Trump ‘restrained’ towards West European leaders – Putin
RT | February 19, 2025
US President Donald Trump has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with EU leaders who spoke out against him during the course of the 2024 presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin told media on Wednesday.
During the campaign last year, a number of EU officials spoke out in favor of Trump’s Democrat rival for the White House, Kamala Harris, although most stopped short of endorsing her outright.
Trump, Putin noted, continues to be polite with his European allies, who were quite rude to him at the time.
“I am surprised by the restraint of newly elected US President Trump towards his allies, who behaved, frankly speaking, in a boorish manner. He still behaves quite courteously towards them,” he said.
Last October, Trump accused British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of election interference after UK Labour party helped recruit and deploy activists to help the Harris campaign in key swing states.
In August 2024, the Trump campaign accused the EU of interfering in the US presidential election after a senior bloc official warned Elon Musk against amplifying “potentially harmful content” ahead of his interview with Donald Trump.
“All European leaders, all without exception, essentially directly interfered in the election process in the US. It came to direct insults towards one of the candidates,” according to Putin.
USA Is Defunding Regime-Change NGOs
Prof. Glenn Diesen on Neutrality Studies
Glenn Diesen | February 19, 2025
For the longest time, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have been funding foreign NGOs to influence local populations through media propaganda and the presence of a civil society consensus. Donald Trump just pulled the plug by defunding USAID and even going after the NED. This is unprecedented in modern history that a state dismantles its own cognitive warfare apparatus. What happened?
Good Jihadi, bad Jihadi: Al-Qaeda’s Sharaa vs Sinwar’s resistance

The Cradle | February 19, 2025
“Even the pages of the New York Times now include regular accounts distinguishing good from bad Muslims: good Muslims are modern, secular, and Westernized, but bad Muslims are doctrinal, antimodern, and virulent.” – Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
In his seminal work, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani dissects how the west constructs and weaponizes distinctions between “good” and “bad” Muslims to suit its geopolitical objectives. He argues that these labels are not inherent but imposed, shaped by the shifting demands of western foreign policy.
Nearly two decades after its publication, his thesis remains alarmingly relevant. Nowhere is this clearer than in the stark contrast between the west’s treatment of Yahya Sinwar, the martyred Palestinian resistance leader of Hamas, and Ahmad al-Sharaa, better known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the head of Al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syria.
A tale of two leaders
While Sinwar has spent the past year in the war-ravaged ruins of Gaza, constantly evading Israeli and NATO surveillance while leading the Palestinian resistance against a brutal Israeli occupation and aggression, Sharaa moved freely through Idlib, and now Damascus, attending public events and meeting western diplomats without significant security measures.
This is despite the fact that the US had placed a $10 million bounty on Sharaa’s head as a so-called terrorist. The incongruence is striking: an internationally recognized Palestinian resistance leader hunted and vilified, while a former Al-Qaeda affiliate leader rebrands himself as a legitimate political actor with western complicity.
Back in 2021, TRT World noted how Sharaa was “remodeling” himself as a peacemaker, enjoying unimpeded mobility even as western coalition forces actively hunted other jihadist leaders linked to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan later confirmed that Sharaa had been collaborating with Ankara for years in eliminating those classified by NATO as “terrorists.” The reality, however, is that Sharaa has been part of a western-backed laundering process for years, at least since 2012, but certainly since 2017, when with Qatari backing, he began rebranding his Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front as a Syrian liberation force opposing Russian and Iranian influence.
Media whitewashing and political legitimacy
The western media’s embrace of Sharaa was made explicit when The Times described his return to Damascus as that of “‘Polite’ Syrian leader heads home.” This was not an isolated occurrence but part of a broader effort to frame him as a liberator from foreign influence. His past crimes, including war crimes against civilians, enslavement of Yazidi women, and sectarian violence, were conveniently brushed aside.
When Sharaa’s group took control of Damascus last December, the alignment with western interests became clearer. Israeli airstrikes systematically dismantled Syria’s military infrastructure, particularly in and around the capital, yet Sharaa himself moved through the city undisturbed.
While the Israeli Air Force bombed military sites near Umayyad Square, Sharaa was seen casually driving through the same areas. His silence on these attacks was deafening – especially given that his administration’s official stance on Israel marked a complete break from Syria’s historic anti-Zionist policies.
Statements from his government indicated no intention to reclaim the occupied Golan Heights or other lost territories, signaling a de facto truce with Tel Aviv.
The west’s legitimization of Sharaa reached its peak when his Foreign Minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, was invited to attend the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, sharing a stage with figures like former British prime minister Tony Blair.
His rhetoric was tailored for a western audience: peace, counterterrorism, privatization, and economic liberalism – all buzzwords signaling a willingness to operate within the neoliberal world order.
Demonizing resistance: Sinwar’s struggle
Meanwhile, Israel continued its relentless campaign against Yahya Sinwar, branding him a “butcher,” a “war criminal,” and a “child killer” – a narrative eagerly parroted by western media despite its lack of substantiation.
Even as the alleged war crimes attributed to Hamas fighters on 7 October 2023 were later exposed as Israeli propaganda, Sinwar’s image remained demonized. In his final moments, as an Israeli drone executed him in Gaza, Sinwar did not cower. He fought until his last breath, cementing his status as an icon of Palestinian resistance. Yet even in death, the western narrative denied him any form of legitimacy.
Julani’s convenient redemption
Conversely, Sharaa’s past was erased. His involvement with the Islamic State in Iraq, his position as deputy leader of ISIS under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, his group’s mass executions, and his forces’ role in the enslavement of women were all conveniently overlooked.
Western journalists competed to polish his image, portraying him as a pragmatic leader rather than the war criminal he is. His forces still operate brutal prisons in Idlib, where opponents disappear indefinitely, yet he remains a media darling.
This contrast illustrates Mamdani’s thesis with unsettling precision: Sharaa is the “good jihadist” because he aligns with western-Israeli interests, while Sinwar is the “bad jihadist” because he defies them.
Sinwar’s crime was not terrorism – it was successfully challenging the occupation’s military, exposing the vulnerabilities of an Israel long perceived as invincible. His resistance resonated across the Arab and Muslim world, cutting across sectarian lines and threatening western interests.
Sharaa, on the other hand, poses no threat to Israel. He remains focused on the sectarian score-settling within Syria, making him a useful pawn rather than an adversary. His group does not challenge Western influence in the region, nor does it resist the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land. This is the fundamental reason why he is embraced rather than demonized.
Sinwar may have fallen, but as the Quran reminds us: “And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Rather, they are alive, but you perceive it not.” (Quran 2:154). His legacy endures, living on in the hearts of those who continue his struggle.
Sharaa, despite his crimes, remains alive and politically relevant. In the western geopolitical playbook, obedience is rewarded while defiance is crushed.
“Listen Carefully it’s Actually Much Darker”: How the Left is Framing Free Speech as a Front for Fascism
By Jonathan Turley | February 18, 2025
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
In one of the most bizarre examples, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
EU Elites Are in Panic Over the US Leaving Ukraine and Europe
Professor Glenn Diesen & Pascal Lottaz
Glenn Diesen | February 17, 2025
I had a conversation with Pascal Lottaz at Neutrality Studies regarding the panic in the EU as the US made it clear it no longer considers Europe to be a priority. For years, the Europeans failed to establish the continent as an independent pole of power by neglecting to define their security and economic interests separate from the US. Europe is subsequently now a divided continent at war, in economic decline and with diminishing relevance in the world. The US must address multipolar realities by restoring a workable relationship with Russia and pivoting toward Asia. The comfortable ideological bubble has been burst, yet there is still a reluctance to deal with uncomfortable realities.
There Is No Such Thing as Democracy without Free Speech. Period.
Truthstream Media | February 17, 2025
Truthstream Media Can Be Found Here:
Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
UK and EU ‘incapable of negotiation’ – Moscow
RT | February 17, 2025
The UK and EU cannot be part of the Ukraine peace talks, as they are incapable of negotiating, Moscow’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia has said.
The diplomat made the comments as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Yury Ushakov, President Vladimir Putin’s top foreign policy aide, arrived in Saudi Arabia on Monday for bilateral talks with top US diplomats, discussions to which the EU and Ukraine are not invited.
“The Minsk guarantors, and in general EU states and the UK are incapable of negotiation and cannot be a party to any future agreements on regulating the Ukrainian crisis,” Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Monday.
Both are blinded by “a manic desire to defeat Russia on the battlefield at the hands of the surviving Ukrainians,” the diplomat said. Neither EU countries nor the UK are suitable to serve “as either guarantors or middlemen” to a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, he added.
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for ending the hostilities, Keith Kellogg, has also noted that European states have no place in upcoming peace talks. France and Germany served as the Western guarantors of the failed Minsk accord, a deal supposedly aimed at stopping hostilities between Ukraine and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has since admitted the ceasefire was intended to buy time for Kiev to build up strength.
While previously both the US and its allies in Europe have shown a united front in backing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia since its escalation in 2022, Washington has touted a pivot under Trump. The new US president has promised to bring a swift end to the hostilities, while simultaneously signaling that Europe should begin to shoulder more of the cost of its own security, as well as Ukraine’s.
The Russian diplomatic delegation in Riyadh is expected to prepare the ground for an upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin, following tomorrow’s initial bilateral involving senior diplomats form both sides.
Moscow is coming to the negotiations primarily to “hear out” Washington regarding the Ukraine conflict, as well as to restore communication after “an absolutely abnormal period” in Russia-US relations, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
The top diplomat has previously stressed that Moscow will reject any attempt to temporarily freeze the Ukraine conflict, as Kiev’s Western backers would use such a measure to rearm Kiev. Any solution to the hostilities would need to have an ironclad legal basis and address the root causes of the conflict, Lavrov has said.
America’s ‘Democratic’ Allies Are Becoming More Authoritarian
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | February 17, 2025
U.S. officials have a long history of portraying Washington’s allies and clients as democratic, even when their behavior is blatantly authoritarian. Such cynical hypocrisy was at its zenith during the Cold War, but it is surging again.
A similar trend is evident with respect to U.S. interference in the internal political affairs of other countries through such mechanisms as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Such agencies fund regimes and political movements that are deemed obedient to Washington’s wishes and supportive of American foreign policy objectives. Conversely, U.S. administrations actively undermine governments or movements that they consider hostile or even just insufficiently cooperative. The actual nature of U.S. clients often is a far cry from the carefully crafted democratic image of them that Washington circulates.
A recent example of American meddling in the internal affairs of another democratic country appears to have taken place in the Republic of Georgia. According to Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, USAID spent $41.7 million to support its preferred candidates in the country’s recent parliamentary elections. Adjusted for the size of Georgia’s population, such an expenditure in the United States would amount to $3.78 billion,
The U.S. track record in Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union lends credibility to the speaker’s accusation that Washington is meddling in his country’s internal political affairs. President George W. Bush fawned with praise for Mikheil Saakashvili, the leader of Georgia’s “rose revolution” in 2003. Under Saakashvili, Georgia had become a “beacon of liberty,” Bush crowed. Generous flows of aid from Washington ensued. However, massive corruption soon characterized Saakashvili’s rule, as did his growing repression of political opponents. Ultimately, Saakashvili’s adversaries ousted Washington’s beloved “democratic” client from power.
The contrast between the laudatory American portrayal of Saakashvili as a paragon of democratic reform and the reality of his conduct was stark. However, Washington’s role in Ukraine over the years has been even more pervasive and dishonest. Although Ukraine’s president, Victor Yanukovych, came to office in a 2010 election that even a team of European Union (EU) observers conceded was reasonably free and fair, officials in Barack Obama’s administration, especially Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, worked to undermine his presidency. Yanukovych’s preference for closer economic ties with Russia instead of the EU and the United States apparently was intolerable to Western policymakers.
In 2014, the United States and key NATO partners helped Ukrainian demonstrators (primarily in Kiev’s Maidan Square) force Yanukovych to flee. An intercepted telephone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine confirmed the massive extent of Washington’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs. Nuland herself later admitted that the United States had poured more than $5 billion to Ukrainian groups in the years before the Maidan uprising. Supposedly, the purpose was to “promote democracy,” but as usual, the funds went almost entirely to groups Washington considered supportive of U.S. policies. It would be hard to identify a more flagrant case of outside interference in the affairs of another country.
Even if U.S. leaders sincerely intended their largesse to bring a stronger, healthier democracy to Ukraine—which is extremely doubtful—Washington did not achieve that goal. Corruption and blatant repression have become increasingly bad under the post-Maidan governments. Even though U.S. leaders invariably portray Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a democratic champion, his record proves the opposite. Under his rule, Ukraine has outlawed opposition parties, muzzled the press, harassed uncooperative churches, and amassed a record of arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Much of that abuse was evident before the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia. Confirming that any attempt to portray Zelensky’s rule as democratic is a hypocritical farce, Ukraine has now postponed elections indefinitely.
The rot of hypocrisy and covert authoritarianism has infected even governments in NATO and the European Union. A grotesque example occurred earlier this month in Romania when an election commission dominated by the two governing parties, the Social Democratic Party (PSD and the National Liberal Party (PNL), annulled the first round of the presidential election held on November 24. Instead of the candidates of those two parties advancing to the second round runoff as expected, neither one did so. Instead, Caliin Georgescu, the candidate of a right-wing populist party led the field. Elena Lasconi, a reformer representing another “minor” party took the other runoff spot.
That outcome apparently was intolerable to Romania’s political establishment or its supporters in the EU and the United States. They viewed Georgescu as especially unacceptable, since he openly criticized NATO and opposed continuing to aid Ukraine. The country’s election commission nullified the voting results and rescheduled the first round balloting for May 4, 2025. Commissioners charged that, wait for it… Russia had illegally tampered with the election! Moscow’s horrid offense was its alleged support of a Tik Tok campaign that seemed to benefit Georgescu. Tangible evidence regarding Russian involvement was noticeably absent. Despite the lack of evidence, U.S. and EU officials denounced Russia and praised the Romanian government for trashing the election.
Eugene Doyle, a reporter for New Zealand’s Solidarity.com, noted the menacing significance of this episode. “To save democracy, the US and the European elites appear to have found it necessary to destroy democracy. For the first time ever an election was overturned in an EU/NATO country. Ever,” he wrote. Doyle also cites evidence that Russia was not even the likely culprit. The Tik Tok effort apparently originated with a botched PNL scheme to siphon off votes to Georgescu from other mainstream competitors.
Moreover, as Doyle points out, “Even if the Russians did it, in what crazy world would you wipe an election for a Tik Tok campaign, particularly one that was at best a few hundred thousands of dollars’ worth of advertising/messaging/ chatting—in contrast to the millions of dollars the U.S. State Department and various branches of the U.S. government spent on the same campaign?”
The answer is that it would happen in a world where political elites in the United States and its principal allies have never really been committed to democracy. Not as a domestic governing principle and definitely not as a foreign policy objective. Instead, the alleged commitment is a propaganda tool that is discarded whenever it becomes inconvenient. We live in such a world, and have done so for many years.
Macron slammed for excluding European allies from Paris summit on Ukraine
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | February 17, 2025
As French President Emmanuel Macron convenes European leaders in Paris to discuss military strategies regarding Ukraine, he faces backlash from key European allies for excluding them from the summit.
The gathering, aimed at formulating a unified European stance amid ongoing U.S.-Russia peace discussions, has sparked controversy for leaving out crucial partners in the region.
Czechia was among the first to express its discontent, criticizing Macron’s decision to exclude them from the summit. A Czech government source told French newspaper Le Monde : “In addition to Poland, there is no country that is closer to the war.”
The source further condemned Macron’s “arrogance,” emphasizing that no country hosts more Ukrainian refugees in relative terms.
“No country has more Ukrainian refugees per capita than the Czech Republic, and we manage one of the most effective weapon supply systems,” they added.
Romania also found itself omitted from the summit guest list. Ilie Bolojan, presidential advisor for defense and security, acknowledged the exclusion, stating that despite Romania’s substantial contributions — including overseeing more than 600 kilometers of Ukraine’s border — it had not been invited to Paris “despite his efforts” to get Bucharest in the room.
Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar voiced strong criticism of the summit’s selective invitations, asserting that it undermines European unity. “On a symbolic level, the organizers of the Paris summit show the world that, even within the EU, not all states are treated on an equal footing,” Musar declared. “This does not correspond to the spirit of European integration. This is not the Europe we aspire to, nor a Europe that commands global respect.”
Hungary, known for its non-interventionist stance under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, also condemned the meeting, labeling it a “pro-war” summit. The Hungarian government accused participating European leaders of fueling escalation rather than seeking diplomatic resolutions. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó criticized the summit’s motives, claiming that it gathers “anti-Trump, war-focused, frustrated leaders” who do not want peace.
“Those who have continued to throw oil on the fire for three years now meet in Paris,” Szijjártó asserted, denouncing what he called “an erroneous strategy” of continued military escalation.
He reiterated Hungary’s alignment with U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision for peace negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, arguing that direct diplomacy remains the best route to ending the conflict.
Around a dozen European leaders are expected to meet at the Elysée Palace later on Monday for talks chaired by Macron.
Medvedev applauds Vance’s ‘humiliating rebuke’ of Europe
RT | February 15, 2025
The deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has hailed US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling it a rare moment of American honesty about Europe’s weaknesses and Vance himself “a brave guy.”
In his speech on Friday, Vance touched on the migration crisis, security, freedom of speech, and apparent democratic backsliding on the continent.
Medvedev said Vance “unexpectedly lit up” the conference, calling his remarks a harsh but truthful indictment of modern Europe.
“Everyone expected to hear the usual partner-like curtseys to Europe and comments on Donald Trump’s words about the end of the Ukrainian conflict. But he went and harshly scolded the Europeans who have completely lost themselves in recent years: your democracy is weak, your elections are crap, your rules that violate normal human morality are crap,” Medvedev wrote.
He added that the Europeans would retaliate against him if he did not hold such a high post. “However, they will forgive him; they will begrudgingly accept the humiliating rebuke from their senior partner with resentment,” Medvedev concluded.
Vance was particularly severe in his indictment of European democracy. He voiced concerns over the erosion of democratic values in Europe, drawing attention to the annulment of the presidential election in Romania. The first round in November saw right-wing anti-establishment candidate Calin Georgescu come out on top with 22.94%, beating liberal leftist and social democrat candidates. Romania’s top court cited intelligence documents alleging “irregularities” in his campaign performance in making their ruling, although the validity of that evidence has been questioned.
The US vice president also cautioned against rising censorship in the region, told European member-states to take greater responsibility for their own defense, and raised the alarm over mass migration.
US President Donald Trump praised Vance’s speech as “brilliant.” However, some European officials were not so keen on the address. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas warned that it signaled growing transatlantic tension. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius meanwhile, blasted the remarks, calling them “not acceptable.”
On the other hand, Russian Senator Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov described Vance’s statements as a “cold shower” for European Russophobes.
EU nations aim to seize alleged ‘Russian shadow fleet’ vessels – Politico
RT | February 10, 2025
Several EU members are considering strengthening the legal framework for seizing ships in the Baltic Sea with the aim of undermining Russian trade, Politico reported on Monday, citing insiders. Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are allegedly seeking to target vessels on environmental and piracy grounds.
Western nations, which have been seeking to find ways to curb Russian energy exports, have accused Moscow of employing a “shadow fleet” to evade sanctions. In recent months, officials have also accused Moscow of sabotaging undersea cables in the Baltic, though no evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.
According to Politico’s sources, the four states intend to seize suspected shadow fleet ships based on the alleged threat they pose to the environment and to infrastructure, and are seeking EU backing for the initiative. They could amend national legislation to “make it easier to grab ships further out at sea,” including by mandating a list of insurers for maritime operations in the Baltic. Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told the news outlet that there are “lots of opportunities” for enforcing trade restrictions against Russia.
Last December, Finland seized the tanker ‘Eagle S’ amid an investigation into the damage to the Estlink 2 power cable. The vessel remains impounded despite the Finnish authorities reportedly finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
Conversely, a Norwegian cargo ship with an all-Russian crew was released in late January after Norwegian police concluded there were no grounds to continue its detention. The Latvian authorities had requested the seizure of the Silver Dania over an incident involving an optic cable owned by the national broadcaster LVRTC earlier the same month.
Moscow has accused Western nations of peddling a false narrative that frames routine accidents as evidence of a Russian sabotage campaign. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has criticized purveyors for “fantastic hypocrisy,” citing the lack of findings in European inquiries into the September 2022 destruction of Nord Stream gas pipelines.
The “non-investigation” of that incident suggests that EU nations deem Joe Biden’s threat against Russian-German infrastructure “proper,” Zakharova said last month, referring to remarks made by the then-US president months before the attack.
President Vladimir Putin has characterized Western sanctions as tools of non-economic pressure wielded by countries unable to compete with Russia on an equal footing. He views them as a challenge to make the national economy better.
“No blackmail or attempts to impose anything on us will ever yield results. Russia is confident in its rightness and strength,” he said in a recent speech.
France freezes accounts of ‘Russian House’ – ambassador
RT | February 7, 2025
France has frozen the bank accounts of the Russian House cultural center in Paris, effectively blocking its operations, Russian Ambassador Aleksey Meshkov has told RIA Novosti.
Russian House, which promotes Russian language, culture and traditions, operates under Rossotrudnichestvo, a government agency. Moscow has argued that closing the center violates bilateral agreements.
“Attempts are being made to completely freeze the work of the Russian House due to the fact that accounts have been frozen. We are having difficult negotiations with the French on this issue, especially since the Russian House exists here legally, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, and a French cultural center operates in Russia. This is a negative development of events in recent weeks,” Meshkov said.
On Thursday, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry formally demanded the closure of the Russian House in Baku, citing its lack of legal registration. Rossotrudnichestvo head Evgeny Primakov confirmed that despite multiple requests from the Russian Embassy and the agency for compliance assistance, Azerbaijani authorities had not responded.
In January, Azerbaijani TV aired a report alleging that the Russian House in Baku was engaging in espionage under the guise of cultural promotion. Moscow dismissed the claims as baseless, summoning Azerbaijani Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev to the foreign ministry.
Primakov announced plans to file a defamation lawsuit against Baku TV, demanding either evidence or a retraction and apology. Local pro-government media compared the Russian House closure to Azerbaijan’s recent decision to halt the operations of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the country.
In January, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov stated that Baku had suspended cooperation with USAID, citing concerns that it was advancing US political interests and operating non-transparently. He insisted that any US assistance should be provided officially and with full transparency.
Primakov rejected comparisons between Russian House and USAID, emphasizing that Rossotrudnichestvo focuses solely on humanitarian and cultural cooperation.
“The comparison of the activities of the Russian House in Baku and the US Agency for International Development does not hold up to any criticism, as Rossotrudnichestvo does not engage in political matters, unlike the American organization,” he said.
Despite diplomatic efforts, the Russian House in Baku faces immediate challenges. Moscow has received official notification about its closure and expressed willingness to complete the registration process under Azerbaijani law. However, Primakov revealed that the center must vacate its premises within six weeks, as the property owner has decided to sell the building.
Russian Houses operate in dozens of countries worldwide. Rossotrudnichestvo has been on the European Union’s sanctions list since July 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, although its centers continue to function in some European nations.
The institutions support regional artistic and cultural communities, organize events, language courses, poetry competitions, children’s activities, and theatrical performances.

