Donald Trump’s return to the White House is shaping up to be nothing short of a political revolution. The new administration is rapidly dismantling the old order, purging the ruling elite, reshaping both domestic and foreign policy, and cementing changes that will be difficult to reverse – even if his opponents regain power in future elections.
For Trump, as for all revolutionaries, the priority is to break the existing system and consolidate radical transformations. Many of the principles that guided US policy for decades – sometimes for over a century – are being deliberately discarded. Washington’s global strategy, long built on expansive military, diplomatic, and financial influence, is being rewritten to serve Trump’s domestic political needs.
The end of the American liberal empire
For the past 100 years, the US has functioned as a global empire. Unlike traditional empires built on territorial expansion, the American empire extended its reach through financial dominance, military alliances, and ideological influence. This model, however, has become increasingly unsustainable. Since the late 1990s, the costs of maintaining global hegemony have exceeded the benefits, fueling discontent both at home and abroad.
Trump and his allies seek to end this ‘liberal empire’ and return America to a more self-reliant, mercantilist model – one reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries under President William McKinley. Trump has openly praised this era, viewing it as the golden age of US prosperity, before the country took on the burdens of global leadership.
Under this vision, America will reduce unproductive foreign expenditures and refocus on its natural advantages: Vast resources, an advanced industrial base, and the world’s most valuable consumer market. Rather than policing the world, Washington will wield its economic power more aggressively to secure trade advantages. However, the transition to this model carries significant risks, particularly in a highly globalized economy.
A shift in global strategy
Trump’s policies are driven by domestic concerns but will have major implications abroad. His administration is systematically dismantling key institutions of the old order, including those that irritated Moscow. For instance, USAID – a major vehicle for American influence in the post-Soviet space – has been gutted. Ironically, Trump had more motivation to destroy USAID than even Russian President Vladimir Putin, given that its resources had been repurposed for domestic political use by Trump’s rivals.
If the US abandons its liberal empire model, many sources of tension with Russia will disappear. Historically, Moscow and Washington had relatively stable relations throughout the 19th century. If Trump’s America reverts to a more isolationist approach, Russia will no longer be a primary target of US interference. The main friction point will likely be the Arctic, where both nations have strategic interests.
China, however, remains Trump’s top adversary. Beijing’s state-led economic expansion is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s mercantilist vision. Unlike Biden, who sought to counter China through alliances, Trump is willing to go it alone – potentially weakening Western unity in the process. His administration is expected to escalate economic and technological warfare against Beijing, even if it means alienating European allies.
Europe’s strategic uncertainty
One of Trump’s most disruptive moves has been his open hostility toward the EU. His vice president, J.D. Vance, recently delivered a speech in Munich that amounted to direct interference in European politics, signaling support for right-wing nationalist movements that challenge the EU’s authority.
This shift is forcing Europe into an uncomfortable position. For years, China has viewed Western Europe as an ‘alternative West’ with which it could engage economically without the same level of confrontation it faces with the US. Trump’s approach could accelerate EU-Chinese ties, especially if Western European leaders feel abandoned by Washington.
There are already signs that European policymakers may loosen restrictions on Chinese investments, particularly in critical industries such as semiconductors. At the same time, the ambitions of some Europeans for NATO expansion into the Indo-Pacific may falter, as the bloc struggles to define its new role in a post-globalist US strategy.
Russia and China: A changing relationship
For years, Washington fantasized about splitting Russia and China apart. But Trump’s new approach is unlikely to achieve this goal. The Russia-China partnership is built on strong fundamentals: A massive shared border, complementary economies, and a shared interest in countering Western dominance.
If anything, the shifting geopolitical landscape could push Russia into a position similar to that of China in the early 2000s – focusing on economic development while maintaining strategic flexibility. Moscow may reduce its efforts to actively undermine the US and instead concentrate on strengthening its economic and security ties with Beijing.
China, meanwhile, will bear the brunt of Trump’s new American empire. The US will no longer rely on alliances to contain Beijing but will use direct economic and military pressure. While this may make life more difficult for China, it does not necessarily mean the US will succeed. China has been preparing for economic decoupling for years, and Beijing may find opportunities in a more divided Western world.
The road ahead
Trump’s return marks a fundamental shift in global power dynamics. The US is moving away from being a liberal empire and toward a more transactional, power-based foreign policy. For Russia, this means fewer ideological conflicts with Washington but continued competition in key areas like the Arctic.
For China, Trump’s policies present a direct challenge. The question is whether Beijing can adapt to a world where the US is no longer just containing it but actively trying to roll back its economic influence.
For Western Europe, the picture is bleak. The EU is losing its privileged status as America’s primary partner and is being forced to fend for itself. Whether it can navigate this new reality remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: The world is entering a period of profound transformation, and the old rules no longer apply. Trump’s America is rewriting the playbook, and the rest of the world will have to adjust accordingly.
Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
This article was translated and edited by the RT team.
In an interview on Fox News this week, America’s top diplomat Marco Rubio made a damning admission. He called the conflict in Ukraine a proxy war between the United States, its NATO allies and Russia.
Stop the press. In one fell swoop, the narrative justifying the NATO-backed war for the past three years was exposed as a naked lie. It is not about “defending Ukraine” from alleged Russian unprovoked aggression. It is a proxy war. That means it has deeper causes and responsibilities.
This is what Moscow and many other international observers have been saying all along. To recognize the conflict as a proxy war is to begin admitting wider culpability for it and to start addressing the root causes for a genuine peaceful settlement.
Secretary of State Rubio went on to emphatically call for an end to the war to spare lives. He claimed the conflict was in a stalemate, not quite bringing himself to utter the word, “defeat”. But defeat is what this debacle is.
Rubio decried how the previous Biden administration and Congress (including himself as a Senator) had fueled the conflict along with other NATO members in a futile campaign. It is now time to bring the conflict to an end, he said.
Appropriately, the U.S. foreign minister appeared on television with a prominent Lenten cross of ash marked on his forehead. Christians around the world begin preparations for Easter by donning ashes as a sign of repentance. Rubio’s “confession” of a failed U.S. policy of proxy war against Russia in Ukraine may be seen as a belated recognition in Washington that it needs to cease, desist and make amends for peace.
Not so the European leaders, however, who this week persisted in their lies about a noble purpose in Ukraine.
Following the humiliating rebuke of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, the European politicians have been rallying their support for the Kiev regime.
Trump aides ejected Zelensky from the White House last Friday because he testily refused to comply with a U.S. initiative for peace in Ukraine. This week, the chastened Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump appealing for forgiveness – and more U.S. military aid. It’s not clear if the Ukrainian redundant president has convinced the Trump administration that he is ready to sign a peace deal.
In the meantime, the White House has now cut off military aid and intelligence sharing with the Kiev regime. Again, proving the reality of a proxy war.
That move has thrown the European allies into a quandary and existential crisis. It is a crisis of their own making.
An emergency EU leaders’ summit was convened to drum up more military support for Ukraine. The EU 27 could not agree on a package because Hungary vetoed it. Another summit is to be called on March 20, when it is intended to bypass Hungarian objection to funding the war in Ukraine.
European leaders are desperate. The about-turn in U.S. policy to walk away from the failed proxy war in Ukraine has left them holding a dead-end hand of cards. Rather than folding, they are doubling down on their worthless chips.
Trump upbraided Zelensky in the Oval Office by telling him, “You don’t have the cards” to keep this war going.
The same advice can be leveled at the European governments, including the British, who strangely have wormed their way back into calling shots in Europe despite exiting the bloc five years ago.
This war has been lost with appalling losses. Three years of the biggest war in Europe since World War Two has resulted in over one million deaths – mainly on the Ukrainian military side – and hundreds of billions of dollars and euros wasted, which the American and European public will pay over generations through debts.
This war is an abominable crime perpetrated by Washington and its European allies. All the more so because it could have been avoided if Russian diplomatic efforts in late 2021 had been reciprocated to deal with Moscow’s legitimate security concerns over NATO’s expansion. But no, the Western imperialists wanted to strategically defeat Russia and they used a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine as their pawn following the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 against an elected president.
Western leaders must be held to account for their nefarious machinations and the colossal damage in Ukraine and Russia. Russian civilians have been killed by NATO weapons and over $300 billion in Russian assets have been confiscated. Russia has the right to seek massive war reparations.
At least, to their credit, the Trump administration has realized that the evil of this fraudulent war must stop.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy on Ukraine, also this week referred to the war as a proxy war that needs to end.
The Americans are calling on the Europeans to stop funding the war with military aid. This is an amazing turn around. Since WWII, the Americans have been the diehard warmonger with the European lackeys following suit. Now it’s the other way around. The European elites want the war in Ukraine to continue – albeit with the lie that they are seeking “lasting peace.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently said that if the Western powers stopped funneling weapons into Ukraine, the conflict would quickly stop. And then diplomacy could begin for dealing with the root causes and establishing mutual, sustainable peace.
Vice President Vance rightly pointed out that the Europeans by puffing up Zelensky as a hero “freedom fighter” are prolonging the slaughter and destruction of Ukraine as well as provoking the risk of a wider war.
The problem is that whereas the Americans have adopted realism and common sense (at last), the Europeans are continuing to persist in the lies and delusions about the proxy war against Russia.
This week, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed other European political figures by calling Russia a threat to Europe. The French, British and others are insisting on fueling the dead-end war by racking up astronomical debts and proposing to send “peacekeeper” troops to Ukraine. Moscow has warned that such a move would mean direct war.
So desperate is Macron that he is engaging in nuclear saber-rattling, offering to deploy French nuclear weapons to “defend” Europe. Why don’t Macron and other European elites simply engage in diplomacy like the Americans?
The insane recklessness of the Europeans stems from multiple sources: their incorrigible Russophobia, ties to the military industrial complex, chagrin over their American patron dumping the Ukraine war mess on them, and in their existential need to keep lying about the war as some noble cause instead of it being a sordid proxy war against Russia.
The Europeans are so full of lies, duplicity, guilt, and ultimately impotence that they will likely persist in their delusions of grandeur. To repent would be politically fatal. Thus persisting in their lies, the European Union and its military arm NATO are being destroyed.
Napoleon, Hitler, and now the elitist European leaders have all fallen into oblivion from miscalculations over Russia.
Romania has been going through unprecedented instability in the last several months, with the Brussels-run neoliberal dictatorship effectively taking over the country. It could even be described as a “soft coup” orchestrated to nullify the will of the Romanian people. The unelected bureaucrats are determined to ensure that Bucharest remains firmly in the EU/NATO orbit, particularly now that their war in Ukraine is not exactly going as planned, to put it mildly.
To that end, last year’s election was effectively stolen after the second round was canceled based on blatant lies. In the meantime, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship even bragged about “doing it in Romania” while threatening to “do it in Germany”. You’d think millions across the “old continent” would be outraged by such undisguised tyranny. However, things only got worse from then on.
On February 26, Romanian sovereigntist Calin Georgescu was arrested on trumped-up charges that boil down to him supposedly being a “Kremlin puppet”. It’s so obvious what’s the goal of all this that even the new US administration condemned such moves. Trump and his team certainly understand what Georgescu is going through, as he’s exposed to nearly identical persecution.
With the election less than two months away, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship is looking to ensure that Georgescu is eliminated before the race begins. The latest events demonstrate that the Deep State is now trying to recycle the so-called “Russiagate” hoax and use it to make sure Romania stays under NATO occupation. Namely, on March 6, six people were arrested and charged with “treason for colluding with Russia to undermine the country”.
If you think this is ridiculous, just wait until you hear the names of the “evil pro-Russian group” and one of its “masterminds”. Namely, according to the Financial Times, they were “named ‘Vlad the Impaler Command’ after Romania’s medieval ruler who served as inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with one of the members being a 101-year-old retired General Radu Theodoru.
The subliminal messaging is so evident that it’s questionable whether we can even call it that. There’s the mandatory “evil Vlad” (you’re probably “wondering” who it reminds you of) who also “served as the inspiration” for Lord Dracula, a vampire. The word “command” can be interpreted as indicating both a “military structure” and a “team” (команда in Russian). In other words, you have a “paramilitary team working for Vlad the Vampire“.
Considering the endless funding the Deep State-run institutions get, you’d think they would come up with something a bit more original and less obvious. And yet, it gets worse, because the accusations are all copy-pasted from the “Russiagate” hoax. According to SRI (NATO-run domestic intelligence agency), the “pro-Putin conspirators” were supposedly “seeking Russian help for a plot to overthrow the government in Bucharest” and “repeatedly contacted agents of a foreign power, located both on the territory of Romania and the Russian Federation”.
“The two Russian diplomats carried out intelligence gathering actions in areas of strategic interest and took actions to support the group’s anti-constitutional actions,” the SRI report claims.
The Kremlin pointed out that this is essentially an attempt to shift focus from the actual undermining of Romanian sovereignty by the EU/NATO. Obviously, this is also an attempt to justify the persecution of Georgescu who is accused of supposed “links to fascist groups and attempting to subvert the constitutional order”. If sentenced, Georgescu is faced with a decade in prison.
He still hasn’t been accused of having anything to do with the alleged “plot” by the aforementioned “Vlad the Impaler Command” group. However, this could easily be the next step in the smear campaign targeting Georgescu, who has been criticizing NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe for years.
The “evil Vlad” group is accused of similar “crimes”, including supposedly “discussing Romania’s withdrawal from NATO with Russian spies, the removal of the current constitution and the constitutional order, the dissolution of political parties, as well as the removal of all employees from state institutions … the change of the country’s name, flag, and anthem.” If this sort of “connection” is fabricated, it would likely happen just ahead of the presidential election, either for new indictments or another smear campaign.
They understand that the EU/NATO wants them to play this extremely unflattering role and, as anyone remotely sane would do, they effectively told NATO to go pound sand (as evidenced by last year’s election results). However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel won’t give up that easily, so we’re likely to see more instability in Romania.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Moscow will not engage in an arms race with the EU, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said. He was speaking after Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged the bloc to ramp up its military spending.
Tusk on Wednesday accused Moscow of starting a new arms race and insisted that Western Europe must respond. “The war, the geopolitical uncertainty and the new arms race started by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin have left Europe with no choice,” he stated on social media.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said it was regrettable to hear such statements. “They will not win against us because we will not play with them; we will be busy ensuring our own interests,” he said.
“We regret the confrontational, even militaristic, statements coming from Warsaw and Paris, which show that Europe has yet to adjust to the new dynamic between Moscow and Washington,” Peskov said. He didn’t rule out, however, that European leaders would eventually “feel which way the wind is blowing.”
The Polish prime minister further claimed that “Europe must be ready for this race, and Russia will lose it like the Soviet Union 40 years ago,” arguing that the EU would arm itself faster than Russia.
Tusk’s comments follow statements by French President Emmanuel Macron during an address to the nation on Wednesday claiming that Russia poses a threat to the EU. Macron urged the bloc to boost defense spending and suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.
On Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a massive defense spending hike. As part of the ‘ReArm Europe Plan’, the bloc would spend about $840 billion on defense – double total EU defense expenditures in 2024.
The European leaders’ calls come as US President Donald Trump’s administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as in supporting Kiev.
Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.
Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, condemning Macron’s remarks as “highly confrontational.” Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed Western claims of an imminent Russian attack as “nonsense” and accused European leaders of inflating the threat to justify higher military spending.
Putin earlier reiterated that Russia has no interest in being drawn into an arms race but stressed that Moscow would take all necessary steps to safeguard its own security and that of its allies.
Berlin plans to change its fiscal rules and “invest” €500 billion ($543 billion) in infrastructure and defense, as explained by the chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz.
It’s alarming that Merz is prioritizing military spending because of the mythical Russian threat, especially amid efforts for peace in Ukraine, Gunnar Beck, a legal academic and former AfD MEP, tells Sputnik.
Merz has long pushed for higher defense spending. Last December, he stated the Bundeswehr would need at least $87 billion annually, up from the current $57 billion. German media also reported a proposed $433 billion defense fund.
“Germany hasn’t got the money,” Beck stresses. “It’s got to borrow the money. It’s at the expense of social spending and badly needed investments in infrastructure and research and development.”
“It’s not only Germany that’s proposing to increase military spending. The EU, under [Ursula] von der Leyen, has announced it will borrow another €800 billion ($866 billion) to support Ukraine. When you add up these figures, it’s already more than a trillion. And they are clearly coordinating their policies,” Beck concludes.
MEPs from the Volt party in the European Parliament submitted a proposed “action plan” earlier this week, as reported by Politico. Among the plan’s nine points is a call to strip Hungary of its guaranteed voting rights as a member of the European Union.
Volt is a pan-European federalist party that favors strengthening and centralizing the European Union’s authority over its member states.
Volt’s call to deprive Hungary of its right to veto all decisions made by the EU, which is a fundamental right guaranteed in the bloc’s founding treaties, is doubtless a response to Viktor Orbán’s veto of €20 billion in military aid that Brussels had wanted to send to Ukraine this week. This aid was intended to partially compensate for the United States’ recent suspension of aid to the country as part of the Trump administration’s attempts to force an end to the conflict.
Orbán has been strongly critical of the EU’s support for Ukraine from the outset of the current war. He has frequently used his country’s veto powers in an effort to pressure the bloc to stop arming Ukraine and instead force it to come to the negotiating table.
Other points in Volt’s proposal were a call for the formation of a European army, as is being discussed by others in the European Parliament, as well as a revision of the bloc’s treaties to give it greater authority in matters of defense. Also included is a suggestion to make Kaja Kallas, the European Commission’s current Vice President as well as its High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, an official foreign minister for the EU.
Given that Volt has only five MEPs in the European Parliament, its suggestions are unlikely to have much effect. They nevertheless reflect the growing frustration in the bloc with Hungary’s ongoing efforts to stop the war.
This is not the first time that the idea of depriving Hungary of its voting rights has been floated in European circles. Last summer, 63 MEPs demanded that Hungary’s rights be suspended in response to Orbán’s diplomatic visits to Kyiv, Moscow, and Beijing while his country held the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The EU has approved a large military spending plan to unlock billions of euros to build up defense capabilities. The initiative, which was adopted following an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday, also aims to shore up aid for Ukraine after American military assistance to Kiev was halted.
Under the plan, which is called ReArm Europe, the bloc’s defense spending will be boosted by up to €800 billion ($840 billion) – double the total EU defense expenditures in 2024. The initiative was unveiled earlier this week by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who said she will present legal proposals within the next two weeks.
The 27 EU leaders agreed to ease budget restrictions to allow member states to boost military outlays. They also called on the European Commission to explore new mechanisms “to facilitate significant defense spending at the national level across all Member States,” according to an official statement.
The EU’s executive arm estimates that the measure could unlock around €650 billion but it remains unclear if governments would fully utilize this financial leeway.
Additionally, the bloc’s leaders took note of a European Commission proposal for a €150 billion loan package for investment, including for air and missile defense, artillery and drones, and urged EU headquarters staff “to examine this proposal as a matter of urgency.”
The emergency summit was convened amid growing concerns among EU leaders over the impact of Washington’s recent policy shift on Ukraine. US President Donald Trump has signaled that European nations should take the lead in their own defense, as well as in supporting Kiev.
Von der Leyen claimed that the EU “is ready to assume its responsibilities,” describing the current geopolitical situation as the “most momentous and dangerous” of times.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who claimed in a speech to the nation on Wednesday that Russia poses a threat to the EU, said that this is just a first step.
“Whatever happens in Ukraine, we need to build autonomous defense capacities in Europe,” he told reporters after the summit.
Moscow has repeatedly dismissed claims that it poses a military threat to Europe, describing remarks emerging from Warsaw and Paris as “highly confrontational” and “militaristic.” Russian President Vladimir Putin called Western claims of an impending attack “nonsense,” accusing European leaders of exaggerating the threat to justify increased military spending. He reiterated that Russia does not seek to enter an arms race but will take the necessary measures to ensure its security and that of its allies.
Henna Virkkunen, vice-president of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said that a roundtable on the presidential elections in Poland will be held in the coming weeks.
The Finnish politician told DW that such meetings are organized before every election in the member states and that she is concerned about the possibility of influencing the election results using social media.
“Cooperation with Germany went well, and I am sure that we will also cooperate closely with the Polish authorities. EU citizens have the right to be sure that elections are fair and free. And because of content recommendation systems and the content itself distributed by internet platforms, this is very difficult,” she said, complaining about the uncensored X platform.
Various politicians reacted quickly on X.
PiS MP Radosław Fogiel expressed concern, noting that “in Polish elections ONLY the voice of Polish citizens counts. They will certainly not be decided by the Vice-President of the European Commission, who does not even have a democratic mandate, because no one voted for her. But such announcements, along with the desire to limit freedom of speech, are disturbing. The EU is heading in a very dangerous direction.”
“The European Union is simply preparing for either the Romanian scenario in Poland or the introduction of political censorship,” said political scientist and publicist Prof. Adam Wielomski.
Following the cancellation of presidential elections in Romania after Călin Georgescu appeared poised to win, there are grave concerns about democratic backsliding in Europe. Georgescu has since been arrested in dramatic fashion and charged with a variety of crimes, including “misinformation.” After the events in Romania, former EU commissioner Therry Breton claimed they could annul the elections in Germany just as they did in Romania.
Author Rafał Ziemkiewicz wrote: “What the f**k? Will the Germans and the Eurocrats hold a ’roundtable’ to determine who will win the elections in Poland?”
“This is starting to look more and more serious. The European Commission openly announces interference in the Polish presidential elections!” posted PiS MP Paweł Jabłoński.
“Can you believe that she will hold a roundtable with Tusk on the presidential elections in Poland?” asked MP Michał Dworczyk.
The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.
Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.
The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”
Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
You don’t have to be a genius to work out that if you exclude Russia and just look at the three groups who are vying for war, or whining for peace, that no one is being very honest about their intentions. Previously, I tackled head on how Trump is not being very honest when he talks of peace as he has the means to enforce it at the drop of a hat, but chooses to drag his feet and hold out for deals. This is not simply Trump Basic who we all know well – where’s the deal? – but also Trump playing out a longer game with Russia, looking at where the sweet spot could be. Trump’s tour de force is always to create a crisis and then position himself to be the only person on the planet who is capable or willing to resolve it. His personality is always paramount to everything.
And so the stunt in the White House needs to be seen in the correct context. Zelensky was not honest in coming to the White House in the first place as it was believed that he was to meet Trump and JD Vance to sign a mineral deal which he agreed to and retracted from signing a number of times leading up to the visit. This became apparent when he met with Trump behind close doors and so the Plan B was to lower Zelensky into a trap and make him look ungrateful, arrogant and entirely impossible to work with. But what’s the real story behind Zelensky’s decision? Again, we see the puppet Zelensky having his strings pulled by others. Is it a coincidence that just days earlier British PM Keir Starmer arrives in the White House where, just a matter of hours earlier he announces in the British parliament that defence spending will be increased, in line with Trump’s demands for European members of NATO? Was it merely that Starmer needed to show some goodwill to Trump even to get the meeting, or was Starmer preparing for choppier waters to come, when Trump would finally hear the rumours? According to some reports, Zelensky has sold all the mineral rights already to the UK, so he was playing a game with Trump all along.
But there are more lies and games to come.
If we look at Zelensky’s European partners can we honestly say they are being honest with the public which elected them? While Macron announces a no-fly zone rule, Starmer tells his own people that Britain will send its own troops to Ukraine. Has the world gone mad, or are these leaders actually serious about their intentions? How many of UK soldiers, airmen and sailors could Starmer actually send out of a total of barely 150,000 in uniform? In reality, probably only a third at best. And presumably this move would be without the support of the U.S., who would keep out of it? If that isn’t the craziest batshit idea, there is more madness to follow. Zelensky, since arriving in the UK for the emergency meeting of mostly EU leaders who support him – including Erdogan of Turkey – has started saying some very odd things to the press, while he picks up these huge checks for military support. He keeps talking about getting a peace deal with Russia.
As Starmer prepares to send British troops to Ukraine, he continues to jail people for posting nasty messages in Facebook, in particular when they slur his own party members – an irony that only Joe Stalin would appreciate, as it’s straight from the dictators’ handbook. Starmer preaches about supporting a free and democratic Ukraine while persecuting anyone who doesn’t agree with his views or uses social media to complain about the state of Britain. In reality it’s one despot supporting another and it’s hard to see how many days this could last with body bags coming back to the UK while pensioners get plain clothed policeman come to their houses and threaten them with imprisonment – or even more cuts to the poor. Of course the body bags will be hidden by a tawdry deal struck between the government and the British press, just as so many ‘no-go zones’ were agreed beforehand. But citizen journalism will call them out as the families won’t stay quiet. Starmer and Macron seem to think that just as Churchill pulled a few stunts to draw the U.S. into the Second World War, that European soldiers on Ukrainian soil will override any agreement that the U.S. and Russia could pull off. The move by Starmer is so idiotic that it leaves many wondering whether he is being controlled by Mossad or the Obamas, comes from the same camp which so fabulously made so many poor predictions from the beginning – namely Russian sanctions.
There is only one conclusion to it, although it leaves Trump and Putin with two options, neither particularly edifying. One, to let the Europeans go ahead with their stunt and watch the collapse of NATO as a credible organization worthy of its funding; or two, to pull the rug out from under the feet of Zelensky and force presidential elections, where of course Trump will install his own puppet to replace the incumbent one. The huge mistake Starmer is making is that he is assuming British troops need not be sent to the front line, but can encircle Kiev to show political support for Zelensky. Yet, each day Russian troops will gain ground and move closer to the Ukrainian capital. For Trump to attempt regime change will be harder of course with a strong contingent of European soldiers on the ground as the State Department and all its dirty tricks doesn’t normally encounter such resistance. Is Zelensky’s ‘we want peace’ mantra a trick so that time can be bought to re-arm? Likely. Monty Python would have had a lot of fun with these clowns. Blessed are the peace brokers.
I had the great pleasure of speaking with Karin Kneissl and Alexander Mercouris about Europe’s decline and tendency to double down on failed policies. Kneissl is the former Foreign Minister of Austria. We discussed why NATO’s defeat in the Ukraine proxy war will fragment the alliance, why the Europeans are no longer capable of engaging in diplomacy with Russia, how strategic thinking was replaced with ideological slogans, why unity and democracy within the EU is weakening, and why the economic decline will be difficult to reverse. Removing the dividing lines in Europe and restoring peace with Russia, as the largest state in Europe, would be an important part of reversing Europe’s growing irrelevance. However, the Europeans appear to be preparing for a showdown against Russia instead.
I had the great pleasure to discuss with Judge Napolitano the efforts by Trump to pressure Zelensky into starting negotiations to end the war. Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Zelensky and even cutting military support to push him to the negotiation table. It is very possible that Trump will also start to mount pressure on the Europeans as they are seen to also oppose his peace plan. By cutting military spending, Trump hopes to also deprive Zelensky and the Europeans of the alternative to keep the war going. The war summit in Paris organised by the Europeans demonstrates that they are not able to mobilise the political will and unity required to replace the US. The Europeans also do not have the money or military power to continue the war, yet they do not have the political imagination beyond doubling down on a failed war. If the Europeans continue to resist Trump’s peace efforts, then NATO itself could end up being dissolved.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed that member states spend about $840 billion on defense to strengthen their military self-sufficiency – an amount more than double total EU defense expenditure in 2024.
In a statement on Tuesday, the EU chief cited the “most dangerous of times” and the “grave” threats facing the bloc as reasons to assume greater responsibility for its own security.
“We are in an era of rearmament,” von der Leyen declared, adding that she had sent a letter outlining her ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ to member state leaders ahead of the European Council meeting later this week.
“ReArm Europe could mobilize close to €800 billion ($840 billion) for a safe and resilient Europe,” she said. “This is a moment for Europe. And we are ready to step up.”
Official data shows the bloc’s total defense spending reached an estimated $344 billion last year, marking an increase of more than 30% since 2021.
The new plan includes $158 billion in loans available to member states to invest in what von der Leyen described as “pan-European capability domains,” including air and missile defense, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones, and anti-drone technology. It will also address other needs, from cybersecurity to military mobility.
The proposed five-part strategy is also designed to address the “short-term urgency” of supporting Ukraine, the EU chief said.
Von der Leyen did not specify a detailed timeline, but emphasized that defense spending must increase “urgently now but also over a longer period over this decade.”
Her announcement came just hours after news agencies reported on Monday that US President Donald Trump had ordered a pause on military aid to Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain. Following Zelensky’s public clash with Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday, the US president said America would no longer tolerate the Ukrainian leader’s attitude.
The EU has historically depended significantly on the US for its security, primarily through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, the Trump administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as Kiev’s. Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.
Trump has previously warned that under his leadership the US would not defend NATO countries that fail to meet their financial commitments. He has floated the idea of raising mandatory defense spending by members to 5% of GDP, though none – including the US – currently meet that threshold.
His push for increased defense spending has drawn mixed reactions, with some EU officials questioning its economic feasibility. European officials have occasionally raised concerns that Trump could pull the US out of the organization.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko recently warned that NATO appears to be preparing for war with Moscow, arguing that its current course poses a threat both to Russia and to overall security architecture.
The drug-induced nipple secretions of trans women are as good as mothers’ breast milk for babies, the University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust claimed in a letter to campaigners made public in a report by British think tank the Policy Exchange on Sunday.
The healthcare trust’s medical director, Rachel James, argued that the off-label prescription drug cocktail men transitioning to female take in order to produce milk was “similar to the natural hormones which encourage lactation to develop when the baby is newly born.”
“The evidence which is available demonstrates that the milk is comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby,” James wrote in the letter, sent to Children of Transitioners last August.
Biological men who wish to lactate must first take hormones to grow milk glands and then take high doses of either domperidone or metoclopramide to stimulate milk production. Neither drug is approved for this use, though they are occasionally prescribed off-label to biological women who have trouble lactating.
However, domperidone’s own manufacturer, Janssen, warns patients the drug “may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby” and “should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary.” … 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 