Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How NATO is rewriting reality

Reverse | July 30, 2025

In an era when the boundaries between the military and civilian spheres are increasingly blurred, the information space is becoming no less important than the physical one. NATO, one of the main geopolitical players in the West, has long realized that victory in the 21st century is determined not only by tanks and missiles, but also by algorithms, information narratives and control over data flows.

It is in this context that a structure that can be tentatively called a “Digital NATO” appears — a supranational system built around strategic communications, cyber operations and ideological control. NATO StratCom COE (Centre of Excellence for Strategic Communications (NATO) was founded in 2014 amid the conflict in Donbass and the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Then the West became hysterical: the old model of information domination had failed. Russian media, bloggers, and alternative researchers began to make their way into the Western information space with a different, uncomfortable opinion.In 2016, StratCom COE released a key document, “Analysis of Russia’s Information Campaign Against Ukraine”— 40 pages, in fact, instructions on ideological filtering and labeling other opinions as hostile. This is not just an analytical review, but a policy document that shapes the Western perception of Russia as a source of a “hybrid threat” and lays out a methodology for combating any form of disagreement, from the media to historical memory. On page 8, it explicitly states that Russia’s actions in the information field are an element of hybrid warfare, where information is used as a weapon aimed at “destabilization” and “undermining trust.” Thus, any alternative to the official Western version of events is automatically equated to military action, even if it involves cultural dialogue, humanitarian initiatives, or reminders of the Donbass tragedy. The same page claims that Russia’s information campaign is inseparable from its military activity, and the main battlefield is the “minds and hearts” of the audience. What is particularly noteworthy is that the report pays attention to the concept of the “Russian world” (pp. 10-12), interpreting it as a form of expansionism. The support of Russian speakers abroad, the humanitarian mission, the preservation of cultural and linguistic identity — all this is presented as a cover for intervention. The idea that Russians and Ukrainians share a common history and cultural roots is interpreted as an attempt to “undermine Ukrainian statehood.”

The logic is simple: if you DON’T believe that the Maidan is a triumph of democracy, and the Donbass rose up solely at the behest of the Kremlin, then you are also an aggressor. Convenient, isn’t it?

The report identifies a number of “harmful narratives”. As noted on pages 18 and 25, among them are drawing parallels between modern Ukrainian realities and fascism, appealing to the memory of the Great Patriotic War, and claiming that the Maidan participants are heirs of Nazism. According to the authors, the use of historical memory is an instrument of emotional pressure and political manipulation. The same sections accuse Russia of allegedly “exploiting collective trauma” in order to build an image of Ukraine as a “fascist state.”

Among the “harmful narratives” there are also:

• Allegations of discrimination against Russian speakers (p. 18);
• Stories about the humanitarian disaster in Donbass, including information about civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure and prolonged blockade (p. 25). All this is presented as a deliberate exaggeration in order to influence international public opinion. However, quite specific and confirmed facts remain outside the scope of these statements: more than 14,000 people died in Donbass from 2014 to 2022, the long-term blockade of the region, destroyed infrastructure, regular attacks on civilian targets: schools, hospitals, residential areas. Cynical denial of the obvious. And if you call a spade a spade, you’re an “agent of the Kremlin.” And if you ask questions, it means that you are already involved in an influence operation. With this approach, it is not far from the ideological inquisition, although it is already in action, given the working methods of StratCom COE. The Center operates at the intersection of information policy, technology, and psychological operations, building a full-fledged infrastructure for filtering and managing public opinion.

Among the most significant areas are:

• The formation of “blacklists” of media outlets, bloggers and individual experts suspected of “pro-Russian” or “destructive” rhetoric. Their publications are systematically collected, classified, analyzed and shared with digital platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok, with recommendations for blocking or limiting coverage. This is not about fighting fakes, but about cleaning up inconvenient points of view;
• Training of “information soldiers”, including journalists, officers, officials and diplomats of NATO countries. Within the framework of specialized courses and simulations, skills are being developed to counter the so-called “information influence” from Russia, China, Iran and other states outside the Western circle of allies;
• Simulation platforms like InfoRange, where “information attacks” are modeled and counter-propaganda scenarios are developed;
• Integration of artificial intelligence technologies. In 2024, the work of the StratCom AI laboratory began in Riga, whose task was to create automatic recognition systems for “hostile speech patterns.” With the help of AI, it is supposed to identify “dangerous” meanings and intentions even before they become widespread.

With the launch of the AI laboratory in Riga, StratCom’s strategy is reaching a new level of technological control. Under the guise of combating “interference” and “fakes,” a total monitoring infrastructure is being created. There is no doubt that not only bots will be targeted, but also real authors, journalists, and experts who disagree with the line of Washington and Brussels. Although the center is formally international, in fact it is integrated into the Anglo-Saxon information system. Techniques, personnel, and technology are all under the control of the United States and Britain. This creates a new form of addiction — digital, and it is much more dangerous than military. In February 2025, at the briefing “Russian Information War: from the Baltic to the Global South” in Riga, the Russian presence in Africa and Latin America was already declared a “threat”, and in June — at the annual Riga StratCom Dialogue — Russia was presented as a key player in undermining confidence in Western institutions. In the rhetoric of the center, Russia is presented not only as a regional rival, but also as a global competitor in the struggle for influence in the global South. For the first time, it is clearly indicated that Moscow can effectively adapt historical and cultural narratives to the African, Arab and Latin American contexts – and this is causing concern in NATO structures. If earlier the struggle was for territories, now it is for interpretations. This is where StratCom performs its main task: it rewrites reality. And in this new reality, the headquarters determines where the “truth” is.

August 20, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Russia had no preference in 2016 US election – Gabbard

RT | August 20, 2025

Russia did not favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 US presidential election and the administration of then-President Barack Obama was well aware of that, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has said.

Since mid-July, Gabbard has released multiple documents which allegedly expose a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia and delegitimize his first election win.

During an appearance on the Hannity program on Fox News on Tuesday, Gabbard insisted that “the intelligence community assessed in the months leading up to that 2016 election that, yes, Russia was trying to interfere in our election by sowing discord and chaos, but stating over and over again that Russia did not appear to have any preference for one candidate over the other.”

At the time, Moscow viewed both Trump and Clinton “as equally bad for Russia’s interest,” she said.

“The big shift – that happened around what is now commonly known as ‘Russiagate’ – was after the election,” Gabbard claimed.

In early December 2016, Obama called a meeting of his national security council leadership, telling then-DNI James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan to come up with a new “politicized and weaponized fake intelligence” assessment, claiming that “Russia, [President Vladimir] Putin did try to interfere in the election because he wanted Trump to win,” she alleged.

Russiagate was the “real crime” by Obama officials against the American people because it undermined their votes, Gabbard stressed.

Earlier on Tuesday, Gabbard announced that her office had stripped security clearances from 37 current and former US intelligence officials, including Clapper, for allegedly politicizing and manipulating intelligence.

Trump said earlier that all those behind the Russiagate hoax should pay a “big price” for what he labeled a deliberate attempt to sabotage his presidency.

Moscow has consistently denied any interference in the 2016 election, with Russian officials calling the US accusations a product of partisan infighting. The Russiagate scandal severely strained US-Russia relations, resulting in sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in diplomatic engagement.

August 20, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Trump Holds Firm Peace Deal with Putin Despite European Pushback

Sputnik – 19.08.2025

European leaders and Zelensky didn’t succeed in changing Trump’s peace proposal, which the US president had reached with Putin, former defense politician and chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik.

“The ball is now clearly in Ukrainian and, to a lesser degree, European hands. A strong and clear ‘no’ from the European side might result in broken relations between the US and Europe/Ukraine. Therefore we can expect a ‘maybe’ from the European/Ukrainian side,” he said.

However, Valtersson also notes that playing for time may be part of Zelensky’s strategy, hoping that eventually, a shift in the geopolitical landscape might restore the hardline anti-Russian alliance. This strategy, though, is likely a “lost cause,” according to the former Swedish defense expert. By dragging out the negotiations, Zelensky and his allies risk further territorial losses to Russia and an increase in war casualties.

