Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Brazil slams NATO’s Russia sanctions threats

RT | July 18, 2025

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira has slammed comments by the head of NATO about potential secondary sanctions on BRICS nations who trade with Russia.

Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday declared that Brazil, India, and China would face “consequences” if they maintained business ties with Russia. He singled out oil and gas trade, and urged the countries’ leaders to call Russian President Vladimir Putin and push him to engage “serious[ly]” in Ukraine peace talks.

Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, formed in 2006 with Russia, India, and China. The economic bloc has since expanded to include South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Indonesia. Last year, BRICS approved a new ‘partner country’ status in response to growing membership interest shown by more than 30 countries.

Speaking to CNN Brazil on Friday, Vieira dismissed Rutte’s comments as “totally absurd,” pointing out that NATO is a military bloc, not a trade body, and that Brazil is not a member.

“Brazil, like all other countries, handles commercial matters bilaterally or within the WTO framework. Therefore, these statements by Rutte are utterly unfounded and irrelevant,” Vieira said.

He also noted that the EU – many of whose members are part of NATO – is a significant buyer of Russian energy. Despite efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, the bloc still purchases large quantities of Russian LNG, accounting for 17.5% of its imports in 2024, industry data shows.

Rutte’s warnings follow a similar threat from US President Donald Trump, who this week announced new military aid for Ukraine and threatened 100% tariffs on nations trading with Russia, unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized EU and NATO leaders for applying “improper pressure” on Trump to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.

Moscow says it remains open to negotiations with Kiev but is still waiting for a response on when talks will resume. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to conduct large-scale prisoner exchanges.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

France predicts ‘major war in Europe’ by 2030

RT | July 15, 2025

France expects a “major war” in Europe by 2030, according to the new Strategic National Review released on Monday by the General Secretariat for Defense and National Security.

Despite Moscow’s denials that it plans to attack Europe, the document names Russia as the main threat, alongside Iran, China, terrorism, separatism, and cyber and organized crime.

“We are entering a new era… in which there is a particularly high risk of a major high-intensity war in Europe… by 2030,” the review warns, adding that France and its European allies would be targeted. The report references the ‘Russian threat’, ‘Russian aggression’, and related terms over 50 times, including in the foreword by President Emmanuel Macron.

“Russia in particular poses the most direct threat… to the interests of France, those of its partners and allies, and the very stability of the European continent and the Euro-Atlantic area,” the document claims, accusing Moscow of cyber attacks, election meddling, and assassinations. It even paints Moscow’s efforts to expand ties with Africa, Latin America, and Asia as confirming its “confrontational approach.”

The review warns that Russia could act against Moldova, the Balkans, or Eastern European NATO members. It also names Iran and China as strategic threats: Iran is accused of destabilizing the Middle East, while China is portrayed as seeking global dominance.

France must reinforce its military and shift its economy to “war preparedness,” the review concludes, calling for new investments both in the country and across the EU to deter aggression.

The publication of the review comes amid wider EU militarization. Brussels recently adopted the €800 billion ReArm Europe initiative, and last month, European NATO members agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, both citing the alleged ‘Russian threat’.

Russia has dismissed claims that it plans to attack the West. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the West uses Russia as a “monster” to justify its growing military budgets.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western leaders last week of forgetting history and pushing Europe toward a direct clash with Russia. He added that Russia will factor EU militarization into its own strategic planning.

July 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Case closed after ‘Russian disinfo’ claims led to persecution of NZ journalist

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 12, 2025

Journalist Mick Hall was accused of slipping “Russian disinformation” into copy at New Zealand’s state broadcaster, sparking an international furor about Kremlin infiltration. Following an intel agency investigation, his name was cleared.

Now, Hall tells The Grayzone how a simple copy editing dispute brought him into Five Eyes’ crosshairs.

Until two years ago, Mick Hall was a fairly obscure journalist publishing wire copy for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), far-removed from media capitals like Washington and London where international opinions are shaped. But in June 2023, Hall suddenly became the target of Five Eyes intelligence agencies when he was accused by Western sources – including his own employer – of inserting “Russian disinformation” into wire stories.

What started with a dispute of Hall’s copy edits turned into an investigation by New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS), which briefed top government officials about its probe. For months afterward, major Western media outlets fretted that Kremlin agents had infiltrated New Zealand’s national broadcaster.

