There are many rational and pragmatic reasons for ending the conflict in Ukraine as the proxy war has effectively already been lost, further escalation could result in nuclear war, and Russia is aligning itself ever closer with China. However, is a personal affinity with Putin contributing to Trump’s desire to end the war and improve US-Russia ties?
During the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump expressed an affinity toward Putin based on a shared struggle against shared adversaries. Trump argued that “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt, where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? … It was a Democrat scam. He had to go through it. And he did go through it”. Trump argued that if Putin broke any deals, then it was with Obama and Biden, as Putin never broke any deals with him due to mutual respect.
It is reasonable to deduce from Trump’s statements that he feels he shares something with Putin. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories of collusion, it is worth taking a sociological perspective to explore how we define who belongs to “us” and who is considered the “other”. Human beings are social animals that instinctively organise into groups, in which the in-group “us” is usually defined by the mirror image of the out-group “other” as the diametrically opposite. What defines “us” versus “them” is often constructed to ensure group solidarity and is thus typically presented as good versus evil or superior versus inferior.
Russia has historically been assigned the role of Europe’s “other”, which makes it difficult to find compromise as Russia’s otherness and negative identity reaffirms Europe’s own positive identity. The relationship has historically been framed as the West versus the East, the civilised versus the barbarian, the European versus the Asiatic, and during the Cold War it was the capitalist versus the communist. When it was decided to revive the dividing lines in Europe after the Cold War by expanding NATO, the “us” versus “them” was recast as liberal democracies versus authoritarian. Every aspect of relations must be interpreted through this lens, in which the West can take the role of the good guys versus Russia as the perpetual bad guy.
Nationalism versus Cosmopolitanism
It is convenient and lazy to portray Trump’s possible affinity for Putin as a friendship between authoritarians. The argument is that Trump is not part of the free world, and his authoritarian tendencies allegedly explain his affinity to Putin. This is a poor analysis, but it exposes how human beings instinctively preserve group solidarity by punishing individuals who stray from the group, and efforts to reach out to the other side and move beyond the stereotypes that define “us” and “them” are met with suspicion and accusations of treason. The free world versus the alliance of authoritarians is a framing that serves the purpose of demonising Trump and Putin and also reaffirming “our” good values. To borrow the language of Bush, they hate us because of our freedoms.
This is a deeply flawed framing, as Trump (or Putin) does not define himself and his in-group (“us”) in the unfavourable terms of authoritarianism versus freedom. Trump views the world as divided between patriotism and globalism or as nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.
The liberal identity as the foundation for the collective identity of a unified Political West after the Cold War contributed to creating a schism within the liberal nation-state. The excesses of liberalism under globalisation and an identity relying excessively on liberalism created a split between liberalism and nationalism that laid the foundation for the liberal nation-state. Over the past decades, liberalism began divorcing itself from the nation-state as the idea of unity through common history, traditions, faith and culture was rejected. In 2004, Samuel Huntington predicted that the rise of a neo-liberal elite would eventually create a conservative backlash:
“The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability–within acceptable conditions for evolution–of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism”.[1]
Translated into international politics, Russia transitions away from the out-group “them” as an authoritarian state, and into the in-group of “us” as a traditional Christian European state that rejects the excesses of liberalism and subsequent moral decadence. It is also evident that Trump sees himself as having much in common with Viktor Orban of Hungary, who defines Europe by its traditional Christian-cultural heritage. In contrast, there is a contempt for the German definition of Europe, which relies excessively on liberal and post-national ideals that translate into woke ideology, open borders, globalism and cosmopolitan identity to the extent they are not capable of defending basic national interests. Europe’s identity as liberal nation-states used to accommodate both nationalism and liberalism, yet liberalism has to a large extent liberated itself from the nation. Consequently, the liberals and the nationalists see each other as their respective out-group, threatening the in-group. This is now influencing the relations between the great powers.
Russiagate and the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal
Trump’s reference to the Russiagate hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office reveals that he considers these events as relevant to understanding the collapse of US-Russia relations.
There has been very little if any reflection on how the Russiagate hoax damaged US-Russia relations, which is why understanding is absent for Trump’s argument. The Democrats used Russia as a bogeyman to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election, then to undermine his first presidential administration, and yet again during the 2020 election. The actual collusion revealed was between the Democratic Party, the intelligence agencies and the media.
The US embraced a new anti-Russian McCarthyism to cleanse its opposition, in which everyone had to castigate Russia as an ideological enemy of the US. Trump’s desire to improve relations between the US and Russia was treated as a threat to the envisioned liberal democratic-authoritarian divide of the world that sustains NATO, and it was treated as a smoking gun that delegitimised his entire political platform. For years, there was a wide consensus that Russia had helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election. During the presidential race in 2020, the scandal of the Hunter Biden laptop was censored by the media following false accusations that it was a Russian disinformation campaign on behalf of Trump. There were also fake accusations that Russia offered bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and Trump’s unwillingness to respond forcefully against Russia was treated as evidence of being in the pocket of the Kremlin. America’s domestic political squabbles evidently contributed to the collapse of US-Russia relations, which also cemented the non-compromising position and provocations by the US that triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Should we be surprised that Trump considers himself and Putin to have faced many of the same enemies to the extent it shaped his view of the in-group versus out-group? Russiagate was intended to sell a worldview of authoritarians at home and abroad conspiring against freedom. This narrative has been debunked as it was based on fraudulent evidence, yet the Democrats and the Europeans still hold on to the narrative to preserve their assigned identity as the good guy and their opponents as the bad guy. From the viewpoint of Trump, this was an attack by the Democrats on democracy and the political system that also devastated relations with Russia and undermined peace in the world.
Can we blame Trump for seeing the world as divided between pragmatic and rational nationalists seeking to put their countries first, versus a cosmopolitan and globalist elite that undermines national interests, democracy and international peace?
German version of the article: “Was Trump und Putin verbindet” in De Weltwoche.
Kirill Fenin’s interview with Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko on security guarantees from NATO, prospects for dialogue with the EU, and the future of the OSCE:
Q: In December 2021, Russia put forward a proposal to the US and NATO on security guarantees. Is it relevant for us to receive these guarantees now? Is the return of NATO infrastructure to the 1997 borders being discussed in the current negotiations with Washington?
Grushko: In 2021, the Russian Federation put forward two initiatives. One was addressed to the United States, the other to NATO countries. But they were not supported. We realized that our so-called partners were not ready to engage in a dialogue on the merits. It became clear that the nature of the alliance’s military construction and the US military preparations were aimed at achieving superiority over the Russian Federation. Moreover, Ukraine was chosen as the main battlefield, the theatre of military operations against Russia.
If we talk about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, then, of course, it will have an external outline. We will demand that cast-iron security guarantees become part of this agreement. Since only through their formation will it be possible to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine and, in general, strengthen regional security. Part of these guarantees should be the neutral status of Ukraine, the refusal of NATO countries to accept it as a member of the alliance. In fact, this is precisely the provision that was recorded in the drafts of the aforementioned agreements. As for discussions, of course, they are not being conducted today, since there are no negotiations.
Q: There are reports in the media that the Donald Trump administration is considering the possibility of reducing its military presence in the Baltics. Is this issue currently being discussed with the US?
Grushko: Diplomats and military personnel do not feed on rumors. We soberly assess the situation. If we look at the strategic concepts approved by NATO and developed in the European Union, as well as the nature of NATO deployments along our borders, we will see that we are talking about long-term plans that the West is not trying to adapt in any way to a future peace agreement. And we will proceed from this in terms of our policy and in the sphere of military development.
If we compare the current situation with 2019, the number of NATO military contingents on the eastern flank, primarily in Poland, the Baltic states, Bulgaria and Romania, has increased by 2.5 times. The amount of heavy equipment has increased by about the same amount. The so-called military Schengen (free movement zone for military personnel – Ed.) is being implemented. The airfield and port networks are being strengthened and expanded. NATO is creating new rapid response units and increasing maneuverability. We are seeing how the density and scale of exercises are increasing. They are becoming more aggressive, aimed at military operations against a comparable adversary. By this we mean the Russian Federation. This is the reality that we have to reckon with. And until there are real changes in the policies and military development of NATO countries, we will proceed from the existence of significant threats to Russia from the West.
Q: As is known, the dialogue on security guarantees was conducted not only between Russia and the United States but also along the Russia-NATO line. The last time a meeting in this format took place was in January 2022. Against the backdrop of the intensification of dialogue with Washington, are negotiations between Russia and NATO possible?
Grushko: I don’t see any prospects at the moment. Of course, you can’t say never, but what can we talk about if NATO countries refused to consider Russia as a partner even in those areas where our interests objectively coincided, for example, in the fight against terrorism. Today they have designated Russia as a direct and immediate threat to NATO countries, and they are conducting their military policy and the process of military development in such a way as to achieve superiority over us in all theaters of military operations, in all, as they say, operational environments: in space, in the air, on land, at sea, in cyberspace.
We see that they are turning the previously most peaceful region of Europe in military terms – the Baltic – into a zone of military confrontation. I will only say that 32 military facilities have been allocated for the deployment of American military forces in Sweden and Finland. All this is a new reality that contradicts everything that was laid down in the Russia-NATO Founding Act and other documents that were intended to unite efforts to counter common threats and at the same time deal with the consequences of the Cold War. The Western countries made a different choice. Our representation in NATO was closed, since NATO made its further functioning impossible. And now there is only a hotline with NATO headquarters, which is provided on our part by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Belgium. It has not yet been activated, but we have officially notified the leadership of the alliance about it. They know where to call if necessary.
Q: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is categorically against the presence of NATO or EU peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory. Does Russia allow the option of deploying peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN? What conditions must be met for this?
Grushko: Peacekeeping and NATO are incompatible things. They brag a lot that it is a defensive alliance, but the real history of the alliance consists of military operations, a series of aggressions without any reason, just to once again emphasize its hegemony in world and regional affairs. Therefore, all this talk is absolutely inappropriate and absurd. And I think that even the average Westerner understands the real price of such penetrations. Secondly — President Vladimir Putin and Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about this — we absolutely do not care under what label NATO contingents can be deployed on the territory of Ukraine: be it the European Union, NATO, or in their national capacity. In any case, if they appear there, it means that they are deployed in a conflict zone with all the consequences for these contingents as parties to the conflict.
Moreover, the very talk of peacekeeping is an attempt to put the cart before the horse. The question of some kind of international support for the agreement can only be approached when this agreement is worked out. And if the parties come to the understanding that the “peace package” needs international support, then the subject of discussion appears. This could include unarmed observers, a civilian mission that would monitor the implementation of individual aspects of this agreement, or guarantee mechanisms. But for now, it’s just hot air.
Q: What is Russia’s attitude to the possible deployment of peacekeepers to Ukraine under the auspices of the OSCE?
Grushko: There are two points that need to be kept in mind. Firstly, the OSCE does not have armed potential, it does not have an “armed hand”, unlike the UN. In particular, it does not have the competence, the staff committee, the structures that could manage such contingents. Secondly, even the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, which was deployed there, failed to cope with its tasks. In fact, it was used by NATO to gain unilateral advantages for the Kyiv regime. Now it has become known that some employees of this mission, who were supposed to be neutral and ensure strict implementation of the mandate, in fact worked in the interests of Kyiv. And it is no secret that many residents of Donbass said: “OSCE observers drove by – expect shelling”. Therefore, we have an extremely skeptical attitude towards the involvement of the OSCE, even theoretically.
It is impossible not to see that the purpose of these rumors about the deployment of Western contingents on Ukrainian territory is to prepare public opinion for the most radical scenarios, part of a campaign to whip up military psychosis and demonize Russia. Let me remind you that just a few months ago, such a prospect was denied by all NATO member states, and the Secretary General repeatedly stated that under no circumstances would the Alliance’s soldiers appear there.
Q: This week, the OSCE Secretary General came to Moscow. How do you assess the results of the talks with him? Are any further contacts possible through this organization?
Grushko: There will be contacts, of course. It is good that the Secretary-General came. For two years, the OSCE leadership has not visited Moscow. The main problem of the OSCE is that the organization, as a result of the West’s actions, has effectively been pushed to the sidelines of political processes. Its main purpose as an instrument of reconciliation between East and West, of mitigating contradictions, has been lost. At that time, this was generally called “détente.”
Almost nothing remains of this legacy.
The OSCE is currently at a crossroads. This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. It depends only on the member states themselves whether this platform will be in demand for some unifying purposes or whether the current crisis state of the organization will become terminal.
Q: Against the backdrop of the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, is a similar negotiating track with Brussels possible?
Grushko: Such a track is possible. But, firstly, the European Union is isolating itself from Russia. It has broken off all political contacts. It is difficult for me to even say with which international structure there was a closer dialogue. Two meetings a year at the highest level, an annual meeting of the government of the Russian Federation and the European Commission. Also more than 20 permanent partnership councils, including the umbrella foreign policy one. Everything has stopped.
In any case, if there are finally signals that Brussels is ready to enter into some kind of dialogue with us, we will not be against it. But today such a prospect is not in sight – on the contrary, the European Union continues to follow the suicidal path of introducing sanctions. If in 2013 the volume of trade between Russia and the European Union was €417 billion, then in 2024 it was at the level of €60 billion.
As for the EU’s insistent demands to sit down at the negotiating table on the Ukrainian conflict, I don’t even know how to characterize this in diplomatic terms. The EU was at these negotiations and was at the center of events starting with the Maidan, where three EU countries acted as guarantors of the agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the “opposition.” And what did they do to implement the Minsk agreements? Absolutely nothing, on the contrary, they encouraged Kyiv to sabotage them. And when they (the Minsk agreements – Ed.) collapsed, when it became clear that Kyiv was leading the matter to a military solution, a conflict, which, in fact, became the trigger for the decision to conduct a special military operation, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande stated that they had no intention of implementing the Minsk agreements. A respite was needed to pump Kyiv with weapons and prepare it for a direct clash with Russia. Against this background, it is not very clear what role the Europeans can play.
Q: Can the EU take a more constructive position towards Russia in the future?
Grushko: If we look at their current positions, they do not in any way suggest any constructive participation in the negotiation process. The statements from the camp of the political elites of the European Union are quite clear. Point 1 — do not let the conflict end quickly, it must continue until 2030, because if it ends quickly, then “Russia will immediately attack the Baltic countries and Poland.” Point 2 — we must achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. And we know what is meant by this. Point 3 — seek guarantees of Ukraine’s security.
In fact, the conflict has reached a stage where the West suffers a strategic defeat. Because in all three components that are counted on – military defeat on the battlefield, economic collapse and, ultimately, as they say, regime change – the result is exactly the opposite. If we look at the economic side, our economy has grown by 4%, in the European Union – approximately 0.1% to 1%, close to the statistical error. And the situation on the battlefield is well known.
One of the most important elements for us is the security interests of Russia. And Europe should understand that if strong international legal guarantees for Russia’s security are created, which will exclude Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the possibility of deploying foreign military contingents on its territory or using it to exert military pressure on Russia, then the security of Ukraine and the entire region in a broader sense will be ensured, since one of the root causes of the conflict will be eliminated.
Q: One of the main initiators of the idea of sending European peacekeepers to Ukraine is French President Emmanuel Macron. In your opinion, what is the reason for the desire to aggravate the situation and lead to a direct clash between Russia and NATO?
Grushko: I think that two factors play a role here. First, France itself is not doing so well in the economic, social and all other spheres. The country is going through a serious crisis, it is being shaken by demonstrations, Emmanuel Macron and the political forces that support him are not in a very strong position. Governments are changing. Therefore, the introduction of such a loud topic as sending a military contingent is intended, among other things, to distract public attention from domestic problems.
Secondly, this is an attempt by France to lead the war party within the EU, thereby emphasizing its leadership in the union. France’s influence has been weakening lately. The link between Germany and France no longer works for many reasons, and Macron has apparently decided to use the military theme to once again bring his country to the epicenter of European politics, abandoning French foreign policy traditions.
In the traditions established by General de Gaulle, France played a balancing role. Its significance and political weight lay precisely in this: France proposed initiatives that united rather than divided. Now France, unfortunately, is becoming more radical than the Russophobic camp consisting of the Baltic countries and Poland.
Q: The head of the European Commission recently came up with an initiative for an €800 billion EU rearmament program. Does Russia see risks in connection with the emergence of this program?
Grushko: We see the risks, they are absolutely obvious. The fact is that the military and political subordination of the European Union to NATO has occurred; this follows not only from the practice of cooperation between NATO and the EU, but also from the documents they adopt. The NATO-EU Joint Declaration quite clearly states the EU’s own aim to become a European support for NATO. The Alliance views Russia as a direct and immediate threat. This postulate has also crept into the EU’s political documents. And we see that the plans to create the so-called autonomous military support for the European Union today are aimed at creating threats primarily to Russia.
Large-scale armament programs have been drawn up: over five years, the growth of arms imports to the EU has increased by 2.5 times, with 64% of military equipment purchased in the United States. At the same time, such systems are being purchased — including, in particular, F-35 aircraft — which are not intended for use in some local crisis situations, but for achieving superiority over a comparable enemy, that is, the Russian Federation. The rearmament program is aimed at preparing Europe for a military clash with Russia. US President Donald Trump is demanding an increase in military spending in the EU countries from 2% to 5%. Many have already stated that they will move in this direction. This is a very significant increase. Today, the amount of military spending by the European Union is several times greater than the military spending of the Russian Federation.
Q: The Dutch parliament has already voted against the country’s participation in the EU rearmament program. Is Europe capable of finding the funds for such a large-scale project?
Grushko: Mario Draghi, former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Central Bank, recently published a report on the economic state of the EU. The report is quite frank and tough; its main conclusion is that if the EU wants to become prosperous in the new global architecture, it needs to find €800 billion annually to invest in industry, new technologies, the “green transition” and other projects. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, added €800 billion to this, which are needed to further arm the European Union.
Let’s not forget that, according to the most conservative estimates, the losses from the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia and the losses from the refusal to cooperate with us, including in the energy sector, amount to €1.5 trillion. More than €200 billion went to military and other support for the Kyiv regime. If we add up these figures, we get a financial hole of at least €3 trillion. They need to be found somewhere. This is a colossal amount of money – more than two annual military budgets of all NATO countries. It is clear that the money will be scraped from the pockets of taxpayers, cutting spending on education, medicine, science, and so on.
It is difficult for me to say whether this project will withstand such a financial challenge. If we remember that the total public debt of all EU countries will soon approach 100% of GDP – which means that the EU countries must work for a year and spend nothing – then the prospects for implementing all these plans are rather vague.
Q: What measures can Russia take to counter these threats?
I will note once again: we cannot relax. We have drafted military planning documents that are designed to reliably ensure the security of our country and its defense capability in all areas. As the president emphasized, we will not get involved in an arms race. And it is good that our military capabilities allow us to reliably mitigate threats without spending crazy amounts of money on them and taking them out of the development sphere.
It is obvious that the negative trends that are being imposed today by both NATO and the European Union are very stable, and we must be prepared for a variety of scenarios. The events in Ukraine have shown that NATO and the European Union underestimated our capabilities and our determination and, by betting on inflicting a strategic defeat on us, made a big mistake.
Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is retreating from initiatives aimed at investigating and prosecuting alleged Russian crimes linked to the Ukraine conflict, the New York Times reported on Monday.
According to sources cited by the newspaper, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will withdraw from the EU-backed International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA), established to investigate Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran for the alleged crime of international aggression.
The US became the only non-European ICPA member when it joined in 2023. Sources told the NYT that Washington had informed European partners about its imminent exit ahead of a formal announcement.
Administration officials reportedly justified the withdrawal by citing a broader reduction in government expenditures. The DOJ had pledged $1 million to support European investigators when US participation was initially announced.
Additionally, Washington is curtailing operations of a DOJ team known as WarCAT, formed in 2022 to train Ukrainian prosecutors on charging and trying Russians for alleged war crimes, according to NYT sources.
Last week, reports emerged that the US had cut funding for a Yale-based research group searching for Ukrainian children “abducted” by Russia. Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s allegations of state-orchestrated kidnappings of thousands of minors as politically motivated mischaracterizations of its evacuation efforts in war-affected areas.
Trump is aiming to normalize bilateral relations with Russia, viewing a resolution of the Ukraine conflict as a crucial step. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to have a direct phone conversation this week.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has turned down an invitation to visit Brussels for a summit this year marking the 50th anniversary of his country’s relations with the EU, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
The Chinese leader’s reported snub comes at a time of growing tensions between Beijing and Brussels. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the EU believes is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. Adding to the tension was a wave of retaliatory tariffs placed by the EU on Chinese goods.
Beijing informed EU officials that Prime Minister Li Qiang would meet the presidents of the European Council and European Commission instead of Xi, the FT said, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The prime minister usually attends the summit when it takes place in Brussels, while the president hosts it in Beijing. However, this time the EU wanted Xi to attend given the significance of the meeting, which marks half a century of diplomatic relations, the sources told the outlet.
“Informal discussions are ongoing, both about setting the date for the EU-China summit this year and the level of representation,” an EU official told the FT, while the Chinese ministry was quoted as saying it did not have any information to provide on the matter.
Tensions between the EU and China intensified following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when the EU accused Beijing of supporting Moscow.
China has adhered to a policy of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the bloc and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.
The rift deepened last year after the EU imposed tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese electric vehicles, claiming that Chinese manufacturers benefit from unfair government subsidies. The decision sparked strong objections from Beijing, which retaliated by slapping tariffs of between 30.6% and 39% on the bloc’s brandy imports. The move hit major French cognac producers particularly hard, as they rely heavily on sales in the Chinese market.
China has also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the EU’s “protectionist” actions amount to “an abuse of trade remedies” and violate WTO rules.
Jacques Baud, retired Colonel in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, has published several books on the origin of the Ukraine War, and he presents the conditions to bring the war to an end. Understanding what happened to the Minsk agreement is important to understand what is required to find a solution. Colonel Baud also laments the dangerous geopolitical immaturity in Europe that no longer addresses reality.
Brussels should take decisive steps towards denying EU membership to Ukraine and ending the influence of foreign agents linked to billionaire George Soros on the bloc’s policies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated. He has called for the absolute national sovereignty of member states over domestic issues.
In a post on X on Saturday, Orban urged Brussels to “expel Soros agents” from the European Commission and “remove corrupt lobbyists” from the European Parliament.
The Hungarian prime minister has a long history of opposing foreign-funded organizations in his country, particularly those sponsored by Soros. Orban has repeatedly accused the Hungarian-American magnate of meddling in Hungary’s domestic affairs, undermining traditional family values, and promoting a globalist agenda.
Orban also called for “a Union, but without Ukraine,” having demanded “peace, freedom, and unity.”
Budapest has strongly opposed the rapid acceptance of Ukraine into the EU, citing the potential harm to the bloc’s economy. Kiev applied for membership shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022 and was granted candidate status within just three months.
The demands voiced by Orban were included in a broader list that contained calls for protecting Europe’s Christian heritage, banning “the unnatural re-education of children,” eliminating debt, and establishing equality before the law for all members of the bloc.
Orban emphasized that the Hungarian people expect Brussels to restore the competencies unlawfully taken from member states. He demanded “national sovereignty” and the right to “a strong veto for national governments.”
He also urged the EU authorities to stop obstructing the Hungarian National Guard from protecting the country’s borders. “Do not bring in migrants, and remove those who have arrived illegally,” he wrote.
Since the 2015 migrant crisis, Orban’s government has taken tough measures to curb the influx of migrants, including building border fences along Hungary’s southern borders with Serbia and Croatia and rejecting EU-mandated refugee quotas. These policies have triggered legal challenges, including a €200-million fine from the European Court of Justice last year for non-compliance with the bloc’s asylum rules.
Four years ago, Budapest updated child protection regulations to ban the promotion of LGBTQ topics in media, advertising, and educational materials accessible to minors. The move sparked outrage in Brussels, which launched legal action against Budapest, referred the case to the European Court of Justice, and froze billions in EU funds intended for Hungary over what it claimed were violations of fundamental human rights.
Romania’s electoral authority has rejected right-wing politician Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca’s bid to run in the country’s upcoming presidential election. The decision, announced Saturday, marks the second time the politician has been barred from the race.
Sosoaca, a former lawyer and MEP for the nationalist S.O.S. Romania party, was disqualified from last year’s annulled election after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that her anti-Western rhetoric and support for closer ties with Russia violated Romania’s democratic framework. The politician, however, filed a new bid with the Central Electoral Bureau on Thursday, arriving at the headquarters wearing boxing gloves and vowing to “fight the system,” which she has long accused of being undemocratic and dictatorial.
According to local media, the election bureau cited the Constitutional Court’s 2024 ruling in its decision to reject Sosoaca’s new bid, with ten members voting against her candidacy and only three in favor. Following the decision, Sosoaca declared that she had once again proven Romania “doesn’t have democracy” and vowed to continue her political fight.
Speaking to RT on Thursday, Sosoaca accused the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen, of orchestrating her previous removal from the race. “Ursula von der Leyen has Romanian politicians in her hand and orders them what decisions to make,” she stated, slamming the commission president as “the main opponent of sovereignty in Romania, as well as all other countries in Europe.”
Sosoaca, who calls herself a “souvereignist” fighting for Romania’s future, blames the economic problems in the country on Brussels’ policies, especially with regard to Russia, and calls the EU a “dictatorship.”
“Romania needs a negotiator who will take our country out of the EU’s losing logic,” she said, adding that EU policies, including sanctions against Russia, had “bankrupted its own economy” and caused unnecessary conflict, with “all European countries paying for this stupidity.”
Sosoaca has until midnight on Saturday to appeal the decision. The first round of the election, a rerun after last November’s vote was annulled, is scheduled for May 4. So far, 14 candidates have applied to run, four of whom – including the first-round winner in the annulled vote and another staunch NATO and EU critic, Calin Georgescu – have been rejected.
Georgescu won the first round of last November’s election, but the Constitutional Court overturned the result amid allegations of electoral violations and claims that Russia had run an online campaign to promote him. Moscow denied any involvement in Romania’s electoral process. An investigation earlier this year revealed that the irregularities may have stemmed from a consulting firm linked to the pro-Western National Liberal Party, which allegedly sought to derail another candidate but inadvertently boosted Georgescu instead.
Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.
In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.
It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.
In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.
One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.
This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.
Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.
The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.
During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.
In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.
However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.
It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.
What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.
Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.
All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.
From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.
A video showing a foreign military transport moving through Austria by train has ignited a heated debate, with the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) calling for an immediate ban on such transits.
The footage, filmed by a passerby at a train station and shared by the FPÖ, has fueled concerns about Austria’s neutrality and its role in European defense logistics.
FPÖ General Secretary Christian Hafenecker strongly condemned the transport, describing it as a blatant violation of Austria’s neutrality. “Foreign military and weapons transports across our territory are completely unacceptable,” he stated.
He further criticized the increasing use of Austrian infrastructure for military movements, warning, “It must not be the case that our railway lines and roads increasingly become the ‘number one NATO highway’ to the east.”
“That is precisely what we fear from the black-red-pink ‘loser traffic light’ coalition, whose subservience to the EU and NATO, coupled with betrayal of neutrality, is becoming ever more blatant,” the FPÖ added in a post on X.
Hafenecker placed direct responsibility on Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), arguing that the government’s permitting such actions is entirely at odds with the public. “The Austrians have no understanding of the fact that tanks, guns, and other heavy military equipment of foreign states roll through their country,” he said, insisting that public sentiment is firmly against such activities.
In response, the FPÖ has demanded an immediate halt to all NATO weapons transports through Austria and the creation of a “no-transport zone” for military equipment. The party is also calling for an end to Austrian financial contributions towards arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Hafenecker stressed the need for diplomatic efforts over military escalation, taking aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to mobilize €800 billion for European rearmament.
“What is needed now is de-escalation, diplomacy, and peace talks to end the suffering and dying in Ukraine,” he declared.
The EU elites kick and scream about countries like Hungary, but the very capital of the European Union is a crime-infested slum in many areas, featuring organized criminals and vast ghettoes. The German car-sharing service, Miles, has finally had enough, and is pulling operations in all of Belgium, citing Brussels as especially problematic.
“Despite a positive trend in figures in Belgium, operations have been increasingly affected by vandalism, misuse of vehicles and attempted theft, particularly in the Brussels region, over the past two years,” a company statement announced. “These external factors had a significant negative impact on the company’s financial results.”
The company has been in Brussels for three years, starting in October of 2022. It was already operating in German cities such as Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg, while in Belgium, Miles vehicles were also seen in Ghent and Antwerp.
In fact, just last year, the Miles general manager of Belgium, Raphaël Zacchello, described just how bad it was in Brussels. He urged the authorities to act, saying: “The rate of vandalism in Brussels is incomparable with what we see in all German cities, even in Berlin, which is a big metropolis.”
Of course, most of the publications writing about Miles shutting down are not naming the suspects, but most of them were “youths,” many who filmed themselves joy-riding in stolen Miles vehicles.
Some may think it is a stretch to claim this Miles car-sharing company leaving Belgium as anything more than an isolated incident involving one company complaining too much. However, there is reason to believe it speaks to the failures of not only diversity but also the fight against climate change.
Many of these car-sharing services are hailed as “green” solutions. The idea that you will “own nothing and be happy” is posited on the idea that not everyone will need to buy a car, for instance, but can instead rent one when needed and use that to get around, which will reduce consumption and help the environment.
Apparently, this model is not working in Belgium. A lot of it aligns with trends seen with other Green parties in Europe, which promote public transportation and then make public transportation extremely unsafe for people to use due to mass immigration. Foreigners, for example, commit 59 percent of all sexual violence on German public transport networks. Migrants have become so out of control on certain train lines that public unions are protesting and calling in sick out of stress. The German Green Party has been forced to propose “women-only” train cars in Berlin to deal with the soaring sexual violence.
It should also be noted that Belgium is one of the most diverse cities in Europe, with approximately half of its 1.1 million residents born outside the EU, most notably from Africa and Turkey. However, diversity is not proving a strength, and judging by where EU politicians live and work, they believe the same thing, as it is also one of the most segregated cities in Europe.
Miles is also far from the only vehicle-sharing service that has found operating in Belgium to be a minefield. In Brussels, nearly all GO Sharing electric scooters were stolen by “young” people who know how to circumvent security measures on the rental system. They even offered crash courses online to effectively steal the scooters, which were used for joyrides until all their batteries were empty in an incident that occurred in April of 2022.
The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities across Europe. Berlin, for instance, tries to promote itself as a green, progressive city, and many of the most powerful left-wing parties are focused on getting as many cars off the roads and as many bikes on the roads as possible. Yet, the city is continuously plagued with tens of thousands of bicycles being stolen every year. And only 4 percent of bike thefts are solved in the city every year.
The overwhelming amount of those arrested are foreigners, such as this Romanian gang operating in Berlin covered by Spiegel. In another report by Tagesspiegel, it found that “a total of 66 percent of the suspects (in organized crime) were of foreign nationality, the rest were German citizens.” As Berlin’s own data shows, nearly all clan criminals have German citizenship (71 percent), which skews the statistics. Many of these same networks are operating organized bicycle theft rings, but also cars, e-bikes, and scooters, on top of drug smuggling and other criminal operations.
Of course, car-sharing woes and bike thefts are insubstantial problems when compared to other issues plaguing Brussels, including ample issues with crime, drug mafias, a radical jihadist scene, and of course, its highly segregated neighborhoods. However, all of these issues are tied together to some degree. The fact also remains, Europeans should be able to ride a train, take a bus, or rent a car for car-sharing purposes without a problem. The end of Miles is just another canary in the coal mine.
The Dutch House of Representatives has voted against the European Union’s multi-hundred-billion euro militarization plan, citing financial risks and a lack of clear guidelines, the Volkskrant newspaper reported on Tuesday. The rejection comes as Brussels has been urging to spike the bloc’s military spending to address a perceived Russian threat.
The EU’s rearmament proposal, known as the REARM plan, was introduced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month and aims to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities. The plan includes €150 billion in loans to EU governments for defense spending and fiscal exemptions, potentially mobilizing up to €800 billion ($870 billion) over the next four years.
However, critics in the Netherlands have warned that the plan lacks a concrete financial framework and could lead to an economic crisis. Despite Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof initially backing the initiative, a narrow parliamentary majority—including the Party for Freedom (PVV), New Social Contract (NSC), and the Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB)—rejected the proposal in a vote on Tuesday.
Lawmakers argued that the plan’s reliance on joint EU loans would increase debt burdens for member states and expose them to financial risks. A representative of the NSC noted that while the party supports Ukraine aid and increased EU military budgets, it is opposed to any form of eurobonds or the expansion of budgetary standards, as proposed by the REARM plan.
The EU’s push to boost military spending has intensified after US President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized European NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments. Last month, Trump warned that the US would not automatically defend NATO allies if they did not increase their financial contributions, stating, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”
In response, European leaders have moved to expand their military budgets with some citing a supposed Russian threat as justification for the rush. French President Emmanuel Macron had recently publicly labeled Russia as a “threat to Europe” and has suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.
Moscow has repeatedly rejected having any intentions to attack NATO or EU countries and has dismissed such claims as “nonsense.” The Kremlin has also condemned the EU’s plans to increase defense spending, calling it “militarization” that is “primarily aimed at Russia” and stressing that such moves are a “matter of deep concern” for Moscow.
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
