Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

EU rejects US-mediated Black Sea ceasefire deal

RT | March 27, 2025

The EU will not fulfill Russia’s demand to lift sanctions on the country’s main agricultural bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington, European Commission Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Anitta Hipper has said.

During the talks between Russian and US experts in Riyadh on Monday, the sides agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. The maritime ceasefire is seen by Moscow and Washington as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict.

In her interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday, Hipper insisted that “the end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions.”

“The EU’s main focus remains to maximize pressure on Russia, using all tools available, including sanctions, to diminish Russia’s ability to wage its war against Ukraine,” she insisted.

US President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some curbs against Moscow, saying that “there are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed later that Kiev did not agree to the maritime truce due to it representing “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions” against Russia.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to fold up its obligations.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the maritime truce could take effect only once certain conditions set out by Russia are met. “Of course, this time justice must prevail, and we will continue our work with the Americans [on the Black Sea Initiative],” Peskov stressed.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

President Putin: 25 Years of Resisting the US Deep State and European Globalists

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – March 26, 2025

Since winning on March 26, 2000, Putin has fought to protect Russia’s sovereignty—standing up to George Soros, the Rothschilds, and Western elites. Read more to see how he did it.

2025: Putin signaled readiness for dialogue with the US administration on Ukraine, while Donald Trump exposed USAID‘s financial abuses and vowed to target US deep state actors and globalists.

2016: Putin signed a law banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Russia, as well as the import of products containing or produced using GMOs.

2015: Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and other major USAID grant recipients as “undesirable organizations.”

2012: USAID was banned from operating in Russia. Additionally, Russia introduced its “foreign agents” law to regulate foreign-funded NGOs.

2003: Russian oligarch and Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested for embezzlement and tax evasion, ending Western-backed oligarchic influence in Russia. Later, he revealed Lord Jacob Rothschild as his powerful backer and Yukos’ “protector.”

2003: George Soros, who condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest, shut down his Russia funds. His exit coincided with a surge in color revolutions, but Putin’s Russia resisted the globalist push.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic & Baltic Fronts

By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025

Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defense magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.

In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.

Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.

He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying Northwestern Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.

He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.

Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.

Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.

At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.

Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.

Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.

March 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kaja Kallas: The EU’s Struggling Foreign Affairs Chief and the Deepening Divide Over Ukraine

By Ricardo Martins | New Eastern Outlook | March 25, 2025

Kaja Kallas’ hardline stance on Russia and failure to unify EU nations have weakened her position as the EU’s Foreign Affairs chief. With the EU out of the negotiation table over Ukraine, internal divisions, diplomatic missteps, and failed Ukraine aid negotiations, is she still fit to lead Europe’s foreign policy?

Why Has the European Foreign Affairs Chief’s Position Weakened?

The position of the European Union’s Foreign Affairs chief has weakened under Kaja Kallas due to multiple diplomatic missteps, internal EU divisions, and a lack of broad strategic support. The most dramatic setback for EU diplomacy is its exclusion from the negotiating table on ending the war in Ukraine.
Kallas’ tenure has been marked by an anti-Russian stance, an aggressive push for military aid to Ukraine, and a failure to build consensus among EU member states. This has led to her increasing isolation, both within the EU and on the global diplomatic stage. When in Washington, a few days ago, Kallas was left in the waiting room and not received by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The German prestigious newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has sounded the alarm on the EU top diplomat’s weak performance. One of the main reasons for this decline, according to ZAZ, is Kallas’ inability to secure the backing of key EU nations. Her proposal for a €40 billion aid package for Ukraine was met with resistance, not just from Hungary and Slovakia, but also from France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. These countries, which have contributed less to Ukraine than Denmark alone, opposed increasing their financial commitment, revealing a deep divide within the EU regarding the war. Kallas also alienated many diplomats by dismissing high-ranking officials from Italy and Spain from the European External Action Service (EEAS), further reducing her influence​.

Who is Kaja Kallas, and Why Did Her Anti-Russian Stance Lead to the EU’s Sidelining?

Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia and a known critic of Russia, became the EU’s Foreign Affairs chief in December. Her strong anti-Russian rhetoric aligns with the Baltic States’ hardline stance, but this position has made her a controversial figure. Instead of facilitating diplomatic engagement, she has pushed for maximum pressure on the continuation of the war, alienating key EU partners that at this stage favour negotiation.

Her insistence on an uncompromising stance against Russia has sidelined the EU in international peace talks. By strongly criticizing Washington’s approach—especially U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into a settlement—Kallas further isolated the EU. Her comments referring to a potential U.S.-brokered deal as a “dirty deal” led to a diplomatic snub in Washington, where meetings with key American officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were abruptly cancelled​.

Why Did Kallas Fail to Secure the €40 Billion Ukraine Aid Package?

Kallas failed to secure the €40 billion military aid package for Ukraine due to opposition from several EU countries. While she claimed there was “broad political support,” the reality was different. The resistance came not only from Hungary, which has consistently opposed military aid to Ukraine, but also from France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. These countries refused to make significantly larger contributions, likely due to domestic economic concerns and political calculations​.

The aid package’s failure was also linked to Kallas’ poor strategic approach. She unexpectedly reintroduced the proposal after the Munich Security Conference, without adequately preparing the groundwork or securing commitments from key stakeholders. Her failure to engage Southern European countries, many of whom had closer ties with her predecessor Josep Borrell, weakened her position further​.

How the North-South and East-West EU Divide Affects Ukraine Support

The EU remains divided on its Ukraine policy, with a noticeable split between Northern/Eastern European nations and Southern European countries. Countries like Estonia, Poland, and the Nordic states have strongly supported Ukraine, advocating for increased military aid and a hardline stance against Russia. Meanwhile, Southern European nations, led by France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, have been reluctant to escalate support further.

This divide makes a unified EU approach to Ukraine difficult. Kallas’ failure to bridge these differences has weakened her effectiveness as Foreign Affairs chief, as her confrontational approach has alienated key players in both the EU and broader international diplomacy​.

Kallas’ Controversial Tweet and Calls for European Leadership

On February 28, 2025, Kallas tweeted:

“Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

This tweet generated controversy because it was widely interpreted as a criticism of U.S. leadership, particularly in the context of Trump’s renewed approach to Ukraine. Given the EU’s limited ability to act independently in military and geopolitical affairs, Kallas’ call for Europe to take the lead was seen as unrealistic. Some analysts viewed her remarks as undermining further transatlantic relations at a time when European unity and cooperation with the U.S. were crucial​.

Is Kallas Following a Strategy of Financial Attrition in Ukraine?

Kallas appears to be following a strategy based on the idea that the Ukraine war will end when no side can afford to continue. This is consistent with the belief expressed by EU diplomats that the conflict will only cease when economic and military exhaustion forces a resolution​.

However, this approach carries significant risks. If EU financial support dwindles or political will weakens, Ukraine could find itself forced into a settlement unfavourable to its long-term security. The lack of a clear long-term EU strategy beyond financial and military aid suggests that Kallas’ approach is reactive rather than proactive​.

Is Kallas’ Anti-Russia Stance Compromising Her Diplomatic Role?

Kallas’ intense dislike of Russia has undoubtedly compromised her effectiveness as the EU’s top diplomat. Kaja Kallas frequently expresses her personal views and a strong dislike of Putin and Russia in public, even during official events. On several occasions, she has openly stated that she does not trust Putin, overlooking the fact that, in such settings, she is speaking not for herself but on behalf of 27 EU countries and representing a prestigious institution. Such behaviour is widely seen as diplomatically unprofessional.

Diplomacy requires flexibility, negotiation, and relationship-building—qualities that her hardline approach has undermined. By sidelining herself from peace talks, clashing with key EU nations, and alienating Washington, she has weakened her ability to influence the direction of EU foreign policy​.

Is Kallas Still Fit to Lead EU Foreign Policy?

There is growing speculation that Kallas may not be able to continue leading EU foreign policy effectively. Her diplomatic missteps, failure in Washington, her failure to unify EU nations, and inability to secure key policy goals have led to increasing criticism. Some EU officials are reportedly considering the appointment of a special envoy for Ukraine, which would effectively bypass her role in one of the EU’s most pressing foreign policy challenges​.

Ultimately, while Kallas’ strong stance against Russia aligns with the policies of EU nations, her inability to build consensus and engage in effective diplomacy has weakened her authority. If she cannot adjust her approach, her tenure as EU Foreign Affairs chief may be short-lived.

Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics

March 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ian Proud: Britain Will Slowly Adjust to the US Position on Ukraine to Remain Relevant

Glenn Diesen | March 24, 2025

Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles…

March 25, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Netherlands wants to double army personnel, NOS reports

Al Mayadeen | March 21, 2025

The Netherlands intends to expand its military personnel from 74,000 to 200,000, with a strong focus on strengthening its reserve forces, Dutch public broadcaster NOS reported, citing sources familiar with the plan.

The report did not provide a specific timeframe.

According to official data, the Dutch military, a NATO member, currently consists of 42,305 active-duty soldiers, 24,212 support staff, and 7,483 reservists.

Rising concerns over Russia and uncertainty regarding continued US military support are pushing European nations to reevaluate their defense policies.

The European Council’s statement, published on Thursday, said that European Union member states will offer military support to Ukraine voluntarily, taking into account each nation’s interests.

“All military support, as well as security guarantees for Ukraine, will be provided in full respect of the security and defense policy of certain Member States and taking into account the security and defense interests of all Member States,” the document read.

It also underscored that a lasting peace must be accompanied by “robust and credible security guarantees” for Ukraine, to which EU member states can contribute.

However, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof confirmed that halting military aid to Ukraine is not under consideration.

Speaking at the European Council meeting in Brussels, Schoof stated that suspending military assistance as part of a potential peace deal was “non-negotiable”.

The halt of military aid for Ukraine is “not an option” for most European countries, he said, affirming that the Netherlands will continue supporting Ukraine politically, financially, and militarily.

On Wednesday, an EU report advocated for increased military spending, enhanced cooperation on joint defense initiatives, and a stronger emphasis on acquiring European-manufactured weaponry.

Meanwhile, Poland, another NATO member, plans to train 100,000 volunteers by 2027.

March 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

US scraps monitoring of alleged ‘Russian sabotage’ – Reuters

RT | March 19, 2025

The US has halted a multi-agency program set up to detect and counter potential “sabotage, disinformation, and cyberattacks” it claims Russia could launch against the West, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing current and former officials.

The outlet says it could not verify if the order came from US President Donald Trump.

The program, initiated under former President Joe Biden and led by the country’s National Security Council, involved at least seven US security agencies and the EU, to counter alleged Russian “hybrid activities,” the outlet said.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western officials have accused Russian intelligence agencies of conducting a covert campaign to weaken US-led support for Kiev. They claimed that Moscow has been “escalating a shadow war against Western nations” allegedly involving arson attacks, assassination attempts, election interference, damage to undersea cables, and other plots.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed the accusations as “unfounded,” with the Kremlin describing the allegations of so-called “Russian sabotage” as “empty and ephemeral.”

Since assuming office for the second time, Trump has diverged from Western efforts to isolate Russia, and instead opened direct communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin, while publicly clashing with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, the article noted.

Trump administration officials ignored calls to continue the monitoring effort, the outlet claimed, adding that “much of the work has come to a standstill” since Trump took office in January.

Asked about Washington’s suspension of a “hybrid warfare campaign” monitoring, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters that the Trump administration was trying to get rid of “everything ineffective, corrupt and implausible,” something he said was “understandable.”

Over the past several months, there have been multiple cases in which telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea were damaged by vessels operating from Russian ports, triggering speculation that Moscow was behind the damage. However, an investigation carried out by NATO prosecutors has failed to find any evidence connecting the incidents to Moscow.

Peskov has previously stated that “it is quite absurd to continue to blame Russia for everything without any grounds.”

March 19, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Rick Sanchez “threatened with prison” over work with RT

RT | March 18, 2025

Former RT host and longtime television journalist Rick Sanchez has spoken about his experience with the Russian broadcaster in a newly released interview with Tucker Carlson. Once one of RT’s highest-rated anchors, Sanchez revealed that he was forced out of his job last summer under pressure from the administration of former US President Joe Biden, which he says even threatened him with prison over ties with RT. He also revealed that his departure was foreshadowed by an unexpected phone call from an “old friend,” a warning which he described as a case study in the decline of free speech in the US.

Press freedom in the US

Sanchez has criticized the state of press freedom in the US, particularly under the Biden administration. The veteran journalist expressed concerns over increasing restrictions on alternative media voices, arguing that journalists who deviate from government-approved narratives often face professional consequences. He described a growing atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting perspectives, particularly regarding coverage of international conflicts.

Sanchez claimed that mainstream media outlets have become overly aligned with government interests, limiting diverse viewpoints and discouraging critical journalism. “If you don’t toe the line, if you don’t say what they want you to say, you’re out,” he said, emphasizing the pressures faced by journalists covering global affairs, especially those related to Russia and Ukraine. He suggested that reporters are under immense pressure to conform to prevailing narratives or risk retaliation.

Experience working for RT

Reflecting on his time at the Russian news network RT, Sanchez described it as an unexpectedly positive experience. He recalled initially joining the network with some hesitation but soon realizing that he was given considerable editorial freedom.

Sanchez noted that, unlike in many Western outlets, he was not instructed on what to say or how to frame his reports. He characterized his time at RT as “almost nirvana” in terms of journalistic independence, a stark contrast to his experience in US media. However, he also acknowledged that working for a Russian-backed network came with significant scrutiny, particularly from American authorities.

Mysterious phone call from an “old friend”

Sanchez also revealed that he had received a cryptic telephone call from an “old friend” shortly before he was forced to cut ties with RT. He described the conversation as unsettling, with the caller warning him that the people at the government agency he now works for “don’t necessarily like some of the things that you’re saying.”

While he did not disclose the caller’s identity, Sanchez suggested that the person had inside knowledge of actions being taken against him and that the call was meant to intimidate him into resigning before more severe repercussions followed.

Threats of prison

Expanding on the pressures he faced, Sanchez stated that he was not only forced to leave RT but also threatened with legal action. He alleged that US authorities made it clear that his association with the network could result in imprisonment.

“They were like, no, you violate the order and you’re going to prison,” Sanchez revealed, emphasizing the seriousness of the threats. While he did not specify the exact nature of the charges he was warned about, he argued that such actions demonstrate how far the US government is willing to go to suppress dissenting voices.

US tendency to create a villain

One of the central themes of Sanchez’s interview was the American tendency to create a villain in political discourse. He observed that the US media frequently needs an adversary to rally public opinion against, whether it be Russia, China, or a domestic political figure.

Sanchez warned that this pattern stifles critical thinking and forces audiences into a black-and-white worldview where certain countries or individuals are portrayed as purely evil while others are beyond reproach. He argued that this mindset contributes to unnecessary conflicts and prevents meaningful diplomatic engagement.

Sanchez’s perspective on the state of US media

Sanchez offered a harsh critique of American journalism, claiming that many mainstream outlets have abandoned their role as independent watchdogs. He accused the media of prioritizing corporate and political interests over factual reporting, resulting in a narrow and often misleading portrayal of global events.

He further claimed that media consolidation has contributed to the problem, as a handful of powerful companies control most of the news Americans consume. This, according to Sanchez, has led to an environment where only certain viewpoints are allowed airtime, while dissenting opinions are marginalized or outright censored.

Pinning hopes on Trump to reverse trend

Looking ahead, Sanchez expressed hope that US President Donald Trump could lead to a reversal of sanctions imposed on RT and other alternative media sources. He suggested that Trump, who has had a contentious relationship with mainstream US media, might be more inclined to allow greater media pluralism.

“The Trump administration will undo this because things are moving and there’s negotiations now with Russia,” Sanchez said. “And I understand the Trump administration is trying to remove some of the silly sanctions that we have on them that are just ridiculous.”

Sanchez argued that lifting restrictions on foreign-backed outlets would be a step toward restoring genuine press freedom and allowing Americans access to a broader range of perspectives. He concluded that, regardless of political affiliations, the suppression of alternative voices ultimately harms democracy.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

What Do Trump and Putin Really Have in Common?

By Glenn Diesen | March 18, 2025

There are many rational and pragmatic reasons for ending the conflict in Ukraine as the proxy war has effectively already been lost, further escalation could result in nuclear war, and Russia is aligning itself ever closer with China. However, is a personal affinity with Putin contributing to Trump’s desire to end the war and improve US-Russia ties?

During the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump expressed an affinity toward Putin based on a shared struggle against shared adversaries. Trump argued that “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt, where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? … It was a Democrat scam. He had to go through it. And he did go through it”. Trump argued that if Putin broke any deals, then it was with Obama and Biden, as Putin never broke any deals with him due to mutual respect.

It is reasonable to deduce from Trump’s statements that he feels he shares something with Putin. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories of collusion, it is worth taking a sociological perspective to explore how we define who belongs to “us” and who is considered the “other”. Human beings are social animals that instinctively organise into groups, in which the in-group “us” is usually defined by the mirror image of the out-group “other” as the diametrically opposite. What defines “us” versus “them” is often constructed to ensure group solidarity and is thus typically presented as good versus evil or superior versus inferior.

Russia has historically been assigned the role of Europe’s “other”, which makes it difficult to find compromise as Russia’s otherness and negative identity reaffirms Europe’s own positive identity. The relationship has historically been framed as the West versus the East, the civilised versus the barbarian, the European versus the Asiatic, and during the Cold War it was the capitalist versus the communist. When it was decided to revive the dividing lines in Europe after the Cold War by expanding NATO, the “us” versus “them” was recast as liberal democracies versus authoritarian. Every aspect of relations must be interpreted through this lens, in which the West can take the role of the good guys versus Russia as the perpetual bad guy.

Nationalism versus Cosmopolitanism

It is convenient and lazy to portray Trump’s possible affinity for Putin as a friendship between authoritarians. The argument is that Trump is not part of the free world, and his authoritarian tendencies allegedly explain his affinity to Putin. This is a poor analysis, but it exposes how human beings instinctively preserve group solidarity by punishing individuals who stray from the group, and efforts to reach out to the other side and move beyond the stereotypes that define “us” and “them” are met with suspicion and accusations of treason. The free world versus the alliance of authoritarians is a framing that serves the purpose of demonising Trump and Putin and also reaffirming “our” good values. To borrow the language of Bush, they hate us because of our freedoms.

This is a deeply flawed framing, as Trump (or Putin) does not define himself and his in-group (“us”) in the unfavourable terms of authoritarianism versus freedom. Trump views the world as divided between patriotism and globalism or as nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.

The liberal identity as the foundation for the collective identity of a unified Political West after the Cold War contributed to creating a schism within the liberal nation-state. The excesses of liberalism under globalisation and an identity relying excessively on liberalism created a split between liberalism and nationalism that laid the foundation for the liberal nation-state. Over the past decades, liberalism began divorcing itself from the nation-state as the idea of unity through common history, traditions, faith and culture was rejected. In 2004, Samuel Huntington predicted that the rise of a neo-liberal elite would eventually create a conservative backlash:

“The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability–within acceptable conditions for evolution–of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism”.[1]

Translated into international politics, Russia transitions away from the out-group “them” as an authoritarian state, and into the in-group of “us” as a traditional Christian European state that rejects the excesses of liberalism and subsequent moral decadence. It is also evident that Trump sees himself as having much in common with Viktor Orban of Hungary, who defines Europe by its traditional Christian-cultural heritage. In contrast, there is a contempt for the German definition of Europe, which relies excessively on liberal and post-national ideals that translate into woke ideology, open borders, globalism and cosmopolitan identity to the extent they are not capable of defending basic national interests. Europe’s identity as liberal nation-states used to accommodate both nationalism and liberalism, yet liberalism has to a large extent liberated itself from the nation. Consequently, the liberals and the nationalists see each other as their respective out-group, threatening the in-group. This is now influencing the relations between the great powers.

Russiagate and the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal

Trump’s reference to the Russiagate hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office reveals that he considers these events as relevant to understanding the collapse of US-Russia relations.

There has been very little if any reflection on how the Russiagate hoax damaged US-Russia relations, which is why understanding is absent for Trump’s argument. The Democrats used Russia as a bogeyman to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election, then to undermine his first presidential administration, and yet again during the 2020 election. The actual collusion revealed was between the Democratic Party, the intelligence agencies and the media.

The US embraced a new anti-Russian McCarthyism to cleanse its opposition, in which everyone had to castigate Russia as an ideological enemy of the US. Trump’s desire to improve relations between the US and Russia was treated as a threat to the envisioned liberal democratic-authoritarian divide of the world that sustains NATO, and it was treated as a smoking gun that delegitimised his entire political platform. For years, there was a wide consensus that Russia had helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election. During the presidential race in 2020, the scandal of the Hunter Biden laptop was censored by the media following false accusations that it was a Russian disinformation campaign on behalf of Trump. There were also fake accusations that Russia offered bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and Trump’s unwillingness to respond forcefully against Russia was treated as evidence of being in the pocket of the Kremlin. America’s domestic political squabbles evidently contributed to the collapse of US-Russia relations, which also cemented the non-compromising position and provocations by the US that triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Should we be surprised that Trump considers himself and Putin to have faced many of the same enemies to the extent it shaped his view of the in-group versus out-group? Russiagate was intended to sell a worldview of authoritarians at home and abroad conspiring against freedom. This narrative has been debunked as it was based on fraudulent evidence, yet the Democrats and the Europeans still hold on to the narrative to preserve their assigned identity as the good guy and their opponents as the bad guy. From the viewpoint of Trump, this was an attack by the Democrats on democracy and the political system that also devastated relations with Russia and undermined peace in the world.

Can we blame Trump for seeing the world as divided between pragmatic and rational nationalists seeking to put their countries first, versus a cosmopolitan and globalist elite that undermines national interests, democracy and international peace?

German version of the article: “Was Trump und Putin verbindet” in De Weltwoche.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Merkel criticizes Germany’s anti-Russian hostility

By Lucas Leiroz | March 18, 2025

Apparently, the anti-Russian hostility of German officials is causing controversy among the country’s politicians themselves. In a recent speech, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the use of pejorative terms to refer to people who advocate a diplomatic approach with Moscow, stating that such attitudes harm political dialogue in Europe.

Recently, the term “Putinversteher” (Putin’s understander) has become popular among German officials and media. The “adjective” is used to defame any German or European who believes in the possibility of diplomatic talks with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In other words, the German official media has deliberately adopted a rude and offensive term and is using it against German citizens themselves, justifying such attitude with anti-Russian arguments.

Merkel told journalists in a recent interview with Berliner Zeitung that using this word is wrong because it obstructs diplomatic initiatives. Merkel says that it is necessary to engage in talks to understand the real reasons for the conflict and possibly find a solution through a mutually beneficial agreement. For this reason, excluding people who support diplomacy from the public debate is a wrong move.

Merkel emphasized that “Putinversteher” is a “strange” word and that it should be avoided in order to ensure dialogue in Europe. More than that, she made it clear that it is necessary for the Europeans to understand Putin and “put themselves in his position”, thus showing a willingness for real diplomatic dialogue. According to Merkel, understanding the Russian side in the conflict does not mean supporting Moscow, and there is therefore no problem in doing so.

It is important to emphasize that Merkel at no time expressed any sympathy for Putin or Russia. She continues to adopt a completely pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western rhetoric, condemning what she calls Russia’s “unjustified invasion.” However, Merkel supports discussions that take into account the strategic interests of the Russian Federation – certainly because she understands that this is the only possible way to end the war.

“[This term is] Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment (…) I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate (…) No one has ever called me that – it’s a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him (…) There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia’s interests must be allowed,” she said.

In fact, Merkel governed Germany for many years and at that time her relations with Russia were marked by a certain ambiguity. While she was always committed to the Western hegemonic order on all major ideological and strategic issues, Merkel also had a reasonably pragmatic approach to Russia on some points. Having been educated in East Germany and having a good knowledge of the Russian language, she knew the Russian culture and history more deeply than her European allies and used this expertise to engage in fruitful dialogues – which was particularly possible with Putin, since the Russian president is also a deep connoisseur of German culture and language.

Despite being against Russia on several international issues, Merkel did not give up on the strategic partnership in energy and other relevant issues, which allowed for a period of reasonable stability in bilateral relations. After the end of the Merkel era, relations between Germany and Russia went into absolute decline as the political elites that came to power in Berlin were much more hostile to Moscow – as well as much more ignorant of Russian culture and interests.

So, it is understandable that there is a clash of opinions in Germany about how to deal with Russia. Merkel is herself hostile to Moscow, but she has a softer, more cultured and pragmatic approach. However, the current coalition is completely irrational and advocates for policies that, if implemented without restrictions, could easily lead Europe to an all-out war scenario in the near future.

It is possible to say that the extreme level of anti-Russian hostility in Germany is terrifying even the most experienced German politicians. Berlin has adopted actual madness as state policy and is ready to destroy the entire European security architecture just to defend interests that do not reflect the opinion of the German people.

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.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | | Leave a comment

US to exit EU-led investigation on Russia – NYT

RT | March 17, 2025

The administration of US President Donald Trump is retreating from initiatives aimed at investigating and prosecuting alleged Russian crimes linked to the Ukraine conflict, the New York Times reported on Monday.

According to sources cited by the newspaper, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will withdraw from the EU-backed International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA), established to investigate Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran for the alleged crime of international aggression.

The US became the only non-European ICPA member when it joined in 2023. Sources told the NYT that Washington had informed European partners about its imminent exit ahead of a formal announcement.

Administration officials reportedly justified the withdrawal by citing a broader reduction in government expenditures. The DOJ had pledged $1 million to support European investigators when US participation was initially announced.

Additionally, Washington is curtailing operations of a DOJ team known as WarCAT, formed in 2022 to train Ukrainian prosecutors on charging and trying Russians for alleged war crimes, according to NYT sources.

Last week, reports emerged that the US had cut funding for a Yale-based research group searching for Ukrainian children “abducted” by Russia. Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s allegations of state-orchestrated kidnappings of thousands of minors as politically motivated mischaracterizations of its evacuation efforts in war-affected areas.

Trump is aiming to normalize bilateral relations with Russia, viewing a resolution of the Ukraine conflict as a crucial step. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to have a direct phone conversation this week.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Xi Jinping snubs EU invitation to anniversary summit – FT

RT | March 17, 2025

Chinese President Xi Jinping has turned down an invitation to visit Brussels for a summit this year marking the 50th anniversary of his country’s relations with the EU, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

The Chinese leader’s reported snub comes at a time of growing tensions between Beijing and Brussels. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the EU believes is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. Adding to the tension was a wave of retaliatory tariffs placed by the EU on Chinese goods.

Beijing informed EU officials that Prime Minister Li Qiang would meet the presidents of the European Council and European Commission instead of Xi, the FT said, citing two people familiar with the matter.

The prime minister usually attends the summit when it takes place in Brussels, while the president hosts it in Beijing. However, this time the EU wanted Xi to attend given the significance of the meeting, which marks half a century of diplomatic relations, the sources told the outlet.

“Informal discussions are ongoing, both about setting the date for the EU-China summit this year and the level of representation,” an EU official told the FT, while the Chinese ministry was quoted as saying it did not have any information to provide on the matter.

Tensions between the EU and China intensified following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when the EU accused Beijing of supporting Moscow.

China has adhered to a policy of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the bloc and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.

The rift deepened last year after the EU imposed tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese electric vehicles, claiming that Chinese manufacturers benefit from unfair government subsidies. The decision sparked strong objections from Beijing, which retaliated by slapping tariffs of between 30.6% and 39% on the bloc’s brandy imports. The move hit major French cognac producers particularly hard, as they rely heavily on sales in the Chinese market.

China has also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the EU’s “protectionist” actions amount to “an abuse of trade remedies” and violate WTO rules.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »