Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that George Soros’s NGOs are fleeing to Brussels after US President Donald Trump “dealt a huge blow to their activities in the US,” which in turn can see the liberal networks of the billionaire philanthropist descend the continent further into debauchery.
“WARNING! Our fears have come true: the globalist-liberal-Soros NGO network is fleeing to Brussels, after President Trump dealt a huge blow to their activities in the US. Now 63 of them are asking Brussels for money, under the guise of various human rights projects. Not going to happen! We will not let them find safe haven in Europe! The USAID-files exposed the dark practices of the globalist network. We will not take the bait again!” Orbán wrote on X.
Călin Georgescu, an independent candidate who won the first round of Romania’s presidential election last year, the result of which was illegally annulled due to alleged influence from Moscow, has said that if he wins a new vote, he will expel the entire Soros network from Romania.
“From my point of view, on the first official day, the entire Soros network will be banned personally by me. They know each other, we already know them. Things are very clear and it is important. […] The moment you destroy the education of a people, you have the country in your hands,” he said.
Elon Musk shared Georgescu’s announcement to crack down on external influences on X and wrote, “Romania deserves its own sovereignty.”
At the same time, it seems that a bloc has formed within the US that does not give up on American exceptionalism in the world – unipolarity, but has given up on the culture and ideological package promoted by the Soros-aligned elite. Although the competing ideologies will agree and disagree about the US’ global role, the outcomes, if they come from traditional cultural relations and traditional perceptions of power, as has not been the case for years, will be significantly different than the previous liberal and Soros-aligned Biden administration.
J.D. Vance has, in a short time as vice president, crusaded against transgender, homosexual, and hermaphrodite promotion as he recognizes it is weakening the US. This ideology is weakening the US militarily because it is impossible to win a war with transgender people. Also, this culture pushed by Soros weakens the US in terms of self-confidence as it is deeply depraved and rejected by the majority of humanity.
The ideological war waged between Soros and the Trump administration is over the liberal culture of selfishness, narcissism, and permanent debauchery, and this is Trump’s latest attempt to culturally elevate the US under the slogan “Make America Great Again.”
When it comes to Brussels, the EU cannot finance all these activities, especially now that USAID can no longer contribute, while at the same time having the idea of war with Russia despite the demotion of militarist ideas. The European elite speaks about continuing the war in Ukraine in one way or another, but most EU countries cannot even form special units.
Therefore, Europe finds itself in a position where it has the ambition for war but blocks the ideology of militarism by promoting Soros’s idea of universal human decadence. That is why Orbán’s warning about Soros NGOs escaping the US to Brussels is also highlighting the agenda to try and prevent the new geopolitical reality emerging following Trump’s withdrawal from Ukraine.
Unlike the US, Brussels will not stop Soros’s NGOs; rather, it will be up to European states to ban these organizations separately. Such processes are unlikely to occur widely, but it is observed that Orbán is resisting Soros’s influence, and if Georgescu comes to power in Romania, Soros NGOs can be expected to be purged.
Nonetheless, Europe will first have to come to terms with Russia. This is almost certain because the EU cannot survive if the current energy situation continues. Reconciliation with Moscow on the energy front and reduced US aid to Ukraine is accelerating Russia’s already certain victory compared to the pace in previous months and years.
This will already pose a profound enigma for the EU because the question of how Europe will arm itself with excessively expensive energy sources has not been answered. And if a peace agreement is reached with Russia, then this type of armament will be illogical for Europe, particularly, as said, the continent is economically struggling without cheap Russian energy.
Some EU states will be militant abroad, others more moderate, and others neutral, and that alone will weaken Soros’s agenda, which is already being rejected by Trump’s America.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
A recent Politico article, “Climate change threatens EU’s survival, German security report warns,” claims that “global warming will exacerbate conflicts, hunger, and migration worldwide, with growing risks for Europe.” Evidence undermines these claims. In reality, the world is not suffering destabilization due to climate change, but European populations are far more likely to suffer from climate policy, as Politico briefly mentions.
Politico reports on a “landmark” political report from the German federal intelligence service (BND) that attempts to assess “the dangers climate change poses to German and European security over the next 15 years.” The report concludes that “climate change’s destabilizing effects will drive up migration and food prices, threatening economic and political upheaval,” and “the unequal impact of rising temperatures in the EU — with southern countries hit worse than others — risks tearing the bloc apart.”
Politico goes on to claim that as global average temperature rises, “so do the frequency, severity and intensity of flood-triggering extreme rainfall, deadly heat waves, harvest-destroying droughts and the conditions that allow wildfires to spread easily.”
These claims are false, as available data proves.
While rainfall has modestly increased over northern latitudes that contain the European Union member states, extreme rainfall that causes flooding has not. Claims that recent flooding events were “supercharged” or worsened by climate change are pure speculation based on attribution modelling. Data and historical records of flood frequency and severity debunk claims of unprecedented flooding. Recent flooding in Spain, for instance, was blamed on climate change by attribution groups, but the storm that hit Spain was consistent with a long history of similar storms that are not becoming more severe or frequent. In the Climate Realism post, “Flooding Facts Drowned by Climate Hysteria: The BBC Ignores Spain’s Weather History,” meteorologist Anthony Watts and H. Sterling Burnett describe the history of the region struck by the floods:
Valencia, which sits along and at the mouth of the Turia River on the Mediterranean Sea, suffered similar flooding, for example, in 1897, 1957, and 1996, 127, 67, and 28 years of warming ago, respectively, when temperatures were cooler than at present.
…
As Caroline Angus’ account of the 1957 Valencia flood reveals, these conditions are neither new nor unprecedented. The BBC’s focus on “climate change” and a warmer atmosphere as the primary cause of the recent flooding ignores the atmospheric mechanics behind these storms and downplays the recurrent pattern of similar natural events.
Likewise, Climate Realism debunked other regional European flooding events, here.
Heatwaves and drought are likewise not getting worse, and contra Politico and the German report’s claims, crop production is not declining in Europe due to those conditions, as pointed out in numerous Climate Realism posts, here, here, and here, for example. Wildfires are also on the decline globally.
Interestingly, Politico and the German report do admit that government response to climate alarmism may also cause tension. Politico reports that policies meant to address climate change “will cause tensions, noting that carbon pricing — the backbone of EU climate efforts — disproportionately affects poorer households.” This fact should be obvious to anyone. Carbon pricing does not bother the elites, who can afford higher energy prices.
Politico and the report authors also warn “the cost of decarbonization and its (perceived) unfair distribution … provide space for populism, right-wing and left-wing extremism, and disinformation campaigns[.]”
That claim should be taken further, it already has caused tensions, and has contributed to a growing threat to European food supplies, resulting in frequent mass protests in multiple countries by farmers. Not only that, but its not a perception that the distribution of the costs is unfair, it is a fact. Looking beyond carbon taxes, the push for electric vehicles is a subsidy for a luxury product that most cannot afford. London’s “ultra low emission zones” (ULEZ) are basically a tax on the poor who cannot afford to purchase new electric or low emitting hybrids.
What is true for Europe with regards to crop production is also true for other major crop producing parts of the world, and so climate change is not driving or likely to drive mass migration that could destabilize Europe. Climate Realism has debunked claims that climate change was causing mass emigration in multiple posts, here, here, and here, for instance.
If Politico and German leaders are worried about “populism” and right leaning sympathies rising in their nations due to concerns about mass immigration from unstable parts of the world, then perhaps they could impose restrictions on immigration, no need to blame climate change.
It’s shameful that Politico and the German government are downplaying the harm that the unnecessary, unjustified, climate policies which they have supported have had on Europeans. Extreme weather is not getting worse, but the impacts of government overreach and taxation in the name of climate change are.
Secretary General of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) says that petroleum demand will continue to increase in the coming decades despite a global move toward renewable energies.
In an interview with the Iranian Oil Ministry’s news service Shana, published on Saturday, Haitham al-Ghais said that the OPEC believes that oil and gas will continue to be the key element in the global energy trends even after 2050, the year in which many countries have pledged to phase out the use of fossil fuels as part of the so-called net zero campaign.
Ghais said that demand for oil and gas will fall in Europe in the coming decades while it will remain almost flat in the United States.
However, he said that the rest of the world will see a rise in petroleum demand as many countries in Asia and Africa will need hydrocarbon resources to meet their economic growth targets.
“… the unrealistic sense that was given to people about oil demand dropping by 75 million barrels per day by 2050, which we believe is really unrealistic,” he said.
The OPEC chief said that some European governments that are seriously opposed to the increasing consumption of fossil fuels have resumed using oil, gas and even coal to respond to their energy needs.
“… we believe that the problem is the net zero scenario, and it is quite dangerous actually, because it has, unfortunately, caused many governments to be misled into putting into place policies that have become much more expensive for their consumers.
The EU’s “Democracy Shield,” is presented as a way to strengthen information integrity online, especially in the context of elections – but which opponents believe is another way for the bloc’s bureaucracy to tighten the screws on tech giants, speech-wise – is facing vocal opposition in the European Parliament (EP).
The initiative’s first monthly meeting heard criticism in particular from MEPs that come from conservative and sovereignty parties, who wanted to know what exactly qualifies as “foreign interference in elections” – and why the double standard in the way social media content is treated compared to legacy, corporate media.
Namely, while the latter, in Europe at least almost without exception aligned with those in power, is free to publish any opinion, including those that are biased and could be reasonably expected to impact the outcome of an election, social media accounts get banned, while platforms are forced to change algorithms to limit the reach of any content branded as “foreign interference.”
To this point, some MEPs asked if only Russia is to be considered as a possible “election meddler” – or if other countries, the US included, can play the same role in some scenarios – and, that could be true of the EU itself.
According to European Conservative, MEP Fidias Panayiotou gave an example: “In my country, Cyprus, in 2004, through USAID, the US spent $60 million on the referendum for reunification.”
The main topic of the meeting is the now long-contested presidential election in Romania, where the “surprise” victory of Calin Georgescu got annulled as Brussels went all-in trying to make sure he is not eventually elected (that crisis is ongoing.)
The fact that Georgescu is not to the establishment’s liking, caused him to be labeled “pro-Russian” and, “ultra-nationalist” – while his use of social platforms to get the message across was condemned as some sort of “foreign interference.”
But “Democracy Shield’s” opponents are warning that – yet again – there is an attempt to misuse the term “disinformation” to undermine people’s, and country’s rights, namely their sovereignty.
In the context of elections, sovereignty is further threatened by initiatives such as setting up a new EU intelligence agency – that critics say may result in even more “centralization of electoral control in the hands of EU institutions.”
For the first time since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the US has refused to cosponsor a United Nations General Assembly resolution put forward by Europe and Kiev, saying it will instead propose its own resolution.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on his X account that on February 24 (the anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war) his country will submit to the UNGA a resolution on the settlement of the issue.
“The US will propose to the United Nations a landmark resolution the entire UN membership should support in order to chart a path to peace.”
A statement from the US State Department attached to the announcement said that US President Donald Trump is seeking “a resolution to the conflict that would ensure long-term peace.”
According to the US State Department, the resolution is consistent with Trump’s position, and with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in the UN Charter.
According to media reports, the language of the resolution has been significantly softened towards Russia compared to the wording used in earlier documents.
For the first time since the start of the military operation, the resolution does not describe Russia as the original aggressor.
The text of the document expresses grief over the tragic conflict and calls for a speedy end to it.
It “reaffirms the urgent need to end the war this year and redouble diplomatic efforts to reduce the risks of further escalation and achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the Ukraine.”
In response to years of military and political provocations by the US and European countries, Russia began its special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.
Russia has managed to gain control of a fifth of Ukraine and has been slowly advancing in the east for months. Ukraine’s military, supported by the US and European countries, grapples with manpower shortages and tries to hold a chunk of territory in western Russia.
Russia has demanded an end to the West’s military and political provocations on its borders and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality under any peace deal. Ukraine on the other hand has demanded Russia’s withdrawal from the captured lands and wants NATO membership.
European countries are not capable of sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine as demanded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Italian General Giorgio Battisti in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper. The burden of supporting Ukraine is put on Brussels since US President Donald Trump has already begun the process of ending American contribution to the hot war, but the European Union does not have the military or economic might to support the country alone.
The former commander of NATO Rapid Reaction Force and current chairman of the Military Commission of the Italian Atlantic Committee said that sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine would imply the involvement of at least 600,000 troops, taking into account the necessary rotations every six to eight months.
The newspaper admits this is “beyond the reach” of the European Union, even with the United Kingdom’s involvement, since European governments need to ensure national security and continue participating in international missions.
“Each major country could send about 5,000 troops to Ukraine; perhaps France a little more,” Battisti said.
According to the Italian general, Western countries could assemble a contingent of 60,000 soldiers (20,000 in three periods), but these forces would only be sufficient for patrolling. In addition, there is a risk of “dispersion” of forces along a wide front line.
“Clear conclusion: any military initiative in Ukraine can only work with the support of the United States. But here politics comes in. Donald Trump repeats that he will not send even one marine to the Donbass front,” the general concluded.
What Battisi does not highlight is that any deployment of foreign troops will lead to their liquidation. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have consistently and repeatedly warned that the deployment of foreign troops would make them a “legitimate target” for the Russian military.
Despite the ominous warning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January that the West needs to send 200,000 so-called “peacekeepers” to Ukraine to resolve the conflict.
“200,000, it’s a minimum. It’s a minimum, otherwise it’s nothing,” he said, adding that “Europe must establish itself as a strong, global player, as an indispensable player.”
Trump decided to start talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to try to reach a political solution to the Ukrainian conflict, which was fueled by the former Biden administration and its European partners since Moscow launched its special operation in February 2022.
As the talks progress and the calls become public, Europe expects a repeat of Trump’s first term in the White House: a supposedly more isolationist stance that imposes on Europeans more responsibility for the defense and security of their own region, bearing their own costs.
Trump’s movements aim to demonstrate that the US has greater responsibility and weight in negotiating the Ukrainian conflict at this time. From now on, Europeans will face the great challenge of showing strength and unity to put their claims on the table.
Weakened by the costs of supporting Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, Europe faces challenges in retaliating directly against the US for not being included by Trump in the negotiations. Internal divisions make unified action difficult, weakening the bloc’s position.
Europe is now suffering immensely to support the Kiev regime. There have been military aid and economic impacts, such as the energy crisis after sanctions against Russia. The US contributed substantially. However, under the new Trump administration, such support no longer occurs. There is much talk of using frozen Russian assets to amortize Europe’s expenses, but such an option is legally complex.
Contrary to what was thought in March 2022, when the conflict became more intense, it is noticeable that the cohesion of NATO, such as generating greater unity and more efficiency, which was expected due to the Ukrainian conflict, occurred in a way that fell short of the expected result.
Although distrust is growing between Washington and Brussels, the transition to a fully autonomous Europe will be slow, given the lack of a unified defense infrastructure and internal political divergences. Trump’s return to the US presidency forces Europe to rethink its strategic dependence on Washington. The European bloc’s ability to respond to Washington’s withdrawal from Ukraine will depend on its unity and investment in autonomy, while the costs of supporting Ukraine will also fall mainly on the Europeans.
Yet, it appears that the Europeans have not woken up to the reality of the situation. Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas delusionally told Euractiv on December 18, “The Americans can meet with whomever they wish to, but for any peace deal regarding Ukraine to work, it has to involve the Europeans as well as the Ukrainians.”
“If some deal is agreed that we don’t agree to, then it will just fail, because it will not be implemented,” she added.
However, as the Italian general explained, Europe does not have the capabilities to serve Ukraine in the way that Zelensky demands, such as providing the 200,000 so-called peacekeepers. This makes any statements by Kallas and Zelensky about the war redundant and is precisely why Trump and Putin are bypassing Kiev and Brussels in their negotiations to end the fighting.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
While the US and Russia are engaged in an incipient diplomatic process, taking the first steps towards a peaceful future, European countries continue to try to escalate the Ukrainian conflict, taking provocative measures to worsen tensions. Recently, European leaders announced a new aid package to the neo-Nazi regime, which shows how the EU is not interested in any diplomatic negotiations – despite hypocritically complaining about not being part of the talks in Riyadh.
Western media recently reported that a new pro-Ukrainian military aid package is being prepared by the EU. The aid is valued at more than 6 billion euros, making it one of the largest packages in the entire European support campaign for Kiev since 2022. The plan is believed to involve the supply of weapons such as artillery shells, missiles and air defense systems, among other lethal equipment. The approval of the package is expected to be announced on February 24, during the three-year anniversary of the special military operation – when a delegation of EU’s high officials will be in Kiev.
“EU countries are preparing a military aid package worth at least €6 billion for Ukraine as it seeks to shore up Kiev’s strategic position at the outset of U.S.-led talks with Russia, according to three EU diplomats. The package, which should include everything from 1.5 million artillery shells to air defense systems, would mark one of the EU’s largest military aid packages since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and could be unveiled ahead of a highly symbolic visit by European commissioners to Kiev on Feb. 24,” Politicoreported.
The EU is not only sending more weapons to Ukraine, but it is also further tightening anti-Russian measures. The bloc has agreed on a new package of coercive measures against Moscow – the 16th since the start of the special military operation. Even though all the sanctions imposed on Russia have so far proven futile, Europe continues to pursue a boycott strategy against Moscow, thus damaging its own strategic interests – as the sanctions obstruct energy cooperation, affecting industry and several other important sectors.
It is important to remember that, in parallel to all this, European countries continue to hold discussions about “sending troops to Ukraine”. Even though Moscow has made it clear many times that it will not accept the presence of Western forces in the conflict zone, considering any foreign soldiers as legitimate targets – the EU insists on worsening the scenario.
In fact, the entire European aid campaign for Ukraine is useless. Kiev does not gain any strategic benefit with the arrival of new European weapons, since this equipment will not be enough to reverse the tragic military situation of the Ukrainian forces – which are rapidly losing ground due to the strong Russian advance. Like all NATO weapons previously sent to Ukraine, the new European artillery systems will most likely be quickly destroyed by Russian high-precision bombings, generating zero impact on the battlefield.
In the same sense, after three years of repeated sanctions against Russia, it already seems clear that Moscow knows how to deal with this situation, circumventing the effects of coercive measures and making the economy grow despite Western aggression. The country is definitely growing, with the economy reaching increasingly better numbers, which is why new sanctions are not a cause for concern for the Russians, but rather for the Europeans themselves, who are more and more being harmed by the side effects of their own measures.
Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that any Western military presence in Ukraine will be seen as direct intervention by Russia. Moscow has already repeatedly said that European soldiers on the battlefield will be legitimate targets for Russian troops. In practice, any Western military operation in Ukraine will be a real suicide, since foreign soldiers will be priority targets for the Russian armed forces.
Instead of trying to escalate the war, Europe should take advantage of the current situation of diplomatic progress to reverse the mistakes made over the past three years. European countries now have the opportunity to lift sanctions, stop engaging in the war and re-establish ties with Russia. Previously, the Democrats were pressuring Europe to get involved in the war. With Trump and the Republicans, this pressure no longer exists, and the EU can simply change everything it has done so far.
However, unfortunately, the Europeans seem to be much more aggressive than the Americans themselves. The EU’s goal seems to be in taking the conflict to its ultimate consequences, even if European own interests are harmed by such irresponsible measures.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
US President Donald Trump has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with EU leaders who spoke out against him during the course of the 2024 presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin told media on Wednesday.
During the campaign last year, a number of EU officials spoke out in favor of Trump’s Democrat rival for the White House, Kamala Harris, although most stopped short of endorsing her outright.
Trump, Putin noted, continues to be polite with his European allies, who were quite rude to him at the time.
“I am surprised by the restraint of newly elected US President Trump towards his allies, who behaved, frankly speaking, in a boorish manner. He still behaves quite courteously towards them,” he said.
Last October, Trump accused British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of election interference after UK Labour party helped recruit and deploy activists to help the Harris campaign in key swing states.
In August 2024, the Trump campaign accused the EU of interfering in the US presidential election after a senior bloc official warned Elon Musk against amplifying “potentially harmful content” ahead of his interview with Donald Trump.
“All European leaders, all without exception, essentially directly interfered in the election process in the US. It came to direct insults towards one of the candidates,” according to Putin.
I had a conversation with Pascal Lottaz at Neutrality Studies regarding the panic in the EU as the US made it clear it no longer considers Europe to be a priority. For years, the Europeans failed to establish the continent as an independent pole of power by neglecting to define their security and economic interests separate from the US. Europe is subsequently now a divided continent at war, in economic decline and with diminishing relevance in the world. The US must address multipolar realities by restoring a workable relationship with Russia and pivoting toward Asia. The comfortable ideological bubble has been burst, yet there is still a reluctance to deal with uncomfortable realities.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has firmly rejected attempts by left-wing organizations to secure European Union funding following U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze USAID programs worldwide. In a defiant tweet, Orbán accused globalist, liberal, and Soros-backed NGOs of seeking refuge in Brussels after their financial pipeline from the U.S. was cut off.
“Our fears have come true,” Orbán wrote. “The globalist-liberal-Soros NGO network is fleeing to Brussels after President Trump dealt a huge blow to their activities in the U.S. Now 63 of them are asking Brussels for money under the guise of various human rights projects. Not going to happen!”
The Hungarian leader’s statement came in response to an urgent appeal from the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which, alongside more than 60 civil society organizations, is pressuring the EU to replace the financial void left by the U.S. aid freeze.
Last month, President Trump signed an executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all U.S. foreign aid, effectively shutting down USAID funding for international organizations the new U.S. administration believes is often wasted, misused, and out of line with the president’s “America First” approach.
The White House subsequently published a list of USAID projects it said highlighted the “waste and abuse,” including a grant of $1.5m to an LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5m for electric vehicles in Vietnam, and $6m for tourism in Egypt. In total, the U.S. spent $68bn on international aid in 2023.
The move immediately prompted widespread criticism from pro-migration, feminist, and LGBTIQ advocacy groups.
With their budgets suddenly cut off, affected organizations have turned to Brussels, urging the EU — the world’s largest foreign aid provider — to step in and cover the shortfall. Their appeal outlined specific demands, including emergency EU funding to replace lost U.S. aid; reduction of “bureaucratic barriers” to make EU funding more easily accessible to progressive groups; and the exertion of diplomatic pressure on the Trump administration to reverse the aid freeze.
Orbán’s staunch rejection of the EU funding request reiterates his long-standing opposition to foreign-funded NGOs, particularly those affiliated with George Soros and his Open Society Foundations.
The Hungarian leader has repeatedly accused such groups of promoting mass migration, radical progressive policies, and undermining national sovereignty.
Referring to Trump’s USAID-files exposé, which alleged misuse of U.S. aid funds by left-wing organizations, Orbán emphasized that Hungary and its allies would not allow these groups to establish a stronghold in Europe.
“We will not let them find safe haven in Europe!” he declared. “The USAID-files exposed the dark practices of the globalist network. We will not take the bait again!”
The EU has no plans to lift sanctions against Russia even if the US decides to do so, and is working on the next raft of measures, EU Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has said.
The bloc has proposed a 16th round of sanctions on Russia to be imposed next week for the third anniversary of the start of the Russian military operation against Ukraine on February 24. Along with the US, the EU has slapped numerous rounds of sanctions on Russia since 2022 in a bid to isolate the country, cutting it off from the Western financial system and freezing its foreign reserves.
Asked if the EU would lift its sanctions on Russia if the US eases its restrictions in exchange for a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, Dombrovskis stated that Brussels would pursue an independent sanctions policy.
“It’s very clear with the moves of the current Trump administration that the EU will have to take issues related to the EU’s security more in its own hands. It also concerns the sanctions policy as you know the work continues on preparing the 16th package,” the commissioner said.
Last month, the EU extended its existing sanctions against Russia until the end of July. The restrictions already target a broad range of sectors and include trade embargoes, travel bans, and individual sanctions against Russian businessmen and public officials.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in an interview with Franceinfo on Tuesday that the EU’s upcoming batch of measures will primarily target Russia’s energy sector.
Barrot claimed the new package aims to “force [Russian President] Vladimir Putin to sit down at the negotiating table,” adding that the EU will continue to “raise the cost of the war” for Moscow. The sanctions will also target countries that facilitate bypassing the restrictions, the minister said.
Earlier this year, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban renewed calls on the EU to lift its sanctions on Russia in order to align the bloc’s policies with the new US government. Budapest has long criticized Brussels’ approach to the Ukraine conflict as being incapable of ending hostilities and damaging to the bloc’s member states.
Last week, Orban predicted that Russia will be “reintegrated” into the world economy and the European energy system once the Ukraine conflict ends.
Moscow has condemned Western sanctions as illegal, repeatedly arguing that they have failed to destabilize Russia’s economy or isolate it from the global financial system.
By Khalid Amayreh, in occupied East Jerusalem | The People’s Voice | October 18, 2010
A major Jewish religious figure in Israel has likened non-Jews to donkeys and beasts of burden, saying the main reason for their very existence is to serve Jews.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party, Shas, which represents Middle Eastern Jews, reportedly said during a Sabbath homily earlier this week that “the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews.”
Yosef is considered a major religious leader in Israel who enjoys the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of followers. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 