Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

With FPÖ party in government Austria might stop supporting Ukraine

By Patrick Poppel | January 20, 2025

FPÖ delegation leader in the EU Harald Vilimsky criticized the video of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the attitude of the President of the European Parliament, who wants to wage war “as long as necessary.” The video of Zelensky in the European Parliament was once again accompanied by questionable statements.

In particular, the statements by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, who emphasized the EU’s support for Ukraine with the vague attribute “as long as necessary,” raise serious questions for the Freedom Party delegation leader. “Does ‘as long as necessary’ mean that this war will be fought to the last Ukrainian soldier, without giving peace and diplomacy a real chance?” Vilimsky asked.

He also criticized the stance of the European Parliament, which he believes reflects a frightening level of war rhetoric. “It is noteworthy that even factions such as the Socialists and the Left, who otherwise present themselves as peace parties, are now calling for more weapons and ammunition,” said the head of the Freedom Party delegation.

He stressed that the FPÖ, on the other hand, is clearly sticking to its line. “We are committed to de-escalation, diplomacy and peace negotiations. In this context, we expressly support the peace plans of the newly elected US President Donald Trump, which could enable a rapid end to the war.”

This situation in the European Parliament clearly shows the difference between the established structures and the opposition. But now this opposition is on the rise. The FPÖ is receiving more and more support not only in the EU elections, but also in the national elections.

The FPÖ will most likely be part of the government in Austria and then what those responsible in the party have always demanded will happen. FPÖ federal party chairman Kickl, for example, said earlier: “A possible ceasefire must be the starting signal for peace negotiations on neutral ground.”

“Now is the time to bring Austria’s importance as a neutral country into play in order to end the bloodshed in Ukraine,” said Herbert Kickl. “In the tradition of great statesmen like Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian federal government is called upon to use this new situation to actively offer Austria as a neutral place for further negotiations in order to finally end this senseless conflict.”

The FPÖ has been the only party in Austria since 2022 to call for peace in Ukraine as soon as possible and has been wrongly ridiculed as a party of “Putin’s friends”. The party also does a very good job of linking the issue of conflict and sanctions with social issues. The poor economic development is clearly seen as a consequence of the sanctions and this is how it is communicated to the people.

With an “FPÖ government”, Austria will become another state alongside Hungary that will actively work for peace in Europe. This trend could also reach many other states. In addition, this must always be seen in the context of the inauguration of Donald Trump. Geopolitically, the cards are now being reshuffled.

The FPÖ’s participation in the government is also the first step towards reviving Austrian neutrality, which was de facto abolished by the previous government through the sanctions policy. Historically and practically, Austria would then again be a good place for diplomatic projects and thus also a good place for future Ukrainian peace talks.

The rise of the FPÖ in Austria could therefore also have a geopolitical aspect and be of great international importance. Together with Hungary and other serious patriotic forces, a possible FPÖ government is also a problem for the globalist forces in the EU.

Particularly in the question of sanctions policy, there could be a development that could lead to the EU’s course being questioned more and more by individual member states. Austria and Hungary are being heard within the European Union.

The parliamentary platform “Patriots for Europe” within the EU will also gain a political weight as a result of the FPÖ’s victory. Indeed, one can clearly see a trend in the political landscape of Europe. And the best example of this trend is a general movement to defend national interests against the leadership of the EU. This development is now continuing in other countries. It is a movement critical of the EU, but one that is “very European”.

Patrick Poppel, expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU member pledges to veto future Ukraine aid

RT | January 19, 2025

Slovakia will veto any future Ukraine aid considered by the EU, Prime Minister Robert Fico has announced. Bratislava will now take a “reciprocal” approach to hostile moves by Kiev, he warned.

Fico issued the threat in a video address posted to social media late on Saturday. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky believes everyone should be his “servant,” Fico asserted, warning such an approach would not work with him.

“In my case, the scythe hit a rock. Robert Fico is a Slovak prime minister and not a Ukrainian servant,” Fico stated.

Bratislava will take a “reciprocal” approach to Kiev in the row over the transit of Russian natural gas that Kiev ended at the beginning of the new year, Fico warned, pledging to veto any future aid packages from the EU. The packages require unanimous backing from all the members of the bloc to be passed.

The Slovak prime minister also reiterated other potential moves against Ukraine that he had articulated previously, namely halting the emergency electricity supply, stopping humanitarian aid deliveries, or cutting benefits received by Ukrainian refugees in Slovakia.

“I am increasingly convinced that President Zelensky is forcing us into reciprocity, and we will go for it,” Fico stated.

Once a major supporter of Ukraine, Slovakia changed its stance after Fico took office in late 2023, halting military aid to the country and pledging to veto its potential accession into the US-led NATO bloc.

The already strained relations between Bratislava and Kiev have further deteriorated owing to the row over the Russian gas, which Slovakia has been heavily dependent upon. Kiev opted not to renew the transit contract and halted the flow despite Moscow’s repeated signals that it was prepared to continue supplying its customers in the EU through Ukraine’s pipeline system.

Fico initially proposed negotiating with Zelensky on the border between the two countries, but the latter urged him through social media to come to Kiev instead. The response was deemed undiplomatic in Slovakia. Fico then proposed to meet Zelensky in Davos next week, where both leaders are expected to head. The proposal was openly mocked by Kiev, with Zelensky suggesting the Slovak leader could end up in Sochi, Russia, instead.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Victory or Political Settlement in Ukraine?

Ambassador Chas Freeman, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | January 15, 2025

I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Ambassador Chas Freeman, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Besides being a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman’s career included opening China with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon in the 1970s and developing the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe.

We discussed the messy world that the Biden Administration is handing over to Trump. There is seemingly a genuine desire to end the proxy war in Ukraine, and Trump may also achieve a ceasefire in Palestine. However, NATO’s escalations in Ukraine to sabotage possible negotiations and the reckless support for HTS in Syria have reduced the possibilities available to Trump. Will the Ukraine War be resolved by a Russian victory or a political settlement?

January 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The man who deserves but probably will not be allowed to lead Romania

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 17, 2025

Calin Georgescu rightfully has a huge grievance against what passes for “Western democracy.” He is the clear first-round winner in the Presidential elections held in Romania late last year. Yet his projected even more resounding victory in the second round, scheduled for early December 2024, was scrapped (as the BBC indelicately put it) following a Romanian Supreme Court ruling that the electoral process was marred by alleged hybrid warfare interference conducted by Russia on Georgescu’s behalf.

How do you “scrap” elections in a vibrant democracy such as Romania, which also happens to be a member in good standing of NATO and the European Union, which are bastions of liberal freedoms and the rule of law? Well, you do it by making up a bogus dossier on the political candidate that you dislike and by ordering the local judiciary to act on it as if it were genuine evidence. The dossier purporting to document the alleged interference was so patently phony that at its first sitting to consider the matter the Romanian Supreme Court dismissed it out of hand. This show of integrity did not sit well at all with the paladins of the rules-based order. So they ordered the judges to reassemble forthwith in their chambers and to get it right this time. On 6 December the distinguished Romanian jurists did just that and obediently reversed their ruling issued just four days previously.

Citing Article 146 (f) of the Romanian Constitution concerning the legality and correctness of the presidential elections, the Court ordered that the “entire electoral process will be integrally redone.” So the result of the first round was duly “scrapped” and along with it the second round as well. The second round, which was in progress as the judges hurriedly improvised their new ruling, was stopped in its tracks. As even the Atlantic Council, no friend of elections which go the wrong way, was compelled to admit “the rollout of the decision was somewhat fumbled, as it became public while polling stations were already open for the [Romanian] diaspora in the second-round presidential election, and by the time the process was stopped, around 53,000 citizens abroad had already voted.” Scrapped just in time, because the Romanian diaspora was known to be a hotbed of Georgescu supporters.

The Presidential election was set by the judges for an unspecified date in the future. Some rumours suggest that it might be in May of this year, or whenever it is that the stage can be prepared to ensure the right outcome. In the meantime, Klaus Iohannis, who should have relinquished his post in December to his successor, is now as legally “expired” as his Ukrainian colleague Zelensky. But that does not seem to bother any of the vociferous champions of the democratic process. Iohannis after all is their man.

The Romanian public, however, do not seem to take kindly to electoral interference by the compliant judges and their string-pullers, who are widely suspected of being located abroad but not in Russia. Thousands have been marching in the streets of Bucharest and other major cities to oppose the cancellation of the elections. How much good it will do them in a country that has embraced the principles of Western democracy remains to be seen.

The protagonist of this political earthquake who was not permitted to democratically establish his credentials as the new President of Romania, Calin Georgescu, ever since his first-round triumph has been subjected to the full measure of calumny that is reserved for those whom the globalist system perceives as a non-team-player and a threat. The hope was evidently that he would be successfully discredited and simply fade away, allowing the charade of “democratic elections” with a prearranged outcome to be repeated whenever it is judged safe to do so.

Expectedly, the Georgescu affair with its scandalous implications has been largely ignored by the collective West media, except for a few derogatory observations here and there at the banned candidate’s expense. The Georgescu story might have died a quiet death but for the professionalism of American podcaster Shawn Ryan, who decided to perform a public service by travelling to Romania to find out first-hand what the electoral commotion was all about.

The result was a remarkable interview with the man who by all reasonable estimates should be sitting today in the Presidential office in Bucharest. It is worth viewing carefully and in its entirety for the insights it affords into the sombre times in which we happen to live.

Georgescu strenuously denies that he is “pro-Russian” and says that he has no personal acquaintance with Russian officials except for watching them on television. In any court of law or public opinion that declaration should suffice because the burden of proof is on his accusers and they have failed to meet it. But the accusation brings up a much deeper and more significant issue: even if he were, why should it be a problem? Most of the other candidates, including the election runner-up, advocated policies explicitly aligned with non-Romanian interests and entities, such as NATO and the EU. Why is it objectionable for another presidential candidate in a supposedly sovereign and democratic country to propose to the electorate a different policy for their consideration and approval?

And here comes the crux of the matter. Asked by Shawn Ryan whether he is pro-Russian, Georgescu let the cat out of the bag by responding that no, he is pro-Romanian, and that the policies he contemplates are shaped to best serve the needs and interests of the Romanian people. In the current political atmosphere there is hardly a more disqualifying admission than that. The few European leaders, such as Orban and Fico, who had made it through the cracks in the globalist system to ultimately disclose that their primary commitment is to their respective countries’ interests are shunned and reviled for their subversive patriotism. One was the target of an assassination attempt, the other is the target of a colour revolution as this is being written. The rise of another leader who espouses a similar philosophy would be intolerably disruptive to the globalist agenda. That is why Georgescu had to be thwarted by any means, fair or foul.

Georgescu clearly is a simple man, plain spoken and without guile, not practiced in the use of mendacious phrases which characterise the discourse of trained political mannequins, the chosen puppets of the power elites who are allowed inhabit the public universe of Western political systems. Asked by Shawn Ryan how he views Romania’s membership in NATO, he gave an answer that was somewhat awkward but still made fundamental sense. When Romania joined NATO, he said, it was understood to be a defensive alliance, but since then its mission was changed to include offensive operations in which Romania has no national interest. Romania, he implied, is no longer part of the same outfit that it had originally joined. It is a fair answer, not just from the standpoint of Romania but also of quite a few other countries that by hook and by crook were rushed into joining NATO for the geopolitical benefits their geographical location offered to the alliance and its belligerent agendas.

Hence, according to Georgescu, Romania (and by implication other countries which were similarly enticed into joining) is now fully entitled to reconsider its choice and pursue a policy that takes into account the alliance’s changed nature and Romania’s current interests.

As for the collective West’s favourite quagmire, Project Ukraine, speaking for his country and the Romanian nation, Georgescu was unforgivably frank. “That is not our war,” he said.

These are only some salient snippets of this highly illuminating interview which lays bare the corruption of the political system we have been told represents the pinnacle of liberal democracy. One wishes that Georgescu’s English were more fluent, but still it sufficed to convey the important points that he makes and it fully answered the question, if there was anyone who was still in doubt, why they are prepared to resort to the basest trickery to make sure this man of integrity does not become President of Romania. And to ensure by example that no like-minded patriot in any other country that they control will ever think of emulating Calin Georgescu.

January 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Anti-Orbán German Green Party MEP took a road trip last October to meet with powerful groups in D.C.

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | January 17, 2025

German Green MEP Daniel Freund, an obsessive critic of Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, recently held talks in Washington, D.C., according to Magyar Nemzet. 

Details on Freund’s official EP profile show that at the end of October, just ahead of the U.S. presidential election, he met with several entities in D.C., including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), The German Marshall Fund, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Transparency International U.S., and the U.S. State Department.

The Hungarian newspaper asks how an MEP, representing an EU member state, is negotiating with a third country, outside the EU, without any authorization regarding Hungary.

Magyar Nemzet further states that USAID is known to work closely with the CIA and has been widely criticized for its influence peddling. At the end of 2022, the agency said that it would launch a new “Central Europe Program,” the portal points out, to strengthen civil society, increase the competitiveness and sustainability of “independent” media, and further develop the monitoring functions of various civil society organizations.

“Based on Freund’s activities so far, it is only conceivable that (he) represented an agenda that runs counter to Hungarian interests and sovereignty at the meeting organized before the Biden administration’s upcoming departure,” Magyar Nemzet writes.

Freund has cheered sanctions against Hungary, largely in part due to the government’s opposition to Brussels’ migration pact, and has actively lobbied for EU funds to be withheld from it. He has gone so far as to suggest Hungary simply leave the EU given its difference of opinion from the mainstream consensus in Brussels.

In one of his latest moves, Freund sent a letter to Charles Michel, when Michel was previously serving as president of the European Council, to suspend the Hungarian presidency, arguing that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán could not represent Europeans.

And in October, just a couple weeks before his trip to D.C., Freund called for Viktor Orbán to be arrested for corruption. “Who has ever stolen so much from European sources?” asked Freund.

January 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tagesspiegel publishes guide for workplace witch hunts against right-wing views ahead of German election

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 16, 2025

A recent piece published by the mainstream German Tagesspiegel newspaper has advocated for employees across Germany to confront and report colleagues expressing right-wing political views in the workplace.

Quoting workplace diversity trainers and academics, the article describes supporters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as aligned with “right-wing extremism” — despite the AfD’s projected rise to become the second-largest party in the Bundestag — and offers guidance on how those with more “tolerant,” progressive views should respond should political debate occur in the lead up to next month’s federal elections.

Entitled, “Help, my colleague talks like the AfD! This is how you counter right-wing populist slogans in the workplace,” the article presents a framework for addressing opinions considered “anti-human” or “anti-democratic,” citing examples of such unpalatable views as being of the opinion that asylum seekers should be deported or that NATO has played a role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It even singles out those who criticize the mainstream media as the “lying press” as being troublesome in professional settings.

Sandro Witt of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB) is quoted as stating: “In any case, you can’t say nothing if someone in the room makes anti-human comments.” He goes further to argue that “such positions should not go unchallenged,” encouraging employees to intervene and report statements they find problematic to human resources or other workplace authorities.

The article advocates for companies to act decisively against right-wing viewpoints, with Witt stating: “Employers should intervene, make a clear statement, address the workforce, create clarity and draw up a guideline,” effectively promoting a culture of workplace surveillance, where political disagreements could lead to disciplinary actions and even dismissal.

It suggests that employees who encounter dissenting views should not hesitate to involve internal mechanisms, such as “complaint management, equal opportunities officers, or human resources.” This directive, combined with advice to “find allies in the workforce,” has sparked concerns about fostering division and hostility in professional environments.

The call for stricter deportation rules for asylum seekers and the belief that NATO is partly responsible for the war in Ukraine may be contentious and may be deemed unpalatable by some political factions, but they reflect concerns shared by significant portions of the German population as evidence by the growing popularity of the AfD.

David Lanius, a philosopher cited in the piece, provides advice on debating colleagues with differing opinions but warns of the difficulty of changing minds. “The goal cannot be to convince the other person of your own point of view or to proselytize the other person,” he states. Lanius also suggests that confronting such views can take an emotional toll, empathizing with those who have to endure the views of those they don’t agree with. “It’s exhausting. It takes strength to stand against right-wing populism,” he says.

The article emphasizes a long-term approach to countering right-wing opinions, with Lanius asserting: “Constant dripping wears away the stone.” This metaphor implies that repeated coercive challenges to a colleague’s views could eventually lead them to change their mind.

With nearly one in five Germans reportedly supporting the AfD, the article’s framing of dissenting views as “anti-human” or “extremist” has drawn sharp criticism for ignoring legitimate grievances over rising living costs, immigration, and the policies of successive coalition governments comprising of Germany’s legacy parties, namely the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Surveys cited in the piece, such as a study from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation claiming that “almost 1 in 12 Germans has a manifestly right-wing extremist worldview,” are used to paint a picture of growing extremism without acknowledging the broader dissatisfaction driving political shifts.

Despite its focus on “fostering discussion,” the article largely promotes an adversarial approach to political disagreements in the workplace. While it advises employees to engage in dialogue and “try to understand” their colleagues, it simultaneously portrays those with right-wing views as needing to be “re-educated” through persistent challenges.

Reingard Zimmer, professor of labor law at the Berlin University of Economics and Law, is cited in the piece as saying that when right-wing extremist or anti-democratic comments are made at work, it can result in reprimands and ultimately dismissal.

“If a colleague complains about ‘foreign infiltration’ in Germany, the employer will first reprimand the behavior” before issuing a formal warning. If such views are repeated, “you will be terminated immediately,” he adds.

“Employers have a duty to protect their employees and must intervene if a case is so serious that it is unreasonable for them to tolerate the poisoning of the working atmosphere to continue,” says Zimmer.

The fundamental issue with the piece is that the term “racist” has been so fundamentally diluted within society to the point that anything that deviates from the liberal, progressive stance promoted by “palatable” political leaders is questioned.

Immigration has become one of the most prominent topics of concern across many European nations, dominating elections that have resulted in those calling for stricter policies prevailing across the continent — take the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy as just three examples.

When citizens no longer have confidence in institutions and others in society to reasonably define racism, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of uncertainty, distrust, and societal breakdown that further fuels division and creates political opportunities for genuine extremists who prey on a frustrated and disillusioned electorate whose only option of resistance is anonymously at the ballot box.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

What will a “European Armenia” bring?

By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 14, 2025

The Armenian government has approved a draft law to initiate the country’s accession process to the European Union (EU). This proposal will be discussed in parliament before being put to a referendum.

European Parliament rapporteur Miriam Lexmann celebrated this development, stating, “I wholeheartedly welcome the Armenian government’s decision to begin the EU accession process.”

However, the Russian side has reacted negatively to this decision. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov declared that Armenia cannot simultaneously be a member of both the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk also commented, “We interpret this as the beginning of Armenia’s withdrawal from the Eurasian Economic Union. The Russian Federation will shape its economic policy toward Armenia accordingly,” comparing EU membership to “purchasing a ticket for the Titanic.”

Armenia’s Journey Towards Europe

Armenia and the EU have a long history of interaction.

In 1996, Armenia signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, and in 2001 it became a member of the Council of Europe. Moreover, Armenia has benefited from the TACIS program, a European Commission initiative that provided technical assistance to former Soviet states to adapt to market-oriented economic systems.

In 2004, Armenia strengthened its ties with the EU under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), joined the Eastern Partnership initiative in 2009, and, despite joining the Eurasian Economic Union in 2013, approved the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with the EU in 2017. In 2018, the Velvet Revolution brought Nikol Pashinyan to power, accelerating democratic reforms.

Armenia has now become the seventh former Soviet country to initiate European integration. This political shift mirrors the tug-of-war between the EU and EAEU, as well as NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

Can Armenia Join the EU?

Although Armenia is not geographically part of Europe, like Georgia, it strives to align itself with “European values and cooperation processes.” From a European perspective, Armenia’s significance stems not from its adherence to these values but from its geographic proximity to Russia and Iran.

EU membership is a challenging and lengthy process—a path that only three former Soviet states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) have successfully completed. Other countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have long been politically shaped by their EU aspirations, experiencing intense internal conflicts between pro-Russian and pro-EU factions, often tied to so-called “color revolutions.” These parallels suggest that Armenia’s membership process could also stretch over many years. Furthermore, Armenia’s economic ties with Russia present significant challenges.

According to data from the Armenian Statistical Committee covering January-April 2024, trade between Armenia and Russia increased 3.1 times, while trade with EU countries decreased by 24.3%. During this period, Armenia’s trade volume with Russia reached $6.3 billion, whereas its trade volume with the EU was $695.5 million—making trade with Russia nearly nine times greater than that with the EU. Military ties between Armenia and Russia also remain a major topic of public debate.

For Armenia to fully “Europeanize,” it must entirely overhaul its economic system. However, the insistence of both the EU and Pashinyan’s administration on this path could lead to a deep economic crisis and political instability. This might result in Armenia entering the EU as a weakened state, perceived as a burden by EU leadership.

The EU’s primary objective appears to be not Armenia’s full membership but the continuation of the accession process, using it to advance strategic interests. A “European” Armenia would serve as a geopolitical defeat for Russia.

Broader Implications

Discussions around Armenia’s regional and international dynamics are often shaped in Turkey by nationalist narratives sown by imperialist forces, perpetuating historical prejudices that undermine solidarity among neighboring peoples. However, developments in Armenia carry significant clues about the future of the broader region.

Erkin Öncan, Turkish journalist focusing on war zones and social movements around the world.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/erknoncn Telegram: https://t.me/erknoncn

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Biden making ‘last-ditch’ bid to seize Russian funds – CNN

RT | January 14, 2025

Washington has tried to convince the EU to confiscate frozen Russian assets before US President Joe Biden leaves office but this seems unlikely to happen, according to CNN.

The US and its allies have blocked an estimated $300 billion in Russian sovereign funds in early 2022, following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. As most of these assets are under the control of the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear, the EU has been reluctant to seize them outright, fearing that Moscow’s reprisal could wreck the bloc’s economy.

The White House has made one last effort to seize the money before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, CNN reported on Monday, citing two anonymous “senior officials.”

The US wants the EU to move the money to a special escrow account, from which it could be released if Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations are successful.

“If you want your money back, you’re going to have to come talk,” one of the officials told CNN.

Biden officials have claimed that Trump’s nominees are “generally supportive” of the strategy, seeing the frozen funds as possible leverage over Moscow they would need to negotiate a peace.

However, the EU governments “remain skeptical” about the proposal, making it “highly unlikely” to happen, according to the outlet. The bloc is concerned that confiscating the money would violate international law.

The US has tried to argue otherwise for more than a year. Speaking at a conference in Washington last May, one of the architects of the US sanctions regime, Daleep Singh, argued that the decision to freeze Russian sovereign assets was already a major precedent that “did not lead to an appreciable shift away from G7 currencies,” but acknowledged that confiscation was a “red line” for several countries.

Biden was expected to bring up the funds at a meeting with the Italian leadership and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in Rome this week but canceled the trip due to the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles.

Zelensky demanded all of the frozen Russian funds for Ukraine, in an interview with podcaster Lex Fridman earlier this month.

“We will take it. Take money, what we need for our domestic production, and we will buy all the weapons from the US,” he told Fridman.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Zelensky “completely out of his mind,” and described his interview as a “hellish mixture of neo-Nazism and terrorism with drug delirium.”

Moscow has denounced the blocking of its sovereign funds as “absolutely illegal” and said any attempt to confiscate them would be outright theft. In that case, Western assets inside Russia valued at more than $300 billion would be targeted in retaliation, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has said.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

French Greens leader calls for X to be banned in EU

National Secretary of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, Marine Tondelier © AP / Louise Delmotte
RT | January 14, 2025

Marine Tondelier, secretary-general of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, has called for the social media platform X to be banned across the European Union, at least during election periods, arguing that it plays a role in shaping public opinion in ways that can threaten democracy.

Speaking on RTL’s Le Grand Jury program on Sunday, Tondelier expressed concerns about the influence of social media on democratic processes amid heightened tensions between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and EU officials who accuse the US-based billionaire of meddling in European politics.

“It’s not a question of freedom of expression; it’s a question of shaping public opinion,” she claimed. Tondelier highlighted the growing concentration of media ownership in France and globally, accusing “ultra-rich individuals” of trying to “buy power” once they accumulate enough wealth.

“We also need to take social media into account in this calculation now. It is part of the fabrication of opinion. It has a grip on reality. It impacts election results,” she stated. “It’s dangerous because it’s a challenge to our democracies,” she added, suggesting a ban on X during sensitive periods, such as elections.

“The social network Twitter is not only annoying but also dangerous. The question of leaving it obviously arises, but it will not be enough: it must be banned,” she wrote in a post on X.

Tondelier also urged her partners from the left-wing New Popular Front (NPF) coalition, which won the most National Assembly seats in this summer’s legislative elections, to migrate to alternative networks.

“I’m going to leave, but what are the others doing? It will still have an impact on reality. It will still contribute to destabilizing the upcoming elections,” she said.

Musk provoked major controversy by claiming in December that “only the AfD can save Germany,” a statement some EU officials denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling. This followed an op-ed piece published by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, in which he defended the right-wing party’s policies. Last week, Musk hosted an interview on X with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election.

Musk also clashed with former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, referring to him as “the tyrant of Europe,” after Breton appeared to endorse the cancellation of Romania’s presidential elections, warning about potential foreign interference in the upcoming German polls.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot recently voiced concerns about Musk’s influence, urging the European Commission to take a firmer stance and use existing mechanisms against alleged external meddling. Breton clarified that his remarks were aimed at ensuring compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act.

In recent weeks, the South African-born tech mogul also criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the Pakistani grooming gang issue and refusing to properly investigate the mass rape of underage girls while he was head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013. He also urged Washington to step in and “liberate” the Brits from their “tyrannical government.”

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Geoeconomic Shift from Greater Europe to Greater Eurasia

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 13, 2025

Liberal theory suggests that economic interdependence creates peace as both sides gain economically from peaceful relations. However, liberal theory is deeply flawed as it assumes states prioritise absolute gain (both sides gain, and it does not matter who gains the most). Due to the security competition in the international system, states must focus on relative gain (who gains more). As Friedrich List recognised: “As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles”.[1]

In all interdependent relationships, one side is always more dependent than the other. Asymmetrical interdependence empowers the less dependent state to set favourable economic conditions and obtain political concessions from a more dependent one. For example, the EU and Moldova are interdependent, but the asymmetrical interdependence results in the EU preserving its autonomy and gaining influence.

The “balance of dependence” refers to a geoeconomic understanding of the realist balance of power. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side can extract political power. The more dependent side therefore has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor.

Geoeconomic rivalry entails competing for power by skewing the symmetry within interdependent economic partnerships to enhance both influence and autonomy. In other words, to make oneself less reliant on others while increasing the dependence by others. Diversifying economic partnerships can reduce one’s own reliance on a state or region, while asserting control over strategic markets diminishes the capacity of other states to diversify and lessen their dependence.

The Geoeconomic Foundation for Western Dominance

The centuries-long geoeconomic dominance of the West is the product of asymmetrical interdependence by dominating new technologies, strategic markets, transportation corridors and financial institutions.

Following the disintegration of the Mongol Empire, the land-based transportation corridors of the ancient Silk Road that had fuelled trade and growth vanished. Subsequently, Western maritime powers rose to prominence from the early 1500s by asserting control over the main maritime transportation corridors and establishing “Trading-Post empires”. Leading naval powers, such as Britain, have therefore historically been more inclined towards free trade as they had more to gain and risked less by controlling the trade routes. The maritime strategies of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the late 1800s were founded on this strategic reasoning, as controlling the oceans and Eurasian continent from the periphery laid the basis for US military and economic power.

The advancements in the Industrial Revolution created an even more favourable balance of dependence in favour of the West. Adam Smith noted that the discovery of America and the East Indies were the “two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind”.[2] However, he also recognised that the extreme concentration of power in Europe created an exploitative and destructive relationship:

“To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned. These misfortunes, however, seem to have arisen rather from accident than from anything in the nature of those events themselves. At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.[3]

Samuel Huntington similarly wrote:

“For four hundred years, intercivilizational relations consisted of the subordination of other societies to Western civilization… The immediate source of Western expansion, however, was technological: the invention of the means of ocean navigation for reaching distant peoples and the development of the military capabilities for conquering those peoples… The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.[4]

Following the Second World War, the US became the dominant power due to military power, but also geoeconomic power consisting of its large share in the global GDP, technological superiority, industrial dominance, the Bretton Woods institutions, control over strategic markets/resources, and control over key transportation corridors.

From Gorbachev’s Common European Home to “Greater Europe”

Following the demise of communism, Russia aimed to integrate with the West to form a “Greater Europe”, based on the ideas of Gorbachev’s concept of a Common European Home. Economic development and prosperity required integration with the West as the main economic centre in the international system.

However, the Americans and Europeans had no incentives to accept a Greater Europe. The West aimed to construct a new Europe without Russia, which required reviving bloc politics. The ultimatum to Russia was to either accept a subordinated position as the permanent apprentice of the West or be isolated and thus become economically underdeveloped and irrelevant. The West supported only European institutions such as NATO and the EU that incrementally augmented the collective bargaining power of the West to maximise asymmetrical interdependence with Russia. Making Russia obey the European institutions where Russia does not have a seat at the table is possible under extreme asymmetrical interdependence. Cooperation then entails unilateral concessions and Russia would have to accept decisions by the West.

The alienation of Russia would not matter if it kept getting weaker. William Perry, the US Defence Secretary between 1994 and 1997, recognised that his colleagues in the Clinton Administration were aware that NATO expansionism and the exclusion of Russia from Europe fuelled anger:

“It wasn’t that we listened to their [Russia’s] argument and said [we] don’t agree with that argument… Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point… the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path”.[5]

The dream of a Greater Europe failed due to Russia’s inability to create a balance of dependence within Europe. Moscow’s Greater Europe initiative aimed to obtain a proportional representation at the European table. Instead, the unfavourably asymmetrical partnerships with the West that followed enabled Western unilateralism veiled as multilateralism, in which the West could maximise both its autonomy and influence.

“Cooperation” was subsequently conceptualised by the West within a teacher-student/subject-object format, in which the West would be a “socialiser” and Russia would have to accept unilateral concessions. Russia’s decline would be managed as expanding the EU and NATO sphere of influence in the east gradually diminished the role of Russia in Europe. “European integration” became a zero-sum geostrategic project, and states in the shared neighbourhood were presented with a “civilizational choice” of aligning either with Russia or the West.

Moscow’s “Greater Europe” project was always destined to fail. The “leaning-to-one-side” policy by Yeltsin was not rewarded and reciprocated by the West, rather it made Russia vulnerable and exposed. Russia neglected its partners in the east, which deprived Russia of the bargaining power required to negotiate a more favourable format for Europe. Brzezinski noted that cooperation with the West was “Russia’s only choice – even if tactical”, and it “provided the West with a strategic opportunity. It created the preconditions for the progressive geopolitical expansion of the Western community deeper and deeper into Eurasia”.[6]

Putin Reforms the Greater Europe Initiative

Yeltsin conceded by the end of the 1990s that the “leaning-to-one-side” policy had been exploited by the West and called for diversifying Russia’s economic partnerships by becoming a Eurasian power. However, there were no powers in the East with the intentions or capabilities to challenge Western dominance. Putin attempted to revive the Greater Europe Initiative by ending the era of unilateral concessions and instead strengthening Russia’s negotiation power. Russia would not integrate into the West through unilateral concession, but integrate with the West as an equal.

Moscow began to embrace economic statecraft as the principal tool for restoring Russian power, and pursue incremental integration with the West. Re-nationalising energy resources ensured that the strategic industries of Russia worked in the interest of the state rather than oligarchs, who were courted by the West and tended to use these industries to impose their control on the state. However, the West resisted energy dependence on Russia as it risked creating more symmetry in relations and even giving Russia a voice in Europe. The narrative of the Russian “energy-weapon” was born as Europeans were told to reduce all dependence on Russia as the requirement for a more obedient Kremlin.

The Greater Eurasia Initiative

Russia’s Greater Europe Initiative eventually died when the West supported the coup in Kiev in 2014 to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. By making Ukraine a frontline instead of a bridge, it was evident that any incremental integration with Europe had been a utopian dream. Furthermore, the anti-Russian sanctions made it necessary for Russia to diversify its economic connectivity. Rather than seeking to resolve the Ukraine crisis by implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO began to build a Ukrainian army to change realities on the ground. Russia began to prepare for a future clash by making its economy sanctions-proof.

With the rise of Asia, Russia found a solution. Russia began to diversify away from excessive reliance on the West and embrace the new Greater Eurasia Initiative. Instead of being isolated at the periphery of Europe, Russia acquired economic strength and influence by developing new strategic industries, transportation corridors and international financial institutions in cooperation with countries in the East. While Russia is met with hostility in the stagnant West, it was embraced in the more dynamic East. Not only have the ambitions of Gorbachev’s Common European Home been abandoned, but the 300-year-long Western-centric policy since Peter the Great has also ended.

A strategic partnership with China is indispensable to construct a Greater Eurasia. Yet, Russia has learned the lessons from the failure of Greater Europe by avoiding excessive dependence on an economically stronger China. The asymmetrical interdependence that emerges in the framework of such a partnership enables China to extract political concessions, which would make it untenable for Russia in the long term. Moscow seeks a balance of dependence in its strategic partnership with Beijing, which entails diversifying economic partnerships across Greater Eurasia. As China does not seek a hegemonic role in Greater Eurasia, it has welcomed Russia’s efforts to diversify its economic partnerships.

Under the Greater Europe Initiative, the Europeans had access to cheap Russian energy and enjoyed a huge Russian market for exports of manufactured goods. Furthermore, Russia’s geoeconomic strategy to integrate with the West resulted in preferential treatment for Western corporations. Under Greater Eurasia, Europe will undergo deindustrialization as the cheap Russian energy and market opportunities go to Asia, which also enhances the competitiveness of Asia vis-a-vis Europe. The Europeans continue setting their own house on fire with reckless sanctions, in the hope that it will also hurt the Russian economy. However, while Europe cannot diversify away from Russia, Russia can diversify away from Europe.

Ideally, Europe would be one of Russia’s many economic partners in the Greater Eurasia Initiative. The revival of militarised dividing lines on the European continent makes the Europeans excessively reliant on the US and Russia becomes too dependent on China. Therefore, there are strong systemic incentives to restore some economic connectivity between the Europeans and Russians after the Ukraine War, although it will be within a Greater Eurasian format as Greater Europe can no longer be revived.

[1] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia.

[2] A. Smith, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1863, p.282

[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.

[4] S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996, p.51.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Z. Brzezinski. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Basic Books, New York. 2009. P. 102.

The article is based on excerpts from my previous article with the same title: Glenn Diesen, ‘Russia, China and the “Balance of Dependence” in Greater Eurasia’, Valdai Dicussion Club, March 2017

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Musk calls out ‘tyrant of Europe’

RT | January 13, 2025

X owner Elon Musk has denounced former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton as “the tyrant of Europe” over an interview that appeared to endorse the cancelation of Romania’s presidential elections.

Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the vote last month, citing claims by intelligence services that the front-runner Calin Georgescu had been boosted by a Russian campaign on TikTok. It has since emerged that the campaign had been the work of a rival Romanian party, but the court has refused to reverse its ruling.

In an interview with the French outlet BFMTV/RMC last week, Breton appeared to suggest that the upcoming German elections could suffer the same fate should the Musk-endorsed Alternative for Germany (AfD) party emerge triumphant.

“Let’s stay calm and enforce the laws in Europe, when they risk being circumvented and if not enforced, could lead to interference,” Breton said. “It was done in Romania and obviously, it will have to be done, if necessary, in Germany as well.”

The minute-long video, in French, was shared by the Polish-based account ‘Visegrad24’, prompting Musk to reply, deriding “the staggering absurdity of Thierry Breton as the tyrant of Europe.”

Breton objected to the label on Saturday, however, arguing that he was only referring to online censorship through the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and that the EU “has NO mechanism to nullify any election” in the bloc. “Lost in translation… or another fake news?” he wondered on X.

While it was Visegrad24 that interpreted Breton’s comments as an endorsement of canceling elections, Breton’s clarification did not address the fact that the alleged “interference” in Romanian democracy came from the inside, making the judiciary intervention questionable. Musk said no more on the matter, however, having turned his attention to the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles.

Breton’s initial remarks came in response to Musk’s interview on X with Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election. Musk has endorsed her party and urged the Germans to oust the sitting Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which some EU officials have denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling.

The Frenchman was the EU commissioner for Digital Affairs and Internal Markets in August, when he threatened Musk with penalties over an upcoming X interview with Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate for US president.

When Musk threatened to expose “secret deals” the EU offered in exchange for censorship on X, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed the French commissioner had acted on his own. Breton resigned in September, accusing the Brussels leadership of “questionable governance.”

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

In Huge Protest, Romanians Rail Against Do-Over Election Targeting Populist NATO Skeptic

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 13, 2025

Upwards of 100,000 Romanians of various political stripes took to the streets on Sunday to express outrage over the voiding of a presidential election that seemed poised to put a NATO and Ukraine War skeptic in power. George Simion, leader of the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, summed up the intent of the demonstrations his party organized:

“We are protesting against the coup d’état that took place on Dec. 6. We are sorry to discover so late that we were living in a lie and that we were led by people who claimed to be democrats, but are not at all. We demand a return to democracy through the resumption of elections, starting with the second round.”

In November, Romania held the first balloting in its two-round election. It resulted in Europe’s latest instance in which a populist, nationalist, right-wing candidate posted a result that far exceeded what polls indicated he was capable of. In a 13-contender field, that candidate, Calin Georgescu, led the pack with 23%, setting him up to advance to the second and final round against reformist Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union party.

However, just two days before that second round was to take place on Dec. 8, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the election, and ordered a complete do-over of both rounds. Their justification: Supposed Russian meddling manifested in manipulated votes, campaign irregularities and secret spending. The ruling came after incumbent President Klaus Iohannis reportedly shared intelligence claiming Russia organized thousands of social media accounts to boost Georgescu’s campaign.

“You petty politicians, with your ungrateful and immature games, you won’t even know what hit you in this global storm,” said Georgescue in a social media post in which he promoted the protest and compared Romanian leaders and judges with former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who’s on trial on corruption charges. “You are so small that you aren’t even able to understand anything. Nothing you do will make a difference anymore. The inevitable, is inevitable.”

On Sunday, crowds — estimated in size from tens of thousands to more than 100,000 — marched through the streets of Bucharest, with Reuters reporting that many left-wingers joined the protest. The slogans on their signs included “We Want Free Elections,” “Bring Back The Second Round,” “Freedom,” and “Democracy Is Not Optional.” In a country that is among the most religiously observant in Europe, many carried Christian Orthodox icons. According to video posted to social media, protesters also vented their aggravation with establishment media:

Social media was the principal catalyst of 62-year-old Georgescu’s success. He didn’t run as a member of any political party, but his TikTok account racked up 1.6 million likes for content showing him going to church, running, practicing judo, and being interviewed by podcasters.

Iohannis’ term was supposed to end on Dec. 21, but he’s now slated to remain in power until the do-over election is complete. The dates are not yet official, but, last week, leaders of the ruling coalition government said they’d agreed on holding the two rounds on May 4 and May 18.

Georgescu’s views are anathema to the European establishment. He’s pledged to restore Romanian sovereignty and put an end to what he characterizes as subservience to NATO and the EU. He has taken a hard line against the presence of NATO’s missile defense system that’s based in Deveselu, southern Romania, calling it a “shame of diplomacy” that is more confrontational than peace-promoting.

He’s also pushed for Romania to pursue a non-interventionist policy in the Ukraine war, and said US arms-makers were manipulating the conflict. Since Russia’s invasion, Romania has facilitated Ukrainian grain exports and furnished military assistance including the donation of a Patriot missile battery. In addition to his broad theme of restoring Romanian sovereignty, Georgescu also ran on countering price inflation, addressing Romania’s worst-in-EU poverty rate, supporting farmers and decreasing the country’s reliance on imports.

However, now it is the sovereignty of the Romanian people themselves that is in peril. As a flag-wrapped economist named Cornelia told Reuters on Sunday: “At this rate we won’t be voting anymore, they will impose a leader like in the old days.”

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »