Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Here’s the apocalyptic Trump choice facing the EU

By Fyodor Lukyanov | Rossiyskaya Gazeta | March 1, 2025

Friday night’s dramatic events at the White House, featuring Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, have placed Western Europe in an extremely difficult position. Many of the region’s leaders, who range from moderate to intense skeptics of US President Donald Trump, have nonetheless attempted to preserve the traditional transatlantic alliance. They have pushed Washington to find a resolution to the Ukraine conflict that aligns with European interests. But the now-public rupture between Zelensky and Trump has stripped them of that opportunity.

Whether by design or by accident, Zelensky has forced the United States to clarify its stance: Washington is a mediator, not a combatant, and its priority is ending escalation, not taking sides. This marks a stark departure from the previous position, in which the US led a Western coalition against Russia in defense of Ukraine. The message is clear – American support for Kiev is not a matter of principle but merely a tool in a broader geopolitical game.

Western Europe’s Limited Options

The EU has loudly declared that it will never abandon Ukraine. But in reality, it lacks the resources to replace the United States as Kiev’s primary backer. At the same time, reversing course is not so simple. The price of trying to defeat Russia is too high, and the economic toll too severe, but a sudden shift in policy would force Western European leaders to answer for their past decisions. In an EU already grappling with internal unrest, such a reversal would hand ammunition to the political opponents of the bloc’s leaders.

Another key reason Western Europe remains on this path is its post-Cold War reliance on moral arguments as a political tool – both internally and in its dealings with external partners. Unlike traditional powers, the EU is not a state. Where sovereign nations can pivot and adjust policies with relative ease, a bloc of more than two dozen countries inevitably gets bogged down in bureaucracy. Decisions are slow, coordination is imperfect, and mechanisms often fail to function as intended.

For years, Brussels attempted to turn this structural weakness into an ideological strength. The EU, despite its complexity, was supposed to represent a new form of cooperative politics – a model for the world to follow. But it is now clear that this model has failed.

At best, it may survive within Western Europe’s culturally homogeneous core, though even that is uncertain. The world has moved on, and the inefficiencies remain. This makes the dream of an independent, self-sufficient “Europe” – one capable of acting without American oversight – an impossibility.

Adapting to Washington’s New Reality

Western Europe may attempt to endure the turbulence of another Trump presidency, just as it did during his first term. But this is not just about Trump. The shift in US policy is part of a deeper political realignment, one that ensures there will be no return to the golden age of the 1990s and early 2000s.

More importantly, Ukraine has become the catalyst for these changes.  The EU does not have the luxury of waiting things out. Its leaders must decide – quickly – how to respond. Most likely, they will attempt to maintain the appearance of unity with Washington while adapting to new US policies. This will be painful, especially in economic terms. Unlike in the past, modern America acts solely in its own interests, with little regard for the needs of its European allies.

One indicator of Western Europe’s shifting posture may be the upcoming visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Washington. At present, Merz presents himself as a hardliner. But if history is any guide, he may soon shift positions, aligning more closely with Washington’s new direction.

The alternative: Europe vs. America?

There is, of course, another possibility – the EU could attempt to unify and resist Trump’s America. But given the lack of capable leadership and the deep divisions within the bloc, this seems unlikely. Ukraine could serve as a rallying point for European solidarity, but public sentiment within many EU nations makes this improbable.

At the same time, the aggressive way in which Washington now interferes in European domestic politics – actively supporting populist movements sympathetic to Trump – could create an unexpected effect. Western European elites may find themselves forced to consolidate in response, while nationalists, who have long railed against external influence, may struggle to position themselves against this new reality.

Regardless of the outcome, what we are witnessing is an internal crisis within the so-called “collective West.” The very notion of Western unity is at stake. Historically, the political West is a recent construct, largely a product of the Cold War. And even then, the relationship between the Old World and the New was often uneasy. In the 1940s and 1950s, despite its rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US actively encouraged the dismantling of European colonial empires, asserting its own dominance in the process.

The answer to Western Europe’s diminishing global influence back then was deeper integration. Trump now calls the European project a failure, but for decades, Washington saw it as a useful means of streamlining Western politics and economics under American leadership. Today, that calculus has changed. The US no longer views a strong, unified EU as an asset, and it is not shy about making that clear.

If Western European leaders do decide to confront America, it will mark the beginning of a new chapter – one that could signal the definitive end of the Cold War framework that has shaped Western politics for decades.

Russia’s perspective

For Russia, a unified and coordinated EU holds no strategic value. The era in which Moscow entertained the idea of continental integration – including Russia – is long gone. Experience, more than time, has put an end to those illusions.

Moscow’s focus is now on pragmatic opportunities. The internal struggle within the West should be viewed solely from the perspective of what tangible benefits can be derived. Long-term strategic plans are irrelevant in a time of such rapid geopolitical shifts. Right now, the priority is to act decisively, capitalize on the ongoing fractures, and secure Russia’s interests amid the changing global order.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Democracy does not ‘die in darkness,’ it is dying in the EU right now

By Tarik Cyril | RT | March 4, 2025

Quiz time: What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania (in alphabetical order) have in common? They look so different, don’t they?

Germany is a traditional, large, and at this point still relatively well-off (if less and less so due to obedient self-Morgenthauing for the greater glory of Ukraine) member of the Cold War “West” (give and take a “re-unification” and all that). Currently, it has a population of over 83 million people and a GDP equivalent to $4.53 trillion. Romania is an ex-Soviet satellite with just above 19 million citizens and a GDP less than a tenth of the German one (at $343.8 billion). Moldova, which emerged from a former Soviet republic, is the smallest: 2.4 million people and a GDP of $16.5 billion.

And yet, look more closely, and they are not so different: They are all either inside the EU and NATO (Germany and Romania) or attached to these two organizations as an outside yet important strategic asset (the case of Moldova – despite and in de facto breach of its constitutionally anchored neutrality, as it happens). And also, all three have serious problems with conducting fair and clean elections. What a coincidence. Not.

Let’s take a quick look at each case: In Germany’s recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) failed to cross the threshold to representation in parliament – 5% of the national vote – by the thinnest of margins: The party officially garnered 4.972% of the vote. In absolute numbers, almost 2,469,000 Germans voted for the BSW (with the decisive so-called “second vote”). Only 0.028% – about 13,000 to 14,000 votes – more and the party would have passed the 5% barrier.

Even extremely tight results can, of course, be real and legitimate. The problem in Germany now is that there is steadily accumulating evidence that the elections were compromised by serious flaws and repeated errors. What makes this even more urgent is the fact that there seems to be a clear pattern with mistakes occurring not randomly but mostly at the cost of the BSW.

We already know about two key problems, although not much more than one week has passed after the election on February 23: First, about 230,000 German voters live abroad, but many of them could not cast their vote because the necessary documents reached them too late, sometimes even only after the elections. Of course, we cannot tell how exactly these voters would have voted if given the chance. But that is not the point. The fact alone that they could not participate casts severe doubt on the legitimacy of the results. And especially in the case of the BSW where so few additional votes would have been enough to principally change the outcome, that is, secure seats – and probably two to three dozen – in the next parliament.

The second even more disturbing issue is that there is ever more evidence of actual BSW votes inside Germany being allocated to another party. In the case of the major city of Aachen, for instance, a result of 7.24% for the BSW was registered for the “Bündnis für Deutschland” (an entirely different and much smaller party with no chance of parliamentary representation to begin with). The BSW vote was erroneously registered as 0%. Only protests by local BSW voters brought the scandal to light.

German mainstream media are trying to depict what happened in Aachen as an exception. Yet by now there are reports of similar “errors” from all over Germany – and don’t forget that the process of looking for these cases has only just started. In sum, there are good reasons – and they are getting better by the day – for believing that, for the BSW, the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures actually amounts to the one between being and not being in parliament. That implies, of course, that all those citizens who have voted for the BSW may well have been deprived of their proper democratic representation as foreseen by law.

Is there a motive for foul play? You bet. The BSW, an insurgent party combining leftwing social with rightwing cultural and migration-policy positions, has been hounded as too friendly toward Russia because it is demanding peace in Ukraine; it also has been outspoken about its opposition to basing fresh US missiles in Germany and to Israel’s crimes as well.

In Germany as it is now, these are all reasons for neo-McCarthyite smear campaigns and repression by – at least – dirty media tricks, all of which has already happened. It is entirely possible that a wave of deliberate local “mistakes” was added to that nasty tool box. And, a slightly different issue, asserting the BSW’s legal rights now will be especially difficult, in particular because a revision of the election result to include the party in parliament would immediately upset the complicated arithmetic of government coalition building. The BSW and its voters, in short, may well have been cheated, and they may be cheated again in case they seek redress.

The fact that one problem with those German elections has to do with voters living abroad rings a bell called Moldova, of course. There, last November, Maia Sandu narrowly won a presidential election that involved massively manipulating the outside-the-country vote. In essence, Moldovans abroad, especially in Russia, likely to vote against her were, in effect, disenfranchised by making it impossible for them to actually cast their vote; Moldovans more likely to vote for her, in the West, faced no such problems.

This crude trickery was decisive: Without it Sandu would have lost and her left-wing rival Alexandr Stoianoglo would have won. In the West, whose candidate Sandu has been, this outcome was, of course, hailed as a victory for “democracy,” a pro-EU choice, and a defeat of “Russian meddling.” As so often, it is hard to decide what is more jaw-dropping: the Orwellian reversal of reality or the Freudian projection of the West’s own manipulation on the big bad Russian Other.

That projection, in any case, is also in play in Romania. Indeed, at this point, the Romanian case of electoral foul play is clearly the most brutal one. There, the gist of a long saga beginning last November, too, is simple: Calin Georgescu, an insurgent newcomer is very likely to win presidential elections. Yet he is being denounced as a far-right populist and – drum roll – as somehow in cahoots with Russia, too.

The consequences were not surprising, except in how drastic things have gotten: First, when Georgescu was close to winning one election, the Constitutional Court abused its power to cancel the whole exercise. The pretext was a file of pseudo-evidence cobbled together by Romania’s security services that, by now, even Western mainstream media admit is ridiculously shoddy.

As you would expect, this open assault on their right to vote has made Romanians support Georgescu more, not less, as polls show. Since the next try at elections is now due to take place in May and Georgescu is still the frontrunner, the authorities have followed up with even more ham-fisted repression. This time, Georgescu was temporarily and dramatically detained – on the way to registering his renewed candidacy – and then accused of half a dozen serious crimes. His access to social media has been curtailed; his team and associates are being raked with searches, charges, and, of course, media attacks. It is possible that he will be deprived of his right to stand for the election.

Georgescu’s supporters have held large demonstrations; he himself has appealed for help in his struggle against Romania’s “deep state” to the Trump administration in Washington. Trump’s de facto right-hand man, tech oligarch Elon Musk, has used his X platform to signal support for Georgescu. And not long ago, US Vice President J.D. Vance warned the Europeans over the first round of attacks on Georgescu.

Yet Romania’s key role in NATO strategies is certain to be a key reason the NATO-skeptic and sovereigntist Georgescu has run into such massive trouble, not only from Romanian mainstream elites but also, behind the scenes, those still running the EU. With Washington now revising its approach to both Russia and its NATO clients in Europe, Georgescu’s fate could well hinge on one of the greatest geopolitical shifts of this century. And that shift might favor him.

Maia Sandu’s crooked victory in Moldova is not up for revision. The chances for the BSW of finding redress should be good, but, in reality, they are not, unfortunately. Georgescu’s luck, though, may turn again. He already has massive electoral support; he may well get even more precisely because of the escalation of dirty tricks used against him, and he has the US de facto on his side.

What is certain, in any case, is one simple fact: the “garden” West, with its endless talk of “values” and “rules” does not, in practice, believe in real elections. Instead, geopolitics prevail. And, tragically, those geopolitics are not only overbearing but stupid. Driven by an obsession with fighting Russia (and China, of course; and the Trumpist US, too, if need be) and rejecting diplomacy as such, this is a West ready to sacrifice whatever little democracy it may have left to a delusion of grandeur that will be its downfall.

Tarik Cyril Amar ia a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Kaja Kallas is ill-equipped to take stock of EU foreign policy after Zelensky’s drubbing in the White House

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 4, 2025

Now that Zelensky has been battered by Trump and abandoned by Starmer, he can fall back of Europe’s leading diplomat, Kaja Kallas. God help us all.

The earth is still shaking from President Trump and Vice President Vance’s tag team annihilation of Volodymir Zelensky at the White House. The 27 February meeting between Trump and Keir Starmer was a more convivial affair, with the British Prime Minister quiet on Ukraine while promoting the idea of much prized trade talks with America. That was the first signal of the UK getting real about its foreign policy disaster in Ukraine and recognising that it needs trade with America far more than it needs the huge cost of propping up an unwinnable war.

This leaves Zelensky’s fate in the hands of the European Union. And with Kaja Kallas, the current EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the omens aren’t promising.

Kallas’ problem is threefold.

First, she is not diplomatic.

If the biggest foreign policy challenge in Kallas’ in-tray right now is the war in Ukraine, then her ingrained hatred of Russia makes her a singularly bad choice as Europe’s lead diplomat.

Her worldview is carved out of her experience growing up in the Soviet Union the child of a woman who was deported to Siberia in 1949. She looks at Russia through a shattered lens of Estonia’s suffering during the so-called communist terror after the end of World War II.

How she sees events in Ukraine today is simply a continuum of the folklore of her life. Russia is the hated enemy, and, at some point, Russia will return to conquer Estonia once more. In her statements before war in Ukraine started, Kallas reaffirmed her view that Estonia could be the next country that Russia invades. As a NATO country, I have never seen any evidence that Russia has a plan to do this.

Kallas has called for NATO troops to be deployed to Ukraine, to ensure Russia’s total defeat. She has suggested that Russia be broken up into a series of smaller states. She once implied that Ukraine should inflict more civilian casualties on Russian citizens, to balance the number of casualties in Ukraine. Even as President Trump has said that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic, she has continued to push for this to be kept on the table, despite it having been a redline for Russia for nineteen years.

Almost everything that she says is rooted in her unshakeable belief that defeating Russia is vital for the world to become a safer place.

The world is full of extremists, of course. However, she claims to be the leading diplomat of Europe. She seems singularly ill-suited to that role. But will nonetheless still support Zelensky, I’m sure.

Which ushers in her second problem, the absence of a democratic mandate.

Countries that are sceptical about the European project often express concerns about the lack of democratic accountability of EU institutions.

No one voted for Kallas to occupy her office in Brussels. While Zelensky has only been unelected since May of 2024, Kallas will only ever be an unelected apparatchik.

When the European Union’s role was focussed on creating a united economic, social and cultural space among nations after the ravages of World War II, it found peace by opening up borders. However, as it has grown, Europe has become increasingly bureaucratic. Following agreement of the Lisbon Treaty, the creation of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security with a newly formed European External Action Service, continued this centralising trend.

Without any democratic mandate, occupants of the High Representative role have struggled for relevance. Outside of trade policy, individual Member States still manage their own bilateral diplomacy. And as the war in Ukraine has backfired on Europe through economic decline and political dissent, so Europeans countries have sought their divergent paths.

That has left ineffectual figures like Josep Borrel and ideologues like Kallas unable to play the sort of coordinating role that they yearn for.

So, in practice, Kallas’ influence on the actions of Member States is limited, although she has considerable power to cause harm through inflammatory public statements. This is a huge challenge when dealing with countries like Russia, where the leaders there understand fully the limitations on Kallas’ role and ignore her. Instead, Russia focusses its influencing efforts on key EU members states, especially in Central Europe.

Even though Kallas can call for the continued isolation of Russia as support for Zelensky rapidly crumbles, she has no real power to enforce that. She lacks a mandate.

So herein lies her third problem.

Kaja Kallas has no strategy.

There is a huge risk that Kallas is seen as a single-issue High Representative, as her main effort appears to be on the war in Ukraine.

She appears intent only on sustaining the decade-long European zeitgeist on non-engagement with Russia, whatever the economic cost. But in that regard, not only is she not bringing new ideas on foreign policy, her lack of flexibility will make her look out of touch at a time when Europe is facing significant economic and political challenges caused by the war. Arriving into the job in December, Kallas has brought plenty of heat, but no light.

Donald Trump has now arrived heralding a seismic shift in U.S. policy and she still thinks the earth is flat. She has criticised President Trump’s radical shift towards direct engagement with Russia without offering a compelling alternative vision.

The ‘Russia is coming for Europe next’ continues to be the rhetorical life-raft that she clings to as she tries desperately to help the now stranded Zelensky fight to the last Ukrainian.

Kallas is certainly not the author of the EU policy that has tried explicitly to isolate Russia on the world stage. But she has worked tirelessly to keep it alive, together with all the other tropes about how to handle Russia and why an end to the war can never be contemplated.

Of course, that position may have been sustainable while Joe Biden was still in power and the U.S. were arguably more gung-ho about pushing an unwinnable war in Europe.

But Donald Trump’s devastating take-down of Zelensky in the White House will force an immediate reckoning on the European policy establishment about what to do for Ukraine, and for Zelensky. Kaja Kallas has neither the skills, the mandate nor the plan to chart a credible way forward.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Resurgence and the Evolving US-Russia Relations

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 4, 2025

Since World War II, Russia and the US have been fierce rivals, but with Donald Trump’s re-election and Russia’s rise as a superpower, the US is now shifting toward fostering cordial ties.

Russia’s Resurgence and the Evolving US-Russia Relations

The Cold War resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union, creating a unipolar world order led by the United States. Since the culmination of the Cold War, the US has been following a more hardline foreign policy towards its rivals and allies, tarnishing its soft image around the globe. However, its economic and military supremacy helped it to sustain its position as the sole superpower of the world for almost 3 decades. The United States has been alluring third-world countries through economic aid to achieve its geopolitical interests in different regions. It also coerced weak countries militarily to support its foreign policy interests.

Nonetheless, the rapid rise of Russia and China has provided third-world countries with new military and economic giants, transforming the global geopolitical landscape. Russia’s influence is rapidly rising among the Muslim and African countries. It is also known as the leading country of the BRICS organization. Moscow is also leading the de-dollarization movement under the banner of the BRICS. Global oil trade in non-US dollar currencies has already reached 20 percent in 2020-23 from a mere 2 percent in 2000-2010. More than 40 countries are demonstrating their interest in the BRICS membership, signaling the decline of the US-led unipolar world order. The rise of BRICS has significantly enhanced Russia’s diplomatic influence. Most third-world countries seek to establish cordial relations with Moscow due to its policy of noninterference and its inclusive foreign policy.

The Strain in US-Israel Relations and Russia’s Global Stature

On the other hand, the US support to Israel in its war crimes in Gaza and its veto of the UN ceasefire resolutions have ruptured its international image. Israel has been the largest recipient of US aid since its creation. Despite all international condemnations and appeals, the Biden administration provided billions of dollars of US aid, both military and financial, to Israel. It also provided diplomatic support to Israel, further deepening the international resentment against the United States. Meanwhile, the Putin administration proved to be a staunch supporter of human rights and justice by speaking for the rights of Palestinian citizens. In the past few years, President Putin has become one of the strongest voices against Islamophobia.

Due to his vision, Russia has regained its position as the superpower of the world. Russia’s soft image has risen to an unprecedented level under his presidency. Moreover, the failure of the US sanctions to bankrupt Russia is often attributed to his leadership skills. It is also due to his leadership that the United States has been unable to isolate Moscow diplomatically. The Biden administration’s policy of weakening Russia by ensnaring it in an invincible conflict with Ukraine also seems to be collapsing due to the victories of the Russian forces.

US and Russia’s Changing Relations

The incumbent US President Donald Trump has always admired the leadership skills and personality of President Putin. He has consistently criticized Ukraine’s unwarranted provocation of Russia. President Trump is aware that the U.S. is not in a position to defeat or compete with Russia’s rise. The recent summit between Sergei Lavrov, the Secretary of State of Russia, and his American counterpart, to lay a foundation for the meeting of the leaders of the two countries and Trump’s aggressive rhetoric towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a big diplomatic win for Moscow. President Trump has also praised President Putin for his seriousness to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. All these developments have further elevated the diplomatic stature of Russia internationally.

In a surprising move, the United States voted against a Ukrainian resolution, blaming Moscow for its invasion, in the United Nations, marking a significant shift in the US policy under President Trump. Instead, the U.S. introduced a new resolution, titled The Path to Peace, which featured neutral language and called for a lasting peace. This sent a chill down the spines of the European leaders, as they knew that Ukraine could not win against Russia without the US support. This development holds immense significance and can be seen as a diplomatic win for Russia and Washington’s acceptance of defeat as a global hegemon. It is this sense of defeat that encourages the US to foster ties with Moscow.

Although President Trump has repeatedly threatened the BRICS nations about the de-dollarization campaign, the growing interest of the middle powers in the BRICS membership and their tilt towards Russia indicates that the US needs to establish cordial ties with Moscow to avoid isolation in the new multipolar world order. Washington stood victorious in the first Cold War, but the current developments demonstrate that it has already lost the Cold War 2.0. Russia, as always, seems to be open to diplomatic negotiations with the United States and is also ready for a peaceful solution to its conflict with Ukraine, but it will never compromise on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Reality confronts the Euro ruling-strata – ‘Through the tear in the fantasy bubble, they see their own demise’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 4, 2025

They (the Euro-élites) don’t have a chance: “If Trump imposes this tariff [25%], the U.S. will be in a serious trade conflict with the EU”, the Norwegian Prime Minister threatens. And what if Brussels does retaliate?

“They can try, but they can’t”, Trump responded. Von der Leyen has, however, already promised that she will retaliate. Nonetheless, the combined suite of the Anglo administrative forces is still unlikely to compel Trump to put U.S. military troops on the ground in Ukraine to protect European interests (and investments!).

The reality is that every European NATO member – to varying degrees of self-embarrassment – admits publicly now that none of them want to participate in securing Ukraine without having U.S. military troops provide ‘backstop’ to those European forces. This is a palpably obvious scheme to inveigle Trump into continuing the Ukraine war – as is Macron and Starmer’s dangling of the mineral deal to try to trick Trump to recommit to the Ukraine war. Trump plainly sees through these ploys.

The fly in the ointment, however, is that Zelensky seemingly fears a ceasefire, more than he fears losing further ground on the battlefield. He too, seems to need the war to continue (to preserve continuing in power, possibly).

Trump calling time on the Ukraine war that has been lost has seemingly caused European elites to enter some form of cognitive dissonance. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Ukraine would not retake its 1991 borders, nor force Russia into a negotiating position weak enough for the West to be able to dictate its own cessation terms.

As Adam Collingwood writes:

“Trump has torn a huge rip in the interface layer of the fantasy bubble … the governing élite [in the wake of Trump’s pivot] can see not just an electoral setback, but rather a literal catastrophe. A defeat in war, with [Europe] left largely defenceless; a de-industrialising economy; crumbling public services and infrastructure; large fiscal deficits; stagnating living standards; social and ethnic disharmony – and a powerful populist insurgency led by enemies just as grave as Trump and Putin in the Manichean struggle against vestiges of liberal times – and strategically sandwiched between two leaders that both despise and disdain them …”.

“In other words, through the tear in the fantasy bubble, Europe’s elites see their own demise …”.

“Anybody who could see reality knew that things would only get worse on the war front from autumn 2023, but from their fantasy bubble, our élites couldn’t see it. Vladimir Putin, like the ‘Deplorables’ and ‘Gammons’ at home, was an atavistic daemon who would inevitably be slain on the inexorable march to liberal progressive utopia”.

Many in the Euro ruling-strata clearly are furious. Yet what can Britain or Germany actually do? It has quickly become clear that European states do not have the military capacity to intervene in Ukraine in any concerted manner. But more than anything, as Conor Gallagher points out, it is the European economy, circling the drain – largely as a result of the war against Russia – that is dragging reality to the forefront.

The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has shown himself to be the most implacable European leader advocating both military expansion and youth conscription – in what amounts to an European resistance model mounted to confront Trump’s pivot to Russia.

Yet Merz’s winning CDU/CSU achieved only 28% of votes cast, whilst losing significant voter share. Hardly an outstanding mandate for confronting both Russia – and America – together!

“I am communicating closely with a lot of prime ministers, and heads of EU states and for me it is an absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so that we achieve independence from the U.S., step by step”, Friedrich Merz said.

Second place in the German election was taken by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with 20% of the national vote. The party was the top vote getter in the 25-45 year-old demographic. It supports good relations with Russia, an end to the Ukraine war, and it wants to work with Team Trump, too.

Yet AfD absurdly is outcast under the ‘firewall rules’. As a ‘populist’ party with a strong youth vote, it becomes automatically relegated to the ‘wrong side’ of the EU firewall. Merz has already refused to share power with them, leaving the CDU as pig-in-the-middle, squeezed between the failing SPD, which lost the most voter share, and the AfD and Der Linke, another firewall outcast, which, like AfD, gained voter share, especially among the under-45s.

The rub here – and it is a big one – is that the AfD and the Left Party, Die Linke (8.8%), which was the top vote getter in the 18-24 demographic, are both anti-war. Together these two have more than one third of the votes in parliament – a blocking minority for many important votes, especially for constitutional changes.

This will be a big headache for Merz, as Wolfgang Münchau explains:

“For one thing, the new Chancellor had wanted to travel to the NATO summit this June, with a strong commitment to higher defence spending. And even though the Left Party and the AfD hate each other in every other respect, they agree that they won’t give Merz the money to strengthen the Bundeswehr. More important, though, is the fact that they won’t support a reform to the constitutional fiscal rules (the debt brake) that Merz and the SPD are desperate for”.

The Rules are complicated, but in gist dictate that if Germany wants to spend more money on defence and aid to Ukraine, it had to be saved from elsewhere in the budget (most likely from social spending). But politically, saving on social spending to pay for Ukraine hasn’t played well with the German electorate. The last coalition failed on precisely this issue.

Even with the Greens, Merz still will be short of the two-thirds majority necessary to make constitutional changes, and the ‘Centre’ just doesn’t have the fiscal space for challenging Russia without U.S. funding. Von der Leyen will try to ‘magic’ money for defence from somewhere, “but German youth are voting against the Establishment parties who are hated. They can build a few Leopards if they want. They won’t get recruits”.

Whilst the EU and Britain are proposing to raise billions to arm themselves against some imaginary Russian invasion, it will be done against the backdrop of Trump saying explicitly – on the threat of a Russian invasion of NATO – “I don’t believe that; I don’t believe it, not one little bit”.

Another Euro-shibboleth ripped by Trump.

Thus, how will the European public, which has largely soured on the Ukraine war, react to higher energy costs and more tax and social service cuts, in order to pursue an unwinnable war in Ukraine? Starmer already has been warned that the (government debt) ‘bond vigilantes’ will react badly to yet more UK government debt as the fiscal situation wobbles precariously.

There are no obvious solutions to Europe’s current predicament: It is, on one hand, an existential conundrum for Merz. And on the other, it is the same one that dogs the EU as a whole: To get anything done, a parliamentary majority is a basic necessity.

The ‘firewall’, though primordially intended to protect the ‘Centrists’ in Brussels from Rightist ‘populists’, was subsequently turbo-charged in Brussels by Biden’s issuing of a foreign policy determination to all U.S. foreign policy ‘actors’ to the effect that populism was a ‘threat to democracy’ and must be contested.

The practical outcome however, has been that across the EU, blocking coalitions were formed of odd (minority party) bed-fellows agreeing to keep the Centrists in power, but which rather has led to endless stasis and an ever increasing detachment from ‘we, the people’.

Angela Merkel governed in this way, kicking the can of reform down the road for years – until the situation ultimately became (and still is) insoluble.

“Can another coalition of short-sighted centrists arrest the decline of the economy, fix the failure of leadership, and free the nation from its pernicious political trap? I think we know the answer”, writes Wolfgang Münchau.

There lies a bigger problem however: As Vance very explicitly warned at the recent Munich Security Forum, Europe’s enemy lies not with Russia; It lies within. It derives, Vance implied, from the fact of having a permanent bureaucracy, assuming to itself the exclusive prerogative of autonomous governing power, yet incrementally becoming ever-more remote from its own base.

Tear down the firewalls, Vance advocated, in order to return to the (abandoned) principles of that earlier democracy originally shared between the U.S. and Europe. Implicitly, Vance is targeting the Brussels Administrative (Deep) State.

The Eurocrats see in this new front an alternate American-supported attack on their Administrative State – and perceive therein their own demise.

In the U.S., there is acknowledgement that there is an “institutional resistance to Trump” in the DOD, DOJ and the FBI. It proves, Margot Cleveland argues, that those touting the need for “institutional resistance” and the supposed independence from the executive branch, are the opponents to democracy – and to Trump.

Given the close nexus between the U.S., the British and European Deep States, the question arises as to why there is such strong parallel resistance to Trump amongst European leaders also.

Ostensibly, it is not in Europe’s interest to mount a concerted resistance against the U.S. President over a failed war. Is the European frenzy then fuelled by a wider (U.S.) Deep State desire to neuter the ‘Trump Revolution’ by demonstrating, in addition to the U.S. domestic opposition at home, that Trump is causing havoc amongst the U.S.’ European allies? Is Europe being pushed further down this path than they would otherwise have chosen to venture?

For Germany to change course – albeit unthinkable for Merz – it would require only a minimal amount of imagination to envision Germany again linked to Eurasia. The AfD gained 20% of the vote on just such a platform. Really, there probably is little other option.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU’s support for Zelensky brings Washington-Brussels relations to the brink of collapse

By Ahmed Adel | March 4, 2025

Following the reactions of European leaders to the on-camera spat at the White House between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, relations between the US president and much of the European Union establishment are reaching a breaking point. The EU establishment has firmly sided with Zelensky and his warmongering policies, contrary to common sense and the peace efforts of Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

On March 2, an informal meeting of European leaders and Canada was held in London. Following the meeting, it was announced that Ukraine would receive more military aid and sanctions on Russia, territories would be returned to Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, with other nations, would form a military coalition to get boots on the ground.

By reacting the way they did, EU leaders have once again shown that they are undermining peace, just as then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did when he sabotaged the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in early 2022. However, just as Johnson was not punished for prolonging death and war in Ukraine, it is unlikely that EU leaders will ever be held accountable for their actions, especially German, Polish and Baltic politicians, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and many others in Brussels who agree on a policy of aligning with Zelensky and anti-Trump policies.

Following the spat between the US and Ukrainian presidents, European leaders sent messages of solidarity with Kiev. Many European leaders posted a uniform message on their social media accounts that they “stand with Ukraine.”

A sign of the growing rift between Washington and Brussels, particularly after the chaotic meeting between Trump and Zelensky, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said: “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

It is also recalled that during his visit to the White House on February 24, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to deceive Trump and drag him down a path the US president did not want to take. It became clear to Trump that he could not count on European politicians.

If it was not clear following the meeting with Macron, it certainly became clear to Trump when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a guest in the Oval Office on February 27, particularly after US Vice President J.D. Vance blasted Britain’s descent into authoritarianism and lack of free speech.

It is expected that in the coming period, there will be very strong obstructions from the EU to any agreement between Trump and Putin. There will also be such obstructions within the US, especially from the remnants of the Deep State and the mainstream media that are still critical of Trump and loyal to ultraliberal policies. The very core of the EU – the European Commission, the leadership of the European Council, the majority in the European Parliament, as well as the leading EU leaders are also of the same view, which is opposite to the rest of the world that advocates for peace.

The EU itself is divided into states that supported peace efforts and distanced themselves from Brussels—primarily the political leaderships of Slovakia and Hungary, but also the leaders of the second-largest party in Germany, the AfD, Marine Le Pen in France, and the leaders of other sovereigntist parties across Europe.

European leaders have not changed their support for war since an attempt was made to end the conflict under conditions that were even more favorable for Kiev at the time. Now, as Trump highlighted in his meeting with Zelensky, Ukraine does not “have the cards right now.”

“You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump said to a shocked Zelensky.

Of course, Zelensky denied Trump’s statements, stuttering, “I’m not playing cards” and “What are you speaking about?”

The US president’s main priority is normalizing relations with Moscow, including ending the conflict in Ukraine. Normalization will remain a priority even if the Kiev regime and European leaders do not agree to it.

Nonetheless, it appears that parts of Europe have not yet given up on the Trump administration, like Kaja Kallas has. Starmer announced on March 2 that Britain, France, and Ukraine have agreed to work on a ceasefire plan to present to Washington.

“We’ve now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we’ll discuss that plan with the United States,” Starmer told the BBC.

This was followed by Zelensky announcing on the same day as Starmer’s statement that he was “ready to sign” the minerals agreement with Trump.

However, given the EU’s growing hostility to Trump and resistance to peace, the US president has little incentive to take the Franco-Anglo peace plan seriously since they have been harbingers to continue the war. Trump will continue pursuing a peace plan, even if it intensifies hostility between Europe and Washington.

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

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Eight Ways That Trump May Force Zelensky to Resign

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 03.03.2025

Following the Oval Office showdown, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has suggested that Volodymyr Zelensky might have to step down to enable a US-Ukraine deal. But as Zelensky refuses, what leverage does President Donald Trump hold over him?

Direct Pressure Tactics

  • Cutting all aid. Without US support, Zelensky may have no choice but to resign and be replaced by someone willing to negotiate peace, says ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi.
  • Sweeping audit of US aid. A deep probe into Ukraine’s use of US funds could expose corruption and “neutralize” Zelensky, according to ex-Ukrainian MP Oleg Tsarev.
  • Freezing Zelensky’s cash. Blocking foreign accounts of Zelensky and his team could undermine the Kiev regime, Tsarev suggests.
    Shutting down Starlink. Three sources told Reuters that Team Trump may cut Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s satellites, a move the White House has already reportedly threatened.
  • Zelensky’s expired legitimacy. His presidential term ended in May 2024, making all actions since then legally questionable. Trump could challenge his right to govern.

Trump’s Indirect Leverage via Europe

  • Pressuring European allies. Europe remains dependent on the US, writes economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. With no weapons left to send and money-printing its only option, Trump could force its hand.
  • NATO withdrawal threat. Trump may pull US security guarantees from warmongering European states throwing sand in his gears or even threaten a NATO exit, warned ex-Pentagon officer David Pyne. That could motivate Europe to rein Zelensky in.
  • Tariffs on Europe. A 25% tariff on EU imports could cost 1.5% of EU GDP, per Bloomberg. Trump already threatened this, claiming the EU was created to “screw the US”.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US puts firewall to protect Ukraine deal with Russia

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 3, 2025 

The verbal shootout at the Oval Office last Friday brought out President Vladimir Zelensky’s fury that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine, while the conclave in Lancashire House in London on Sunday involving 18 European leaders messaged that Zelensky is in good company. 

Connecting the dots, the incisive mind of Stephen Bryen, a leading expert on security, strategy and technology who previously held senior positions in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, wrote on Substack: “Trump invited [French president] Macron and [UK prime minister] Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to [Chinese president] Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.

“Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign… The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.”

In the event, Trump could neither brief Zelensky on the Ukraine deal nor sign the “Minerals Deal” because the Ukrainian president took great exception to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. The result was there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky, “he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.” 

This is where things stand. The strategy session that Trump is due to take later today with his top advisors will signal what happens next. There is a strong likelihood that Trump may cut off arms deliveries and/or financial assistance to Ukraine. 

Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, Trump is unlikely to change course on Russia — unless, of course, Zelensky falls in line in abject surrender, which seems unlikely too. Russians of course welcome his ouster. 

It is highly unlikely that Trump will be cowed by the temper tantrums of the EU or impressed by Britain’s grandstanding. Germany is without a government for the next several weeks; it  weakens the Europeans’ punch. 

Indeed, the back channel communication between Moscow and Washington has gained traction. Moscow assesses that Trump has the upper hand. This is reflected in the growing optimism in Putin’s remarks last Thursday while addressing the Board of the Federal Security Service (collegium of Russia’s top foreign intelligence officials.) 

Putin began by saying that the world and the international situation are changing rapidly and “the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes.” 

He said: “There is a reciprocal commitment [with Trump] to work to restore interstate relations and to gradually address the enormous amount of systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture which once provoked the crises in Ukraine and other regions… Importantly, our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.”

Putin estimated that conditions exist for a dialogue “on bringing a fundamental solution to Ukraine crisis… a dialogue on creating a system that will truly ensure a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of the security of other countries, definitely not Russia.”

However, Putin also flagged that sections Western elites “are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue” and, hence it is vital that “every possibility offered by dialogue and special services to thwart such attempts” needs to be leveraged. 

Indeed, the New York Times disclosed today that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia “as part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia.” Equally, reports have appeared that Putin has given similar instructions restraining the Russian agencies. 

What lends enchantment to the view is that many of the US’ most sophisticated operations against Russia are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II. Suffice to say, the US seems to be cutting itself free from longstanding joint operations with Britain directed against Russia. 

A Guardian newspaper report has separately corroborated the Times disclosure of a shift in the US policy. It added that the warming of US-Russia relations is apparent also in certain recent other incidents which indicate that the US is “no longer characterising Russia as a cybersecurity threat.” 

The paper claimed that analysts in the super secret Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) of the United States spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity that they  were “verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.” 

Quite obviously, a crisis of confidence has arisen in the US-UK “special relationship” — or, to put it differently, the Trump administration is taking steps to sequester the Cisa from rogue operations. 

There is a Cold War history of rogue operations by spy agencies. One of the most celebrated cases was the incident on 1st May, 1960 when an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers flying [‘unbeknownst’ to Eisenhower] at an altitude of 80,000 feet was shot down over Soviet air space triggering a diplomatic crisis that caused the collapse of a summit conference in Paris between then US president Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — and the sudden death of the two leaders’ closely nurtured dream of détente. 

An analogical situation exists today. Both Washington and Moscow are conscious of it. The need for such a veil of secrecy around the high level dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is self-evident. There are too many detractors in the collective West who won’t settle for anything short of a Russian defeat in Ukraine and would rather keep the war going. 

In such a fraught scenario, on the Russian side, the Kremlin’s writ ultimately prevails despite whatever dissenting voices exist in the military-industrial complex or amongst super hawks with revenge mentality. But that is not the case in the US where remnants of the old regime still hold sensitive positions, as the Guardian report vividly brings out. In the final analysis, therefore, it may well turn out that — to quote Stephen Bryan — Trump “will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.”  

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tulsi Gabbard questions if Ukraine is ‘aligned’ with US values

RT | March 3, 2025

Ukraine and many of its European backers may not be aligned with the US values of freedom, peace, and democracy shared by President Donald Trump, according to Washington’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Gabbard was asked about last week’s heated exchange at the White House involving Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance. The tense meeting ended with Zelensky abruptly leaving the White House after being accused by Trump of ingratitude, “gambling with World War III,” and refusing to seek peace with Russia.

The incident has sparked a backlash from Trump’s critics, including several EU leaders, who have accused him of “bullying” Zelensky. However, according to Gabbard, anyone who has criticized Trump over his interaction with the Ukrainian leader is merely showing that they are “not committed to peace.”

“Many of these European countries, and Zelensky himself, who claim to be standing and fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy” are actually acting contrary to these values, Gabbard stated.

“When we actually look at what’s happening in reality in these countries, as well as with Zelensky’s government in Ukraine, it is the exact opposite,” she added. Gabbard pointed to the lack of elections in Ukraine, Kiev’s criminalization of opposition parties, the shutting down of Orthodox churches, and the complete government control over media outlets.

“It begs the question. It’s clear they’re standing against [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But what are they actually really fighting for, and are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with [the US], which are the values of freedom, peace and true security,” Gabbard said.

The DNI chief further criticized Washington’s EU partners, recalling Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused European countries of implementing policies that “undermine democracy” and show that they “don’t actually believe in the voices of the people.”

“We’re seeing this in the United Kingdom, we’re seeing this in Germany, we saw it with the tossing out of the elections in Romania,” Gabbard said, suggesting that this shows a “huge divergence” between US values and those of the European nations that have backed Zelensky.

Russia has also suggested that last week’s clash between Zelensky and Trump once again proved that Kiev is not genuinely interested in peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stressed that the Ukrainian leader’s behavior in the Oval Office “demonstrated how difficult it will be to get on the path of a settlement around Ukraine.”

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sea Change

By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • February 20, 2025

A huge, heavy ship, loaded to the brim, is turning around in narrow straits amid perilous waters. Thus, the world is performing a rare volte face under the daring captainship of Donald Trump and his breakneck mates Elon Musk and JD Vance. They couldn’t have cut it any closer – already we felt the breath of our doom. Whether the peril be nuclear mushrooms or pandemics crafted in Pentagon biolabs, or some other totally unpredicted collapse concocted by Schwab and his ilk – our new captain seems to recognize Scylla and Charybdis. Our fragile life was about to collapse when the young programmers of DOGE dove into deep cellars of hidden data and uncovered the pearls: millions of dollars earmarked for broken Haiti to make a dream home for Chelsey Clinton; millions of social security checks being sent to beneficiaries 150 years old and older; millions earmarked for regime change, for neutering boys and girls, for planting tempest and reaping storm all over the world. And after this brief but tempestuous overture rung, above the furious sounds of battle, the telephone; the telephone call of captain Trump to captain Putin.

God revealed His mercy and tender caring for us, calming the storm at the very last moment. It is a perfect replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis multiplied by a factor of one hundred. The voices calling for global nuclear holocaust were becoming increasingly frequent and shrill recently. Now one can hope they will be pushed back to the fringe. US and Russian delegations meeting again in Riyadh have agreed to restore the normal civilized diplomatic routine: appoint ambassadors, open missions, increase tenfold the embassy staff. Since Obama’s days the embassies had been run down to the bare minimum.

Immediately the Economist and similar rags have tried to spoil the mood. The Ukrainian crisis has not been solved yet, the war still goes on, they cry. Trump can’t be relied upon, they fume impotently. I always rely upon the Economist as a perfect inverse barometer; whatever they say we may consider pure enemy hasbara. They show Trump talking to Putin with the text “The worst nightmare of Europe”. For me, the worst nightmare would be ruins of Gaza or nuclear waste of Hiroshima, for them, peace would be the worst.

Our enemies do not want us to rejoice ever, but these are the days we could and should be glad. The Ukrainian war is a minor event compared with such a worldwide tectonic shift. The West has tried to isolate, break and consume Russia for many years, once it became aware that Putin is not a new Yeltsin, that he is a stubborn, strong-willed leader, a man like Hamlet: though you can fret him, you cannot play upon him. And ever since that time, over many years, Russia has suffered in isolation, while all the world press blamed Putin and incited legions of tiny dogs from Estonia to the Ukraine to bite him. Such conflict was inevitable because Russia and the West had different interpretations of 1991. For the West, it was the final defeat of Russian independence. For Russia, it was a lesson learned. Never again will Russia attempt to play by Western rules. So how could anyone solve such an intractable divergence of opinion? It took just one call from Donald Trump.

The Ukraine war is a small thing in comparison: Russia wants its seat at the table with the big boys, it wants to be safe, not besieged. Russia wants Western troops and arms as far from its borders as was promised to Gorbachev, this is important. The Ukraine war will be terminated in due time by diplomatic negotiations between civilized adversaries, as it should be. NATO’s war policy has revealed that the majority of the European states, governed by enemies of Trump, are also enemies of democracy. JD Vance was right: they forgot they should listen to their people instead of dictating to them.

In the UK, the popular leader Jeremy Corbyn had been dismissed on the phony accusation of anti-Semitism, and replaced by an extremely pro-Jewish and anti-Russian PM. He is, of course, pro-war. He also detains hundreds and thousands of his citizens for the terrible crime of a post in the social network, or a demonstration, or even worse: a silent prayer. In England, a silent prayer in your own house is a crime, too. France continues to be ruled by Macron, an ex-Rothschild banker, also (of course) warlike. In Germany, there are elections coming soon, but mainstream German politicians are all liberal-left and of course pro-war. In liberal Germany, prison waits for anybody stepping beyond the red line. They imprisoned and amputated the legs of the brilliant and daring lawyer Horst Mahler for a gesture. However, the fresh wind of Trump’s populist revolution blows over Germany as well.

Not only does the far-right AfD call for peace, so does the far-left BSW! The German civil society association Kulturtreff held two rallies in Berlin and Frankfurt under the slogan «No vote for NATO vassals, immediate peace for Europe!». The protesters demanded immediate peace negotiations, an end to the war in the Ukraine, an end to arms supplies to the Ukrainian state, and the restoration of economic and political cooperation between Germany and Russia. Kulturtreff states that «the current main opposition party CDU/CSU wants as does the ruling left-liberal coalition for the war in Europe to continue. The leading political parties of Germany do not have a single new solution in their program». The speakers supported the point of view of US Vice President Vance at the Munich Conference, who pointed out that the political elite of Europe is deeply disconnected from the real interests of the European people.

In Munich, there was a big demo, organised by followers of Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek socialist. They are called DiEM25, and they also call for peace and friendship with Russia.

Bear in mind that all calls for peace are forbidden in Europe; if you look for “Germany peace demo” in Google it shows you rallies for climate, or a rally for migrants, or some rally against a local version of Donald Trump; but no peace demo will be shown, unless it is full of blue-and-yellow banners demanding more war. In the UK and Germany, you might get a visit from the local gestapo if you click a cautious *like* under an anti-war post in your social network. In Sweden, a minister explained why the people are not allowed to decide their NATO status: “Membership in NATO is too important to ask the people to approve of it.” A Swedish journalist wrote in the Facebook:

In Russia, the anti-Putin and pro-Western opposition, as run by Navalny and ilk, relocated abroad claiming hatred of war. But they couldn’t retain that pretence for long. At first, they supported Israel’s war against the Palestinian people, and this was important because some 70 per cent of Russian oppositionists who left Russia after February 2022 landed in Israel. Obviously, they considered themselves Jewish, and Israel recognised them as Jews. It may be true that not everyone who opposes Putin is a Jew, but to a great extent it was true and to a great extent Jews continue to finance anti-Putin organizations in Russia. And now, with the first sight of Trump’s international thaw and the possibility of terminating the war in the Ukraine, these emigres have collectively called for more war. This was the end of the anti-war movement in the Russian World, in the archipelago of Russian-speaking communities – it seems that Russia’s counter-elites will not be happy until they see the Russian army defeated. They dream of US Abrams tanks rolling through Red Square, with Putin executed like Saddam Hussein, but instead those Abrams tanks (30 or 31 delivered to Zelensky) burned in the fields of Novorossia, far away indeed from Moscow.

However, many people, including first of all the parents of Russian teenagers, were excited by Trump’s call for peace, as the war in the Ukraine was a big bloodletting for Russians and Ukrainians alike. Although Russia’s fighters are all well-paid volunteers, there is no doubt that the Russian people will be happy when this war is concluded.

For the Russian leadership, the most important goal was defined in the so-called “Putin’s Ultimatum” of December 2021 (I wrote about it at length here: To Make Sense of War). Putin’s draft treaty called for an immediate end to NATO’s drive Nach Osten, keeping all Western armies and weapons out of former USSR republics. Now it seems this goal will finally be obtained.

It seems that we are at the brink of a great sea change. President Donald Trump has already given us a basket of blessings. There is a song Jews sing at Passover: if He would give us only this, it would be enough, Dayeinu. It is perfectly suitable in this case. If Trump only saved us from World War III, it would be enough. If he only disclosed the dark secrets of USAID, it would be enough. But let’s not forget to thank him, even if it be just for a moment while we think of what we want next. Such as a drawback is his policy towards Palestine. Let’s hope that it will remain just silly talk.

The Atlantic Magazine gives us reason for some hope: it claimed Trump is building the most anti-Semitic cabinet in decades. It certainly has fewer Jews than the Biden’s cabinet, and less belligerence coming with fewer Jews.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

OSCE shared intel with Ukraine before 2022 – ex-Greek ambassador

RT | March 2, 2025

During the armed standoff between the Ukrainian government and the two breakaway Donbass republics between 2014 and 2022, observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) secretly shared intelligence with Kiev, former Greek ambassador to Ukraine, Vasilios Bornovas, has claimed.

In an interview with Greece’s Hellas Journal last Monday, Bornovas said that during his visits to the conflict zone he had witnessed the “use of classified information [by Kiev’s forces] sent by observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) regarding the positions of weapons” belonging to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The diplomat recounted that “since these positions were immediately hit by Ukrainian fire, it was obvious that the observers’ reports first went through to the Ukrainian services.”

Commenting on the apparent decision by the US and Russia to sideline the European Union from negotiations on Ukraine, the former envoy argued that the bloc “has reached an impasse” due to multiple internal crises. Bornovas remarked that having long “uncritically” toed Washington’s line on the conflict, Brussels is finding it “extremely difficult to extricate itself from this policy” now that President Donald Trump has apparently changed course.

According to the diplomat, the EU is suffering “from a deficit of visionary leaders with will and personality,” with its foreign policy being largely directed by the Baltic states and Poland.

As for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s handling of the conflict, Bornovas said that the hostilities with Moscow are “decimating his people and destroying the productive fabric of his country.” The former official argued that the current conflict had been in the making for some time before February 2022, suggesting that Zelensky may have abandoned his original pro-peace platform under pressure from former US President Joe Biden’s administration.

According to Bornovas, the Ukrainian leader may also have hoped to distract his population’s attention from internal problems, such as widespread corruption, with the help of an armed conflict.

Since the escalation of the hostilities, Moscow has called out OSCE’s supposed failings on multiple occasions, both in the conflict zone and further afield.

Last October, Russia claimed that the organization had covered up irregularities in the Moldovan presidential election, which saw pro-Western President Maia Sandu squeak by a relatively small margin.

In March and February 2024, Moscow accused OSCE of failing to denounce the killings of Russian civilians by Ukrainian forces during their raids in border regions in what Russia characterized as hypocrisy that “goes beyond all possible boundaries.”

March 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Hungary accuses EU of violating energy security guarantees – media

RT | March 2, 2025

Hungary has accused the European Union of failing to honor the energy security guarantees it recently gave to Budapest, M1 broadcaster has reported, citing a letter that Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto sent to the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas on Sunday.

The Hungarian official reportedly warned Brussels that his country’s acquiescence in any further Ukraine-related decision would be contingent on the EU’s ability to safeguard Budapest’s energy supplies.

The letter came hard on the heels of a Russian Defense Ministry report that three drones had been shot down near a key compressor station servicing the TurkStream gas pipeline on Friday. Moscow described the incident as a Ukrainian sabotage attempt.

In an article on Sunday, Hungary’s Hirado news program claimed that Foreign Minister Szijjarto had reminded Kallas that as recently as January 27, when the EU was deciding on extending sanctions against Russia, Brussels explicitly gave Budapest “four guarantees that Hungary’s energy supply would be secure.”

Szijjarto reportedly wrote that the bloc’s leadership had pledged to involve his country in negotiations over the resumption of Russian gas transit through Ukraine – an apparent reference to Kiev’s decision in late 2024 to terminate its five-year transit contract with Russian energy giant Gazprom. The diplomat pointed out that despite this promise, Budapest has been excluded from the respective talks, Hirado noted.

“Secondly, the European Commission also gave a guarantee that Ukraine would not attack the infrastructure responsible for energy transport to the EU,” Szijjarto wrote, adding that nonetheless, “Ukraine launched a drone attack on the Russkaya compressor station of the TurkStream on the night of February 28.”

The media outlet quoted the minister as expressing incredulity that an EU candidate nation (Ukraine) would seriously endanger the energy security of a current member state, with Brussels seemingly taking Kiev’s side and not Budapest’s.

The Hungarian diplomat made it clear that his country’s “position will largely be determined by the issues raised in this letter in the decisions regarding Ukraine in the coming period,” Hirado reported.

In a post on Facebook on Saturday, the official wrote that the inoperability of the TurkStream “would seriously endanger our energy security,” and thus encroach on Hungary’s sovereignty.

While Friday’s incident did not result in any damage to the energy infrastructure, a similar attack reported by the Russian Defense Ministry in January saw falling debris impact the facility.

TurkStream delivers Russian natural gas to Turkish customers and several European countries, including Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece.

March 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »