Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Europeans oppose Brussels’ Russian energy ban, survey finds

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 30, 2026

A proposed European Union ban on Russian oil and gas faces broad public opposition across the bloc and mounting legal resistance from member states, according to new survey data.

Research published by Hungary’s Századvég Foundation indicates that a relative majority of EU citizens oppose a full embargo on Russian energy imports. Across the European Union, 45 percent of respondents said they were against a complete ban, while support failed to reach a majority in most member states. In two-thirds of EU countries surveyed, at least a relative majority rejected the proposal. Only Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia recorded absolute majority support.

Opposition was strongest in Central and Southern Europe. In Slovenia, 68 percent of respondents opposed the embargo, followed by Greece at 65 percent. In Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Hungary, 62 percent of respondents rejected the measure, according to the survey.

Despite this, the European Commission has moved ahead with a regulation under its REPowerEU framework that would prohibit new contracts for Russian fossil fuels and impose a complete phase-out by 2027. The regulation was advanced using qualified majority voting, overcoming government opposition from Hungary and Slovakia.

Critics argue that the Commission’s approach raises serious legal and constitutional questions. While the policy would have the effect of a sanction, opponents say it has been presented as a trade measure, allowing it to bypass the requirement for unanimous approval by all member states.

Energy policy and decisions on national energy mixes fall under member state competence under EU treaties, a point repeatedly emphasized by Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who announced on Monday that Budapest would seek to have the regulation annulled.

“Hungary will take legal action before the Court of Justice of the European Union as soon as the decision on REPowerEU is officially published. We will use every legal means to have it annulled,” he said.

“The REPowerEU plan is based on a legal trick, presenting a sanctions measure as a trade policy decision in order to avoid unanimity,” Szijjártó added. “This goes completely against the EU’s own rules. The Treaties are clear: decisions on the energy mix are a national competence.”

The Hungarian government has also warned of significant economic consequences if Russian supplies are cut off. Analysts cited by officials estimate that household utility costs could rise to three-and-a-half times current levels, while fuel prices could exceed 1,000 forints (€2.62) per liter.

Slovakia has announced it will join Hungary’s legal challenge. Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar said Bratislava could not accept solutions that fail to reflect the “real possibilities and specificities” of individual member states, according to comments cited by TASR.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico went further in his criticism, describing the Commission’s plan as “energy suicide” and predicting that “when the military conflict ends, everyone will be breaking their legs, rushing to go to Russia to do business.”

January 30, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

EU labels Iran’s Revolutionary Guard ‘terrorist organization’

RT | January 29, 2026

EU foreign ministers have agreed to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, announced on Thursday.

Kallas announced the decision in a post on X, calling the move “decisive.” Earlier on Thursday, the bloc’s foreign ministers also voted to sanction 15 individuals – mostly law enforcement officials – and six entities accused of “human rights violations” in Iran.

“Repression cannot go unanswered,” Kallas stated. “Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working toward its own demise.”

EU officials have accused the IRGC and the sanctioned individuals of orchestrating a brutal crackdown on anti-government rioters earlier this month. Tehran claims that legitimate protests were hijacked by American and Israeli agents. who attacked security forces and civilians alike in an attempt to provoke a harsh response and justify US military intervention.

Responding to the designation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the EU of “fanning the flames” of conflict, despite the fact that Europe would be “massively impacted by an all-out war in our region.” He called the move a “PR stunt” and labeled Brussels “an actor in severe decline.”

The EU designation was initially opposed by several nations, including France, Italy, and Spain. They argued that blacklisting the IRGC – an official branch of the Iranian military – would sever critical diplomatic channels with Tehran.

Kallas dismissed these concerns, telling reporters that “the diplomatic channels will remain open even after the listing of the Revolutionary Guards.”

Iran will likely respond in kind. In 2023, after the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for the IRGC’s blacklisting, Iran’s parliament drafted legislation that would designate the armed forces of all EU member states as terrorist organizations.

The IRGC has also been labeled a terrorist group by the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Iran responded to the US designation in 2019 by applying the same label to US Central Command (CENTCOM).

US President Donald Trump has moved what he calls an “armada” of warships to the Persian Gulf. On Wednesday, Trump urged Tehran to “make a deal” on the future of its nuclear program, or face a “far worse” attack than that on its nuclear facilities last summer.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that Tehran is willing to negotiate, but that Iranian forces have “their fingers on the trigger” to respond to any US aggression.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

European Union Sanctions Russian Journalists and Artists

teleSUR | January 29, 2026

On Thursday, the European Union adopted sanctions against six Russian citizens working in journalism, acting or dance, arguing that they contributed to amplifying “Russian propaganda” about the special military operation in Ukraine.

The new restrictive measures for what the EU described as Russia’s “destabilizing activities” were approved at a meeting of EU foreign ministers.

Those sanctioned include Ekaterina Andreeva, a news anchor for Russian state television, and Dmitry Guberniev, a television host and adviser to the director of the Rossiya television channel and to the Russian Federation’s sports minister.

Also sanctioned were Maria Sittel, another Russian state television presenter, and Pavel Zarubin, who has what the EU described as “exclusive access” to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s agenda.

Finally, the list includes Roman Chumakov, a Russian actor and singer, and Sergey Polunin, a Russian ballet star born in Ukraine and former rector of the Sevastopol Academy of Choreography.

Individuals and entities targeted by the restrictive measures are subject to an asset freeze and will be barred from entering or transiting through European Union territory.

Separately, EU foreign ministers on Thursday continued preparations for a 20th package of sanctions against Moscow since the start of the Ukrainian war, with the aim of having it ready in February, when the war will enter its fourth year.

The 20th package — for which the European Commission still must present a proposal — will include additional measures aimed at hitting the Russian economy, including provisions targeting the so-called “Shadow Fleet” that helps Moscow circumvent restrictions on its oil exports, as well as other economic actors.

The debate over the shadow fleet is not limited to which additional vessels should be added to the blacklist, but also to how to address the phenomenon in a much broader way.

In particular, officials are examining how to use national rules and regulations on boarding ships and contacts with the countries under whose flags the vessels are registered.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Davos, Mark Carney’s frankness, and the Euro-American rift

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 29, 2026

One of the defining factors of the era beginning from the second half of the 20th century is the partnership between the USA and Europe – initially only Western Europe, eventually most of the old continent. But “partnership” is perhaps an imprecise term. The ideal term would probably be “occupation,” since, as defined by Lord Ismay, NATO was created to “keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down.”

In the meantime, Europeans grew accustomed to an automatic alignment with the USA, quite similar to that of Ibero-American countries during the same period, with the exception of the brief period when Charles de Gaulle distanced his country from NATO. Otherwise, the Atlantic Alliance gradually absorbed European countries.

The confusion is such that when speaking of “Western civilization,” most people think of Europe and the USA together, not only as expressions of the same civilization but as possessing identical fundamental and strategic interests. The Davos Forum or World Economic Forum can be thought of as the “celebration” of this civilizational alliance, an event bringing together political, economic, and societal leaders from around the world to discuss the priorities to be adopted in the coming years.

Historically, the USA and its representatives have always been prominent at the Davos Forum in all discussions, whether on environmental issues, the supposed need to censor the internet, or the social transformations considered necessary to deal with the 2020 pandemic crisis or future health crises. It was a space for consensus and planning among the North Atlantic elites.

However, Trump’s antagonistic stance towards the countries of the European Union inevitably significantly changed the atmosphere of Davos this time.

The pressures and demands for the cession of Greenland, including the threat of using military force, ultimately became the driving force of interactions among the elites. Naturally, at this moment, EU countries would not be capable of mounting significant military resistance to the USA in Greenland. But the increase in European military presence on the Danish-owned island seems to serve simply as the drawing of a red line.

And despite Mark Rutte rushing to try to find some sort of compromise with Trump on the Greenland issue, the reality is that Trump’s mere threat and pressure against his supposed allies was enough to leave scars. In other words, no matter how timid and cowardly current European leadership may be, to the point of yielding time and again, European distrust and ill-will towards the USA is still likely to increase.

Perhaps it is even necessary to look at other sectors besides the political summit. Among intellectuals, think tanks, journalists, and influencers, it seems easier to find tougher and more critical positions regarding the USA, as well as less willingness to reconcile, than among national political leaders.

“Anti-Americanism,” once a central plank for both nationalist and socialist parties in Europe but fallen into disuse after the Cold War, may end up becoming an important discursive topic again in this era of rising diverse populisms.

To a large extent, the speech by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, can be seen as a reasonable summary of the current geopolitical moment.

Throughout his speech in Davos, Carney emphasized that for decades, Canada and most Western countries remained aligned with the so-called “rules-based international order,” even considering it partly fictional; still, it was a useful and pleasant fiction. The other Western countries knew that these rules were not applied equally to all countries, and that stronger countries were practically exempt from most of their regulations. Everything in that order depended on who was the “accused” and who was the “accuser.” Different countries, engaged in the same actions, such as suppressing civilian protesters, for example, would receive different treatment depending on who their leaders and governments were: some would receive no more than a symbolic slap on the wrist, others would be bombed and have their heads of state executed in sham courts.

And these Western countries were satisfied as long as the bombed countries were African or Arab or, occasionally, some Slavic country like Serbia. This was because, for a few countries, that order allowed them to collect benefits in the form of capitalist extractivism.

Now, however, the international order has ended. It does not even survive as a farce – according to Carney himself. Faced with a series of crises, many countries began to perceive global integration more as an Achilles’ heel than as an advantage. Goods might have been cheaper, but what good is the theoretical availability of cheaper products when, in times of crisis, they become inaccessible, as during the health crisis. Or when sanctions simply make trade relations unviable for targeted countries.

For Carney, therefore, some countries have decided to transform themselves into fortresses, primarily concerned with ensuring their own energy, food, and military autonomy. And one of the basic consequences of this change is the decline of multilateral organizations. International courts, the WHO, the WTO, the World Bank, and various other bodies are increasingly ignored and disdained by regional powers – in the case of countries outside the “Atlantic axis,” because they consider the influence of the USA and its allies in these bodies too great; in the case of the USA, because, on the contrary, they consider that these bodies do not sufficiently serve US national interests.

This parallel and crosswise dissatisfaction is natural, to the extent that international institutions only ever served the USA and its hegemony insofar as that hegemony was the best tool for gradually constituting a “world government,” that “New World Order” proclaimed by George H. W. Bush.

The consequence of this process of collapse of globalist multilateralism is that international relations have come to be dominated by force. Most medium-power countries are not prepared to deal with this new and sudden reality. Moreover, it is naive to simply condemn the current situation and hope for a return to the “good old days” of a “rules-based” international order where the rules do not apply equally to everyone.

Carney also makes a suggestion for these medium-power countries to deal with the current international situation: strengthen bilateral relations with countries of similar mindset and orientation, building small coalitions of reasonably limited scope, aiming both to eliminate possible economic weaknesses and to enhance security mechanisms.

Naturally, Carney is specifically referring to strengthening Canada-EU relations, but, to some extent, we can also apply this kind of reflection to those counter-hegemonic or non-aligned countries that are not continental powers like Russia, China, and India. The case of Venezuela demonstrated that it is, in fact, necessary to be prepared to deal with US aggressiveness.

Countries like Brazil, despite its size and the importance given to it in international relations, lack nuclear weapons and sufficiently modern military forces to effectively protect itself against a focused and determined military action. Naturally, Brazil should seek to solve these deficiencies (and, indeed, the debate on “Brazilian nuclear weapons” has already begun in political, military, and social circles), but no significant change will be seen in the short term – which is why Brazil actually needs to develop other ways to guarantee its own security that do not depend on simple servility to the USA.

It would be fully in Brazil’s interests to lobby, within BRICS, for increasing the “security” dimension of the coalition. Still, we doubt that the current Brazilian administration has any interest in this, or even that it understands the need for such a radical transformation. In the absence of this initiative, at the very least, Brazil should seek to update its military, intelligence, and radar technology with the help of Russian-Chinese partnerships. But on a regional level, Brazil needs to strengthen its ties with other South American countries and begin, subtly, to try to attract them and remove them from the US orbit.

In short, the mere fact that we are discussing these needs, instead of naively betting that international forums created on Western initiative will be enough to defend us, already proves that we are already in a new and dangerous world.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

More Bombs, More Talks Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Plan

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive

Prof Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Davos and Abu Dhabi: How the Ukrainian Endgame Exposed Western Decline

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – January 28, 2026

While Russia, the United States, and Ukraine quietly negotiated in Abu Dhabi, Davos revealed Europe’s real position in the emerging world order: excluded from decision-making yet burdened with the costs of war and peace alike.

The 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos will likely be remembered less as a forum for global coordination than as a public autopsy of the Western-led international order.

What emerged in the Alpine setting was not coherence but fragmentation: rhetorical excess, strategic confusion, and an unmistakable sense that the world has already moved beyond the frameworks still defended—often ritualistically—by Euro-Atlantic elites.

Three speeches captured this moment with particular clarity: those of Volodymyr Zelensky, Mark Carney, and, less noticed but arguably most consequential, Chinese Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang (represented in the Davos debate through He Lifeng’s economic message).

Zelensky and the Public Humiliation of Europe

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech was striking not only for its confrontational tone but also for its intended audience. His criticism was not primarily directed at Russia or even the United States, but bluntly at Europe. He accused the European Union of strategic indecision, military weakness, and an inability to guarantee Ukraine’s security, reiterating that Europe “still does not know how to defend itself” and remains structurally dependent on Washington.

Mocking Europe’s symbolic troop deployments to Greenland and its delayed reactions to crises such as Iran reinforced Zelensky’s humiliation of Europe.

This rhetoric can be understood as a final reckoning — an all-or-nothing move in which he burned all bridges and launched a frontal attack without regard for the consequences. By Davos, Kyiv was already aware that negotiations over the territorial concessions of the war were being discussed in Abu Dhabi between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine without European participation.

Zelensky’s speech thus functioned as political coercion aimed at Europe as the remaining actor capable of paying the price of a settlement. By publicly framing Europe as weak and morally indebted, Zelensky attempted to transform guilt into leverage in the final phase of negotiations.

This interpretation is reinforced by reporting in the Financial Times, which revealed that Ukraine’s willingness to consider territorial concessions is conditional upon accelerated EU membership, potentially by 2027. In domestic political terms, this trade-off allows Zelensky to reframe territorial loss as civilisational gain: Ukraine does not lose land; it “joins Europe.”

The bill, however, is addressed to Brussels.

Europe’s Astonishing Response

The European reaction to Zelensky’s speech in Davos bordered on political self-abnegation. Despite being publicly criticised, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Ukraine’s “heroic struggle” and emphasised Europe’s material commitment rather than responding to the substance of Zelensky’s accusations.

This asymmetry—verbal humiliation met with renewed rhetorical loyalty—reveals a deeper structural problem: Europe’s inability to translate financial power into strategic agency.

Dissent has nevertheless emerged at the national level. Italian politicians, including Rossano Sasso and Matteo Salvini, openly criticised Zelensky’s “ungrateful” tone and questioned continued military and financial support.

Such reactions reflect mounting domestic pressures linked to inflation, energy costs, and war fatigue, documented extensively by Politico and the Kiel Institute.

Yet these voices remain fragmented, and Europe as a collective actor continues to display what can only be described as strategic paralysis.

Mark Carney and the End of the Rules-Based Illusion

If Zelensky exposed Europe’s weakness, Mark Carney articulated its anxiety. His Davos speech openly acknowledged what had long been implicit: the so-called “rules-based international order” is no longer operative—and perhaps never was. Carney framed the current moment as a rupture, arguing that “middle powers” such as Canada and European states must now navigate a world no longer structured by predictable norms but by power, leverage, and economic scale.

Carney’s concept of “value-based realism” deserves close scrutiny. On the surface, it appears as an attempt to reconcile normative language with geopolitical adaptation. In substance, however, it represents an effort to preserve Western managerial influence within a system that has already shifted towards multipolarity. Sovereignty, in Carney’s formulation, is diluted into “managed multipolarity,” administered by the same financial and institutional elites that dominated the previous order.

This is precisely why his discourse fails to resonate in the Global South. For emerging powers—particularly within BRICS—the collapse of the Western order is not a tragedy to be managed but a long-awaited correction. Carney’s speech, far from acknowledging this, sought to repackage decline as stewardship.

That it reportedly irritated Donald Trump is unsurprising: Carney implicitly rejected American unilateralism while simultaneously refusing genuine systemic change.

China and the Silent Centre of Gravity

The most consequential intervention in Davos was arguably not Western at all. Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng articulated Beijing’s strategic priority with remarkable clarity: China is positioning itself to become the world’s largest consumer market, making access to Chinese demand the central axis of future global trade.

This message, echoed by analysts such as Pepe Escobar, signals a structural shift in the global economy: dependence is moving eastward.

Unlike Carney’s rhetorical manoeuvres, China’s position was grounded in material capacity: industrial scale, domestic demand, and long-term planning. For much of the Global South, this represents opportunity rather than threat. For Europe, however, it underscores marginalisation.

Abu Dhabi Decides, Europe Pays

The trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi marked a geopolitical turning point. While Europe has committed close to €200 billion in support to Ukraine, it was excluded from negotiations shaping the war’s end.

This exclusion is not accidental. Both Washington and Moscow increasingly view Brussels as incapable of strategic compromise, bound instead by ideological rigidity and proceduralism.

Europe thus faces a brutal dilemma: continue financing a war it does not control, or finance a peace settlement that fundamentally alters the EU through accelerated Ukrainian accession. Neither option strengthens European sovereignty.

Granting Ukraine some lite-sort of membership by 2027—without completed accession chapters—would transform the EU’s budgetary, agricultural, and cohesion policies overnight. Yet postponement risks indefinite financial haemorrhage. As the Financial Times and Reuters have noted, peace may ultimately be cheaper than perpetual war, even if politically uncomfortable.

Conclusion: Europe as the Weakest Link

Davos revealed a system speaking past itself. Zelensky spoke from desperation and tactical clarity. Carney spoke from elite anxiety. China spoke from structural confidence. Europe, by contrast, spoke in platitudes.

The irony is stark. Europe funds Ukraine, absorbs the economic shock, and bears the political consequences—yet is excluded from decision-making. In Abu Dhabi, values were absent, and strategy was outsourced. When the deal is announced, Europe may discover it was not a negotiator, but a guarantor of last resort.

The tragedy is not merely Europe’s weakness, but its refusal to acknowledge it.

Ricardo Martins is a Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

G7 Hands Ukraine $40Bln Generated From Frozen Russian Assets

Sputnik – 28.01.2026

The G7 issued $37.9 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2025 using income from Russian assets, which is more than 70% of foreign financing for the Ukrainian budget, Sputnik’s calculations revealed on Wednesday.

Under a 2024 G7 plan, a $50 billion loan for Ukraine was approved, funded by proceeds from frozen Russian assets. As of December 31, 2025, $38.9 billion of this sum had already been allocated.

At the end of 2024, the United States was the first to transfer $1 billion, but since then, no further payments have been reported. The EU was the largest contributor to the scheme, providing Ukraine with $21.1 billion in loans. The remaining funds came from Canada, the UK, and Japan.

Apart from the G7 loan, Ukraine was handed an additional $12.1 billion from the EU, $454 million from Japan, $912 million from the International Monetary Fund, and $733 million from the World Bank in 2025.

In total, the Ukrainian budget raked in $52.1 billion from foreign creditors last year, 73% of which came from the G7 loan.

With the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, EU and G7 members froze nearly half of Russia’s foreign currency reserves, totaling approximately 300 billion euros ($360 billion). Around 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets are held in European accounts, primarily at the Belgium-based securities depository Euroclear. The European Commission has been pressing EU members for the green light to use these frozen Russian assets to bankroll Kiev’s war machine.

The Kremlin has cautioned that any attempts to confiscate Russian assets would amount to theft and be in violation of international law.

Following a summit in Brussels on December 19, 2025, the EU opted to abandon its plans temporarily to seize Russian state assets and instead agreed to extend a 90-billion-euro loan to Ukraine from the EU budget. However, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic refused to shoulder any responsibility for the loan.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine expects to join EU next year – Zelensky

RT | January 27, 2026

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is calling for his country’s accession to the EU by next year. The idea has already raised hackles among some member nations.

In an X post on Tuesday, Zelensky said he had discussed the recent Russia-US-Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi with Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker. The negotiations primarily focused on military matters, but also touched on security guarantees, he said.

“Ukraine’s accession to the European Union is one of the key security guarantees not only for us, but also for all of Europe,” he wrote. “That is why we are speaking about a concrete date – 2027 – and we count on partners’ support for our position.”

Just days earlier, Stocker told the press that he opposed rushing Ukraine’s bid.

“I’m not a fan of the fast lane. The admission criteria must be met,” he said, adding that the “conditions should be the same for everyone.”

Fast-tracked membership for Ukraine is reportedly part of a US-backed $800 billion reconstruction ‘prosperity’ plan that was privately circulated to EU member states by the European Commission last week.

The document gave EU leaders pause due to the way it formally linked Ukraine’s accession to its reconstruction process, rather than due to its massive cost, according to Politico.

Last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban slammed the proposal, which he said calls for the EU to provide Ukraine with €800 billion for the country’s reconstruction and a further €700 billion for military needs over the next ten years.

“Hear me now, loud & clear: Hungary will NOT pay for this,” he wrote on X.

He has also nixed the idea of letting Ukraine join the EU, arguing that no Hungarian parliament would vote for accession “in the next hundred years.”

Orban has long stood against Ukraine’s bid, arguing that accession would put the bloc at risk of direct confrontation with Russia.

Moscow has long said that it is not opposed to Ukraine joining the EU. However, Kiev’s ambition to join NATO is a red line and one of the core causes of the current conflict, according to Russia.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Here’s what’s behind the US shift on EU allies

The age of institutions is ending, the age of force is back

By Fyodor Lukyanov | Russia in Global Affairs | January 27, 2026

Even invoking international law has become awkward. Institutions look increasingly irrelevant as political and economic processes unfold demonstrably outside them.

This reaction is understandable. The latest targets of actions that violate the UN Charter and other legal norms are leading Western states, the very countries that dominate the global information space. When similar violations affected others in the past, they were treated as regrettable but secondary. The blame was placed on the moral or political shortcomings of the countries involved, including the victims, rather than on a systemic crisis.

Now the system itself is visibly eroding.

The United States has not only discarded conventions; it has begun applying this approach to its own allies. These are partners with whom it once negotiated as equals, or at least as trusted dependents. Decisions are made as if by divine mandate. The result has been consternation in Western Europe and even accusations of betrayal.

Washington is dismantling the world order it once built and led, an order many already regarded as flawed. Since transatlantic ties formed the backbone of the liberal international system, revising them has become a priority for the United States.

After the Cold War, the balance of power was clear. The US and its allies exercised dominance, enforced a single set of rules, and extracted the political and economic “rent” that came with global leadership. But shifts in global power and structural problems in the capitalist system have reduced those benefits while increasing the costs of maintaining hegemony.

The Biden administration represented a final attempt to repair the old model. Its goal was to recreate an ideologically unified and politically invincible West capable of leading the rest of the world – through persuasion when possible, coercion when necessary. That effort failed.

The new slogan is “peace through strength,” paired with “America First.” This approach is now enshrined in key doctrinal documents, including the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Power – not only military, but financial, technological and political – is placed at the center of policy. The only real constraint is America’s own capacity.

If the previous era was described as a “rules-based order,” the new one might be called a “precedent-based order.” Actions create precedents, and those precedents justify further actions. However, these precedents apply primarily to the United States. Others may behave similarly only when it suits Washington’s interests. The right of other states to act “the American way” is not rejected in principle, but it is tolerated only when they are strong enough and do not challenge US priorities.

This logic extends to allies, who now find themselves in an especially uncomfortable position. Under the previous system, they benefited greatly from American patronage. Chief among these benefits was the ability to minimize their own strategic spending by delegating responsibility to the United States. Washington encouraged this arrangement because it supported the functioning of the global order it led.

Today, what was once portrayed as mutually beneficial partnership is increasingly viewed in the US as an unprofitable subsidy. Washington wants to recover past costs and avoid future burdens. This abrupt shift has shocked its allies, but from a strictly material perspective, the reasoning is not irrational. Even a future change of administration is unlikely to reverse this basic reassessment of alliances.

Against this background, the Board of Peace solemnly announced in Davos can easily be dismissed as Donald Trump’s personal ornament. Yet it is revealing. In a world defined by power, those who lack it must compensate by offering something to those who have it.

The most effective offering is financial tribute, hence the billion-dollar contributions. If that is too costly, enthusiastic displays of loyalty may suffice. Membership in such a body appears to function as a form of political insurance: protection from the chairman’s displeasure.

For large, independent powers, participation is almost impossible. A structure in which rights are explicitly limited by the founder’s will, and where procedures remain unclear, contradicts the very idea of sovereignty. Whether or not the Council works in practice is secondary. Its symbolic meaning is clear: recognition of the White House’s supremacy.

The Trump administration understands that the world has changed and is searching for ways to preserve, or even expand, American advantages. Other major players in the emerging multipolar order must do the same, but in their own interests and according to their own logic.

If Washington openly advocates rational egoism grounded in power, others have little reason not to draw their own conclusions.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

France and EU clash over UK missiles for Ukraine – Telegraph

RT | January 27, 2026

France has clashed with several EU nations over a proposal that would allow Ukraine to use an EU-backed loan to buy British Storm Shadow missiles, The Telegraph reported on Monday, citing diplomatic sources. Paris has consistently pushed for preferential treatment for the EU’s military industry on procurements destined for Kiev.

In December, EU leaders approved a €90 billion ($107 billion) loan to cover Kiev’s military needs and budgetary gap, with spending rules that prioritize EU-made weapons before allowing purchases from outside the bloc. According to The Telegraph, a coalition of 11 capitals has now proposed loosening the rule so Ukraine can more easily buy weapons such as Britain’s long-range Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which are in short supply.

France, however, has emerged as an “obvious opponent” to the plan, a diplomatic source told the newspaper. The outlet noted that Paris is the center of the EU’s drive for “strategic autonomy” amid concerns about overreliance on US defense after a rift with Washington over its controversial push to acquire Greenland.

Under the current design of the €90 billion loan, spending on weapons would follow a four-layer procurement cascade that prioritizes Ukrainian producers first, then EU defense firms, followed by partner countries such as the UK, with suppliers outside Europe – including the US – treated as a last resort, according to the article. Ukrainian officials have reportedly estimated that around €24 billion of equipment this year will have to come from suppliers outside the EU.

A diplomatic source told The Telegraph that the aim of Britain and its partners was to keep the system “open enough for the UK” to ensure that reaching the third layer of the cascade “is not so hard.”

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte earlier warned that the EU loan should not be constrained by “buy European” rules, while acknowledging the bloc “cannot fully supply everything Ukraine needs to defend itself today and deter tomorrow.”

Moscow has condemned Western arms supplies as prolonging the conflict, while Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has suggested that the €30 billion portion of the EU loan earmarked for Ukraine’s budget support would be embezzled by local officials.

January 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU member to sue bloc over ‘suicidal’ ban on Russian gas

RT | January 27, 2026

Slovakia will sue the EU over the bloc’s decision to entirely ban the import of Russian gas by late 2027, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Tuesday. He branded Brussels’ move “energy suicide.”

A day earlier, the member nations voted to give their final approval to the REPowerEU regulation, as part of an effort to gradually phase out imports of natural gas from Russia by November of next year.

“We will file a lawsuit against this regulation at the Court of Justice of the EU,” Fico said at a press conference, calling the looming ban the finalization of the bloc’s “energy suicide.”

“It is a solution that was adopted solely out of hatred towards the Russian Federation. I reject hatred as a trait that should determine international relations,” he added.

The EU vote was approved by a qualified majority to bypass the need for unanimous approval in a way that contravened the core treaties of the bloc. The commission knew that if unanimity was required, such nonsense could not pass.

Slovakia and Hungary will lodge separate lawsuits but coordinate their positions further, Fico said.

According to Budapest, the vote was specifically run in such a way as to bypass Hungary’s and Slovakia’s opposition on a matter that pertains to their national interests.

EU divided over phasing out Russian energy

“The REPowerEU plan is based on a legal trick, presenting a sanctions measure as a trade policy decision in order to avoid unanimity… The [EU] Treaties are clear: decisions on the energy mix are a national competence,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto wrote on X shortly after the vote.

EU moves to cut off Russian gas – who will pay the price?READ MORE: EU moves to cut off Russian gas – who will pay the price?
Both Hungary and Slovakia, which are heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, have previously warned that they could sue if Brussels plows ahead with the REPowerEU plan.

Moscow has warned that the bloc is essentially giving up its freedom by banning all Russian gas imports.

“They did give up their freedom anyway,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Monday. “Time will tell” whether EU member nations will be “happy vassals or miserable slaves,” she said.

January 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

New US defense strategy downgrades Russian ‘threat’

RT | January 26, 2026

The Pentagon has downgraded the alleged threat level from Russia in its newly released US National Defense Strategy.

A similar document issued under the previous administration of President Joe Biden in October 2022, less than a year after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, described Moscow as an “acute threat.”

But the updated defense strategy, published by the War Department on Friday, referred to Russia as “a persistent but manageable threat to NATO’s eastern members for the foreseeable future.”

The document also stressed that Moscow “possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, which it continues to modernize and diversify, as well as undersea, space, and cyber capabilities that it could employ against the US Homeland.”

It said the fighting between Moscow and Kiev has proven that Russia “retains deep reservoirs of military and industrial power,” as well as “national resolve required to sustain a protracted war in its near abroad.”

However, according to the Pentagon’s assessment, Moscow is “in no position to make a bid for European hegemony. European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.”

The document said that the US will “continue to play a vital role in NATO” and “remain engaged in Europe,” but from now on it will “prioritize defending the US Homeland and deterring China,” echoing the White House National Security Strategy published in October.

Despite Europe having “a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power,” NATO members on the continent are “strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense, with critical but more limited US support,” according to the strategy.

The EU and UK should also be “taking the lead in supporting Ukraine’s defense,” the Pentagon stressed. It also reiterated the stance of US President Donald Trump that the conflict between Moscow and Kiev “must end.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin opined last October that the Trump administration is guided by American interests, which he called a “rational approach.”

“Russia also reserves the right to be guided by our national interests. One of which, incidentally, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States,” he stressed.

January 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries