EU’s support for Zelensky brings Washington-Brussels relations to the brink of collapse
By Ahmed Adel | March 4, 2025
Following the reactions of European leaders to the on-camera spat at the White House between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, relations between the US president and much of the European Union establishment are reaching a breaking point. The EU establishment has firmly sided with Zelensky and his warmongering policies, contrary to common sense and the peace efforts of Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
On March 2, an informal meeting of European leaders and Canada was held in London. Following the meeting, it was announced that Ukraine would receive more military aid and sanctions on Russia, territories would be returned to Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, with other nations, would form a military coalition to get boots on the ground.
By reacting the way they did, EU leaders have once again shown that they are undermining peace, just as then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did when he sabotaged the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in early 2022. However, just as Johnson was not punished for prolonging death and war in Ukraine, it is unlikely that EU leaders will ever be held accountable for their actions, especially German, Polish and Baltic politicians, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and many others in Brussels who agree on a policy of aligning with Zelensky and anti-Trump policies.
Following the spat between the US and Ukrainian presidents, European leaders sent messages of solidarity with Kiev. Many European leaders posted a uniform message on their social media accounts that they “stand with Ukraine.”
A sign of the growing rift between Washington and Brussels, particularly after the chaotic meeting between Trump and Zelensky, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said: “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”
It is also recalled that during his visit to the White House on February 24, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to deceive Trump and drag him down a path the US president did not want to take. It became clear to Trump that he could not count on European politicians.
If it was not clear following the meeting with Macron, it certainly became clear to Trump when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a guest in the Oval Office on February 27, particularly after US Vice President J.D. Vance blasted Britain’s descent into authoritarianism and lack of free speech.
It is expected that in the coming period, there will be very strong obstructions from the EU to any agreement between Trump and Putin. There will also be such obstructions within the US, especially from the remnants of the Deep State and the mainstream media that are still critical of Trump and loyal to ultraliberal policies. The very core of the EU – the European Commission, the leadership of the European Council, the majority in the European Parliament, as well as the leading EU leaders are also of the same view, which is opposite to the rest of the world that advocates for peace.
The EU itself is divided into states that supported peace efforts and distanced themselves from Brussels—primarily the political leaderships of Slovakia and Hungary, but also the leaders of the second-largest party in Germany, the AfD, Marine Le Pen in France, and the leaders of other sovereigntist parties across Europe.
European leaders have not changed their support for war since an attempt was made to end the conflict under conditions that were even more favorable for Kiev at the time. Now, as Trump highlighted in his meeting with Zelensky, Ukraine does not “have the cards right now.”
“You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump said to a shocked Zelensky.
Of course, Zelensky denied Trump’s statements, stuttering, “I’m not playing cards” and “What are you speaking about?”
The US president’s main priority is normalizing relations with Moscow, including ending the conflict in Ukraine. Normalization will remain a priority even if the Kiev regime and European leaders do not agree to it.
Nonetheless, it appears that parts of Europe have not yet given up on the Trump administration, like Kaja Kallas has. Starmer announced on March 2 that Britain, France, and Ukraine have agreed to work on a ceasefire plan to present to Washington.
“We’ve now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we’ll discuss that plan with the United States,” Starmer told the BBC.
This was followed by Zelensky announcing on the same day as Starmer’s statement that he was “ready to sign” the minerals agreement with Trump.
However, given the EU’s growing hostility to Trump and resistance to peace, the US president has little incentive to take the Franco-Anglo peace plan seriously since they have been harbingers to continue the war. Trump will continue pursuing a peace plan, even if it intensifies hostility between Europe and Washington.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
US puts firewall to protect Ukraine deal with Russia
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 3, 2025
The verbal shootout at the Oval Office last Friday brought out President Vladimir Zelensky’s fury that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine, while the conclave in Lancashire House in London on Sunday involving 18 European leaders messaged that Zelensky is in good company.
