Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 15, 2025

Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.

In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.

In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.

One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.

This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.

Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.

The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.

In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.

However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.

It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.

What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.

Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.

All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.

From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

FPÖ slams Austrian government’s betrayal of its neutrality after footage shows foreign military units headed to Ukraine

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 13, 2025

A video showing a foreign military transport moving through Austria by train has ignited a heated debate, with the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) calling for an immediate ban on such transits.

The footage, filmed by a passerby at a train station and shared by the FPÖ, has fueled concerns about Austria’s neutrality and its role in European defense logistics.

FPÖ General Secretary Christian Hafenecker strongly condemned the transport, describing it as a blatant violation of Austria’s neutrality. “Foreign military and weapons transports across our territory are completely unacceptable,” he stated.

He further criticized the increasing use of Austrian infrastructure for military movements, warning, “It must not be the case that our railway lines and roads increasingly become the ‘number one NATO highway’ to the east.”

“That is precisely what we fear from the black-red-pink ‘loser traffic light’ coalition, whose subservience to the EU and NATO, coupled with betrayal of neutrality, is becoming ever more blatant,” the FPÖ added in a post on X.

Hafenecker placed direct responsibility on Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), arguing that the government’s permitting such actions is entirely at odds with the public. “The Austrians have no understanding of the fact that tanks, guns, and other heavy military equipment of foreign states roll through their country,” he said, insisting that public sentiment is firmly against such activities.

In response, the FPÖ has demanded an immediate halt to all NATO weapons transports through Austria and the creation of a “no-transport zone” for military equipment. The party is also calling for an end to Austrian financial contributions towards arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Hafenecker stressed the need for diplomatic efforts over military escalation, taking aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to mobilize €800 billion for European rearmament.

“What is needed now is de-escalation, diplomacy, and peace talks to end the suffering and dying in Ukraine,” he declared.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

German car-sharing service shuts down in Belgium over theft and misuse

The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities

Remix News | March 12, 2025

The EU elites kick and scream about countries like Hungary, but the very capital of the European Union is a crime-infested slum in many areas, featuring organized criminals and vast ghettoes. The German car-sharing service, Miles, has finally had enough, and is pulling operations in all of Belgium, citing Brussels as especially problematic.

“Despite a positive trend in figures in Belgium, operations have been increasingly affected by vandalism, misuse of vehicles and attempted theft, particularly in the Brussels region, over the past two years,” a company statement announced. “These external factors had a significant negative impact on the company’s financial results.”

The company has been in Brussels for three years, starting in October of 2022. It was already operating in German cities such as Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg, while in Belgium, Miles vehicles were also seen in Ghent and Antwerp.

In fact, just last year, the Miles general manager of Belgium, Raphaël Zacchello, described just how bad it was in Brussels. He urged the authorities to act, saying: “The rate of vandalism in Brussels is incomparable with what we see in all German cities, even in Berlin, which is a big metropolis.”

Of course, most of the publications writing about Miles shutting down are not naming the suspects, but most of them were “youths,” many who filmed themselves joy-riding in stolen Miles vehicles.

Some may think it is a stretch to claim this Miles car-sharing company leaving Belgium as anything more than an isolated incident involving one company complaining too much. However, there is reason to believe it speaks to the failures of not only diversity but also the fight against climate change.

Many of these car-sharing services are hailed as “green” solutions. The idea that you will “own nothing and be happy” is posited on the idea that not everyone will need to buy a car, for instance, but can instead rent one when needed and use that to get around, which will reduce consumption and help the environment.

Apparently, this model is not working in Belgium. A lot of it aligns with trends seen with other Green parties in Europe, which promote public transportation and then make public transportation extremely unsafe for people to use due to mass immigration. Foreigners, for example, commit 59 percent of all sexual violence on German public transport networks. Migrants have become so out of control on certain train lines that public unions are protesting and calling in sick out of stress. The German Green Party has been forced to propose “women-only” train cars in Berlin to deal with the soaring sexual violence.

It should also be noted that Belgium is one of the most diverse cities in Europe, with approximately half of its 1.1 million residents born outside the EU, most notably from Africa and Turkey. However, diversity is not proving a strength, and judging by where EU politicians live and work, they believe the same thing, as it is also one of the most segregated cities in Europe.

Miles is also far from the only vehicle-sharing service that has found operating in Belgium to be a minefield. In Brussels, nearly all GO Sharing electric scooters were stolen by “young” people who know how to circumvent security measures on the rental system. They even offered crash courses online to effectively steal the scooters, which were used for joyrides until all their batteries were empty in an incident that occurred in April of 2022.

The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities across Europe. Berlin, for instance, tries to promote itself as a green, progressive city, and many of the most powerful left-wing parties are focused on getting as many cars off the roads and as many bikes on the roads as possible. Yet, the city is continuously plagued with tens of thousands of bicycles being stolen every year. And only 4 percent of bike thefts are solved in the city every year.

The overwhelming amount of those arrested are foreigners, such as this Romanian gang operating in Berlin covered by Spiegel. In another report by Tagesspiegel, it found that “a total of 66 percent of the suspects (in organized crime) were of foreign nationality, the rest were German citizens.” As Berlin’s own data shows, nearly all clan criminals have German citizenship (71 percent), which skews the statistics. Many of these same networks are operating organized bicycle theft rings, but also cars, e-bikes, and scooters, on top of drug smuggling and other criminal operations.

Of course, car-sharing woes and bike thefts are insubstantial problems when compared to other issues plaguing Brussels, including ample issues with crime, drug mafias, a radical jihadist scene, and of course, its highly segregated neighborhoods. However, all of these issues are tied together to some degree. The fact also remains, Europeans should be able to ride a train, take a bus, or rent a car for car-sharing purposes without a problem. The end of Miles is just another canary in the coal mine.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Netherlands rejects EU militarization agenda

RT | March 12, 2025

The Dutch House of Representatives has voted against the European Union’s multi-hundred-billion euro militarization plan, citing financial risks and a lack of clear guidelines, the Volkskrant newspaper reported on Tuesday. The rejection comes as Brussels has been urging to spike the bloc’s military spending to address a perceived Russian threat.

The EU’s rearmament proposal, known as the REARM plan, was introduced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month and aims to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities. The plan includes €150 billion in loans to EU governments for defense spending and fiscal exemptions, potentially mobilizing up to €800 billion ($870 billion) over the next four years.

However, critics in the Netherlands have warned that the plan lacks a concrete financial framework and could lead to an economic crisis. Despite Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof initially backing the initiative, a narrow parliamentary majority—including the Party for Freedom (PVV), New Social Contract (NSC), and the Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB)—rejected the proposal in a vote on Tuesday.

Lawmakers argued that the plan’s reliance on joint EU loans would increase debt burdens for member states and expose them to financial risks. A representative of the NSC noted that while the party supports Ukraine aid and increased EU military budgets, it is opposed to any form of eurobonds or the expansion of budgetary standards, as proposed by the REARM plan.

The EU’s push to boost military spending has intensified after US President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized European NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments. Last month, Trump warned that the US would not automatically defend NATO allies if they did not increase their financial contributions, stating, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”

In response, European leaders have moved to expand their military budgets with some citing a supposed Russian threat as justification for the rush. French President Emmanuel Macron had recently publicly labeled Russia as a “threat to Europe” and has suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected having any intentions to attack NATO or EU countries and has dismissed such claims as “nonsense.” The Kremlin has also condemned the EU’s plans to increase defense spending, calling it “militarization” that is “primarily aimed at Russia” and stressing that such moves are a “matter of deep concern” for Moscow.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Romanian nationalist MPs begin parliamentary strike over Georgescu’s election expulsion

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 12, 2025

Nationalist MPs in Romania have launched a parliamentary strike in protest against the disqualification of frontrunner Călin Georgescu from the upcoming May presidential elections.

The move, led by the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), comes amid growing political unrest and public outcry over what critics are calling an attack on democracy.

George Simion, President of AUR, announced the strike on social media, declaring that all AUR MPs would cease attending parliamentary meetings.

“Starting today, all AUR MPs will go on parliamentary strike. They will no longer attend plenary or committee meetings. State institutions have committed an unimaginable abuse against Călin Georgescu. We stand by his side!” Simion wrote.

The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy on Sunday evening with a 10-4 vote. The decision, met with immediate backlash, triggered widespread protests and sharp international criticism.

Following the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside BEC headquarters in Bucharest, waving national flags and chanting for a “revolution.” Some protesters clashed with police, leading to the use of tear gas as authorities attempted to disperse the crowd.

Georgescu appealed the BEC ruling to the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR), but the court upheld the decision on Tuesday, barring him from running in the election. The ruling is final and binding, eliminating the frontrunner from the race.

Simion, who also serves as vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformist group in the European Parliament, denounced the decision as politically motivated.

“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion pleaded.

“The Deep State wants to ban real opposition, rig the elections, and stay in power at any cost. But we are not afraid! We will fight until our country is free from corruption, censorship and political persecution,” he added on Tuesday.

Following the court ruling, Georgescu lamented the demise of democracy in his country.

“Today, the masters have decided: no equality, no liberty, no fraternity for Romanians,” Georgescu wrote on X. “Long live France and Brussels, long live their colony named Romania.

“While America is becoming great again, Europe and Romania have become petty, corrupt and under dictatorship,” he added.

Nationalists are now understood to be preparing a replacement candidate for the presidential elections and have until March 19 to file papers.

The first round re-run is scheduled for May 4, with a run-off set for May 18.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Kiev does kill civilians, contrary to the claims of EU’s top diplomat – Moscow

RT | March 12, 2025

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas’ claim that Russian civilians “are not dying” in the Ukraine conflict is erroneous, Russia’s envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has said.

During a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Nebenzia denounced Kallas’s remarks from February as “immoral assertions” from an official peddling “fantasies.” He said that in 2024 alone, Ukrainian military action resulted in the death of 809 Russian civilians, including 51 children.

Those killings constituted “real crimes” and not a “theatrical performance like Bucha that was staged by the Ukrainian authorities” to garner Western support, Nebenzia stated. Kiev has cited claims that Russian forces had committed a “massacre” in the town in 2022 to justify its decision to abandon peace talks, while Russia contends that the evidence was fabricated.

Speaking at a panel discussion during the Munich Security Conference, Kallas claimed that the two nations take radically different positions: “The difference is that Russian civilians are not dying. I mean Russian children and women are not dying, it’s soldiers on the ground” who do, she stated.

In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Kallas’s comments as evidence of the “degradation” of senior EU officials, asserting that the senior diplomat has reached a new low in “cynicism and immorality.”

“How can one seriously negotiate with people who have declared lies as their official position?” Zakharova questioned.

Kallas, known for her hawkish stance towards Russia, became the EU’s foreign policy and security chief last December after stepping down as Estonia’s prime minister under public pressure.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine admits attacking key oil pipeline to EU

RT | March 11, 2025

The Ukrainian General Staff has confirmed that one of the targets of Tuesday’s mass drone attacks was Russia’s Druzhba oil pipeline system, a key delivery route to EU countries, according to a statement on its official Telegram channel.

Druzhba is one of the world’s longest networks, transporting crude some 4,000km from Russia to refineries in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.

“Ukraine’s security services carried out the operation, reporting explosions near the linear production dispatching station ‘Stalnoi Kon’ (Steel Horse) in Russia’s Oryol region, which manages the pipeline’s operations,” the statement read.

Hungary, which relies on oil shipments through the system, has called the attack “unacceptable” and accused Ukraine of threatening its sovereignty. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced that crude shipments via the pipeline had been temporarily halted, but later resumed. Szijjarto criticized the European Commission, arguing that assurances it had offered regarding the safety of Hungary’s energy infrastructure had been repeatedly violated.

According to media reports, three Ukrainian fixed-wing drones struck the Druzhba terminal in Russia’s Bryansk Region. The attack was part of a wider assault involving more than 340 UAVs hitting civilian targets across Russian territory, killing at least 3 people and injuring over 20 and causing a fire at a Rosneft oil depot in Bryansk.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian energy infrastructure throughout the conflict, despite resulting supply disruptions for Kiev’s European allies.

In January, Ukrainian forces attempted to attack a compressor station of the TurkStream pipeline, which supplies natural gas to Turkish customers and several European countries, including Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece.

In March 2024, Ukrainian drones struck an oil refinery in the Krasnodar region, causing a fire and temporary shutdown. Similarly, in January of that year, a drone attack hit a fuel depot in St. Petersburg, reportedly damaging storage tanks.

The most notable attack on Russian energy infrastructure during the conflict was the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022. The explosions, which severely damaged Nord Stream 1 and 2—key conduits for Russian gas exports to EU—sparked international speculation about the perpetrators. While various theories have emerged, no definitive culprit has been identified.

Moscow has condemned attacks on its civilian energy infrastructure, labeling them acts of terrorism.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe faces a MAGA ‘vibe-shift’ as Trump moves to his primordial objective – The Global Reset

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 11, 2025

President Trump wants Ukraine settled, full stop. This is so that he can move ahead quickly – to normalise with Russia, and begin the ‘big picture’ project of setting a new World Order, one that will end wars and facilitate business ties.

The point here – which Europe feigns to not understand – is that the end to the Ukraine conflict simply is Trump’s ‘gateway’ to the entire rationale and platform on which he stood: The Great Reset of the Geo-Political landscape. Ukraine, simply said, is the obstacle to Trump’s pursuit of his primordial objective: The Global Reset.

Starmer, Macron and the eastern wing of the Euro-élites are blind to the sheer scale of the global vibe-shift towards traditionalist U.S. politics and ethics. They miss too, the barely concealed fury in the Trump world that exists behind this nascent revolution. “The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies”, Allister Heath writes.

The European Ruling Class is in desperate trouble and increasingly isolated, in a world shifting ‘Rightward’ at breakneck speed. “The U.S. is now the enemy of the West”, the FT proclaims. European leaders wantonly won’t understand.

The reality is that the U.S. is engaged now in rolling up Europe’s foreign policy. And, is about to start exporting U.S. traditional Republican values to roll up the European wokeist belief-system. The European Ruling strata – far removed from its base – has failed to grasp the threat to its own interests (a scenario outlined here).

The Trump administration is trying to rebuild the ailing Republic, and Americans in this new era do not care for the European obsession with ancient feuds and their entailing wars.

Trump reportedly views with utter disdain the UK and European boast that should the U.S. not do it, then Europe will. The Brussels class claims to be able still – after three years of losing in Ukraine – to be able to inflict a humiliating defeat on President Putin.

More profoundly, however, Team Trump – committed to the task of taking down the American Deep State as the ‘inexorable enemy’ – perceives (rightly) the British security state to be co-joined at the hip with their American counterparts, as a part of its global meta-structure. And its oldest and deepest component has always been the destruction of Russia, and its dismemberment.

So when Macron, in an address to the nation this week, rejected a ceasefire in Ukraine and declared that “peace in Europe is only possible with a weakened Russia”, calling the country a direct threat to France and the continent, many in ‘Trump world’ will interpret this defiant declaration (that ‘Ukraine defeating Russia is preferable to ‘peace’’) is nothing more than Macron and Starmer ventriloquising the aims of the Meta Deep State.

This notion is lent substance by the sudden plethora of articles appearing in the European-(managed) MSM to the effect that Russia’s economy is much weaker than it appears and might collapse in the next year. Of course it is nonsense. This is about managing the European public to believe that keeping the war going in Ukraine is a ‘good idea’.

The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured, as Wolfgang Münchau notes, in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia: “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said.

Zelensky and his European fans want ‘to negotiate’ – though later, rather than sooner (perhaps in a year, as one European Foreign Minister reportedly told Marco Rubio privately).

“This”, Münchau writes, “is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office [last week] was all about. Peace through untrammelled victory — essentially the Second World War model — as the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict”.

America sees things differently: It views almost certainly the European Deep State to be putting a spoke into Trump’s ‘normalisation with Russia’ wheel – a normalisation to which they are viscerally opposed. Or, at the very least, as the Europeans chasing a “mirage that no longer exists, stubbornly hiking ‘tax and spend’, whilst doubling down on mass immigration and overpriced energy, oblivious to the flashing red lights in the [financial markets] as government debt yields rocket to their highest levels since 1998”, as Allister Heath outlines.

In other words, the suggestion is that Friedrich Merz, Macron and Starmer are talking about how they are going to turn around their countries – via a massive infusion of debt – into defence superstates. Yet, at some level of consciousness, they must realise that it is not doable, so they settle instead for presenting themselves as ‘world leaders on the international stage’.

The European élites are deeply unstable ‘leaders’ who are risking the prosperity and stability of the continent. It is clear these countries do not have the military capacity to intervene in any concerted manner. More than anything, it is the European economy circling the drain that is the reality at the gates.

Zelensky is accomplice to the European insistence that defeating Russia takes priority over achieving peace in Ukraine, in spite of lacking any strategic rationale as to how it may be achieved after three years of a worsening military situation. Both plans – crushing the Russian economy with sanctions and attrition of the Russian military to the point of collapse – have failed. Why then does Zelensky resist Trump’s peace proposals? On the surface, it makes no sense.

The explanation likely goes back to the post-Maidan era when the western ‘Meta Security State’ (principally, the British and the Americans) entrenched hardline Banderites (then a tiny minority) into the Ukrainian Police, Intelligence and Security State. They are still today the controlling force. Even were this faction to acknowledge that their war cannot be won, they understand what happens if they lose:

Russia will not deal with them. They view them as extremists (if not war criminals) who are in no way ‘agreement capable’ and must be replaced by a leadership who is actually capable of compromise. Russia would likely pursue and bring these men to trial. Zelensky has to be frightened at what the Banderites might do to him (despite his British team of bodyguards).

Well, Trump is not entertaining these European ‘games’: He is administering a slap-down to Zelensky and European leaders, perhaps bringing Zelensky into line; or perhaps not … Team Trump, Politico reports, has now entered into direct talks with the Ukrainian opposition on holding early elections to unseat Zelensky – who is on his way to being removed, members of Team Trump say.

Zelensky may be finished, but interestingly Zaluzhniy wasn’t discussed either. He is being groomed by the British as a replacement – it looks like the Americans are going to make this decision independently of the British, too.

President Trump has ordered intelligence sharing with Ukraine stopped. What he technically did was to stop allowing Ukraine to use exclusive U.S. targeting systems controlled by U.S. Intelligence, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. What has been suspended is the exchange of so-called ‘lethal’ data, including information for HIMARS targeting. However, the defensive information needed for protection is still being provided to Ukraine.

“The extent of the intelligence-sharing freeze, which appears to have been imposed alongside the halt in military aid Mr Trump announced on Monday, initially appeared to be somewhat limited … But by Wednesday afternoon it became clear that the Trump administration, ignoring overtures from Mr Zelensky the previous evening, had gone much further. A military intelligence officer in Kyiv told The Telegraph that the freeze amounted to “more or less a total blackout””.

Put bluntly, the earlier munitions freeze will undoubtedly affect Ukraine’s military abilities over time, however the impact might not be felt for some weeks. The loss of vital intelligence, however, will make its mark immediately. It will – simply put – blind Ukraine. In Ukrainian command posts, the battle tracking and satellite online feeds on tablets and TV screens have indeed been disconnected.

What Trump’s slap-down has done is to puncture the fiction that Ukraine is able to defend itself with a little substitute of European support. That has always been nonsensical bravado. NATO, the CIA and the global Intelligence Community have been in control of the war fighting from the outset. And that, for now, has been switched off.

So, Europe wants to shoulder the U.S. burden? Bloomberg reports that European bond markets are in meltdown. If Europe pretends to replace the U.S., it is going to be extremely expensive, very politically costly, and it will fail.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Brussels ‘must take position’ on Romanian presidential election controversy one way or another: Slovak PM Fico

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 11, 2025

The European Commission is under increasing pressure to address the unfolding political crisis in Romania after Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico called for clarity on the rejection of Calin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy.

Fico’s remarks, shared on social media, warn that the Commission’s silence would further undermine trust in the European Union.

Fico emphasized that the European Commission “must take a position” on the situation one way or another, asserting that either Georgescu, a nationalist and NATO-skeptic, is right, or the Romanian authorities’ decision to bar him from running is justified.

“The European Commission (EC) must take a position on the presidential elections in Romania — and take responsibility for it. If Mr. Georgescu is being wronged simply because he has a different opinion, he must be given European protection. If the EC is convinced that the Romanian authorities are doing the right thing, it must stand up for them. The only thing the EC cannot do is to remain silent,” Fico declared.

The controversy erupted after Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy for the upcoming presidential elections on Sunday evening. The decision, taken with 10 votes in favor out of the 14-member committee, sparked protests in Bucharest, where demonstrators clashed with police, waving national flags and chanting slogans calling for “revolution.” Riot police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and multiple arrests were made.

The BEC cited a missing signature on an annex of Georgescu’s declaration of wealth as the reason for his disqualification. Former Constitutional Court judge Tudorel Toader clarified that the annexes are a mandatory component of the documentation and that both substantive and procedural requirements must be met.

Georgescu, who had previously won the first round of the presidential elections before they were annulled, condemned the decision as a political maneuver. “A direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide! I have one message left! If democracy in Romania falls, the entire democratic world will fall! This is just the beginning. It’s that simple! Europe is now a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny!” he wrote on social media.

Fico drew parallels between Georgescu’s case and his own experiences in Slovakia, where he claims he faced politically motivated efforts to imprison him as an opposition leader between 2020 and 2023. He accused the European Commission, particularly then-justice commissioner Didier Reynders, of turning a blind eye to alleged democratic backsliding in Slovakia because the country’s government at the time was aligned with Brussels.

“The EC at that time did not give a damn about Slovakia. They had an obedient government, and nobody cared about the rights of the leader of the opposition and the nature of democracy in Slovakia,” Fico wrote.

The rejection of Georgescu’s candidacy has drawn sharp criticism from several political figures and observers, including Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of Spain’s Vox party Santiago Abascal, and U.S. billionaire Elon Musk.

George Simion, president of Romania’s right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, insisted the decision was overtly political. “It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion stated.

Fico warned that the EU’s credibility is on the line, warning that if it does not take a view, “a dangerous precedent is being set where, in a free democratic election, it will be possible to remove a successful candidate simply because he does not hold a favorable opinion.”

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Romania: Călin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy rejection sparks mass protests and international condemnation

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 10, 2025

The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected the candidacy of Călin Georgescu in Romania’s upcoming presidential elections on Sunday evening. The decision, taken with 10 votes in favor out of the 14-member committee, has ignited widespread protests and drawn sharp international criticism.

Shortly after the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside the BEC headquarters in Bucharest, expressing outrage at what they labeled a “theft of democracy.” Supporters of Georgescu clashed with police, waved national flags, and chanted slogans calling for a “revolution.” Law enforcement officers used tear gas to disperse protesters who attempted to force their way into the institution. Several individuals were arrested in the ensuing confrontations.

Marius Militaru, a spokesperson for the Gendarmerie, stated that authorities were “trying to relax the atmosphere through dialogue” and that the situation was under control.

The BEC cited a missing signature on an annex of Georgescu’s declaration of wealth as the reason for his disqualification. Former Constitutional Court judge Tudorel Toader clarified that the annexes are a mandatory component of the documentation and that both substantive and procedural requirements must be met.

Despite the setback, Georgescu retains the option to challenge the decision at the Constitutional Court. If he secures a favorable ruling, he could regain his candidacy, making the upcoming days crucial for his political future.

It is understood that Georgescu has 24 hours to appeal, and any final decision must be made within 48 hours.

Taking to social media, Georgescu condemned the BEC’s decision as an attack on democracy.

“A direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide! I have one message left! If democracy in Romania falls, the entire democratic world will fall! This is just the beginning. It’s that simple! Europe is now a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny!” he wrote.

His rejection follows his recent arrest amid an investigation into alleged extremism, a move that had already drawn concern from high-profile figures.

The decision has provoked strong reactions from European and international political figures, some of whom have accused the European Union of political interference in Romania’s democratic process.

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the right-wing Lega party, condemned the rejection, stating: “A Soviet-style Euro-coup. First, they annul the elections he was winning, then they arrest him, and now they exclude him entirely for fear that he will win. Rather than ‘rearm Europe,’ we must refound it to defend democracy.”

U.S. billionaire Elon Musk, a senior adviser to the Trump administration, also weighed in, calling the situation “crazy” and amplifying claims that “Europe has cancelled more elections than Russia.”

Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox party, expressed solidarity with Georgescu and Romania’s right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, accusing “Brussels’ bureaucratic pressure” of being exerted to block his candidacy.

George Simion, president of the AUR, claimed the decision was overtly political with all commission members affiliated with the governing parties voting against Georgescu’s candidacy.

“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion implored.

Georgescu previously won the first round of presidential elections before they were controversially annulled last year. His arrest last week — while en route to submit his candidacy — raised further suspicions about the state of democracy in Romania.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Much ado about nothing – Macron proposed nuclear umbrella for Europe

By Uriel Araujo | March 10, 2025

France’s President Emmanuel Macron announced last week his intention to extend the French nuclear shield to its European partners, and there are now talks about French-British nuclear deterrence. Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz has urged France and Britain to share their nuclear weapons to “supplement” (not “replace”) the American nuclear shield.

The premise here is that a “pro-Russian” Trump is going to “abandon” Europe and thus leave it vulnerable to Moscow’s “aggression” – and so it is necessary to build an alternative shield. While various analysts and journalists put on serious faces while talking about these issues, underneath the rhetoric, the whole narrative lacks any substantiality, to the point of being laughable.

Let us briefly touch the premisses:

While the situation with borders is indeed far from being a settled matter in the post-Soviet space (with a number of frozen conflicts), there is of course no Russian appetite for attacking, or much less, “conquering” portions of Europe. The whole crisis in Ukraine has in fact more to do with the ethnocratic contradictions of nation-building in the new independent state of Ukraine, and with NATO’s enlargement, a policy denounced by the likes of the late Henry Kissinger himself, George Kennan, and a number of scholars and authorities who predicted it could cause the Ukrainian war since the late nineties.

Albeit partially bent on a kind of “reverse Kissinger” strategy to stop Biden’s dangerous “dual-containment” approach” (of antagonizing both China and Russia simultaneously), Trump is hardly pro-Moscow in any sense beyond that of avoiding an escalation. Moreover, his rhetorical attacks on NATO have more to do with burden sharing than with “ending” the Alliance.

The truth is that Europe embarked on an America’s proxy attrition war, and now that an overburdened Washington is retreating from its very war, puzzled Europeans do not know what to do. Now, let us delve into the idea of European deterrence, as proposed by Macron.

Europe has stayed under Washington’s wings long enough, and Trump does have a point when he says most NATO countries fail to meet the agreed expenses’ goal of using at least 2 percent of their GDP in military spending (which overburdens the US). And now that the Atlantic superpower is really signing its intent on pivoting to the Pacific, partially withdrawing from Eastern Europe, and shifting NATO’s burden onto its European allies, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth amongst Europe and Britain’s political elites.

European powers today are simply not what they once were. Consider the United Kingdom, for instance: it might even lack the capacity to maintain its own nuclear arsenal without American help, as experts have been warning, in the context of Trump’s “burden shift” threats to “abandon” or to leave the American transatlantic allies on their own. In January last, a British “Trident” nuclear missile embarrassingly failed (for the second time) during a test launch, which led to speculations about the realities of Britain’s nuclear deterrence.

Long story short, Paris and London are the only nuclear powers in Europe – and it is unclear however to what extent they would be capable of replacing the so-called American “nuclear umbrella”.

According to Astrid Chevreuil (a visiting fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies – CSIS – in Washington, D.C.) and Doreen Horschig (a fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS), there are “significant strategic, doctrinal, and logistical obstacles” to that. More to the point, they add: “in the current situation, the French and British nuclear forces are a complement to US extended deterrence, but they would not constitute a viable solution in the event of an abrupt withdrawal of U.S. nuclear forces.” Elaborating on it, Chevreuil and Horschig argue that:

Both the British and French arsenals are designed, in their size, to respond to attacks “based on their vital interests”: Paris counts on less than 300 nuclear warheads, and London, in turn, possesses less than 250 (Washington in contrast has “a total of 1,700 deployed warheads”).

Moreover, American nuclear weapons stored in Europe today are “airborne capabilities” (and not ground-based or seaborne systems). Only France has such an airborne nuclear component, and “replacing” the US would require enormous efforts from European allies.

Finally, the two experts conclude, Britain and France lack a nuclear doctrine compatible with the very idea of “extending their nuclear deterrence through stationing their weapons in other countries.” Paris does not even participate in NATO’s nuclear planning groups, as the French doctrine “insists on the independence of its nuclear decision making.”

I’ve written before on the challenges Europe faces when it comes to “rearming” itself – they range from de-industrialization to lack of a common legal and bureaucratic framework, or a common EU defense market – according to Sophia Besch (a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace fellow), and Max Bergmann (a former member of the US Policy Planning Staff and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies).

One should also keep in mind that Paris’ own relationship with NATO is historically complex, to say the least. Under De Gaulle, France withdrew from the organization’s integrated military structure in 1966, and even expelled all of its headquarters and units on French territory. It was French President Nicolas Sarkozy who finally ended Paris “estrangement” from NATO as recently as 2009 – so it took 43 years for Paris to change its course. To this day, France has not given up “nuclear independence” with regards to NATO, as mentioned. It is hard to change things overnight.

In addition, French ambition’s aside, a quick look at Africa is enough to demonstrate how much of a declining power France really is today: one just needs to consider the French failures in Chad, Niger, Mali, and elsewhere – the French military was basically kicked out of their main bases in the African continent.

Lastly, there is also an element of a power struggle going on. If the overburdened American superpower is partially retreating from a number of theaters, the outcome of it could be a local power vacuum (in Europe) and some actors might have an appetite for filling such a void. Even Poland has eyes on that, as I wrote before. Much of the French rhetoric we are now seeing has a lot to do with that.

To sum it up, Macron is offering Europe something he does not have to counter a threat that does not really exist the way he describes it. He is doing so because of something Trump will not actually do. To put it another way, it is “words, words, words”.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen hopes to turn EU into ‘defense union’ for $867bln

Al Mayadeen | March 9, 2025

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that she believes her proposed new 800 billion euro ($867 billion) military plan will transform the European Union into a “defense union”.

During Thursday’s EU leaders’ conference on defense, ReArm Europe received unanimous support, according to von der Leyen.

“You are familiar with the 800 billion [euro] package for defense, and that is historic, this can be the foundation of a European defense union,” she said.

“We will drive the ReArm Europe plan forward with full force,” she stated at a news conference in Brussels marking the first 100 days of her second term as President of the European Commission.

Von der Leyen went on to say that the EU should “team up with other like-minded countries,” such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, to “unleash the full potential in the face of concrete threats.”

Von der Leyen recently put forward an initiative to attract loans of up to 150 billion euros to the defense industry over the next four years and to allow EU countries to free up another 650 billion euros to increase defense purchases and develop the defense industry.

The European Union is ramping up efforts to develop its military-industrial sector, drawing insights from the Ukraine war. A statement issued following a European Council meeting on Thursday outlined key areas for defense investment, particularly in air defense, advanced drone technology, and precision-guided weaponry.

According to the European Council’s conclusions, the bloc is focusing on strengthening its military capabilities in coordination with NATO and the European Defence Agency. The document specified that priorities include air and missile defense, long-range artillery, missile stockpiles, and anti-drone technologies.

“[The European Council] identifies the following first list of priority areas for action at EU level in the field of capabilities taking into account the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, in accordance with the work already done in the framework of the European Defence Agency and in full coherence with NATO: air and missile defence; artillery systems, including deep precision strike capabilities; missiles and ammunition; drones and anti-drone systems…,” the statement read.

This move comes as part of a broader strategy known as ReArm Europe, an initiative aimed at significantly boosting the EU’s defense capabilities while reducing reliance on external allies. Under this plan, EU leaders have proposed unlocking up to €800 billion to finance military advancements, primarily through defense loans, budget repurposing, and private capital mobilization. The European Investment Bank (EIB) may also lift restrictions on lending to defense firms to support this push.

Von der Leyen has described this as a necessary response to “a clear and present danger” facing the region, marking a shift in the EU’s traditional defense posture. The initiative also aligns with recent calls from the US for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security, especially amid concerns about potential shifts in American foreign policy under a future administration.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »