In an interview on Fox News this week, America’s top diplomat Marco Rubio made a damning admission. He called the conflict in Ukraine a proxy war between the United States, its NATO allies and Russia.
Stop the press. In one fell swoop, the narrative justifying the NATO-backed war for the past three years was exposed as a naked lie. It is not about “defending Ukraine” from alleged Russian unprovoked aggression. It is a proxy war. That means it has deeper causes and responsibilities.
This is what Moscow and many other international observers have been saying all along. To recognize the conflict as a proxy war is to begin admitting wider culpability for it and to start addressing the root causes for a genuine peaceful settlement.
Secretary of State Rubio went on to emphatically call for an end to the war to spare lives. He claimed the conflict was in a stalemate, not quite bringing himself to utter the word, “defeat”. But defeat is what this debacle is.
Rubio decried how the previous Biden administration and Congress (including himself as a Senator) had fueled the conflict along with other NATO members in a futile campaign. It is now time to bring the conflict to an end, he said.
Appropriately, the U.S. foreign minister appeared on television with a prominent Lenten cross of ash marked on his forehead. Christians around the world begin preparations for Easter by donning ashes as a sign of repentance. Rubio’s “confession” of a failed U.S. policy of proxy war against Russia in Ukraine may be seen as a belated recognition in Washington that it needs to cease, desist and make amends for peace.
Not so the European leaders, however, who this week persisted in their lies about a noble purpose in Ukraine.
Following the humiliating rebuke of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, the European politicians have been rallying their support for the Kiev regime.
Trump aides ejected Zelensky from the White House last Friday because he testily refused to comply with a U.S. initiative for peace in Ukraine. This week, the chastened Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump appealing for forgiveness – and more U.S. military aid. It’s not clear if the Ukrainian redundant president has convinced the Trump administration that he is ready to sign a peace deal.
In the meantime, the White House has now cut off military aid and intelligence sharing with the Kiev regime. Again, proving the reality of a proxy war.
That move has thrown the European allies into a quandary and existential crisis. It is a crisis of their own making.
An emergency EU leaders’ summit was convened to drum up more military support for Ukraine. The EU 27 could not agree on a package because Hungary vetoed it. Another summit is to be called on March 20, when it is intended to bypass Hungarian objection to funding the war in Ukraine.
European leaders are desperate. The about-turn in U.S. policy to walk away from the failed proxy war in Ukraine has left them holding a dead-end hand of cards. Rather than folding, they are doubling down on their worthless chips.
Trump upbraided Zelensky in the Oval Office by telling him, “You don’t have the cards” to keep this war going.
The same advice can be leveled at the European governments, including the British, who strangely have wormed their way back into calling shots in Europe despite exiting the bloc five years ago.
This war has been lost with appalling losses. Three years of the biggest war in Europe since World War Two has resulted in over one million deaths – mainly on the Ukrainian military side – and hundreds of billions of dollars and euros wasted, which the American and European public will pay over generations through debts.
This war is an abominable crime perpetrated by Washington and its European allies. All the more so because it could have been avoided if Russian diplomatic efforts in late 2021 had been reciprocated to deal with Moscow’s legitimate security concerns over NATO’s expansion. But no, the Western imperialists wanted to strategically defeat Russia and they used a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine as their pawn following the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 against an elected president.
Western leaders must be held to account for their nefarious machinations and the colossal damage in Ukraine and Russia. Russian civilians have been killed by NATO weapons and over $300 billion in Russian assets have been confiscated. Russia has the right to seek massive war reparations.
At least, to their credit, the Trump administration has realized that the evil of this fraudulent war must stop.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy on Ukraine, also this week referred to the war as a proxy war that needs to end.
The Americans are calling on the Europeans to stop funding the war with military aid. This is an amazing turn around. Since WWII, the Americans have been the diehard warmonger with the European lackeys following suit. Now it’s the other way around. The European elites want the war in Ukraine to continue – albeit with the lie that they are seeking “lasting peace.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently said that if the Western powers stopped funneling weapons into Ukraine, the conflict would quickly stop. And then diplomacy could begin for dealing with the root causes and establishing mutual, sustainable peace.
Vice President Vance rightly pointed out that the Europeans by puffing up Zelensky as a hero “freedom fighter” are prolonging the slaughter and destruction of Ukraine as well as provoking the risk of a wider war.
The problem is that whereas the Americans have adopted realism and common sense (at last), the Europeans are continuing to persist in the lies and delusions about the proxy war against Russia.
This week, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed other European political figures by calling Russia a threat to Europe. The French, British and others are insisting on fueling the dead-end war by racking up astronomical debts and proposing to send “peacekeeper” troops to Ukraine. Moscow has warned that such a move would mean direct war.
So desperate is Macron that he is engaging in nuclear saber-rattling, offering to deploy French nuclear weapons to “defend” Europe. Why don’t Macron and other European elites simply engage in diplomacy like the Americans?
The insane recklessness of the Europeans stems from multiple sources: their incorrigible Russophobia, ties to the military industrial complex, chagrin over their American patron dumping the Ukraine war mess on them, and in their existential need to keep lying about the war as some noble cause instead of it being a sordid proxy war against Russia.
The Europeans are so full of lies, duplicity, guilt, and ultimately impotence that they will likely persist in their delusions of grandeur. To repent would be politically fatal. Thus persisting in their lies, the European Union and its military arm NATO are being destroyed.
Napoleon, Hitler, and now the elitist European leaders have all fallen into oblivion from miscalculations over Russia.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has unveiled plans to more than double the size of the country’s military to 500,000. Speaking in the Polish Parliament on Friday, Tusk said Poland must be prepared for future conflicts and strengthen its defenses.
Tusk reiterated his earlier claims that Russia poses a threat to Europe, saying Moscow could launch a “full-scale operation” against a “larger” target than Ukraine within three to four years – which Russia has repeatedly dismissed as unfounded. He argued that Poland must serve as a “bastion” to protect NATO’s eastern flank and should expand its military capabilities.
“We’re talking about the need to have an army of half-a-million in Poland, including the reservists,” he stated, noting that Poland’s current armed forces number around 200,000, which he compared to Russia’s estimated 1.3 million troops. Tusk said his government is drafting legislation that would require every adult male in Poland to undergo “large-scale military training” to prepare for a potential conflict with Russia.
“We will try to have a model ready by the end of this year so that every adult male in Poland is trained in the event of war, so that this reserve is comparable and adequate to the potential threats,” he said. He added that Polish women may also be required to undergo military training, though “war is still to a greater extent the domain of men.”
Tusk’s remarks came a day after EU leaders approved a major military spending plan to unlock billions of euros to build up defense capabilities. The initiative – ReArm Europe – which was adopted following an emergency summit in Brussels, hikes defense spending by up to €800 billion ($840 billion) – twice the total EU defense expenditures in 2024. The Kremlin condemned the bloc’s “militarization” plan, calling it a path towards confrontation that hinders peace efforts with Ukraine.
In addition to a larger army, Tusk said Poland must enhance its military capabilities, including through the acquisition of nuclear and “modern unconventional weapons.” Tusk’s speech followed his recent accusations that Moscow is fueling a new arms race, and calls for fellow EU nations to ramp up defense spending.
The Kremlin has criticized Tusk’s rhetoric as confrontational and militaristic. Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, with President Vladimir Putin dismissing the claims as “nonsense” designed to justify increased military budgets.
Romania has been going through unprecedented instability in the last several months, with the Brussels-run neoliberal dictatorship effectively taking over the country. It could even be described as a “soft coup” orchestrated to nullify the will of the Romanian people. The unelected bureaucrats are determined to ensure that Bucharest remains firmly in the EU/NATO orbit, particularly now that their war in Ukraine is not exactly going as planned, to put it mildly.
To that end, last year’s election was effectively stolen after the second round was canceled based on blatant lies. In the meantime, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship even bragged about “doing it in Romania” while threatening to “do it in Germany”. You’d think millions across the “old continent” would be outraged by such undisguised tyranny. However, things only got worse from then on.
On February 26, Romanian sovereigntist Calin Georgescu was arrested on trumped-up charges that boil down to him supposedly being a “Kremlin puppet”. It’s so obvious what’s the goal of all this that even the new US administration condemned such moves. Trump and his team certainly understand what Georgescu is going through, as he’s exposed to nearly identical persecution.
With the election less than two months away, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship is looking to ensure that Georgescu is eliminated before the race begins. The latest events demonstrate that the Deep State is now trying to recycle the so-called “Russiagate” hoax and use it to make sure Romania stays under NATO occupation. Namely, on March 6, six people were arrested and charged with “treason for colluding with Russia to undermine the country”.
If you think this is ridiculous, just wait until you hear the names of the “evil pro-Russian group” and one of its “masterminds”. Namely, according to the Financial Times, they were “named ‘Vlad the Impaler Command’ after Romania’s medieval ruler who served as inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with one of the members being a 101-year-old retired General Radu Theodoru.
The subliminal messaging is so evident that it’s questionable whether we can even call it that. There’s the mandatory “evil Vlad” (you’re probably “wondering” who it reminds you of) who also “served as the inspiration” for Lord Dracula, a vampire. The word “command” can be interpreted as indicating both a “military structure” and a “team” (команда in Russian). In other words, you have a “paramilitary team working for Vlad the Vampire“.
Considering the endless funding the Deep State-run institutions get, you’d think they would come up with something a bit more original and less obvious. And yet, it gets worse, because the accusations are all copy-pasted from the “Russiagate” hoax. According to SRI (NATO-run domestic intelligence agency), the “pro-Putin conspirators” were supposedly “seeking Russian help for a plot to overthrow the government in Bucharest” and “repeatedly contacted agents of a foreign power, located both on the territory of Romania and the Russian Federation”.
“The two Russian diplomats carried out intelligence gathering actions in areas of strategic interest and took actions to support the group’s anti-constitutional actions,” the SRI report claims.
The Kremlin pointed out that this is essentially an attempt to shift focus from the actual undermining of Romanian sovereignty by the EU/NATO. Obviously, this is also an attempt to justify the persecution of Georgescu who is accused of supposed “links to fascist groups and attempting to subvert the constitutional order”. If sentenced, Georgescu is faced with a decade in prison.
He still hasn’t been accused of having anything to do with the alleged “plot” by the aforementioned “Vlad the Impaler Command” group. However, this could easily be the next step in the smear campaign targeting Georgescu, who has been criticizing NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe for years.
The “evil Vlad” group is accused of similar “crimes”, including supposedly “discussing Romania’s withdrawal from NATO with Russian spies, the removal of the current constitution and the constitutional order, the dissolution of political parties, as well as the removal of all employees from state institutions … the change of the country’s name, flag, and anthem.” If this sort of “connection” is fabricated, it would likely happen just ahead of the presidential election, either for new indictments or another smear campaign.
They understand that the EU/NATO wants them to play this extremely unflattering role and, as anyone remotely sane would do, they effectively told NATO to go pound sand (as evidenced by last year’s election results). However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel won’t give up that easily, so we’re likely to see more instability in Romania.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Moscow will not engage in an arms race with the EU, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said. He was speaking after Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged the bloc to ramp up its military spending.
Tusk on Wednesday accused Moscow of starting a new arms race and insisted that Western Europe must respond. “The war, the geopolitical uncertainty and the new arms race started by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin have left Europe with no choice,” he stated on social media.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said it was regrettable to hear such statements. “They will not win against us because we will not play with them; we will be busy ensuring our own interests,” he said.
“We regret the confrontational, even militaristic, statements coming from Warsaw and Paris, which show that Europe has yet to adjust to the new dynamic between Moscow and Washington,” Peskov said. He didn’t rule out, however, that European leaders would eventually “feel which way the wind is blowing.”
The Polish prime minister further claimed that “Europe must be ready for this race, and Russia will lose it like the Soviet Union 40 years ago,” arguing that the EU would arm itself faster than Russia.
Tusk’s comments follow statements by French President Emmanuel Macron during an address to the nation on Wednesday claiming that Russia poses a threat to the EU. Macron urged the bloc to boost defense spending and suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.
On Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a massive defense spending hike. As part of the ‘ReArm Europe Plan’, the bloc would spend about $840 billion on defense – double total EU defense expenditures in 2024.
The European leaders’ calls come as US President Donald Trump’s administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as in supporting Kiev.
Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.
Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, condemning Macron’s remarks as “highly confrontational.” Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed Western claims of an imminent Russian attack as “nonsense” and accused European leaders of inflating the threat to justify higher military spending.
Putin earlier reiterated that Russia has no interest in being drawn into an arms race but stressed that Moscow would take all necessary steps to safeguard its own security and that of its allies.
MEPs from the Volt party in the European Parliament submitted a proposed “action plan” earlier this week, as reported by Politico. Among the plan’s nine points is a call to strip Hungary of its guaranteed voting rights as a member of the European Union.
Volt is a pan-European federalist party that favors strengthening and centralizing the European Union’s authority over its member states.
Volt’s call to deprive Hungary of its right to veto all decisions made by the EU, which is a fundamental right guaranteed in the bloc’s founding treaties, is doubtless a response to Viktor Orbán’s veto of €20 billion in military aid that Brussels had wanted to send to Ukraine this week. This aid was intended to partially compensate for the United States’ recent suspension of aid to the country as part of the Trump administration’s attempts to force an end to the conflict.
Orbán has been strongly critical of the EU’s support for Ukraine from the outset of the current war. He has frequently used his country’s veto powers in an effort to pressure the bloc to stop arming Ukraine and instead force it to come to the negotiating table.
Other points in Volt’s proposal were a call for the formation of a European army, as is being discussed by others in the European Parliament, as well as a revision of the bloc’s treaties to give it greater authority in matters of defense. Also included is a suggestion to make Kaja Kallas, the European Commission’s current Vice President as well as its High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, an official foreign minister for the EU.
Given that Volt has only five MEPs in the European Parliament, its suggestions are unlikely to have much effect. They nevertheless reflect the growing frustration in the bloc with Hungary’s ongoing efforts to stop the war.
This is not the first time that the idea of depriving Hungary of its voting rights has been floated in European circles. Last summer, 63 MEPs demanded that Hungary’s rights be suspended in response to Orbán’s diplomatic visits to Kyiv, Moscow, and Beijing while his country held the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The EU has approved a large military spending plan to unlock billions of euros to build up defense capabilities. The initiative, which was adopted following an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday, also aims to shore up aid for Ukraine after American military assistance to Kiev was halted.
Under the plan, which is called ReArm Europe, the bloc’s defense spending will be boosted by up to €800 billion ($840 billion) – double the total EU defense expenditures in 2024. The initiative was unveiled earlier this week by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who said she will present legal proposals within the next two weeks.
The 27 EU leaders agreed to ease budget restrictions to allow member states to boost military outlays. They also called on the European Commission to explore new mechanisms “to facilitate significant defense spending at the national level across all Member States,” according to an official statement.
The EU’s executive arm estimates that the measure could unlock around €650 billion but it remains unclear if governments would fully utilize this financial leeway.
Additionally, the bloc’s leaders took note of a European Commission proposal for a €150 billion loan package for investment, including for air and missile defense, artillery and drones, and urged EU headquarters staff “to examine this proposal as a matter of urgency.”
The emergency summit was convened amid growing concerns among EU leaders over the impact of Washington’s recent policy shift on Ukraine. US President Donald Trump has signaled that European nations should take the lead in their own defense, as well as in supporting Kiev.
Von der Leyen claimed that the EU “is ready to assume its responsibilities,” describing the current geopolitical situation as the “most momentous and dangerous” of times.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who claimed in a speech to the nation on Wednesday that Russia poses a threat to the EU, said that this is just a first step.
“Whatever happens in Ukraine, we need to build autonomous defense capacities in Europe,” he told reporters after the summit.
Moscow has repeatedly dismissed claims that it poses a military threat to Europe, describing remarks emerging from Warsaw and Paris as “highly confrontational” and “militaristic.” Russian President Vladimir Putin called Western claims of an impending attack “nonsense,” accusing European leaders of exaggerating the threat to justify increased military spending. He reiterated that Russia does not seek to enter an arms race but will take the necessary measures to ensure its security and that of its allies.
As the United States and Russia are engaging in talks to avoid the possibility of an uncontrollable escalation, the European Union and NATO keep doing the exact opposite. Brussels wants the war to continue, including by pushing for the deployment of its troops in Ukraine. Worse yet, as the diverging interests of the new Trump administration and the EU/NATO become more evident, the latter is now trying to appease Washington DC by portraying this as a “peace initiative”.
On the other hand, Trump and his team understand that the world is drastically different to what it was in the aftermath of the (First) Cold War. This is precisely why they’re far less belligerent toward Moscow (at least in terms of rhetoric) than was the case with the previous administration.
The EU/NATO is terrified of the prospect of being left to face Russian military power in Ukraine (and possibly beyond) on its own. To prevent that, Western European powers are now looking to escalate tensions in hopes of drawing the US back into a crawling confrontation with the Kremlin. However, as the Trump administration is still showing no interest to get involved, the EU/NATO is now pushing for a strategic escalation.
This is particularly true for French President Emmanuel Macron who is now talking about placing the “old continent” under the French nuclear umbrella. On March 5, he tried to justify this by claiming that “[President Vladimir] Putin is now threatening all of Europe” and declared that “Russian aggression knows no borders”.
“We are entering a new era. If a country can invade its neighbour in Europe and go unpunished, nobody can be sure of anything. Beyond Ukraine, the Russian threat is real – it affects the European countries,” Macron stated in a televized address, adding: “President Putin is violating our borders to assassinate opponents, manipulate elections.”
For decades, “evil dictator and bloodthirsty tyrant Putin” has been the political West’s go-to bogeyman for both foreign and domestic policy issues. Whether it’s elections, political instability, price hikes or even personal problems, look no further than Vladimir Putin. The “evil, bear-riding Russians” are coming for you and “the only way” to prevent it is to go to war with them, preferably thermonuclear.
According to the mainstream propaganda machine, if you think this sounds like total madness, you must be a “Putin troll”. Unfortunately, this is how the EU/NATO is trying to portray the ongoing crisis, which is why it’s effectively impossible for Russia to find anyone remotely reasonable to talk to in Europe. And they keep proving this each passing day.
Macron insists that the EU/NATO “need to prepare”. It would seem he’s trying to fill the power vacuum as the US is looking to shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom seems to be supporting this initiative, as it falls perfectly in line with its strategy of pushing continental powers against each other.
This is why there have been numerous meetings and conferences in support of not only continuing but also escalating the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. However, conventional capabilities of Western European powers are nowhere near enough to match that of Russia (not even in Ukraine, let alone when the entire Russian military is taken into account).
“I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we have to be ready for that not to be the case,” Macron complained, adding: “France has to recognize its special status – we have the most efficient, effective army in Europe.”
He then stressed that his country “has nuclear weapons to provide to the broader Western alliance if called upon”. Macron went on to explain that he’s considering the possibility of expanding the French nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. He also cited the words of Germany’s (most likely) upcoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who recently stated that he wanted to discuss the possibility of extending French and British nuclear umbrellas to also include Germany.
It should be noted that Berlin already has American nuclear weapons stationed on its territory as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing policy. However, with the recent shift initiated by the new US administration, European member states still loyal to the anti-Trump Deep State seem to be looking for viable alternatives.
“We need reforms, we need to make choices, and we need to be brave,” Macron stated, adding: “[Merz] has called for a strategic debate on providing that same protection to our European allies… whatever happens the decision will be in the hands of the president of the Republic and the heads of the army.”
He also said there will be a meeting of the EU/NATO army chiefs in Paris next week, hinting this could be one of the matters they will be discussing. Besides the US, the UK and France are the only member states who have their own nuclear weapons. It should be noted that this initiative also means that the EU/NATO is fully aware that nuclear weapons are the only way to “even the playing field” with Russia’s conventional military power.
However, what this also means is that Moscow would be forced to respond with its own nuclear arsenal – by far the largest and most powerful in the world. In fact, the difference between the number of thermonuclear warheads in Russia and the US is larger than the combined arsenal of the UK and France (around 500).
London and Paris both have SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), with the latter also operating nuclear-capable aircraft. This is a lower level of deterrence than in countries like Russia, China, India and the US who have nuclear triads (aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles), without even considering the size of Moscow’s strategic arsenal which is upwards of a dozen times larger than the combined Franco-British stockpile.
It’s still unclear what exactly Macron has in mind when talking about extending this arsenal to the rest of the EU/NATO. If he’s talking about replicating (or even replacing) the US nuclear sharing policy, the Kremlin might not react immediately, as this would change little in terms of the strategic balance of power.
However, if Macron wants to deploy these weapons close to Russian borders, this changes the calculus entirely, as it would force Moscow to either reactivate some of the non-deployed warheads or make new ones (if not both, depending on how far the EU/NATO would go). What’s more, the Russian military also operates non-nuclear strategic weapons, specifically hypersonic missiles such as the new “Oreshnik”.
The entire political West lacks remotely similar systems, including the US (which, as previously mentioned, is slowly shifting its strategic focus away from Europe). In other words, the EU/NATO cannot match Russia even on a tactical or operational level, let alone strategic. However, it keeps poking the Bear and pushing for escalation on all three fronts.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech focusing on Russia earlier this week was “highly confrontational,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday, arguing that it signals an intent to further escalate tensions.
In his address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron labeled Russia “a threat” to the EU and called for a significant increase in defense spending to counter the perceived danger posed by Moscow. He also said that France would be prepared to deploy troops to Ukraine should a truce be reached in the conflict.
Commenting on the remarks during a regular press briefing, Peskov stressed that it hardly conveyed a message of peace: “France apparently is contemplating war, a continuation of war.” This stance naturally elicits a negative reaction in Moscow, he suggested.
Macron’s address adhered to the conventional Western narrative portraying Russia as the unprovoked aggressor in the Ukraine conflict and claimed that Moscow has ambitions of conquest in Ukraine and beyond. However, according to Peskov, the French leader selectively ignored crucial events and circumstances that contributed to the current Ukraine crisis.
Among these, he pointed to NATO military infrastructure “encroaching, or rather making seven-mile strides” towards Russia’s borders, creating significant security concerns for Moscow. Peskov stated that Russia had no choice but to respond to this growing threat.
He also refuted Macron’s claims that Russia violated the Minsk Agreements, citing former French President Francois Hollande’s acknowledgment that the West never genuinely intended for them to succeed.
In 2015, Hollande and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel co-mediated a roadmap purportedly aimed at peacefully reintegrating the then-breakaway regions in Donbass back into Ukraine. Following the 2022 escalation, both politicians admitted that the purpose of the accord from the West’s perspective had merely been to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO support.
Peskov also remarked that in 2014 France and other European nations “deceived” then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich by endorsing his power-sharing agreement with Western-backed militants, who violated the deal within hours and forcibly removed the democratically elected leader, all without any protest from Paris.
The EU is currently promoting a substantial military buildup that would cost some $840 billion and be funded through debt. Brussels asserts that European security risks have been intensified by the shift in Washington’s policy under President Donald Trump, who is seeking a resolution to the Ukraine conflict while urging Europe to assume responsibility for future security guarantees for Kiev. Peskov observed that while this does not make the US a friend of Russia, it at least opens avenues for normalizing bilateral relations.
The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.
Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.
The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”
Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
I had the great pleasure of speaking with Karin Kneissl and Alexander Mercouris about Europe’s decline and tendency to double down on failed policies. Kneissl is the former Foreign Minister of Austria. We discussed why NATO’s defeat in the Ukraine proxy war will fragment the alliance, why the Europeans are no longer capable of engaging in diplomacy with Russia, how strategic thinking was replaced with ideological slogans, why unity and democracy within the EU is weakening, and why the economic decline will be difficult to reverse. Removing the dividing lines in Europe and restoring peace with Russia, as the largest state in Europe, would be an important part of reversing Europe’s growing irrelevance. However, the Europeans appear to be preparing for a showdown against Russia instead.
I had the great pleasure to discuss with Judge Napolitano the efforts by Trump to pressure Zelensky into starting negotiations to end the war. Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Zelensky and even cutting military support to push him to the negotiation table. It is very possible that Trump will also start to mount pressure on the Europeans as they are seen to also oppose his peace plan. By cutting military spending, Trump hopes to also deprive Zelensky and the Europeans of the alternative to keep the war going. The war summit in Paris organised by the Europeans demonstrates that they are not able to mobilise the political will and unity required to replace the US. The Europeans also do not have the money or military power to continue the war, yet they do not have the political imagination beyond doubling down on a failed war. If the Europeans continue to resist Trump’s peace efforts, then NATO itself could end up being dissolved.
In the aftermath of the tirade at the White House among President Trump, Vice-President Vance, and Ukrainian President Zelensky, both conservatives and liberals (i.e., “progressives” or leftists) are going ballistic over Trump’s friendly attitude toward Russia. They are pointing out that since at least the end of World War II, the official attitude of the U.S. government has always been that Russia is to be considered a threat to U.S. “national security” as well as an official enemy, rival, opponent, or competitor of the United States. They say that Trump’s positive overtures to Russia are unprecedented.
For example, consider a March 2 article in the New York Times entitled “Trump Is Doing Real Damage to America” by David French, which states that after World War II, “both parties saw the Soviet Union as the grave national security threat it was. For decades, both parties were more or less committed to a strategy of containment that sought to keep Soviet tyranny at bay.” French also suggests that America’s “fundamental identity” lies to this very day in a continued commitment to NATO and a continuous antipathy toward Russia.
French’s mindset is pretty much mirrored in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in a March 3 article entitled “Trump’s Embrace of Russia Rocks NATO Alliance” by Daniel Michaels. The article states: “The American president’s embrace of Russia, an adversary that has worked for years to undermine U.S. global leadership, runs counter to decades of Western policy. The U.S. and its allies founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 75 years ago as protection against Soviet Russia.”
There is one notable omission from both articles, however, an omission that occurs in other articles along these same lines in the mainstream press. That omission is President John F. Kennedy and, specifically, Kennedy’s move toward peaceful, friendly, and normal relations with Soviet Russia and, for that matter, with the rest of the communist world.
Why would members of the mainstream press fail to point out this one important exception to the official policy of perpetual hostility and antipathy toward Russia? After all, they have to be familiar with Kennedy’s June 10, 1963, commencement address at American University — a speech that became known famously as Kennedy’s Peace Speech.
My hunch is that the reason the mainstream press omits this major exception to its official anti-Russia historical narrative is twofold: (1) It would cause them to have to explain why Kennedy was trying to change America’s direction, something that the mainstreamers would prefer not to do and (2) It would cause them to have to address the uncomfortable subject of the JFK assassination, something the mainstream press has always been loathe to do.
By the time JFK delivered his speech, he had achieved a “breakthrough’ that enabled him to see that the Cold War was just one great big racket, one that was not only extremely dangerous but also one that was being used to justify the conversion of the federal government from its founding system of a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a totalitarian type of system in which the federal government wields omnipotent powers, including assassination, torture, and indefinite detention. He had achieved this breakthrough after experiencing the national-security establishment’s perfidy in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, its advocacy of a surprise first-strike nuclear attack on Russia, its infamous Operation Northwoods proposal, and its highly dangerous and irresponsible actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
To get a sense of the dramatic and revolutionary shift JFK was taking America, it is necessary to read or listen to the entire speech, which can be done here. To get a sense of why there was so much anger, hatred, and distrust for Kennedy within the U.S. government and the mainstream press, consider the following excerpts from his speech:
I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation–for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal….
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union….
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland–a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago….
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history–but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
While JFK did not formally declare an end to the Cold War, every official within the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — as well as their Operation Mockingbird assets within the mainstream press — fully understood that that was the import of his Peace Speech. Thus, it is not difficult to see why U.S. officials deemed Kennedy to be a grave threat to “national security.” The president who they considered to be a naive, incompetent, traitorous womanizer was not only taking America down a road to communist defeat in the Cold War, he was also implicitly challenging the need for a totalitarian-like national-security state for America. JFK’s Peace Speech was effectively a declaration of war by the executive branch of the U.S. government against the national-security branch.
Do you see why the mainstream press would prefer to airbrush John Kennedy’s decision to end the Cold War racket and move America toward peaceful and harmonious relations with Russia out of America’s history? If they include that major exception in their official historical narrative, they would have to explain the reasons for Kennedy’s decision as well as delve into the national-security establishment’s motive for eliminating him. They then have to explain how his assassination restored things to “normal” — with the continuation of the Cold War, the war in Vietnam, which ended up sacrificing more than 58,000 American men for nothing, the never-ending support of the Cold War dinosaur known as NATO, and the perpetual anti-Russia mindset that pervades America today.
Now that Zelensky has been battered by Trump and abandoned by Starmer, he can fall back of Europe’s leading diplomat, Kaja Kallas. God help us all.
The earth is still shaking from President Trump and Vice President Vance’s tag team annihilation of Volodymir Zelensky at the White House. The 27 February meeting between Trump and Keir Starmer was a more convivial affair, with the British Prime Minister quiet on Ukraine while promoting the idea of much prized trade talks with America. That was the first signal of the UK getting real about its foreign policy disaster in Ukraine and recognising that it needs trade with America far more than it needs the huge cost of propping up an unwinnable war.
This leaves Zelensky’s fate in the hands of the European Union. And with Kaja Kallas, the current EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the omens aren’t promising.
Kallas’ problem is threefold.
First, she is not diplomatic.
If the biggest foreign policy challenge in Kallas’ in-tray right now is the war in Ukraine, then her ingrained hatred of Russia makes her a singularly bad choice as Europe’s lead diplomat.
Her worldview is carved out of her experience growing up in the Soviet Union the child of a woman who was deported to Siberia in 1949. She looks at Russia through a shattered lens of Estonia’s suffering during the so-called communist terror after the end of World War II.
How she sees events in Ukraine today is simply a continuum of the folklore of her life. Russia is the hated enemy, and, at some point, Russia will return to conquer Estonia once more. In her statements before war in Ukraine started, Kallas reaffirmed her view that Estonia could be the next country that Russia invades. As a NATO country, I have never seen any evidence that Russia has a plan to do this.
Kallas has called for NATO troops to be deployed to Ukraine, to ensure Russia’s total defeat. She has suggested that Russia be broken up into a series of smaller states. She once implied that Ukraine should inflict more civilian casualties on Russian citizens, to balance the number of casualties in Ukraine. Even as President Trump has said that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic, she has continued to push for this to be kept on the table, despite it having been a redline for Russia for nineteen years.
Almost everything that she says is rooted in her unshakeable belief that defeating Russia is vital for the world to become a safer place.
The world is full of extremists, of course. However, she claims to be the leading diplomat of Europe. She seems singularly ill-suited to that role. But will nonetheless still support Zelensky, I’m sure.
Which ushers in her second problem, the absence of a democratic mandate.
Countries that are sceptical about the European project often express concerns about the lack of democratic accountability of EU institutions.
No one voted for Kallas to occupy her office in Brussels. While Zelensky has only been unelected since May of 2024, Kallas will only ever be an unelected apparatchik.
When the European Union’s role was focussed on creating a united economic, social and cultural space among nations after the ravages of World War II, it found peace by opening up borders. However, as it has grown, Europe has become increasingly bureaucratic. Following agreement of the Lisbon Treaty, the creation of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security with a newly formed European External Action Service, continued this centralising trend.
Without any democratic mandate, occupants of the High Representative role have struggled for relevance. Outside of trade policy, individual Member States still manage their own bilateral diplomacy. And as the war in Ukraine has backfired on Europe through economic decline and political dissent, so Europeans countries have sought their divergent paths.
That has left ineffectual figures like Josep Borrel and ideologues like Kallas unable to play the sort of coordinating role that they yearn for.
So, in practice, Kallas’ influence on the actions of Member States is limited, although she has considerable power to cause harm through inflammatory public statements. This is a huge challenge when dealing with countries like Russia, where the leaders there understand fully the limitations on Kallas’ role and ignore her. Instead, Russia focusses its influencing efforts on key EU members states, especially in Central Europe.
Even though Kallas can call for the continued isolation of Russia as support for Zelensky rapidly crumbles, she has no real power to enforce that. She lacks a mandate.
So herein lies her third problem.
Kaja Kallas has no strategy.
There is a huge risk that Kallas is seen as a single-issue High Representative, as her main effort appears to be on the war in Ukraine.
She appears intent only on sustaining the decade-long European zeitgeist on non-engagement with Russia, whatever the economic cost. But in that regard, not only is she not bringing new ideas on foreign policy, her lack of flexibility will make her look out of touch at a time when Europe is facing significant economic and political challenges caused by the war. Arriving into the job in December, Kallas has brought plenty of heat, but no light.
Donald Trump has now arrived heralding a seismic shift in U.S. policy and she still thinks the earth is flat. She has criticised President Trump’s radical shift towards direct engagement with Russia without offering a compelling alternative vision.
The ‘Russia is coming for Europe next’ continues to be the rhetorical life-raft that she clings to as she tries desperately to help the now stranded Zelensky fight to the last Ukrainian.
Kallas is certainly not the author of the EU policy that has tried explicitly to isolate Russia on the world stage. But she has worked tirelessly to keep it alive, together with all the other tropes about how to handle Russia and why an end to the war can never be contemplated.
Of course, that position may have been sustainable while Joe Biden was still in power and the U.S. were arguably more gung-ho about pushing an unwinnable war in Europe.
But Donald Trump’s devastating take-down of Zelensky in the White House will force an immediate reckoning on the European policy establishment about what to do for Ukraine, and for Zelensky. Kaja Kallas has neither the skills, the mandate nor the plan to chart a credible way forward.
I no longer trust “we the people,” because of the powers influencing them. Media and government schooling form their general ideas on reality and governance. Therefore, it’s not a case of the voter choosing the politicians. Instead, the system is conditioning and conforming the voter to the authorities’ desires.
In democracies, the people are kept occupied working and paying taxes, too busy to acquire information outside the approved sources. You will find they know and care far more about the next iPhone than political philosophy. Of those who hold some interest, 95% just toe the party line, holding the same opinion as the primary media source they listen to. They lack both the desire and time to expand their horizons.
Media’s purpose is to conform people’s thought to a preferred goal, which is why Republican and Democratic voters both firmly hold their parties’ general stances, reciting the same talking points. The people do not originate ideas; their thoughts are fed to them by the media so they can consume, digest, and parrot back whatever they are served. When it comes to politics, we rarely think for ourselves. We are told what to think.
Watch PBS, MSNBC and read your local newspaper for six months, and you will receive a particular view and understanding of the world. Then listen to The Mike Church Show, The Blaze, and The Daily Wire, and you will get not just another perspective but a whole different world of facts and events. The world people believe they live in can be entirely different depending on their news sources.
We enjoy seeing the enemy humiliated, which describes why those engulfed in politics love their preferred media sources; they keep returning for more like a drug addict. Networks ensure their “experts” align with the worldview they and their audience desire. The people who watch PBS, BBC, and so forth expect a specific perspective to be presented. Fox News watchers demand the same. In doing this, we both encourage and assure we are misled.
In their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, professorsChristopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, thatvoters do not decide the party platform and agenda. Instead, the parties control the “ideologies” of the voters. When the party the voter identifies with changes its position, the individuals also change theirs. They discovered the individual would quickly adopt the views of their group; they will ignore or change their own opinions over time to fit in with the collective they identify with. Achen and Bartels wrote “group memberships largely drove policy views, not vice versa.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 