Ukrainians “who are being used as cannon fodder for Europeans pushing a failing narrative” have become the “greatest victims of this conflict,” London-based foreign affairs analyst Adriel Kasonta tells Sputnik while commenting on Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent statements to the Russian parliament.
“Thus far, these leaders are willing to pay for their hubris with Ukrainian lives,” Kasonta laments.
He also observes that, while European economies “are declining, and the cost-of-living crisis continues to worsen,” European elites refuse to acknowledge their mistakes – as it could discredit them politically – and instead opt to “double down on their hostile posture toward Moscow.”
In the meantime, Donald Trump essentially acknowledged the previous US administration’s “miscalculation” and had a change of heart on the Ukrainian conflict issue.
For his part, French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon adds that the EU policy of fighting for Ukraine is part of a strategy aimed at stripping Russia of much of its land and power, and that “and it is not likely to change unless it becomes totally impossible for the Europeans to continue.”
Even if the powers that be in Ukraine agree to a peace deal, the European leadership believes that there will be a confrontation with Russia in the future, he warns.
Globalization Shaped Entirely by West is No Longer Effective
Western-led globalization is a no-goer as it is increasingly “dominated by factors that are outside Europe and to an extent outside the West, because even the U·S now has to make major concessions to China,” French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon tells Sputnik.
He further speculated that there may be “some sort of reconnection between Russia, America, and Europe,” and that “an understanding or an agreement reached between the United States and Russia in the coming months or years would be the first step in bringing together the West again in a defense of its general interest.”
Global institutions like BRICS and their architects created “an alternative to the predatory institutions of the Bretton Woods system,” allowing nations to trade “on an equal footing” instead of suffering from exploitation, London-based foreign affairs analyst Adriel Kasonta adds.
“China has demonstrated that an alternative model of development is possible — one that is more beneficial for sustainable growth,” he notes.
This model, Kasonta explains, promotes a “win-win situation rather than the debt enslavement of weaker nations by Western powers,” whereas the dynamics imposed by the West “keep countries dependent and perpetually indebted, rendering the idea of genuine decolonization little more than a façade.”
The West Fears ‘Alternative Views That Challenge Their Narrative’
Europe is “becoming increasingly intolerant of and afraid of outside information channels that provide very distinct viewpoints and open minds to other perspectives,” Come Carpentier de Gourdon tells Sputnik.
The European leadership, he suggests, is especially fearful Russian media like RT and Sputnik, which “project a very different perspective and show facts that Europeans, are generally left to ignore.”
One such example of the information Europe was keen to suppress was the warnings about the risks of NATO’s expansion to the east and “the circumstances of the Ukraine conflict” that did not fit into the official Western narrative.
“The fact that Russian media are exposing a lot of these facts and also are exposing a lot of the things that are very wrong in the structure of the European Union and in American policy, in the American society and in the American political system, that is what generates a very hostile reaction with the attempt to ban any such information which is regarded as hostile propaganda,” De Gourdon says.
For his part, Adriel Kasonta adds that the West’s fear of alternative views “manifests as hostility toward free speech,” which drives Europeans “to engage” with outlets like RT and Sputnik.
“Western leaders adopt a paternalistic attitude toward their citizens, believing they cannot discern between truth and falsehood,” he remarks.
December 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
A new national security document released by the Trump administration last week warned that Europe is facing civilizational suicide and will be “unrecognizable in 20 years or less” due to illegal immigration that has made European powers militarily vulnerable.
The 33-page document, titled National Security Strategy, lays out President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy agenda and argues the United States should focus its efforts on securing the Western Hemisphere.
The document’s section on Europe begins with a brief mention of some of the continent’s best-known perennial problems, including “insufficient military spending” and “economic stagnation” before saying that Europe’s real problems “are even deeper.”
Europe’s economic decline takes a backseat to the real prospect of what DC policymakers refer to as “civilizational erasure,” caused in part by “migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife,” it said.
The document also mentioned the censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence that are happening across the 27-member bloc.
Just last week, the European Commission slapped a massive fine against X (formerly known as Twitter) in a ham-fisted effort to censor Elon Musk’s social media platform, while exactly one year ago the eastern European nation of Romania was thrown into chaos after the far-right pro-Russian populist Călin Georgescu had his presidential victory annulled due to – yes, you guessed it – ‘Russian interference’ and other supposed electoral irregularities.
Just before the Romanian elections, Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov made a startling claim that the head of France’s foreign intelligence agency Nicolas Lerner asked him to ban far-right conservatives on his platform ahead of the country’s elections, a request he says he flatly refused.
The conclusion the document makes in light of these and other dangerous developments was straightforward: if present trends continue, “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”
This is a serious concern for the United States, of course, plagued as it also is with rampant illegal migration. How can the United States and the European Union remain reliable allies when there could eventually be a yawning chasm separating the two powers? After all, in just a few decades the European Union may be comprised of majority non-European civilians who may be tempted to question whether they view their friendship with Washington in the same way as those who signed the NATO Charter.
Looked at from such a perspective, it is obvious why the Trump administration is adamant that ‘Europe remain European,’ despite the fact that the chances for that happening are about zero.
Critics responded to the document’s central thesis by saying it is espousing “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theories, such as the “Great Replacement Theory” that says White people are being deliberately replaced in the Western hemisphere by immigrants from majority non-White nations, particularly from Africa and the Middle East.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly slammed the comparison, calling it “total nonsense.”
The devastating impacts of unchecked migration, and those migrants’ inability to assimilate, are not just a concern for President Trump, but for Europeans themselves, who have increasingly noted immigration as one of their top concerns. These open border policies have led to widespread examples of violence, spikes in crime, and more, with detrimental impacts on the fiscal sustainability of social safety net programs.
Such a grim reality comes as no surprise to many people, least of all former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe’s primary architect of mass migration who admitted one decade ago that multiculturalism was a “sham” that does nothing to improve a society.
“Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ or a sham,” she said, before making the empty promise that Germany “will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”
Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced five years earlier when she said multiculturalism in Germany had “utterly failed.”
“Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.’ But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,” she said in 2010. Why Merkel ever imagined that things would not turn out exactly as they did remains one of the great mysteries of modern European politics. Or perhaps she did know, but completely lacked the political will to resist the insurmountable pressure she was facing at the time. It is no surprise that the EU elite were very much in favor of open borders, as many remain so today.
Whatever the case may be, one other thing is worth noting about this document – Moscow has expressed favor with its provisions.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday that the changes “correspond in many ways to our vision”.
He also welcomed language about ending “the perception and reality of the NATO military alliance as a perpetually expanding alliance”. Moscow has long voiced its opposition to NATO expansion, citing its national security concerns.
At the same time, Peskov cautioned that the position of what he called the U.S. “deep state” – a term Donald Trump has used to accuse officials who he believes are working to undermine his political agenda – may differ from Trump’s new security strategy. Time will tell.
December 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | European Union, NATO, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The European Union is threatening global security by openly praising and welcoming Ukraine’s attacks on Russian energy facilities, as this could set a dangerous precedent, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Wednesday.
“The European attitude threatens global security. Just consider that EU leaders are glorifying actual attacks on energy infrastructure facilities. The Ukrainians attacked the Druzhba oil pipeline, which did not hurt Russia, but harmed Hungary and Slovakia, and European leaders are praising these actions. This is an extremely dangerous attitude, as others may deem that attacks on infrastructure facilities are something positive,'” Szijjarto said at a meeting of the energy ministers of the Organization of Turkic States.
The top Hungarian diplomat recalled the attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines, saying that “glorifying government terrorism” was unacceptable. It is said that “allegedly responsible European politicians make such statements,” he added.
Szijjarto also condemned the recent attacks on tankers in the Black Sea.
In August, Slovakia and Hungary stopped receiving oil from Russia via the Druzhba pipeline for several days following a Ukrainian attack on the facility. Budapest subsequently banned Robert Brovdi, the commander of the Ukrainian unmanned systems forces and the person responsible for the Druzhba attacks, from entering the country and the Schengen Area.
Russia has strongly condemned Kiev’s recent attacks on tankers in the Black Sea and on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) infrastructure near the city of Novorossiysk, urging all reasonable actors to denounce the Kiev regime’s destructive actions. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said that the same forces behind the Black Sea sabotage, previously implicated in derailing peace talks, are now seeking renewed armed escalation.
December 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, War Crimes | European Union, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The publication of America’s new National Security Strategy has sent many European commentators into a collective rage. It is perhaps not surprising that those who are most enraged are the same people in favour of maintaining the war in Ukraine. The cold truth is that European citizens want their nations to focus on their national interests. The European Commission would sooner drag them into a war.
Despite the uproar on X and other social media, the U.S. National Security Strategy says relatively little about Europe, precisely because it focuses on U.S. core national interests. And, indeed, that is the core point made about Europe; that in trying to create a unified geopolitical role, it has neglected the core interests of its Member States.
The Strategy expresses a desire to see Europe regain its self-confidence and reestablish strategic stability with Russia. That aspiration appears driven by a desire to maintain Europe as an open market for U.S. goods and investment, and also to avoid it continuing to be a chaotic continent that diverts U.S. resources from its main peer competitor, which is China. There is also an underlying though unstated sense of Europe and Russia maintaining a healthier relationship in part to resist Chinese domination of both.
Europe’s supposed decline is framed in the context of its reduction in economic stature from 25% of global GDP to 14% now. European economic growth has never fully recovered from the shock of the Global Financial Crisis. With the economic centre of gravity shifting to Asia, the continent is being left behind.
Pundits have taken most offence to the notion that Europe faces civilisational erasure, driven by: ‘European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty.., censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.’
Right at the heart of this critique is the idea that the current ‘trajectory of Europe’ which the U.S. wants to ‘cultivate resistance to’, is eroding national sovereignty and the value of the nations within Europe. The Strategy is shot through with bemusement that culturally rich and diverse Europeans nations, which are the well spring of America’s citizenry, are abandoning their interests in favour of an inchoate supranational identity that is simultaneously unattainable self-harming.
In the aftermath of World War II and centuries of conflict, the European project emerged as a way to allow for the peaceful coexistence of very different nations, linguistically, politically and historically. The adrenalin running through the veins of unprecedented levels of peace and stability until 2014 was the dismantling of economic social and cultural barrier nations, that did not erode their unique sense of self of any nation.
It may well be true that a U.S. security shield avoided the domination of Europe by a hostile Soviet Union until 1991, and for that we should be thankful. But the reason why European states learned to live in peace with each other after that period was largely because politics and security were largely left out of the conversation.
The reason European nations spent less on defence after the Soviet Union collapsed was not because their security was underwritten by American troops in Europe, but because they faced no external threat of invasion either in military terms of through unchecked migration.
The irony, of course, is that the factors that precipitated Europe’s contemporary decline, the ever greater weight and importance given to undemocratic transnational groupings such as NATO – were U.S. led. Impetus from the U.S. to keep expanding NATO gradually reintroduced very real risk to Europe as Russia felt increasingly left out in the cold and threatened. Needing to justify a role for itself, the European Institutions have grabbed ever more competence from Member States to resist so-called Russian aggression.
Once and for all, at least it is hoped, the Strategy attempts to kill ‘the perception… of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance’. That is being interpreted by the usual pro-war commentators as a sop to Russia. In fact, it is an invitation to European nations to refocus on their national interests, for the benefit of the European continent as a whole.
Without digging over again the history of NATO expansion, the key point is that neither NATO nor the institutions of Europe are states. They have no core interests beyond the bureaucratic need to exist, grow and accrete ever greater powers. You will never see the European Commission or NATO advancing recommendations on how they might reduce in size or hand power back to their members.
At this time of unprecedented threat of a reemergence of continent-wide conflict in Europe, the Americans are simply suggesting that nation states start to wrest back control. Both NATO and the European Commission, in my opinion, have both undermined the national and inflamed the international, while contributing to the stagnation of Europe as an idea of community, rather than a confederation.
A core principle of the U.S. Strategy is to ‘seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories’.
How Trump seeks to coexist with other nations of the world is exactly how European states sought to coexist peacefully with each other after World War II. The European Economic Community, as it was called for a while, didn‘t seek to erode the primacy of the nation state, focussing instead on the economic, social and cultural features to create the idea of common purpose, without the shackles of common identity.
Yet, the European Commission’s concept of expansion – which in any case Europe cannot afford – is rooted in a desire to homogenise states under a fictious notion of common European values, and to prioritise conformity over identity.
Any existing European Member that seeks to raise a hand is called out by the collective as a back-slider, a quisling and a Putin stooge, taking Hungary, as a prime example.
Yet, European nations that focussed first and foremost on their economic wellbeing and the maintenance and protection of their industrial bases would buy Russian gas because it made good economic sense to do so.
A Europe that focussed on the protection of its citizens would seek a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible, instead of rejecting every possibility of dialogue, and raising the spectre of a future war that would kill and displace millions of their citizens.
A Europe that focussed on good neighbourly relations would seek a way to live on good terms with Russia and for Russia and Ukraine to live on good terms with each other, however long it may take to recreate that balance.
And in my experience of engaging with the Russians, they reciprocate with friendship as vigorously as they do with hostility, so the possibility of peace is far less of a mirage than people would have you believe.
Of course, war with Ukraine is used as a reason for why this is neither possible nor desirable. But then, unfortunately, the arguments in favour of perpetual conflict with Russia become self-reinforcing, with both Europe and Russia arguing to their quite separate allies about who is to blame, and no one seeking reconciliation, through the cutting off of contact.
So the European Commission has increasingly sought to dominate continent-wide diplomacy and marshalled the tools of its willing legions of media talking heads who insist that nothing must change, that talking to Russia is tantamount to treason. The bellicose response to the U.S. National Security Strategy is proof of that. Moscow’s signalling of their alignment with its principles offered as further evidence that Trump is selling us out.
Yet, restoring strategic balance between Europe and Russia, which the U.S. strategy claims to want, requires restoring the primacy of the individual Member States of Europe over its institutions, and handing back control to capitals in how to govern their relations with Russia and other countries.
The European institutions have succeeded in defining Europe as something distinct from Russia, when in fact, Russia is a part of Europe. Calls by Defence Commissioner Kubilius to develop a common European geopolitical strategy, is merely another effort to grasp more competence from the nation states of Europe. These should be roundly rejected. The common foreign and security policy has been an abject failure and should be dismantled.
It is the institutions of Europe who are blocking the door of efforts to restore some normality in relations with Russia, most notably in the form of rabid Russophobes such as Kaja Kallas. She would happily take Europe to war from the comfort of a safe distance. I’d invite more European citizens to heed the invitation of the Americans to seek a way out with the implication that she, and other unelected war-mongers, are stripped of their powers.
December 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | China, European Union, NATO, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
The fine imposed by the EU on social media platform X constitutes a “violent attack” on freedom of speech, the leader of France’s Patriots party, Florian Philippot, told RT in an exclusive interview on Monday.
His comments came after the EU fined X €120 million ($163 million) last week for allegedly failing to comply with transparency requirements under the bloc’s 2022 Digital Services Act. The platform’s US-based majority owner, Elon Musk, responded by denouncing the EU, likening it to “the Fourth Reich.”
“The absolutely crazy fine of €120 million that the European Commission has just imposed on Elon Musk’s social networks is obviously a violent attack against freedom of expression by the European Union,” Philippot told RT.
The EU had used what he described as a thin justification for the decision, pointing to “the blue pastilles on the accounts on X” and calling it a “pretext” that “made no sense.”
The politician went on to say that the EU’s “real face of censorship” was becoming visible “in the eyes of the whole world,” and that influential voices, “like Musk in particular,” were rising “to claim its pure and simple disappearance.”
Philippot said he was watching reactions from abroad, including from the administration of US President Donald Trump, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who he said reacted “very firmly against the European Union.”
He said Musk had, “for the first time,” triggered what he called a “worldwide deflagration” by arguing it was necessary “to abolish the European Union,” which Philippot described as “a totalitarian regime.”
The French politician also referenced Musk’s separate remarks branding the EU a “bureaucratic monster” and saying its leadership has been “slowly smothering Europe to death.” Musk wrote that “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries so that governments can better represent their people.”
Aligning himself with that message, Philippot said his party was a “sovereignist” movement backing a French departure from the bloc. According to him, “Frexit” would restore “freedom of expression,” shift diplomacy toward peace rather than “war against Russia,” and help tackle domestic issues including the economy, agriculture, energy, and immigration.
December 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | European Union, France, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Hungary will seek to overturn the EU’s RePowerEU Russian energy ban at the European Court of Justice once the plan is adopted next week, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said.
Brussels launched the initiative in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, aiming to eliminate all Russian fossil fuel imports by the end of 2027.
A provisional agreement between the European Council and the European Parliament was announced last week, setting a halt to Russian liquefied natural gas imports by the end of 2026, with pipeline deliveries to be phased out by November 2027.
Hungary and Slovakia, which remain heavily dependent on Russian supplies, have objected to the plan, arguing that the measures would jeopardize their energy security.
In a post on X on Sunday, Szijjarto said Budapest and Bratislava will file an “annulment request to the European Court of Justice” as soon as the regulation is adopted and will ask for the suspension of the rules while the case is under review.
“We are taking this step because banning Russian oil and gas imports would make the secure energy supply of Hungary and Slovakia impossible and would lead to dramatic price increases,” he wrote, describing the regulation as “massive legal fraud.”
The minister argued that the regulation is a “sanctions measure” that requires the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. The European Commission bypassed the Hungarian and Slovak vetoes by shifting the decision to EU trade and energy laws that only require a qualified majority.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly warned that cutting off Russian supplies would raise costs and undermine long-term energy stability. Slovakia has taken a similar position, with Prime Minister Robert Fico saying on Wednesday that his country has “sufficient legal grounds to consider filing a lawsuit.”
December 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | European Union, Hungary, Slovakia |
Leave a comment
There is an EU document in which it is stated there “is a problem with the financing of Ukraine”. No shit. The real problem actually comes with a new lack of confidence from EU member states in this “financing” following recent unconfirmed reports that Donald Trump has told the EU in blunt terms that they can’t dip into the supposed 300 bn USD in Russian “frozen” assets held by the West.
When the war started, Russia’s central bank held around $207 billion in euro assets, $67 billion in U.S. dollar assets and $37 billion in British pound assets.
It also had holdings comprising $36 billion of Japanese yen, $19 billion in Canadian dollars, $6 billion in Australian dollars and $1.8 billion in Singapore dollars. Its Swiss franc holdings were about $1 billion.
And so out of 355 bn USD of so-called “frozen” Russian money around the world, the EU only holds a little over a half of it, despite the EU talking as though they have it all. Yet despite this, much hope was placed on the EU to use this cash to continue to fund the Ukraine war. But even if Trump hadn’t have told the EU to keep their hands off the cash, under international law the case for the EU to seize even the 207 bn euros is a very shaky one, which is likely to be the final nail in the coffin for the project which keeps the war going. On December 18th in Brussels EU leaders will meet and will have to be forced to recognise a reality: if this cash cannot be used, then it will be EU member states themselves which will have to scrape together a rescue package to underwrite Ukraine’s 80bn USD 2026 budget. Recently, the EU announced another 2 billion “loan” but such payments aren’t going to sustain any kind of normality faced with the enormous black hole which needs to be filled. The real problem that the EU has is that it doesn’t put its mouth where its Russian money is. Faced with an ultimatum by ECB figures like Christine Lagarde, EU member states won’t offer their own cash as a guarantee when things go wrong with the cash, if it were to be used to fund the war. This lack of confidence might prove to be detrimental to the West’s support for Zelensky who is currently dealing with his own political demise in Kiev following corruption scandals and key allies resigning and even in some cases fleeing the country.
And with a 28 point peace plan, which most experts agree was “dead on arrival”, the popular narrative now from western commentators is that his time is up. He can’t himself offer a peace deal as it is feared that the moment he signs such a paper he will be assassinated and then a ceasefire is broken and both sides return to fighting. The only hope for the West is to invest their political and financial capital in a new leader who is familiar and respected by the Russians, whose signature will come with real guaranties – but this will have to come with assurances that their own troops won’t pile into Ukraine when the deal is signed. EU leaders can’t get this idea in their heads straightened out, that the whole war started because Ukraine was ushered towards EU and NATO membership and its troops have been equipped and trained by the West, in particular under Trump in 2017 during his first term in office.
Another idea which is unpalatable for all EU leaders – including the UK – is that these countries’ economies are on their knees. The Belgian primes minister recently hinted at a press conference that while he was against using Russian cash to fund the war, for a whole host of reasons he pointed out, it was preferable that if the EU were to go ahead into this unchartered legal area, it would be advisable that the EU had a non-EU partner to join it. He was hinting that this could be London. But someone needs to tell him that the British economy is about to collapse under its own debt interest of 120 billion pounds a year, based on reckless decisions after years of borrowing to resolve problems of its own making. It is inconceivable that the UK could be a partner in underwriting or providing guaranties to using Russian frozen assets to continue the war racket. But in the La-la land of the EU, such BS makes good press fodder for the following day’s copy.
Trump’s orders to lay off the Russian cash comes with a sobering wake-up call to EU leaders that they have run out of cash to throw into the black hole of the Ukraine war, which in private, they know is funding Zelensky’s own network of money-grabbing cronies whose only real occupation is looking at how to syphon off international money and stay in office. The resignation of his chief of staff recently, which followed his own business partner and friend fleeing the country after investigators were about to arrest him for his part in a 100m USD energy firm embezzlement, is the clearest indicator to date what the business model is in Kiev. It’s getting harder and harder for western leaders to close their eyes to the sheer level of corruption, how far it goes, and what figures are when such scandals obviously only represent the tip of the iceberg.
And now for EU leaders to meet on the 18th of December, in many ways, their decision is not to keep on finding more and more ingenious ways to scam their own taxpayers out of hard earned money, but whether they can continue to back Zelensky and his formula. With a corruption scandal now in Brussels with top EU officials making headlines, to add to the graft allegations hanging over the head of Ursula von der Leyen, it seems inconceivable that EU leaders will not be sensitive to the cries of disbelief back home from ordinary people whose main worry is that they will freeze to death in their own homes this Christmas. The priority of the summit will be political survival. Theirs, not Zelensky’s.
December 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Economics | European Union, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Paris does not want to seize frozen Russian state assets held in French private banks, Financial Times reported on Monday, citing sources.
French officials support the European Commission’s plan for a “reparations loan” for Ukraine but oppose any scheme that would draw on Russian money held at commercial banks, arguing those lenders are bound by different contractual obligations than Euroclear, the outlet said.
Last week, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen set out two options to provide Kiev with €90 billion ($105 billion) over the next two years: EU-level borrowing backed by the bloc’s budget, or a long-debated “reparations loan” backed by profits from the blocked assets that would require institutions holding Russian cash to transfer it into a new loan vehicle.
For more than two years, France has declined to name the private banks holding about €18 billion in Russian assets, citing client confidentiality – a stance that has angered some other EU governments, the newspaper said.
According to the report, Paris has also withheld details on how any interest accrued on the funds is being used.
The assets immobilized in France are reportedly the second-largest pool in Europe, behind holdings at Belgium’s Euroclear.
After the roughly €185 billion held at Euroclear, most of the remaining €25 billion of blocked Russian state funds is held at commercial banks in France and Belgium, several people familiar with the matter told the FT.
The loan scheme has drawn criticism from several EU members. Belgium has warned that an outright confiscation would pose legal and security risks, while other major holders of Russian assets, including Luxembourg and Germany, also oppose a seizure, along with Italy, Hungary and Slovakia.
Recent media reports have said the US is lobbying several EU members to block plans to use frozen assets as collateral for the €140 billion loan to Ukraine, arguing the funds should be kept as leverage in peace talks with Kiev and Moscow. Politico earlier reported that Washington wants the EU to return the money once Russia signs a peace agreement with Ukraine.
Russia has condemned any use of its sovereign assets as theft and warned of legal action and retaliation.
December 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics | European Union, France |
Leave a comment
A major Latvian gas storage facility is only 58% full ahead of the winter heating season, local lawmaker Andris Kulbergs has warned. The MP said that the stocks may not even be enough to see the Baltic nation through three months.
The EU, of which Latvia is a member, drastically reduced imports of Russian oil and gas following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Moscow, in turn, redirected a significant part of its energy supplies to Asian countries, particularly China and India.
The European bloc has been increasingly reliant on imports of more expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) to replace Russian gas, which had previously accounted for some 40% of the EU’s total consumption.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Kulbergs wrote “if the gas storage facility is depleted at this rate, we won’t even last 3 months.”
He noted that at present, “there is no sign of additional supply from LNG terminals.”
The low levels of gas stored at the Conexus Inčukalns facility could have long-term adverse effects on Latvia’s energy security, the lawmaker warned.
Late last month, Russian energy giant Gazprom warned that “with several months of winter weather ahead, insufficient gas reserves in storage could put the reliable supply of gas to European consumers at risk.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has similarly stated that the EU’s decision to source its energy elsewhere has resulted in lower industrial production and reduced competitiveness across the bloc.
Toward the end of November, gas inventories in Germany and the Netherlands, Europe’s first and third largest consumers by storage capacity, reportedly stood at just 76% and 72%, respectively. This was far below the 90% level mandated by EU regulations.
In October, EU energy ministers backed a European Commission proposal to completely phase out remaining Russian oil and gas imports by the end of 2027.
Hungary and Slovakia, two landlocked nations still heavily reliant on Russian pipeline gas, opposed the plan.
December 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | European Union, Latvia |
Leave a comment
Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) sketches a future in which the US is “ready to throw the current political leadership in Ukraine under the bus, much as several NATO countries and EU leadership expect,” believes retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski.
The US signals in the document, where Ukraine is downgraded to just four mentions, that it expects peace and some form of a “viable sovereign state” afterward, Karen Kwiatkowski, a former analyst for the US Department of Defense, tells Sputnik.
“This is a practical US acceptance that the cost of the US/NATO proxy war is not worth it,” stresses the analyst.
The NSS reflects a realization that “no NATO army or combination of armies can stop Russia’s advance or the achievement of its goals,” which include the end of the current neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine, she underscores.
NSS Puts Europe on Notice
Unprecedentedly, the NSS “directly alienates and demeans the current political leadership of the EU and many key NATO countries,” says the pundit.
The strategy depicts the EU as economically frail, politically fractured, and dependent on US support “for a price.”
The message to the EU hawks is: the US will not assist the European establishment in “holding off the new generation of nationalists and populists from taking power.”
According to Kwiatkowski, it is unlikely that the US deep state will “tactically and strategically aid European elites, through money, deals, and color revolutions, or even help with NATO expansion, as they have for the past 30 years.”
As for Europe’s policy toward Ukraine—if determined by the populist movements likely to prevail in coming European elections, it will “settle for a smaller, possibly landlocked Ukraine, and investment in Ukraine will not be charitable but geared primarily to recoup European economic losses.”
December 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, NATO, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
The adjustments made to the new US National Security Strategy are largely consistent with Moscow’s vision, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.
“The adjustments that we are seeing, I would say, are largely consistent with our vision,” Peskov told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.
On Friday, the White House published a new US national security doctrine that calls on Europe to take responsibility for its own defense. The document also suggests that the White House disagrees with European officials on their stance regarding the conflict in Ukraine.
Responsibility for the possible seizure of Russian assets will be shared by individuals and entire countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said.
“Listen, we will have both national responsibility and personal responsibility, personal and legal responsibility for these actions,” Peskov told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.
Peskov also recalled that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) opposed the seizure of Russian assets and urges caution to avoid negative repercussions on the international financial system.
“We hear that the International Monetary Fund has issued a statement addressing this issue with great caution and calling for such measures to avoid any negative impact on the international financial system. That is, even the IMF [opposes], and what is the IMF? It is what they created, it is the foundation of monetary policy in the monetary world. So it turns out that this foundation is now turning against its progenitors, saying ‘Come to your senses,’” he said.
December 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | European Union, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed that the European Union is preparing for war with Russia and plans to be fully ready by 2030. Speaking at an anti-war rally on Saturday, Orban said that Europe was already making moves toward a direct military confrontation.
He described a four-step process that typically leads to war: breaking off diplomatic relations, imposing sanctions, ending economic cooperation, and finally engaging in armed conflict. He said that most of these steps have already been taken.
“There is the official European Union position that by 2030 it must be ready for war,” he stated.
He also said that European countries are moving toward a “war economy.” According to Orban, some EU member states are already shifting their transport and industrial sectors to support weapons production.
The prime minister emphasized Budapest’s opposition to war. “Hungary’s task at the same time is to keep Europe from going to war,” he said.
Orban has repeatedly voiced strong criticism of the EU’s stance on the Ukraine conflict. Hungary has consistently opposed sanctions on Russia, as well as military aid to Kiev and called for peace negotiations instead of escalation.
The warning echoed recent remarks by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who have both suggested that a Europe-Russia confrontation is increasingly plausible in the coming years.
Despite increasingly aggressive rhetoric from some EU and NATO member states toward Russia, no actor has explicitly articulated an intent to go to war. Last week, NATO Military Committee chair Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told Financial Times that the bloc is studying options for a more aggressive posture toward Russia, including the notion that a pre-emptive strike could be viewed as a defensive measure.
The EU has increasingly used the alleged ‘Russian threat’ to justify massive military spending hikes, such as Brussels’ €800 billion ($930 billion) ReArm Europe plan and NATO members’ pledge to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no plans to fight either the EU or NATO, adding however, that it would respond if Western nations launched a war against Russia.
December 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, Hungary, NATO, Russia |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 