The Netherlands nationalizes Сhinese-owned tech company
RT | October 13, 2025
The Dutch government has taken control of a Chinese-owned chipmaker based in the Netherlands, citing risk to the EU’s economic and technological security. The firm called the move “excessive,” saying it complied with all relevant laws and regulations.
The Netherlands Economy Ministry revealed late on Sunday that it had invoked a never-before-used emergency law to take control of manufacturer Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech Technology.
Once part of Dutch electronics group Philips, Nexperia specializes in the high-volume production of chips used in the automotive, consumer electronics, and other industries.
Amsterdam said it wanted to prevent a situation in which Nexperia’s chips could “become unavailable in an emergency” which “could pose a risk to Dutch and European economic security.”
The Dutch government called the move “highly exceptional,” citing “recent and acute signals of serious governance shortcomings and actions” within the company.
Wingtech shares tumbled 10% in Shanghai on Monday, forcing a halt in trading after hitting the daily limit.
The tech firm decried the Dutch government’s move as “excessive intervention driven by geopolitical bias, rather than a fact-based risk assessment,” according to a now-deleted WeChat post, which was archived by the Chinese policy blog Pekingnology. Wingtech said it would take actions to protect its rights and would seek government support.
The company later said in a filing to the Shanghai Stock Exchange that its control over Nexperia would be temporarily restricted due to the Dutch order and court rulings affecting decision-making and operational efficiency.
The Dutch takeover of Nexperia comes at a time of escalating global trade tensions. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the bloc claims is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. China has accused the EU of protectionism.
Last week, China tightened its restrictions on the export of rare earth elements and magnets, a step that could further hurt the EU’s struggling auto industry.
UK Preparing False-Flag Attack in Europe to Blame Russia for ‘Terrorist Plot’ – Russian Intel
Sputnik – 06.10.2025
London is enraged that the UK’s long-standing efforts to achieve a “strategic defeat” of Russia are failing and is preparing a new provocation, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday.
“The Press Bureau of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation reports that, according to information received by the SVR, London is furious that long-standing British efforts to achieve the ‘strategic defeat’ of Russia and turn it into a pariah state are failing. [UK Prime Minister Keir] Starmer’s cabinet and its intelligence agencies are preparing to respond to Russia’s successes in the Ukrainian theater of military operations with yet another vile provocation,” the SVR said in a statement.
London’s plan suggests that a group of Russians fighting on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces is to carry out an attack on a Ukrainian navy ship or a foreign civilian vessel in a European port, the SVR also said, adding that members of the group have already arrived in the UK for training.
“After the terrorists are ‘discovered,’ it is planned to be announced that they were acting on ‘Moscow’s orders.’ London is counting on the fact that the Russophobic European political elite will happily swallow the fake news about ‘malicious Kremlin agents’ to justify the need to further increase military aid to Ukraine and the militarization of ‘united Europe’ to combat ‘Russian aggression,'” the statement read.
The UK plans to supply the group with Chinese-made underwater equipment and present it as a “proof” of Beijing’s support for special military operation, the SVR added.
US should be ashamed of its groundless accusations against China: Chinese envoy
Xinhua | July 26, 2025
The United States should be ashamed of its repeated groundless accusations against China at the UN Security Council this week, said a Chinese envoy on Friday.
Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, rejected the U.S. representative’s accusation against China for the so-called export of dual-use materials to Russia.
“China did not start the Ukraine crisis, nor is it a party to it. China has never provided lethal weapons to any party to the conflict and has always strictly controlled the export of dual-use materials, including drones,” Geng told the Security Council. “We urge the United States to stop shifting blame over the Ukraine issue and creating confrontation, and instead, to make concrete efforts to promote ceasefire and peace talks.”
On Tuesday, the U.S. representative took advantage of an open debate of the council to attack and accuse China over the South China Sea issue. On Thursday, when the council held an open meeting on cooperation between the UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the U.S. representative, once again, started provocation by slandering and smearing China on Xinjiang-related issues.
“Within a single week, the United States has made groundless accusations against China at the Security Council multiple times. This has proved that what the United States cares about is not maintaining international peace and security or promoting the political settlement of wars and conflicts, but rather using this council to attack and suppress other countries and engage in political manipulation to serve its own agenda,” said Geng.
“As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States should be ashamed of and disgraced by its own words and deeds,” he said. “China urges the United States to change course at an early date and engage constructively in the work of the Security Council.”
On the issue of Ukraine, China has been calling for a ceasefire and is committed to promoting peace talks, Geng said, adding that China’s efforts have been widely recognized by the international community.
“For the United States, I would like to say that the international community needs solidarity and cooperation instead of division and confrontation in the face of so many hotspot conflicts and a complex international situation,” he said.
Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025
A change in perception
The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.
In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).
These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.
Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.
Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.
Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.
The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.
This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.
European elections lose political weight
Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.
The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.
A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”
In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.
Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.
The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.
Controlling public discourse
In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.
The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.
A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.
Among the main points of the EUDS are:
- Forced removal of so-called fake news;
- Greater transparency in political propaganda;
- Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”
In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.
Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy
Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.
During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.
Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.
Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.
Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”
Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.
Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.
If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.
The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.
Spreading rumors about ‘Red Sea clash of Chinese warship, German plane’ comes at a high cost for Berlin
Global Times | July 12, 2025
The sensational claim – initiated by the German government and amplified by some Western media – that a Chinese warship used a laser to target a German aircraft has turned out to be entirely false news. In response to a Global Times inquiry on July 10, China’s Ministry of National Defense provided two key pieces of information: first, a Chinese naval task group was conducting an escort mission in the Gulf of Aden at the time and had no operations in the Red Sea, where Germany alleged the incident occurred; second, the Chinese vessels did not activate or use any laser equipment. In short, Germany made a big scene over what was essentially a complete misunderstanding. In its latest response, the German side simply stated it had taken note of China’s statement but insisted it had conducted an “investigation.”
The incident was entirely provoked by Germany, yet no evidence has been made public to show which Chinese warship allegedly “threatened” a German aircraft. As some German media have pointed out, the government simply keeps stressing that the evidence is solid.
It’s not impossible that the German aircraft misidentified something – after all, the German navy last year mistakenly classified a US drone as a hostile target. But if Germany deliberately misrepresented the Gulf of Aden as the Red Sea and tried to dress up a baseless accusation as an “investigation,” then its intentions are clearly questionable.
Germany now owes both China and the international community a clear explanation to several questions: First, why was a Chinese warship operating in the Gulf of Aden suddenly “moved” to the Red Sea by the German narrative? Second, for what purpose did the German aircraft – which was supposed to be monitoring the missiles of the Houthi forces – approach the “Chinese warship”? Third, did Germany verify the situation with China through related channels before drawing its conclusions? Fourth, if Germany claims to be safeguarding maritime security and freedom of navigation, does provoking such a dispute really contribute to peace and stability in the region?
Some analyses suggest that this is a “setup” orchestrated jointly by Germany’s Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs – an incident it deliberately created but did not want to lose control over. However, whether it was a “blunder” or a “setup,” the actual consequence is that the German side’s posturing and media hype have caused real damage to mutual trust between China and Germany.
This familiar pattern – from spreading false claims, hyping the “China threat,” to using it to justify “decoupling” or cutting ties – has played out many times before. History shows it only leaves behind hard lessons for the countries involved. We hope this kind of incident will not repeat in China-Germany relations.
The Chinese Navy’s warships have gone to the Gulf of Aden in an open and aboveboard manner. Our contributions are there for the entire international community to see, and we have never stooped to any hidden or unspeakable agendas. Since 2008, for 17 consecutive years, the Chinese Navy has dispatched escort fleets to conduct counterterrorism and anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden and the waters off Somalia, escorting nearly 7,300 Chinese and foreign vessels in total as of 2024.
In the past, pirates would appear several times a month in these waters. Today, merchant ships still traverse these busy sea lanes, but encountering pirates has become extremely rare, which is unprecedented since the start of the Age of Exploration. If some countries wish to similarly contribute more to regional stability, they should fulfill their own responsibilities. The international community does not wish to see more disputes in this region. China and Germany have no major differences in their overarching objectives here. It would be regrettable if certain “misunderstandings” were to hinder further cooperation.
The Chinese and European economies are highly complementary and deeply intertwined, and Germany, as a leading economy in Europe, should continue to play a constructive role in promoting healthy and stable China-EU relations. A sound China-Germany relationship will not only drive China-EU ties in a positive direction overall, but also carry significant weight for global stability and development. Some analysts now claim that Germany’s new government is pursuing a policy of “maintaining stability while reducing dependence” on China. China and Germany are bound by profound common interests, and such rumors, coupled with the recent “laser incident farce,” risk undermining confidence in both societies.
On Thursday, a spokesperson from China’s Ministry of Commerce summed up China’s kind advice for Europe, saying that China hopes that the EU side will engage in less criticism and more communication, less protectionism and more openness, less anxiety and more action, less labeling and more consultations. We hope the German side will also take this to heart, join hands with China to strengthen strategic dialogue and coordination, and inject more certainty into the world through the stability of China-Germany relations.
Does the AUKUS have a future?
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 3, 2025
The Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS pact exposes deep uncertainties in U.S. commitment and capabilities, offering Australia a strategic opportunity to reconsider its role in the trilateral alliance.
Conceived during the Biden era to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region, the trilateral treaty involving Australia, the UK, and the US appears to have been hit by the Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral defence pacts. Underneath, however, also lie serious problems affecting American ability to live up to the pact’s demands, presenting Australia a rare opportunity to walk away from the pact.
The AUKUS in Disarray
When the Trump administration launched early in June a “review” of the multibillion-dollar AUKUS pact, it sent a shockwave across the Pacific, causing Canberra to tremble. The review announcement, according to the US Department of Defence, is meant to ensure that the pact is properly aligned with the President’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda. In effect, part of it means asking both Australia and the UK to raise their shares of the cost of the programme, which was originally supposed to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia before the allies make a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge research and technology. Both the UK and Australia have thus far not confirmed their readiness to meet America’s demands. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart in early June that the country should increase defence spending to 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, echoing demands that the Trump administration has been making of allies in Europe. But Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said this week that “I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that”. There is, thus, a very clear disagreement affecting the pact.
In reality, this dissonance is not difficult to understand, given that the pact was signed by leaders in all three countries no longer in power. This is particularly the case in the US, where the Trump administration has a credible history of withdrawing from agreed pacts. The first Trump administration, for instance, withdrew from the Iran-nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015–a decision that directly paved the way for the Iran-Israel war and the US recent bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In addition, President Trump also withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after assuming office in 2016. Will the AUKUS be put into the dustbin of history similarly?
Many in the US share this fear. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back the Pact. Their fears are only compounded by the fact that the review is headed by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the AUKUS. In a speech last year, he publicly questioned why the US would give away “this crown jewel asset when we most need it.” In Australia, however, the review means not only a potential end of the pact itself but also an assessment about the extent to which Canberra can rely on Washington to build its defences. If Trump scraps the AUKUS, or even if he significantly alters its provisions, Washington’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region will be majorly diminished.
Facing Practical Problems
For the US, however, what matters more than its standing in the Indo-Pacific region is its capacity to project power in an uncompromising manner. At the heart of the review—which once again is aimed at making the pact properly align with Trump’s America First agenda—are practical problems facing America’s ship building industry. Can America build enough (Virginia-class) submarines for its own use by 2030, i.e., when it is supposed to transfer (some of its) its existing submarines to Australia?
For the pact to work—which is supposed to transfer 18 submarines to Australia by 2040–the US needs to be able to produce at least two submarines every year until 2028 and 2.33 per year thereafter. However, reports show that the US shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, facing workforce shortages and budget constraints, making it problematic to meet sales to Australia and address a production backlog. These challenges have limited production to about 1.2 submarines per year since 2022. Because the US is unable to meet the pact’s demands and because meeting these demands could put Washington’s own strategic needs in jeopardy, the Trump administration might find the pact violating its America First agenda. In that case, the AUKUS might hit the bottom of the Pacific sooner than expected.
Is this bad news for Australia?
If the US withdraws from the AUKUS, does it necessarily mean bad news for Australia? While AUKUS might give Australia access to (used) submarines, the downside of this pact is that it also massively increases Canberra’s dependence on the Anglo-American axis. On the contrary, if the US withdraws from the pact, it gives Canberra strategic flexibility to manage its ties with the US and the EU and China in ways that best serve its national interests. In fact, the second scenario works best for Australia in all possible ways.
The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there is little denying that China and Australia don’t have any direct disputes between themselves, making it highly unlikely that China will ever want to attack Australian territory. On the other hand, Australia can do well to manage its ties with China—which is also its largest trading partner—by further deepening its trade ties with Beijing.
The Trump administration’s decision to review—and possibly scrap or downgrade—the AUKUS could be a blessing in disguise for Canberra. A realistic counter review by Canberra should allow it to pursue alternative approaches.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline
By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 24, 2025
Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.
“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”
Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”
The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.
With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.
The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed that for Ukraine there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will be “largely sidelined” at the summit’s main event. With Biden gone and Trump now in office, Rutte said Europe will work to cover the difference in US spending on the Ukraine war. He added that Europe and Canada have spent $40 billion on the war thus far this year. Washington is still providing Kiev with military and other aid, along with targeting intelligence.
Rutte’s comments also took aim at Tehran, the NATO chief said his “greatest fear” is Iran gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it a “stranglehold” over Israel. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prior to Tel Aviv’s unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was Tehran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel – which is not a party to the NPT – has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated to contain as many as 300 warheads.
The US carried out an illegal act of war, bombing Iran’s internationally safeguarded nuclear energy facilities over the weekend. This is a blatant violation of the UN charter. Trump ordered the massive attack without congressional authorization as required per the US Constitution. When questioned about the legality of the strikes, Rutte proclaimed “I would not agree that [what the US did] is against international law.”
Trump is demanding a $1 trillion US military budget. While Rutte is currently focused on Moscow and fueling the Ukraine war, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth recently boasted he is preparing the American military to defend the island of Taiwan, to “fight and win — decisively” a war with China.
China hits back at US over vilification
RT | June 1, 2025
Washington is “vilifying” Beijing, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Sunday. The accusation follows remarks made by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is deliberately ignoring calls for peace from nations in the region, according to the ministry.
Earlier, Hegseth claimed that China poses a real and potentially imminent threat, and urged Washington’s allies in the Indo-Pacific region to increase defense and security spending.
“Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region and instead touted a Cold War mentality of bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely labeled China a ‘threat’,” the ministry said in a statement.
Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Saturday, the defense secretary accused Chinese authorities of seeking to fundamentally alter the region’s status quo and aiming to “become a hegemonic power.” Hegseth also raised the issue of Taiwan, which relies on the US for its defense – accusing Beijing of preparing to invade the territory.
The Chinese foreign ministry described the comments as “deplorable” and “intended to sow division” in the Asia-Pacific. It emphasized that the only country that “deserves to be called a hegemonic power” is the US, which it accused of undermining peace and stability in the region.
Responding to Hegseth’s remarks on the self-governing island, the ministry reiterated that the issue is entirely China’s internal affair. It stressed that no foreign nation has the right to interfere and warned the US against using the Taiwan issue as leverage against Beijing.
Taiwan has long been a source of discord between Beijing and Washington. While China advocates peaceful reunification, it has warned that any move toward formal independence could trigger armed conflict. Beijing contends that certain elements within the US government are pushing Taiwan toward that outcome.
China has also repeatedly criticized US-led joint military drills in the Indo-Pacific, arguing that they destabilize the region and provoke tensions over Taiwan.
In addition to geopolitical disputes, the two nations are at odds over trade. US President Donald Trump has blamed Beijing for America’s significant trade deficit with China.
In May, both countries agreed to pause the tariff hikes introduced the previous month for 90 days, while maintaining a baseline 10% duty on mutual imports. Earlier this week, Trump accused China of violating that agreement.
UK to step up cyberattacks on Russia and China – minister
British Defense Secretary John Healey © Getty Images / Antonio Masiello
RT | May 29, 2025
London will significantly step up offensive cyber operations against Russia and China, UK Defense Secretary John Healey announced on Thursday following the inauguration of the country’s new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command.
In a statement quoted by The Times, Healey claimed that “the keyboard is now a weapon of war” and said the UK’s new cyber command would coordinate both defensive and offensive operations, including hacking into enemy systems to disrupt attacks and spread of propaganda.
Asked whether this would include Russia and China, Healey responded: “Yes.”
Healey’s statement marks the first time a British minister has explicitly confirmed cyberattacks on other states. While UK ministers had previously confirmed cyber operations against non-state actors like Islamic State, they have not until now acknowledged attacks against other countries.
Healey’s comments come ahead of the publication of a strategic defense review on Monday. According to The Times, the review will stress that cyberattacks on Britain, allegedly being carried out by Russia and China, are “threatening the foundations of the economy and daily life.”
Both Moscow and Beijing have consistently denied accusations of carrying out cyberattacks against Western nations, characterizing the claims as baseless and politically motivated.
Additionally, Russian officials have in recent months repeatedly raised concerns over what they describe as Western Europe’s continued militarization and aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric, said to be in response to the alleged threat posed by Moscow.
The Kremlin has vehemently denied having any hostile intent towards any western country, and has accused European politicians of “irresponsibly stoking fears” to justify increased military expenditures, which Moscow had labeled an “incitement of war on the European continent.”
Are Chinese Soldiers Fighting in Ukraine?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | April 14, 2025
If Chinese soldiers are fighting in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine, that is not the big story. The big story is the effect the claim could have on the possibility of peace.
Ukraine has not yet even proven the months old claim of the presence of North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia on Russian soil. Now they are making the much more provocative claim that Chinese soldiers are fighting for Russia on Ukrainian soil.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on April 9 that the Ukrainian armed forces had captured two Chinese soldiers fighting in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. He then said that Ukrainian intelligence has uncovered 155 Chinese citizens who are “fighting against Ukrainians on the territory of Ukraine” and that they “believe that there are many more of them.”
Independent journalists and organizations have not had access to the two prisoners in order to verify the truth of the claim. Ukraine has provided a video and documents listing names and passport documents. Media outlets have seen them, but CNN and The Independent both say that they have not been independently verified.
There are tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese living in Russia. And even if the captured soldiers are from China, that does not mean they were sent by China. They could have enlisted on their own as mercenaries, a possibility that two former U.S. intelligence officers “with knowledge of the issue” now say U.S. intelligence believes to be the case. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the claim that many Chinese citizens are fighting in the Russian army “totally unfounded,” and said that “the Chinese government always asks Chinese citizens to stay away from conflict zones, avoid getting involved in any form of armed conflict, and especially refrain from participating in any party’s military operations.”
Zelensky, though, has made the provocative claim that the Chinese government is allowing its citizens to fight in Ukraine. Asked whether China had a policy of sending soldiers to Ukraine, Zelensky answered, “I don’t have an answer to this question yet. The Security Service of Ukraine will work on it…We are not saying that someone gave any command, we do not have such information.” However, he added that “[o]fficial Beijing knows about this” and did not prevent it.
Zelensky then escalated the claim, saying, “The Chinese issue is serious” and calling on “the U.S. and the rest of the world for a response.”
It is that threat to the peace process and not the possible presence of Chinese soldiers that is serious and significant. Mercenaries from many countries have been welcomed by both Ukraine and Russia since the beginning of the war. Al Jazeera reports that, not only Chinese, but Nepalese and Indians have fought for Russia. They also report that Colombians, Sri Lankans, Indians and Americans have fought for Ukraine. At least nine Canadians have been killed in Ukraine, and more are known to have fought there. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed in March 2024 that 1,005 Canadian mercenaries have fought in Ukraine. They also claim that 2,960 have come from Poland, 1,113 from the United States, 356 from France and others from the United Kingdom and Romania. Ukraine says their international legion comprises around 20,000 fighters from fifty countries.
More seriously, it is not just mercenaries who have arrived in Ukraine. A leaked March 2023 Defense Department document reveals the presence of 97 NATO special forces in Ukraine. A recent New York Times article reports that more than three dozen military advisers were sent to Kiev and that CIA officers were in Kharkiv and “command posts closer to the fighting.” The British prime minister’s office has confirmed that the United Kingdom has boots on the ground in Ukraine. The presence of French forces has also been revealed, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski confirmed that “NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine.”
Unless the Chinese government has a policy of sending troops to fight alongside Russia in Ukraine, which would be serious, since it could draw China into the war, it is not the alleged presence of Chinese soldiers that is dangerous. At a time when peace talks are at a fragile beginning, and U.S. President Donald Trump is insisting on both sides showing they are serious about peace, it is the provocative statements coming out of Kiev that are potentially serious.
“Russia’s involvement of China, along with other countries, whether directly or indirectly, in this war in Europe is a clear signal that Putin intends to do anything but end the war,” Zelensky said. “This definitely requires a response. A response from the United States, Europe, and all those around the world who want peace.” The suggestion that Putin is not serious about negotiating undermines U.S. led negotiations.
The statements are also ill timed and hazardous. The United States and China are engaged in a trade war. It is a volatile time to provide Washington with a cause for turning up its anger against China. Zelensky intends the presence of Chinese soldiers to evoke an American response. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the U.S. is “aware of those reports” and that “It’s disturbing with the Chinese soldiers having been captured,” though the White House has not confirmed the claim. National Security Spokesman Brian Hughes said that “if the Chinese government is allowing their citizens to fight on behalf of the Russia government, this would be a concerning escalation and the U.S. will consider options moving forward.”
Beyond challenging the peace process, the comments coming out of Kiev are provocative to China, questioning its credibility and its lack of involvement in the war. Equally importantly, it challenges any potential role of China both in the negotiations before the end of the war and in security arrangements after the end of the war: both potentially important roles for China.
Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrii Sybiha, said that “Chinese citizens fighting as part of Russia’s invasion army in Ukraine puts into question” not only “China’s declared stance for peace” but even that it “undermines Beijing’s credibility as a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council.”
If the two captured soldiers turn out to be from China, and if they turn out to be mercenaries fighting without the approval of China, then their presence in Ukraine is not the big story. If the claims being made about them and about China resonate in the White House, then the effect of the claims could make difficult peace talks even more difficult. And that is what the potential big story would turn out to be.
Trump touts record $1 trillion Pentagon budget
RT | April 8, 2025
US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration has approved a record defense budget of around $1 trillion despite an ongoing campaign to cut federal spending.
Trump made the remarks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.
“We are very cost-conscious but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you have a lot of bad forces out there now,” Trump said. “Nobody’s seen anything like it.”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that “we intend to spend every taxpayer dollar wisely – on lethality and readiness.”
The defense secretary under the previous administration of President Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, had proposed increasing the defense budget by roughly $50 billion more than projections for the fiscal year 2026.
In contrast to both Trump and Austin, in February the Pentagon proposed cutting spending by 8% but prioritizing expenditure on technologies such as drones, submarines, and defense operations at the US-Mexico border and operations related to deterring China.
The current US Defense Department budget is $895.2 billion. Despite the vast sums allocated to defense, the Pentagon has failed to pass an audit for seven consecutive years since the procedure was established.
Trump’s pledge for expanded military funding comes as his administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented widespread federal spending cuts. Under DOGE, led by Elon Musk, roughly 280,000 federal workers have been laid off in recent months.
Featured Video
Ukraine & Europe Can’t Out Wait Russia
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Ronald Reagan’s Torture
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | September 8, 2009
The 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, released in August 2009, referenced as “background” to the Bush-era abuses the spy agency’s “intermittent involvement in the interrogation of individuals whose interests are opposed to those of the United States.” The report noted “a resurgence in interest” in teaching those techniques in the early 1980s “to foster foreign liaison relationships.”
The report said, “because of political sensitivities,” the CIA’s top brass in the 1980s “forbade Agency officers from using the word ‘interrogation” and substituted the phrase “human resources exploitation” [HRE] in training programs for allied intelligence agencies.
The euphemism aside, the reality of these interrogation techniques remained brutal, with the CIA Inspector General conducting a 1984 investigation of alleged “misconduct on the part of two Agency officers who were involved in interrogations and the death of one individual,” the report said (although the details were redacted in the version released to the public).
In 1984, the CIA also was hit with a scandal over what became known as an “assassination manual” prepared by agency personnel for the Nicaraguan Contras, a rebel group sponsored by the Reagan administration with the goal of ousting Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.
Despite those two problems, the questionable training programs apparently continued for another two years. The 2004 IG report states that “in 1986, the Agency ended the HRE training program because of allegations of human rights abuses in Latin America.”
While the report’s references to this earlier era of torture are brief – and the abuses are little-remembered features of Ronald Reagan’s glorified presidency – there have been other glimpses into how Reagan unleashed this earlier “dark side” on the peasants, workers and students of Central America. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Showdown loongtip on New York Bans Israel-Linked Te… loongtip on Trump tells India to stop purc… eddieb on The Old Testament and the Geno… papasha408 on Trump’s war posturing against… Coronistan on This is How We Should Have Res… Coronistan on NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODER… Lutz Barz on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Hamas never agreed to lay down… eddieb on Conspiracy Denial eddieb on WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolu…
Aletho News- Sen. Schumer: I Will Continue to Fight to Give Israel All the Aid It Needs
- Epstein Files- Steve Bannon Admits Trump Administration Would ‘Not Cross Sheldon Adelson’ During First Term
- Israel-Palestine head of HRW resigns over blocked report on Palestinians right of return
- Israel to shut water, electricity at UNRWA facilities in occupied territories
- Germany eyes military space spending splurge to counter ‘threats’ from Russia, China: Report
- Power outages in Russian region after Ukrainian attack – governor
- Ukraine & Europe Can’t Out Wait Russia /Alexander Mercouris & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- IRGC drone completes lawful recon mission before contact lost
- Spain announces major social media crackdown
- Newly surfaced Epstein email ties him to Israel–UAE strategy targeting Qatar
- If Americans Knew
- Israel tells Gazans, “smoking is hazardous to your health” – Not a ceasefire Day 117
- The Truth About Gaza’s Dead – Part 1: How We Got Here
- They were forced to hand one son over to the Israeli army in return for another. Eight months later he was dead in prison
- Exclusive: New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country’s critics, according to leaked emails
- AIPAC Gears Up for Midterm Election Cycle With $95 Million War Chest
- Official US gov’t reports contradict Mike Waltz’s rants against UNRWA
- Israel lets just 5 patients out of 20,000 exit Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 116
- Trump Again Bypasses U.S. Congress to Push $6 Billion in Arms Sales to Israel
- One side emerged from a tunnel; the other side killed 31. Both must “exercise restraint” – Not a ceasefire Day 115
- “Leadership Would Like Your Help”: Indian Billionaire Tapped Jeffrey Epstein Before Modi’s Visits to U.S. and Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
Aletho News 