Connecting the dots, the incisive mind of Stephen Bryen, a leading expert on security, strategy and technology who previously held senior positions in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, wrote on Substack: “Trump invited [French president] Macron and [UK prime minister] Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to [Chinese president] Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.
“Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign… The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.”
In the event, Trump could neither brief Zelensky on the Ukraine deal nor sign the “Minerals Deal” because the Ukrainian president took great exception to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. The result was there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky, “he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.”
This is where things stand. The strategy session that Trump is due to take later today with his top advisors will signal what happens next. There is a strong likelihood that Trump may cut off arms deliveries and/or financial assistance to Ukraine.
Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, Trump is unlikely to change course on Russia — unless, of course, Zelensky falls in line in abject surrender, which seems unlikely too. Russians of course welcome his ouster.
It is highly unlikely that Trump will be cowed by the temper tantrums of the EU or impressed by Britain’s grandstanding. Germany is without a government for the next several weeks; it weakens the Europeans’ punch.
Indeed, the back channel communication between Moscow and Washington has gained traction. Moscow assesses that Trump has the upper hand. This is reflected in the growing optimism in Putin’s remarks last Thursday while addressing the Board of the Federal Security Service (collegium of Russia’s top foreign intelligence officials.)
Putin began by saying that the world and the international situation are changing rapidly and “the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes.”
He said: “There is a reciprocal commitment [with Trump] to work to restore interstate relations and to gradually address the enormous amount of systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture which once provoked the crises in Ukraine and other regions… Importantly, our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.”
Putin estimated that conditions exist for a dialogue “on bringing a fundamental solution to Ukraine crisis… a dialogue on creating a system that will truly ensure a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of the security of other countries, definitely not Russia.”
However, Putin also flagged that sections Western elites “are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue” and, hence it is vital that “every possibility offered by dialogue and special services to thwart such attempts” needs to be leveraged.
Indeed, the New York Times disclosed today that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia “as part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia.” Equally, reports have appeared that Putin has given similar instructions restraining the Russian agencies.
What lends enchantment to the view is that many of the US’ most sophisticated operations against Russia are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II. Suffice to say, the US seems to be cutting itself free from longstanding joint operations with Britain directed against Russia.
A Guardian newspaper report has separately corroborated the Times disclosure of a shift in the US policy. It added that the warming of US-Russia relations is apparent also in certain recent other incidents which indicate that the US is “no longer characterising Russia as a cybersecurity threat.”
The paper claimed that analysts in the super secret Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) of the United States spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity that they were “verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.”
Quite obviously, a crisis of confidence has arisen in the US-UK “special relationship” — or, to put it differently, the Trump administration is taking steps to sequester the Cisa from rogue operations.
There is a Cold War history of rogue operations by spy agencies. One of the most celebrated cases was the incident on 1st May, 1960 when an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers flying [‘unbeknownst’ to Eisenhower] at an altitude of 80,000 feet was shot down over Soviet air space triggering a diplomatic crisis that caused the collapse of a summit conference in Paris between then US president Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — and the sudden death of the two leaders’ closely nurtured dream of détente.
An analogical situation exists today. Both Washington and Moscow are conscious of it. The need for such a veil of secrecy around the high level dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is self-evident. There are too many detractors in the collective West who won’t settle for anything short of a Russian defeat in Ukraine and would rather keep the war going.
In such a fraught scenario, on the Russian side, the Kremlin’s writ ultimately prevails despite whatever dissenting voices exist in the military-industrial complex or amongst super hawks with revenge mentality. But that is not the case in the US where remnants of the old regime still hold sensitive positions, as the Guardian report vividly brings out. In the final analysis, therefore, it may well turn out that — to quote Stephen Bryan — Trump “will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.”
Sen. Lee, Rep. Massie, Musk Call for US to Exit NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 2, 2025
A pair of Republican lawmakers voiced their support for the US exiting the North Atlantic Alliance. Following a heated White House exchange between President Trump and President Zelensky last week, many members of the bloc voice their support for Ukraine and Zelensky.
On Saturday Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) posed on X, “Get us out of NATO.” He was commenting on a pie chart that showed the breakdown of defense spending by members in the Cold War-era alliance. According to the chart, US military spending is 70% of total defense spending in NATO. The 2024 military budget for the US was $895 billion.
The second highest spender is the UK at $70 billion.
The US has long subsidized the defense of the NATO alliance. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, only seven of the bloc’s 30 members met the alliance requirement of spending 2% of GDP on the military. In 2024, NATO projected that 23 of 32 members would meet the minimum spending level.
Posting in support of Sen. Lee, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wrote, “NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be relegated to a talking kiosk at the Smithsonian.”
NATO was founded in 1949 with 12 members. After the fall of the USSR, the bloc has slowly expanded eastward across the continent to include former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics.
Moscow has complained that NATO expansion presented a threat to Russia. While Brussels claims that the bloc is a defensive alliance to protect its members from aggressive attacks, NATO has waged war in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Libya over the past three decades.
On Sunday, Trump adviser Elon Musk wrote on X, the platform he owns, “I always wondered why NATO continued to exist even though its nemesis and reason to exist, The Warsaw Pact, had dissolved.”
The day before, he responded “I agree” to a post that said, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.”
The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 2, 2025
When western pundits resist efforts to bring an end to fighting in Ukraine, they never provide an alternative vision of what they would do differently.
A respected associate of mine asked me today if a ceasefire and peace process in Ukraine would simply embolden China and Russia to further aggression.
This is a line oft repeated among the majority of politicians, journalists and so-called academics in the west, who are opposed to an ending of the war. ‘We can’t stop the war, because if we do, China will invade Taiwan and Russia will invade Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.’
My view, for what it’s worth, is that an end to the war in Ukraine might embolden China longer-term over Taiwan in particular. I’ve seen no evidence that it will embolden Russia to invade NATO, precisely because Russia sees itself, in large part, as a country of Europe, even if it has been excluded.
However, and critically, if both China and Russia were so emboldened, then should we not ask ourselves how we have ended up in this position?
Russia’s decision to go to war was driven by a belief that it’s core strategic interests in preventing NATO expansion to its border via Ukraine was being ignored, and that it was subject to permanent sanctions with no possibility of removal through any concessions it might make.
That’s my opinion and one I know that many ‘realists’ share.
But, in any case, the ‘what next’ question should have been considered as part of a longer-term strategic assessment when western nations pushed the NATO enlargement agenda.
We have known since at least 2008 that this was a redline for Russia.
Did we expect Russia’s position to change and if so, how? If Russia’s position did not change, how far would we go to advance Ukraine’s NATO aspiration, including through direct military confrontation?
I’m not aware that those questions were ever asked or, if they were, considered rather than dismissed. And I was at the heart of British government decision making from the latter part of 2013, before the Ukraine crisis started (and must therefore accept some of the blame).
Without the United States, a war in Ukraine was never going to be sustainable for Europe, financially, politically or militarily.
Yet no one thought this through. Or, if they did, they didn’t factor in the eminent risk of America doing an about face on policy one day, as is now happening.
With America now withdrawing, sustaining a losing war in Ukraine rather than calling a halt to the killing cannot be considered a legitimate strategy if its only goal is to avoid losing face.
That makes us look weaker and more feckless.
If other states are now emboldened by the failure of western policy in Ukraine, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid an end to the bloodshed now.
Our self-righteousness indignation to peace is merely a figleaf covering the deflated genitals of our policy failure.
The west so badly mishandled relations in the eight years between the flashpoint of the Maidan and the start of war, not thinking through the consequences.
Russian actions and reactions in Ukraine have always been predictable.
They were predictable in February 2014.
They were predictable in February 2022.
They were predictable in February 2025.
We were never going to fight for Ukraine.
I have heard senior British Ambassadors say that we were never going to fight for Ukraine. And we are the most hawkish nation in Europe.
Why were we never going to fight?
Because it would never be possible to ensure that the 27 nations of the EU or the 31 nations of NATO would come to a collective agreement to fight.
Someone would always block fighting.
Compromises would be made.
We would pursue a lowest common denominator. That led us to a sanctions-only approach.
As I have said many times before, in the game of geostrategic chess, President Putin always knew that large, chattering teams of politicians around the table couldn’t outmanoeuvre him.
In fact, they would take weeks and months just to agree on the meaning of pawn, let alone whether to move it on the board.
We lost through indecision and have yet to learn the lesson.
You can’t fight wars by committee. But you can make peace in a group.
As Albert Einstein said, ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. That is seen by some as the source of the misattributed saying, ‘the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different result.’
As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach.
They are not introducing new ideas to up the ante, if that is what they want to do. In fact, I don’t know what they want to do, because they’ve been saying exactly the same things for three years and I am epically bored right now.
The problem here, is that neither are they advancing a credible argument against ending the war.
Their position seems to be, the war is bad, it’s all Russia’s fault and if we give in now, Russia will be emboldened to strike elsewhere.
Their defensive position is held together by straplines not substantive arguments.
In a recent speech, the veteran U.S. Democrat politician Bernie Sanders said,
‘Russia started the war, not Ukraine,
Putin is a dictator, not Zelensky.’
While I am sure he may believe that it’s just another banal outburst, intended more to rail against the political leaders in his own country, rather than to bring peace in Ukraine.
Of course, people view the origins of the war differently and people are entitled to their views.
Debate on the war in Ukraine has become reduced to ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ with voices of reason and realism in the west, like mine, stifled by the mainstream.
But we will never reach a position in which there is a universally accepted view of who was at fault and who was not.
Instead, let’s try to accept that every side in this conflict takes some share of the blame, be that Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., UK and everyone else.
Let’s have a frank but polite discussion about a way forward.
President Trump has advanced a new policy proposition that engagement and dialogue is vital if we are to bring an end to the fighting. British and European leaders can’t continue unchallenged, carrying on as if the world hasn’t changed.
They need to come up with genuinely new and constructive ideas, rather than continuing to say the same things. And reengage in dialogue with Russia.
Trump gives Zelensky bum’s rush and flushes the European ploy to escalate war against Russia
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2025
After his mauling from President Trump live on TV and then being booted out of the White House, Ukraine’s Zelensky immediately phoned European leaders.
That reaction shows that the Ukrainian actor-turned-president had flown to Washington from Kiev not to merely sign a supposed minerals deal with the U.S., but to inveigle Trump into a trap to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
No doubt there is consternation and alarm among the Europeans that their agenda for prolonging the war against Russia is in disarray. Worst still, a furious Trump may now cut Ukraine loose and leave it completely at the mercy of Russia.
European leaders are huddling in London on Sunday for an emergency meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Zelensky is to attend and be showered with European expressions of support and billions more of taxpayer money. Incredibly, they still champion the impudent conman as a “Churchillian hero”.
The fallout in the Oval Office on Friday was a sordid spectacle. Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, tore into Zelensky under the full glare of TV cameras for daring to make more demands for U.S. security guarantees as part of a deal giving American companies access to Ukraine’s alleged mineral wealth, including oil, gas and rare earth metals.
The meeting started cordially, but Trump refrained from giving specific “security guarantees” to Ukraine. Zelensky’s sniveling insistence on getting explicit U.S. commitments for military support following any peace deal with Russia triggered Trump and his officials to rebuke the Ukrainian leader for wrangling in public and not being respectful.
After their fireside fireworks, an incensed Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush. No minerals deal was signed and Zelensky left Washington empty handed. That’s not the end of it either. Trump later told reporters that Zelensky is not welcome back until he is ready to make the peace with Russia.
Trump was astute to the attempted rumble. He told reporters on the White House lawn following the slap-down of Zelensky: “We want peace. We’re not looking for somebody to sign up a strong power and then not make a peace deal because they feel emboldened. That’s what I saw happening. He wants to fight, fight, fight. I am not looking to get into anything protracted.”
Zelensky’s immediate phone calls to French President Emmanuel Macron and the NATO chief Mark Rutte after the White House fiasco is the big reveal here.
Days before Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday, European leaders had lobbied Trump for U.S. security guarantees as part of any peace deal with Russia.
Macron met Trump on Monday. On Thursday, it was Starmer’s turn to ingratiate with Trump. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas was also in Washington. Significantly, her meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was abruptly called off “due to scheduling issues.”
The main objective for Macron and Starmer was to extract a commitment from Trump for a military “backstop” in Ukraine to beef up their proposal to deploy French and British troops under the guise of “peacekeepers”.
The British wanted American “air cover” for their troops, according to the BBC.
Both Macron and Starmer were palmed away with vague nothings despite the bonhomie and compliments, and a British sweetener from King Charles to invite Trump on a royal visit.
Trump’s diplomatic overture to Russian President Vladimir Putin, beginning with a phone call on February 12 followed by a high-level meeting of U.S. and Russian diplomats in Saudi Arabia on February 18, has sent shockwaves across the European NATO members.
They feel aggrieved that Trump is going to make a peace deal with Putin without them. The Europeans are still beholden to the propaganda narrative of the previous Biden administration about “defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine from Russian aggression.”
Trump wants out of the extravagant mess in Ukraine. He recognizes that the conflict was always a proxy war with an ulterior agenda to defeat Russia. Hundreds of billions of dollars and euros have been wasted fueling a futile proxy war that, as it turns out, Russia is decisively winning.
Marco Rubio, the U.S. top diplomat, disclosed in an interview to CNN after the Oval Office spat, that a European foreign minister had told him that “their plan” was to keep the war in Ukraine going for another year in the hope that it would eventually “weaken Russia” and make Moscow “beg for peace.”
The callousness of the Europeans and their Russophobic obsession are grotesque. The three-year conflict in Ukraine has cost up to one million military deaths, millions of refugees across Europe, and broken economies, not to mention the danger of it turning into World War Three.
Sneakily, the Europeans are covering their desire for continuing the proxy war with a belated apparent concern for making peace and backing Trump’s diplomacy.
Macron and Starmer ostensibly commend Trump (after initially being in a flap over this call with Putin) and they talk about “finding a path to a lasting peace.”
However, their seeming offer of deploying French and British soldiers as “peacekeepers” is a Trojan Horse that has nothing to do with keeping the peace. For its part, Moscow has categorically stated that any NATO troops in Ukraine will not be acceptable and will be attacked as combatants.
That is why Macron, Starmer and other European leaders were so insistent on trying to get Trump to give “security guarantees”. The so-called American military “backstop” would be a way to escalate the proxy war against Russia.
Zelensky was in Washington on a mission to beguile Trump into giving a security guarantee while dangling the bait of a lucrative minerals deal.
It was reported that the Trump White House wanted to cancel the meeting for Friday before Zelensky departed from Ukraine on Thursday. But Macron intervened and implored Trump to go ahead with the reception.
Zelensky, having got used to being indulged with endless blank checks, thought he could wheedle more out of Trump than just a mining deal. He was expected to extract the direct U.S. military involvement that the European Russophobic leaders want. In that way, the proxy war would escalate and those riding the war-racket gravy train would continue to extort the world’s biggest security crisis.
Fortunately, Trump gave Zelensky the bum’s rush and flushed out the European ploy.
The irony is that Trump had earlier in the week lavished praise on Macron and Starmer, exalting France for being America’s “oldest ally” and Britain for its “special relationship”. Trump might want to radically revise those cliched notions.
German factories counting on return of Russian gas – Bloomberg
RT | March 1, 2025
Key German industrial leaders have expressed their desire to see Russian gas return to Europe once a resolution to the Ukraine conflict is found, Bloomberg has reported.
Chemical and manufacturing sector representatives argue that affordable energy is crucial for Germany’s economy to recover, the agency wrote on Friday.
European gas prices surged after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Pipeline gas imports from Russia mostly ceased due to sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. Nevertheless, EU nations have still been buying record volumes of Russian LNG, the cost of which has nearly quadrupled in three years, according to Eurostat.
Christian Gunther, managing director of the Leuna chemical park, emphasized that bringing back Russian gas would be a logical step if peace is achieved. “We must ensure the damage caused by this conflict is repaired,” he told Bloomberg, adding that resuming deliveries “would be the logical consequence.”
In 2021, Russian pipeline gas accounted for 32% of the total demand of the EU and UK, while Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its consumption, according to the European Council and Statista. Since cutting ties with Russian energy, the EU has turned to expensive LNG imports, primarily from the US. The shift has driven natural gas prices on the continent to their highest levels in two years, prompting discussions in Brussels about price caps. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has warned that soaring energy costs could cripple the EU economy.
The EU’s latest sanctions package, introduced on Monday, tightens restrictions on Russian energy but stops short of banning LNG imports. Gunther earlier criticized Germany’s energy policy, pointing out the inconsistency of banning Russian pipeline gas while still importing LNG.
Bloomberg reported that Sven Schulze, the economy minister of German’s Saxony-Anhalt state, believes permanently excluding Russian gas “would be a mistake.”
US President Donald Trump has been urging Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, warning that failure to do so could result in the loss of American support. On Friday, during a heated meeting at the Oval Office, Trump reportedly told Zelensky to leave the White House and return when he was ready to pursue peace.
Ukraine refused to extend its gas transit contract with Russia’s Gazprom beyond 2024, further reducing EU access to Russian pipeline gas. The only remaining supply flows through the TurkStream pipeline via Türkiye and Greece.
“We need peace to reopen pipelines, ensure supply security, and lower prices,” said Manuela Grieger, former chair of the workers union InfraLeuna, told Bloomberg. The EU has pledged to phase out Russian energy by 2027. Germany’s Economy Ministry insists that independence from Russian gas remains a priority for the country.
The Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle is Exploding
Reviewing the Four Pillars of the Biden years
By John Leake | FOCAL POINTS | February 26, 2025
Back in September 2023, I posted a report about an American transgendered woman named Sarah Ashton-Cirillo who claimed to be a soldier and an official spokesman of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces. She was in the news because of a publicized spat she had with then Senator JD Vance of Ohio, who has made an inquiry to determine is Sarah Ashton-Cirillo really is an official English language spokesman for the Ukrainian TDF. She really was.
Vance became aware of Ashton-Cirillo after he saw a video of the spokesman announcing that journalists who disseminate Russian propaganda will be hunted down and killed. In this video, she proclaims:
Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia’s war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served.
In response to Senator Vance’s query, Ashton-Cirillo posted yet another video in which she proclaimed her support of the First Amendment, but hastened to add that reporting Russian propaganda was not protected by the First Amendment.
Back then I posed the question: Who adjudicates what is Russian propaganda and what is merely critical reporting of the Ukrainian government and its U.S. government supporters?
The question touched on something I have frequently written about on this Substack—namely, the strange rise of ORTHODOXY in recent years.
There are, we are told, certain major issues in which Orthodox—that is, official U.S. government and MSM representations—cannot be questioned or criticized. Those who do question these orthodoxies will be censored, censured, or—if Ashton-Cirillo has her way—hunted down and killed.
The top four orthodoxies back in 2023 were what I called the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle. They were:
1). COVID-19 vaccines are saving mankind. Anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is guilty of heresy.
2). The U.S. proxy war in Ukraine is a sacred mission and no negotiated settlement with Russia shall be countenanced. Anyone who criticizes the Ukrainian and U.S. governments, and any attempt to understand the war from the Russian point of view, is guilty of heresy.
3). Human induced climate change will soon destroy the earth if trillions aren’t spent to overhaul our entire energy policy. Anyone who questions this proposition is guilty of heresy.
4). The concept of biological sex is a mere “construct.” Skilled surgeons and endocrinologists can transform a boy into a girl or vice versa. Anyone who questions this assertion is guilty of heresy.
As I noted back then, the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle was an orthodoxy of fanatical, obscurantist insanity. I am pleased to report that, less than two years later, it appears that the doctrine is exploding.
EU’s Kallas blasts Trump over ‘Russian talking points’
RT | February 28, 2025
The European Union’s top diplomat has suggested that US President Donald Trump has adopted Russian narratives about the Ukraine conflict. Kaja Kallas also expressed concern over Washington’s supposed drift away from its long-time European allies.
Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and former Estonian Prime Minister (2021-2024), is known for her hawkish views on foreign policy.
In an interview with the media outlet Axios on Thursday, she said it had been “uncomfortable” to hear Trump and other senior US officials “repeating Russian narratives and talking points” in recent weeks.
“The statements made towards us are quite strong. The statements regarding Russia are very friendly. It is a change,” Kallas observed. She claimed that if Russia is allowed “back around the international table like nothing has happened,” more armed conflicts will follow, and not only in Europe.
The diplomat also insisted that while US officials are free to “talk with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin all they want… in order for any kind of deal to be implemented, they need the Europeans.” Failure to include the EU and Ukraine in negotiations would prevent any agreement from being implemented, Kallas argued.
Both the bloc’s representatives and officials from Kiev were excluded from the US-Russia negotiations held in Saudi Arabia earlier this month. Washington and Moscow have argued that no other parties were invited because the talks centered on first restoring bilateral relations.
Kallas also balked at criticisms regarding the state of democracy in the EU voiced by US Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference – a speech praised as “brilliant” by Trump. “I refuse to accept that criticism, because it’s just simply not true,” she said.
On Monday, the diplomat similarly remarked that “if [we] look at the messages that come from the US, then it is clear that the Russian narrative is there, very strongly represented.”
Last week, she warned Washington against walking “into the Russian traps,” alleging that Moscow had emerged as the “winner” from the talks in Riyadh.
In recent weeks, Trump has made several critical remarks toward the Ukrainian leadership, characterizing Vladimir Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” and suggesting that Kiev bears responsibility for letting the hostilities flare up in 2022. While the US head of state has since somewhat toned down his comments, a marked departure from the policy course pursued by his predecessor, Joe Biden, remains evident.
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The EU in Panic as Peace May Break Out
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2025
I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Sachs after his speech at the European Parliament. How did we end up in a position where the EU has become the leading actor to oppose diplomacy and negotiations, and instead aims to prolong a war that devastates Europe and cannot be won? How did the Europeans reach a consensus on absurd notions such as Russia should not have a say in where NATO expands, and that the Europeans cannot sit down and talk to Russia without Ukraine? Professor Sachs attended the Istanbul negotiations in early 2022, but why are these negotiations now largely absent in the EU’s war narrative?
Putin invaded Ukraine ‘to stop NATO’, alliance chief tells EU
Jeffrey Sachs’ Full Address
America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.
Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.
Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.
Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?
The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.
Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.
It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?
Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.
That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.
Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.
It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.
Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.
What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.
Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.
The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.
Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.
Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.
How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.
In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.
The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.
It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.
So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.
Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.
Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.
If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.
It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.
The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.
Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.
Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.
Merz adopts nationalist rhetoric to legitimize his anti-Russian plans
New German leader may be more bellicose than his predecessor
By Lucas Leiroz | February 26, 2025
The European sovereignty agenda is being hypocritically used by liberal leaders to fight Donald Trump’s policies. In Germany, the potential new chancellor is publicly advocating for Berlin’s “independence” from the US. Although such independence is indeed necessary, European liberals have anti-sovereign intentions in adopting these agendas.
Friedrich Merz is indicated by preliminary data as the winner of the German parliamentary elections. Leading the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Merz is expected to receive around 28,5% of the vote, becoming the country’s prime minister. His victory means that Germany will continue to be governed by a warmongering and anti-Russian political elite, with no significant change in Berlin’s foreign policy.
Merz, however, often seems to have an even more aggressive stance than Olaf Scholz. He has made it clear that he does not intend to engage in dialogue with Russia, which represents a setback for Germany, since Scholz himself, who is one of the most warmongering leaders of the EU, had taken the initiative to talk directly to Trump.
The possible new German chancellor has also been harshly critical of the US and Donald Trump. He has described American interference in European affairs as “outrageous” and “dramatic”. Merz believes that Trump is indifferent to Europe, not caring about the stability of his own allied countries. For this reason, he has called on Germany to achieve “independence from the US”, freeing itself from the negative external influence of Washington.
“The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic, drastic, and ultimately outrageous than the intervention we saw from Moscow (…) The Americans, at least those in the current government, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe (….) (Germany must) gradually achieve independence from the US (…) I would have never thought that I would have to say something like that on a TV show,” he said.
It is curious to see pro-war European leaders using this kind of narrative, since the struggle for European sovereignty contradicts the entire Western agenda advocated by the EU. It seems that the liberal politicians of the European bloc are trying to change their rhetoric towards the US just to react to Donald Trump’s nationalist and isolationist policies.
It is impossible to talk about sovereignty in Europe and support the continuation of the war against Russia at the same time, since NATO’s anti-Russian campaign was supported by the EU precisely in a gesture of subservience to Washington. The anti-Russian economic sanctions, for example, were imposed by the US and adopted by the Europeans even though it has been proven that such measures harm European strategic interests.
Europe has been harmed in all areas of its economy and diplomacy since the beginning of the special military operation. If it had adopted a sovereign and neutral stance, respecting Russia’s right to protect its people in the neighboring country, Europe would have avoided the serious economic crisis it is currently experiencing.
Without sanctions and preserving its strategic ties with Russia, the EU would have become a relevant power in the multipolar world. However, instead of acting sovereignly, European liberals have taken all sorts of irresponsible actions, dipping the continent into an unprecedented crisis.
Until then, there was almost complete alignment between all American and European decisions, but now this situation has changed. Trump fulfilled his promise to resume diplomatic dialogue and simply excluded the belligerent European countries from the talks. EU leaders are outraged by such an American decision – not because they feel their sovereignty is being compromised, but simply because they are against ending the war with Russia.
Europeans and Americans are falling out of alignment simply because Europeans do not agree with the American decision to pursue diplomacy and peace. By speaking of “German sovereignty,” Merz is not advocating the historical struggle of Europeans to end American influence. He is simply saying that Germany must continue to fight Russia regardless of American involvement.
It is possible to say that liberals are trying to co-opt a nationalist rhetoric typical of European conservative groups. The aim is to use the genuinely sovereigntist sentiments of ordinary Germans and Europeans to legitimize the advancement of an even more “globalist” and anti-sovereigntist agenda – which internationally materializes in even more military interventionism, aid to Ukraine and escalation of hostilities against Russia.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Featured Video
The Destruction of Libya in 2011
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
On Herd Mentality
By Jeb Smith | April 14, 2026
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, professors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, that voters 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
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Indonesia Agrees to Receive Oil, Gas Supplies From Russia – Indonesian Energy Ministry
- Saudi Arabia Urges US Back to Iran Talks as Other Oil Routes Face Risk
- Iran demands reparations from Arab states
- Tankers transit Strait of Hormuz amid US attempt to impose blockade, data shows
- US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
- EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- If Americans Knew
- Mighty Israel wants all of its neighbors to be defenseless – Daily Update
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 