UK ‘preparing for war’ with Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | June 4, 2025
The UK is continuing to escalate its military measures, taking all sorts of irrational actions under the guise of “preparing the country for war”. London’s Russophobic madness is reaching truly worrying levels as local authorities appear willing to face the ultimate consequences of an all-out escalation with Russia – even though there is no chance of victory for the UK in such a scenario.
UK Defense Secretary John Healey has announced that the country will invest an extra 2 billion dollars package for the opening of new military factories. The aim is to advance an accelerated rearmament project, meeting the government’s previously set targets for expanding the production of weapons and military equipment.
The plan includes building factories capable of producing at least 7,000 more long-range weapons than the country’s current average output. Healey also said the UK will be meeting the mark of 3% of GDP in defense industry investment.
As expected, Healey justified the UK’s bellicose measures with the situation in Ukraine. According to him, Russian military actions have taught London a lesson, showing that it is necessary to strengthen the army through industrial development. He believes that the future of the British armed forces depends heavily on drastic changes in the current British military-industrial landscape, allegedly requiring the production of more and more weapons.
“The hard-fought lessons from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine show a military is only as strong as the industry that stands behind it (…) We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad (…) This is a message to Moscow as well. This is Britain standing firm – not only strengthening our Armed Forces, but also reinforcing our industrial base. It’s part of our readiness to fight, if required,” he said.
The defense chief’s bellicose stance is boosted by Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself, who recently said the UK was heading towards a “war situation”. He revealed part of the UK’s strategic planning for the coming years when he presented his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review. Under the project led by Starmer, the UK must prioritize NATO in all foreign policy issues and remain on combat readiness for any possible escalation in the current tensions.
”We are moving to war-fighting readiness (…) Our defense policy will always be NATO first (…) [The UK will be a] battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come,” Starmer said.
Like some other European nations, the UK is undergoing a process of restoring its military capabilities after years of absolute reliance on the American defense umbrella. The rise of Donald Trump and the “realistic turn” in American foreign policy have shown to the Europeans that Washington will not necessarily intervene on their behalf in the event of an all-out war resulting from the irresponsible actions of the EU and the UK. For this reason, London and Brussels are encouraging militarization projects that put Europe on “combat readiness,” as they allegedly believe that Moscow will expand the objectives of its operation in Ukraine to other European countries.
Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it has no strategic or territorial interests in Europe, and that the operation in Ukraine is the result of specific circumstances on Russia’s borders and not an expansionist project. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would be interested in engaging in hostilities with other European nations, which is why the alleged “need” for combat readiness is nothing more than a fallacy.
There would be no problem in the UK and Europe investing in two defense industries to become more independent from the US. Taking care of national and regional security is a legitimate interest of any state. The problem is that it is not a desire for security that is motivating the current European actions, but precisely the opposite: an irrational, anti-strategic and truly suicidal enthusiasm for total war.
If London and its European allies continue to escalate their military policies, this situation of “imminent war” with Russia will cease to be merely imaginary and will become a real possibility in the face of the threat that is being created against Moscow.
Russia will not tolerate impositions from the Europeans and will use any means necessary to prevent enemy bellicosity from threatening its security. It remains to be seen whether the British and Europeans are truly aware of what could happen to them in a worst-case scenario.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
UK preparing for war – PM
RT | June 2, 2025
Britain is going on a war footing with the launch of a major rearmament campaign, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a keynote address on Monday.
Starmer unveiled his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review, which includes an expansive armaments program mirroring similar efforts across NATO. Last week, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said London was sending “a message to Moscow” by allocating billions of pounds for new munitions plants, long-range missile systems, and other capabilities. Russia has accused Western nations of using alarmist rhetoric to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.
”We are moving to war-fighting readiness,” Starmer said at a shipyard in Govan, Glasgow, adding that “our defense policy will always be NATO first.” He vowed to transform the UK into “a battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come.”
According to Starmer, the overhaul will enable Britain to make its “biggest contribution to NATO since its creation.” He also pledged that the country would become “the fastest innovator in NATO,” with defense research operating at a “wartime pace.” The reforms are expected to make the British military “ten times more lethal by 2035,” he claimed.
The prime minister reaffirmed his government’s goal to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP. He framed the effort as replacing the post-Cold War “peace dividend” with a “defense dividend” through the creation of thousands of new jobs in weapons manufacturing, including production of nuclear arms.
Starmer blamed Moscow for what he called a series of provocations, accusing Russia of “menacing” the UK, demonstrating “aggression” in British waters, and “driving up the cost of living here at home,” harming British workers.
Russian lawmaker Aleksey Pushkov has accused the UK of planning an “ice war” with Russia, noting that “there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party” in their attitude.
Commenting on Starmer’s pledge to build additional nuclear submarines, Pushkov asserted that no British investments could bring the country to an equal footing with Russia, the US, and China. However, “Starmer needs them [those boats] to report his achievements” to domestic and international players who stand to benefit financially from the project, Pushkov claimed.
‘Brussels hijacked our future’ – Orban
RT | June 1, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has unveiled a proposal to increase the power of EU members and limit the authority of its bureaucracy. Calling it a “patriotic plan” for the bloc, he said in a series of weekend social media posts that it will revive the “European dream.”
The EU elites in Brussels have exploited every crisis to amass more power, Orban claimed in a post on X. This course has so far only translated into less sovereignty for member states and “failed policies,” according to the prime minister. “Brussels hijacked our future” by disrupting public safety through migration and eroding prosperity with “green dogmas,” he stated in another post.
“Europe can’t afford this any longer, it’s time to take back control,” he said.
The PM’s plan is based on what he calls four pillars: a path toward peace on the continent and defusing tensions with Russia, removing Brussels’ “centralized control” over finances, “bringing back free speech” and strengthening Europe’s Christian identity, and tightening control over immigration.
“We want peace, we don’t need a new Eastern front,” Orban said, commenting on his plan and stating that the bloc should not accept Ukraine as a member. “We don’t want our money poured into someone else’s war,” he added.
A military buildup and defense increase actively promoted by some EU nations could easily lock the bloc in an “arms race” with Russia, Orban warned. Such a development would “devour… taxpayers’ money,” he said. Instead of pouring more resources into the military, the bloc needs to contribute to the peace process between Moscow and Kiev, the prime minister maintained, praising US President Donald Trump’s efforts in this regard.
The EU needs to start “arms limitation talks with the Russians as soon as possible. Otherwise, all our money will be swallowed by the arms industry instead of being spent on peaceful… goals,” Orban argued.
European nations once united to create the “safest and the most advanced continent” in the world but this dream was “stolen,” the prime minister charged, calling on EU nations not to allow Brussels to use the Ukraine conflict “as an excuse to take more of our money.”
Trump bracing for a longer Ukraine war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | May 30, 2025
One of the mysteries of the Ukraine endgame is that President Donald Trump did not issue an executive order on January 20 withdrawing all support for Ukraine. That would have been the easiest way to end the war.
The conditions were propitious — Candidate Trump didn’t mince words that it was a hopeless war that cost the US dearly in treasure; he thought poorly of President Volodymyr Zelensky as a shameless free rider; he saw the war as impeding his foreign-policy priority of the US’ transition to a multipolar world order; and, he felt no compulsion to inherit ‘Biden’s war’.
But instead, Trump plunged himself with gusto into the Ukraine question, although Washington lacked the means to leverage Russia to compromise on its core interests in what Russian people regarded as an existential war.
Quite possibly, some of Trump’s advisors prevailed upon him to undertake the theatrical diplomatic effort on the basis of a flawed reading of the state of play in the war. Trump believed that western sanctions lethally weakened the Russian economy; that Russia’s casualty figures ran into hundreds of thousands and such a high level of attrition was unsustainable; that Zelensky would sign up on the dotted line; that an improvement in Russian-American relationship would be a ‘win-win’ with massive economic benefits accruing to both sides and so on.
But all these premises turned out to be wrong notions. Putin has steered the economy to a state of permanent western sanctions (which was the Soviet experience, too). Russian entrepreneurs have successfully replaced the fleeing western businesses in the wake of sanctions and will now resist any re-entry by the latter.
Russia’s casualty figures are much lower than the self-serving western estimates put it, as the high level of recruitment to the army suggests. Zelensky is bent on prolonging the war with support from European powers per Biden’s script to ‘Trump-proof’ the war. Europeans not only have a Plan B but have collaborators within the US some of whom may even be in Trump’s team.
Suffice to say, Trump has been on a learning curve, as he began sensing that the Kremlin is determined to realise the objectives it had set for itself (as outlined in Putin’s historic speech last June at the foreign ministry). According to a Reuters report two days ago, “Putin wants a ‘written’ pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the US-led NATO alliance eastwards — shorthand for formally ruling out membership to not only Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova and other former Soviet republics as well.”
“Russia also wants Ukraine to be neutral, some Western sanctions lifted, a resolution of the issue of frozen Russian sovereign assets in the West, and protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine” — per Reuters.
Europeans will scoff at such demands. Therefore, as things stand, a breakthrough at the Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul on June 2 seems unlikely. Unsurprisingly, Russia is pressing ahead with an offensive campaign in all directions, throwing in all its forces with a culmination planned for summer or early autumn.
The least bad option
Trump has three options under the circumstances. One is to simply refuse to own responsibility for the war and walk away for good. But then, can Trump deny his own part in it in his first term? While the Trump administration identified its approach to foreign policy as ‘principled realism’, late Joseph Nye’s characterisation of Trump as an “idiosyncratic realist” was perhaps closer to the truth.
The official administration policy on Ukraine during Trump’s first term was a continuation of the policy pursued by the Obama administration. It recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, condemned Russia’s occupation and eventual annexation annexation of the peninsula; it underscored Russia’s primary responsibility for the instigation, continuation and conduct of the conflict in eastern Ukraine; it even identified the Russian interference in Ukraine as part of a wider pattern of aggression towards other states and as proof of Moscow’s challenge to the fundamental principles of international order.
For these reasons, the Trump administration maintained that the US should help Ukraine to defend itself and should penalise Russia both through sanctions and diplomatic isolation (eg., membership of the G7). Curiously, shades of this thought process resurface even today occasionally in Trump’s Truth Social outbursts. Trump seems unaware he’s carrying a can of worms as his Ukraine legacy.
So, the second option today is to convey Trump’s dissatisfaction over Russia’s perceived intransigence in dictating terms for settlement and its alleged lack of interest in peace talks. Trump even hinted at Russia’s hidden agenda to conquer Ukraine. Trump is hinting at punishing Russia both through sanctions and supplying weapons to Ukraine. German chancellor Friedrich Merz’s provocative announcement of giving long-range weapons to Zelensky was probably green lighted by some people in Trump’s team. After all, Merz is no stranger to Wall Street.
However, this is a recipe for an extremely dangerous NATO – Russia confrontation. If long range German missiles hit Russia, Russia will retaliate in a way that could potentially cripple NATO’s operational readiness in a hypothetical war. Belarus State Secretary of Security Council Alexander Volfovich has said that the Oreshnik missile system is “planned to be stationed in Belarus by the end of the year. The locations for its deployment have already been determined. Work is under way.” The spectre of World War III may seem a bit of a stretch, but Trump will have to consider the dangers of climbing the escalation ladder, which could destroy his MAGA presidency.
Washington has no means to intimidate the Kremlin. The bottom line is, Trump is actually left with only a third option, the least bad option — viz., walking away from the Ukraine conflict at this point and return when the war has been lost and won, possibly by the end of the year. This will not damage Trump’s reputation.
Trump may already be displaying his credentials as ‘peacemaker president’ if the US-Iran talks, which seem to be making progress, results in a nuclear deal. Besides, US-Russia normalisation needs more time to gain traction. Senator Lindsey Graham’s hard-hitting sanctions bill against Russia with 81 co-sponsors in the senate signals that Russia is a very toxic subject in the US domestic politics.
Also, Russia-Ukraine talks is only one track. The Russians have sensitised Trump’s team that while Moscow engages with Kiev, the root cause of the war — absence of a European security architecture — still remains to be addressed, which is something that only Russia and the US can work out jointly. The US shouldn’t shirk its responsibility, being both the original instigator of NATO expansion and sponsor of the Ukraine war.
The reaction by the US special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg has been positive when he told ABC News in an interview that the US understands that it is a matter of national security for Russia that NATO may stop accepting new Eastern European countries into its ranks — ie., not only Ukraine but Moldova and Georgia as well.
Kellogg said he considered the Russian side’s concerns to be justified. He did not rule out the possibility of reaching an agreement during negotiations between the US and Russia. This is a big step forward.
Veto ban would spell the end of EU – Fico
RT | May 30, 2025
The EU’s reported plan to scrap member states’ veto power would spell the end of the bloc and could become “the precursor of a huge military conflict,” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.
Slovakia and its Central European neighbour Hungary have long opposed the EU’s approach to the Ukraine conflict, criticizing military aid to Kiev and sanctions on Russia. Both governments have repeatedly threatened to use their veto powers to block EU actions they view as harmful to national interests.
To bypass the dissent, Brussels is reportedly weighing a shift from unanimous voting, a founding principle of EU foreign policy, to qualified majority voting (QMV), arguing that it would streamline decision-making and prevent individual states from paralyzing joint actions.
Fico, however, condemned the proposal on Thursday during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Hungary.
“The imposition of a mandatory political opinion, the abolition of the veto, the punishment of the sovereign and the brave, the new Iron Curtain, the preference for war over peace. This is the end of the common European project. This is a departure from democracy. This is the precursor of a huge military conflict,” he said.
EU sanctions on Russia currently require unanimous renewal every six months, with the current term set to expire at the end of July. Brussels is also preparing an 18th package of sanctions aimed at tightening restrictions on Russia’s energy sector and financial institutions.
Earlier this month, during a visit to Moscow for Victory Day commemorations, Fico assured Russian President Vladimir Putin that Slovakia would veto any EU-wide attempt to ban imports of Russian oil or gas.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has taken a similar stance. While Hungary has not formally blocked a sanctions package, it has delayed several rounds to extract concessions.
Orban has also warned that removing the veto would strip smaller nations of their sovereignty.
“We want Brussels to show us, as all other member countries, the same respect, not only symbolically, but also by taking our interests into account,” he said last month.
Both Slovakia and Hungary have resisted increased military support to Kiev, with Budapest blocking several key decisions citing concerns over national interests and the potential for escalation. Fico has emphasized the need for peace negotiations over continued military engagement.
UK to step up cyberattacks on Russia and China – minister
British Defense Secretary John Healey © Getty Images / Antonio Masiello
RT | May 29, 2025
London will significantly step up offensive cyber operations against Russia and China, UK Defense Secretary John Healey announced on Thursday following the inauguration of the country’s new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command.
In a statement quoted by The Times, Healey claimed that “the keyboard is now a weapon of war” and said the UK’s new cyber command would coordinate both defensive and offensive operations, including hacking into enemy systems to disrupt attacks and spread of propaganda.
Asked whether this would include Russia and China, Healey responded: “Yes.”
Healey’s statement marks the first time a British minister has explicitly confirmed cyberattacks on other states. While UK ministers had previously confirmed cyber operations against non-state actors like Islamic State, they have not until now acknowledged attacks against other countries.
Healey’s comments come ahead of the publication of a strategic defense review on Monday. According to The Times, the review will stress that cyberattacks on Britain, allegedly being carried out by Russia and China, are “threatening the foundations of the economy and daily life.”
Both Moscow and Beijing have consistently denied accusations of carrying out cyberattacks against Western nations, characterizing the claims as baseless and politically motivated.
Additionally, Russian officials have in recent months repeatedly raised concerns over what they describe as Western Europe’s continued militarization and aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric, said to be in response to the alleged threat posed by Moscow.
The Kremlin has vehemently denied having any hostile intent towards any western country, and has accused European politicians of “irresponsibly stoking fears” to justify increased military expenditures, which Moscow had labeled an “incitement of war on the European continent.”
Merz vows to block Nord Stream 2
Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democratic Union. © Maja Hitij/Getty Images
RT | May 28, 2025
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to do “everything” to prevent the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from being launched. The gas inter-connector from Russia through the Baltic sea to Germany was destroyed by a series of underwater explosions in September 2022 in an act of sabotage that Russia believes was orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies.
Merz’s declaration comes as Moscow and Kiev draft respective proposals for bringing about a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, following their first direct peace talks in three years in Istanbul.
The talks marked a shift for Kiev, which abandoned diplomatic efforts in 2022 in favor of seeking a military victory on orders from the West. While Moscow has reported progress on its proposal, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and his EU backers have accused Russia of stalling.
During a joint press conference with Zelensky in Berlin on Wednesday, Merz vowed to “further increase pressure on Russia” and “weaken Moscow’s war machine” through sanctions, including on Nord Stream 2.
“I say on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, we will do everything in this context to ensure that Nord Stream 2 cannot be put back into operation,” he stated. He claimed that the measures aim to “pave the way for negotiations,” despite Moscow’s repeated criticism of Western sanctions policy.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said earlier this month that Brussels had planned an 18th sanctions package to include measures aimed at Nord Stream 2 AG, the Swiss-based entity that owns the pipelines, and any other companies necessary for their restart and operation.
Media reports have claimed that Merz has supported the move and that he has opened talks in Berlin and Brussels to prevent any revival of energy trade with Russia.
A number of European officials have opposed targeting the pipelines. Florian Philippot, a prominent French Euroskeptic, has warned that such a move would amount to a “death sentence” for European industry. Michael Kretschmer, the prime minister of the German state of Saxony, has argued that “Nord Stream is a possible opening for a conversation with Russia,” adding that such talks would benefit Germany as its economy needs Russian gas supplies to function normally.
Earlier reports have also claimed that Russia and the US were exploring ways to resume shipments through the still-intact line of Nord Stream 2.
Sanctions as Self-Harm: The West’s Strategic Blind Spot in Confronting Russia
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – May 28, 2025
This article critically analyzes the latest EU sanctions on Russia, arguing they are strategically flawed and economically self-destructive. Drawing from past failures, it shows how the West’s punitive measures are backfiring, hurting Europe and the U.S. more than isolating Russia.
What is the New Sanctions Package About?
The EU has unveiled a new sanction package targeting Russia, predominantly focusing on the energy sector, specifically oil and diesel exports. This builds upon earlier restrictions intended to cripple Russia’s economic capacity to sustain its military operations in Ukraine. The new sanctions include tighter enforcement mechanisms on the oil price cap, restrictions on ship-to-ship transfers in international waters, and efforts to curtail Russia’s access to Western insurance and logistics networks. But like the previous measures, they raise a fundamental question: Will they work?
The Status of Past Sanctions: Buying While Punishing
Historically, sanctions against Russia have been inconsistent and riddled with loopholes. Despite strong rhetoric, Europe has continued purchasing Russian commodities under various exemptions. The EU still imports significant quantities of Russian diesel, liquefied natural gas (LNG), coal, uranium, and even agricultural products like grain and fertilizer. The result is a paradox: while aiming to isolate Russia, the West remains economically entangled with it. This undermines the moral and strategic coherence of sanctions and allows Russia to adapt and thrive despite Western pressure.
Sanctions Hit Europe More Than Russia
While sanctions are theoretically aimed at weakening Russia’s economy, the practical consequences have disproportionately hit European industries and households. Russian exports are fungible: oil, coal, and fertilizers find alternate markets in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Meanwhile, Europe has struggled with soaring energy prices, industrial shutdowns, and declining competitiveness. Diesel shortages, energy rationing, and inflation have become the new norm, particularly in Germany, which once depended heavily on Russian inputs for its industrial base.
Russia, by contrast, has localized production, developed new markets, and implemented mercantilist strategies to reduce dependence on Western technology and finance. As one Russian analyst put it, sanctions have become “psychological warfare,” increasingly irrelevant to daily life in Russia.
Oil and Diesel: The Inflation Time Bomb
The crux of the new sanctions is oil and diesel. But can the U.S. and EU afford to forgo Russian, Venezuelan, and Iranian crude without catastrophic inflation? The answer appears to be no.
Russia exports about 7.5 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 10% of global supply. Taking that offline—especially in conjunction with sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian oil—would create a massive global shortfall. Western refineries, particularly in the U.S. Gulf Coast, are calibrated to process heavy sour crude like Russia’s Urals blend. Without it, refineries operate suboptimally, and gasoline prices spike.
In the U.S., diesel drives nearly all logistics trucks, trains, and ships. Removing a major global supplier like Russia tightens global supply, causing diesel prices to surge and supply chains to buckle. Already, diesel refills for trucks cost over $2,000, with potential spikes threatening food prices and consumer goods. Inflation will soar again, just as it had started to cool.
Baltic Sea Escalation: Tankers and Arrests
The geopolitical tension is intensifying. Russian oil tankers, often flagged under third countries, are now escorted by Russian naval vessels in the Baltic Sea. An incident involving an Estonian ship attempting to halt a tanker, which ended up detained in Russian waters, demonstrates the volatility of the situation. This marks a dangerous escalation, with the potential for military clashes over enforcement of maritime sanctions—an area traditionally governed by international law, not unilateral action.
Western Industrial Decline: No Shipyards, No Leverage
Sanctions enforcement is further complicated by Western logistical decline. The U.S., Britain, and France have largely lost their shipbuilding industries. Insurance and shipping markets have globalized, and London no longer dominates maritime underwriting. Russian entities are increasingly self-insuring their fleet, rendering sanctions on Western insurers irrelevant.
Furthermore, without a domestic merchant marine, the U.S. relies on foreign ships even for military logistics—a vulnerability in any prolonged conflict. Meanwhile, China and Russia continue expanding their shipping capabilities and influence over global supply routes.
The Legal Quandary: Sanctions and Sovereignty
From a legal standpoint, unilateral sanctions that attempt to compel third-party countries to comply (so-called secondary sanctions) strain the legitimacy of the “rules-based international order.” It is lawful for the West to impose its own sanctions, but not to mandate their enforcement by sovereign nations like India or Brazil. Such overreach risks global backlash and accelerates moves toward de-dollarization and alternative trade systems, such as the BRICS currency initiative.
Is the EU Addicted to Sanctions?
The EU appears increasingly reliant on sanctions as a primary foreign policy tool. Yet, their efficacy is questionable. Past sanctions have not altered Russian behavior, destabilized its economy, or improved Western leverage. Instead, they’ve fostered economic nationalism in Russia, weakened EU industries, and exposed the strategic shallowness of Brussels and Washington’s policies.
Sanctions are not a strategy; they are a tactic. And overuse risks turning them from a deterrent into a diplomatic crutch—one that Europe may not survive intact if economic pain continues to mount.
Conclusion: A Strategy of Self-Harm
Sanctions as Self-Harm: The West’s Strategic Blind Spot in Confronting Russia
In sum, the latest sanctions package is more of the same: punitive in intent, performative in practice, and counterproductive in outcome. The West, particularly Europe, will likely bear the brunt of energy shortages, inflation, and industrial decline. Meanwhile, Russia’s diversified exports, strategic alliances with China and India, and robust internal adaptation mechanisms render sanctions increasingly futile.
History has shown that attempts to isolate Russia through economic pressure are not only ineffective—they risk reinforcing the very state structures they aim to dismantle. Unless sanctions are part of a broader diplomatic and economic strategy, they will continue to hurt the sanctioning powers more than their target.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
EU has isolated itself, not Russia – Luxembourg MEP
RT | May 28, 2025
Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser has argued that the EU’s confrontational approach to Russia during the Ukraine conflict has led to its own isolation.
The lawmaker made the remarks in an interview with RT released on Tuesday while on a trip to Russia that he was forced to fund personally due to the European Parliament’s restrictions.
“Some people in the European Parliament… have an attitude toward Russia that identifies it as a big threat,” Kartheiser said. “They think that if we put pressure on Russia and isolate it diplomatically, that might help to find solutions in the context of the conflict in Ukraine… it is not the discussion that we should have.”
Kartheiser noted that the entire EU approach toward the Ukraine conflict and Russia has been counterproductive.
“What we have now internationally is that basically everybody talks to Russia. We even have the US coming back and having high-level contacts… the anti-Russia stance is diminishing,” he stated. “So this policy of isolation of Russia basically has failed. The only ones who are isolated in a way are the EU itself.”
The lawmaker’s visit to Moscow at the invitation of the Russian State Duma aimed to discuss bilateral relations and the situation in Ukraine. The visit, however, drew criticism from hawkish EU lawmakers. The European Conservatives and Reformists group threatened to expel Kartheiser, claiming he had “crossed a red line.” The MEP called the threat “a regrettable part of the picture” and lamented that some EU lawmakers remain opposed to re-engaging with Moscow.
“The discussion that we should have is what kind of relationship do we want with Russia in the future? We have to open the dialogue again. That is most important,” he said, adding that there are politicians whose opinions towards Russia are shifting, while many ordinary Europeans would also like to see ties restored.
The MEP emphasized that if the EU “wants to be taken seriously as an actor in international relations,” it must abandon the anti-Russia policy and “have some kind of relationship” with the country again.
“If we, Western Europeans, are expected to take a larger responsibility for our own security, one way to assure this is by negotiating an agreement with Russia, ensuring at the same time our security as Western Europeans and guaranteeing the security of Russia’s western border. So, negotiation and diplomacy before rearmament and arms race,” he concluded.
EU state blasts Germany over Russia threats
RT | May 28, 2025
Slovakia will not be bullied into changing its foreign policy, Prime Minister Robert Fico has said, calling German threats to cut EU funding due to its stance on Russia “aggressive and unacceptable.”
Fico’s remarks came in response to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said member states that resist the EU’s policies on Russia could face financial consequences.
“Member states that violate the rule of law can be confronted with infringement proceedings,” Merz warned at the WDR Europaforum in Berlin on Monday. “There is always the option of withdrawing European funds from them.”
Merz mentioned both Slovakia and Hungary in response to a question about countries resisting the EU’s policies on sanctions and military aid for Ukraine.
Fico hit back at Merz. “Slovakia is not a little schoolchild that needs to be lectured,” he said on Tuesday on X. “Slovakia’s sovereign positions do not stem from vanity, but are based on our national interests.” He added that “the politics of a single mandatory opinion is a denial of sovereignty and democracy.”
He went on to describe Merz’s remarks as “aggressive” and an indication that “we are not heading into good times.”
“The words of the German Chancellor are absolutely unacceptable in modern Europe. If we don’t obey, are we to be punished? This is not the path toward cohesion and cooperation,” Fico said.
Since returning to office in 2023, Fico has halted Slovak military assistance to Ukraine and has been critical of Western sanctions on Russia. He has also called for economic ties with Moscow to be rebuilt once the conflict with Kiev is over. Late last year, he became one of the few Western leaders to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss energy supplies to Slovakia, which were jeopardized by Ukraine’s refusal to extend a gas transit agreement.
On Monday, Merz also said Ukraine’s European backers are no longer restricting the country from launching long-range strikes into Russia using Western-made weapons, later adding that the decision was made months ago. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, however, said he had not received the go-ahead, while suggesting that it could happen later.
Responding to Merz, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned of a “serious escalation,” adding that the potential move “severely undermines attempts for a peaceful settlement” of the conflict.
German Chancellor Merz threatens to cut EU funding for Hungary and Slovakia
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 27, 2025
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned that the European Union could withhold even greater funds from Hungary and Slovakia if they refuse to adhere to the values imposed upon member states by Brussels.
Speaking at the WDR Europaforum on Monday, Merz said, “Member states that violate the rule of law can face infringement procedures, and there is always the possibility of withdrawing European funds. If necessary, we will take care of it.”
“We cannot allow the decisions of the entire EU to depend on a small minority,” he added, in a thinly veiled attack on the nationalist-led governments in Bratislava and Budapest. Both countries have already seen parts of their EU funding frozen over legal and political disputes with Brussels.
His remarks come as Hungary faces renewed criticism over a bill targeting foreign-funded NGOs and media, while Slovakia, under Prime Minister Robert Fico, has raised alarm in Brussels following his recent visit to Moscow and long-held opposition to further European intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Following the trip, Brussels ramped up pressure on Slovakia with the arrival of a delegation of Members of the European Parliament from the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), led by Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, to investigate alleged misuse of European subsidies.
Slovak Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok has dismissed the delegation’s visit as a politically motivated “punitive expedition” orchestrated by Brussels, accusing Eurocrats of defamation. “A carefully selected group is coming here with the aim of presenting Slovakia in Brussels as a black hole on the map of Europe,” he claimed.
Skepticism over Brussels’ approach to the war in Ukraine has been a point of contention in Hungary and Slovakia for the duration of the conflict, and Merz expressed his intention to advocate for punitive measures against the two member states should they seek to block European support to Kyiv.
“We will not be able to avoid this conflict with Hungary and Slovakia if we continue on this course,” Merz said.
Last month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused Brussels of conspiring with his country’s political opposition to bring about a change in government, remarks made after Hungarian left-wing MEP Kinga Kollár acknowledged the devastating effect that the withholding of EU funds for Hungary has caused, caveating her remarks by stating that “the deteriorating standard of living has actually strengthened the opposition and I am very positive about the ’26 elections.”
“They agreed to destroy the Hungarian economy, the Hungarian healthcare system, and to destroy the living standards of Hungarians, in order to help the Tisza party come to power,” Orbán said of the European Commission.
In response to Merz’s remarks, Hungarian Economy Minister Márton Nagy said on Monday that Budapest should reconsider its overdependence on trade with Berlin.
Featured Video
Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- If Americans Knew
- Tucker Carlson interviews Norman Finkelstein about Gaza
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 