“If the European leaders really cared for Ukraine, they would pressure Zelensky to accept a peace deal that includes swapping of territories. This would minimize Ukrainian territorial and human losses,” Valtersson argues.

Yet, the expert predicts that European obstruction of a peace deal will continue, driven by the hope that a miraculous turn of events will “rescue” Ukraine. This approach could extend negotiations for weeks, but ultimately, he believes Trump’s patience will wear thin, forcing a clear decision.

In the meantime, the peace process is largely aligning with Russia’s expectations, with Trump holding firm to the terms agreed with Putin in Alaska.

August 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Michael von der Schulenburg: Alaska Meeting Was a “Game Changer”

Glenn Diesen | August 16, 2025

Michael von der Schulenburg is a German member of the EU Parliament who was previously a UN diplomat for 34 years in positions that included Assistant Secretary General of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Schulenburg explains why he thinks the Alaska meeting was a game changer.

August 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ridiculous Europe

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | August 18, 2025

By President Donald Trump’s transactional criterion, NATO has been a costly failure that needs fixing or needs to be cut lose. Europe has failed to pay the price and has left the United States with the financial and military burden of defending Europe. The war in Ukraine has proven the point.

But that was never the point of NATO. The point of NATO was never economic nor transactional. The point of NATO was, in large part, to keep Europe militarily coordinated with, dependent on and subordinate to the United States. The point wasn’t to extricate the U.S. from Europe, it was, as Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO explained, precisely “to keep the Americans in Europe,” while keeping the Russians out.” By that criterion, NATO has been a massive success. The Ukraine war has proven that point too.

While it continues, with a loud voice, to make demands regarding the defense of Ukraine and the terms for ending the war, Europe has revealed to the world that it is unable to mount that defense without the U.S. and that it has been sidelined in the negotiations, leaving decisions about Europe to the Americans.

Europe is unable to supply Ukraine with the weapons it requires and that Europe insists Ukraine must receive. The United States has reiterated that it will no longer be the font from which Ukraine’s weapons flow. On August 10, Vice President J.D. Vance said clearly again that the U.S. is “done with the funding of the Ukraine war business.” Europe does not have the stockpile to spare nor the capacity to manufacture a fraction of the weapons Ukraine needs. And though Europe has, by necessity, accepted the American plan that Europe can send U.S. weapons to Ukraine if they pay for them, that will not provide Ukraine with even close to the amount of weapons the U.S. was supplying. And even that was not enough.

Not only can Europe not supply the weapons, they cannot supply the troops. Europe has, to its embarrassment, publicly conceded that it cannot mount the number of troops needed to send to Ukraine as peacekeepers after a ceasefire.

The war in Ukraine has exposed Europe’s dependence on the United States. Europe can neither provide the weapons nor the troops to defend itself. Europe has been revealed as dependent on, and subordinate to, the United States.

Ukraine is now facing a crisis on the battlefield. Russia’s military efforts were long dismissed as not rapidly gaining ground. But keeping the media focus on that criterion kept the public in the dark about the real criterion. Russia’s war of attrition was devouring and exhausting Ukraine’s weapons and, more importantly, manpower. The shrinking Ukrainian armed forces is running out of weapons to defend itself against the massive and still growing Russian army. There are not enough soldiers to fill the front line. That leaves gaps in the line. As Ukraine moves troops from other places to fill those gaps, it leaves even bigger gaps in those places. Russia’s war of attrition was setting up this moment. And now, Russian troops are breaking through those gaps in the lines.

For the first time in the war, the Russian armed forces have broken through key defensive lines and their rapid move west is now measured in miles and not inches. Logistical hubs critical for the Ukrainian armed forces to supply their troops in the east have been partially infiltrated and surrounded. Russian positions are being consolidated and roads that are lifelines to Ukrainian soldiers have been partially cut. There is also reliable reporting from both Russian and Ukrainian sources that the rapid advance has brought the Russian army all the way to the heavily fortified second Donbas fortification line, which they have now breached. Beyond that defensive line is largely open fields with no organized line of defense. The Russian armed forces may then be free to rapidly advance, making the Russian goal of control of the entire Donbas a real possibility. For the first time in the war, the Ukrainian armed forces face the very real possibility of collapse.

Geoffrey Robers, professor emeritus of history at University College Cork, told me, “All the signs point to a significant Russian breakthrough north of Pokrovsk. The Ukrainians may be able to stem the Russian advance but I doubt they will be able to throw it back, at least not without fatally weakening their already crumbling defensive lines in other sectors of the front.” Alexander Hill, professor of military history at the University of Calgary, told me that “regardless of how one might categorise this most recent Russian breakthrough, the reality is quite clearly that the rate of Russian advance has sped up recently and Ukrainian forces are having increasing difficulty in plugging gaps in their line.” Roberts says that “if Putin doesn’t obtain the rest of the Donbass through a deal with Trump, he will certainly secure it by military means, in months, if not weeks.”

But, despite this threatening reality, Europe is pleading for the war to go on. While Trump pushes for a diplomatic end to the war, Europe continues to push for an unreachable dream of a military solution. They insist on supporting Ukraine in its aspiration of goals that were already unrealistic over a decade ago. They continue to push for an open door to Ukrainian NATO membership even though Russian President Vladimir Putin went to war to prevent that—and will not stop the war without preventing that—Trump has vetoed it and even Europe has been reluctant to grant it. Putin made it clear on the threshold of the war, that that is what he went to war to prevent. Even NATO has acknowledged that. That goal was unrealist before the war, and it is even more out of reach with Russia winning the war.

The goal of reincorporating Crimea has been unaligned with reality, since 2014, when a referendum and the reincorporating of Crimea into Russia was already a reality. The idea of a Donbas that is at least semiautonomous has been unrealistic since the conception of the Minsk Accords. That idea became more unrealistic with the mounting assaults on Donbas prior to the war and the attacks on the rights of ethnic Russians in Donbas that began in 2014 and have grown worse since the start of the war.

As the Ukrainian armed forces face collapse and defeat, Europe continues to push for a continuation of the war that they cannot help. The War in Ukraine has exposed, not only Europe’s helplessness and dependence, it has revealed its ridiculousness.

August 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s make or break moment after the Alaska summit

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 18, 2025

While Western media fixated on optics and diplomatic jabs, the Alaska summit quietly marked a turning point that shifted the conversation from temporary ceasefires to the possibility of lasting peace.

This moment demands clarity from Donald Trump: will he commit to a peace-first strategy or allow his European allies to drag the US deeper into costly, unwinnable conflicts?

The Summit

In the lead-up to the Alaska summit, Washington’s playbook was predictable: press Moscow for a ceasefire. President Donald Trump echoed what had become NATO’s default position. In a videoconference just 48 hours before the summit, European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky aligned on ceasefire being the top priority.

But ceasefires are rarely solutions. They’re political sedatives—short-term fixes that freeze conflicts without resolving them. Therefore, at the Alaska summit, Russia’s Vladimir Putin flipped the script. Rather than another temporary pause, he proposed a permanent peace framework that could involve a security pact involving mutual guarantees from the US and Russia, limits on NATO expansion, and a demilitarized buffer that includes Ukraine. It was the clearest signal yet that Moscow wasn’t angling for a breather; it wanted a structural reset.

Most importantly, the US President was able to see merit in this framework. In social media post, Trump said,

“A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late-night phone call with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way [was] to go directly to a peace agreement … and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often does not hold up.”

For the Europeans, this is not only a shocking development but also a glaring indication that they do not and cannot control the peace process in the sense that they can unilaterally dictate its terms. Therefore, they are already raising so-called “questions” about whether even the peace agreement will hold or not, or whether Russia can be trusted or not, or whether they can normalize their ties with Russia or not, or whether it is serious about peace. These questions are little more than attempts to throw wrenches into what probably is the best opportunity to bring peace to Europe.

Donald Trump faces a choice

Though he publicly aligned with Vladimir Putin on the need for a permanent peace agreement, President Donald Trump now faces intense resistance from a familiar front: hawkish European leaders who would rather prolong the war—and pull Washington deeper into it—than confront the core issue driving the conflict.

The choice before Trump is stark. He can either listen to Europe’s war camp or to Moscow’s push for a comprehensive peace deal. If he sticks with the narrow, short-term goal of a ceasefire while ignoring Russia’s central demand—ending NATO’s eastward expansion—he risks dragging the US into a grinding geopolitical entanglement. Worse, he’ll be walking away from one of his signature campaign promises: to end America’s endless wars and ‘Make America Great Again’.

Rejecting Russia’s terms outright won’t come without consequences. It would require doubling down on the existing strategy: ramping up sanctions, sending more weapons to Ukraine, and locking the US into a long-term conflict with no clear off-ramp. Such a move would not only escalate tensions with Moscow but also push Russia and its allies, such as China, to further reinforce the politics of creating a new, alternative global order. The idea of a parallel world order—already gathering momentum—would gain new political urgency and legitimacy. Trump has already clashed with BRICS members like India through trade wars and punitive rhetoric. A wider conflict could force him into even more confrontations on multiple fronts.

But there is another path—one that reverses the pressure. Instead of bowing to European hawks, Trump could put the heat on them. If Europe refuses to address the root causes of the war, the US could begin scaling back military support for NATO and Ukraine. Let Brussels handle the fallout. Such a move would send a clear message: if Europe wants perpetual conflict, it can fight it alone. (In fact, Donald Trump did give such statements during his election campaign.) And European leaders would know the likely outcome, that is, without US backing, Ukraine risks losing even more territory to Russia, with little chance of recovery.

As such, this is Trump’s moment of reckoning. He can choose to steer the US toward a long-overdue peace, or sleepwalk into another forever war, one that reshapes the global order and leaves America footing the bill.

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

August 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Declassified emails show Clapper pushed 2017 Russia report unity

Al Mayadeen | August 14, 2025

Newly declassified emails show that former US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper pressed senior intelligence officials in late 2016 to align behind the Obama administration’s narrative of alleged Russian “collusion” with Donald Trump’s campaign.

The revelations come from a top-secret email released by current DNI chief Tulsi Gabbard, sent by Clapper on December 22, 2016, to then-NSA Director Mike Rogers, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey.

Concerns over rushed intelligence assessment

The exchange focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ordered by then-President Barack Obama. Rogers expressed concern that the report was being rushed:

“I’m concerned that, given the expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments,” Rogers wrote.

Clapper responded by saying it was “essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page, and are all supportive of the report – in the highest tradition of ‘that’s OUR story, and we’re sticking to it’… This is one project that has to be a team sport.”

Report allegedly based on false and biased information

Gabbard also released an unclassified House Intelligence Committee report from 2020, which concluded that the Obama administration fabricated the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election despite intelligence reports to the contrary.

The committee found that the January 2017 ICA relied on “biased” and “implausible” claims — including the now-discredited Steele Dossier — to suggest Moscow favored Trump over Hillary Clinton. The report described the dossier and related intelligence as part of a smear campaign that fueled politicized investigations, arrests, and heightened US-Russia tensions.

Russia has consistently denied US allegations of election interference. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the accusations “absolutely unsubstantiated,” while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated there is no credible evidence to support claims of Moscow meddling in elections abroad.

August 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Coalition of Willing Opposes Any Restrictions on Ukrainian Army as Part of Ukraine Deal

Sputnik – 14.08.2025

The so-called “coalition of the willing” has opposed any restrictions on the Ukrainian armed forces as part of the deal on settling the Ukraine conflict ahead of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, a joint statement read.

“Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role, including through plans by those willing to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia could not have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO,” the coalition said in a joint statement published by the office of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Wednesday.

The coalition also believes that constructive negotiations can only take place “in the context of a ceasefire.”

The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled for this Friday in Anchorage, Alaska. The leaders are expected to discuss ways to resolve the Ukrainian conflict as well as other issues of mutual interest.

August 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ditching Gazprom Costs Moldova $1.16Bln Annually – Shoigu

Sputnik – 11.08.2025

In his article Moldova at a Crossroads for Sputnik, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu called Chisinau’s refusal to buy gas directly from Gazprom “a shot in the foot”, since the Moldovan budget loses more than 1 billion euros ($1.16 billion) a year from this.

“The refusal of the ‘yellow’ government to buy natural gas directly from Gazprom (although the republic still receives the same Russian gas from Europe) can hardly be called anything other than a shot in the foot. As a result, Moldova is forced to buy energy resources on the European market at inflated prices, which makes the budget annually lose more than 1 billion euros,” Shoigu said.

Since 2021, Moldova has had a government formed by the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), created by the incumbent president of the country, Maia Sandu. Next parliamentary elections in Moldova are scheduled for September 28, 2025.

The National Agency for Energy Regulation of Moldova previously reported that it had revoked Moldovagaz’s license to supply gas to local consumers. These rights will be transferred to the state-owned company Energocom by September 1. The decision was made in connection with Chisinau’s obligations to the EU to separate the gas infrastructure as part of the implementation of the Third Energy Package. The deprivation of Moldovagaz’s license to supply gas cannot be considered otherwise than the final stage of depriving Gazprom of its investment target; the Russian company will continue to protect its legal rights and interests by all available means, Gazprom said in turn. The Russian company owns 50% of Moldovagaz.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Europe’s Sad Trajectory: From Peace and Welfare to War and Scarcity

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 11, 2025

Once a beacon of peace and prosperity, the European Union is now marching into a new era of militarization and scarcity. Behind the rhetoric of security lies a project increasingly shaped by U.S. pressure, defense spending, and a quiet betrayal of its citizens.

For seven decades, the European project was presented as a beacon of peace, prosperity, and social welfare. Conceived in the ashes of the Second World War, the European Union (EU) emerged as a mechanism to bind former enemies through trade, shared institutions, and the promise that economic interdependence would prevent future wars. For much of its history, this narrative held true: the EU embodied the idea that Europe could reinvent itself as a moral community, anchored in social rights and collective security.

Today, that image is eroded. Europe is rearming at a scale unseen since the Cold War. The EU’s once-proud welfare model is being quietly sacrificed on the altar of militarization, as member states contemplate devoting up to 5% of GDP to defense spending. This transformation is not being driven by a sovereign European strategic vision, but rather by external pressure, primarily from the United States, whose military-industrial complex stands to benefit most.

From Peace Project to War Economy

The metamorphosis of the EU into what critics call a “war and scarcity” project is evident in both policy and rhetoric. European leaders, rather than articulating an independent security doctrine, appear increasingly subordinated to Washington’s priorities. The newly appointed NATO Secretary General and former Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, has become the face of this transformation.

During the so-called “Trump Summit” in The Hague, Rutte orchestrated an event less about strategy and more about appeasing U.S. President Donald Trump. Red carpets and ceremonial dinners replaced substantive debate. The summit, critics note, projected unity only by avoiding difficult questions, such as the long-term consequences of escalating the conflict in Ukraine or the feasibility of a 5% defense spending target.

Rutte even echoed unverified intelligence claims that Russia might attack a NATO member, offering no evidence, an act that some European observers described as “dangerous theatre.”

When NATO’s chief becomes a conduit for speculative threats to spread fear and make the militarization project palatable to the population, the alliance risks losing credibility and reinforcing the perception that Europe is less a sovereign actor and more a vassal of U.S. power.

The Costs of Militarization

The push toward 5% GDP in defense spending has profound implications for European societies. Bulgarian member of the European Parliament Petar Volgin, in an interview, warned that such a policy would neither enhance security nor foster stability. History shows that the accumulation of weapons often escalates risk rather than prevents conflict. Volgin invoked Anton Chekhov’s famous maxim: if a pistol hangs on the wall in the first act, it will inevitably be fired by the final one.

Beyond strategic risks, the economic trade-offs are stark. Channeling public resources into armaments will drain investments from social sectors like health, education, and welfare, which are the very foundations of the European social model. “This will turn Europe into a militarized monster devoid of social compassion,” Volgin warned.

Citizens, facing cuts in services and rising costs, will pay the price for a strategy that ultimately benefits the U.S. arms industry far more than European security, following Trump’s ruling.

Russophobia and the War Logic

Underlying this shift is what can be described as institutionalized Russophobia. Russophobia has become not just public opinion but a structured ideology shaping policy, media narratives, and diplomatic strategies.

While the focus is on Russian military action in Ukraine, the EU’s strategic response is viewed through the lens of historical Russophobia, which often replaces pragmatism with emotion and prejudice.

For centuries, Russia has been both part of and apart from Europe, contributing profoundly to its literature, music, and intellectual heritage, yet frequently treated as an alien civilization.

The military conflict in Ukraine provided an opportunistic moment for European elites to turn latent Russophobia into policy. Rather than pursuing a balanced security framework that might eventually integrate Russia into a stable European order, the EU doubled down on confrontation, sanctions, and militarization.

This approach carries a profound irony: a union born from the determination to overcome the hatreds of the past is now entrenching new fault lines on the continent. Calls for diplomacy, dialogue, or a broader European peace project, one that is social and moral, not merely military, have been marginalized or dismissed as naïve.

Democratic Disconnection and Strategic Drift

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Europe’s new trajectory is the widening gap between its political class and its citizens. Surveys conducted in the first year of the Ukraine war showed that over 70% of Europeans preferred a negotiated peace to the indefinite prolongation of conflict. Yet, in the European Parliament, 80% of MEPs rejected amendments calling for diplomacy and only 5% voted in favor.

This dissonance reflects a structural malaise: the EU’s foreign and security policy is increasingly shaped not by democratic debate, but by lobbyists, bureaucratic inertia, and transatlantic pressures.

The shift from a welfare-oriented project to a war-driven agenda has happened without meaningful public consent. As Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, former Irish MEPs, have argued, the EU’s “liberal mask has slipped,” revealing a political architecture that prioritizes geopolitics over people.

War and Scarcity: A Vicious Cycle

The economic consequences of this transformation are already visible. Sanctions on Russia, while politically symbolic, have contributed to energy crises, inflation, and industrial slowdown, particularly in countries like Germany and Italy. Simultaneously, EU states are paying far higher prices for American LNG and U.S.-manufactured weapons, effectively transferring wealth across the Atlantic while their own populations face rising costs and stagnating wages.

This is the essence of Europe’s scarcity turn: by embracing a war economy, the EU sacrifices its social welfare model, undermines economic resilience, and fuels domestic discontent and the far-right parties. Instead of projecting stability, it imports volatility: economic, political, and social.

The Question of Purpose

The European Union now stands at a decisive moment in its evolution. If its purpose is to be a subordinate military bloc within a U.S.-led “Greater West,” it may achieve that at the cost of its original identity as a peace and welfare project.

However, if it seeks to reclaim strategic autonomy and moral credibility – deteriorated by its failure to condemn the genocide in Gaza -, it must confront uncomfortable questions: Can Europe imagine security beyond the logic of militarization and vassalage? Is Europe merely buying time, waiting for a non‑Trump administration, while reinforcing its subservience? Will it rebuild a peace project that addresses social justice and democratic legitimacy, not only deterrence?  And can it rediscover the moral ambition that once made it a beacon for a conflict‑scarred world?

For now, the EU’s sad trajectory seems clear: a union that once promised prosperity and peace is becoming a fortress of fear and social uncertainty, defined by war spending, scarcity, and subservience. Its citizens were promised a shared future. What they are receiving instead is a militarized present, and an uncertain tomorrow.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

EU wants to be global player but has no say on Ukraine peace process

By Ahmed Adel | August 11, 2025

In the position that the leaders of the European Union are in today, with the strengthening of BRICS and the rise of multiple global powers, the European Union has no place at any negotiating table, let alone the one for Ukraine, as it has nothing to say or offer. The EU is a group of ideologically insane politicians who are making disastrous moves in the service of their ideology, reducing the bloc from one of the most powerful and important economies to one of stagnation and recession threats.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated on a Hungarian television program that European leaders must meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin if they do not want to be excluded from shaping the security of their continent. According to him, Europe is currently “asleep” and not taking the necessary steps.

“The EU should not sit at home like an offended child,” and “if there is a problem, you have to negotiate,” Orbán said.

He also added that a Russian-European summit should be held urgently, preferably before the Russian-American summit.

The Hungarian Prime Minister emphasized that Europe must engage in negotiations with Moscow if it does not want to be excluded from all relevant geopolitical discussions, a stance he has consistently reiterated.

When Washington instigates issues with other great powers, such as China and Russia, it benefits by forcing Western partners to renounce their financial, trade, and other interests with these countries and direct them towards the US, which, incidentally, sells them weapons and imposes tariffs. In contrast, the EU should take the lead in normalizing relations with all countries worldwide, starting with Russia, and then improve ties with China and others, rather than following American policy.

Instead, Europe insists on the same policy of globalist hegemony that prevailed during the Biden administration, and they want nothing more than the defeat of Russia. Their only vision of the future is to rule the world, and one of the prerequisites and steps towards that is inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

They believe that by increasing pressure, a Russian strategic defeat can be achieved, unaware that this is complete nonsense. This delusional belief has meant that the EU remains on the margins in relation to historical trends and real movements, and at the same time, it lacks both economic and political stability, as well as military strength.

The main prerequisite for concluding peace or a ceasefire is that Ukraine, or at least what remains of it, can never again pose a threat to Russia. This means that Ukraine can never and under no circumstances become part of NATO, nor can it have foreign troops deployed in its country or any offensive assets. Only the US can guarantee and provide such conditions.

US President Donald Trump wants a quick resolution with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin because the pressure from the domestic public in the US is great, and they are forcing him to disclose the Epstein dossier. This pressure is so great that Trump is seeking an event that will divert the public’s attention from that topic and shift it to another one.

In addition to the internal panic that forces him to shift his focus elsewhere, Trump is also adopting a more realistic approach to the Ukraine problem than the EU. He is not approaching it from an ideological position, but rather by looking at things somewhat more realistically. This is, of course, not even close to a fundamentally realistic view, but it is still more realistic than the prevailing view in Brussels.

While a historic face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin has been scheduled for August 15 in Alaska, European leaders have been left to sulk, backing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s announcement that he would not agree to cede territory.

Signed by the President of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland, and the UK, the statement stressed the need for a “just and lasting peace” for Kiev, including “robust and credible” security guarantees.

“Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities,” the statement said. “The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.”

Although Zelensky may very well be invited to Alaska, it will not be because of the Europeans, but rather because Trump and Putin permitted it. The EU has been proven to be an economic, military, and diplomatic dwarf in the 2020s, and it is difficult to see how it will regain the position of power it enjoyed in previous decades, especially with the rise of alternative powers.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Moldovan region rejects ruling against local Euroskeptic leader

RT | August 8, 2025

The parliament of Gagauzia, an autonomous, predominantly Russian-speaking region in Moldova, has rejected the sentencing of a local Euroskeptic leader to seven years in prison, calling it illegal and politically driven.

Gutsul, who was elected in 2023 and has consistently advocated for close ties with Russia, was found guilty of channeling illegal funds from an organized criminal group to the banned Euroskeptic SOR party and of financing protests against the Moldovan government.

Gutsul denied the charges, calling the process a “political execution” conducted “on orders from above.” The ruling triggered protests outside the courthouse against Moldova’s pro-Western government.

The Gagauzian parliament rallied behind Gutsul. In a resolution issued Thursday by Gagauzia’s People’s Assembly and Executive Committee, MPs said they “categorically reject and do not recognize the verdict” of the Moldovan court.

The document described the ruling as a “politically motivated” attempt “to eliminate the legally elected head of the autonomous region.”

“We consider this verdict a political reprisal, planned and executed from above,” the resolution said, adding that the ruling was “an act of political vengeance” that “undermines the autonomous region’s legal status.”

The Gagauzian authorities said Moldova’s government bears “full responsibility for the destabilization” of the situation in the region, while suggesting that the crackdown seeks to tip the scales ahead of the nationwide parliamentary elections slated for late September.

Moscow criticized the verdict as an attack on democracy. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the ruling was labeled in both Moldova and Gagauzia as “an act of revenge” and “a fabricated case” without credible evidence. “It became the culmination of repression by the Chisinau regime against the entire Gagauz autonomy,” she added.

August 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »