U.S. officials have a long history of portraying Washington’s allies and clients as democratic, even when their behavior is blatantly authoritarian. Such cynical hypocrisy was at its zenith during the Cold War, but it is surging again.
A similar trend is evident with respect to U.S. interference in the internal political affairs of other countries through such mechanisms as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Such agencies fund regimes and political movements that are deemed obedient to Washington’s wishes and supportive of American foreign policy objectives. Conversely, U.S. administrations actively undermine governments or movements that they consider hostile or even just insufficiently cooperative. The actual nature of U.S. clients often is a far cry from the carefully crafted democratic image of them that Washington circulates.
A recent example of American meddling in the internal affairs of another democratic country appears to have taken place in the Republic of Georgia. According to Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, USAID spent $41.7 million to support its preferred candidates in the country’s recent parliamentary elections. Adjusted for the size of Georgia’s population, such an expenditure in the United States would amount to $3.78 billion,
The U.S. track record in Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union lends credibility to the speaker’s accusation that Washington is meddling in his country’s internal political affairs. President George W. Bush fawned with praise for Mikheil Saakashvili, the leader of Georgia’s “rose revolution” in 2003. Under Saakashvili, Georgia had become a “beacon of liberty,” Bush crowed. Generous flows of aid from Washington ensued. However, massive corruption soon characterized Saakashvili’s rule, as did his growing repression of political opponents. Ultimately, Saakashvili’s adversaries ousted Washington’s beloved “democratic” client from power.
The contrast between the laudatory American portrayal of Saakashvili as a paragon of democratic reform and the reality of his conduct was stark. However, Washington’s role in Ukraine over the years has been even more pervasive and dishonest. Although Ukraine’s president, Victor Yanukovych, came to office in a 2010 election that even a team of European Union (EU) observers conceded was reasonably free and fair, officials in Barack Obama’s administration, especially Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, worked to undermine his presidency. Yanukovych’s preference for closer economic ties with Russia instead of the EU and the United States apparently was intolerable to Western policymakers.
In 2014, the United States and key NATO partners helped Ukrainian demonstrators (primarily in Kiev’s Maidan Square) force Yanukovych to flee. An intercepted telephone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine confirmed the massive extent of Washington’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs. Nuland herself later admitted that the United States had poured more than $5 billion to Ukrainian groups in the years before the Maidan uprising. Supposedly, the purpose was to “promote democracy,” but as usual, the funds went almost entirely to groups Washington considered supportive of U.S. policies. It would be hard to identify a more flagrant case of outside interference in the affairs of another country.
Even if U.S. leaders sincerely intended their largesse to bring a stronger, healthier democracy to Ukraine—which is extremely doubtful—Washington did not achieve that goal. Corruption and blatant repression have become increasingly bad under the post-Maidan governments. Even though U.S. leaders invariably portray Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a democratic champion, his record proves the opposite. Under his rule, Ukraine has outlawed opposition parties, muzzled the press, harassed uncooperative churches, and amassed a record of arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Much of that abuse was evident before the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia. Confirming that any attempt to portray Zelensky’s rule as democratic is a hypocritical farce, Ukraine has now postponed elections indefinitely.
The rot of hypocrisy and covert authoritarianism has infected even governments in NATO and the European Union. A grotesque example occurred earlier this month in Romania when an election commission dominated by the two governing parties, the Social Democratic Party (PSD and the National Liberal Party (PNL), annulled the first round of the presidential election held on November 24. Instead of the candidates of those two parties advancing to the second round runoff as expected, neither one did so. Instead, Caliin Georgescu, the candidate of a right-wing populist party led the field. Elena Lasconi, a reformer representing another “minor” party took the other runoff spot.
That outcome apparently was intolerable to Romania’s political establishment or its supporters in the EU and the United States. They viewed Georgescu as especially unacceptable, since he openly criticized NATO and opposed continuing to aid Ukraine. The country’s election commission nullified the voting results and rescheduled the first round balloting for May 4, 2025. Commissioners charged that, wait for it… Russia had illegally tampered with the election! Moscow’s horrid offense was its alleged support of a Tik Tok campaign that seemed to benefit Georgescu. Tangible evidence regarding Russian involvement was noticeably absent. Despite the lack of evidence, U.S. and EU officials denounced Russia and praised the Romanian government for trashing the election.
Eugene Doyle, a reporter for New Zealand’s Solidarity.com, noted the menacing significance of this episode. “To save democracy, the US and the European elites appear to have found it necessary to destroy democracy. For the first time ever an election was overturned in an EU/NATO country. Ever,” he wrote. Doyle also cites evidence that Russia was not even the likely culprit. The Tik Tok effort apparently originated with a botched PNL scheme to siphon off votes to Georgescu from other mainstream competitors.
Moreover, as Doyle points out, “Even if the Russians did it, in what crazy world would you wipe an election for a Tik Tok campaign, particularly one that was at best a few hundred thousands of dollars’ worth of advertising/messaging/ chatting—in contrast to the millions of dollars the U.S. State Department and various branches of the U.S. government spent on the same campaign?”
The answer is that it would happen in a world where political elites in the United States and its principal allies have never really been committed to democracy. Not as a domestic governing principle and definitely not as a foreign policy objective. Instead, the alleged commitment is a propaganda tool that is discarded whenever it becomes inconvenient. We live in such a world, and have done so for many years.
February 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | European Union, Georgia, NED, Ukraine, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has accused European leaders of actively working to prevent peace in Ukraine, claiming they are organizing in Paris on Monday to block potential diplomatic solutions to end the war with Russia.
Speaking at a press conference alongside Kazakh Foreign Minister Murat Nurtleu, Szijjártó stated that with the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, a new global political reality has emerged, favoring Hungary and Kazakhstan.
“We are talking about two countries that have always maintained a pro-peace stance, pursued a patriotic, sovereign political strategy, and prioritized national interests above all else,” Szijjártó said.
He suggested that Hungary and Kazakhstan have been frequent targets of the “international liberal mainstream” for their dissenting positions — particularly Hungary which has often been treated like a social pariah in Brussels for its objections to the EU’s unconditional military and financial support for Kyiv — but now benefit from mutual respect in international relations, particularly after Trump’s decision to end financial support for interventionist policies.
Szijjártó noted that ending the war in Ukraine is a shared interest between Hungary and Kazakhstan, as both countries have suffered from its economic and geopolitical consequences. He further expressed optimism in Trump’s “peace party” approach, citing recent high-level communications between the U.S. and Russia as a positive step.
“We welcome the resumption of top-level Russian-American dialogue. We were pleased and relieved that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had an extended conversation. Furthermore, the discussions between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signal potential progress toward resolving the conflict,” he stated.
As Rubio arrived in Saudi Arabia on Monday to conduct talks with Russian officials, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to the neighboring United Arab Emirates — he is not expected to be a party in initial talks.
“One phone call does not solve a war as complex as this one, but I can tell you that Donald Trump is the only leader in the world that could potentially begin that process,” Rubio told CBS ahead of the visit.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a special meeting of European leaders in Paris for Monday amid accusations that Europe and Ukraine were being locked out of talks between the White House and the Kremlin.
“The president will bring together the main European countries tomorrow for discussions on European security,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told France Inter radio on Sunday. “Only the Ukrainians can decide to stop fighting,” he added.
Szijjártó claimed, however, that while the U.S. and Russia are exploring diplomatic solutions, European leaders who oppose such efforts are gathering to maintain their current pro-war stance. “Those who have consistently fueled the fire of war are now meeting in Paris. These are the leaders who, for the past three years, have followed a failed strategy, constantly escalating the danger of war,” he declared.
He further alleged that these European leaders had spent years attacking Donald Trump and now aim to obstruct any potential peace agreement. “Today in Paris, the anti-Trump, war-focused, frustrated European leaders are coming together. They are the ones who want to prevent peace in Ukraine,” he said.
Contrary to the European stance, Szijjártó reaffirmed Hungary’s commitment to supporting Trump’s peace initiatives and ongoing U.S.-Russia negotiations. “Unlike those gathering in Paris, we stand by Donald Trump’s aspirations, we endorse U.S.-Russian talks, and we support peace in Ukraine.”
February 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, France, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Christoph Heusgen, chairman of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), has described the results of last week’s gathering as a “nightmare” for Washington’s European allies. He claimed that the US under President Donald Trump “lives on another planet,” referencing comments made by American Vice President J.D. Vance at the Germany-hosted event.
Vance criticized EU nations for increasingly mirroring the USSR in their suppression of dissent and the detachment of elites from voters. He cautioned that if the trend continues, the US could withdraw its support for its European allies.
During an interview with ZDF on Sunday — his final day as MSC chairman — Heusgen noted that, at the very least, Europeans now have clarity about the Trump administration’s stance. He added that while some Republican senators expressed commitment to “trans-Atlantic unity” in contrast to Vance, they were also cautious in their public statements.
EU officials reaffirmed their pledges to support Kiev at the MSC, while Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky called for a united European army, asserting that Ukraine could play a significant role in such an initiative. Heusgen advised Europeans to “do what Zelensky says” and stand together. However, skepticism remains among certain EU member states, such as Poland, regarding the concept of a transnational military force to serve as a European counterpart to NATO.
The Trump administration has signaled no intention of involving either NATO or the US in any future security arrangements in Ukraine following a potential ceasefire with Russia. Additionally, Washington has expressed interest in recouping expenditures related to the Ukraine conflict through privileged access to mineral resources under Kiev’s control.
Zelensky has previously advocated various forms of security for Ukraine that even his staunchest supporters deem exceedingly ambitious — from full NATO membership to deploying a 200,000-strong foreign military contingent, the mass placement of Western missiles, and even a Ukrainian nuclear capability.
As he concluded his closing remarks at the MSC on Sunday, Heusgen became emotional, having to cut himself short. He was addressing the mounting pressures on the “rules-based order,” urging EU politicians to uphold it despite a visible rift with the US.
February 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, NATO, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
France calls for European meeting to respond to Trump’s initiatives
By Lucas Leiroz | February 17, 2025
While Washington is adopting a more diplomatic stance in the conflict with Russia, the European Union is insisting on a hostile policy. French President Emmanuel Macron is reacting quite negatively to the diplomatic advances, trying to consolidate a unified European position on the issue. The French goal is clearly to boycott any peace process, thus trying to prolong the conflict – even if this harms European strategic interests.
Recently, Macron called for an emergency summit of European leaders to discuss the Ukrainian issue. He believes that it is necessary for the EU to show an alternative to the initiatives taken by the US, otherwise European countries will end up being excluded from all the peace talks.
The meeting of the leaders is expected to take place in Paris at the same time as Russian and American diplomats meet in Saudi Arabia. There are not many details available on the subject yet, but it is known that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the first to be invited by Macron – which is natural, considering that Poland is one of the countries with the highest military and political involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.
It is important to understand the context in which Macron made his decision. While, on the one hand, the US engaged in direct dialogue with Russia and excluded Europe from the process, on the other, the Europeans met at the Munich Security Conference to discuss relevant issues regarding the main geopolitical developments, but failed to reach any fruitful consensus on the issue of peace in Ukraine.
In addition, US special envoy Keith Kellogg categorically stated that the EU will not be included in the peace negotiations, which further aggravated the Europeans’ anger – certainly motivating Macron to call the meeting in Paris. In fact, it seems clear that the EU feels “betrayed” by the US by being excluded from the talks. European states seem desperate to prevent Donald Trump’s initiatives from succeeding, which is why the EU is expected to continue endorsing the war even if the US changes its stance.
All these moves were expected. While Trump has a more realistic and pragmatic stance, most European leaders are aligned with the Democrats’ policies, which are marked by a strong ideological influence. In other words, the Democrats-EU axis is interested in doing everything possible to protect the unipolar liberal order because it is ideologically linked to Western agendas. On the other hand, Trump and the Republicans have a more de-ideologized approach, simply seeking what is best for American strategic interests at the moment.
The main problem in this balance is that Macron has bold ambitions for Europe that clash with current American interests. He does not want the EU to be left out of major geopolitical decisions, hoping that the bloc’s countries will be able to deliberate on what they consider best for themselves and the entire region.
Macron seems not to have understood yet that Europe is suffering the consequences of its own past decisions. The EU chose to be excluded from major international discussions precisely at the time when it adopted a policy of alignment with the US. Now, the bloc is simply having to adapt to every change that occurs in the White House, without any right to a sovereign position, and simply accepting orders from Washington.
There is nothing Europe can do to change this, other than through a profound review of the bloc’s entire foreign policy. Europeans need to break with the idea of a “unified West” and start defending their own interests as an independent power. For this to happen, European states would have to undergo serious changes, such as leaving NATO, since the Atlantic alliance is nothing more than an international army controlled by Washington. Without these deep changes, the EU will have to continue obeying American decisions.
The efforts of Macron and other European leaders will be completely fruitless when it comes to Ukraine. It is possible that the peace negotiations will fail and the conflict will continue, but this will be due to the inability of the US itself to meet Russian strategic interests, as European opinion will have no impact on the diplomatic process.
On the other hand, it is highly possible that France and other European countries will adopt a dissident stance in the Trump-led Collective West and continue supporting Kiev with weapons and money, even if the US stops any participation in the conflict. Macron is trying to project European power in Ukraine through an aggressive and bellicose stance, so his decisions are expected to worsen the hostilities.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
February 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, France, NATO, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
French President Emmanuel Macron has called an emergency summit of European leaders after Moscow and Washington agreed to hold Ukraine peace talks in Saudi Arabia, sidelining the EU.
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone on Wednesday, marking their first known direct conversation since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
On Saturday, the countries’ top diplomats followed up with a call to discuss “preparations for a potential high-level Russian-American summit.” Later that day, US Special Envoy Keith Kellogg stated that the EU nations would not be included in the negotiations.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski welcomed Macron’s initiative and confirmed that the summit will take place in France on Monday.
“I’m very glad that President Macron has called our leaders to Paris,” Sikorski said, as quoted by Politico, adding that he expects European leaders to discuss “in a very serious fashion” the challenges posed by Trump.
According to Sikorski, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has accepted the invitation and will travel to France next week to “show our strength and unity.”
While the list of invitees was not revealed, The Guardian has reported that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer will also be attending.
Macron has previously insisted on EU involvement in negotiations, telling the Financial Times that Ukraine must lead discussions on its own sovereignty, but Brussels has a key role in discussing “security guarantees and, more broadly, the security framework for the entire region.”
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who previously banned his government from engaging in direct negotiations with Putin, admitted that Kiev’s representatives were not invited to discussions in Saudi Arabia either. “Maybe there is something at the table, but not on our table,” he told journalists on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
Neither a French government spokesperson nor Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot immediately responded to a request for comment when approached by Politico.
February 16, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, France, Poland, UK |
Leave a comment
Growing up is the often painful process of coming to terms with the reality of one’s own limitations, and recognizing that it’s impossible to gain anything in life without hard work and sacrifice. Wisdom lies in recognizing that—as the economist Thomas Sowell would put it—getting what we want often requires a tradeoff. Children, particularly the children of indulgent parents, struggle to recognize this. They want everything NOW and they don’t want to give up anything to get it.
For some time now I have perceived that the European Union—both the supranational entity and the constituent nations—are governed by childish people with childish ideas about what is best for their countries. This has been very painful for me to watch, because I love Europe and spent the happiest years of my life living there.
Especially distressing has been the ruin of Germany with stupid “green energy” initiatives that have wrecked it’s brilliant manufacturing sector, and with its bizarre welcoming of young males from the Arabic-speaking world.
The objective of these policies is apparently to destroy the 1). Economic security of young German men who had long enjoyed great, skilled labor jobs, and 2). the physical security of young German women.
The entire “green energy” hoax completely ignores the laws of thermodynamics, while allowing millions of young Arabic men into Germany ignores the basic reality that most of them have nothing to do in Germany but hang out and chase cute German girls. Any grownup man with a shred of common sense instantly recognizes the folly of these polices.
Equally idiotic has been the willingness of Germany’s so-called leaders to wreck the the excellent relationship that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder forged with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This relationship—expressed by the construction of the NordStream Pipeline—was built on the essential facts that Germany needed Russia’s plentiful and cheap gas, while Russia (which has an economy smaller than that of Texas) needed a market in which to sell it.
Under the baleful influence of the equally moronic Neocons in Washington, German officials decided to wreck this relationship by playing along with the U.S. fantasy of dominating Ukraine, even if it meant destabilizing the balance of power in Europe and wrecking Germany’s fruitful relationship with Russia.
In the last few days, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance have been in Europe, with Hegseth giving talks to NATO officials in Brussels and Vance giving a talk at the Munich Security Conference.
In stark contrast with the creepy weirdos in the Biden administration, the youthful and handsome Hegseth and Vance cut fine figures at their respective talks, which were the most incisive I’ve heard in years. Compared to Kamala Harris’s mealy-mouthed and jarring ramble at the 2022 Munich Security Council—which was apparently designed to insult Russia and dismiss its legitimate security concerns—Vance’s talk was elegant and crystal clear.
The message of both Hegseth and Vance to Europe’s leaders was essentially the same—namely, it’s time for them to grow up and recognize the hard facts of life. Just as the U.S. can no longer afford to indulge its own “regime change” fantasies all over the world, Europe can no longer afford to wreck itself with inane, virtue-signaling fantasies about green energy, mass migration, and Ukraine.
Vance also pointed out the sheer nonsense of claiming to be dedicated to democracy while at the same time persecuting popular parties and even trying to nullify election results. The overheated rhetoric about the rise of conservative populist parties being “far right” and “Nazi” has gotten so tired that no one outside of privileged political and leftist circles believes it.
Hegseth made the following clear:
- NATO membership for Ukraine is not a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement
- As part of any [postwar] security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine
- A return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders, an official Ukrainian war aim, is “an unrealistic objective.”
- Stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.
- The United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency.
In other words, the U.S. will no longer pursue an antagonistic relationship with Russia in Europe, especially in Ukraine, but will seek a negotiated settlement. If the Europeans want to persist in having an antagonistic relationship with Russia, they are on their own and will have to pay for it.
Hegseth was criticized for what appeared to be making concessions to Russia before President Trump had even commenced negotiations with Russia. The (Neocon) National Review gave him a hard time for this, and an equally hard time for apparently walking back some of these remarks the following day, which made him seem amateurish.
And yet, let’s face it— a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders is “an unrealistic objective” at this point.
Is a single American, English, German, or Austrian reader of this post willing to die fighting Russia in order to ensure that Ukraine’s 1991 borders are restored?
If you, dear reader, are too old to fight in Ukraine, would you be willing to sacrifice one of your children to restore Ukraine’s 1991 borders?
Samuel Johnson famously remarked:
When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
Likewise, when a man knows that either he or his young sons are going to be sent abroad to die to maintain Ukraine’s 1991 borders, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. In light of this, I believe it is high time for the Neocon armchair warriors in Washington to quit talking and start enlisting.
Join the army, get into shape, and get your asses over to Ukraine. On the flight over, you may take heart in reading Kipling’s poem to a “Young British Soldier,” which concludes with this heart-rousing stanza:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Neocons, go to your Gawd like a soldier!
February 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
The deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has hailed US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling it a rare moment of American honesty about Europe’s weaknesses and Vance himself “a brave guy.”
In his speech on Friday, Vance touched on the migration crisis, security, freedom of speech, and apparent democratic backsliding on the continent.
Medvedev said Vance “unexpectedly lit up” the conference, calling his remarks a harsh but truthful indictment of modern Europe.
“Everyone expected to hear the usual partner-like curtseys to Europe and comments on Donald Trump’s words about the end of the Ukrainian conflict. But he went and harshly scolded the Europeans who have completely lost themselves in recent years: your democracy is weak, your elections are crap, your rules that violate normal human morality are crap,” Medvedev wrote.
He added that the Europeans would retaliate against him if he did not hold such a high post. “However, they will forgive him; they will begrudgingly accept the humiliating rebuke from their senior partner with resentment,” Medvedev concluded.
Vance was particularly severe in his indictment of European democracy. He voiced concerns over the erosion of democratic values in Europe, drawing attention to the annulment of the presidential election in Romania. The first round in November saw right-wing anti-establishment candidate Calin Georgescu come out on top with 22.94%, beating liberal leftist and social democrat candidates. Romania’s top court cited intelligence documents alleging “irregularities” in his campaign performance in making their ruling, although the validity of that evidence has been questioned.
The US vice president also cautioned against rising censorship in the region, told European member-states to take greater responsibility for their own defense, and raised the alarm over mass migration.
US President Donald Trump praised Vance’s speech as “brilliant.” However, some European officials were not so keen on the address. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas warned that it signaled growing transatlantic tension. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius meanwhile, blasted the remarks, calling them “not acceptable.”
On the other hand, Russian Senator Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov described Vance’s statements as a “cold shower” for European Russophobes.
February 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | European Union, Human rights, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
The US government, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has been funnelling millions of dollars into student and professional media outlets across Europe mainly in Eastern and Central Europe, data from US government spending has shown.
This long-term financial support has been framed as part of Washington’s “commitment to supporting democratic values and civil society in the [European] region” under the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia/Economic Support Fund (AEECA/ESF PD) programmes.
The scale and scope of the funding have raised questions about the extent of US influence in shaping media narratives and civil society in these regions.
Democracy or Influence? Moldova case study
In the heart of Eastern Europe, in Moldova, a former Soviet Union country strategically located between Ukraine and Romania, the US has quietly poured millions of dollars into the nation’s media sector.
The funding, directed toward media organisations such as Internews Network Moldova, the journalist association Asociația Presei Independente (API), the Media Alternativa Association and investigative outlet Rise Moldova, has played a pivotal role in transforming Moldova’s media landscape. It has undone, little by little, the deep-rooted influence of Russia in the country television networks replacing that with its own Biden administration American influence.
Between 2019 and 2024, the Media Alternativa Association — owner of TV8, the fourth most-watched television channel in Moldova —received $1.85 million (€1.7 million) from Washington.
Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, Western sanctions resulted in the suspension and cancellation of licences for several Russian-owned TV stations in Moldova, creating a vacuum.
US-funded media outlets quickly moved in, filling the space once occupied by Kremlin-aligned broadcasters.
According to the Media Alternativa Association, until 2022 Moldova’s broadcast landscape remained heavily influenced by Russian networks, with political parties leveraging media holdings to shape public opinion.
That influence is now waning — replaced by institutions receiving direct financial backing from the US.
US-funded investigative outlet Rise Moldova has exclusively focused on exposing Russian influence within Moldova.
It is also a member of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an international investigative network with close ties to US agencies.
Critics have argued this funding has fostered a media environment more aligned with Washington’s strategic goals rather than true editorial independence.
A key architect of Moldova’s evolving media landscape is Internews Network Moldova, a US-backed organisation which has played a similar role in reshaping media environments in other Eastern European nations such as Ukraine.
Members of Internews Network Moldova – Ziarul de Gardă and NewsMaker – two of Moldova’s leading investigative media outlets, have frequently published reports linking Moldovan corruption to Russian interests.
In 2017, Internews launched a new initiative in Moldova titled “Media Enabling Democracy, Inclusion, and Accountability in Moldova” (MEDIA-M) — a project bankrolled by USAID and the UK government.
Officially, MEDIA-M sought to develop an independent, professional press sector resilient to political and financial pressures.
Its impact has been unmistakable: a media environment increasingly aligned with Western narratives and a weakened Russian presence in Moldova’s information space.
The US has also funded democratic programmes fostering the Western identity of Moldovans.
Washington’s $20 million (€19.4 million) “Moldova Resilience Initiative,” initially planned to run from 2022 to 2023 but extended to 2026, was designed to “strengthen popular support for a democratic, European Moldova” by “uniting Moldovans around a shared European identity.”
In 2024, the US government gave $83,602 to the US billionaire George Soros Moldova Foundation.
According to the website, the Soros Moldova Foundation has been supporting the European integration process of the Republic of Moldova for almost fifteen years.
These developments seemed to bear fruit when, in October 2024, Moldova held a decisive presidential election and a referendum on European Union accession.
With voters asked to choose between a pro-European future or maintaining ties with Russia, the election outcome — narrowly favouring EU integration — was attributed by some analysts, at least in part, to sustained US influence.
The monitoring of the election was entrusted to Promo-LEX, a think-tank heavily funded by the US government. In 2024 alone, Promo-LEX secured $1.7 million (€1.6 million) in US grants.
The scale of US financial involvement in Moldova’s political and media ecosystem has been significant.
According to USAID records — some of which are no longer publicly accessible —the US has invested over $640 million (€620.6 million) in Moldova since 1992.
The actual financial commitment through grants and indirect funding mechanisms has probably hit the several billions in payments for the whole country.
USAID “backbone” of the Ukrainian media landscape
Across the Moldovan border in Ukraine, USAID’s influence is, perhaps, even more pronounced.
Via Internews Network Ukraine, USAID funded a network of social media-driven news platforms in Ukraine, including New Voice of Ukraine, VoxUkraine, Detector Media and the Institute of Mass Information.
These outlets have published reports targeting figures including US economist Jeffrey Sachs, Republican commentator Tucker Carlson and journalist Glenn Greenwald, portraying them as part of a “Russian propaganda network”.
According to Wikileaks, Internews Network globally has ties with the Democratic Party in the US.
Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information in Ukraine, said an estimated 80 per cent of Ukrainian media outlets have collaborated with USAID in some capacity.
While this support has been instrumental in sustaining independent journalism during the ongoing conflict with Russia, it has also raised questions about the extent of US influence over Ukraine’s media environment
A report by the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), titled US Aid Freeze Numbs Ukraine, revealed that USAID was “reaching deep into areas of the state and civil society” in Ukraine.
Funding for independent media has been drawn from a $290 million (€281 million) pool allocated for democracy, human rights and governance initiatives.
These efforts, framed as support for democratic values, have also underscored the significant leverage the US holds over Ukraine’s media and civil society sectors.
USAID’s involvement in the media landscape has intensified following the outbreak of the war with Russia in 2022.
Since 2021, the organisation has provided technical support to 66 local media outlets in Ukraine, aiming to bolster independent journalism in the face of Russian disinformation and propaganda.
In the UK, the publicly-owned BBC acknowledged that USAID contributed to 8 per cent of its BBC Media Action charity funding in 2023-24.
“Like many international development organisations, BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8 per cent of our income in 2023-24. We’re doing everything we can to minimise the impact on our partners and the people we serve,” the charity stated on its website.
While it is not directly linked to the BBC’s core news operations, that has raised questions about foreign funding in public media-led enterprises.
Similarly, it was revealed that US-owned international news outlet Politico received money via subscription to its Politico Pro platform from the US government.
Although this funding is not directly allocated to Politico’s journalism activities, subscriptions to Politico Pro — used by policymakers and industry leaders — are a source of revenue for the media organisation.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media giant that also publishes the German Bild, Bild am Sonntag, Welt, Welt am Sonntag, as well as the TV channel Welt, Business Insider and the US newsletter Morning Brew.
Washington’s involvement in European media has extended beyond direct funding to local outlets.
Perhaps the most explosive revelation came in December 2024, when French investigative outlet Mediapart exposed the extent of US control over the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
According to Mediapart, Washington has supplied half of OCCRP’s budget, retained veto power over senior staff appointments, and directed investigations targeting political regimes opposed by the US, such as those in Russia and Venezuela.
OCCRP’s 2023 audit report confirmed $11 million (€10.6 million) in funding from US agencies.
This revelation has sparked concerns about the independence of OCCRP and the potential for US influence to shape its investigative priorities.
The White House’s involvement in European media and civil society appeared to be part of a broader strategy.
A paper from the US Congressional Research Services published in 2022 argued that US foreign assistance was an essential instrument of the country’s foreign policy.
“Foreign assistance is the largest component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many Members of Congress as an essential instrument of US foreign policy,” the document stated.
It revealed that in the 2019 financial year, US foreign assistance totalled an estimated $48.18 billion (€46.7 million) of the federal budget authority.
The report said that meant US foreign assistance served the United States’ soft power and sharp power ambitions around the globe. It likened it to the Marshall Plan after the Second World War that was designed to rebuild European economies so they could resume trade with the US, benefiting US industries.
In Albania, for instance, the US has recently committed $20,000 to initiatives aimed at preventing hate speech and discrimination.
While modest compared to other regions, the funding reflected a broader pattern: Washington’s use of financial support to advance its foreign policy interests or liberal ideals.
Observers ask, where does support for democracy end and influence begin?
The US government’s funding of media and civil society organisations has reshaped narratives and counteracted Russian influence in Eastern and Central Europe.
But at what cost? Critics have argued this financial involvement risked undermining the very independence it was designed to protect.
On February 3, USAID worldwide funding was officially halted for 90 days.
February 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Democratic Party, European Union, Moldova, Soros Foundation, Ukraine, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he will impose 25 percent tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, as well as additional tariffs on several countries.
Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita writes about nervous movements in Brussels, which is preparing for a response if President Trump decides to go to a trade war with the EU.
“The Polish presidency organized an urgent teleconference of EU ministers on Wednesday afternoon regarding the American announcements of a trade war. No decision has come into effect yet, so there can be no counter-decision from the EU, but in the face of increasingly decisive threats from the U.S. directed by President Trump, Europe must show unity,” one source told Rzeczpospolita.
American tariffs would be a serious blow to EU countries. The EU as a whole exports around €6 billion of steel and aluminum to the US annually, €3 billion for each of these raw materials.
Furthermore, when it comes to automobiles, the EU’s import duties are clearly unfair, with the EU hitting the U.S. with 10 percent duties on U.S.-made cars, while the U.S. rate is only 2.5 percent. Trump has long pointed to this imbalance. In addition, the EU charges VAT, which Washington treats as an additional fee.
The EU is arguing it cannot reduce its tariffs on the U.S. to 2.5 percent because then it would automatically (in accordance with the rules of the most favored nation clause) also have to reduce tariffs on car imports from other member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including China. And it is already in serious dispute with them when it comes to electric cars subsidized by Beijing.
With vehicles, the stakes are incredible for the EU compared, as the auto industry accounts for €65 billion in exports to the U.S., with 74 percent of the 920,000 cars sold in the U.S. produced by the three biggest German car manufacturers, Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes. Car sales have fallen in Europe and sales are also shrinking in China, which means that the German car manufacturers cannot afford to lose the U.S. market either. Behind the scenes, there is heavy lobbying from the U.S. to avoid a trade war.
“We are deeply concerned about the possible imposition of tariffs by the United States. Instead of tit-for-tat tariffs, the EU and the U.S. should work together to reach a grand agreement to avoid a potential trade conflict,” said Sigrid de Vries, secretary general of ACEA, the EU’s automotive industry federation.
Brussels argues that starting a trade war is not in the interests of the U.S.
“The EU sees no justification for imposing tariffs on our exports, which are counterproductive. Tariffs are taxes, bad for businesses, even worse for consumers and harmful to the global trading system,” said Maros Sefcovic, EU trade commissioner.
The EU indicates that it will reduce the trade deficit with the U.S. by boosting purchases of liquified natural gas (LNG), which the EU needs anyway, and American weapons.
However, in the event that Trump slaps the EU with tariffs, there are countermeasures being prepared, including retaliatory tariffs. This already occurred during the previous trade war with Europe under the previous Trump administration, including products produced in states where Trump had substantial support, such as bourbon from Kentucky, Harley Davidson motorcycles from Wisconsin, and orange juice from Florida.
Since the last trade skirmish with Trump, the EU has also gained other ways to harass American producers. Since December 2023, it has had an instrument against economic coercion (ACI), which allows it to impose tariffs, restrictions on trade in services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on access to foreign direct investment or public procurement. It can also attack technology companies that are dear to Trump’s heart. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) contain a wide range of measures to influence large internet platforms, which could hit companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta.
At the same time, there are worries that a trade war could quickly spiral, which could wreak economic havoc on both sides of the Atlantic.
February 13, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics | China, European Union, Germany, United States |
Leave a comment
It’s obviously good news for the world that the US has finally ended its perverse policy of anti-diplomacy (its absurd essence: When there’s a really dangerous problem, do not try to solve it by communicating) regarding Russia, the other great power with a massive nuclear arsenal.
But let’s not forget the even bigger picture: US President Donald Trump will not (and cannot) admit it – and Russian President Vladimir Putin is wise enough to not rub it in – but the single most important take-away from yesterday’s phone conversation is that Russia has won a war against the West.
Yes, it was a half-proxy war (that is, by proxy for the West, often half-heartedly, while very direct for both Russia and Ukraine), but that makes little geopolitical difference now. The West has been asking for this defeat. It could have easily been avoided, either by finding a compromise with Russia earlier or by staying out of the fight between Moscow and Kiev. But now things are what they are and the new reality is that the West can be stopped and forced to negotiate on its opponent’s (in this case, Russia’s) terms – and that the whole world knows this now as a tested, empirical fact. This is a historic turning point, and also good news for humanity. The reverberations will be felt for decades.
Ukrainians have been used and sold out. Those few in the West warning that this would happen were systematically maligned and sidelined. But now it will be Ukraine’s false ‘friends’ (and their own US- and Canadian-based diaspora) who should have a reckoning coming. So does the Kiev regime. The tragedy of Ukraine is immense, and it was unnecessary. In Ukraine, this, too, will become a historic turning point, and will have long-lasting consequences.
What will happen between the US and Russia is not yet predictable, but a broader détente is possible. The perversely, self-destructively, treasonously obedient EU elites, in any case, will learn what it feels like to be first used and then ignored, just like Ukraine. The worst thing they could do – and as things currently stand, something they might actually do – is let the US ‘Europeanize’ the war. The Biden administration has done a brilliant job wrecking its EU-NATO vassals. Trump might complete it by luring them into the trap of trying to tangle with Russia on their own – while Washington and Moscow make up, as they should.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
February 13, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
By Uriel Araujo | February 13, 2025
Even a peace deal will not put an end to problems in the region or tensions in Europe. US-funded Ukrainian radical nationalism will not just go away overnight. Likewise, there is no easy way out of Ukraine’s structural problems with endemic corruption and criminality. When it comes to the Ukrainian crisis, unfortunately, the end is not the end.
The Polish, and the rest of Europe for that matter, are bracing themselves for an explosion of cross-border organized crime activity with the end of the conflict in Ukraine (which now seems closer than ever). Poland’s President Andrzej Duda is warning about such an “explosion” of crime within Ukraine with the end of the war, and is calling on Kyiv’s allies to provide it with “massive support”. Moreover, Duda is worried, as he said in an interview to the Financial Times, that this could spill across the border into his own country, and also affect the rest of Europe and even the United States, with migration waves and transnational mob activity.
The situation reminds the Polish leader of Russia in the early nineties, after Soviet collapse, when organized crime gangs of the so-called “Vor” subculture were able to recruit veterans of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. The Ukrainian soldiers, in the present situation, would go back home to find a ruined economy. “Just recall the times when the Soviet Union collapsed and how much the organised crime rate went up in western Europe, but also in the US”, said Duda.
Duda should be taken seriously: The Ukrainian mafia gangs are major players in international crime including the dope trade, prostitution and weapons trafficking. In addition to that, Transparency International ranked Ukraine at 104 out of 180 countries in its 2023 corruption index. Ukraine’s level of corruption is similar to what one may find in Uganda, for instance.
There is another reason why Duda’s warning makes sense: it implies that the end of the conflict could be near enough so that Poland (and Europe) should start taking measures to prepare for such a scenario. There are of course two main ways the war can come to an end: via a Ukrainian victory or via a Russian one. The former is tremendously unlikely as of now unless something extraordinarý were to happen. The latter is obviously what Duda must have in mind.
Poland, despite occasional tensions, has been a steady ally of Kyiv, but even the Polish authorities in Warsaw are saying that they have no intention of deploying their troops in the neighboring country (to help it against Russia). Other European leaders feel similarly about this – with his proposals about deploying troops in Ukraine, France’s President Emmanuel Macron is to become a lone voice.
The situation has obviously changed, largely due to Trump’s election. Even if Ukraine were to somehow obtain victory now through military or diplomatic means, the heavily armed and radicalized nationalists in the country (who can be found in the military and a number of militias) would not simply disappear and would in fact feel empowered in such an unlikely scenario, thus planting the seed for further conflicts with Russia in the future and with other neighbors, including Poland. Again this does not even seem like a possibility at all right now.
A third scenario would be some kind of negotiated peace with Russia still being most plausible. This in fact is thus just a variation of the Russian victory scenario. Here is why such victory today (more than ever) is the most likely scenario to take place pretty soon:
1. The first reason has to do with the Trump factor. The US President, in a clear departure from the previous administration’s foreign policy, has just announced that Washington-Moscow talks on ending the war are to begin “immediately.” It actually makes sense for the US to take the initiative because the whole matter has to a large degree been an American proxy attrition war against Russia.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already made Washington’s new stance clear during a meeting at the NATO headquarters in Brussels: he said it would not be realistic for Ukraine to expect to reclaim its pre-2014 borders and there is no point in seeking such an “illusionary goal” and thereby “prolonging” the war. Hegseth also ruled out the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member.
Partly “withdrawing” from Europe (albeit still eyeing Greenland) is in any case in line with Trump’s neo-Monroeism. While focusing on the border and on Panama and other issues, Trump also has to face pressing issues with regard to the crisis in Palestine and Israeli demands. Ukraine is just not his priority, it seems.
2. One can argue that Trump’s call for peace in Ukraine could be only for show and would actually be a way of shifting the Ukrainian “burden” onto Europe. The problem is that it remains unclear whether Europe right now would be capable or willing to play this role. As Zelensky himself told European leaders last month, Europe simply cannot protect Ukraine without American help. The European members of NATO in fact face one concrete threat of aggression against a European ally today, and that comes from Washington itself, which is quite an ironic development. The US President, amazingly enough, has refused to rule out military action to conquer Greenland, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
In other words, a Russian victory, perhaps by a negotiated peace, cannot be taken for granted (nothing can) but is increasingly likely. It would in any case put an end to an unfortunate conflict which has been tremendously costly in a number of ways, including in terms of the humanitarian crisis.
The last two years of the conflict should be always seen as part of the longer one-decade crisis which started in 2014. One may be critical of Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a military campaign in 2022. The fact remains that the current crisis has been largely driven by American interference, by pushing NATO expansion and supporting the coup d’etat which overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych, as well as backing the subsequent ultra-nationalist Maidan revolution. Washington funded and armed the Ukrainian far-right militias as well which have been integrated into the country’s military and security forces as the case of the infamous Azov regiment.
Ukrainian chauvinism (US funded or not) has in turn fueled tensions – and not only with Russia but also with other neighbors, as I wrote before. The Ukrainian far-right would be empowered even by a Russian victory, because it could promote a revengeful narrative or denounce Zelensky’s “betrayal”.
The ultra-nationalists are not the only ones who can cause problems in the aftermath of today’s crisis – mobsters are another force in itself, as mentioned. With regards to Duda’s concern about a boom in mafia activity, the truth is that Polish-Ukrainian first steps taken towards a confederacy risk blowing back and fueling anti-Ukrainian feelings in Poland, as Poland has issues with its own strand of radical nationalism. Polish ultra-nationalists in fact could also claim parts of neighboring Ukraine with the end of the war, as I’ve written.
It is said one cannot uncook an egg. Be as it may, even if Ukraine and Russia reach a peace deal, this will not put an end to problems in the region or even to tensions in Europe, more broadly. US-funded Ukrainian radical nationalism (which has roots in the new independent state of Ukraine and its attempt at nation-building since the nineties) will not just go away overnight. Likewise, there is no easy way out of Ukraine’s structural problems with endemic corruption and criminality. When it comes to the Ukrainian crisis, unfortunately, the end is not the end.
Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
February 13, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | European Union, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, energy issues, and the exchange of citizens in a telephone call that lasted for one and a half hours, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov revealed.
The phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has triggered a litany of reactions from European politicians.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy posted a joined statement by several European states that read: “Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”
UK Defense Secretary John Healey claimed that no peace talks could be done “about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense chief, lamented the development as “regrettable” arguing that the Trump administration had made “concessions” to Russia, while asserting that “it would have been better to speak about a possible NATO membership for Ukraine or possible losses of territory at the negotiating table.”
Joining the bandwagon, Germany Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock added that “peace can only be achieved together. And that means: with Ukraine and with the Europeans.”
In addition, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that “All we need is peace… Ukraine, Europe and the United States should work on this together.”
For his part, French top diplomat Jean-Noel Barrot insisted that “There will be no just and durable peace in Ukraine without Europeans.”
Meanwhile, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur chimed in, saying: “Europe is investing in Ukrainian defense, and Europe is rebuilding Ukraine with European Union money, with our bilateral aid – so we have to be there.”
And finally, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called for turbo-charging defense production among member states, adding: “We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of strength.”
February 13, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, France, Germany, NATO, UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 