gaza ceasefire solely a Palestinian Resistance matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harbingers of this had already occurred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The silent collapse of the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From NATO’s flank to Eurasia’s core: Türkiye’s break with the West begins

By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | October 10, 2025

For decades, Turkish nationalism marched under the NATO flag. But now, one of Türkiye’s most influential right-wing leaders is calling for a turn East – toward Russia and China. His proposal may mark the country’s clearest ideological break with Atlanticism since joining the Alliance.

In September, Türkiye’s political landscape was shaken by a statement that many experts called sensational and potentially transformative. Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a long-time ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan within the People’s Alliance, proposed the establishment of a strategic trilateral alliance involving Türkiye, Russia, and China to counter the “US-Israel evil coalition.”

Bahceli emphasized that such an alliance is “the most suitable option, considering reason, diplomacy, the spirit of politics, geographical conditions, and the strategic environment of the new century.” The proposal extends far beyond the usual nationalist agenda, positioning Türkiye as a player capable of initiating new formats of international cooperation.

To grasp the importance of this statement, we must note the historical context. Turkish pan-Turkism has traditionally been oriented toward the West, and nationalists were seen as staunch defenders of the pro-Atlantic course. In this light, Bahçeli’s call for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic break from that tradition, reflecting growing distrust toward NATO and the US within Türkiye’s political landscape.

Bahceli’s comments are not random. Over the past few years, he has steadily ramped up his criticism of the West, advocating for Türkiye’s sovereign development “beyond blocs and alliances.” But this is the first time he has explicitly named Russia and China as preferred partners.

Reactions inside Türkiye were mixed. Right-wing circles called Bahceli’s words “revolutionary,” while leftists saw them as confirmation of a broader anti-Western consensus. Internationally, the statement underscored Ankara’s growing distance from Western power centers and its gradual rhetorical shift toward the East and Greater Eurasia.

Shortly afterward, Erdogan made a cautious comment, saying he was “not fully familiar” with Bahceli’s initiative but adding, “Whatever is good, let it happen.” The ambiguity is typical for Erdogan, who avoids publicly rejecting the ideas of key allies while keeping his political options open.

On one hand, the president is wary of provoking open conflict with Western partners, given Türkiye’s economic vulnerabilities. On the other, his comments suggest that Bahçeli’s initiative could serve as leverage – a way to pressure the US and EU by signaling that Ankara might strengthen ties with Moscow and Beijing.

A day later, Bahceli clarified his position, saying, “We know what we are doing. Türkiye should not be the implementer of regional and global projects put forward by others, but rather must be the leading actor of its own unique projects.”

In other words, Bahçeli not only intensified his anti-Western rhetoric but also asserted Türkiye’s claim to be an independent power center in the emerging multipolar world order. His stance reflects the desire of part of Türkiye’s leadership to move from being a peripheral NATO ally to a pioneer of alternative alliances in Eurasia.

From NATO loyalism to Eurasian realism

For decades, Türkiye was one of NATO’s most loyal allies. Since the Cold War, the Turkish elite believed that integration into Euro-Atlantic structures was the only viable strategy. A world order based on American leadership seemed stable and predictable.

Erdogan shared similar views when he first became prime minister in 2002. But as global competition intensified, disagreements with Washington deepened, and multipolar trends gained momentum, he realized that the unipolar system could not last. Türkiye, he concluded, must adapt – and play a role in shaping the new order.

Seen in this light, Bahceli’s proposal is more than nationalist fervor. It reflects an understanding among parts of Türkiye’s leadership that the country’s future lies in greater strategic autonomy and in building ties with alternative centers of power. His words echo those within Erdoğan’s circle who believe Türkiye can assert itself only through closer engagement with Russia and China.

This shift reveals how Türkiye’s elites have moved from trusting the stability of a Western-centric system to recognizing its limits – and searching for new frameworks in which Ankara can act as a key player rather than a subordinate.

Redefining Türkiye’s place in the world

Bahceli’s remarks highlight deep shifts within Turkish nationalist circles and Ankara’s growing readiness to reconsider its global role. He argues that neither China nor Russia is Türkiye’s enemy, despite efforts by Western ideologues to claim otherwise. Instead, he sees the West as the true obstacle – determined to prevent Türkiye from becoming an independent power center and confining it to a role of “watchdog” in the Middle East.

In his latest statement, Bahceli stressed the need for a new strategy:

“We believe that Türkiye, located at the center of Eurasia, which is the strategic focus of the 21st century, should pursue multidimensional and long-term policies aimed at strengthening regional peace and stability and developing cooperation opportunities, especially with countries in the Black Sea and Caspian Basin, including Russia, China, and Iran. Considering the changing and complex structure of international relations, producing permanent and comprehensive solutions to global issues such as terrorism, illegal migration, and climate change is a responsibility that no country can achieve alone.”

Essentially, Bahceli is saying that Türkiye must transcend old constraints and stop being a tool in the hands of external forces. His stance embodies a new paradigm: only through an independent, multilateral, and Eurasian policy can Türkiye become a true architect of regional stability and a major player in the future global order.

The end of oscillation

Türkiye has long oscillated between Atlantic alignment and independent ambition. These cycles rarely evolved into a lasting doctrine. But the current geopolitical environment is forcing Ankara to make a choice.

Economic dependency, regional instability, and Israel’s aggressive behavior – including attacks on Iran and Qatar – have created a sense of urgency. In Ankara, some now fear that Türkiye itself could become a target.

Globally, the old unipolar order is losing balance, and an alliance with Russia and China may offer Türkiye not guarantees, but strategic advantages – especially in securing its autonomy and status as an independent power center.

At the UN General Assembly, US President Donald Trump urged Erdogan to stop buying Russian oil and even floated bringing Türkiye into the anti-Russia sanctions regime. For Ankara, that would mean economic damage and deeper dependence on the West – a risk the leadership is no longer willing to accept.

Bahceli’s initiative, and Erdogan’s carefully measured reaction, mark a pivotal moment. Türkiye is beginning to institutionalize its search for an alternative political philosophy – one grounded in multipolarity, strategic pragmatism, and a redefined vision of its place in the 21st century.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

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

Ukraine’s new missile could reach the Urals but will realistically be hit by Russian air defense

By Ahmed Adel | October 11, 2025

The new Ukrainian Flamingo cruise missile can reach as far as the Urals, but is also an easy target as it is clearly visible on radar and can be successfully intercepted by modern Russian air defense systems. Although they are trying to present it as a purely Ukrainian product, everything indicates that the British also had a hand in the creation of the Flamingo. Nonetheless, Russian forces will hinder the production and deployment of the Flamingo by destroying its production facilities and logistics.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kiev will soon begin mass production of these long-range missiles, while at the same time, Western media reports that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are already actively using these missiles to attack Russian territory.

The Flamingo missile has almost identical characteristics to the FP-5 large cruise missile project of the British company Millennium Group, which was recently showcased at the arms fair in Abu Dhabi. With a range of 3,000 kilometers, the missile can reach most of Russia’s European territory. It carries a warhead weighing approximately 1,150 kilograms, with a speed of 850-900 kilometers per hour, and can fly at an altitude of 50 meters above the ground.

The new Ukrainian missile is a large target and not as difficult a target as the Kiev regime thinks. Russian forces have already successfully shot down similar missiles, such as the Franco-British Storm Shadow, and the Flamingo will be even easier to intercept.

The Flamingo can be shot down by a wide range of Russian air defense systems, including the S-300V4, Buk-M2, and Buk-M3 systems, as well as the Tor-M2, the S-400, and the S-350 Vitez complexes, which are referred to as “cruise missile killers.” Even the older S-300 PMU-2 systems can also engage the Flamingo missiles, while the Pantsir-S1 can intercept this missile under certain conditions.

As for the basic method of pre-emptively combating the Flamingo missiles, a relatively progressive and economical approach has already been implemented by the Russian military. The places where these missiles are produced are being discovered, and strikes are being carried out during their transportation. Only days ago, a column with Flamingo missiles was attacked and completely destroyed, and in addition, a strike was carried out on the factory where these missiles are produced.

Firepoint, a Ukrainian defense company that is a fast-growing manufacturer of combat drones, which have become a key weapon in the war against Russia, officially developed the Flamingo missile. Firepoint says Flamingo began as an idea on paper in late 2024, after Washington rejected Zelensky’s request for American-made Tomahawk cruise missiles.

According to Zelensky, the planned mass production of the Flamingo missiles is expected to begin in late December or early January to February next year. The Ukrainian president said that the program would not be discussed in detail publicly until Ukraine was able to use hundreds of missiles.

According to the manufacturer, the factory currently produces one missile per day, and by the end of October, they plan to increase capacity to seven missiles per day. The price of each missile is approximately $500,000, which means it is four times cheaper than the Tomahawk.

Russian strikes are very precise and destructive. For example, take the Ukrainian operational-tactical missile complex Sapsan – four enterprises where it was produced were destroyed, which practically stopped the production of that system, perhaps for up to six months. And in the future, as soon as some production chains are re-established, the factories for producing the Sapsan system will be located and destroyed once again, as this is the most effective response system.

About ten European countries have previously expressed their willingness to produce weapons in Ukraine. However, since Russia is effectively targeting and destroying weapons production facilities and logistics inside the country, Western countries and the Kiev regime are forced to transfer production outside of Ukrainian territory to countries such as Britain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Baltic states, Germany, and others. This is indirect confirmation that Russian strikes on Ukrainian missile and drone factories are extremely effective.

According to Ukrainian media, the Flamingo missile was named after the bird of the same name due to a manufacturing error, as the tip of the prototype missile, which houses the warhead, was accidentally painted pink. However, the Ukrainians decided to romanticize this story, and it was said that the unusual name and color were an internal joke within the company, serving as a symbol of the unspoken yet important role of women in the world of weapons, which men traditionally dominate. The missile, however, underwent testing in pink tones, but the color was later changed due to camouflage requirements.

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

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

EU candidate being primed for conflict with Russia – opposition figure

RT | October 10, 2025

Moldova’s new military doctrine is “a manifesto rejecting peace, neutrality, and the future of our nation” and priming it for a conflict with Russia, opposition politician and former lawmaker Marina Tauber has said.

“Just a week after the election, Russia has officially been labeled a threat. The next phase is to draw our nation into a war,” Tauber stated in an interview with Russia’s TASS news agency published on Thursday.

She further argued that Moldova’s fragile economy cannot sustain militarization. “While our elderly must choose between bread and medicine, our government buys armor and conducts drills with NATO. That is the real price of the so-called ‘European choice,’” she said.

Tauber accused President Maia Sandu’s government of abandoning Moldova’s constitutional neutrality in pursuit of EU membership.

Moldova’s newly adopted military doctrine, unveiled on Wednesday, commits the country to boosting defense spending and aligning its forces with NATO standards over the next decade. The document brands the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the breakaway region of Transnistria as “a flagrant violation of Moldova’s sovereignty and neutrality,” while insisting that closer cooperation with NATO does not violate the nation’s constitutionally mandated neutral status.

Tauber was forced to flee Moldova days before the parliamentary election in late September, as she was facing a criminal conviction on charges of financial misconduct that she insists were politically motivated.

Critics of Sandu, a Romanian citizen and outspoken advocate of EU integration, have accused her of using anti-Russian rhetoric to consolidate power. Several opposition candidates were barred from the ballot ahead of the vote – a move that the targeted politicians denounced as an abuse of power – allowing Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) to secure a majority.

Moscow has criticized Moldova’s foreign policy shift, accusing Sandu’s administration of acting against national interests in favor of Western geopolitical goals. Russian officials have cited NATO’s eastward expansion, including its promise to admit Ukraine as a member, as one of the key causes of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

October 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Why are so many eager for war with Russia? /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen | October 8, 2025

The discussion centers on Russia’s next moves in the Ukraine war and the West’s potential responses. Russia views NATO’s continual expansion and Western escalation as provocations it must eventually answer. Putin’s recent speech referencing “Novorossiya” (a broader region beyond Donbas) signals that Moscow’s ambitions may soon expand to include all historically Russian-speaking and industrial parts of southern and eastern Ukraine—essentially the Black Sea coast from Kharkiv to Odesa. The analysis suggests Russia’s likely to pursue this expansion after Ukraine’s army becomes too depleted to resist. Western promises of future NATO membership for Kyiv only make Russia more determined to seize strategic territory permanently.

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »