Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Anchorage was the Receipt: Europe is Paying the Price… and Knows it

By Gerry Nolan | Ron Paul Institute | February 10, 2026

Sergey Lavrov didn’t hedge. He didn’t soften. He lit the match and let it burn.

“In Anchorage, we accepted the United States’ proposal.”

And now, he says, Washington is no longer prepared to implement what it itself put on the table — not on Ukraine, not on expanded cooperation, not even on the implied promise that a different phase of US–Russia relations was possible.

That line matters because it shatters the performance. The offer was real enough for headlines — but not real enough to survive contact with the sanctions machine.

And then he let the contradiction sit there in plain sight — because while Washington was talking about cooperation, its navy and enforcement arms were busy doing something else entirely: tracking, boarding, and seizing oil tankers across oceans.

This is no metaphor — it is literal. In the months following Anchorage, US forces pursued and boarded vessels — most recently the Aquila II, across thousands of miles of open water, part of a widening campaign of maritime interdictions tied to sanctions enforcement. Tankers were chased, boarded, seized, or forced to turn back. At least seven were taken outright. Others fled. This is what “expanded cooperation” looked like in practice.

Lavrov didn’t need to raise his voice. The steel already had.

There is zero confusion. It was by design. The apparatus that actually enforces US foreign policy — sanctions, enforcement, energy leverage, financial choke points, and now routine interdiction at sea — does not pivot once engaged.

Even under the illusion of an “America First” presidency, what started as policy under Biden, (sanctions enforcement) now hardens. It builds constituencies, legal inertia, and moral alibis that make reversal look like surrender. Washington can change its language. But the machine keeps moving.

And Europe does more than follow, it leads the public Russophobic hysteria show. Every time.

Europe’s Energy Boomerang

The sanctions regime was never a clean moral stand. It was a war-speed demolition and rebuild of Europe’s energy system, carried out with ideological fervor and no concern for predictable consequences.

Eurostat calls household electricity prices “stable,” which is a neat way of avoiding the obvious: they remain well above pre-2022 levels. The shock didn’t pass. It set. Brussels celebrates “diversification,” but its own numbers quietly confess the damage: Russian gas cut from roughly 45 percent of EU supply in 2021 to about 13 percent by 2025; oil from 27 percent to under 3 percent; coal erased entirely.

That’s anything but adjustment. It’s amputation.

Germany — the supposed industrial spine of Europe — now treats energy prices like a security threat. Manufacturing closed out 2025 in deeper contraction, output slipping again as demand thinned. Berlin’s response has been nakedly revealing: subsidize the very costs its own policy detonated. Industrial electricity price supports were set to begin in early January (2026). Even projected grid-fee reductions are sold not as success, but as relief — relief from some of the highest power costs on the continent, dependent on state life support.

Europe mistook moral theater for strategy — and now pays the energy bill for the applause. This is the sanctions boomerang: punishment abroad, triage at home. While Russia ascends as an economic powerhouse, all on the backs of Eurocrat arrogance.

Dependency was not Ended — It was Merely Reassigned

Lavrov’s broader charge goes beyond Ukraine. He’s describing a system: the grand delusion of global economic dominance enforced through tariffs, sanctions, prohibitions, and control of energy and financial arteries — now enforced not just with spreadsheets, but with illegal maritime interdictions.

Europe’s experience since 2022 makes that system impossible to ignore. What’s sold as diversification increasingly looks like a dependency transfer. Stable, long-term pipeline supply gave way to exposure to a volatile global LNG bidding war — structurally more expensive, strategically weaker, and permanently uncertain. Long-term contracts are now pursued not from strength, but compulsion. A Greek joint venture seeking a 20-year LNG deal for up to 15 bcm per year isn’t sovereignty. It’s necessity, courtesy of Washington’s protection racket, started under the Biden admin but continued by Trump 2.0. But Europe had a choice, it could have chosen survival and sovereignty.

Europe didn’t escape leverage, which was more manageable with cheap and reliable Russian energy. It changed landlords.

And once sanctions start being enforced kinetically — once ships are chased, boarded, seized — the fiction that this is just “economic pressure” collapses. It becomes what it always was: control of supply.

When the Bible of Atlanticism Blinks

Here’s the tell — the kind that only surfaces when denial has finally failed.

Foreign Policy, the house journal of trans-Atlantic orthodoxy — the catechism, the Bible, the place where acceptable thought is laundered into seriousness — recently ran a headline that would have been unprintable not long ago: “Europe Is Getting Ready to Pivot to Putin.”

That matters precisely because of where it appeared.

Foreign Policy does not freelance heresy from the imperial court. It records shifts after they’ve already occurred by the trans-Atlanticist high priests. When it acknowledges a turn in this case, it’s conceding. The article wasn’t sympathetic to Moscow and wasn’t meant to be. It was brutally pragmatic: Europe is discovering that being sidelined by Washington in negotiations that determine Europe’s own future has consequences.

France and Italy — not spoilers, not outliers — are signaling the need for direct engagement with Moscow. Channels once frozen are reopening, carefully, almost grudgingly. Advisers are traveling. Messages are moving. This isn’t ideology evolving. It’s cold arithmetic reasserting itself.

Publicly, the tone remains Russophobic — absolutist, moralized, often shrill. Privately, the conclusion has already landed. European leaders now understand something they can’t scrub away: Russia did not collapse, did not fold, and did not exit history. Quite the opposite in fact.

They don’t have to like that fact. It no longer asks permission.

Russia Hardens — And Reads the Board

Russia’s response to Western pressure was not panic. It was recalibration. Economic diversification. Alternative settlement rails. Deeper Eurasian integration. An energy sector that rerouted flows instead of begging for mercy — even as its ships were hunted across oceans under the banner of “rules.”

Moscow also understands the American calendar. It knows Washington wants a fast off-ramp before the midterms — a way to reduce exposure without saying the quiet part out loud. It also knows the sanctions machine can’t reverse quickly without political bloodshed inside the US system itself.

That asymmetry is decisive.

Russia sees that Trump, whatever his instincts, holds fewer cards than advertised. He cannot simply switch off enforcement — maritime or financial — without confronting the architecture Washington spent years entrenching. Moscow therefore has no incentive to hurry, no reason to concede early, and every reason to sit tight, keep establishing cold battlefield reality on the ground and let the US political calendar amp up the pressure.

This isn’t stubbornness. It’s leverage, earned the hard way.

What a European Pivot Really Means

A real European pivot toward Russia would not be reconciliation or repentance. It would be an acceptance of geopolitical and civilizational reality at a moment when denial has become suicidal. Europe cannot build a durable security order in permanent opposition to Russia without crippling itself economically, industrially, and politically. The post-2022 experiment proved the limit: Europe hollowed out its own productive base much faster than it superficially constrained Russia’s strategic depth.

Energy interdependence, even when restructured, remains central to Europe’s survival as an industrial civilization. That reality cannot be legislated away or drowned in slogans. Pipelines, grids, shipping lanes, and supply chains answer to geography and physics, not values statements. A pivot means admitting that stability comes from managed interdependence, not performative severance — and that Russia, whether welcomed or resented, remains structurally vital in Europe’s continental system.

Most of all, it forces Europe to confront the truth it spent years skirting: the Atlantic order it tied itself to is in late-stage imperial implosion. Policy volatility, sanctions excess, enforcement maximalism, and election-cycle geopolitics aren’t glitches. They’re symptoms. Europe can no longer assume that alignment with Washington guarantees coherence, protection, or prosperity. Adaptation is no longer optional. Europe must re-enter history as a civilizational actor with agency — not as a dependency clinging to an order that can no longer carry its weight.

The Realignment is No Longer Merely Theoretical

The verdict from Anchorage wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a reveal.

Washington made an offer it could not politically afford to honor, then defaulted back to sanctions, interdictions, and enforcement — the only language its system still speaks fluently. Europe crippled by the cost. Russia absorbed the pressure. Somewhere in between, the old Atlantic script quietly stopped working.

What’s changed now isn’t Europe’s rhetoric, but its private recognition. Even the most Russophobic Eurocrats understand what cannot be unsaid: Russia is not returning to the Western order, and Europe cannot afford endless confrontation.

Europe is not pivoting toward Russia out of goodwill. Russia is not waiting for Europe out of nostalgia. And Washington is no longer the indispensable broker it pretends to be.

The realignment is already happening — not because anyone chose it, but because the old order ran out of force before it ran out of slogans.

Gerry Nolan is a political analyst, writer, and strategist focused on geopolitics, security affairs, and the structural dynamics of global power. He is the founder and editor of The Islander, an independent media platform examining war, diplomacy, economic statecraft, and the accelerating shift toward a multipolar world.

February 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Gab Refuses to Pay Germany’s Fine, Challenges Cross-Border Online Censorship

Reclaim The Net | February 7, 2026

German authorities have escalated their long-running attempt to enforce domestic speech regulations against a US-based platform with no corporate presence in the country, issuing a €31,650 ($37,421) penalty demand to Gab.com under Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, known as NetzDG.

The enforcement notice, dated 22 December 2025 and issued by the Federal Office of Justice in Bonn, seeks payment of fines first assessed in early 2021.

The official notice states that a penalty was imposed following a 14 January 2021 order and that the amount is now considered enforceable, according to the document.

The accounting records list a €30,000 fine tied directly to NetzDG, with additional fees added over time.

NetzDG requires large online platforms to maintain local compliance infrastructure, including a German service address, and to process government censorship demands on tight timelines.

While framed as an administrative measure, the law operates as a jurisdictional lever. It allows German regulators to extend domestic speech rules beyond national borders by attaching penalties to user counts alone.

Gab, which is incorporated in Pennsylvania and operates exclusively under US law, has consistently rejected the premise that Germany can compel compliance absent a physical or legal presence.

The company has no presence in Germany. Founder and CEO Andrew Torba has stated publicly that the company will not pay the fine.

The enforcement notice itself highlights the structural tension. Despite acknowledging Gab’s US address, the German government asserts authority to pursue collection, including formal enforcement proceedings, without identifying any German subsidiary or office.

The payment instructions route funds directly to the German federal treasury, showing that the action is punitive rather than remedial.

This case illustrates how European speech laws increasingly rely on financial pressure rather than territorial jurisdiction. By conditioning access to users on compliance with national speech controls, governments create incentives for platforms to preemptively restrict expression to avoid regulatory conflict.

The result is a system where legal exposure flows from audience size rather than conduct within a country.

Germany’s approach also reveals the paper trail behind modern censorship enforcement. The fine stems not from a specific post or statement, but from alleged failure to comply with aspects of NetzDG. That procedural hook enables broader regulatory reach, transforming administrative requirements into a mechanism for speech governance.

What is clear is that the effort reflects a growing willingness by governments to test the limits of cross-border enforcement in pursuit of online speech control, even when doing so collides directly with constitutional free speech protections elsewhere.

What’s good is that the US is starting to push back.

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries

By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | February 3, 2026

More than two decades ago, renowned climate scientist Mojib Latif of Germany’s Max Planck Instiute for Meterology, based in Hamburg, warned the climate-ambulance chasing Der Spiegel that, due to global warming, Germany would likely no longer experience harsh winters with heavy frost and snow as it had in previous decades.

In light of the current severe winter weather in Germany, Latif’s statements are facing renewed scrutiny. An article appearing in the Berliner Zeitung notes that Latif’s prophecy has “aged poorly” and he appears to want to have nothing to do with them.

Hiding from the media

According to the Berliner Zeitung, the former Max Planck Institute scientist has recently stopped responding to media inquiries regarding his past claims. Critics argue that such drastic predictions damage the credibility of climate science, while others point out that extreme weather events—including intense cold snaps—can still occur within the broader context of climate change.

No Easter snow as well

Latif also claimed he recalled snow in the past occurring at Easter time, implying this no longer happens today. But that too was a false claim. perhaps prof. Latif will answer phone calls in April?

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

NATO member blasts bloc chief’s ‘pro-war’ remarks in Kiev

RT | February 6, 2026

Hungarian officials have accused NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte of overstepping his authority and making “pro-war” statements that put the bloc on course for a military clash with Russia.

Rutte visited Kiev this week in a show of support, saying member states would maintain military aid to Ukraine, possibly including troop deployments on Ukrainian soil. Moscow has repeatedly called such a scenario unacceptable.

“We call on the NATO secretary-general not to make pro-war statements,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Thursday, adding that NATO leaders have long agreed not to provoke direct conflict with Russia. Rutte’s comments contradict that policy, he asserted.

Rutte suggested troops deployments could be approved by Moscow as part of a US-backed peace deal. Budapest fears pro-Kiev nations – including France, Germany, and the UK – would push to send troops despite Russian objections. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reiterated his concerns Friday, calling the potential move a threat to his country.

“If the Western plan is implemented, then the war will come closer to Hungary, we will be much more directly affected by this,” he said. “Then not only the economic effect, but also the physical destructive effect could reach Hungary.”

Orban’s government has opposed Brussels’ Ukraine policy, arguing that bankrolling Kiev and imposing sanctions on Russia have damaged the EU’s economy while pursuing an unwinnable cause.

That stance and Budapest’s resistance to the Ukrainian bid to join the EU has strained relations with Kiev. Ukrainian forces have targeted Hungarian oil supplies from Russia, and Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly verbally attacked Orban. At last month’s World Economic Forum, Zelensky said the Hungarian leader should be “smacked” for purportedly “liv[ing] off European money while trying to sell out European interest.”

Budapest says Zelensky is interfering in Hungarian politics ahead of April’s parliamentary election, and that Kiev is hoping for a more compliant government to take power.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Idea of strategically defeating Russia an ‘illusion’ – Lavrov

RT | February 5, 2026

European leaders have “changed their tune” toward Russia, moving from calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Moscow to cautious reassessment, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told RT.

Speaking with RT’s Rick Sanchez ahead of Diplomats’ Day on Wednesday, Lavrov noted how many European politicians had initially “spoken in unison, demanding firmness, insisting on unwavering support for Ukraine, continued arms shipments, sustained financing – all to ensure Russia’s defeat, a strategic defeat on the battlefield.”

Over time, European leaders “realized it was all an illusion,” he said in a wide-ranging interview. Western military strategists, who orchestrated the Ukraine conflict and “prepared Ukrainians to fight and die advancing European interests against Russia,” are finally recognizing that their plans had collapsed, the top diplomat stated.

Lavrov added that Western governments had learned nothing from history, citing Adolf Hitler and Napoleon’s failed attempts to defeat Russia. He said Europe had once again rallied nearly the entire continent under the same ideological banners, “only this time, unlike Napoleon and Hitler, not yet as soldiers on the battlefield, but as donors, sponsors, arms suppliers.” He said this attempt had produced outcomes similar to the failures of Napoleon and Hitler, adding that the West, particularly Germany, “learns history poorly.”

Lavrov noted that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had “lifted constitutional restrictions on military spending, then declared this was necessary for Germany to once again – I emphasize that word, once again – become Europe’s dominant military power.” The minister said the stance “speaks volumes” about Merz’s mindset, arguing that in practice it amounts to preparation for war.

Lavrov also noted Russia’s status as the largest country in the world, but highlighted its place in Eurasia, saying “every attempt so far to establish security in this space has focused exclusively on the western part of Eurasia – so-called Europe.” He criticized NATO as a US-led structure, asserting that Americans never intended to leave Europeans to act independently while maintaining oversight of their allies.

European countries portray Russia as militarily and economically exhausted, he said, yet immediately assume they must prepare for an attack from the same Russia, calling this approach “pathetic diplomacy.”

According to Lavrov, Europe has “walked into their own trap by adopting this uncompromising stance” toward Russia, and “all they’re doing now is trying to sabotage” peace negotiations on Ukraine that “finally began taking shape between Russia and the United States, and now are joined by Ukrainian representatives.”

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Douglas Macgregor: Russia, China & Iran Seek to Contain U.S. Military

Glenn Diesen | February 4, 2026

Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor explains how the military adventures of the U.S. are incentivising greater military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany eyes military space spending splurge to counter ‘threats’ from Russia, China: Report

By Deng Xiaoci | Global Times | February 4, 2026

The head of German Space Command Michael Traut reportedly claimed that Germany is considering a 35 billion euro ($41 billion) military space push, including spy satellites, space planes and offensive lasers, citing so-called “threats” from Russia and China in orbit. Chinese analysts on Wednesday slammed the move as classic double standards and Cold War mentality, as it cites baseless China “threat” claims, while ignoring the fact that the US is the top driver of space militarization.

Speaking with Reuters on the sideline of a space event ahead of the Singapore Airshow, Traut claimed that the spending plan is “aimed at countering growing threats from Russia and China in orbit,” Reuters reported on Tuesday local time.

It is reported that Traut revealed that Germany will build an encrypted military constellation of more than 100 satellites, known as SATCOM Stage 4, over the next few years. He also claimed network would mirror the model used by the US Space Development Agency, which is described by the Reuters as “a Pentagon unit that deploys low-Earth-orbit satellites for communications and missile tracking.”

Chinese analysts pointed out that while turning a blind eye to the US, the main driver behind the militarization of outer space, Germany choses to hype a groundless space threat theory against China and Russia. This is a typical manifestation of deep-seated double standards and camp confrontation with Cold War mentality, analysts said.

This kind of double standard is blatantly obvious, military affairs expert Zhang Junshe told the Global Times on Wednesday. “The US is currently the country that has deployed the most military offensive assets in space. Yet now, while Germany wants to imitate the US and do the same thing, it turns around and make baseless accusations against China and Russia. This is textbook double standards, Zhang criticized.

Notably, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has just expressively harped on the importance of “American space dominance,” and claimed that the US needs to “dominate the ultimate highground,” at Blue Origin rocket factory in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on US local time Monday, News Nation reported Tuesday.

Germany will channel funding into intelligence gathering satellites, sensors and systems designed to disrupt adversary spacecraft, including lasers and equipment capable of targeting ground-based infrastructure, Traut claimed in his interview with Reuters. He also pointed to so-called inspector satellites – small spacecraft capable of maneuvering close to other satellites – which he claimed Russia and China had already deployed.

Hype about the “China-Russia space threat” has become a form of political correctness among European countries. Regardless of the facts, they feel compelled to point the finger at China and Russia. As an established old-school Western power, Germany is no exception to this cliché, Song Zhongping, a military affairs expert, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

It must be emphasized that should this plan come to fruition, it would markedly heighten the intensity of the space arms race, Song noted.

Germany’s indigenous launch capabilities are woefully inadequate. If it turns to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 for these deployments, it would confirm Germany’s status as an immature and dependent space actor. Should it instead rely on foreign rocket systems, that reliance would primarily fall on the US – leaving Germany unable to shake off its profound strategic dependence on the US, Song warned.

February 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

German calls for nukes are ‘madness’ – veteran politician

Sahra Wagenknecht at the BSW party congress in Magdeburg, Germany, December 6, 2025. © Jens Schlueter / Getty Images
RT | February 2, 2026

German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has condemned growing calls for her country to take part in nuclear rearmament, calling the proposals “madness.”

Germany is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons under international law, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Two Plus Four Treaty, the 1990 agreement that enabled German reunification in return for limits on its military capabilities, including renouncing nuclear arms.

Earlier this month, Kay Gottschalk, the parliamentary finance policy spokesman for Alternative for Germany (AfD), said that Berlin “needs nuclear weapons,” arguing that Europe can no longer rely on US protection.

In a post on X on Sunday, Wagenknecht, who previously served in the Bundestag and founded the Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht party, said that “the cross-front for the nuclear rearmament of Germany is growing.”

“Following advances by AfD politicians for a German nuclear weapon, CDU warmonger Roderich Kiesewetter and former Green foreign minister Joschka Fischer are now also calling for Germany’s participation in a European atomic bomb. What madness,” she wrote.

Fischer said last week that Europe must pursue nuclear rearmament, with Germany taking the lead. Kiesewetter proposed in turn that Berlin could instead “contribute financially” to a European nuclear umbrella that Finland, Sweden, and Poland are planning to develop.

Wagenknecht argued that Germany’s proposed acquisition of nuclear weapons would constitute a serious violation of Berlin’s international legal obligations and would undermine the global system of nuclear arms control. She also warned that US intermediate-range missiles planned for deployment in the Federal Republic, which are capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory, pose a major security risk.

“The missile deployment undermines the nuclear balance between the US and Russia and massively increases the danger for Germany to become the target of a nuclear strike in the event of conflict,” she wrote.

Instead, Wagenknecht called for Germany to lead a diplomatic disarmament initiative and demanded the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from German territory. “US atomic bombs out! No US intermediate-range missiles in Germany!” she added.

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

West’s hypocrisy over Iran and Gaza proves a regime-change operation in Tehran

Strategic Culture Foundation | January 30, 2026

The United States and the European Union are vehemently condemning Iran over alleged repression, while the West says nothing about the Israeli genocide in Gaza. The contradiction, of course, exposes the West’s rank hypocrisy. It also confirms that Iran is the target of a Western regime-change operation.

U.S. President Donald Trump this week repeated his threat to launch a blitzkrieg on Iran, bragging that an armada led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier was in place to strike. “Don’t make me do it,” warned Trump with thug-like menace.

Meanwhile, the European Union declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a “foreign terrorist” organization. Given that the IRGC is a central component of Iran’s national security forces, the EU’s blacklisting is effectively designating the Iranian state as a terrorist entity. The EU’s provocation is paving the way for American aggression and all-out war, which will have devastating consequences, not least of all for Europe.

Washington and Europe are ostensibly basing their hostility towards Tehran on dubious claims that the Iranian authorities have committed systematic atrocities in repressing peaceful protesters in Iran demanding political change.

Trump has urged Iranians to keep protesting and vowed that “help is on the way.”

The European Union’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, hailed the blacklisting of the IRGC, saying: “Repression cannot go unanswered… clear atrocities mean there must be a clear response from Europe.”

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot asserted: “We cannot have any impunity for the [alleged] crimes that have been committed.”

The Dutch top diplomat, David van Weel, added: “I think it’s important that we send the signal that the bloodshed that we’ve seen, the bestiality that has been used against protesters, cannot be tolerated.”

This all sounds noble and chivalrous of Western governments. But it is a contemptuous charade, belying disingenuousness and duplicity.

For more than two years, the Israeli regime has waged a blatant genocide in Gaza. The death toll is estimated at over 71,000, with most of the victims being civilians, women, and children. The real death toll is probably well over 100,000 from bodies buried under rubble from Israeli bombardment that are not accounted for.

Far from expressing any condemnation against the Israeli regime, the United States and the European Union (with minor exceptions) have maintained an odious silence that has afforded political cover for the genocide. The Western states are complicit as a result of their shameful silence. More damning, however, is that the United States and European states, including France, Germany, and Britain, have supplied warplanes, missiles, drones, electronics, and other weaponry to fuel the slaughter.

Trump boasts about his so-called Board of Peace for Gaza and a supposed ceasefire that was claimed to have started in October. Over 500 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the ceasefire travesty. Thousands of Palestinians are starving or freezing to death in windswept and flooded tents still deprived of humanitarian aid. The genocide continues under the grotesque guise of “peace”.

Trump is an “Israel First” U.S. president more than any of his predecessors, who all consistently gave the Zionist regime a license to kill and occupy. Trump’s complicity is remarkable and suggests his late pedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein furnished Israeli intelligence with lots of blackmail material on the 47th president. So, his silence over genocide is explicable.

What about the Europeans, though? Maybe there is blackmail going on, too, to buy their complicity. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Why aren’t Kallas, Barrot, and the other EU foreign ministers denouncing impunity and repression by the Israeli regime? They selectively apply their morals and faux humanitarian concerns to Iran.

The two scenarios are, in any case, incomparable. One is genocide, the other is civil unrest, which the evidence shows involves foreign orchestration.

Protests began in Tehran on December 28, sparked by legitimate economic grievances. The country of over 90 million has been strangled for decades by illegal Western economic sanctions. Tellingly, the relatively small demonstrations in Tehran’s bazaars at the end of December were rapidly escalated into full-blown violent attacks in several cities. The disturbances appear to have subsided, and there have been huge counter-demonstrations involving millions of people taking to the streets to denounce the violence of what seems to be almost certainly Western-orchestrated gangs.

The Iranian authorities claim that the total deaths after four weeks of violence are about 3,100. Western media reports and governments have cited much larger figures of 6,000 and up to 17,000 deaths. The Western figures are supplied by U.S. or European-based groups, such as the Iranian Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI). These groups are funded by the CIA’s cut-out organization, the National Endowment for Democracy.

Israeli news media have even admitted in reports that the street violence was being directed by foreign agencies. Former CIA chief Mike Pompeo also let it slip that Mossad operatives were behind the disturbances.

The methodical type of violence and damage sustained also indicates a coup attempt. Hundreds of mosques, schools, buses, government buildings, banks, and medical facilities were attacked and destroyed by gun-wielding gangs and arsonists.

Many of the casualties were inflicted on security forces and civilian bystanders in an orgy of violence that indicates a trained cadre of agitators and terrorists. Victims were beheaded and mutilated.

The Western media have conspicuously conflated the deaths and injuries as all attributed to the Iranian security forces, who allegedly used “lethal force to repress peaceful protesters.”

This is the standard operating procedure of Western regime change: to escalate deadly civil strife to destabilize the targeted state. The Western media then reliably row in with a massive propaganda assault to valorize the orchestrated violence and to demonize the authorities.

As Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi points out, the West’s modus operandi is to demonize foreign countries to justify regime change, and if needs be, to justify all-out military aggression.

In 1953, the same method was used by the Americans and British to overthrow the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh’s “crime” was that he nationalized the oil industry, depriving Britain of its leech-like control over Iranian natural wealth, which saw most of the population living in poverty and squalor, as vast Persian oil profits flowed into London. For the coup to succeed, millions of dollars were funneled by the CIA into Iran to whip up street gangs, and the Western media on both sides of the Atlantic dutifully painted Mossadegh as illegitimate. He was overthrown, and the Western puppet, the Shah, was installed, presiding over a brutal CIA and MI6-backed regime for 26 years until the Islamic Revolution kicked him out in 1979. Amazingly, from the point of view of chutzpah consistency, more than seven decades later, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, living in pampered exile in the U.S., is being advocated by the West to take over if the Islamic Republic collapses. Plus ca change!

The same regime-change formula has been repeated over and over in as many as 100 other countries since the Americans and British launched their post-Second World War debut covert operation in Iran in 1953, as Finian Cunningham’s new book Killing Democracy surveys. Crucially, the Western news media play an absolutely vital role in assisting this systematic criminality, as they are doing currently in Iran, and before that in Venezuela.

Only four weeks ago, Washington’s military aggression against Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, by U.S. commandos was preceded by a full-court media campaign of demonization, absurdly labelling him a narcoterrorist.

Trump’s aggression towards Venezuela and now Iran is an outrageous violation of the UN Charter and international law. It marks a return to predatory imperialism. And the servile European states kowtow to this all-out predatory criminality with bogus concern about human rights.

We know their concerns are a complete sham and morally bankrupt because if there were any genuine principles, then they would not be so abject in their silence over the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza.

This is why Trump has been so emboldened to treat the Europeans with contempt over Greenland and other issues. If you act like a doormat, then expect to be walked on.

January 31, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fānpán – Is China Turning the Tables on the ‘Democratic’ West?

By Mats Nilsson | 21st Century Wire | January 29, 2026

As a European born analyst with a realist mindset, I was, if not surprised, at least slightly intrigued when I read that China feels freer than Germany in the Era of Xi Jinping’s reforms.

In a world where narratives about freedom and authoritarianism are often painted in stark black and white, the words of Ai Weiwei, one of China’s, in the West most prominent dissident artists, have sent shockwaves through the European cultural scene, hurting our self-image. Ai, known for his bold critiques of the Chinese government, his iconic installations like the “Sunflower Seeds” at Tate Modern, and his 81-day detention in 2011, has long been a symbol of resistance against perceived oppression in his homeland. Yet, after a decade in exile, living primarily in Germany, Ai’s recent return visit to China has led him to a startling conclusion: Beijing now feels “more humane” than Berlin, and Germany, once renown for its liberalism, comes across as “insecure and unfree.” This perspective, shared in a candid interview with the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung following his trip, challenges entrenched stereotypes and invites a deeper examination of how societal freedoms are experienced in daily life, in Europe of today.

Ai’s statements are not mere embellishment; they stem from personal encounters that highlight bureaucratic inefficiencies, social isolation, and institutional irrationality in the West, contrasted with the efficiency and warmth he rediscovered in China. But what underpins this shift? A closer look reveals that Ai’s observations align closely with the sweeping reforms outlined by Chinese President Xi Jinping in his seminal works, particularly the multi-volume series Xi Jinping: The Governance of China. These books, which compile Xi’s speeches, writings, and policy directives, emphasize streamlining governance, enhancing people’s livelihoods, and fostering a “people-centered” development model. Under Xi’s leadership since 2012, China has undergone transformations that prioritize efficiency, anti-corruption, and social harmony; elements that Ai implicitly praises through his anecdotes.

When I read about Ai’s new insights, and tying them to Xi’s reforms, I can suddenly argue that in practical terms, China may indeed offer a form of freedom that eludes many in the West today.

Weiwei’s story is one of displacement. Born in 1957, he grew up amid the tumult of the Cultural Revolution, with his father, the poet Ai Qing, exiled to a labor camp. Ai himself rose to global fame through art that critiqued power structures, such as his investigation into the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which exposed local government negligence in school collapses. His activism led to clashes with Chinese authorities, culminating in his 2011 arrest on charges of tax evasion, a move in the West widely seen as politically motivated.

Released but stripped of his passport until 2015, Ai fled to Germany, where he was granted asylum and continued his work from Berlin and later Portugal. For ten years, Ai immersed himself in European life, producing art that often lambasted both Chinese and Western hypocrisies. Yet, his return visit to China in late 2025 marked a pivotal moment.

In the Berliner Zeitung interview, Ai describes Beijing not as the oppressive dystopia of Western media portrayals but as “a broken jade being perfectly reassembled.” He reports feeling no fear upon arrival, a stark contrast to his past experiences. Instead, he encountered a society that felt vibrant and accessible. “Perfectly ordinary people from at least five different professions lined up, hoping to meet me,” Ai recounts, highlighting a social openness that he found lacking in Germany.

This warmth, Ai suggests, extends to everyday interactions. In Germany, he laments, “almost no one has ever invited me to their home. Neighbors from above or below exchange at most a brief nod.” Such isolation, he argues, contributes to a sense of precariousness in Western societies. In China, by contrast, the immediate eagerness of strangers to connect reflects a cultural and social fabric that prioritizes community over individualism; a theme echoed in Xi’s reforms.

This also touches on the issue of bureaucracy and freedom. At the heart of Ai’s critique is the suffocating bureaucracy he encountered in Europe, which he claims makes daily life “at least ten times” more difficult than in China. A poignant example is his experience with banking. Upon returning to China, Ai reactivated a dormant bank account in mere minutes, discovering it still held “a considerable sum of money.” This seamless process stands in sharp relief to his ordeals in the West: “In Germany, my bank accounts were closed twice. And not just mine, but my girlfriend’s as well. In Switzerland, I was refused an account at the country’s largest bank, and another bank later closed my account there as well.”

Ai describes these incidents as “extraordinarily complicated and often irrational,” hinting at possible political motivations or overzealous compliance with anti-money laundering regulations that disproportionately affect outspoken figures like himself, and just recently struck US analyst and author Scott Ritter.

This disparity underscores a broader point about freedom: while Western democracies trumpet abstract rights like free speech, the practical exercise of freedom is often hampered by bureaucratic hindrances. In Germany, a country renowned for its efficiency in engineering, the administrative state can feel labyrinthine. Opening a bank account, registering a residence, or navigating healthcare requires layers of documentation, appointments, and verifications that can take weeks or months. Ai’s account stems from “de-risking” practices, where banks sever ties with high-profile clients to avoid regulatory government scrutiny; practices that have over the last four years intensified in Europe amid geopolitical tensions.

In contrast, China’s banking system under Xi has embraced digital innovation to enhance accessibility. Xi’s The Governance of China (Volume I, 2014) outlines reforms to modernize financial services, emphasizing “inclusive finance” to ensure even remote or dormant accounts remain functional. Through initiatives like the widespread adoption of mobile payment platforms such as WeChat Pay China has reduced bureaucratic hurdles, allowing transactions and account management to occur instantaneously via smartphones. Ai’s quick reactivation exemplifies this: no endless forms, no interrogations; just efficiency. This aligns with Xi’s push for “streamlining administration and delegating power,” a key reform pillar aimed at cutting red tape and boosting economic vitality.

Xi’s books repeatedly stress that true freedom emerges from governance that serves the people. In The Governance of China (Volume II, 2017), he discusses anti-corruption campaigns that have purged inefficiencies and graft from institutions, including banks. Since 2012, over 1.5 million officials have been disciplined, fostering a cleaner, more responsive system. This has translated into practical freedoms: the ability to access services without fear of arbitrary denial. Ai’s experience suggests that in China, freedom is not just rhetorical but operational, free from the “cold, rational, and deeply bureaucratic” constraints he felt in Germany.

Xi’s people-centered approach finds confirmation in Ai’s assertion that Beijing’s political climate feels “more natural and humane” than Germany’s. This in my humble view, points toward a deeper cultural and policy shift. Ai portrays Germany as a place where individuals feel “confined and precarious,” struggling under the weight of historical guilt and future uncertainties. This resonates with critiques of Western societies, where economic inequality, rising populism, and social fragmentation have eroded communal bonds. In Europe, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with energy crises and migration debates, has heightened a sense of insecurity. Ai’s social isolation in Germany, minimal neighborly interactions, mirrors surveys showing increasing loneliness in Western nations.

China, under Xi, has pursued a different path. Xi’s reforms, as detailed in The Governance of China (Volume III, 2020), prioritize “building a community with a shared future for mankind,” emphasizing social harmony and collective well-being. This includes massive poverty alleviation efforts, lifting nearly 100 million people out of extreme poverty by 2021: a feat Xi describes as ensuring “no one is left behind.”

Such policies foster a society where, as Ai observed in his interview, ordinary people eagerly engage with others, creating a humane environment. Moreover, Xi’s focus on cultural confidence has revitalized community ties. In Volume IV (2023), he advocates for “socialist core values” like civility and harmony, which manifest in everyday life through neighborhood committees, volunteer networks, and cultural events. Ai’s warm reception upon return; people from various professions seeking him out, reflects this. It’s a far cry from the European atomized individualism, where privacy norms can border on alienation.

Critics might argue that China’s harmony comes at the cost of dissent, pointing to tightened controls on expression under Xi. Yet, Ai’s lack of fear during his visit suggests a nuance: while political criticism remains sensitive, daily freedoms, economic mobility, social interaction, access to services, have expanded. Xi’s reforms include “rule of law” initiatives, with over 300 laws revised since 2012 to protect individual rights in non-political spheres. This “selective freedom” may feel more liberating in practice than the West’s more abstract liberties of today.

One must also consider China’s economic transformations in this aspect. Xi’s books outline the “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation through innovation-driven growth. Reforms like the Belt and Road Initiative and dual circulation strategy have bolstered domestic resilience, reducing reliance on Western systems that Ai found unreliable. Xi critiques European protectionism in his writings, advocating for open economies. Ironically, Ai, once a Western darling, now embodies the pitfalls of this approach, his accounts closed perhaps due to his Chinese ties, highlighting how geopolitical insecurities undermine personal freedoms. In China, Xi’s anti-corruption drive has stabilized institutions, ensuring accounts like Ai’s remain intact despite dormancy. This stability contributes to the “unfree” feeling Ai ascribes to Germany, which he says, “plays the role of an insecure and unfree country, struggling to find its position between history and future.”

Xi’s reforms, by contrast, position China as forward-looking, with policies like the 14th Five-Year Plan emphasizing high-quality development and environmental sustainability, creating a sense of progress and security.

So, in conclusion, Weiwei’s reflections serve as a mirror—forcing the West to confront its own contradictions. Germany, with its history of division and reunification, symbolizes the democratic triumph, and yet, Ai’s experiences reveal cracks: overregulation, social coldness, and institutional paranoia.

This isn’t unique to Germany or the EU; similar issues plague the U.S. and U.K., where bureaucratic hurdles in immigration, healthcare, and finance frustrate citizens. Xi’s governance model offers an alternative: efficiency through centralization, humaneness through collectivism. While not without flaws, critics note surveillance and censorship, and so Ai’s endorsement suggests that for many, China’s system delivers tangible freedoms. His words directly challenge the binary of “free West vs. authoritarian East,” urging a reevaluation based on lived realities. Ai Weiwei’s declaration that China feels more humane and freer than Germany isn’t a reversal of his principles, but an evolution based on experience. It underscores the success of Xi Jinping’s reforms in creating a society where bureaucracy recedes, community thrives, and daily life flows unencumbered. As the world grapples with uncertainty, perhaps the West can learn from China’s jade-like reassembly, piecing together a more practical freedom for all?

Author Mats Nilsson LL.M is political analyst and legal historian based in Sweden. See more of his work at The Dissident Club on Substack.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

AfD co-leader states the obvious: Pouring money into the Ukraine war is killing the German economy

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | January 28, 2026

Alice Weidel, co-leader of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, has given a speech to which every observer of Germany should pay close attention. And not simply because of Weidel’s inherent political weight.

She is among the country’s most important politicians and with serious prospects for very high office: if her New-Right party breaks through to leading a Berlin government, Weidel is the most likely chancellor. Next to her co-chairman Tino Chrupalla, she is the only real opposition that matters inside the current German parliament.

What makes this particular Weidel speech, delivered in the city of Heilbronn while campaigning in state elections in the classically ‘West German’ Land of Baden-Württemberg, especially noteworthy is its unprecedently outspoken, bracingly combative, and, stirringly logical and honest take on one specific topic, namely Germany’s masochistic relationship to Ukraine.

Not that there were no other topics. Indeed, Weidel started what was a gleefully pugnacious ‘Rundumschlag’ (German for onslaught) where you would expect, the absolutely dismal state of Germany’s once proud and now relentlessly tanking national economy. She reminded her large audience that Germany’s industrial sector is bleeding jobs and companies; national insolvency statistics are a horror and won’t stop breaking abysmal records; and the traditional parties have nothing to offer but same-old-same-old.

And yet, as most right-wing politicians – whether traditional or insurgent – former business consultant Weidel is not at all original with her own suggestions either. She complains that producing things in Germany is so expensive that the country’s economy as a whole has been losing international competitiveness. True enough.

But things get more debatable when Weidel starts explaining the causes of the national malaise. Costs that are too high include, in her view, taxes in general, payroll taxes, and social security payments. This is a classical conservative position: if anything is wrong with capitalism, it’s that those at the bottom of the income and power pyramid still have it too good. Cut the state down and rely on the market’s miraculous powers – pretty much the essence of Weidel’s extremely tired recipe for the future.

In that respect, Weidel’s talk had nothing to offer that isn’t already generously supplied by the grindingly repetitive rhetoric of the current centrist Berlin government under mainstream conservative and sour-schoolmaster-in-chief Friedrich Merz. In essence, ‘shut up, work harder, ask for less. (At least if you aren’t rich like me and my chums).’

With so little of that sounding like a genuine alternative from the ‘Alternative for Germany,’ can the AfD really succeed in breaking the traditional parties’ stranglehold by winning another – at least – ten or so percent of the national electorate? In a country where even the government admits that 17.6 percent of its citizens must get by without “important goods and social activities due to poverty.” In a society where 2.2 million children are officially categorized as at risk of or in poverty? Where income inequality has been growing ever worse, with Germany’s five wealthiest families now boasting combined fortunes of €250 billion, which is more than the poorer half of Germans – over 40 million people –combined? Where, finally, working hard is not even a halfway reliable way to achieve success? More than half of private fortunes are now inherited or gifted (usually to circumvent inheritance taxes, low as they are) and that share rises to between 75-80% among the rich.

Weidel’s criticism of Berlin’s – and the EU’s – current economic suicide non-strategy is often refreshingly on point, but it’s also the very easy part. Yet cosplaying as yet another ‘iron lady,’ promising more blood, sweat, and tears for those who are already getting plenty of all that, may well get the AfD stuck where it is now at less than 30% in Germany as a whole, weaker in the West and doing better only in the East. Weidel and her solidly neoliberal wing in the AfD would do well not to be too sure of themselves yet.

For, if the party does get stuck electorally instead of continuing its surge, then the AfD will not be able to fracture the traditional parties’ undemocratic and, arguably, effectively unconstitutional ‘firewall’ policy of exclusion. Studiously supported by Germany’s propagandistic and conformist mainstream media, in reality the ‘firewall’ is a scandal, since it massively discriminates against more than a fifth of Germany’s voters (and more in the East) who are, in effect, partially disenfranchised. Yet ending that scandal will take electoral success beyond anything the AfD has yet achieved. That’s simply a cold hard fact. Weidel’s rigid capitalist dogmatism could be a dead-end, making the AfD, despite all its current surging, a might-have-been story. We’ll see.

Yet, to her credit, Weidel added a crucial point to her diagnosis of the German economy’s dramatic downfall. A point that almost no other German top politician – at least outside the New-Left BSW, which has been electorally kneecapped, most likely by foul means – has the guts to be honest about in public: The main cause of Germany’s ongoing crash, according to Weidel, are “exploding energy costs,” and that explosion is “homemade,” a result of catastrophically self-harming policies by the traditional parties.

While many of these policies of self-strangulation have been driven by an ideologically motivated exit from nuclear energy and misguided – as well as ineffective – attempts to mitigate global warming, one factor stands out because it is a matter of life and death in a straightforward manner, namely the Ukraine war. That is, in reality, the barely indirect war between Russia and the West (including Germany) via Ukraine.

It is a direct consequence not of the war but of the position toward it taken by at least two successive governments in Berlin (first under the hapless Olaf “the Grinner” Scholz, now under Friedrich “the Scolder” Merz) that Germany’s energy has become ever more backbreakingly expensive.

Even official German agencies and mainstream media have not been able to conceal this basic fact. According to the government statistics office, as of early 2023, the industry price for natural gas was 50.7% higher than before the escalation of February 2022; for electrical power – 27.3%, and for petroleum derivatives – 12.6%. In February 2025, German households were paying a whopping 31% more for energy than in 2021 (according to the mega-mainstream RND). One month later, the respectable Handelsblatt called the “price leap” since the pre-2022, “immense” and reported that gas prices for private households had increased by almost 80% in a little over one year. Let that sink in. And where private citizens’ budgets are squeezed like that, the whole economy badly suffers as well, of course.

And just now, the EU has confirmed it will cut itself off from even the last remnants of Russian gas supplies by 2027. Good luck!

Weidel addressed both the insanity of German policy toward this war and the single most emblematic symbol of that madness, the destruction of most of the Nord Stream pipelines and Berlin’s perfectly perverse response to it.

Weidel rightly noted that the AfD’s long-standing – and plausible – arguments in favor of pursuing peace with Russia in earnest have long been met with the usual witch-hunting smears. That is, the type of neo-McCarthyite suppression which all such displays of dispassionate reason in search of an end to the “nonsensical dying” (Weidel) have been receiving from the “politico-media complex” in war-besotted NATO-EU Europe. Weidel was merciless, too, in skewering the persistent sabotage of any peace prospects by (at least) two German governments and their co-bellicists in the EU and most of Europe. All pretty obvious? Yes. Among the reasonable. But not in the German mainstream media and elite.

And then there was the passage that really rocked the hall: “This government [in Berlin] doesn’t utter a squeak” when Ukrainians, helped by other special services (which Weidel cautiously refrained from naming), blow up German energy infrastructure “in our face.” Genuinely irate, Weidel asked how a German government could keep quiet in such a situation. For “the lost delivery of inexpensive gas,” she continued, “harms not only Germany but all of Europe, [and] Germany the most.”  Nice one. So much then for the domestic non-credibility of the Scholz and Merz governments, and for Merz’s aspirations to play a leading role in Europe.

And yes, the Nord Stream scandal marks not merely a political and economic catastrophe. It’s worse than that, because it also stands for a shameful display of submissiveness: “How can a government have so little self-respect,” Weidel asked, that it won’t even genuinely seek to solve such a blatant case of, in effect, massive economic sabotage? That indeed is the question. Even a German very far left of Weidel, such as me, can only agree here. It takes a fundamental lack of elementary patriotism and decency not to share her exasperation.

If the ultra-corruptioneers in Kiev were listening, things got even worse: Weidel was explicit that a country attacking Germany in this manner is not a friend. Obvious? Yes, but not in Germany. Not yet. And she declared her party’s intention to make Ukraine – and Zelensky personally – pay if the AfD gets into power in Berlin. Not only for the enormous damage done by Ukraine’s cowardly Nord Stream terror attack, but also for the dozens of billions preceding German governments have pumped into one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. All power to her arm on that one as well.

Intriguingly, that was a moment when the audience reacted with much applause, as usual, but also loud booing. Clearly, not everyone had caught up to reality when it comes to Germany and its perversely self-damaging relationship to Ukraine. But Weidel is right when she also declared that Germany should have stayed neutral instead of joining the Great Western Proxy Crusade against Russia with gusto. Berlin could have served as an ‘honest broker,’ to the benefit of everyone, not only Germans but also millions of ordinary Ukrainians.

Whatever you think about the specific mix of stale market-dogmatic Thatcherism, undue deference to Donald Trump, and refreshing no-bullshit honesty on foreign policy and national interest with regard to Ukraine and the Ukraine war that Weidel had to offer, there can be no doubt that this was a breakthrough moment. It was the first time a major German party with potentially very good electoral prospects has come out and clearly stated the obvious – Germany was attacked by Ukraine (and quite a few other ‘friends’ as well from Warsaw to London and Washington, even if Weidel skirted that part of the issue), not by Russia.

Therefore, for Germany and Germans, Ukraine is anything but a friendly state, and it is absurd – to put it very mildly – that German governments have ruined the relationship with Russia and the German economy as well, while pumping Kiev full of money and arms. This is an immense national scandal, as clearly as 2 plus 2 is 4. And like that simple fact, it’s always true, no matter who has the courage to say it.

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.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia reiterates demand to Germany over Nazi crimes

RT | January 27, 2026

Russia has criticized Germany for refusing to recognize the siege of Leningrad and other Nazi atrocities as genocide and its selective treatment of survivors.

Moscow and Berlin have long disagreed over Germany’s approach, which provides compensation only to Jewish survivors of the siege – a policy Russia says disregards the suffering of other ethnic groups. The Russian Embassy in Berlin renewed its call for a policy change ahead of Tuesday’s anniversary of the lifting of the Leningrad blockade.

“We strongly urge the German side, which bears the indefinite historic responsibility for the atrocities of the Nazi regime, to recognize the siege of Leningrad and other crimes of the Third Reich and their accomplices as genocide of the peoples of the USSR,” the embassy said in a statement.

“Time is running short to make amends as the number of Leningrad survivors is dwindling,” it added.

The nearly 900-day military blockade of Leningrad – now St. Petersburg – was carried out by German and Finnish forces, with Italian naval support. The Axis plan was to bomb and starve the city rather than capture it.

For most of the siege, supplies could only reach the city by air or across Lake Ladoga. The Soviet Union suffered roughly 1.5 million military and 1 million civilian casualties related to the battle for Leningrad before Axis forces were driven back in 1944.

January 27, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries