Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s Peace Push is Attempt to Save Ukraine From Total Military and Political Collapse: Observer

Sputnik – 11.12.2025

The current moment “is critical for Ukraine as Zelensky’s regime is coming closer to collapse both politically and on the frontline, where Russia is advancing on all fronts,” Armando Mema, a member of the Finnish Freedom Alliance party, told Sputnik.

While Trump inherited the Ukraine mess from Biden, who “provoked this conflict and created this disaster,” he’s trying to prevent “a total defeat of Ukraine” because “it would be a disaster for his administration too,” Mema explained.

But Zelensky “is not interested in peace,” as seen in his recent demands for “security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO, [which] he knows… he cannot get,” the observer said.

Knowing that’s impossible, “he uses as an excuse to continue to be in power despite his mandate [ending]. Zelensky has banned all political opposition parties in Ukraine, arrested opponents, including regular citizens who were simply advocating for peace. Zelensky knows that if a regular election were to be held, he will lose immediately and all his administration will be prosecuted for corruption,” Mema emphasized.

As for reports of a US-mediated push to restore Russia’s access to Europe’s energy markets, Mema predicts this will remain “impossible” to achieve as long as the current crop of leaders are in charge.

“But Trump has started to dismantle the EU leadership (Macron, Merz, Ursula, Meloni and so on)” and over time they will be replaced by leaders who take account of their own countries’ interests, the Finnish politician believes.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU’s X fine a ‘violent attack’ on free speech – French party leader

RT | December 8, 2025

The fine imposed by the EU on social media platform X constitutes a “violent attack” on freedom of speech, the leader of France’s Patriots party, Florian Philippot, told RT in an exclusive interview on Monday.

His comments came after the EU fined X €120 million ($163 million) last week for allegedly failing to comply with transparency requirements under the bloc’s 2022 Digital Services Act. The platform’s US-based majority owner, Elon Musk, responded by denouncing the EU, likening it to “the Fourth Reich.”

“The absolutely crazy fine of €120 million that the European Commission has just imposed on Elon Musk’s social networks is obviously a violent attack against freedom of expression by the European Union,” Philippot told RT.

The EU had used what he described as a thin justification for the decision, pointing to “the blue pastilles on the accounts on X” and calling it a “pretext” that “made no sense.”

The politician went on to say that the EU’s “real face of censorship” was becoming visible “in the eyes of the whole world,” and that influential voices, “like Musk in particular,” were rising “to claim its pure and simple disappearance.”

Philippot said he was watching reactions from abroad, including from the administration of US President Donald Trump, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who he said reacted “very firmly against the European Union.”

He said Musk had, “for the first time,” triggered what he called a “worldwide deflagration” by arguing it was necessary “to abolish the European Union,” which Philippot described as “a totalitarian regime.”

The French politician also referenced Musk’s separate remarks branding the EU a “bureaucratic monster” and saying its leadership has been “slowly smothering Europe to death.” Musk wrote that “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries so that governments can better represent their people.”

Aligning himself with that message, Philippot said his party was a “sovereignist” movement backing a French departure from the bloc. According to him, “Frexit” would restore “freedom of expression,” shift diplomacy toward peace rather than “war against Russia,” and help tackle domestic issues including the economy, agriculture, energy, and immigration.

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Is a Menace, Not a Benefit, to America

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | December 8, 2025

Since its creation in 1949, NATO has been the keystone of U.S. foreign policy in Europe. Indeed, the alliance has been the most important feature of Washington’s overall strategy of global primacy. America’s political and policy elites have embraced two key assumptions and continue to do so. One is that NATO is essential to the peace and security of the entire transatlantic region and will remain so for the indefinite future. The other sacred assumption is that the alliance is highly beneficial to America’s own core security and economic interests.

Whatever validity those assumptions may have had at one time, they are dangerously obsolete today. The toxic, militaristic views toward Russia that too many European leaders are adopting have made NATO into a snare that could entangle the United States in a large-scale war with ominous nuclear implications. It is urgent for Donald Trump’s administration and sensible proponents of a U.S. foreign policy based on realism and restraint to eliminate such a risky and unnecessary situation.

Throughout the Cold War and its immediate aftermath, NATO’s European members followed Washington’s policy lead on important issues with little dissent or resistance. That situation is no longer true. The governments and populations in the alliance’s East European members (the countries that the Kremlin held in bondage during the Cold War but that eagerly joined NATO once the Soviet Union collapsed) have adopted an especially aggressive, uncompromising stance toward Russia as the USSR’s successor. They have lobbied with special fervor in favor of admitting Ukraine to NATO, despite Moscow’s repeated warnings over the past two decades that such a step would constitute an intolerable provocation. The East European states also have been avid supporters of the proxy war that NATO has waged against Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Their toxic hostility toward Russia has inexorably made inroads even among the previously more restrained, sensible members of the alliance. With a few partial exceptions, such as Hungary and Slovakia, NATO governments now push for unrealistic, very risky policies with respect to the Ukraine-Russia war. Washington’s volatile, ever-changing policy under President Trump regarding that armed conflict has not helped matters.

The Trump administration’s latest approach has been to try to inject some badly needed realism into the position that Ukraine and its NATO supporters pursue. Realities on the battlefield confirm that Russia is winning, albeit slowly and at considerable cost, the bloody war against its neighbor. Moscow’s forces are gradually expanding the amount of territory they control. Kiev’s propaganda campaign to portray Ukraine as a stalwart democracy and a vital symbol of resistance to an authoritarian Russia is collapsing as well. Corruption scandals now plague the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky, as does growing evidence of his regime’s authoritarianism. Proponents of NATO’s continuing military intervention now seek to downplay the once-dominant “moral case” for the alliance’s involvement and try to stress Ukraine’s alleged strategic importance to both the United States and its allies.

Stubbornness and lack of realism on the part of NATO’s European members (as well as too many American policy analysts and media mavens) is worrisome and dangerous. They have launched a concerted effort to torpedo the Trump administration’s latest peace initiative.  Proponents of continuing the alliance’s proxy war insist that no peace accord include territorial concessions by Ukraine. They also demand that Kiev retain the “right” to join NATO. Finally, they insist that any settlement contain a NATO “security guarantee” to Ukraine, and that a peacekeeping force that includes troops from alliance members enforce that settlement. Britain and France have explicitly made the demand to send troops.

Such demands amount to a poison pill designed to kill any prospect of an agreement that Moscow might accept. The insistence on a security guarantee to Kiev and a peacekeeping contingent especially fits that description. Any accord that puts NATO military personnel in Ukraine would make the country a protectorate of the alliance, even if Kiev did not receive an official membership card. The commitment itself would have NATO’s military might perched on Russia’s border. That is precisely the outcome that Moscow has sought to prevent for decades.

Extremely inflammatory and combative rhetoric on the part of high-level European officials increasingly accompany such provocative, anti-Russia policy stances. Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee, even mused that the alliance should consider the option of launching a “preemptive” military strike against Russia. Other officials in NATO member governments have asserted that the alliance (or “Europe”) must be prepared to wage war against Russia, if relations continue to deteriorate.

NATO’s European hawks are flying high, and the irresponsible options they toy with put the United States in grave danger. The NATO alliance is no longer even arguably a security asset for the American people. Instead, it has become an increasingly worrisome, perilous liability – a loose cannon that poses a grave danger to our country.

NATO was created so that the United States could protect a collection of weak democracies in Western Europe still suffering from the aftermath of World War II against a strong, menacing totalitarian state: the Soviet Union. That world no longer exists. Today, a much larger, stronger collection of democratic and quasi-democratic European states confronts Russia – a weaker, non-totalitarian power. Even without the United States, the European countries are capable of building and deploying whatever forces they deem necessary to sustain their security interests. NATO’s European contingent also has its own, extremely assertive (indeed, aggressive) policy agenda toward Moscow. That agenda endangers rather than benefits the United States and the American people. It is now imperative for America to sever the transatlantic security tie and say farewell to NATO.

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

France won’t let EU seize chunk of frozen Russian funds – FT

RT | December 8, 2025

Paris does not want to seize frozen Russian state assets held in French private banks, Financial Times reported on Monday, citing sources.

French officials support the European Commission’s plan for a “reparations loan” for Ukraine but oppose any scheme that would draw on Russian money held at commercial banks, arguing those lenders are bound by different contractual obligations than Euroclear, the outlet said.

Last week, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen set out two options to provide Kiev with €90 billion ($105 billion) over the next two years: EU-level borrowing backed by the bloc’s budget, or a long-debated “reparations loan” backed by profits from the blocked assets that would require institutions holding Russian cash to transfer it into a new loan vehicle.

For more than two years, France has declined to name the private banks holding about €18 billion in Russian assets, citing client confidentiality – a stance that has angered some other EU governments, the newspaper said.

According to the report, Paris has also withheld details on how any interest accrued on the funds is being used.

The assets immobilized in France are reportedly the second-largest pool in Europe, behind holdings at Belgium’s Euroclear.

After the roughly €185 billion held at Euroclear, most of the remaining €25 billion of blocked Russian state funds is held at commercial banks in France and Belgium, several people familiar with the matter told the FT.

The loan scheme has drawn criticism from several EU members. Belgium has warned that an outright confiscation would pose legal and security risks, while other major holders of Russian assets, including Luxembourg and Germany, also oppose a seizure, along with Italy, Hungary and Slovakia.

Recent media reports have said the US is lobbying several EU members to block plans to use frozen assets as collateral for the €140 billion loan to Ukraine, arguing the funds should be kept as leverage in peace talks with Kiev and Moscow. Politico earlier reported that Washington wants the EU to return the money once Russia signs a peace agreement with Ukraine.

Russia has condemned any use of its sovereign assets as theft and warned of legal action and retaliation.

December 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

EU targets platforms that refuse to censor free speech – Telegram founder

RT | December 6, 2025

The EU is unfairly targeting social media platforms that allow dissenting or critical speech, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said.

He was responding to a 2024 post by Elon Musk, the owner of X, who claimed that the European Commission had offered the platform a secret deal to avoid fines in return for censoring certain statements. The EU fined X €120 million ($140 million) the day before.

According to Durov, the EU imposes strict and unrealistic rules on tech companies as a way to punish those that do not comply with quiet censorship demands.

“The EU imposes impossible rules so it can punish tech firms that refuse to silently censor free speech,” Durov wrote on X on Saturday.

He also referred to his detention in France last year, which he called politically motivated. He claimed that during that time, the head of France’s DGSE asked him to “ban conservative voices in Romania” ahead of an election, an allegation French officials denied. He also said intelligence agents offered help with his case if Telegram quietly removed channels tied to Moldova’s election.

Durov repeated both claims in his recent post, describing the case as “a baseless criminal investigation” followed by pressure to censor speech in Romania and Moldova.

Later on Saturday, Durov wrote: “The EU exclusively targets platforms that host inconvenient or dissenting speech (Telegram, X, TikTok…). Platforms that algorithmically silence people are left largely untouched, despite far more serious illegal content issues.”

Last year Elon Musk said the European Commission offered X “an illegal secret deal” to quietly censor content. “If we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not,” he wrote.

On Friday, European Commission spokesperson Tom Rainier said the EU fined X €120 million for violating the Digital Services Act. He claimed the fine was unrelated to censorship and was the first enforcement under the law. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the move on X, calling it “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.”

Durov and Musk have both faced pressure from EU regulators under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in 2023. The law requires platforms to remove illegal content quickly, though critics say it can be used to suppress lawful expression.

December 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron’s Proposed Seal of Truth Meets a Wall of Criticism

Macron’s seal of reliability may prove less about journalism and more about obedience

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 4, 2025

Emmanuel Macron thinks the Republic needs a quality seal for reality. The French president recently proposed creating an official “reliability label” for news outlets, modeled on Reporters Without Borders’ Journalism Trust Initiative. He insists it is not censorship. It is a “democratic duty.”

“It is about making our young people understand, encouraging them, motivating them to turn toward press outlets, whether in physical, printed form or digital,” Macron said, as though the French youth were a flock that had wandered into the dangerous fields of the internet and needed shepherding back to Le Monde.

The proposal, presented during a discussion with readers of the Ebra press group, called for a label for outlets that follow ethical standards, validated by “peers and third-party experts.”

The government, he said, would not decide who qualifies. It would only “encourage” such standards. But in France, the words “encourage” and “government” often mean something closer to “mandatory, eventually.”

The model is RSF’s Journalism Trust Initiative, which already certifies media that meet certain requirements. Certified outlets supposedly even get algorithmic advantages on platforms like Bing.

Macron wants a French version, claiming it would bring “international recognition of the professionalism of our journalists and the rigour of our editorial teams.”

Translated from technocrat to plain French: good media will rise to the top, bad media will sink to the digital basement.

This, Macron says, will help fight “disinformation.” The country has heard that promise before. Each new attempt to fight misinformation seems to end up tightening control over information itself.

The idea landed with the subtlety of a brick through a newsroom window.

On BFMTV, Parliamentary Party Leader of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen called it “unworthy,” said the proposal was “extremely dangerous,” accusing Macron of wanting “to master information.”

Bruno Retailleau, leader of Les Républicains, said “no government has the right to filter the media or dictate the truth.”

The Mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said the president had “crossed a fundamental line.” Even some journalists balked at being graded by a system endorsed by the state.

Macron denied everything. “There is not going to be a state label, and even less a ‘ministry of truth,’” said government spokeswoman Maud Bregeon after the cabinet meeting.

Macron repeated that “it is not the state that should verify” the truth, since “otherwise it becomes a dictatorship.”

So far, the reassurance has not worked. The term “Ministry of Truth” is now glued to the project in every headline, thanks in part to a viral editorial by Pascal Praud on CNews, who accused the president of “wanting to impose a single narrative.”

In a remarkable act of irony, the Élysée responded to critics on X by posting a video labeled “warning, false information.”

The president’s communications team, while denying the existence of a Ministry of Truth, had just produced something that looked exactly like one.

The post set off another round of outrage.

Jordan Bardella, President of the National Rally, said Macron’s proposal was “the reflex of a man who has lost power and seeks to maintain it by controlling information.”

The label plan is part of Macron’s wider campaign against disinformation. He has floated legal changes to allow “false information” to be blocked online more quickly and has repeatedly called for tighter regulation of social media, describing the current state of the internet as “the Wild West.”

It is not hard to see why the issue obsesses him. Macron and his wife have been the targets of online rumors for years.

For a president who sees himself as a technocratic reformer, the swamp of digital conspiracy has become both a personal irritant and a political threat.

Macron insists that only a system of certified journalism can protect the public from manipulation. The trouble is, the public does not want the government or anyone tied to it certifying which journalists to trust.

Reporters Without Borders may be an NGO, but any system announced by the president and promoted as a matter of “democratic duty” will carry the scent of state authority.

Once the government endorses a “trust” label, those without it become, by definition, untrustworthy.

December 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

French journalist groups file complaint over press freedom restrictions in Palestinian territories

MEMO | December 2, 2025

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the National Journalists’ Union (SNJ) announced on Tuesday that they filed a complaint over restrictions on press freedom and alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories, Anadolu reports.

The IFJ and SNJ said in a statement that they filed the complaint with Paris’s National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor on Nov. 26 against unknown parties, citing numerous testimonies from French journalists collected anonymously.

“The freedom to inform and to be informed, fundamental principles, must become a reality again in Gaza and the West Bank,” the organizations said, reiterating the need for action and the role of the French justice system.

They noted that the media lockdown of Gaza, an “unprecedented” blackout in the conflict, and the “ruthless repression” of Palestinian journalists, along with 225 killings verified by the IFJ, remain “at the heart of the complaint.”

The two organizations referred to French journalists’ descriptions of daily reality on the ground, marked by denial of access, threats, confiscation of equipment, occasional physical assaults, arbitrary detentions, and sometimes even manhunts.

Underlining that the complaint does not target any specific individual, the watchdogs stressed that the obstacles documented are carried out by military and police units, customs and administrative services, and private individuals, including settlers in the occupied territories.

“The risk of being killed is real, sometimes tangible, when you find yourself pursued by thirty armed settlers. These violations of journalists’ fundamental rights cannot go unpunished,” said Vanessa Ripoche and Julien Fleury, general secretaries of the SNJ.

The statement also underscored that the reported acts take place in occupied territories, which “prevents Israel from invoking state immunity” and “allows French courts to take action,” as the violations target French nationals and affect their fundamental freedoms.

“This is the first time that a legal action of this nature—based both on systematic obstruction of journalists’ work and on war crimes targeting media professionals—has been brought before a national court to protect French reporters in a conflict zone,” said Ines Davau and Louise El Yafi, lawyers for the IFJ and SNJ.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe ‘removed itself’ from Ukraine negotiations – Lavrov

RT | November 30, 2025

Europe has long lost its right to have a say in the Ukraine crisis and effectively “removed itself” from the negotiations process through its own actions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

The top diplomat made the remarks on Sunday to Russian journalist Pavel Zerubin, who asked the minister whether Europe was in its right to “outrageously” push for some role in the negotiations to settle the Ukraine conflict.

“We proceed from the premise… – which I believe is obvious to everybody – that Europe has already removed itself from the talks,” Lavrov said.

Europe has long “used up its chances” to have a say in the settlement process, the top diplomat said, pointing out that it repeatedly derailed efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis since its very beginning, the 2014 Maidan turmoil that resulted culminated with a coup and overthrowal of the democratically elected president.

“Europe spoiled the initial deal of February 2014, when it acted as guarantor for the formal agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. It did nothing when the opposition seized all government agencies the morning after the agreement was signed,” Lavrov said.

The top diplomat also pointed at the admissions made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande, who said “that nobody had intended to fulfill” the Minsk agreements aimed at bringing the civil conflict in then-Ukrainian Donbass to its end.

“The most recent case occurred in April 2022 when, at the demand of the then Prime Minister of the UK Boris Johnson and with Europe’s full acquiescence, if not connivance, the Istanbul agreements were derailed,” the foreign minister said.

Multiple European leaders and institutions have been insisting that any potential peace deal on Ukraine must include the EU as well, ramping up such rhetoric after the US floated its latest plan to resolve the crisis. The proposals reportedly include Kiev abandoning its NATO aspirations and capping the size of its army.

Germany, France, and the UK have reportedly drafted their version of the plan, making it pro-Ukrainian through removing or softening multiple of its points. Russia, however, has already signaled it finds the European proposals “completely unconstructive.”

December 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hungarian PM warns of ‘political earthquake’ in Europe

RT | November 30, 2025

Admitting Ukraine has failed in its conflict with Russia would cause a “political earthquake” in Europe, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. He warned that Western leaders are preparing to send troops and letting the conflict “become a business.”

Orban spoke a day after making a surprise trip to Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Ukraine, trade, and energy. Despite the EU’s diplomatic boycott, he said Hungary has not yielded to pressure to cut ties with Russia and again offered to host peace talks.

Admitting that Ukraine has failed and that this cannot go on “would cause a fundamental earthquake in European politics,” he said during a speech on Saturday.

He warned that the West is increasingly open to direct involvement. “First they gave money, they gave weapons, and now it has emerged that if really necessary, they will also send soldiers,” Orban said.

Hungary has refused to provide weapons or troops to Ukraine and has repeatedly urged for a ceasefire. Orban’s government has frequently clashed with NATO and the EU nations’ leaders over its stance.

Orban believes diplomacy regarding the conflict has fallen prey to the defense sector. “Business circles connected to the military industry have an increasing influence on politics,” he pointed out, citing France’s deal with Kiev to purchase 100 combat aircraft and German arms factories being built in Ukraine.

Orban also claimed the West had managed to block a peace deal early in the conflict and that the move had ultimately harmed Ukraine. “The West prevented the Ukrainians from reaching an agreement, saying that time was on their side. But it turned out that it wasn’t,” he said.

“They are in a worse position today than if they had reached an agreement in April 2022,” he added, referring to the preliminary deal reached during the Istanbul talks. Kiev unilaterally walked away from those negotiations.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Could the French government be linked to political terror?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 29, 2025

Behind the scenes of European politics, France is going through a phase in which its aura as a “democratic model” seems increasingly distant from reality. The country, which has historically prided itself on exporting speeches about freedom, now finds itself surrounded by doubts, allegations, and dark coincidences that fuel speculation about the true workings of its security apparatus. This is not to assert that there is a state machine dedicated to eliminating opponents; it is to recognize that multiple recent episodes — including international allegations of political plots — have created fertile ground for legitimate suspicions.

Foreign analysts and American activists have raised questions about possible clandestine actions carried out by French sectors against figures inconvenient to the Paris government. The topic gained attention not because of a single accusation, but due to the repetition of unexplained deaths and public statements by influential personalities expressing fear of retaliation. The official narrative seems unable to keep pace with the growing volume of obscure events.

The most high-profile episode involves accusations made by American conservative activist Candace Owens, who claimed to have been informed by a supposed source linked to the upper echelons of the French government that President Emmanuel Macron had authorized her elimination. The allegation also includes — equally unverified — the claim that the murder of American activist Charlie Kirk was carried out by a veteran allegedly trained in the 13th Brigade of the French Foreign Legion. Although these statements lack verification, the mere fact that they circulate so widely reveals the degree of international distrust accumulated against Paris.

The controversy grew when Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, described the suspicions raised by Owens as “plausible,” noting that Kirk had been a fierce critic of French measures against digital platforms and advocates of freedom of expression. Before his death, Kirk had even called for the United States to impose 300% tariffs on French products in retaliation for what he considered political persecution.

These allegations, even if unproven, do not arise in a vacuum. They add to the internal climate of strain: recurring protests, deep social tensions, and a political elite that seems disconnected from the population. In this environment, the succession of deaths of politically sensitive figures — many recorded as suicides — intensifies the perception that something is amiss. Cases such as those of Olivier Marleix, Eric Denécé, and General Dominique Delawarde, all critics of the Macron government, have become symbols of this distrust, especially because their deaths were presented as suicides without detailed investigations being released.

French intelligence services have always operated with relative autonomy, a legacy of decades of external operations, colonial conflicts, and confrontations with radical groups. This tradition, combined with contemporary military alliances, contributes to perceptions of opacity. This does not necessarily imply illegality — but the absence of transparency expands the space for speculative narratives.

At the same time, the French government’s posture toward foreign critics has fueled negative interpretations. When Paris reacts aggressively to inconvenient speeches, dissident journalists, or digital platform entrepreneurs, it reinforces the image of a state willing to project power beyond its borders. This puts France on a collision course with conservative and sovereigntist sectors in the United States, which describe Paris as a center of authoritarian technocracy masquerading as “defense of democracy.”

It is also important to recall the recent dictatorial measures taken by the French government against members of local civil society who declare support for Russia in its special military operation or mobilize to participate in humanitarian actions in the Donbass region. Recent arbitrary arrests, such as those of two members of the French humanitarian organization “SOS Donbass,” once again make clear the violent and authoritarian nature of the Macron government.

In the end, the central question is not to prove the existence of clandestine operations — something that would require independent investigations and broad transparency, which are currently absent. The crucial point is that France faces a credibility crisis. When a government loses the ability to persuade, any coincidence becomes suspicious, any death becomes scandal, any accusation finds an audience. Moreover, internal dictatorial measures against dissidents further reinforce distrust regarding the government’s actions.

If Paris intends to regain its legitimacy, it will need to go beyond mere denial of accusations: it must rebuild trust, explain what remains obscure, and abandon the posture of moral superiority that no longer convinces, inside or outside Europe. None of this will be possible as long as Paris remains under the control of representatives of the European liberal elites.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

EU sabotaged Trump’s Ukraine peace plan – Guardian

FILE PHOTO: Vladimir Zelensky and European leaders on May 10, 2025 in Kiev, Ukraine. © Stefan Rousseau – WPA Pool/Getty Images
RT | November 29, 2025

The European Union, along with the UK, has deliberately torpedoed the US peace roadmap aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict in the apparent hope that it “will fizzle out,” The Guardian has claimed.

Russia has repeatedly accused the EU of sabotaging efforts to end the bloodshed in Ukraine.

Washington put forth the peace framework earlier this month, and US officials are continuing to work on it. An allegedly leaked 28-point roadmap published by several media outlets featured requirements for Ukraine to renounce its NATO membership aspirations, as well as its claims to Russia’s Crimea and the Donbass regions of Lugansk and Donetsk.

Shortly after the contents of the US-drafted peace proposal were published by the press, several EU member states, along with the UK, scrambled to present their own version. Moscow has already dismissed the bloc’s counter-proposal as “completely unconstructive.”

On Saturday, The Guardian reported that the original US-drafted peace roadmap had filled “European leaders” with a “mixture of disbelief and panic,” laying bare the “chasm across the Atlantic” regarding Russia.

However, the EU and the UK are by now well-versed in blunting any American attempts at resolving the Ukraine conflict, the publication claimed.

Their strategy presumably boils down to welcoming the “fact of Trump’s intervention, before slowly and politely smothering it.”

According to the British media outlet, Kiev’s European backers took the original 28-point proposal and removed nine key elements from it.

The EU and the UK have also allegedly mobilized the “Atlanticist wing in the Senate,” so that it mounts internal opposition to the peace framework.

Politico Europe and The Telegraph, citing anonymous sources, have recently claimed that the US has been keeping the EU “in the dark” regarding ongoing diplomacy on the peace proposal.

In an interview with the France-Russia Dialogue Association on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “no one listens to… the European elites” due to their warmongering attitudes.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a readiness to give the EU formal security guarantees that Moscow would not attack the bloc, even though the allegations are obviously “nonsense.”

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Betrayed by western snapback: Iran dumps IAEA deal

Tehran’s attempt at diplomatic detente was met with an escalation by the US and the E3

By Fereshteh Sadeghi | The Cradle | November 25, 2025

Just hours before his visit to France to discuss Iran’s nuclear file, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned:

“International relations face unprecedented crises due to militant unilateralism. Repeated violations of international law – including ongoing conflicts in West Asia – reflect the backing of the United States and the tolerance of certain European states.”

This underscores Tehran’s defiant stance as it moves in its nuclear diplomacy. Just three months after Israeli-US airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran signed a significant security agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It did not last long.

The so-called Cairo Agreement, signed in September and brokered by Egypt, was meant to defuse tensions. Yet that same month, the western-backed IAEA was warned against “any hostile action against Iran – including the reinstatement of cancelled UN Security Council resolutions” in which case the deal would become “null and void.”

Of note, Iran–IAEA relations had been deteriorating since June during the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran. The IAEA and its director general, Rafael Grossi, refused to condemn the attacks on Iranian civilians and nuclear facilities, and the targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists and senior military officers.

The IAEA’s refusal to condemn the US-Israeli violations made Iranians furious. They accused Grossi of paving the ground for the strikes and being Israel’s footman. The Islamic Republic formally lodged a protest with the UN Secretary General and the Security Council against Grossi, arguing he breached the IAEA’s neutrality.

Resistance to western coercion

The Iranian parliament – or Majlis – raised the bar by ratifying legislation that suspended cooperation between Tehran and the international nuclear watchdog. The law was passed immediately after the war ended on 25 June.

It declared Grossi and his inspectors “persona non grata” and forbade them from travelling to Iran or visiting Iranian nuclear facilities. The law stipulated that the suspension will continue so long as the security and safety of Iranian nuclear installations and scientists have not been guaranteed.

Nevertheless, the Egyptian-mediated Cairo Agreement appeared to thaw the standoff, if temporarily. It was signed in the presence of Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and Grossi, and ambiguously framed as a deal on “implementing the Safeguards Agreement.”

Few details were made public then; while the IAEA called it a deal on “practical modalities and implementation of the Safeguards Agreement”, the Iranian side insisted it was “a new regime of cooperation.”

State news agency, IRNA, elaborated, “the agency will not engage in monitoring activities provided Iran has not carried out environmental and nuclear safety measures at its bombed facilities.” IRNA referred to the Supreme National Security Council as the sole body that “could greenlight the IAEA monitoring missions inside Iran, case by case.”

Iran’s diplomatic maneuvering, including the deal with the IAEA, was obviously part of the broader strategy to prevent the UK, France, and Germany from activating the snapback mechanism, in the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

The European Troika (E3), who were clearly dissatisfied with the Cairo Agreement, reiterated “Tehran needs to allow inspections of sensitive sites and address its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.”

Snapback triggers collapse

A threat to terminate the Cairo Agreement actually came three days after it was clinched, when Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that “launching the snapback mechanism would put the ongoing cooperation between Iran and the IAEA at risk.” Nevertheless, the UK, France, and Germany moved ahead with the snapback activation.

Araghchi’s first reaction noted that “in regards to the E3’s move, the Cairo agreement has lost its functionality.” Iranians had also vowed to halt cooperation with the IAEA. However, they did not fulfill that threat and collaborated in silence.

The IAEA inspectors visited some Iranian nuclear sites in early November. However, they were not given access to the US-bombed Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities.

Even this tactical compliance failed to shield Tehran from a new IAEA censure. On 20 November, the agency’s Board of Governors passed a US-E3-backed resolution ignoring Iran’s cooperation and demanding immediate access to all affected sites and data.

It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Iran condemned the move as “illegal, unjustifiable, irresponsible, and a stain on the image of its sponsors.”

Araghchi on his X account posted, “like the diplomacy which was assaulted by Israel and the US in June, the Cairo Agreement has been killed by the US and the E3.”

For the second time, Iran’s top diplomat announced the termination of the Cairo Agreement, “given that the E3 and the US seek escalation, they know full well that the official termination of the Cairo Agreement is the direct outcome of their provocations.”

Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Reza Nadjafi, told reporters that “If the US claims success in destroying Iran’s Natanz and Fordow facilities, then what is left for inspections?” and further warned, “any decision (by the IAEA) has its own consequences.”

Back to confrontation

By applying pressure through the IAEA, the E3 and the US seek to coerce Iran into opening the doors of its bombed nuclear sites to the IAEA inspectors, to hand over the 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, which the US believes is still intact, and “to eliminate Iran’s ability to convert that fuel into a nuclear weapon.”

The collapse of the Cairo Agreement marks a return to the kind of standoff that defined US–Iran relations from 2005 to 2013, when Iran’s nuclear file was sent to the UN Security Council, and sanctions were imposed under Chapter VII.

Some skeptics believe US President Donald Trump’s administration would not only take Iran to the Security Council but would also cite the chapter in question, which sanctions the use of military force against any country deemed a threat to global peace.

While Iran signed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in hopes of avoiding that scenario, the US’s unilateral withdrawal under Donald Trump’s first term in 2018 and the E3’s failure to meet their obligations rendered the agreement toothless.

June’s US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear infrastructure confirmed for Tehran that western powers have no intention of engaging in diplomacy in good faith.

Toward a new strategy 

According to IRNA, which echoes the official line of the Iranian government, “Iran feels that the goodwill gestures it has shown towards the IAEA and the United States, have drawn further hostility. Therefore, maybe now it is the time to change course and revise its strategy and the rule of engagement with international bodies, including the IAEA.”

Some observers believe Iran’s first step to map out a new strategy is pursuing the policy of “nuclear ambiguity, remaining silent regarding the whereabouts of the stockpile of the highly-enriched uranium and quietly halting the implementation of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty, without officially admitting it.”

In the latest development, the chairman of the Parliament’s National Security Committee has vowed that “Iran will sturdily pursue its nuclear achievements.” Ibrahim Azizi has cautioned the US and Europe that “Iran has changed its behavior post June attacks and they’d better not try Iran’s patience.”

That posture is hardening. In September, over 70 Iranian lawmakers urged the Supreme National Security Council to reconsider Iran’s defense doctrine – including its long-standing religious prohibition on nuclear weapons.

They argue that the regional and international order has changed irreversibly since Israel and the US jointly bombed the Iranian nuclear facilities. While citing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s 2010 fatwa banning nuclear weapons, they assert that in Shia jurisprudence, such rulings may evolve when conditions change – especially when the survival of the Islamic Republic is at stake.

Iran is also working to immunize itself against any escalation at the UN Security Council. Here, it banks on the veto power of Russia and China to neutralize any western effort to reimpose sanctions.

The collapse of the Cairo Agreement marks a turning point in Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy. It is a conclusion drawn from years of unmet commitments and military escalation that western multilateralism has exhausted its credibility.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »