The European Union has just released a new sanctions package intended to impose “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”.
Among the people slapped with EU sanctions is Jacques Baud, a retired colonel in the Swiss army; former strategic analyst, intelligence and terrorism specialist, solely for his position and analysis of the war in Ukraine.
The EU accuses Baud of being “a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes” and being a “mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda” and claiming he “makes conspiracy theories, for example, accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO.”
The EU accuses him of being “responsible for, implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference” and imposed sanctions on him, solely because his position differs from NATO’s and the EU’s on the Ukraine war.
The outlet Switzerland24 noted that the sanctions on Baud, “provide for the freezing of the assets of sanctioned persons, a ban on entry into the EU and a ban on making funds available to them”.
Commenting on this, Alfred de Zayas, a former UN expert, noted, “We are witnessing a civilizational collapse with the EU sanctioning Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss colonel and intelligence officer, for publishing books and articles expressing views on the Ukraine war contrary to those of the NATO leadership.”
In reality, Jacques Baud’s position, as laid out in his article, “The Military Situation In The Ukraine” from April of 2022, is that, “the dramatic developments we are witnessing today (in Ukraine) have causes that we knew about but refused to see”, including
The expansion of NATO
The fact that NATO expansion led to the Ukraine war has been acknowledged by multiple Western officials.
U.S. diplomat George Kennan, said as far as 1997 that NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era” adding that it would, “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking”.
In 1998, George Kennan said that NATO expansion was “the beginning of a new cold war” and said, “the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies”.
In 2008, when NATO first invited Ukraine and Georgia to join, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, said, “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests” adding, “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.
Most recently, Amanda Sloat, a top Biden administration official for European affairs admitted that, “We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done” adding that promising no NATO membership for Ukraine “certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life”.
David Arakhamia, one of the lead Ukrainian negotiators during the Istanbul talks of 2022 also said, “Russia’s goal was to put pressure on us so that we would take (NATO) neutrality. This was the main thing for them: they were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality, as Finland once did”.
The Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements
Similarly, the fact that the West blocked the Minsk accords in 2019, the peace agreement that would have ended the civil/proxy war in Eastern Ukraine that sparked after the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup, is well documented.
As former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted, “Zelensky is not an unreasonable guy, he got elected as a peacenik, in 2019 he tried to do a deal with Putin, as far as I can remember, his basic problem was that the Ukrainian nationalists couldn’t accept the compromise”.
What Johnson was referring to as the NGO Finnish Peace Defender documented was that,“While President Zelensky is trying to follow commitments given to his electorate and international obligations in implementation of the Minsk Agreements, he has to overcome obstacles placed by irregular armed groups who identify themselves as patriots of Ukraine” including “open threats and blackmail by far-right military circles in Ukraine, including the National Corps led by Andrii Biletski”.
Instead of backing Zelensky in implementing the Minsk Accords, Western-funded NGOs sided with the far-right nationalists in blocking them.
Ukranian-Canadian academic Ivan Katchanovski has documented, “The Western governments and foundations, such as Soros foundation, funded all but one of about two dozen Ukrainian NGOs, which initially issued in 2019 a collective statement that any talks with Donbas separatists were impermissible after the head of the Zelenskyy’s presidential administration supported creation of a consulting group with representatives of the separatist-controlled Donbas during the Minsk negotiations.”
The continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years, and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
Indeed, while blocking the Minsk Accords, the Trump administration- trying to prove it was not controlled by the Russians as the media claimed based on the Russiagate hoax- approved sending lethal arms to the Ukrainian government in 2017 and 2019, which increased the civilian casualties on the pro-Russia side of the Donbas conflict.
Jacques Baud, in his article, cites a UN report which found that there were 381 civilians killed in the conflict between 2018 and 2021 and that 81.4% occurred “in territory control led by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’”, the pro-Russian separatist side.
Jacques Baud concluded that, “we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out”.
One is free to agree or disagree with Jacques Baud’s perspective, but the reality is, it is not a “conspiracy theory” or “information manipulation” but a fact-based analysis on the Western policies that led to the war in Ukraine, which is shared by well-respected foreign policy analysts, including John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs and Noam Chomsky.
The EU’s claim that Jacques Baud accuses “Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO”, appears to be a reference to the fact that Jacques Baud has cited a 2019 interview with the Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych where he said the best case scenario for Ukraine was “a large scale war with Russia and joining NATO as a result of defeat of Russia”, saying that currently, “NATO would be reluctant in accepting us”, but defeating Russia would lead to Ukraine joining NATO.
Again, directly quoting a Ukrainian government official is hardly a “conspiracy theory”.
Furthermore, it is blatantly undemocratic and authoritarian for the EU to slap sanctions on someone solely because he has a critical perspective on Western and EU foreign policy.
While the EU pushes for the continuation of the Ukraine war based on the principles of “democracy” and “freedom”, they blatantly disregard democracy and freedom in order to crack down on critics of this policy.
Since the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022, the European Union has spent €168.9 billion on military and financial support for Ukraine, according to figures from the European Commission. This amount is even more striking when compared to other areas of spending.
With all that money, the 27-nation bloc could finance public spending on education for an entire fiscal year in France and still have €32 billion left over, cover Germany’s entire target defense budget for 2026 (€108.2 billion), and pay for almost half of the total budget allocated by the European Commission to respond to regional crises for the period 2028-2034 (€395 billion).
However, Brussels has preferred to look outwards and pursue a foreign policy with a Euro-Atlantic vision, which has led to internal fragmentation of interests, exploited by the European elites who lead the bloc.
A group of European countries —mainly Poland, the Baltics, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—though the latter is not a member of the EU—is interested in prolonging the conflict in Ukraine for as long as possible. For them, for the elites who govern them, losing Ukraine would mean confronting their own internal problems.
Maintaining the discourse in favor of the Kiev regime and against supposed external threats is a way of preserving some cohesion in the face of the economic and political failures the EU has experienced over several years.
The Ukrainian crisis is a heavy burden for Brussels without US support, a reality under President Donald Trump. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that, between September and October, the EU allocated only around €4.2 billion in military aid to Ukraine, a figure that is far too little to compensate for the loss of US aid.
At the same time, the gap within Europe has widened: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have significantly increased their allocations, but Italy and Spain, among many other countries, have made only a negligible contribution.
Leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are among those who have most promoted a belligerent policy regarding Ukraine, to the point of continuing to support Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is embroiled in several corruption scandals. These are leaders who are deeply discredited, both regionally and locally, in their own countries.
Merz and Macron can no longer achieve internal consensus within the EU, and this is eroding their credibility because they are not enabling the bloc to speak with one voice. In Brussels, there is a patchwork of passionate agendas, but not a common geopolitical agenda.
It is the European elites who insist on the continuation of a conflict, not the average citizen, who prefers that their government budgets be allocated to social spending rather than to a European rearmament project like the one being outlined in Brussels. Many see support for Ukraine as an imposed sacrifice, and the expense of continuing to fuel the conflict is already taking its toll.
In fact, the €168.9 billion that the EU has allocated to Ukraine over almost four years would have completely covered all of Spain’s public spending on education in a single fiscal year and Italy’s entire health budget.
Amid this situation, some European leaders are insisting that the Russian assets frozen more than three years ago be confiscated to guarantee a €210 billion loan for Kiev, which could complicate the peace talks the US and Russia have been conducting for months over the Ukrainian conflict.
That money is Russian, and international law would have to protect Russian assets if the EU were to choose to confiscate these. If they do, it would be a major contradiction within the European narrative because these countries are supposed to be the ones that champion international law and guarantee what they have called ‘a rules-based world,’ but appropriating those assets is essentially theft, and this would violate international law.
Nonetheless, the EU announced on December 12 that an agreement had been reached to indefinitely freeze €210 billion of Russian Central Bank assets held in Europe, particularly in Belgian securities depository Euroclear. Although the freeze is intended to facilitate EU plans to provide Ukraine with a loan of up to €165 billion to cover military and civilian budget needs in 2026 and 2027, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, and Malta expressed reservations about transferring funds to Ukraine. A final decision will be made at an EU summit being held at the end of the week.
It is foolish that the EU has wasted so much money on the Ukrainian crisis, knowing that the bloc is economically suffering, with very low growth rates and a deindustrialized Germany that is not recovering. Yet, despite this, the EU seemingly wants to further tarnish its global reputation by aiming to steal Russia’s wealth.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
An Estonian court has handed lengthy prison sentences to the leaders of an anti-NATO party convicted of working on behalf of Russia to undermine the Baltic state’s security.
On Thursday, the Harju District Court sentenced Aivo Peterson, co-founder of the small conservative Koos (Together) party, to 14 years in prison for treason. His associates Dmitri Rootsi and Andrei Andronov received sentences of 11 years and 11 years and six months, respectively. All three denied any wrongdoing and said they would appeal the verdict.
Prosecutors alleged that the defendants spread “narratives supporting Russia’s foreign and security policy” intended to undermine public trust in NATO and Estonia’s military aid to Ukraine.
“The defendants deliberately assisted Russia in activities directed against the Estonian state and society,” State Prosecutor Triinu Olev-Aas said.
Founded in 2022, Koos calls for Estonia to leave NATO, become a neutral state, remove foreign troops from its territory, and “refrain from participating directly or indirectly in military conflicts between other countries.”
In 2023, Peterson traveled to Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, which Estonia considers occupied Ukrainian territory. He said at the time that he was gathering information about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “There are two sides to every conflict, but the information we receive from Estonian media is one-sided. All of our journalists support Kiev, which often comes across as propaganda,” Peterson said.
The Koos party rejected the allegations against its members, arguing that prosecutors had failed to present “concrete proof that their actions had caused real damage to Estonia’s constitutional order or security.”
Estonia is one of Ukraine’s top supporters and has been pushing for further militarization of Europe. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Estonia “one of the most hostile countries” in June and accused Tallinn of “spreading myths and falsehoods about the supposed threat from the East.”
Let’s stop pretending Brussels is engaged in noble statecraft. The EU’s rush to steal more than €180 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets held at Euroclear is the most reckless gamble Europe has taken in decades. Moscow’s central bank is not wrong to call the move unlawful; its lawsuit against Euroclear merely underscores a simple truth: weaponizing sovereign reserves violates long-standing norms that have protected global capital flows for half a century. Brussels may dress this up as “solidarity with Ukraine,” but using immobilized reserves as collateral for massive loans crosses a line that Western institutions once treated as sacrosanct.
The political sales pitch — that these are merely Russia’s “war chest” — deliberately ignores an uncomfortable reality: sovereign reserves ultimately underpin a nation’s entire economy, including its citizens’ savings and pensions. Seizing or leveraging them sets a dangerous precedent: any country deemed objectionable by a majority of EU governments could one day see its wealth confiscated. That is not rule-of-law liberalism; it is discretionary power cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric.
Euroclear, one of Europe’s critical financial arteries, now finds itself caught between Brussels’ political ambitions and Moscow’s threats of counterclaims. Belgium knows the danger intimately — its own officials have repeatedly warned that breaching sovereign-immunity doctrines could expose the country to massive liabilities. When even EU member states start raising alarms, you know the legal ground is shaky.
What is truly astonishing is the European Commission’s refusal to confront the broader consequences. Financial systems run on trust, not idealistic speeches. Undermine the principle that sovereign reserves are untouchable, and investors everywhere — not just in Moscow — take note. China, which holds substantial euro-denominated assets, has already condemned the EU’s approach as destabilizing. Beijing may not dump its euro holdings tomorrow, but the EU is actively encouraging major powers to question Europe’s reliability as a financial partner. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about the euro’s long-term viability.
The internal politics are equally explosive. Hungary, Slovakia, and even Belgium itself have raised serious objections on both legal and risk grounds. If Brussels forces the plan through regardless, it will only strengthen the already potent narrative in several member states that the EU is willing to trample national interests and established law in pursuit of ideological crusades. This is the kind of overreach populists dream of — an elite-driven project that can be portrayed, not entirely unfairly, as prioritizing geopolitical theater over the economic security of European citizens.
Then there is the Ukraine question itself. For many Europeans, supporting Kiev is neither a moral nor a strategic imperative. Ukraine’s deep governance problems are real and have been acknowledged by its own officials and Western auditors alike. Pouring unprecedented sums into the country without ironclad safeguards invites legitimate criticism that Brussels is acting on emotion rather than sober judgment.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Washington has every incentive to watch Europe stumble. If investors lose confidence in the euro, the dollar benefits. If European financial institutions face turmoil, American ones expand their reach.
Europe could still choose a wiser path. Instead of prolonging an unsustainable conflict by stealing sovereign Russian assets — a move that virtually guarantees escalation and risks spilling the war into the Eurozone itself, with unimaginable and utterly destructive consequences — European leaders could support genuine peace efforts.
The EU cannot afford to make the wrong choice. Yet that is precisely what it is doing, and for nothing more than short-term political posturing.
The current moment “is critical for Ukraine as Zelensky’s regime is coming closer to collapse both politically and on the frontline, where Russia is advancing on all fronts,” Armando Mema, a member of the Finnish Freedom Alliance party, told Sputnik.
While Trump inherited the Ukraine mess from Biden, who “provoked this conflict and created this disaster,” he’s trying to prevent “a total defeat of Ukraine” because “it would be a disaster for his administration too,” Mema explained.
But Zelensky “is not interested in peace,” as seen in his recent demands for “security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO, [which] he knows… he cannot get,” the observer said.
Knowing that’s impossible, “he uses as an excuse to continue to be in power despite his mandate [ending]. Zelensky has banned all political opposition parties in Ukraine, arrested opponents, including regular citizens who were simply advocating for peace. Zelensky knows that if a regular election were to be held, he will lose immediately and all his administration will be prosecuted for corruption,” Mema emphasized.
As for reports of a US-mediated push to restore Russia’s access to Europe’s energy markets, Mema predicts this will remain “impossible” to achieve as long as the current crop of leaders are in charge.
“But Trump has started to dismantle the EU leadership (Macron, Merz, Ursula, Meloni and so on)” and over time they will be replaced by leaders who take account of their own countries’ interests, the Finnish politician believes.
Donbass is sovereign Russian territory and Moscow will sooner or later establish control over parts of the region still occupied by Ukraine, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said. His comments came after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky indicated the country may hold a referendum on territorial concessions to Moscow.
On Thursday, Zelensky – who has consistently refused to recognize former Ukrainian regions as part of Russia – suggested that Ukrainians could vote in a referendum or election on the Donbass issue. The region overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2022 in referendums.
Speaking to Kommersant business daily on Friday, Ushakov stressed that “whatever happens, this [Donbass] is Russian territory, and it will be under the control of our administrations, sooner or later.” He noted that Zelensky has so far opposed the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the region, despite this being among the US proposals for peace.
According to Ushakov, Moscow will establish full control over the region either through negotiations or military force, and any ceasefire with Ukraine can only be possible once Kiev’s troops withdraw.
“I think what happens afterward can be discussed later. Because it is quite possible that there will be no regular troops there – neither Russian nor Ukrainian,” he acknowledged, adding that public order would be maintained by Russian law enforcement.
The shift in Zelensky’s tone came amid US President Donald Trump’s efforts to mediate the end of the conflict. The US president has suggested that the Ukrainian leader is one of the key stumbling blocks towards peace, while urging him to hold a presidential election.
Zelensky – whose term expired more than a year ago – did not reject the call, but demanded Western security guarantees for any vote to take place. Ushakov suggested that Zelensky could be using the election narrative as a pretext for a ceasefire. Moscow has said a truce would only be beneficial for Ukraine, as it would allow it to patch up its battered forces.
Meanwhile, Russian troops have been making steady gains in Donbass, recently liberating the key stronghold of Seversk, which opens the way to the regional cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.
Volodymyr Zelensky is deliberately setting conditions Russia can’t accept to portray it as blocking peace talks, Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, tells Sputnik.
The head of the Kiev regime is also seeking a much-needed breather for his retreating forces.
“In reality, this is Zelensky’s attempt either to buy time or, essentially, to stall the entire process,” Bezpalko explains.
Before his Saturday meeting with French, German and British leaders, Zelensky claimed a ceasefire along the current front line, security guarantees for future elections and a referendum on ceding territory to Russia were needed.
What’s Behind Zelensky’s Ploy?
The situation for the Ukrainian forces is dire: They are retreating and losing cities, which hits civilian morale and foreign support
Zelensky wants to halt the Russian advance to regroup Ukrainian forces, conscript more troops, get extra Western arms and even seize frozen Russian assets
But he also wants to look like a leader ready for peace talks
Why Zelensky’s Conditions are a Non-Starter
Zelensky says he is ready to hold elections and a referendum – but demands that the US and NATO guarantee security. That would effectively mean Ukraine losing its independence, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.
Russia sees no point in freezing the conflict until its demand for a full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass and other new Russian territories is met
Why Europe is Still Backing Zelensky
European leaders still want war with Russia, but they lack forces beyond their Ukrainian proxies, financial resources and guaranteed backing from the US
Like Zelensky, they aim to prolong the talks and wait out President Donald Trump—until the mid-term congressional elections or he leaves office
“They are currently in a deadlock,” Bezpalko says.
The new 33-page National Security Strategy document issued by the US government endorses Russia’s stance on Ukraine, rejecting aggressive European policies.
Trump’s Divergence from European Policies on Russia-Ukraine
Since assuming the presidency for a second non-consecutive term, US President Donald Trump has diverged from the European view on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. President Trump has been highly critical of the European Union and NATO allies of the United States over their controversial policies. The new 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) announced by the incumbent US government has once again validated the Russian stance over this conflict and has unambiguously rebuffed the European aggressive and violent designs regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This latest security strategy document acknowledged that the European Union is responsible for prolonging the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The document also condemned the unrealistic expectations of the European officials from this violent conflict, costing hosts of lives on both sides. The US government blamed the EU for blocking several US efforts to end this conflict, stating that the United States has a “core interest” in ending the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Furthermore, the document also accuses the European governments of “subversion of democratic processes” as they remain unresponsive to the desires of their people for establishing peace between Russia and Ukraine. As per the NSS document, it is one of the top priorities of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability with Russia,” which would help stabilize European economies. This new security strategy document is widely seen as the re-evaluation of the US policy towards its European allies.
The Alaska Summit and Peace Negotiations
President Trump has long been critical of European policies. During his election campaigns, he repeatedly claimed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within a day. After assuming the presidential office in January 2025, he engaged with the Russian President Vladimir Putin to establish peace between Russia and Ukraine. The positive engagement between the two leaders led to a summit between them in Alaska in August 2025. After the summit, US President Donald Trump praised President Putin’s positive attitude towards peace negotiations. He also described President Putin’s observations about the conflict as “profound.”
After the summit between the two leaders in Alaska, President Trump stated, “Many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” He further stated that he would talk to Zelenskyy and NATO regarding the discussions in the summit, adding that “It’s ultimately up to them.” However, after consulting with the NATO allies, President Trump realised that the European Union has ulterior motives behind procrastinating this violent conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The European and Ukrainian demand to deploy a NATO-like combined EU force in Ukraine to ensure the latter’s security derailed these peace negotiations. In the past, the European leaders repeatedly thwarted all the peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine to achieve their covert regional strategic interests and to undermine Russian security and sovereignty. The NSS also criticised Europe over “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition.” It further claimed that Europe is confronting the “prospect of civilizational erasure” due to “failed focus on regulatory suffocation” and migration policies. The document also claimed that Europe will be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less” due to its economic issues. The NSS further read, “It is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.”
Implications of the New National Security Strategy
Indeed, the European powers, particularly NATO countries, are heavily reliant on US military power for their survival and security. For years, President Trump has been urging the European nations to pay their fair share in the alliance. However, the European leaders are unable to address US concerns due to the economic issues of their countries. In this new NSS document, the United States has threatened to withdraw its security umbrella from the European nations. It states that the US would prioritise “enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defence, without being dominated by any adversarial power.”
This re-evaluation of the US policies towards Europe and the Russia-Ukraine conflict has astonished many European leaders. Nonetheless, the United States’ new security policy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been widely regarded as commendable. European nations and the broader Western world must address Russia’s security concerns to ensure peace and stability between Russia and Ukraine. Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, expressed support for the Trump administration’s newly unveiled security strategy. He stated, “The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision.” He also encouraged the US to pledge to end “the perception, and prevent the reality, of the NATO military alliance as a perpetually expanding alliance.”
However, he also cautioned that the US ‘deep state’ views the world differently from President Trump. Indeed, the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy document is based on realistic assumptions. However, the mighty US deep state would never allow him to undermine or challenge the long-established status quo in the country. The European Union and Israel have significant influence over the US deep state. Therefore, it would be hard for the Trump administration to diverge from the prior US stance over its alignment with Europe and Israel over the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the Middle East.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy was published last week, setting out the U.S.’s broad foreign policy direction for the remainder of his term. It focused on ending what it calls a “perpetually expanding NATO,” establishing “conditions of stability within Europe,” and encouraging European allies to “stand on [their] own feet” in security matters.
The document also warned that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” citing migration, censorship of speech, declining birthrates, and what it described as a loss of national identity and self-confidence.
Days after the official release, however, the Defense One website reported that a longer, unreleased version of the NSS had circulated in Washington. According to the site, the unpublished version contained far more explicit political goals for reshaping Europe’s future and reducing the influence of the European Union. Defense One wrote that the extended draft urged the United States to “Make Europe Great Again,” proposing that Washington realign its attention toward a select group of governments ideologically closer to the Trump administration.
The unpublished version, Defense One reported, stated that Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland were countries the United States should “work more with… with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union].” It also said the United States should support “parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life… while remaining pro-American.”
None of this language appears in the officially released NSS, which focuses instead on broader themes of strategic stability with Russia, the need for Europe to regain its self-confidence, and continued American support for democracy and free expression. The official document argues that Europe’s loss of confidence is particularly visible in its approach to Russia. It states, “Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” It adds that stabilizing the continent will require “an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” to prevent escalation, restore stability, and support Ukraine’s survival as a viable state.
The text also warns that the war has increased Europe’s exposure to external dependencies, particularly Germany’s, and criticizes what it describes as unrealistic expectations held by some European officials. It concludes that despite Europe’s internal crises, the continent remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. America, it says, “encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit,” asserting that the growing influence of patriotic European parties “gives cause for great optimism.”
After the Defense One report appeared, the White House moved quickly to deny the existence of any longer or alternative NSS. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, “No alternative, private, or classified version exists. President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one NSS that clearly instructs the U.S. government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.” She added that “any other so-called ‘versions’ are leaked by people distant from the President who, like this ‘reporter,’ have no idea what they are talking about.” Her reference to leaks suggests that other versions of the report may have been discussed, albeit not endorsed or included in the final publication.
Speaking to the American Conservative website about the strategy report, Krzysztof Bosak, a Polish MP, leader of the right-wing Confederation, and deputy speaker of the Sejm — Poland’s lower parliamentary chamber — said, “I can’t say that I disagree with anything there. It’s a continuation of Vice President J.D. Vance’s Munich [Security Conference] speech, which I agreed with completely.
“Maybe Europe needs a shock from our good old friend America to start a true debate, because there was no debate in the European mainstream. In America, you have both sides of the political spectrum. In Western Europe, there’s only one side. If you have politically incorrect views, you can find yourself in prison, because you said too much, for example, in England or sometimes in Germany,” he added.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica also reported on the Defense One findings, highlighting the claim that the United States planned to use Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Poland “as tools to dismantle the European Union” by drawing them into a broader, ideologically aligned group. It noted Defense One’s summary that the unpublished draft viewed Europe’s immigration policies as driving an “erasure of its civilization,” and that Washington should engage with European actors seeking “sovereignty” and the restoration of traditional ways of life.
La Repubblica separately noted that Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), recently expressed interest in holding a major CPAC event in Italy to promote a sovereignist agenda. While government sources suggested a lack of enthusiasm, Schlapp told the newspaper, “We will get it done.”
CPAC has grown in stature among European conservatives in recent years, most notably in Hungary, where its annual event in Budapest now attracts major players, both from Europe and across the Atlantic.
Dmitry Polyanskiy is the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Polyanskiy argues that we are entering a dangerous stage, as European leaders must now choose war or a return to diplomacy. Please like and subscribe!
Bulgaria’s government has announced its resignation following mass anti-corruption protests across the country. In a statement on Thursday, Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov said he and his cabinet would step down after facing their sixth no confidence vote.
The announcement comes just weeks before Bulgaria is set to join the euro zone on January 1. The government had previously proposed a controversial 2026 budget, drafted in euros, that included higher taxes and increased social security contributions.
The bill, however, was met with weeks of mass demonstrations as protestors accused the government of corruption and voiced frustration at the failure of successive leaderships to root it out. Bulgaria has held seven national elections over the past four years.
Although the government withdrew the budget proposal last week, protestors continued to demand Zhelyazkov’s resignation and the ouster of several other influential politicians.
On Thursday, Zhelyazkov’s government was set to face its latest motion of no confidence tabled by opposition parties. However, before the vote took place, the prime minister announced that although the motion would go ahead and be defeated by the ruling coalition, he and his government would nevertheless resign.
Bulgarian President Rumen Radev, who has limited powers under the country’s constitution, had previously backed the calls for the government’s resignation. Following Zhelyazkov’s resignation, Radev is expected to ask parties in parliament to form a new government. If they are unable to do so, he will be tasked with forming an interim administration until new elections can be held.
The EU states pushing hardest to tap Russia’s frozen assets are acting as if they are “psychologically at war” with Moscow, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said.
Speaking after condemning the latest EU proposal to use the frozen Russian sovereign funds to help finance Ukraine, De Wever labeled the plan “very unwise and ill-considered.” He also warned that the plan backed by European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen would amount to “stealing” and would open the bloc up to potential legal action.
Von der Leyen last week proposed providing Ukraine with €90 billion over the next two years, anchored by a so-called “reparations loan” backed by the frozen assets, or by debt financed by EU member states, deemed politically unworkable by most.
Belgium, which hosts the financial clearinghouse Euroclear, where the bulk of Russia’s immobilized central bank assets are held, has long resisted such efforts. Brussels argues that forcing Euroclear to make the funds available could carry severe legal, financial and geopolitical risks.
De Wever also argued that the strongest supporters of the proposal are EU states geographically closest to Russia, claiming they “mentally are almost in a state of war” with Moscow. He stressed that Belgium is “not at war” with Russia and doesn’t want to “have a war with Russia.”
The Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and Poland have become the EU’s most vocal advocates of a hard line toward Russia, warning of what they claim is an imminent threat.
Meanwhile, Politico has reported that EU leaders are considering politically sidelining De Wever if he continues to block the plan. Belgium could be treated like Hungary – frozen out of key talks, ignored in negotiations and given little influence over future EU decisions – unless it backs down, the outlet claimed, citing a source.
“The Belgian leader would be frozen out and ignored, just like Hungary’s Viktor Orban has been given the cold shoulder over… his refusal to play ball on sanctioning Russia,” one diplomat told the outlet, adding that Belgium’s views on EU proposals would no longer be sought and phone calls would go unanswered.
Trump claims Iran’s military is routed just as IRGC launched missiles strike American bases
RT | June 10, 2026
The Iranian military has been “completely defeated,” US President Donald Trump has claimed, warning Tehran it will “pay the price” for delaying a deal with Washington.
The warnings came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced missile and drone strikes on American military facilities in several Arab countries in retaliation for recent US attacks. US Central Command said the operations inside Iran were carried out after an AH-64 Apache helicopter was lost near the Strait of Hormuz, an incident it blamed on Tehran.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday that Iran “is all talk and no action,” adding that “The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!!” … Full article
HEAT exposure could drive a dramatic rise in cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden across the USA over the next 25 years, with researchers warning that climate change and population ageing may combine to reverse decades of progress in heart health.
Heat Exposure Threatens Future Heart Health A new modelling study estimated that heat-attributable CVD burden could more than triple by 2050 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, disproportionately affecting older adults and economically disadvantaged communities. … Full article
… Climate change and land use conversion have the potential to increase the frequency of encounters between snakes and humans. This situation arises due to changes in temperature and rainfall, the loss of natural habitats, and shifts in food sources, which drive snakes to move into areas closer to human activity.
Prof Mirza Dikari Kusrini, a lecturer in the Department of Forest Resource Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment (Fahutan) at IPB University, explained that climate change affects snakes’ behavior, distribution, and movement patterns. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 