But Hall insisted he had been unfairly accused and defamed by a pro-war element driven into the throes of paranoia by the Ukraine proxy war. In November 2024, he lodged a formal complaint against the NZSIS, demanding to know whether Wellington’s primary intelligence service “acted lawfully and properly” and followed “correct procedure” in its investigation, and if any information gathered about him “was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners.”

On April 9, New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS) published the results of the investigation triggered by Hall’s complaint. The Inspector General report noted its investigation lasted between June 10 and August 11 2023, and was closed due to “no concerns of foreign interference” being identified.

The Inspector General acknowledged the intelligence services’ probe was initiated purely due to public “allegations [emphasis added] of foreign interference,” rather than substantive evidence of any kind, and expressed sympathy that Hall found it “disconcerting to discover” he had “come to the attention of an intelligence agency… particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed.” However, it concluded NZSIS’ actions were “necessary and proportionate”, and the agency acted “lawful [sic] and properly.”

Hall’s name had been cleared, but he had been denied any recompense for being smeared as a Kremlin agent, and having his career in national media effectively destroyed.

An ounce of truth

The manufactured scandal surrounding Mick Hall’s copy edits trace back to New York City, where a lawyer and Democratic party hack named Luppe B. Luppen erupted in outrage at something he happened across on RNZ’s website.

In a Twitter/X post, Luppen complained that RNZ had republished a Reuters article authored by the news agency’s Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge, with “utterly false, Russian propaganda” inserted. Namely, that the February 2014 Maidan “revolution” was in fact a “violent” US-sponsored “colour revolution,” provoking a civil war in eastern and southern Ukraine, during which local “ethnic Russians” were “suppressed.”

Mick Hall was responsible for inserting this wording.

He told The Grayzone, “it always seemed odd to me a New York-based lawyer would come across a republished Reuters story on a small national broadcaster’s website in the South Pacific – I’ve not read too much into it, but it felt strange at the time, and still does.” Nonetheless, Hall believed his changes were legitimate given the story’s content, and stands by his decision to this day.

Since joining RNZ in September 2018 as a “digital journalist” and subeditor, he was responsible for selecting and processing news stories from international news agencies and wire services for republication on the broadcaster’s website. Hall frequently found that copy by the BBC, Reuters, and other prominent Western news services contained extraordinary bias and distortions. He felt compelled to balance the coverage by adding context, or amending and deleting passages which seemed overtly ideological.

When the Ukraine proxy war erupted in February 2022, Hall sensed that Western news agencies were not even attempting to conceal their biases any longer.

Manufactured crisis boomerangs on RNZ

On June 9th 2023, RNZ placed Hall on leave and announced an urgent investigation into his supposedly Kremlin-influenced editing. By this point, the foundations of an international scandal had been laid. For months afterwards, “disinformation experts”, think tank hawks, mainstream ‘journalists’ and politicians whipped up a paranoid, conspiratorial frenzy over Hall’s edits. The BBC, Independent, New York Times and Reuters cranked up the controversy with blanket coverage. The Guardian’s obsessively anti-Russian Luke Harding took a particularly keen interest.

Olga Lautman, a Ukrainian nationalist from arms industry-funded think tank CEPA, strongly suggested that Hall was taking orders from the Russian state to insert “disinformation” into RNZ’s output. This libelous conjecture was not helped by RNZ chief Paul Thompson offering a servile public apology, in which he begged for forgiveness for “pro-Kremlin garbage… [ending] up in our stories.” An internal audit identified “inappropriate” edits made by Hall in 49 stories, out of 1,319 he worked on for RNZ in total – exactly 3.71%.

At his lawyer’s suggestion, Hall produced a detailed document listing every story he edited that had been flagged by RNZ for supposedly “inappropriate” tampering. He included personal explanations for why changes were made and passages inserted, along with expert supporting commentary from figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs and political scientist John Mearsheimer. However, Hall gave up after just 39 stories. “The reasons RNZ flagged the remaining 10 – such as referring to Julian Assange as a journalist – were so ridiculous, it seemed a waste of time,” he explained.

RNZ subsequently appointed an independent panel to assess the fiasco. In a bitter irony, the report they published on July 28 2023 was a rebuke to Hall’s accusers. It declared that “not all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were found by the panel to be inappropriate.” Moreover, the panel accepted Hall “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately,” and “was not motivated by any desire to introduce misinformation, disinformation or propaganda.”

While the report accused Hall of several cases of “inappropriate editing,” breaching both RNZ’s editorial policy and its contractual agreement with Reuters, the panel did not conclude this was deliberate, but a well-intentioned effort to add “balance and accuracy into the stories.” Moreover, the edits flagged by the panel as “inappropriate” were usually factual, and contained valuable historical context. For example, Hall amended a May 2022 story about the attempted evacuation of Mariupol to note that Azov Battalion “was widely regarded before the Russian invasion by Western media as a Neo-Nazi military unit.”

That Azov’s extremist background, history and ideology has been obfuscated and whitewashed since the proxy war began is a basic statement of fact. The panel even acknowledged the group’s neo-Nazi links had “been noted, reported on and debated” previously, but bizarrely found Hall’s “uncritical and unexplained inclusion” of this inconvenient truth “had the effect of unbalancing the story.” This was despite the panel admitting, “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree” on editorial standards, which are in any event “matters for judgment”.

Conversely, the review was extremely scathing of how Hall’s “errors were framed” by RNZ’s leadership. Their conduct was found to have “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage which the panel believes was not helpful in maintaining public trust.” It furthermore concluded “the wider structure, culture, systems and processes that facilitated what occurred” were the state broadcaster’s responsibility. Grave “gaps” in supervision and training of RNZ’s “busy, poorly resourced digital news team” were identified. For example, “limitations on changing content” from newswires weren’t clearly communicated to staff.

An “intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy”

For Hall, many questions about the affair linger today – not least how the Inspector General reached his conclusions. The report states, “much of the information my inquiry has considered is highly classified, which limits the information I can provide you to explain my findings.” It is difficult to conceive what “highly classified” information NZSIS “considered” given the public nature of the allegations against Hall. What’s more, both the independent review panel and NZSIS cleared him of any wrongdoing within two months of the first accusations.

Similarly curious was the vague language which filled the three-page report. For example, it claimed that NZSIS had taken “relatively limited steps” in investigating Hall. Yet it failed to clarify which steps were taken. Confusing matters even further, the Inspector General admitted “NZSIS shared information about the conclusion of its enquiries with interested parties… to allay concerns of foreign interference.” The identity of those “interested parties,” and why it was NZSIS’ responsibility to ameliorate their baseless anxieties, was also unclear.

“We’ll likely never know the answer to any of these mysteries. I lodged my complaint when I learned NZSIS briefed both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office on my case. I also have grounds to believe at least one of Wellington’s Western intelligence partners was given information on me,” Hall tells The Grayzone.

“This was a simple matter of minor procedural errors on my part, and disagreement over editorial standards with RNZ’s management, which could’ve been quietly and professionally resolved internally. Instead, I was thrust into the glare of the international media and the Five Eyes global spying network. The intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy at a tiny news outlet could indicate there was some kind of deeper, darker coordination at play. Again though, we’ll probably never know.”

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia Accuses NATO of Provoking Escalation in Baltic Sea

Sputnik – 13.07.2025

MOSCOW – Russia notes the line of NATO countries on restricting freedom of navigation in the Baltic region, the military-political situation has become significantly more complicated because of this, the risks of escalation have increased, Russian Ambassador to Oslo Nikolay Korchunov told Sputnik.

“We note the deliberate line of NATO member countries on restricting freedom of navigation in the region, launching for these purposes, under the pretext of threats to underwater infrastructure, among other things, the alliance’s mission ‘Baltic Sentinel,’ which is accompanied by the strengthening of the naval group operating in the open sea, as a result of which the military-political situation in the region has become significantly more complicated and the risks of possible escalation and conflict have increased,” Korchunov said in an interview with the agency.

The ambassador emphasized that the norms of international maritime law must be observed by all countries in the region.

“We proceed from the imperative of compliance by all countries in the region with the norms of international maritime law and the exercise of restraint in the interests of ensuring commercial shipping and preventing military incidents. It is obvious that in the current conditions, the forces and means of the Baltic Fleet and other security services of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea region are an important factor in ensuring freedom of navigation both in the interests of the Russian Federation and third countries,” Korchunov noted.

He drew parallels with the actions of Russia’s neighboring states in the past — Poland, Germany, Sweden — in the 17th-19th centuries.

“They also tried with all their might to prevent the passage of ships carrying Russian goods through the Baltic to the priority markets of Britain, Holland and France. The Swedes did not even shy away from pirate seizures. Ultimately, these efforts, as is known, ended in failure. It is regrettable that the spirit of unfair rivalry and confrontation is once again being implanted in the Baltic, which for decades has been a platform for peaceful multilateral cooperation,” the diplomat said.

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

MEP Clare Daly delivers searing critique of EU crackdown on dissent

APT | July 2, 2025

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘has no money except for war’ – Hungarian official

RT | July 11, 2025

The EU is placing Ukraine’s military needs above the priorities of the bloc’s member states, Hungarian government adviser Balazs Orban has said. He accused EU leaders of always finding money for “war” but not other causes.

Leaders of EU nations are considering the creation of a new €100 billion ($117 billion) fund under the bloc’s upcoming seven-year budget to cover expenses for the Ukrainian government, Bloomberg reported this week, citing people familiar with the discussions. Budapest, however, has been a vocal critic of the bloc’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict since its onset.

”Europe has run out of money – except when it comes to war. There is always 100 billion euros for that,” Orban wrote on Wednesday on social media. He warned that such an allocation of funds would likely lead to further proposals to spend EU taxpayers’ money on Ukraine.

Orban pointed to Kiev’s estimate that it would require $1 trillion over 14 years for reconstruction and modernization, a figure shared by Prime Minister Denis Shmigal during a donors conference in Rome this week.

”While Europe cannot climb out of its own economic, social and security crisis, Brussels would continue to finance the war – weapons instead of peace, new debt instead of a competitive Europe,” Orban said.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that US investment firm BlackRock had abandoned efforts to attract private investors for a Ukraine reconstruction program. The fund was expected to be launched at the Rome conference, but potential participants reportedly expressed “a lack of interest amid increased uncertainty” over the country’s future.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said at the event that “only friends are invited” to help rebuild the country. He reiterated his call to confiscate Russian state assets frozen by Western nations and transfer them to Kiev.

Moscow has warned that such actions would constitute international theft. EU members have voiced concern that expropriating Russian assets could significantly erode global confidence in their financial systems. As an alternative, Ukraine’s backers have been imposing a “windfall tax” on profits from the immobilized Russian funds and channeling the money to Kiev – an approach Moscow has described as another form of criminality.

Hungary has accused the EU leadership of inflicting major economic harm on member states through sanctions on Russia, and of wasting resources on a war effort that it argues cannot deliver a military victory over Moscow.

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

EU sanctions ‘destroying’ Europe – Slovak MEP

Lucas Leiroz | July 11, 2025

More and more people are admitting that it is impossible for Europe to continue maintaining its anti-Russian sanctions in the long term. Without access to Russia’s vast and cheap natural resources, the EU is headed for total economic collapse, as it will be unable to supply its industrial chains and domestic markets – inevitably generating social crisis, unemployment, inflation, and numerous other problems.

This assessment is echoed by Slovak MEP Milan Uhrik. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, he severely criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s hostile stance toward Russia. Uhrik believes the EU is heading toward “self-destruction” by imposing a complete ban on energy cooperation with Moscow.

Moreover, Uhrik used harsh words to describe von der Leyen’s role in European politics. Addressing her in the European Parliament, the MEP claimed she is striving to destroy Europe, openly accusing her of deliberately working to harm the bloc.

“[Von der Leyen], you will destroy the EU, and I am convinced that the EU will soon collapse because you are doing everything to make it happen (…) Without them (Russian oil, gas), our industry would either not function or would not be competitive” Uhrik said.

Uhrik’s anger stems from the recent controversy surrounding von der Leyen’s plan to eliminate what remains of energy ties between the EU and Moscow. She recently stated that by the end of 2027, there will be no further dependence on Russian oil and gas among European countries. To achieve this, she plans to accelerate the “energy transition” process. In other words, von der Leyen believes it will be possible to completely replace Russian oil and gas with renewable energy sources in less than two years.

Von der Leyen’s plans are utterly utopian. Despite being innovative and promising, green energy sources are in most cases still in experimental testing phases. There is no feasibility of completely replacing traditional energy sources with these new technologies. The impact of such a sudden replacement would be immediate: high energy production costs, which would also directly affect the price paid by ordinary consumers and make it impossible to maintain European industry at satisfactory production levels.

However, there’s something much worse in von der Leyen’s plan. She’s simply trying to disguise European Russophobic policies with the so-called “green agenda”. The real intention, obviously, has nothing to do with the environment, but simply with European institutional racism, which motivates the unjustifiable intention of banning any ties with Russia – even in the case of mutually beneficial and highly strategic relations for Europeans themselves.

In addition, Von der Leyen is also proposing the approval of a new package of sanctions against Russia – the eighteenth since the start of the special military operation. The new measures would focus on boycotting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. So far, the proposal has been frozen by the firm dissident position of Slovakia’s leader Robert Fico – a leader who, like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, continues to demand an end to the sanctions policy and the restoration of Europe’s economic ties with Moscow.

Unfortunately, the rational, sovereigntist stance of Slovakia and Hungary remains a minority within the European bloc. Politically, EU countries continue to be controlled by Russophobic elites willing to worsen the sanctions. However, this scenario does not reflect the real mentality of ordinary people in Europe, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the practical results of the coercive measures.

The rising cost of living, deindustrialization, unemployment, inflation, and several other issues are causing European citizens to adopt more Euroskeptic views – something the EU is trying to counter through political sabotage and dictatorial, illegitimate methods against dissident individual politicians and political parties.

Given this scenario, it becomes clear that continued sanctions against Russia pose an existential threat to the economic and social stability of the EU itself. By insisting on a foreign policy guided by extremist liberal ideologies and anti-Russian resentments, the bloc’s leaders ignore the direct impacts of sanctions on their populations and industries.

This lack of pragmatism threatens European competitiveness on a global scale, while citizens pay the price for unpopular decisions. Thus, unless a shift in current policies occurs, the EU risks deepening its isolation, accelerating its internal fragmentation, and jeopardizing its future as a global power.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

UN Regularly Spread Ukraine’s Lies — Moscow on Guterres’ Remarks on Russian Drone Attacks

Sputnik – 10.07.2025

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres and his subordinates regularly spread the lies fabricated by Kiev and Western countries, the Russian Foreign ministry said on Thursday, commenting on the UN chief’s remark about the allegedly largest series of attacks by Russian UAVs and missiles.

On July 5, Guterres strongly condemned “what is believed to be the largest series of attacks by Russia in the last three years using UAVs and missiles” that allegedly disrupted the power supply to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant (ZNPP), and expressed concern about “the dangerous escalation and the growing number of civilian casualties,” the ministry said in a statement.

“[Antonio] Guterres and his subordinates regularly pick up and replicate the lies fabricated by the Kiev regime and Western capitals and aimed at discrediting Russia. They consistently keep silent about Kiev’s flagrant violations of international humanitarian law or, at best, limit themselves to calls for restraint on both sides. With such double standards, the Secretariat’s leadership grossly violates Article 100 of the UN Charter, which requires it to adhere to the principles of impartiality and equidistance,” the ministry said.

It is absurd to assume that Russia has grounds to create difficulties for the safe operation of the ZNPP, as it is Moscow that is responsible for ensuring the safety of the plant, the statement read, adding that the Russian armed forces only strike Ukraine’s military targets, while Kiev constantly attacks civilian targets.

“Russia insists that UN officials abandon their biased course, demands that they stop acting as mouthpieces for Western propaganda and disseminators of disinformation and fakes, take a neutral and responsible position befitting their status, and rely only on verified sources of information,” the statement said.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

This is a long war, and it’s not just about Ukraine

By Dmitry Trenin | RT | July 9, 2025

The trademark style of the current US president, Donald Trump, is verbal spectacle. His statements – brash, contradictory, sometimes theatrical – should be monitored, but not overestimated. They are not inherently favorable or hostile to Russia. And we must remember: Trump is not the ‘king’ of America. The ‘Trump revolution’ that many anticipated at the beginning of the year appears to have given way to Trump’s own evolution – a drift toward accommodation with the American establishment.

In that light, it’s time to assess the interim results of our ‘special diplomatic operation’. There have now been six presidential phone calls, several rounds of talks between foreign ministers and national security aides, and sustained contact at other levels.

The most obvious positive outcome is the restoration of dialogue between Russia and the United States – a process that had been severed under the Biden administration. Crucially, this revived dialogue extends beyond Ukraine. A range of potential areas for cooperation have been mapped out, from geopolitical stability to transportation and sport. These may not carry immediate strategic weight, but they lay the groundwork for future engagement. Under Trump, the dialogue is unlikely to break off again – though its tone and pace may shift.

One visible result of this diplomacy was the resumption of talks with the Ukrainian side in Istanbul. While these negotiations currently hold little political substance – and the recent prisoner exchanges occurred independently of them – they nonetheless reaffirm a core tenet of Russian diplomacy: we are ready for a political resolution to the conflict.

Still, these are technical and tactical achievements. The strategic reality remains unchanged.

It was never realistic to expect Trump to offer Russia a deal on Ukraine that met our security requirements. Nor for that matter would Russia accept one that compromised its long-term security interests. Likewise, any notion that Trump would ‘deliver’ Ukraine to the Kremlin, join Moscow in undermining the EU, or push for a new Yalta agreement with Russia and China was always fantasy.

So the page has turned. What comes next?

Trump will almost certainly sign the new US sanctions bill into law – but he’ll try to preserve discretion in how those measures are applied. The sanctions will add friction to global trade, but they will not derail Russian policy.

On the military front, Trump will deliver the remaining aid packages approved under Biden, and perhaps supplement them with modest contributions of his own. But going forward, it will be Western Europe – especially Germany – that supplies Ukraine, often by buying US-made systems and re-exporting them.

Meanwhile, the United States will continue to furnish Kiev with battlefield intelligence – particularly for deep strikes inside Russian territory.

None of this suggests the conflict will end in 2025. Nor will it end when hostilities in Ukraine eventually wind down.

That’s because the fight is not fundamentally about Ukraine.

What we are witnessing is an indirect war between the West and Russia – part of a much broader global confrontation. The West is fighting to preserve its dominance. And Russia, in defending itself, is asserting its sovereign right to exist on its own terms.

This war will be long. And the United States – with Trump or without him – will remain our adversary. The outcome will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of Russia itself.

Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

This article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western strategists launch a new war doctrine against Eurasian powers

By Lucas Leiroz | VT Uncensored Foreign Policy | July 7, 2025

In recent months, a wave of publications by Western think tanks and military-affiliated media has revealed a significant shift in how the West views conflict with global powers like Russia and China.

Institutions such as the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Military Review have laid out what they consider the foundations of future warfare.

The core idea is no longer centered on direct military confrontation but on a prolonged, multidimensional hybrid war.

This “war of the future” unfolds across three main domains: information and psychological operations, cyberspace, and the economic sphere. Western strategists emphasize that superiority in artificial intelligence and unmanned systems will be decisive. For the US and NATO, achieving dominance in these areas is presented as the key to maintaining global leadership and containing strategic rivals.

This form of warfare is not expected to deliver fast results. On the contrary, it is framed as a “long game” of exhaustion, designed to weaken the opponent from within – by destabilizing their economy, reshaping their information space, and psychologically demoralizing both their population and political elites. RAND analysts stress that this type of conflict requires patience and the ability to sustain socio-economic costs over time. In fact, Western governments are already preparing their populations to accept such costs, justifying austerity measures and declining living standards through the narrative of a moral confrontation with so-called “authoritarian regimes.”

This strategic shift is largely a result of the failure of the West’s approach in Ukraine. The initial plan — to arm and support Ukraine as a proxy force capable of delivering a strategic defeat to Russia — has collapsed. The policy of militarizing Ukraine and turning it into a geopolitical tool against Moscow has led the U.S. and its allies into a dead end. Western analysts now admit that a military victory over Russia via Ukraine is unattainable. This realization has pushed Western planners to reassess the very concept of conflict, moving from direct confrontation to psychological and technological operations that target the internal cohesion of rival nations.

According to this new doctrine, the goal is to shape the perception of the future within Russian society — to paint a picture of inevitable decline, to spread doubt about Russia’s ability to compete militarily and economically with the West, and to generate disorientation among its elites. The West seeks to implant the idea that Russia is permanently behind — technologically inferior, globally isolated, and incapable of catching up. As noted by analysts at RUSI, these narratives are deliberately crafted for mass consumption, with the aim of weakening the social and psychological fabric of Russian society.

Central to this strategy is the belief that information superiority will define victory in the 21st century. Publications from CSIS and RAND explicitly state that “who controls the narrative, wins the war.” Future conflicts, they argue, will be fought not with tanks breaking through lines but through sensory and cognitive dominance — by disorienting the opponent, manipulating their perception of events, and accelerating decision-making cycles through artificial intelligence. This is not just about warfare; it is about psychological supremacy.

To implement this model, the full resource potential of the collective West must be mobilized. Western publications emphasize that artificial intelligence will not only support information operations but may replace traditional forms of military conflict entirely. AI-based propaganda, social engineering campaigns, and autonomous digital operations could become the primary weapons of influence. RAND’s vision also includes a technological race with China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where AI superiority is expected to define the balance of power.

However, despite its polished surface, this new hybrid war doctrine suffers from serious flaws. It neglects historical experience and cultural realities. Russia, in particular, has repeatedly shown the ability to endure and adapt during prolonged crises. Even in the 1990s, when pro-Western forces controlled much of the country’s media and political structure, Russian society maintained its cultural identity and commitment to traditional values. Western analysts seem to overlook this fundamental resilience. The failure of Western sanctions is a clear example. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy adapted to the conditions of modern conflict, restructured itself rapidly, and even entered a phase of military-industrial expansion.

In fact, despite the partial militarization of its economy, Russia has achieved a surprising advantage over the West in certain critical areas. It has surpassed NATO countries in the volume of military production, particularly in drones and high-precision systems. Developments such as the Lancet UAVs, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and advancements in satellite technologies have placed Russia ahead of Ukraine, even though the latter was initially supported by a powerful Western-Turkish alliance in the drone sector. Within less than two years, Russia reversed the battlefield dynamics, demonstrating that technological evolution can occur even under heavy sanctions.

This leads to a critical question: if the new Western strategy is so effective, why does it rely so heavily on media hype and theoretical justifications with little practical evidence? Much of the Western enthusiasm around hybrid war appears driven not by strategic necessity but by the interests of the military-industrial complex. Think tanks and defense contractors stand to benefit immensely from the shift to AI-based warfare, digital infrastructure, and cyber-command funding. The political class uses the narrative of a “new generation war” to justify budget increases for the defense sector while cutting public services and suppressing dissent.

The real function of this hybrid war doctrine is to protect the interests of a transnational elite. Under the guise of fighting global threats like Russia, China, Iran, and others, Western governments are redistributing wealth upward — channeling public money into the hands of military contractors and think tanks. Ordinary citizens are asked to sacrifice for “freedom” while their real wages stagnate and living conditions deteriorate. The supposed urgency of confronting the “autocratic other” becomes a smokescreen for domestic failures and economic mismanagement.

The media’s role in this operation is essential. Just as the Western press exaggerated the likelihood of Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, it now inflates the potential of hybrid war and AI supremacy. But the track record of these predictions is poor. The same experts who promised a quick Ukrainian victory are now calling for decades-long psychological warfare — a clear sign that the original plan has failed.

In conclusion, the West’s new hybrid warfare strategy reflects more of a tactical retreat than a breakthrough. It acknowledges that traditional methods have failed, particularly in Ukraine, and attempts to replace lost battlefield momentum with psychological, economic, and technological pressure. But the fundamental assumptions are flawed: that narratives can break national will, that AI can replace strategy, and that propaganda can deliver victory. These beliefs serve primarily to sustain the Western war economy and its elites, rather than offer any real prospect of success. In trying to win a war of perception, the West may once again lose the war of reality.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 9, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia declares Yale University ‘undesirable’

RT | July 9, 2025

Russia has banned Yale University from operating within its territory, accusing the Connecticut-based institution of meddling in domestic affairs and attempting to destabilize its economy.

The Prosecutor General’s Office added Yale to the list of “undesirable” organizations on Tuesday. “The university’s activities are aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, enforcing an international blockade, undermining its economy, and destabilizing the country’s socio-economic and political situation,” the office said in a statement.

Prosecutors claim that the Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Program at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs has been used to “train opposition leaders from foreign countries.” Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny and his close associate Leonid Volkov participated in the program in 2010 and 2018, respectively.

Navalny died in prison in February 2024 while serving a lengthy sentence on extremism charges. In 2021, a Russian court banned Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) under extremism laws. Last month, Volkov, who lives outside Russia, was sentenced in absentia to 18 years in prison for his activities as an FBK leader.

Prosecutors alleged that FBK used “the knowledge and techniques” acquired at Yale to “escalate protest activities in Russia.” Prosecutors also claimed that Yale has worked to create a “legal framework” for using frozen Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian army. Moscow regards the freezing and seizure of its assets related to the Ukraine conflict as illegal and tantamount to theft.

Since 2022, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, and his team have campaigned to pressure foreign companies to cut ties with Moscow and advocated for tougher sanctions on Russia. In a 2024 Fortune article, Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian, research director of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, credited themselves with helping the US Treasury design sanctions targeting Russia’s oil trade.

July 9, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »