Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

When Greenland divides the North Atlantic allies, the world is astonished!

By Mohamed Lamine KABA – New Eastern Outlook – January 21, 2026

The posturing here (Washington) and there (London and Brussels) around Greenland is just one key indicator of the disintegration of the Western world, which must be included in a sui generis approach.

Indeed, far from being a mere Arctic territory, the island of Greenland reflects a decaying Western world, where alliances are crumbling under the weight of their own duplicity. Europe, paying dearly for its vassalage, is discovering that its American friend is a predator; while NATO, far from being a bulwark of peace, is a shadow play where former allies stab each other in the back, all the while smiling for the cameras. What if Greenland, this white and silent land, were to become the loudest stage for the disintegration of this alliance founded on lies? What if, beneath the melting icebergs, the immutable truth of a vassalized Europe, a predatory America, and an Atlantic alliance that has never been anything but a pact of convenience, cemented not by trust, but by a common hatred of the Other – yesterday the USSR, today China and Russia? Greenland, far from being a periphery, has become the nerve center of a simmering confrontation between “allies” who silently hate each other.

From a geostrategic perspective, this article demonstrates, based on the convergence of the questions raised, how the posturing, first American, then European, around Greenland reveals the long-hidden enmity of the North Atlantic allies.

Greenland, a strategic sentinel and the scene of competitive imperialism

In reality, Greenland has never been a forgotten territory. Since the Cold War (1947-1991), it has been a key component of the American military apparatus. The Thule Air Base, established in 1951, was imposed without consulting the Greenlanders, or even the Danish Parliament. It was not cooperation, but a disguised occupation. Greenland has never been a partner in the true sense of the word; it has always been an outpost, a buffer zone, a territory to be monitored, exploited, and militarized. In this context, NATO is merely a convenient smokescreen for unilateral domination.

But it was in 2019 that the absurdity became truly revealing. Donald Trump, in a fit of imperial brutality, proposed buying the island, which, it argued, was autonomous from Copenhagen, so close to it, and from the rest of the world, so far away. Europe, true to its role as a diplomatic bystander, offered only half-hearted indignation. Denmark, humiliated, protested weakly, then fell silent. For Europe had long ago traded its sovereignty for an illusion of protection, supposedly guaranteed by the American nuclear umbrella. Today, it is paying, in full, the price of its servility and vassalage to Washington. Greenland thus became the symbol of a Europe that, even humiliated, continues to bow its head, convinced that humiliation is the price of security. Will it break free from Washington this time? I don’t think so. not having prepared for this, and not having the means to do so anyway.

In 2025, and then again in January 2026, the situation shifted dramatically. Faced with Trump’s repeated threats to “buy up or, failing that, invade” the island, European chancelleries, initially paralyzed with fear, finally reacted. Not out of courage, but out of an instinct for survival. Fearing a de facto annexation of the territory by the United States, several European countries – France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and, of course, Denmark – decided to discreetly send troops to Greenland, after the failure of talks between the United States and Denmark, under the guise of Arctic cooperation and rather pathetic military exercises. This deployment, unprecedented since the end of World War II in 1945, marked a turning point where Europe, without daring to name its adversary, began to treat Washington as a strategic threat. The first European soldiers thus set foot on Greenlandic soil, not to defend NATO, but to contain the ally that had become a predator. Unpredictable, Trumpism is now a political science in Europe.

Since 2020, the United States has methodically strengthened its grip on Greenland with the opening of a consulate in Nuuk, massive investments in infrastructure, funding of mining projects, and, above all, the deployment of radar and surveillance equipment without prior consultation. Washington does not negotiate; it imposes. Greenland is becoming the focal point of an intra-Western war of influence, where each side seeks to appropriate Arctic resources under the guise of collective security. NATO, far from being a pact of solidarity, is proving to be a hidden battleground between rival Western powers.

An alliance built on hatred, undermined by duplicity

NATO, founded in 1949, has never been an alliance of equals. It was a coalition of convenience, united by fear of Moscow, and later Beijing. But from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 onward, cracks began to appear, leading to the war in Iraq (2003), the intervention in Libya (2011), tensions over military spending, and disagreements over China. Greenland, today, reveals this structural hypocrisy; and, taken aback, the rest of the world is astonished and wonders: will the world finally be freed from the Western violence and terror that the peoples of the Global South, and even others within the Western sphere of influence, have suffered since 1945?

While Donald Trump ordered an illegal military operation in Venezuela on the night of January 2-3, 2026 – an operation that resulted in the abduction of the constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were then exfiltrated and tried in the United States in a sham extraterritorial trial – far from condemning this flagrant violation of international law, European leaders rushed to downplay it, minimize its significance, and justify the unjustifiable, as if it were a mere diplomatic adjustment. And when he demanded, in a truly imperial whim, that Denmark sell him Greenland, they ignored his outrageous demands and looked the other way, as if the Venezuelan episode had never happened. Yet, in the hushed corridors of power, one truth is undeniable: Washington is now perceived more as an enemy than an ally. This feigned loyalty, this diplomatic servility, is proving more dangerous today than open resistance. For it feeds Washington’s arrogance while simultaneously undermining the very foundations of European sovereignty.

The paradox in all of this is that Europeans realized, too late, that Washington is more of an enemy than an ally. An enemy that doesn’t bomb their cities, but humiliates their leaders, dictates their energy policies, sabotages their industrial projects (see the Alstom affair in 2014), and drags them into wars they didn’t choose, as the annals of the history of destabilizing military interventions by the NATO coalition clearly show. A predatory coalition under whose cover have been hidden free-riding states , incapable of pursuing an independent policy and deprived of any military, industrial, logistical, and financial autonomy, and which, through strategic opportunism and collective action, have contributed to the destruction of sovereign states like Libya. By becoming a pawn in this circumvented sovereignty, Greenland reveals this dynamic of tacit consent to domination.

In fact, NATO is now nothing more than a shadow play, where former allies act out a drama written in Washington. Europe, a docile spectator, zealously recites its role, even when it demands betraying its own interests. Greenland, by exposing this duplicity, becomes the mirror of an alliance that was never founded on trust but on a shared hatred – first of Russia, then of China, of course. And what is built on hatred can only implode into mistrust.

The world will remember that it took a divergence of interests over an island for the North Atlantic allies to split, presenting to the rest of the world a key indicator of the disintegration of the Western world, so desired and so long awaited to consolidate economic polycentrism and multipolarity in international relations.

In conclusion, as Brussels and London realize that Washington is more of an enemy than a friend, the transition to a multipolar world is now only a matter of time.

It remains to be seen whether they (Europeans) will remain at the feet of the master (Washington) for much longer, affectionately wagging the tail.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

EU free trade pact on hold as farmers revolt

RT | January 21, 2026

The European Parliament has voted to refer a trade agreement with the South American bloc Mercosur to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The move comes amid criticism of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for bypassing normal EU procedures and widespread protests from farmers across the bloc.

On Saturday, the EU signed a trade pact with Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The agreement that was projected to create the world’s biggest free trade zone still requires approval before it can take effect.

On Wednesday, the EU Parliament voted 334 in favor to 324 against, with 11 abstentions, to ask the CJEU to determine whether the deal is compatible with the bloc’s rules. The move now significantly delays the pact that had been negotiated for 25 years, and could potentially derail final approval.

The vote took place against the backdrop of criticism of von der Leyen for handling the Mercosur deal in a non-transparent way, splitting it into separate agreements to bypass national parliaments and reduce the European Parliament’s role to a formal opinion.

The deal has also faced widespread resistance from the agricultural sector, with farmers across the bloc staging mass protests over concerns that cheap imports could undercut their livelihoods. The latest rally began on Tuesday outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg and drew support from some lawmakers, continued overnight, and ended on Wednesday.

Von der Leyen had pushed the deal, describing it as a “clear and deliberate choice,” highlighting that the EU opts for “fair trade over tariffs” and “a productive long-term partnership over isolation.” The pact came just six months after she signed an agreement with US President Donald Trump that imposed a 15% tariff on most EU exports. The EC president faced strong pushback over the US deal from current and former EU officials and heads of member states.

The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 17% of the bloc’s total trade in 2024, at €111 billion.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian gold gains offset frozen asset value – Bloomberg

RT | January 21, 2026

Russia has benefited from a surge in gold prices since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, earning windfall gains comparable to the value of the country’s sovereign reserves frozen in the West, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

The Bank of Russia’s gold holdings have gained over $216 billion since February 2022, calculations show.

Western countries froze about $300 billion in Russian central bank assets as part of Ukraine-related sanctions. The majority of the funds are held at Belgium-based depository Euroclear. The EU has been debating using the funds as collateral for a so-called ‘reparations loan’ for Kiev, and in December extended the freeze with a long-term measure that would keep the assets blocked indefinitely.

The rise in the value of Russia’s gold holdings restores much of the country’s lost financial capacity, even if blocked reserves remain inaccessible, the outlet said. Unlike securities and cash frozen in Europe, the metal can still be sold or used as collateral if needed.

The value of Russia’s gold reserves more than doubled from February 2022 through end-2025, while holdings of foreign currencies and assets fell by about 14%, central bank data show. Gold now comprises 43% of total reserves, up from 21% prior to the Ukraine conflict.

Total international reserves stood at $754.8 billion as of January 1, data showed, with monetary gold accounting for $326.5 billion. The bank’s gold holdings were valued at $141 billion on February 1, 2022.

Gold prices have surged over the past four years, jumping by 60% in 2025 alone, driven by robust demand from central banks, persistent inflation concerns, and heightened geopolitical tensions.

Precious metal futures surged to a record high on Tuesday, surpassing $4,720 per ounce and marking a 2.71% gain, exchange data showed. Analysts linked the rally to increased geopolitical risks, including US President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff threats against European countries opposed to his Greenland takeover plan.

The Russian Finance Ministry expects gold prices to continue to climb towards $5,000 per ounce and beyond.

Deputy Finance Minister Aleksey Moiseev said in December that the current rally stems from eroding confidence in global reserve currencies, adding that attempts to expropriate Russian assets are further bolstering demand.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Europe is ‘run by German war troika’ – Orban

RT | January 20, 2026

The “German war troika” at the top of the EU is shaping the bloc’s bellicose policy, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has alleged.

Speaking at a political rally in Budapest on Monday, he identified the three “pro-war Germans” as European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the leader of the EU Parliament’s largest party, EPP, Manfred Weber.

“The fact is that Europe is controlled by a German war troika… These three people are the ones who shape Europe’s war policy today,” Orban said.

He cited the latest EU €90 billion ($106 billion) loan package to Kiev, arguing that the bloc was effectively financing the Ukraine conflict for another two years with money Brussels did not have. As Kiev will never be able to pay the money back, “our children and grandchildren will pay,” he added.

Western leaders are already openly discussing eventual troop deployments to Ukraine as so-called peacekeeping contingents, he said.

“Prior experience shows that European peacekeepers always tend to become warkeepers. That is why I do not recommend that Hungary send troops outside its own borders within any European peacekeeping framework.”

NATO troops in Ukraine under any pretext have long been an absolute red line for Russia, and initiatives to deploy them have been viewed in Moscow as undermining the US-brokered diplomatic efforts.

Russia has also pointed to an increase in warlike rhetoric from von der Leyen, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and the leaders of the UK, France and Germany.

“They are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation, and, in fact, are not even hiding it,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Moscow has long been focused on eliminating the core causes of the Ukraine conflict, which the West has been fueling for years in an effort to turn Kiev into a “threat to Russia’s security,” the top diplomat said.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine aid critic quits as president of EU country

Bulgaria’s Rumen Radev, a critic of the bloc’s policies, has cited ‘oligarchy’ undermining the country’s democracy

RT | January 20, 2026

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev has announced his resignation, saying the political class has “betrayed” voters, citing “oligarchy” and fueling speculation that he is poised to create his own party ahead of snap parliamentary elections.

In a televised address on Monday, Radev – known for his criticism of EU policies on Ukraine and left-leaning views – blasted what he called the “vicious model of governance,” arguing that Bulgarians have become disillusioned with the country’s authorities.

Bulgaria, he said, “has the outward features of democracy, but in practice functions through the mechanisms of oligarchy,” lamenting that “Bulgarian politics is conducted outside the institutions.”

Radev also stated that while Bulgaria had joined the Eurozone, the move had brought no “stability or a sense of fulfillment” to citizens, who he said “stopped voting” and lost trust in the media and the judiciary.

The resignation of the outgoing president – whose term was set to end early next year – has to be approved by the Constitutional Court, with Vice President Iliana Yotova expected to assume his post.

Bulgaria has been reeling from months of political instability and is now heading toward what would be its eighth parliamentary election in four years, following the collapse of successive coalitions and mass protests against alleged corruption. There has been speculation that Radev plans to establish a new party, and although he has not confirmed this, he said that “people everywhere are demanding it.”

Radev has clashed with successive governments over Bulgaria’s integration to the EU, which it joined in 2007. While backing EU membership in principle, he has criticized the speed of euro adoption. Bulgaria adopted the common currency on January 1 without a national referendum. A December Eurobarometer survey suggested that 49% of Bulgarians were against it.

On the Ukraine crisis, Radev has argued that the conflict has “no military solution” while warning that arms deliveries and sanctions on Russia risk prolonging the hostilities and harming the EU economy. He has also opposed Ukraine’s push to join NATO.

Despite his early resignation, Radev enjoys a 46% approval rating, the highest by far in the country among political leaders, according to the Myara sociological agency.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

How did the EU get hooked on American gas?

Pressure from Washington and compliance from Brussels has left the bloc at the mercy of the US

RT | January 20, 2026

The EU fears its long-term dependence on American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. Promised “molecules of freedom” by Washington, Europe now finds itself in a prison largely of its own design.

The EU has embraced a “potentially high-risk new geopolitical dependency” on American LNG, a new report by the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) warned last week.

With the US set to supply up to 80% of the bloc’s LNG imports by 2030, a European diplomat told Politico that some officials in Brussels now see themselves completely at the mercy of the US, which could shut off the supply if, for example, the Europeans opposed an American annexation of Greenland.

How did we get here?

The EU imported 45% of its gas from Russia before the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, with Russia the bloc’s largest foreign supplier since the end of the Cold War.

However, a revolution began in the US in 1998 that would end in the EU severing its decades-long energy links with Russia. Mitchell Energy, a Texas-based company, carried out the first successful natural gas extraction via slick-water fracturing. This milestone kicked off the US’ fracking boom, which turned the country into a net energy exporter.

US shale gas output soared from negligible volumes around the turn of the millennium to roughly 30 trillion cubic feet a year by the mid-2020s. Washington began to look abroad for new markets.

‘Molecules of freedom’ and the politics of coercion

The Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all lobbied Europe to switch from Russian gas to American LNG, with Donald Trump’s Department of Energy describing the American product as “molecules of freedom” in 2019. For two decades the Europeans were unreceptive: Russian gas, piped directly through Ukraine or via the Nord Stream 1 lines, was 30-50% cheaper than US LNG, which had to be converted to liquid, stored on container ships, and then regasified in special port facilities after crossing the Atlantic.

Barack Obama offered more favorable prices if the Europeans would make the switch, while Trump slapped sanctions on Nord Stream.

When Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the Americans finally got their opportunity to capture the European market for good. Europe’s Atlantacist leaders – among them EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz – eagerly went along with Joe Biden’s sanctions on Russian energy, and gas imports from Russia fell to 11% in 2024.

What does Nord Stream have to do with it?

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas lines presented a dilemma for the Biden administration: as long as they remained intact, the EU could – however unlikely – choose to cut support for Ukraine and negotiate a return to cheaper Russian gas.

Biden promised in early 2022 to “bring an end” to Nord Stream. “I promise you,” he told reporters at a White House press conference, “we will be able to do it.” The Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines were sabotaged in a series of explosions that September, and while there is no concrete proof of US culpability, American journalist Seymour Hersh maintains that Biden ordered the CIA to carry out the sabotage operation.

According to Hersh, Biden ordered the operation specifically to deny Germany the chance to back out of the proxy war in Ukraine.

Is there any way back to cheap gas?

Russian gas still reaches the EU via the TurkStream pipeline, as well as by ships from the Yamal LNG facility in Siberia. However, EU leaders intend to fully cut off all Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.

The EU is currently the world’s largest importer of LNG, and more than half of its LNG terminals have come online or entered the planning or construction phases since 2022. The US now supplies 57% of the bloc’s LNG imports and 37% of its total gas imports, up from 28% and 6%, respectively, in 2021.

Even if the political will to change this situation existed, the EU is legally bound to deepen its dependence on the US. Under a trade deal signed by von der Leyen and Trump last July, the EU is required to purchase $750 billion worth of US energy by 2028. Essentially, Brussels cannot refuse what Washington is offering.

Russia maintains that it is a reliable energy supplier, and that the EU chose “economic suicide” in abandoning Russian gas.

How will the US use this leverage against the EU?

European leaders were seemingly content to trade away their energy security during the Biden years and to further bind themselves to the US under the Trump-von der Leyen trade deal. The risks of this approach became apparent last weekend, when Trump announced 10% tariffs on eight European nations for opposing his planned acquisition of Greenland.

Trump has warned that the levy will rise to 25% by June 1 if Denmark refuses to cede the territory. While the EU has threatened retaliatory tariffs, it is completely defenseless if Trump decides to cut gas exports as a punitive measure.

“Hopefully we’ll not get there,” an EU diplomat told Politico. However, hope is the only tool the Europeans have at the moment.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Why EU ‘Has No Alternative’ But to Return to Russian Gas Imports Sooner Than Later

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Fears are growing as Europe becomes increasingly dependent on American LNG—once viewed as a safe alternative to Russian gas, but now seen as uncertain amid strained transatlantic relations, according to a media report.

With EU–US tensions rising over Ukraine and Greenland, “it is virtually impossible for the bloc to stop buying American LNG without having to allow Russian gas imports to return,” says Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, international oil economist and global energy expert.

He notes that while the threat of halting US LNG imports “could act as a deterrent against Trump annexing Greenland,” the reality is that “the EU has no alternative but to return to Russian gas sooner than later.”

According to Salameh, the US sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline network was intended to “forever sever Russian gas supplies to Europe and ensure that US LNG replaces Russian gas permanently.” Instead, he argues, “this turned out to be a real financial disaster for Europe’s economy.”

He points to 2025, when the EU economy grew by only about 1.4%, with many German and other European companies—including Volkswagen—relocating in search of cheaper energy. Looking ahead, Salameh warns that the EU’s plan to end all Russian energy imports by early 2027 “will mean anemic economic growth for Europe’s economy.”

As a result, he says, the bloc now faces “a big dilemma, namely letting its economy stagnate if not shrink or lifting sanctions on Russian gas.”

With Europe now “squeezed between a rock and a hard place,” Salameh concludes that it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who “will have the last laugh.”

He adds that Putin could choose to resume gas supplies to Europe—a move that, he argues, could reshape the future of NATO and Europe’s relationship with the US.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO without America: Europe’s trial run ends in a reality check

Steadfast Dart 2026 exposes how fragile European security looks once the US steps aside

By Andrei Medvedev | RT | January 20, 2026

NATO has launched major military exercises – Steadfast Dart 2026. The drills involve over 10,000 troops from 11 countries: Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye. The primary goal is to assess the bloc’s readiness for the rapid deployment of substantial forces. The exercises will continue until mid-March.

At first glance, it might seem like just another NATO exercise. But here’s the catch: The US is not taking part. The initiative is purely European, and aims to achieve two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate that Europe is strong, unafraid of American influence, and capable of protecting its interests – not only by producing AI animations about heroic Vikings defending Greenland, but through real military strength.

The second goal is to find out whether Europe can operate independently, without US support. The answer is probably not. It’s no secret that 70% of NATO’s budget comes from US contributions. But beyond finances, NATO intelligence is primarily reliant on the US. Satellite communication, coordination, and command structures are also all built around a model in which the US acts as the ‘big brother’ to its European partners.

Russian journalists have witnessed this dynamic in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan (NATO did not officially conduct an operation there, but in reality, it entered the country). Who owns the largest and safest bases? Who oversees all sector units? Who plans operations and sets combat tasks? The big brother – the US. In Kosovo, for instance, NATO allies couldn’t just enter Camp Bondsteel. The base was American, and the Europeans had to get a special pass to enter.

Until recently, Europe seemed perfectly content with its ‘junior partner’ status. What fueled the EU’s prosperity? Cheap Russian (initially Soviet) resources with stable supply lines and minimal security expenses. Security was outsourced to the Americans: US bases, air support, missile defense… Then Trump came along, and in typical businessman fashion, said if you want protection, you’ll have to pay for it.

Is there a NATO without the US? That’s the question European military leaders will grapple with during these exercises – though they likely already know the answer. Sure, NATO would exist, but it would be very costly for the EU; or perhaps it won’t exist at all, which means Europe must concede that the master will do as he pleases. And the ‘master’ – America – is well aware of this.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently stated that the US will remain in NATO. But just look how he put it. Asked what’s more important to US security interests, NATO or Greenland, Bessent replied: “That’s a false choice. The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella.”

In the current climate, when Europe’s economy is struggling (for example, BMW and Mercedes are now using Chinese engines, and BASF is making only a third of what it used to), the idea of a European NATO seems far-fetched. Europe just doesn’t have the money for it.

Neither does it have the military equipment – most of it has been sent to Ukraine, and what’s left would last a month or so in a high-intensity conflict. Moreover, Euro-NATO doesn’t have that many armies with real combat experience outside of the bloc.

Sure, there is France, which has been engaged in prolonged operations in the Sahel. And Türkiye. However, even their combat experience is powerless in a situation in which there is no money. Fighting Bedouins in the Sahel or Kurds in Syria is worlds apart from facing an adversary like China or Russia – or, in the new reality, the US.

The fact that the US is not taking part in NATO’s latest military exercises (despite being able to easily deploy their troops from bases in Germany or Italy) is quite telling. America’s message to Europe is clear: Let’s see how you do without us and then come running back.

The lesson is humiliating. But after all, they got into this mess by themselves.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US’ European Vassals Taught Bitter Lesson With Greenland Crisis

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Commenting on the topics discussed by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his 2025 diplomacy year-in-review presser, Daffodil International University journalism professor and international politics expert Greg Simons detailed two main themes: Ukraine and the breakdown of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’.

The Greenland crisis shows that “when you are such a servile lackey as the EU, eventually you get to be ‘on the menu’, especially when the US empire, this Pax Americana, is in decline,” Dr. Simons told Sputnik.

“The EU has nowhere to go.” Their leaders “can bluster, they can try and bluff, but to use Trump’s terminology, they have absolutely no cards… They have no honor, they have no dignity, they have no respect, either for themselves or the EU. So this is not going to go well for the EU.”

As for Ukraine, while Washington has apparently recognized that the proxy war with Russia is “lost” and that Ukraine is “a liability,” the Europeans are pushing headfirst into prolonging the conflict, no matter the cost to themselves, Simons noted.

“Europeans seem to have their head in the clouds and unaware or not willing to see” the “risks and hazards coming up for them,” the observer stressed.

Then there’s the dysfunction at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

“If you prevent consensus on issues, an organization such as the OSCE is absolutely useless because consensus should be reached on objectively coming together on mutually acceptable and mutually favorable grounds,” Simons said.

“What they’ve turned it into is just this platform for pillorying countries such as Russia or those that stand for their interests and objectives rather than those of the US. I absolutely agree with the foreign minister’s characterization – that the situation of the OSCE is catastrophic. I would doubt it can be saved, mostly because of what the so-called Global North, those Western countries at the behest of the US did to make sure that it could no longer function effectively as an organization to be a bridge between different interests, different worlds (which it no longer is).”

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe Economic Panic

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2026

When a prime minister advises his staff to rest because the coming year will be much more difficult, it is neither black humor nor fatigue. It is a moment of sincerity, the kind that only emerges when internal projections no longer support the public narrative.

Giorgia Meloni was not addressing the electorate. She was addressing the machinery of the state itself, the administrative core charged with implementing decisions whose effects can no longer be hidden. Her observation was not about a normal increase in workload. She was talking about constraints, about limits being reached, about a Europe that has moved from crisis response to a phase of controlled contraction, fully aware that 2026 is the year when deferred costs will eventually converge.

What has leaked out is what European ruling circles have already understood: the Western strategy in Ukraine has run up against material limits. Not with Russian messages, not with disinformation, not with populist dissent, but with steel, ammunition, energy, manpower, and time. Once these realities assert themselves, political legitimacy begins to erode.

The EU cannot sustain this war economically. Europe can strike poses of readiness. It cannot manufacture war.

After years of high-intensity conflict, both the US and Europe are rediscovering a long-forgotten truth: wars of this nature cannot be sustained with speeches, sanctions, or the abandonment of diplomacy. They require bullets, missiles, trained personnel, maintenance cycles, and industrial production that consistently exceeds battlefield losses. None of this exists, not in sufficient quantities, and it is not feasible in the timeframe preached in Brussels.

Russia is producing artillery ammunition in quantities that Western officials now openly admit exceed NATO’s total production. Its industrial base has shifted to near-continuous wartime production, with centralized procurement, streamlined logistics, and state-led manufacturing, without even total mobilization. Estimates place Russian production at several million artillery shells per year, already delivered, not just projected.

Europe, meanwhile, spent 2025 congratulating itself on targets it is structurally incapable of achieving. The EU’s stated commitment of two million shells per year depends on facilities, contracts, and labor that will not be available by the decisive period of the war, if ever. Even if achieved, the figure would still be less than Russian production. The US, despite emergency expansion, expects about one million shells per year once full ramp-up is complete, and only if that happens. Even on paper, combined Western production struggles to match what Russia is already producing in practice. The imbalance is clear.

This is not just a deficit, but a misalignment of timing. Russia is producing now. Europe is planning for the future. And time is the only factor immune to sanctions.

Washington, in fact, cannot indefinitely compensate for Europe’s eroded capacity because it faces its own industrial difficulties. Patriot interceptor production remains in the order of a few hundred per year, while demand simultaneously concerns Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the replenishment of US stocks: an imbalance that, as Pentagon officials admit, cannot be resolved quickly. Shipbuilding tells a similar story: submarines and surface ships are years behind schedule due to labor shortages, aging infrastructure, and skyrocketing costs, pushing significant expansion toward 2030. The assumption that America can indefinitely support Europe is no longer in line with reality. This is a systemic Western problem.

Unfounded war rhetoric

European leaders talk about a “state of war” as if it were a rhetorical position, but in reality, it is an industrial condition that Europe does not meet.

New artillery lines take years to reach stable production. Air defense interceptors are produced in long, batch-based cycles, not in sudden spikes. Even basic components such as explosives remain a critical issue, with plants that closed decades ago only now reopening and some not expected to reach full capacity until the late 2020s. This timeline is in itself an admission.

Europe’s weakness is not intellectual, but institutional: huge sums have been authorized, but procurement inertia, fragmented contracts, and a depleted supplier base have meant that deliveries are years behind schedule. France, often described as Europe’s most capable arms manufacturer, is capable of building advanced systems, but only in limited quantities, counted in dozens, while a war of attrition requires thousands. EU ammunition initiatives have expanded capacity on paper, while the front has exhausted ammunition in a matter of weeks.

These are not ideological shortcomings, but administrative and industrial failures, which are exacerbated in stressful situations. It is yet another example of the failure of European Community policy, so much so that the structural contrast is stark. Western industry has been optimized for shareholder returns and peacetime efficiency, while Russian industry has been reoriented to withstand pressure. NATO announces aid packages. Russia counts deliveries. You can already guess what the outcome of this situation will be, right?

This industrial reality explains why the debate on asset freezing was so important and why it failed. Europe did not pursue the seizure of Russian sovereign assets out of legal ingenuity or moral determination, but because it needed time: time to avoid admitting that the war was unsustainable in Western industrial terms, time to replace production with financial maneuvers.

When the effort to confiscate some €210 billion in Russian assets failed on December 20, blocked by legal risks, market repercussions, and opposition led by Belgium, with Italy, Malta, Slovakia, and Hungary opposing total confiscation, the Brussels technocracy settled for a reduced alternative: a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for 2026-27, with interest payments of around €3 billion per year. This further mortgages Europe’s future. This is not a strategy, but emergency triage. A collapsing political hospital. Pure panic.

Narrative, crisis, disaster

The deeper reality is that Ukraine is no longer primarily a military dilemma, it is a question of solvency. Washington recognizes this, because it cannot absorb the reputational discomfort, but they cannot take on unlimited responsibility forever. A way out is being explored, discreetly, inconsistently, and shrouded in rhetorical cover.

Europe cannot admit the same necessity, because it has ultimately adopted ‘Putin’s version’, i.e. it has framed the war as existential, civilising, moral – but do you remember when European politicians enjoyed calling Putin crazy for talking about a clash of civilisations?

Compromise has become appeasement, negotiation surrender. In doing so, Europe has eliminated its own escape routes. Well done, ladies and gentlemen!

On the narrative front, greetings to all. The aggressive enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act has less to do with security than with containment: building an information perimeter around a consensus that cannot survive open scrutiny. Translated: censorship as a solution. The truth of the matter must not be made known, and those who try to do so must be suppressed in an exemplary manner. This also explains why regulatory pressure now extends beyond European borders, generating transatlantic friction over freedom of expression and jurisdiction. Confident systems welcome debate. Fragile ones suppress it. In this case, censorship is not ideology, but a form of insurance.

The information crisis, rest assured, will very soon become… a social crisis ready to detonate into domestic conflict.

And the crisis is also one of resources and energy. We are witnessing the securitization of decline, whereby obligations are postponed while the productive base needed to sustain them continues to shrink. It’s a cat chasing its tail. Here too, you know how it will end, don’t you?

Europe has not only sanctioned Russia. It has sanctioned itself. European industry will continue to pay energy prices well above those of its competitors in the United States or Russia throughout 2026. Take a trip around Europe, read the headlines in local newspapers, look at people’s faces: the fabric of small and medium-sized enterprises, the true beating heart of entire EU countries, is quietly disappearing. And this is logically reflected in large companies too. This is why Europe cannot increase its production of ammunition and why rearmament remains an aspiration rather than a concrete operation.

Energy, we said. Low-cost energy was not a convenience, it was essential. If it is eliminated through self-inflicted damage, the entire structure is emptied. Even the most ambitious plans preached for years, such as the IMEC corridor, are still a mirage. There is a stampede towards Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to try to scrape together a few kilowatts. A ridiculous attempt to save what is now tragically unsalvageable.

China, observing all this, represents the other half of Europe’s strategic nightmare. It controls the world’s deepest manufacturing base without having entered into a position of war. Russia does not need China’s full capacity, only its strategic depth in reserve. Europe has neither.

A frightening 2026

2026 therefore looks set to be a terrible year, I’m sorry to say. The European elites find themselves losing control on three fronts at once. On finance, because the budget will be bitter and the money for the insane support to Kiev will no longer be the same. On narrative, because the question citizens will ask themselves will be ‘what was the point of all this?’. On the cohesion of the Alliance, both NATO and the EU, because Washington’s disengagement will force a review of the balance of power on the European continent to the point of no return and, perhaps, a break between the two sides divided by the ocean.

Panic, again. Not a sudden defeat, but the slow erosion of legitimacy as reality creeps in through gas that costs as much as gold, closed plants, empty stockpiles, obsolete rifles, and a future that is turning away.

This is not just a difficult situation for Europe, but a matter of civilization. A system incapable of producing, supplying, speaking honestly, or retreating without collapsing in credibility has reached its limit. When leaders begin to prepare their institutions for worse years, they are not anticipating inconveniences, but recognizing structural failure.

Empires proclaim victory loudly. Declining systems quietly lower expectations or, in this case, momentarily say the quiet part out loud. But the truth is that nothing is the same as before, and it is obvious.

For most Europeans, the reckoning will not come as an abstract debate about strategy or supply chains, but as a simple realization: this was never a war they consented to. It did not defend their homes, their prosperity, or their future. And so, again, how do you think it will end?

An ideological war has been fought in the name of imperial ambition and financed through declining living standards, industrial decline, and the prospects of their children. In the name of big pro-European capital, of the privileged few with robes, stars, and crowns.

For months, even years, it was said that “there was no alternative” and that this was the only course of action. And now?

Europeans are tired. They want peace, stability, and the quiet dignity of prosperity: affordable energy, a functioning industry, and a future unencumbered by conflicts they NEVER chose and, above all, they do not want the decline of millennia-old civilizations.

And when this awareness has taken hold, when the fear has faded and the spell has been broken, the question Europeans will ask themselves will not be technical or ideological. It will be existential. And all existential questions lead to radical choices, even terrible ones.

May this dramatic fear keep the mad leaders of this Europe awake at night.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Latest US-backed regime change operation in Iran hits the wall

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | January 17, 2026

Having bombed the country in 2025, “Israel” and the US seemed to think that provoking street violence would have more success at collapsing the Iranian state. Instead, it fizzled almost instantly.

We have been here at least half a dozen times in the past two decades. Street protests in Iran over an internal economic, social or political issue emerge, gather a degree of momentum in urban areas and the Western propaganda system declares that the protests have “shifted” from their initial focus, to calls for the repudiation of the Islamic Revolution and the end of the political system it created. European and American politicians issue their empty statements of solidarity with the Iranian people and unilaterally decide that the Islamic Republic has “lost its legitimacy,” that its fall is simply a matter of “when,” not “if.” We have seen this narrative played out often enough to recognize it never survives contact with the real world.

The source of the persistent delusion that the Islamic Republic is about to fall comes not only from the Euro-American elite class wishing it to be so, but also from its deferral to the “analysis” of segments of the diaspora whose own political objectives are detached from reality.

Whether it is protests over the government’s handling of the economy, energy blackouts, or the water crisis, most external observers are incapable of viewing each individual issue through any lens other than that of regime change.

This time around the US and Israelis, in coopting the protests to destabilize the country through street violence, have not even bothered to hide their involvement. It has also not helped the West’s case that it is now feigning “humanitarian concern” for the rights of Iranian citizens while it has spent more than two years facilitating the ongoing slaughter and starvation of Gaza’s population. Any observer following both issues can detect the dissonance and conclude what is motivating the frantic calls to escalate the situation into military intervention. That is, the desire to crush a state and society that has resisted Western dominance for more than four-and-a-half decades.

The brazenness of the West’s affected concern for the well-being of the Iranian public is particularly galling in light of the sanctions. If Iranians’ living standards were really of any concern to Washington, London or Brussels, they would start by unconditionally ending their economic strangulation in effect against the country. The truth is that the suffering and misery engendered by the sanctions is entirely the point. As well as stifling the development of an independent state outside the globalized-Western economy, the siege is specifically intended to make living conditions unbearable for the average Iranian so that they are incentivized to undermine the Islamic Republic. The continuation of the sanctions is a barely disguised punishment of the Iranian public for not pursuing the West’s geopolitical goal of regime-change for them.

Were it not glaringly obvious to the Trump administration before the latest unrest, it surely is now that the exiled political diaspora most actively pushing for the fall of the Islamic Republic through Western military action are entirely incapable of political organization. Even the least crazed fan of the defunct Pahlavi dynasty is pathologically hostile to the terrorist personality cult of the MEK, as much as they are to the Islamic Republic itself. There simply is no political alternative, to say nothing of whether it even has any domestic support, waiting to replace the Islamic Republic.

Flush from the “success” of his abducting Venezuelan president Maduro, Trump seemed temporarily convinced he might have a similar option here, to carry out a meaningless military stunt for which he can take credit and declare “victory.” His problem is that there is no level of open military action against Iran that would allow him to do this without igniting a regional war that destroys the global economy.

This realization, if he has come to it, would explain his backtracking on the red lines he set, that any executions would trigger US attacks. If a controlled, stage-managed performance is his goal, as it almost always is, then the confrontation with Iran leaves him with no viable option but to back down.

The absence of any realistic military option has now seen both the US and Europe revert to their standard tactic; the intensification of the sanctions they have used to punish the Iranian people. Trump’s latest declaration of a 25% tariff on any country trading with Iran is his way of giving himself an off-ramp, for now, from a crisis that is largely of his making.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine is defending itself with money Europe doesn’t have

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 17, 2026

The ugly truth is that an end of the Ukraine war may have as devastating economic and political consequences for Europe as its continuance.

Ukraine already faces a $63 billion U.S. dollar funding shortfall in 2026 and I would be surprised if this figure doesn’t increase if the war continues. Ukraine’s massive fiscal splurge is driven by two factors

  • The enormous cost of maintaining a standing army of almost one million people;
  • The vast expense of importing weapons from the west to fight the war.

Weapon purchases are not sources of productive investment as they are literally burned in the heat of battle. The same, of course, is true for Russia. Both countries saw reducing economic growth in 2025, with Ukraine’s at 2.1% and 1.5%. And, western pundits would point to this as evidence that Ukraine’s economy is performing better.

But the opposite is true. Russia’s economy is around twelve times larger than Ukraine’s nominally and just over ten times larger when you look at GDP using purchasing power parity.

You can see this in the defence spending numbers.

Russia spent a record $143 billion on defence in 2025 compared to around $60 billion for Ukraine, so around 2.3 times higher. Yet, Russian defence spending amounted to just 6.3% of its GDP whereas for Ukraine it was 31.7%. So, massive spending on defence is a much less pivotal issue for Russia in terms of its economic fortunes.

Defence spending represents a far smaller proportion of total economic activity than it does for Ukraine. And Russia can afford to pay for its defence needs with its own finances, while Ukraine is entirely dependent on money from western donors to keep the war going.

Despite the massive cost of war, Russia ran a fiscal deficit of just 1.7% of GDP in 2025. That is still well below the EU fiscal rule of 3% of GDP with some countries like France and Poland having deficits at or more than double that figure.

Ukraine’s fiscal deficit on the other hand was around 20% of GDP. That gap had to be filled by foreign funding as it has debt of 107% of GDP and is cut off from foreign lending.

So, hence the EU stepping up with a loan of 90 billion Euros, two thirds of which is earmarked for defence.

Russia on the other hand has debt of around 15% of GDP and doesn’t really need to borrow heavily to keep its war effort afloat. By the way, 15% of GDP is far lower than the U.S. or any European nation, many of which, like Ukraine, have debt levels of over 100% of GDP.

Ukraine is defending itself with money Europe doesn’t have.

Despite the shock of sanctions, Russia doesn’t have to break the bank nor boost its lending significantly.

This also means that when the war eventually ends, Russia will be able to make the economic transition back to peace in a less painful way. Russia will be under no pressure to impose massive cuts to defence spending to live within its means and can instead do so gradually.

Ukraine on the other hand faces a massive financial cliff edge when the war ends.

Ukrainian economic growth according to the OECD is set to fall further to 1.7% in 2027 if the war continues.

And that assumes continued large injections of capital from outside countries. In 2025, Ukrainian defence spending made up 31.1% of Ukrainian GDP, and two thirds of state budgetary expenditure. None of that spending goes into improving Ukraine’s weak economy.

With all of the support that it receives, Ukraine’s GDP in 2025 amounted to just under $210 billion according to the IMF.

Bear in mind here that Ukraine received $52.4 billion in external financing in 2025, or around one quarter of its GDP at the end of the year.

Take away foreign funding and Ukraine suddenly sees its economy shrink by over 20%.

Or, put it another way, take away the war and Ukraine sees its economy shrink by over 20%.

Russia simply does not face the same problem.

Rather, an end to the war may help Russia to get inflation – perhaps its biggest economic challenge – under control as economic activity returns to its normal rhythm.

But still the question arises, how come Ukraine has grown so little when it received so much foreign funding?

One big reason is that Ukraine recorded a trade deficit of $30 billion over the same period, a record according to the National Bank of Ukraine.

So, $52 billion in foreign money came into Ukraine during the year and $30 billion went straight back out again. Because Ukraine’s massive trade deficit is fuelled by two things.

First, a huge increase in the import of weapons from western suppliers which have doubled since 2022, not least as they are no longer being provided free of charge.

Second, Ukraine has increased its imports of natural resources, in particular a massive increase in gas imports, because domestic production has been hit hard by the war. Coal is another area, as Russia has swallowed up important coal mines in the Donbas.

Not all of that deficit in trade will be recoverable even after the war ends, even if Ukraine was able to reduce the overall size of its trade deficit.

By comparison, Russia’s surplus of trade in goods was already at over $100 billion by October 2025, although the overall trade picture is narrower, at around $36 billion because of a significant deficit in services trade, including from large numbers of Russians who have moved overseas since the war started.

An end to the war, if anything, may allow Russia’s trade surpluses to grow further. A future relaxation on the import of natural resources into Europe could mean that Russia benefits from already increased trade with Asia and renewed trade with Europe.

In any case, the consistent surpluses that Russia pulls in both help shore up economic growth and foreign exchange reserves, which in 2025 grew by over $135 billion to a whopping $734 billion.

And just to be clear, Russia put their reserve funds almost completely into gold which now stand at over $310 billion.

One big reason for Russia storing its reserves in gold is to keep them clear of the stealing hands of western bureaucrats, who froze around $300 billion in reserves at the start of the war.

This means that Russia has a surplus of $434 billion in foreign exchange reserves which is almost completely insulated from western expropriation. The $10 billion rise in foreign currency reserves in 2025 was undoubtedly caused by an accumulation of reserves in non-dollar, Euro and sterling currencies, suggesting the move to greater trade in Chinese Yuan and Indian rupees.

An end to the war may at some point lead to the unfreezing of immobilised Russian assets in the U.S., Europe and Japan.

Ukraine’s reserve position is also comparatively strong, at $57.3 billion at the start of 2026, a record figure. However, that rise is completely down to inflows of foreign capital to fund the war effort. An end to the war would likely shrink Ukraine’s reserves as its stubborn trade deficit was not being offset by foreign inflows of funds as they had been during war.

But it’s the sudden and shocking loss of foreign funding that accompanies an end to the war which will cause Ukraine’s economy to shrink dramatically.

But fear not, Europe is determined that Ukraine maintain an army of 800,000 personnel when the war ends. However, this seems more about economic survival than about security.

Ukraine would not be able to pay for such as large army with its own money, as it doesn’t have any money. So, once again, Europe will be forced to step in to meet Ukraine’s financing needs to pay the salaries of soldiers who are no longer in war fighting mode.

This will lead to debt and taxes rising in Europe, according to a recent Kiel Institute study. But it will also lead to a loss of business for European defence firms. Because peace time will inevitably mean a sharp drop in the munitions and military material being burned on a daily basis in the fog of war.

Two thirds of the EU’s recent 90 billion Euro loan to Ukraine will be spent on military support, including weaponry. That has sparked an argument between Germany and France over a proposed ‘buy European’ clause, with France wanting to prevent Ukrainian purchases of U.S. equipment. Perhaps with one eye on the future, the French in typical fashion, are trying to ensure that their firms get a decent share of what could amount to dwindling Ukrainian orders for weapons.

A bit like the French army, Europe is reversing itself inevitably into economic defeat when the war ends.

Obligated to keep an economically failed Ukraine on life support.

Having to increase its debt and taxes to support bad foreign policy decisions it has been taking since 2014.

Trying to boost its defence industrial complex but losing business with the end of war.

For the mainstream political parties in Europe, this adds to the trend of them heading towards electoral Armageddon when they start putting themselves to the polls from 2027 onward.

Until then, they are stuck, knowing that continuing the war will kill them electorally, and knowing that ending the war will too. To quote my old British soldier dad, they are like the mythical oozlum bird, continually going round in circles until they disappear up their own backsides.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »