Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Robbed Western Taxpayers of $7.8Bln in Lost Military Equipment

Sputnik – 12.04.2025

MOSCOW – Kiev lost in the Kursk Region 5,500 units of equipment supplied by the West worth $7.8 billion, Sputnik calculations based on the data provided by the Russian Sever group of forces, as well as on the data on the equipment’s cost from open sources revealed on Saturday.

Earlier Sputnik, on the basis of the data from the Russian Sever group of forces calculated that during the hostilities in the Kursk Region Kiev spent more than $27 billion, which is more than half of all foreign financial aid received by Ukraine from Western countries in 2024.

According to open sources, the average cost of a tank is $4.5 million, a self-propelled artillery unit – $4 million, an APC – $300,000, a BMP – $600,000, etc. The total value of the trophy equipment destroyed and taken by the Russian Armed Forces was calculated by Sputnik and amounted to about $7.8 billion.’

“Part of the allocated funds was spent by the Ukrainian armed forces for supplemental staffing and partial repairs before sending the equipment into combat operations,” the Sever group of forces said.

April 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO needs Romania to launch WWIII – Georgescu

RT | April 11, 2025

Calin Georgescu, a former Romanian presidential candidate whose bid was controversially invalidated earlier this year, has claimed that NATO wants to “launch World War III from Romania.” In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, he said his staunch pro-peace stance was among the main reasons why he was barred from running for president.

The right-wing politician, known as an outspoken critic of NATO, the EU, and Western support for Ukraine, scored a surprise win in the first round of November’s presidential election, receiving 23% of the vote. However, the country’s Constitutional Court swiftly moved in to annul the result over alleged “irregularities” in his campaign. Later, Georgescu was stripped of his right to run for office.

Appearing on Carlson’s podcast on Thursday, the former Romanian presidential candidate alleged that NATO wants to “launch… World War III from Romania.” The politician cited the fact that the “largest military base of NATO is in Romania,” coupled with the 380-mile (612 km) long border that his country shares with Ukraine.

“In this situation of course Romania is the asset for [the] European Union, for [French President Emmanuel] Macron in order to launch the war,” Georgescu insisted.

“They want to turn NATO [into] an offensive force” and are “pushing for war,” he alleged, adding that “my position was exactly against them.”

According to Georgescu, “all my campaign was just concentrate[d] on peace[.] When I said… the word ‘peace’, they immediately alerted… because they need war.”

The right-wing politician went on to say that the “majority of Romanian people… have this position against any intervention and any participation [in] war.”

“I was denied [the right to run for president] by the globalist mafia,” the former candidate alleged, further claiming that the people behind the invalidation of his candidacy were the same people who attempted to derail Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in the US, using similar smear tactics.

Appearing on ‘The Shawn Ryan Show’ in January, Georgescu similarly suggested that NATO military infrastructure in Romania could be used to launch a major offensive against Russia.

Bucharest, a NATO member since 2004, has been expanding the MK Air Base to make it the largest NATO installation in Europe.

Moscow has described the base as “anti-Russian” and warned that it would be among the first targets for retaliatory strikes in a military conflict.

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Marine Le Pen on trial while corrupt Ursula von der Leyen protected

By Ahmed Adel | April 10, 2025

Although European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen should be in prison for the Pfizergate scandal, not to mention inciting war crimes in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, nothing will come of it as Brussels is evidently corrupt. However, following the verdict handed down to right-wing French National Rally party leader Marine Le Pen, the question arises as to why Ursula von der Leyen has not been indicted for the Pfizergate scandal, which is worth several billion euros.

Le Pen has been sentenced to four years in prison, fined 100,000 euros, and banned from running in the 2027 presidential election. She was convicted of corruption, having allegedly embezzled 2.9 million euros from European Parliament funds. Nonetheless, no one cares whether Marine Le Pen will actually be in prison or not. What matters is that she is banned from political activity and that a coup is carried out against the National Assembly at a time when the ruling paradigm is in crisis.

The case against the former French presidential candidate is not the first instance of a political process canceling unsuitable politicians in the EU, nor is it a precedent, as seen in the ban on Călin Georgescu’s candidacy, where it is clear that the European Commission undermined democracy in Romania.

It is also recalled that in 1999 and 2000, when the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party won 27 percent of the vote in the elections, its then-leader, Jörg Haider, was supposed to be the prime minister. However, Brussels completely isolated Austria, and it ended with Haider giving up, even resigning from the party leadership, and eight years later, he died in a suspicious car accident.

Therefore, the ban on political activity by politicians unsuitable for Brussels is not a surprise, as the EU has never been distinguished by its democratic character, which is why it has often been advertised as “the greatest peace project.” The EU has long had a European Commission composed of unelected bureaucrats, which is why Ursula von der Leyen, as an unelected politician from Germany, has often been perceived as acting like the de facto leader of Europe, or one of two, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

EU elites support all authoritarians on the continent that suit their interests, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and even on Europe’s periphery, such as Syria’s self-designated president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, regardless of the fact that he committed genocide against Alawites and Christians last month.

Corruption is also an integral part of EU structures. It would not be so significant if it were not accompanied by political action. This is exemplified by the fact that liberal Ursula von der Leyen escapes prosecution for Pfizergate, while right-wing Marine Le Pen is imprisoned.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, von der Leyen made a deal with Albert Bourla, the CEO of US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, to purchase 1.8 billion doses of untested COVID-19 vaccines, valued at approximately $37.6 billion. Von der Leyen negotiated this deal through a series of text messages that she eventually deleted — supposedly by mistake — along with those she exchanged with her husband, Heiko, a medical director at a biotech company with ties to Pfizer. As a result, von der Leyen was accused of corruption and “abuse of power.”

Even before becoming European Commission president, at the end of her term as Germany’s Defense Minister (2013-2019), von der Leyen became the target of an investigation by the Federal Audit Office for continually awarding lucrative contracts to external consulting firms. In its 2018 report, the Federal Audit Office questioned the awarding procedures of some of these contracts, worth millions of euros, which appeared to have been made without proper cost assessment or a proper tendering process.

Although this may seem like incompetence at first, the American consulting firm McKinsey, for example, attracted attention when its Berlin office hired the daughter of von der Leyen. The firm eventually won contracts worth millions of euros.

While von der Leyen is protected from prosecution by German and European Union authorities, Le Pen is being prosecuted because she does not conform to the liberal values of Brussels and is described as far-right.

US President Donald Trump even demanded on April 4 for Le Pen to be freed and allowed to run for office, calling her ban a “witch hunt.”

On Truth Social, he described the court case as “another example of European Leftists using Lawfare to silence Free Speech and censor their Political Opponent, this time going so far as to put that Opponent in prison.”

Trump added that it is “all so bad for France and the Great French People”, before ending his post with “FREE MARINE LE PEN!”

In this way, while von der Leyen is protected, Le Pen is being prosecuted on allegations stemming from her time in the European Parliament that are not yet fully substantiated, all because she threatens the rule of Macron, a loyal servant of Europe’s elites.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

April 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

‘Signalgate’ Highlights the Trump Administration’s Disregard for Civilian Life

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | April 8, 2025

Much of the media discourse surrounding Signalgate has focused on its national security implications. Nevertheless, the most important—and most overlooked—dimension of The Atlantic leak is the unvarnished look it provides at the Trump administration’s disregard for civilian life. At no point before or after the U.S. airstrikes against Yemen do any members of the Houthi principals committee acknowledge the human cost of such military operations. This brazen approach to warfare contravenes the America First ethos that President Donald Trump and his allies purport to embody.

Many have cited Vice President J.D. Vance’s contributions to the group chat as evidence of some non-interventionist undercurrent running within the administration. On Friday, March 14, Vance questioned the prudence of bombing Yemen. Vance’s instincts lead him to the right conclusion (“I think we are making a mistake”), but his slavish commitment to certain political imperatives (“The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message”) lead him to preemptively kneecap his own argument (“I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself”), effectively nullifying any critiques he might have offered.

Furthermore, Vance fails to mention the fact that the Houthis had refrained from attacking U.S. military and commercial vessels since a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced back in January, nor did he mention that the Houthis were only reimposing the blockade on Israeli shipping in the Red Sea after Israel reneged on the terms of the ceasefire. His failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room—the fact that the attack on Yemen is being carried out exclusively for the benefit of Israel—is glaring.

Joe Kent, Trump’s nominee to serve as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responds to Vance by agreeing that there was no need to expedite the strikes. He is also the first person in the chat to reference the Israel factor. However, he inexplicably describes the likelihood that Israel “will take strikes” and “ask [the U.S.] for more support to replenish whatever they use against the Houthis” as “a minor factor.” Like Vance, Kent offers a very feeble critique of the proposed airstrikes, and the threadbare nature of his contribution becomes all the more indefensible when one considers the vehemence with which he previously opposed military action in the Middle East.

To no one’s surprise, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz manage to easily neutralize Vance’s irresolute objections. Later in the chat, Vance says, “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” which prompts Hegseth to respond with, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” Note that neither official objects to Israeli freeloading.

On Saturday, March 15, about two hours before the first strikes, Hegseth shares the tentative schedule for the forthcoming operation. He follows up that post by wishing, “Godspeed to our Warriors.” Vance writes, “I will say a prayer for victory,” prompting two participants to respond with prayer emoji reactions.

At 2:00 p.m., Waltz tells Vance, “The first target—their top missile guy—we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.” Vance offers a one-word response: “Excellent.” What follows is a series of congratulatory, emoji-heavy responses from the other officials in the chat. Among them is Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who writes, “Great work and effects!” Gabbard previously opposed U.S. support for “Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen.” In September 2018, she charged that the war had “killed thousands and thousands of innocent Yemeni people and caused mass starvation and suffering, a cholera epidemic, [and] the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.” In November 2018, she famously tweeted:

U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who received much of the credit for the now defunct ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, also joins in the festivities. He shares two prayer emojis, a flexed muscle emoji, and two American flag emojis.

Nobody in the conversation displays any interest in the humanitarian implications of destroying an apartment building, nor does anybody ask about collateral damage. At least 53 people, including five children and two women, were killed in that day’s strikes. But even if the numbers provided by the Houthi-run Health Ministry were entirely fraudulent, the fact that none of the participants raise any objections to U.S. attacks on civilian infrastructure is, while unsurprising, still disturbing. It also undermines the notion that the second Trump administration is an America First one. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which the U.S. assault on Yemen fuels Islamist recruitment efforts, leading to deadly consequences for American civilians and military personnel down the line.

April 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Le Pen’s verdict exposes Western Europe’s dangerous trend

The EU’s repression is backfiring spectacularly

By Vitaly Ryumshin | Gazeta.ru | April 4, 2025

What’s happening in Western Europe is increasingly raising uncomfortable questions. On March 31, a French court found Marine Le Pen guilty in the so-called “fictitious aides” case, sentencing her to four years in prison and banning her from running for office for five years. Remarkably, the ban took effect immediately, without even waiting for an appeal.

The court’s decision has proved highly controversial, and not only among Russians, who typically see Le Pen as part of Europe’s Moscow-friendly political forces. Even French political figures have expressed bewilderment. Given Le Pen’s position as the frontrunner in the 2027 presidential elections, her conviction has undeniably taken on political dimensions. Some French politicians have already called upon President Emmanuel Macron to pardon Le Pen in order to preserve the face of the country’s “democracy.” Prime Minister François Bayrou reportedly expressed alarm, admitting privately to aides, “France is the only country that does this.”

But Bayrou is mistaken in believing France stands alone. Suppressing opposition figures through tactics reminiscent of hybrid autocracies is becoming the latest trend in EU states. Recently, Romania spectacularly canceled the first round of its presidential election, later jailing Calin Georgescu, the leading candidate.

Germany seems likely to follow suit. The emerging coalition government between the CDU/CSU and SPD is drafting legislation that could bar anyone convicted of “incitement to hatred” from political activity. Though not openly stated, this measure unmistakably targets the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The reason behind this crackdown lies deeper than any immediate legal disputes. Far-right parties across the bloc have increasingly challenged the European integration project itself. These political forces have openly called for slowing down or completely dismantling the EU in favor of returning to traditional nation-state structures. While some of these right-wing parties, including Le Pen’s National Rally and Germany’s AfD, have moved toward the political center in order to broaden their appeal, their reputation as “destroyers of Europe’s garden” remains entrenched.

Western European bureaucrats and established national elites are deeply unsettled by the growing popularity of these parties. Having benefited tremendously from the EU’s expansion and centralization for over three decades, they are unwilling to surrender their privileged positions without a fight. It’s as if they feel the ground shifting beneath their feet and will do anything necessary to preserve their status quo.

Yet here lies the paradox: the more the EU establishment struggles to remain in power through repressive measures, the quicker its authority and legitimacy erode. The bloc’s foundational identity rests on liberal democratic ideals, institutional sanctity, and the rule of law. When Brussels arbitrarily removes opposition candidates, it saws off the very branch upon which its entire elite sits.

The surge of Europe’s far right has not emerged in a vacuum. Its popularity directly stems from the existing EU leadership’s chronic inefficiency and inability to respond adequately to today’s challenges. Attempting to remove right-wing politicians from the playing field is not a solution. Discontented voters will inevitably find alternative ways to express their frustrations – likely even more fiercely once their grievances are compounded by deep mistrust of the political establishment.

Romania’s recent experience provides a vivid example. After the scandal involving the canceled election, Calin Georgescu’s popularity surged dramatically – from 23% to 40%. Once Georgescu was banned from running, voters swiftly pivoted to another far-right candidate, George-Nicolae Simion, who is now leading the race. This scenario seems almost comical, but could soon be replicated across France, Germany, and other EU states where authorities are excessively targeting opposition figures.

Western European leaders appear somewhat aware they’re playing a dangerous game. However, their conclusions and reactions to this crisis remain fundamentally flawed. EU bureaucrats try to unify the continent by exploiting citizens’ fears – fear of global instability, fear of military threats, fear of economic chaos. Their agendas emphasize support for Ukraine, joint military initiatives, and endless symbolic summits. Billions of euros are readily allocated to armament and defense.

Yet none of these actions address the real issues underlying the bloc’s deepening political divisions – economic stagnation, deteriorating living standards, mass immigration challenges, and declining trust in traditional governance structures. The EU’s refusal or inability to tackle these fundamental problems continues to fuel voter disillusionment.

Ultimately, the more the EU establishment clings desperately to power through authoritarian methods, the faster its cherished structures crumble. Until Western Europe’s leaders face reality and address genuine citizen concerns, this spiral of distrust and repression will only accelerate, making the EU’s future increasingly uncertain.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Shameless: How an ‘EU aspirant’ silences opponents and threatens them with jail

Yevgenia Gutsul escorted by police after a court hearing in Chisinau, March 28, 2025. © Sputnik/Dmitrij Osmatesko
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | April 3, 2025

On March 25, Evgenia Gutsul, the elected leader of Gagauzia, was detained at Chisinau International Airport while attempting to leave Moldova. A court later ordered her to remain in custody for 20 days.

Officially, the charges relate to alleged illegal campaign financing tied to the Sor Party and an organized criminal group. But while legal justifications were cited, the move immediately raised red flags about political motivations behind the arrest.

This incident sets a significant and troubling precedent: never before has an elected leader of an autonomous region in Moldova been taken into custody. Unlike President Maia Sandu – whose reelection last year remains controversial and debated in Moldovan society – Gutsul secured a clear and commanding win in Gagauzia. Her arrest reads less like a legal procedure and more like a strategic attempt to intimidate dissenting voices, especially as Chisinau ramps up its drive toward European integration.

Still, the confrontation wasn’t exactly unexpected. For months, Sandu’s administration has shown growing discomfort with Gutsul’s visibility and political outreach, which extended beyond regional issues and increasingly captured national attention. Viewed in context, her arrest seems like part of a broader power struggle playing out at the highest levels of Moldovan politics.

A leader under pressure – and defiant

Since her historic election in 2023 as the first female Bashkan (leader) of Gagauzia, Gutsul has been in near-constant conflict with Moldova’s central government. Her criticisms of Chisinau’s policies have been sharp and frequent. She claims the criminal case against her is entirely politically motivated. Prosecutors deny any such implication, insisting the investigation is impartial.

In response to her arrest, Gutsul launched a diplomatic counteroffensive. She publicly appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin, urging him to apply diplomatic and legal pressure on the Moldovan government. Similar appeals followed to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – citing a decades-old autonomy agreement signed with Turkey’s mediation – and to US President Donald Trump, whom she described as a global leader capable of preventing internal conflict in Moldova.

Her messages struck a chord in Moldova. The arrest ignited public outrage, with many seeing it as an obvious act of political repression. Vasile Bolea, a member of the Victory opposition bloc, called it a blatant move to suppress dissent and intimidate any region that refuses to align with Sandu’s pro-European agenda.

Gagauzia: the thorn in Chisinau’s side

This is not an isolated incident – it’s part of a longstanding power struggle between the Moldovan center and the autonomous region of Gagauzia. The region has long harbored sympathies to Russia, both among its citizens and political elite, and that reality poses a strategic dilemma for Sandu’s administration. Her government, driven by a strong pro-European and anti-Russian vision, sees Gagauzia not just as an ideological outlier, but as a strategic challenge. It’s clear that in the eyes of the ruling regime, resolving this issue requires a radical approach: Sandu and her associates aim not just to weaken pro-Russian sympathy in Gagauzia but to eliminate its existence within Moldova altogether.

Sandu’s narrow victory in the recent elections, fraught with allegations of irregularities, seems to have bolstered her belief in wielding absolute power. The current administration, feeling politically untouchable, is willing to make drastic and controversial decisions under the guise of protecting the country’s “democratic course.” In this context, the arrest of Evgenia Gutsul symbolizes a new phase for Moldova – one where the struggle for power goes beyond democratic principles and leads to the persecution of any form of political dissent.

The similarities to neighboring Romania are hard to ignore. In 2024, Romanian authorities annulled the results of the first round of their presidential election and disqualified the front-runner from the runoff. Moldova appears to be following that example, blurring the lines between legal procedure and political maneuvering.

Pre-election power moves and geopolitical games

Gutsul’s arrest comes at a critical political moment. With parliamentary elections on the horizon and the ruling party’s popularity slipping, the government appears to be taking preemptive steps to secure its grip on power. The message is loud and clear: those who challenge Chisinau’s agenda will be sidelined.

The situation also fits into a wider geopolitical context. Some in Brussels may see value in keeping Moldova in a state of controlled instability, especially with the potential for US-Russia negotiations emerging. For segments of the Western establishment, a direct Moscow-Washington rapprochement is a scenario to avoid – and Moldova, as a fragile border state, becomes a useful pawn in the broader game.

Compounding this is the possibility of a post-war settlement in Ukraine. Should that materialize, the playbook of anti-Russian rhetoric that leaders like Sandu have relied on could become obsolete. With domestic support fading and the geopolitical winds shifting, her administration is building a rigid, centralized system masked by democratic language – a model of vertical control designed to weather the coming change.

When the law becomes political

Moldova’s legal system hasn’t done much to counter the growing skepticism. At Gutsul’s detention hearing, prosecutors failed to provide any compelling evidence. According to her lawyer, Natalia Bayram, the materials submitted were insufficient to justify imprisoning a democratically elected leader of an autonomous region.

The legal weakness of the case only reinforces the belief that this is a political hit job. Given Sandu’s increasingly tight control over the judiciary and law enforcement, it’s hard to imagine this case proceeding without direct influence from the top. Every sign points to coordination at the highest level.

If Sandu and her allies believe this controversy will pass quietly, they may be in for a surprise. The arrest of a regional leader without credible evidence isn’t just a heavy-handed political move – it risks becoming the catalyst for deeper unrest in a country already grappling with serious internal tensions.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Merz against Germans and Europeans

By Ricardo Nuno Costa – New Eastern Outlook – April 1, 2025

The last session of the Bundestag under the Scholz government paved the way for the extraordinary injection of 500 billion euros into the German economy, with the votes of the CDU/CSU, the SPD and the Greens. Behind this special fund, which involved an amendment to the Basic Law, is an attempt to revive the country’s economy, which has been stagnating since it declared economic war on its biggest energy supplier, Russia, in 2022. More worryingly, the easing of the debt brake that has now been approved does not set any future limits, which could lead Berlin into a debt spiral. For now, a week later, there is already talk of additional spending of at least 350 billion euros on this package. The decades-long brand image of German ‘fiscal discipline’, of the transparency of its economy and of Germany as the continent’s safeguard of monetary stability is thus falling apart.

The new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who has always sold the image of being a ‘frugal’ and ‘rigorous’ politician and has vehemently opposed any change to the debt ceiling, is the mastermind and the one who will effectively direct the implementation of this fund over the next 12 years, thus being able, as head of government, to take out loans for public investments or direct payments from the federal budget. Calculated, the amount comes to a staggering 42 billion extra euros a year, almost a tenth more than the last federal budget. The money will flow into the German economy and generate opportunities, but at what cost?

Merz was for years the head of BlackRock Deutschland, the German branch of the world’s largest ‘shadow bank’, the asset manager BlackRock. In 2020, in order to run for the head of CDU/CSU), he formally stepped down from his position at the New York giant. Now, the opposition (and even members of the current grand coalition with the SPD) believe that the Chancellor wants to continue lobbying for the interests of his bosses on the other side of the Atlantic and combine Germany’s rearmament projects with an infrastructure programme from which BlackRock and the German arms giant Rheinmetall will make juicy profits at the expense of the public purse. MP and former parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats, Rolf Mützenich, accuses Merz of wanting to do business with foreign and security policy by keeping Germany under the thumb of the US military industrial complex. It was the best way he could find to ‘appease Donald Trump’, the SPD MP recently told Spiegel. So it’s clear that there’s no cut with the US, despite all the murmuring and outrage that Trump’s election has caused among a frustrated European elite, who blindly bet everything on Kamala Harris.

From austerity to debt

The Federal Republic, despite its reputation for austerity, is a champion of ‘special funds’. From the Marshall Plan to the country’s opaque and hurried reunification process, Berlin has always found ways to bypass legality or even the rules of the common market in order to keep its public accounts apparently healthy. The current special fund is by far the largest of the 29 previously approved. The Financial Markets Stabilisation Fund (200 billion in 2008), Covid (150 billion in 2020), the Armed Forces (100 billion in 2022) and the ‘energy crisis’ (200 billion in 2022) were the biggest. Through these extra budgets, Berlin has been hiding the true scale of its public debt and budget deficit for the last 20 years. Now things are clearer and many questions arise.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy, but it has been contracting for three years. The Berlin government actually has more liquidity than ever because it is taxing its citizens more than ever, but it needs to use these tricks to approve potentially unnecessary and exaggerated plans. In the current conditions of de-industrialisation, does Germany have the capacity to generate the physical wealth to get the economy growing again, or will the operation result in a setback that could aggravate the inflation already persistent since the special fund against Covid? Experts warn that the initiative will not have the capacity to generate economic competitiveness. Issuing debt for government programmes will do nothing to address this major shortcoming in the German economy.

Consequences for Europe

The approval of this fund further corroborates the idea that Europe as a whole – and not just the South, once vilely labelled the ‘PIGS’ – has, in fact, never left the crisis of 2007-08 and that its political classes (with Germany at the forefront) have insistently done the opposite of what they should have done.

How will France, Italy, Spain and the other Eurozone partners react to a move that could be considered ‘dumping’ between partners? Could this injection cause a new financial derivatives’ crisis?

Merz’s move had the immediate effect of boosting the European public debt market, causing the value of bonds to fall and their rates to rise. This dragged down Italian, Spanish, French and even Japanese bonds as a result. With the German state competing aggressively for new clients to finance its debt, it is forcing its European partners to follow suit. Discord is served. In other words, what Merz is doing is using his position as the Eurozone’s strong link by using the whole of Europe to pay for his businesses.

Does the new government in Berlin intend to finance its economy around sovereign bonds and a Frankfurt stock exchange with little more than a central European reach, and try to compete with the heavyweights of the global markets in New York, London, Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong? Is this realistic?

Merz’s plan coincides with the European Commission’s Readiness 2030 programme to issue another 650 billion euros in debt outside the Budget Pact and another 150 billion to be disbursed in European guarantees. The biggest debt issue since the ‘bazooka’ against Covid, which is still being paid for in the form of inflation. The project calls for states to allocate at least 1.5% of their budgets to defence, in order to launch a continent-wide arms industry and supposedly create jobs in the sector. No one has asked the states (let alone their people) if they want to live in a war economy. No one has said how these 650 billion will be paid back, or what guarantees the ‘European guarantees’ give a State.

The expansive policies of German governments since 2008 have been controversial, even within their own borders. The Federal Court of Audit harshly criticised the new fund: ‘The financial management of the federal government has thus been largely externalised,’ it accused. It warned that the financial package ‘could result in billions of euros in interest costs’. This will have catastrophic economic and social consequences for future generations.

Merz is betting on public spending, but in reality this is a kind of untimely neoliberal Keynesianism, as it will be financed by the US speculative banks, to which the new chancellor has always been closely linked. The whole process seems less than transparent, just to say the least.

Problematic social situation

For big businesses, the arms industry, construction companies, the speculator class and the financial sector, the injection of such a huge amount of money will have the effect of energising the economy for a while and improving some ageing infrastructure. But for the small citizens (the overwhelming majority of the population), the consequences of the current announcement will be devastating. Merz has already announced a ‘radical reform’ of pensions and social welfare benefits.

A good example of the state of public accounts in Germany is yet to be seen. Recently, the scandal broke at the hands of hundreds of thousands of small business owners across the country, who saw their businesses almost bankrupted during the lockdown campaign of the Merkel 4 and Scholz governments. In an extremely deceitful manoeuvre, the banks mandated by the state administrations have now (four years later) demanded that they return up to thousands of euros in ‘aid’ per head, which the state authorities granted them in compensation for the forced paralysis of trade. This is a simple transfer of wealth from the country’s small productive sectors directly into the pockets of the financial-technocratic class (banks, lawyers and accountants), with the public administrations acting as bait.

Social discontent is also being felt in the numerous strikes in various sectors, particularly public transport and airports.

In a recent joint interview, the directors of two popular publications, one linked to the left and the other close to the AfD, agreed to create a united front and promised to join forces against the current state of affairs. There will be larger demonstrations than during Covid, ‘authorised or not’, with encampments in city centres, ‘for as long as it takes’. The images of popular revolt from 15 years ago in Madrid and Athens will be repeated, this time in Berlin.

Ricardo Nuno Costa ‒ geopolitical expert, writer, columnist, and editor-in-chief of geopol.pt

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Orbán counters FT article telling the EU to ‘solve its Orbán problem’

Remix News | April 1, 2025

The Financial Times’ piece entitled “It’s time for the EU to solve its Orbán problem” has elicited a stern response from Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán.

The piece determines that the EU must support Ukraine’s fight against Russia and provide it with arms to do so. And to do this, it must also somehow get Hungary on board, despite the country repeatedly reiterating its pro-peace stance.

Author Mujtaba Rahman states, “The EU’s ability to do this is directly compromised by Orbán, who has been hugely emboldened by Trump’s return. The Hungarian prime minister keeps in lockstep with Trump and Putin in the hope of winning favours from both.”

Rahman then lists “levers” the bloc can pull to essentially force Hungary’s hand, primarily through the withholding of cash the country desperately needs due to what the author calls Hungary’s “stagnant economy.”

“EU funds are therefore critical if Orbán is to boost investor confidence in the country’s economy. The European Commission has leverage and should use it,” the piece reads. Rahman also suggests simply suspending Hungary’s voting rights.

The article ends by stating, “The EU is now facing a Darwinian moment. It will either adapt or die. To protect Ukraine and its Russian ‘frontline’ states, it must face down Orbán.”

In a response posted on X, Orbán wrote, “The Financial Times is right about one thing: Europe has arrived at a Darwinian moment. They want to change the EU from a peace project to a war project. This is not evolution, this is decay. We must resist, even if they want to punish us.”

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Germany to target ‘internal EU enemies’ – Politico

RT | April 1, 2025

The incoming German government plans to play a larger role in EU decision-making, including by punishing nations that dissent against the bloc’s foreign policy, Politico has reported. According to the outlet, a draft coalition agreement targets Hungary, which has defied EU decisions on issues such as the Ukraine conflict and sanctions against Russia.

Germany is set to have a new coalition government formed by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democrats (SPD), likely led by Friedrich Merz of the CDU. The parties are currently finalizing agreements on key policy areas, including migration, climate, and EU relations. Merz is reportedly aiming to form the new government before Easter on April 20.

One of the documents reviewed by Politico outlines Berlin’s plans for a more assertive EU strategy. It proposes using the ‘Weimar Triangle’ – a trilateral alliance of Germany, France, and Poland, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency – to influence the bloc’s direction and strengthen Germany’s use of its voting rights.

The draft also states that Berlin plans to “defend” the EU against “internal and external enemies” by calling for punitive action against member states that allegedly violate principles such as the rule of law. Proposed penalties include withholding EU funds and suspending voting rights.

“We will take even more consistent action against violations,” the document states. “Existing protective instruments, from infringement proceedings and the withholding of EU funds to the suspension [of] membership rights such as voting rights in the Council of the EU, must be applied much more consistently than before.”

The coalition has also proposed the creation of a “comprehensive sanction instrument” to rein in perceived dissenters, including replacing the EU’s foreign policy unanimity requirement with majority voting to prevent countries from blocking decisions such as sanctions.

“The consensus principle in the European Council must not become a brake on decision-making,” the document states.

While Hungary is not mentioned by name, the draft agreement appears to be a clear reference to the country, which has long been at odds with EU policies, including over its approach to the Ukraine conflict and its sanctions policy towards Russia.

Budapest has argued that sanctions have been detrimental to the bloc’s economy, and has exercised its veto right on several motions to delay or dilute measures. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly accused the EU of taking a “pro-war” stance and has pursued independent peace initiatives on the Ukraine conflict.

The EU has previously threatened to suspend Hungary’s voting rights. It withheld around €22 billion in funds earmarked for Budapest in 2022, citing rights and judicial concerns, but ultimately released about half of that amount last year.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

The EU, the USSR, and the architecture of collective security in Eurasia

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2025

In July 1966, an important event took place in the Romanian city of Bucharest. The Warsaw Pact countries (USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania) adopted a Declaration on Strengthening Peace and Security in Europe. This document, signed by the leaders of the listed countries, stipulated the following:

1. The Warsaw Pact participants officially declared that they have no territorial claims to any European state.

2. The signatories of the Declaration proposed the simultaneous dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO in order to ease tensions.

3. The Declaration proposed the withdrawal of all foreign troops from European countries.

4. The Warsaw Pact countries proposed to develop mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries of the continent based on the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs.

And so, it was 1966. It had been less than five years since the Berlin crisis of 1961, when Soviet and American tanks faced each other in a standoff near the checkpoint (between West and East Berlin).

At the height of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed their own project for a collective, common, mutually beneficial security architecture in Europe.

10 years later, in November 1976, a new meeting of the Warsaw Pact Political Advisory Committee was held in Bucharest. As a result, a new Declaration was adopted. In my opinion, it can be called the prototype of the modern concept of a multipolar world. In the Declaration of 1976, the Warsaw Pact countries published the following program for the collective security system:

1. Ending the arms race.

2. Development of interstate relations with respect for the principles of sovereignty and mutual assistance.

3. Emphasis on the development of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between different states.

4. Support the struggle against neocolonialism in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

5. Support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

6. Restructuring of international economic relations based on the principles of justice and equality.

A few months later, in October 1976, the Soviet government sent a detailed Statement to the UN Secretary General on the topic of restructuring world economic relations. The Statement proposed to support the economic interests of Asian, Latin American, and African countries, to fight against neocolonial economic practices, and to limit the activities of global financial monopolies.

What do these historical facts tell us? In the 60s and 70s of the last century, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed to Europe to create a system of collective security and make a choice in favor of cooperation rather than confrontation. At the same time, they proposed to make world trade, economic ties, and political relations more pluralistic and more equal. These projects, outlined in the two Bucharest Declarations of 1966 and 1976, could once have significantly changed the geopolitical situation. But that didn’t happen, because there was one problem.

The military and political establishment of Western Europe and the United States had no intention of building a joint security architecture in Europe with the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The situation was quite the opposite: after 1991, NATO began its waves of expansion to the east. Since the Brussels summit in January 1994, an active process has begun to involve the countries of the former Warsaw Pact in NATO: in 1999 Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined the alliance. In the following years, the process of NATO expansion in Europe became continuous, spreading to the post-Soviet space (Baltic countries). The United States used this expansion as a tool to realize its hegemonic ambitions and to maintain the American unipolar dictatorship.

As the years passed, the EU countries continued to turn into a platform for NATO bases, which appeared closer to the borders of Russia. At the same time, the Russian Federation has always expressed its readiness for constructive dialogue, including on the architecture of collective security in Europe. Let’s recall 2008, when Russia took the initiative to create a Treaty on European security. In 2009, a draft of this agreement was presented, which mentioned, among other things, the following aspects:

1. Mutual cooperation between countries based on the principles of indivisible and equal security.

2. An agreement that the countries participating in the Treaty will not carry out actions affecting the security of other participants.

3. The openness of the Treaty for the accession of participants from all over the Eurasian and Euro-Atlantic area.

Western countries did not support this initiative. Moreover, they continued to expand the NATO military infrastructure in Europe, building new bases and accepting new countries into the alliance (Albania, Croatia).

The historical review I have given shows that for decades (since the 20th century), the EU countries have rejected all Soviet and Russian initiatives to create a European collective security architecture. The European Union did not want to enter into a dialogue on this topic and turned the idea of an equal security system into ruins.

Here is a typical example illustrated by Finland. Since 1948, when the Soviet-Finnish Friendship Treaty was signed, the USSR has been one of Helsinki’s most important economic partners. Finland actively bought oil from the Soviet Union at relatively low prices and then re-exported it to other European countries at a higher price. Due to its neutral position during the Cold War, Finland maintained political and economic relations with both the European Economic Community and the Warsaw Pact countries.

And what is happening now? In 2023, Finland joined NATO, becoming another springboard for the alliance’s military expansion. The country closed its border with Russia and began to massively reduce bilateral trade ties, which negatively affected the Finnish economy itself (especially the Finnish border settlements, many of which received most of their income through trade relations with the Russian Federation).

In the 2010s, many EU countries (Italy, Germany, and others that previously had active trade relations with Russia) began to break off bilateral contacts and impose sanctions, thereby undermining the very essence of the idea of free trade. What is the reason for this?

First, the EU countries have been actively using Russia’s resources for decades, buying oil and natural gas at favorable prices. But at the same time, Western European countries showed disrespect for Russia’s national interests and ignored its constructive proposals on the subject of collective security architecture. Instead of an equal dialogue, the EU showed arrogance.

Secondly, since the 90s, the EU has considered the former Warsaw Pact countries and the post-Soviet space as a market for its products and businesses. The EU imposed strict requirements and interfered in the economic processes in the states of Eastern and Central Europe, which began to join it. For example, in Latvia in 2006-2007, due to the agrarian reforms of the EU, the sugar industry of the republic was actually disbanded. This was unprofitable for the Latvian economy, but it was in line with the interests of the larger European sugar producers. Similar reductions in the sugar industry occurred at that time in Bulgaria, the former socialist country. And this is just one example of such EU interference in the economy of former Warsaw Pact members.

Also, the EU, within the framework of the “Eastern Partnership”, began its active economic expansion in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in the 2000s. The EU’s political and economic interference in the affairs of the CIS countries, along with NATO’s eastward expansion, posed a direct threat to Russia’s security. In turn, Russia has responded to this threat by strengthening its security and sovereignty, including in the economic sphere.

Thirdly, back in the 1990s, the EU countries became one of the main springboards of the Western hegemonic unipolar dictatorship led by the United States. The so-called “Western world” tried in every way to prevent the emergence of multipolarity, combining sanctions threats with neocolonial practices in the Global South. The number of international political contradictions grew every year, and the EU constantly refused equal dialogue.

Now, the year is 2025, and the EU has become a clone of NATO in its essence and actions. Like the North Atlantic Alliance, the EU is a vestige of the Cold War era. Instead of solving internal problems (for example, the inequality of economic development in Northern and Southern Europe, rising unemployment, and the European energy crisis), EU leaders are using aggressive Russophobic rhetoric, provoking new escalation stages, and imposing new sanctions packages. They are increasing military spending, sponsoring the militarization of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States, and continuing their neo-colonialist expansion in Africa. Berlin, Brussels, Paris, and Warsaw are now the instigators of conflicts that are pushing the whole of Europe into the abyss in the name of globalism and destructive neoliberalism.

This tendency of the EU establishment to escalate once again confirms that the situation on the continent is tense to the limit. The idea of a collective security architecture is once again becoming relevant to prevent larger and more numerous conflicts. However, this can no longer be a concept of European collective security. Similar projects are a thing of the past. The world has changed, and in recent decades, the role of Asian countries has increased significantly. Countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are showing high rates of economic development, and their regional and international influence is growing. Therefore, in my opinion, the collective security architecture should be considered as a possible future project for the whole of Eurasia, built on the basis of equality and mutual respect. It is especially important to take into account the national interests of the countries of the Global South, which have suffered from Western European colonialism and interference for centuries.

To prevent further confrontation, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes that eventually led to the escalation. One of the main security problems in Europe is the expansion of NATO to the east and the concentration of NATO military bases near the borders of Russia and Belarus. Brussels, Paris, and Berlin should clearly understand that such actions (along with the bellicose rhetoric and policies of the current EU leadership) lead to an even more serious confrontation. Moscow and Minsk have repeatedly stressed that they will defend their territory and sovereignty in the event of a direct threat from the West.

It seems to me that, in the future, the most favorable option for reducing tensions in Europe and starting a dialogue on a new Eurasian collective security architecture could be the complete withdrawal of NATO troops from the EU countries bordering Russia (Finland, the Baltic states). If EU countries want to restore relations with Russia in the future, they should stop their hostile anti-Russian actions.

In the emerging multipolar world, there will be neither metropolises nor unipolar hegemonies. Europe is not the center of the world, but a political and geographical region like Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Therefore, future global security can only be based on an equal and mutually respectful relationship between countries and continents, that is, between all poles of a multipolar world order. And there is no place in this system for such destructive practices as the neocolonial paradigm of thinking and Western arrogance towards other peoples.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen sentenced to jail: Politicians react

RT | March 31, 2025

French and foreign politicians are reacting to the sentences handed down on Monday by a Paris court in a case against the National Rally party (RN) and several prominent figures, including Marine Le Pen, the party’s former leader who currently heads its parliamentary faction.

The RN and associated individuals were accused of embezzling EU funds allocated for the salaries of aides of European Parliament members and diverting them to the national coffers. Several defendants have been sentenced to prison terms of various lengths, while Le Pen was barred from seeking public office for five years.

  • 31 March 2025

    13:21 GMT

    French MEP Francois-Xavier Bellamy, who serves as vice president of the Republicans, has called the sentence “a very dark day for French democracy” and “major interference in our democratic life,” regardless of people’s opinions of the National Rally.

    ”The candidate whom the polls actually place in the lead in the presidential election has been barred from running by a court decision: this unprecedented event will leave deep scars,” he said on X.

    The French judicial system is “taking the risk of casting suspicion of arbitrariness” and needs to redeem itself in the eyes of the people by proving its impartiality, the politician added.

  • 13:12 GMT

    Le Pen’s lawyer, Rodolphe Bosselut, has announced his intention to appeal the verdict. He denounced the “provisional execution” ruling, which imposes an immediate political ban on his client and offers “no recourse” through the legal process.

  • 13:09 GMT

    Laurent Wauquiez, leader of The Republicans, a center-right parliamentary faction, has told BFM that “it is not healthy for an elected official in a democracy to be banned from running for office.”

    He characterized the verdict as “very harsh” and “not the path we should have taken.”

  • 13:03 GMT

    Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), has expressed “shock” at the verdict, describing it as incredibly tough.

    “I support and believe in her for the full 100% and I trust she will win the appeal and become President of France,” he said on X.

  • 12:59 GMT

    Left-wing party La France Insoumise has rejected the court’s verdict to ban Le Pen from running for office.

    The party “has never supported using the court to get rid of the National Rally,” a statement published by its national coordinator, Manuel Bompard, said. “We are fighting it at the ballot box and in the streets, through the popular mobilization of the French people, as we did during the 2024 legislative elections.”

  • 12:56 GMT

    Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has described the verdict as “a declaration of war by Brussels,” claiming that it is being celebrated by those who “fear the judgment of the voters.”

    In a post on X, he compared the outcome of the trial to the recent annulment of the presidential election in Romania, ordered by the Constitutional Court last December over claims of foreign interference. Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate who won the first round, has since been barred from participating in the new election.

  • 12:50 GMT

    Le Pen announced her appearance on TF1 TV later in the day.

  • 12:43 GMT

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has described the verdict as the “agony of liberal democracy” in the EU.

  • 12:35 GMT

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a conservative politician whose views on the EU’s policies closely align with those of Le Pen, has expressed support for her on his social media. He posted the phrase “Je suis Marine!” (“I am Marine!” in French) on X and tagged her account.

    The expression has become prominent internationally since the January 2015 terrorist attack on the French satirical outlet Charlie Hebdo, when it was widely used to make a stance against jihadism and attempts to silence free speech.

  • 12:30 GMT

    RN President Jordan Bardella has denounced the verdict, describing it on X as unjust. “It is French democracy that is being executed,” he wrote.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Judge rules Marine Le Pen ineligible to run for president in 2027 in latest blow to democracy in the EU

Remix News – March 31, 2025

A judge has ruled Marine Le Pen is ineligible to run for office, along with eight MEPs from her National Rally party, after they were found guilty of misappropriation of EU funds. The move is the latest attack on democracy in the EU, with judges increasingly deciding elections in Europe. Le Pen has also been sentenced to four years in prison, with two years suspended.

Notably, the news comes right as Le Pen leads the polling for French presidential elections in 2027, as Remix News reported earlier today.

The court estimated that the total losses amounted to €2.9 million, as a result of “paying by the European Parliament people who actually worked for the far-right party.” Le Pen was found to be responsible for €1.8 million in damages herself. The judgment also concerns 12 assistants. The prosecutor’s office initially alleged that €7 million had been used in this way.

Investigators accused Le Pen of managing the illegal use of European subsidies between 2004 and 2016, when she served as an MEP. They stated that instead of working in Strasbourg, assistants were to work for Le Pen’s National Rally party in a domestic capacity.

“It was found that all these people actually worked for the party, that their deputy did not commission them any tasks,” said the judge. Assistants then “passed from one deputy to another.”

“It was not about combining the work of assistants, but about combining the budgets of MPs,” said the judge.

Le Pen said before the trial that the matter is entirely political and that her opponents wished for her “political death.”

Other commentators have expressed surprise at not only the verdict but also the decision to exclude her from elections.

Pierre Lellouche, a lawyer and former Deputy of the French National Assembly, appeared on CNEWS to point out that the current prime minister, François Bayrou, faced the same charge and suffered no consequences.

“Then, last but not least, there is the case of (François) Bayrou, the current prime minister, who has been prosecuted for exactly the same thing, i.e., for abuses of party funding declared as parliamentary assistants in Europe, at the EU parliament. Bayrou emerged from this affair without being in the least concerned. In fact, the public prosecutor’s office has once again referred the matter to the courts, but even so, we’re dealing with a double standard here. It’s a bit surprising.”

He noted that the “separation of powers” is increasingly shifting towards judges, and noted that in many previous elections, these judges have tipped the scales in favor of certain candidates.

“We’re finding that more and more, everything is getting mixed up, everywhere. Look at Trump, who had seven judges behind him, and that didn’t stop him from winning. Finally, Strauss-Kahn was eliminated, Fillon was eliminated by a somewhat untimely and rapid indictment at the time of the presidential election, which allowed Mr. Macron to govern the country for seven years after all, which is no mean feat. Especially since, in the Fillon affair, the public prosecutor subsequently indicated that this was not entirely neutral and that the Élysée was particularly interested in this case. So you see, there is a separation of powers, but at the moment, power is shifting to the judges, and that can have a huge impact.”

Another attorney, Maxime Thiebaut, also brought up the case of Bayrou, saying:

“At the very least, you know, it comes as a surprise that Marine Le Pen has been found guilty. I would point out that Mr. (François) Bayrou was acquitted on a similar charge, because it was considered that he had not acted with intent. So I wasn’t in Mr. Bayrou’s file and I wasn’t in Ms. Le Pen’s file, but I note that there was also an expectation that Madame Le Pen would be guilty. We all know very well that when you’re the leader of a political party, you’re pretty far removed from the actual running of the party. Mr. Bayrou was recognized by Ms. Le Pen. Is it political or not? I don’t know and I won’t give my opinion on that.”

This is not the only such case either, with Romania banning the presidential frontrunner, Călin Georgescu, from running for president as well as arresting him.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »