Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Open season for false-flag provocations as NATO and Kiev regime get desperate

Strategic Culture Foundation | September 12, 2025

This week saw two false-flag provocations back-to-back, orchestrated by the NATO-sponsored Kiev regime. Tellingly, before any considered response was given by Russia or independent observers, European politicians were shutting down open discussion, warning about expected Russian lies and disinformation.

In other words, no critical examination of the incidents is permitted. These were “barbaric” and “reckless attacks” by Russia… take our [NATO] word for it, and if you don’t, then you are a Russian stooge.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski hammed it up in a video statement, denouncing Russian aggression, and dogmatically telling everyone to trust only NATO government information. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was competing in hysteria, claiming Europe was closer to all-out conflict than at any time since World War II. This points to how the European information space has become totally dominated by war propaganda in a way that George Orwell or Josef Goebbels would marvel at.

So, what happened this week?

Poland is claiming that Russia deliberately targeted its sovereign territory with 19 drones. European NATO allies are subsequently scrambling to deploy warplanes and air defenses to “protect Poland”. September is the month that Nazi Germany attacked Poland 86 years ago, kicking off World War II. That bit of timing perhaps lends a nostalgic flourish to the present events, as Tusk seemed to be implying with his melodramatic words.

The day before the much-hyped “drone invasion,” on September 9, the Kiev regime claimed Russia dropped one of its heavy FAB-500 aerial bombs on a village, killing 24 people who were collecting their pensions.

In both incidents, however, the evidence points to false-flag provocations for those who care to calmly examine the facts.

The alleged massacre in the village of Yarovaya in Ukrainian-held Donetsk oblast was not caused by a Russian FAB-500 bomb. The Kiev regime’s videos purporting to show the aftermath indicated a shallow impact crater and limited damage to nearby buildings. The explosion could not have been caused by a 250-kg Russian aerial bomb; otherwise, the entire area would have been devastated around a huge crater. The Russian MoD also said its forces were not operating in the vicinity on that date.

The rapid posting of the videos by the Kiev regime and the evidently scripted claims alleging a Russian massacre, together with the unquestioning amplification of those unverified claims by the Western media, strongly point to an orchestrated narrative.

The grave implication is that the NATO-backed regime detonated an explosive, deliberately killing civilians as a way to incriminate Russia.

Such heinous conduct by this regime has numerous precedents. There have been many incidents over the past three years when the Ukrainian forces shelled their own territory, endangering civilian lives for propaganda scores against Russia, as a way to drum up more military and financial support from the Western sponsors. Two examples: the atrocity carried out in the village of Hroza on October 5, 2023, when 52 people were killed. It coincided with Kiev’s puppet leader, Vladimir Zelensky, pitching an appeal at an EU summit in Granada, Spain, for more aid.

The month before, on September 6, 2023, in the town of Konstantinovka in Ukrainian territory, an air strike killed 17 people. That coincided with former Secretary of State Antony Blinken visiting Kiev to announce $1 billion in additional U.S. aid.

In both incidents, Russia was blamed in a damning outcry, yet the circumstances incriminate NATO’s Ukrainian client. The atrocity this week involving the murder of the pensioners falls into the same despicable category.

The Kiev regime is a false-flag merchant of death. The notorious executions carried out in Bucha in March-April 2022 were another classic, vile stunt. We covered that in detail in a previous editorial, whereby Ukrainian civilians were murdered in cold blood by Kiev agents to disgrace Russia. To an extent, the stunt worked because Western media and politicians continue to accuse Russia of responsibility in complete disregard of the evidence. The Bucha false flag is relevant because it came at a crucial time when Russia had proposed a peace deal to end the conflict in Ukraine at an early stage. After the “massacre,” the NATO proxy war surged, and a peaceful settlement was scuppered.

This brings us to the present open season for false flags. One way to discern a provocation is to observe the reactions and how the incident is used to serve motives and demands.

First of all, the concerted and theatrical reactions of the Kiev regime and its European NATO backers were primed and ready to go, as if scripted.

In the alleged targeting of Poland, the drones were of Russian design. They were unarmed, surveillance, or decoy-type Gerbera models. Russia claims that the 700-kilometer range means they couldn’t have been launched from Russian-held territory. They could have been launched by Ukraine after it replicated the drones, an easy enough task. But here is the key. Some 19 unarmed drones were quickly intercepted in Polish airspace by multiple high-powered NATO weapons: Polish F-16 fighter jets, Dutch F-35s, Italian AWACS surveillance aircraft, NATO tanker re-fueling aircraft, and German Patriot missile systems. That speaks of a prepared full-scale mobilization to maximize the allegations of Russian violation. The image of a sledgehammer to crack a nut comes to mind.

Moscow has offered to hold discussions with Warsaw to figure out how ostensibly Russian-made drones entered Polish airspace, but the offer has been rebuffed. Poland has refused any reasonable discussion to establish the facts. Instead, it has invoked NATO’s Article IV for emergency security consultations with other members. The over-reaction smacks of drama to seemingly validate flaky claims of deliberate targeting.

The French, German, and British leaders have all clambered on board the wagon of condemning Russia for reckless violation without a shred of evidence. Note how they are all careful not to accuse Russia of “attack” but rather “violation”. That suggests they want a calibrated escalation but not all-out war, cowards that they are.

France’s Emmanuel Macron announced he was sending three Rafale fighter jets “to protect Polish airspace”. The Germans and the British are likewise charging to declare their support to defend Poland. It’s a charade of chivalry by a gang of clowns.

This is sheer theatrics of absurdity. Accusing Russia of planning to conquer Europe has been the worn-out propaganda narrative for the past nearly four years since NATO’s proxy war erupted in Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly said it has no intention of starting World War III, and that its sole purpose in Ukraine is to stop historic NATO aggression encroaching on its borders.

The euro elites are facing mounting political crises in their own states, largely incurred by the vast, wasteful spending on the failed proxy war in Ukraine. France, for one, is exploding with social tensions as nationwide street protests showed this week amid the sacking of a fourth prime minister in two years. Germany and Britain are not far behind in the meltdown stakes.

No doubt, the Euro elites and their Kiev puppet regime are desperate to divert public attention from the corruption and criminal machinations in Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump’s diplomatic effort to end the war, for all its shortcomings, is an unwelcome development for the European leaders because it exposes their pathetic position. Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, while condemning Russia for “deliberately targeting” Poland, made a sneaky point by saying that Moscow was also “making a mockery of Trump’s peace efforts”. Sikorski and the European NATO cabal are trying to incite Trump to ramp up military aid to Ukraine and impose more sanctions on Russia as a way to sabotage any diplomacy. Desperation begets desperate measures, even if innocent civilians are murdered and world peace is put at risk.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

Germans’ Nord Stream story is pure comedy, Moscow points finger at Brits

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2025

The Germans are sticking to their preposterous claims that the Nord Stream pipeline attacks, which effectively forced Germany to ditch its cheap gas in preference for overpriced American gas, were carried out by Ukrainians. In late August, a cohort of unlikely suspects, who some might call ‘patsies’ were rounded up and bundled into vans to face charges, according to a number of big media outlets whose reports did not make it into the international domain.

However, the story itself is comical as the Germans are going to extraordinary servile lengths to please their American masters who have no doubt asked them to cook up a story and go out and arrest ‘the usual suspects’.

German media went to extraordinary lengths to not only get details right but also to present it to a gullible public with a united front – one story, one narrative with no possibilities of it being spun differently when the smaller media outlets rewrite it. They went so far, they even made it a ‘joint report’ between Die Zeit, ARD, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, with investigators reported to have said they have identified all suspects involved in the sabotage. The reports claim the warrants cover four divers, an explosives expert, a ship captain, and the ‘leader’ of the operation.

Officials allege the suspects travelled under false names using genuine passports, a detail they say indicates support from high-level Ukrainian officials although no such journalists writing up the hilarious piece appear to want to point out the absurdity of the whole operation being carried out by a diving instructor.

One has to wonder why at this precise moment these unfortunate souls have been framed for crimes they didn’t commit. Is it because western intelligence picked up reports that more information is coming to light about the operation and which partners the Americans might have had?

As far as making calculated assumptions about who the real culprits were, the Russians themselves appear to be the most realistic with their assessment with some of their experts fingering the British naval special forces.

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines could not have been pulled off without Western commandos, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed, singling out Britain as the likely culprit to have done it. The idea that Ukrainians themselves carried out the technical work lacks credibility on a number of levels. In an article published recently in Kommersant, the former head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolay Patrushev, argued that Ukrainians simply don’t have the required expertise to carry out this complex operation under their own steam. The sabotage was likely ‘planned, overseen, and executed with the involvement of highly trained NATO special forces,’ Patrushev wrote, adding that the perpetrators were experienced in deep-sea operations and familiar with working in the Baltic. ‘Few armies or intelligence services have divers capable of executing such an operation correctly and, above all, covertly. One unit with the necessary skills is the British Special Boat Service,’ he said.

Founded during World War II, the SBS is the Royal Navy’s elite squad specializing in amphibious warfare which carried out a number of daring raids during WWII which changed the course of the war – perhaps salt in the wound of politicians in Germany who prefer not to remember this period of their history.

For those in Germany who kept a straight face for the last three years like the then chancellor Olaf Scholz or his foreign minister, the clueless Annalena Baerbock, there are rewards though from the Americans who are grateful that they sold out their own country. Baerbock has just landed the top job at the UN as the assembly’s president. Nice work if you can get it but in reality, a brown envelope pay off for her graft.

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, False Flag Terrorism | , | 1 Comment

On your knees: This EU move has just revealed the scale of their insignificance

In 2018, Europe swore it would shield the Iran deal from Trump. In 2025, it brought Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ back under their own banner.

By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | September 8, 2025

Back in 2018, Europe blasted Donald Trump for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Paris, Berlin, and London warned of a looming crisis in the Middle East and insisted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the only safeguard against another regional war. They even rolled out a special financial vehicle, Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), to shield trade with Tehran from US sanctions. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was finally ready to assert its own strategic autonomy.

Seven years later, the picture couldn’t be more different. Britain, France, and Germany have triggered the snapback mechanism – a procedure written into UN Security Council Resolution 2231 back in 2015. On paper, snapback is a technical clause: if one of the deal’s signatories claims Iran is in breach, all the pre-2015 UN sanctions come rushing back. In practice, it’s a political bombshell. The very governments that once positioned themselves as defenders of the deal are now taking the first steps to dismantle it.

How snapback works

Snapback is a built-in device of Resolution 2231: once a party to the deal files a complaint, a thirty-day clock starts ticking. If the Security Council can’t agree to keep the sanctions lifted, the old restrictions automatically spring back into place – no new vote, no vetoes, just the force of the mechanism itself snapping shut.

And those sanctions aren’t symbolic. They revive six earlier UN resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010: an arms embargo, a ban on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, and travel bans targeting Iranian banks, companies, and officials. In other words, a full reset to the era of maximum pressure that Tehran endured more than a decade ago.

On paper, it reads like legalese. In practice, it carries weighty consequences. For Europe, it means slamming shut whatever limited doors were still open for trade and diplomacy with Tehran. For Iran, it’s a return to a familiar landscape of international isolation – one it has increasingly learned to navigate through ties with Russia, China, and regional partners.

Europe’s brief rebellion

When Donald Trump tore up the nuclear deal in 2018, Europe seemed almost defiant. Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May openly criticized Washington’s unilateral move, warning it could ignite a new crisis in the Middle East and weaken the global nonproliferation regime. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was ready to chart its own course.

To prove it, Paris, Berlin, and London announced a special financial vehicle called INSTEX. On paper, it was meant to let European companies keep trading with Iran while bypassing US sanctions. In speeches, leaders cast it as a bold example of strategic autonomy – Europe standing by international law against American pressure.

In practice, it never delivered. Transactions were scarce, businesses stayed away, and INSTEX turned into little more than a symbol. What was meant to showcase Europe’s independence exposed instead its limits. Behind the rhetoric, the continent still lacked the muscle to stand up to Washington.

Even after the deal began to unravel, Tehran held on longer than many expected. For a time, Iran continued to observe key limits, signaling that it still wanted the agreement to survive. The steps it did take after 2019 – enriching uranium beyond agreed levels, reducing access for inspectors – were limited and largely declarative. They were less about racing toward a bomb than about sending a message: if Europe and the United States failed to keep their end of the bargain, Iran would not keep waiting forever.

Europe could have treated those moves as a call for dialogue. Instead, it chose to treat them as violations to be punished – leaning on legal mechanisms and pressure rather than genuine diplomacy. In practice, this meant not saving the deal but accelerating its collapse.

When Joe Biden took office in 2021, many in Europe breathed a sigh of relief. After four years of Trump’s “maximum pressure,” there was hope the US would return to the nuclear deal or at least give Europe more room to re-engage with Tehran. European diplomats saw Biden’s presidency as a reset button, a chance to salvage what was left of the JCPOA.

Talks resumed in 2022, bringing negotiators from Washington, the E3, and Tehran back to the table. But the optimism didn’t last. The West’s conditions went far beyond nuclear conditions: Iran was pressed to scale back its ties with Russia and cut off growing cooperation with China. To Tehran, those demands amounted to political disarmament – a direct threat to its sovereignty and security.

The negotiations collapsed. For Europe, it was a sobering moment: the Democratic administration they had counted on offered no breakthrough. For Iran, it confirmed what many suspected – that Washington’s return to the deal would come with strings too heavy to accept.

The US get what they want

The word snapback has already made waves in the halls of the UN back in August 2020. That summer, the Trump administration formally notified the Security Council that Iran was in breach of the nuclear deal and demanded that the old UN sanctions be reinstated. US lawyers pointed to Resolution 2231, which still listed Washington as a “participant” in the agreement – even though Trump had withdrawn the US two years earlier.

The reaction was swift and humiliating. Russia and China dismissed the move outright, and so did America’s closest allies in Europe. London, Paris, and Berlin all publicly declared that Washington had no standing to use the mechanism after quitting the deal. The snapback effort fizzled, and the sanctions remained suspended.

The irony is hard to miss. In 2020, Europe stood shoulder to shoulder with Moscow and Beijing to block Washington’s attempt. Five years later, the very same European capitals are the ones pulling the trigger.

When London, Paris, and Berlin announced they were triggering snapback, they wrapped the move in the language of diplomacy. In Paris, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stressed that France was still “open to a political solution.” In Berlin, Johann Wadephul urged Tehran to re-engage with the IAEA. Britain’s David Lammy said Iran had provided “no credible guarantees” about the peaceful nature of its program.

On the surface, it sounded like a routine chorus of diplomatic talking points. But behind the careful wording was a clear message: Europe was abandoning the posture of dialogue and embracing pressure. What the E3 once condemned in Washington, they were now carrying out themselves – only this time under their own flag.

In Tehran, the language was restrained but pointed. Officials called the European move “illegal and regrettable,” a formula that barely concealed deep frustration. For Iran, Europe’s decision confirmed once again that Brussels talks about strategic autonomy but falls in line the moment Washington sets the course.

Across the Atlantic, the response was the opposite: warm approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “welcomed” the step and claimed that snapback only strengthened America’s willingness to negotiate. Formally it sounded like an invitation to dialogue. But the memory of the spring talks – which ended not with compromise but with Israeli sabotage and US strikes on Iranian facilities – made the words ring hollow.

A world that has moved on

Europe’s wager on sanctions is a throwback to the early 2010s, when Tehran was isolated and the West could dictate terms. But that era is gone. Today Iran is not only a strategic partner for Moscow and Beijing but also a full member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – platforms that carve out alternatives to the Western order.

In this new landscape, snapback may sting in Tehran, but it hits Europe too. Brussels loses credibility as a negotiator and opportunities as a trading partner. Each step in Washington’s shadow makes the European claim to “strategic autonomy” sound thinner.

The paradox is striking. On paper, Europe insists on its independence. In reality, its voice is fading in a multipolar world. While Brussels signs off on sanctions, Beijing and Moscow are busy sketching the architecture of a new order – one where Europe is no longer at the center.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

@farhadibragim

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe kills democracy to save liberalism

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 8, 2025

The latest opinion polls are extremely indicative of a radical political shift in the European landscape.

In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) gathers the preferences of 26% of voters, which clearly positions it as the largest opposition party. When the voting intentions for the CDU and CSU are separated, the AfD then becomes the most popular German party.

Meanwhile, in France, the National Rally (RN) — now led by Jordan Bardella — already enjoys the support of 37% of citizens, placing it far ahead of its Macronist and progressive rivals. In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK also leads in the polls with 30% of voting intentions. Also leading is the Freedom Party of Austria, with 37% popular support. And in a similar situation, we see the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, with 33% of voting intentions.

Further down in their respective countries, we see Chega in Portugal as the second most popular party, with 23% of voting intentions. Also in second place are the Sweden Democrats, with 20% of voting intentions, and Norway’s Progress Party, with 22%.

Other European countries see similar parties in solid third-place positions, such as in Denmark, Belgium, Finland, and Poland. And if we discount Meloni’s “Brothers of Italy,” we also see the Lega in Italy in a similar situation.

We are very clearly facing a political trend that goes far beyond a localized phenomenon. The phenomenon is continental and, as it represents a gradual increase over years, apparently lasting. These parties will not eventually return to political marginality and seem to be here to stay.

It is inevitable to consider that the rise of these parties challenging the liberal order is a consequence of the special military operation. The trade and energy rupture generated some significant economic problems in Europe. The German economy shrank, while the French and Italian economies stagnated. Most European countries also faced an inflationary crisis in 2022 and, to control inflation, had to further tighten public spending with austerity policies, as well as increase interest rates. Unemployment also rose, especially in Germany, where several factories have been closed in the last 2 years.

Furthermore, it does not go unnoticed that the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany have increasingly resorted to inflammatory rhetoric hinting at sending their countries’ youth to fight against Russia in Ukraine.

But the strengthening of conservative populism in Europe is not a new phenomenon. It is a gradual evolution that has been building for 20 years, and its main cause is mass immigration, with all its nefarious consequences in the realms of security, economy, culture, etc.

We imagine that such a phenomenon is not considered desirable by the current European elites. Otherwise, one could not explain the judicial offensive against the AfD aimed at banning the party, nor the lawfare practiced against Marine Le Pen making her ineligible, and even less the entire mobilization to arrest Calin Georgescu in Romania, as well as the strange maneuvers that led to the defeat of George Simion in that country’s presidential elections.

But apparently, the situation does not stop at lawfare and potentially illegal judicial maneuvers.

In France, a wave of deaths seems to be linked to Macron, with center-right legislator Olivier Marleix and François Freve (a plastic surgeon linked to Brigitte Macron) on the list of suspicious deaths. Now, more recently, there are reports of at least 7 mysterious deaths of AfD politicians from North Rhine-Westphalia on the eve of local elections.

Probably, these waves of mysterious deaths in France and Germany will never be solved, but a different atmosphere is clearly felt in Europe today. An atmosphere that is certainly less free than that of Europe a few decades ago.

Election manipulation, imprisonment of opposing candidates, mysterious deaths of critics, curtailment of freedom of expression; Western European countries are beginning to check all the boxes of typical dystopian tyrannies — what has been said about China, Russia, and North Korea that has not already become reality in the UK, Germany, and France?

It seems that to preserve “liberal democracy” against “extremists,” Europe is voluntarily abandoning all remnants of democracy.

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Elite UK divers likely behind Nord Stream sabotage – Putin aide

RT | September 8, 2025

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines could not have been carried out without Western commandos, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed, singling out Britain as the likely culprit.

German prosecutors have attributed the explosions in international waters in September 2022, which disabled the twin pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea, to a group of Ukrainian nationals.

In an article published Sunday in Kommersant, the former head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolay Patrushev, argued that Ukrainians lack the expertise to carry out this complex operation independently.

The sabotage was likely “planned, overseen, and executed with the involvement of highly trained NATO special forces,” Patrushev wrote, adding that the perpetrators were experienced in deep-sea operations and familiar with working in the Baltic.

“Few armies or intelligence services have divers capable of executing such an operation correctly and, above all, covertly. One unit with the necessary skills is the British Special Boat Service,” he said. Founded during World War II, the SBS is the Royal Navy’s elite squad specializing in amphibious warfare.

Russia has criticized the German investigation for a lack of transparency and for not including the Russian authorities. In 2024, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed it had “credible information” that the US and UK were directly involved in the sabotage, a claim denied by both London and Washington.

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s Araghchi Raps “Deafening Western Silence” on Expansion of Israeli Nuclear Weapons

Al-Manar | September 6, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rapped what he called the “deafening Western silence” on the expansion of the Israeli nuclear weapons.

“Iran has long warned that the Western hysteria over nuclear proliferation in our region is all fluff. The issue, in their view, is not the existence—or expansion—of atomic weapon arsenals. It is about who gets to advance scientifically, even with peaceful nuclear programs,” Araqchi wrote in a post on his X account on Friday.

“It is therefore not a surprise that there is deafening Western silence over the apparent expansion of the only nuclear weapons arsenal in our region—the nukes in the hands of their genocidal ally. The E3 and the US may be in denial, but their silence is eliminating any credibility to utter anything about non-proliferation,” the Iranian foreign minister said.

The remarks by the top Iranian diplomat came as new revelations point to intensified construction at the Dimona nuclear site, long suspected of housing the Israeli regime’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

According to a report published by the Associated Press on September 3, satellite images show intensified construction at the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona, a facility long linked to the Zionist regime’s secret nuclear weapons program.

Experts who analyzed the images suggested the work could either be a new heavy water reactor —capable of producing plutonium for atomic bombs— or a facility for assembling nuclear weapons. They highlighted that the Zionist entity’s current heavy water reactor, which dates back to the 1960s, may soon require replacement.

September 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany targets X executives in unprecedented criminal probe over refusal to hand over user data in “hate speech” cases

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 4, 2025

German authorities have opened a criminal investigation targeting three managers at X, accusing them of “obstruction of justice” for refusing to directly provide user data in online speech-related cases.

Two of the employees are American, and one of them is reportedly Diego de Lima Gualda, the former head of X’s operations in Brazil, who previously faced off against legal demands in his home country before resigning in April 2024.

The alleged problem for Germany is X’s policy of forwarding German requests for user data to US authorities, following procedures established under a bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

That treaty lays out the legal framework for cross-border data sharing, requiring requests from German prosecutors to be reviewed and processed through US legal channels before X is compelled to hand over user information.

Despite this legally grounded process, prosecutors in Göttingen have decided to treat the policy as criminal interference, marking what appears to be the first time in German legal history that social media executives are being investigated for how they respond to international legal requests.

German prosecutors have reportedly been frustrated by X’s unwillingness to grant them direct access to account data, particularly in cases involving posts that include banned symbols like swastikas or comments that authorities allege may amount to defamation.

The inability to obtain data has resulted in stalled investigations and dropped cases, including one where a post containing a swastika could not be traced to its author.

Although X restricted that post within Germany, the company declined to release identifying information.

X’s resistance has prompted anger from members of Germany’s pro-censorship political class.

Green Party MP Anna Lührmann labeled the standoff a “scandal” and demanded that government institutions leave the platform entirely. “This goes against fair competition and puts our democracy at risk,” she claimed, accusing Musk of algorithmically shaping discourse and undermining political fairness.

She also urged Chancellor Friedrich Merz to shut down his official presence on X and move to alternatives like Mastodon or Bluesky.

The Göttingen prosecutor’s office, which handles digital “hate speech” enforcement for Lower Saxony, was recently profiled in a 60 Minutes segment aired in the US back in February.

The episode followed German authorities as they conducted armed raids on citizens for online posts and stirred backlash in the United States, where such criminalization of speech is often seen as incompatible with basic civil liberties.

US Vice President JD Vance was among those who condemned the German approach, calling it a threat to transatlantic values and freedom of expression.

Meanwhile, X is fighting back in German courts. According to reporting from t-online, the company has retained the international law firm White & Case to challenge the legal demands from multiple German prosecutors. In case after case, X has argued that Germany’s demands for user data cannot override international treaties or US privacy protections.

In some German district courts, these challenges have been rejected.

Judges have ruled that Germany’s Telecommunications Digital Services Data Protection Act (TDDDG) grants prosecutors the authority to demand data and that social networks must comply even if they consider the law invalid or unlawful.

Senior public prosecutor Benjamin Krause confirmed that X had filed numerous motions to block requests, all of which leaned on contested interpretations of procedural law.

X’s legal strategy also includes a broader constitutional challenge. In February 2024, the company filed suit in the administrative court in Wiesbaden, asking the court to examine whether Section 22 of the TDDDG complies with both German constitutional protections and European Union law.

A ruling in that case could eventually be referred to either Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court or the European Court of Justice.

The German government is moving to criminally punish platform employees for not helping the state identify anonymous users who post controversial or politically sensitive content. This, of course, is a dangerous step with global implications.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

India disavows ‘Tianjin spirit’, turns to EU

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | September 5, 2025 

India found itself in an uncomfortable situation like a cat on a hot roof at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation event in Tianjin, China, with the Western media hyping up its unlikely role in a troika with Russia and China to chariot the world order toward a brave new era of multipolarity. 

The plain truth is, the real obsession of the Western media was to vilify the US President Donald Trump for having “lost” India by caricaturing a three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing partnership as an attempt to conspire against the United States. The target was Trump’s insecure ego, and the intention to call out his punitive trade tariffs that caused mayhem in the US-Indian relationship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi savoured momentarily in Tianjin the role of a key player at the high table, which plays well before his domestic audience of hardcore nationalists, but a confrontation with the US was the last thing on his mind.

In Tianjin, Modi took a hour-long limo ride in Putin’s custom-made armoured vehicle that created a misperception that the two strongmen were up to something really sinister big. The extravagant display of “Russia collusion” Modi could have done without. 

To be fair to Putin, he later made ample amends (after Modi returned to Delhi) to make sure Trump was not put out. In front of camera, when asked about an acerbic aside by Trump in a Truth Social post on September 3 wondering whether Putin was “conspiring against the United States of America,” Putin gave this extraordinary explanation: 

“The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.

“I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration.

“Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony. 

“Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.” 

Modi has something to learn from Putin. But instead, no sooner than Modi returned to Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had lined up the most hawkish anti-Russia gang of European politicians to consort with in an ostentatious display of distancing from the Russia-India-China troika. 

In the entire collective West, there is no country today to beat Germany in its hostility toward Russia. All the pent-up hatred toward Russia for inflicting the crushing defeat on Nazi Germany that has been lying dormant for decades in the German subconscious has welled up in the most recent years. 

The German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said Putin “might be one of the worst war criminals of our era. That is now plain to see. We must be clear on how to deal with war criminals. There is no room for leniency.” 

Merz whose family was associated with Hitler’s Nazi party, has been repeatedly flagging that a war between Germany and Russia is inevitable. He is threatening to hand over long-range Taurus missiles to the Ukrainian military to hit deep inside Russia. 

But all this anti-Russian record of Germany didn’t deter Jaishankar from inviting Merz’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul to come to India on a 3-day visit on Monday. Wadephul seized the opportunity to rubbish both Russia and China. He was particularly harsh on China during his joint press conference with Jaishankar. 

Wadephul said in Jaishankar’s presence, “We agree with India and many other countries that we need to defend the international rules-based order, and that we also have to defend it against China. At least that is our clear analysis… But we also see China as a systemic rival. We don’t want that rivalry. We increasingly note that the number of areas is increasing where China has chosen this approach.” 

Wadephul flouted protocol norms and violated diplomatic decorum by making such harsh remarks from Indian soil so soon after Modi and Xi decided to stop viewing each other as adversaries and instead work in partnership. But Jaishankar didn’t seem to mind and Modi received the outspoken German diplomat. 

The sequence of events suggest that Delhi is in panic that Modi went overboard in Tianjin. Trump’s close aide Peter Navarro actually used a crude metaphor that Modi “got into bed” with Putin and Xi in Tianjin. Apparently, the poisoned arrow went home. 

Meanwhile, Trump continues to pile pressure on Modi to terminate oil trade with Russia and has threatened that a third and fourth tranche of secondary level tariffs could be expected. He is also putting pressure on the European Union to move in tandem to bring India down on its knees. 

Possibly, Wadephul carried some message from Brussels. At any rate, after receiving Wadephul, Modi made a joint call with the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday to emphasise his government’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict. 

Jaishankar himself called his Ukrainian counterpart Andrii Sybih also to discuss “our bilateral cooperation as well as the Ukraine conflict.” 

Dumping the “Tianjin spirit” so soon is a huge loss of face for India. But the blowback from the West unnerves the government. The point is, the future is still being written. The Global South whose mantle of leadership India claims is also watching. Governments in Asia, Europe and elsewhere still have choices to make, and those will be shaped by India’s actions as much as China’s. 

Why is India’s diplomacy so clumsy-footed? In medical parlance, such clumsiness and foot drop could actually be a nerve condition. So it could be in the practice of strategic autonomy where nerves of steel are required. The Modi government freely interprets national interests to suit the exigencies of politics. And it takes ambivalent attitudes without conviction or due deliberation that are unsustainable over a period of time. 

The Indian policymakers do not seem to have the foggiest idea where exactly the country’s long-term interests lie at the present  juncture when an epochal transition is under way in the world order, as five centuries of western hegemony are drawing to a close. The great lesson of history for us is that resolve brings peace and order, and vacillation invites chaos and conflict.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany “in conflict” with Russia – Merz

By Lucas Leiroz | September 2, 2025

The Russophobic madness of European leaders is leading them to make increasingly controversial statements. Now, the German Prime Minister claims that his country is “in conflict” with Russia, making clear Berlin’s bellicosity and his government’s willingness to maintain an escalatory hostility stance against the Russian Federation. The consequences of such statements could be serious, as they legitimize practical actions that directly impact the war between NATO and Moscow in Ukraine.

According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany is “already in conflict” with Russia. He said that Moscow is “destabilizing” Germany and Europe through tactical actions such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, which would be a form of hybrid warfare. Furthermore, Merz suggested that Russia plans to attack EU countries to regain former Soviet territories, again spreading the myth of an “imminent Russian invasion.”

During an interview with the French broadcaster LCI, Merz commented on French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent statement, calling Russian leader Vladimir Putin “an ogre who always wants to eat more.” Merz said he completely agrees with this assessment and sees Putin in precisely the same light as Macron. Merz links Putin’s alleged “hunger” to a supposed Russian ambition for more territory, describing Russia as an expansionist country that “destabilizes European democracies.”

“That’s how I see Putin. He destabilizes large parts of our country. He is interfering everywhere, particularly on social media (…) So we are already in a conflict with Russia,” he said.

As expected, Merz presented no evidence to support his arguments. It has become commonplace for European leaders to publicly accuse Russia and Putin of various crimes without presenting any evidence to support their allegations. Merz’s claims, though serious and provocative, ultimately come across as just another instance of weak rhetoric in the EU’s broader information campaign against Moscow.

However, by stating that Germany is already in conflict with Russia, Merz takes a dangerous step forward in the tense relations between the two countries. This is a serious statement, and, when made by a head of government, it has strong and direct consequences for real policy. Russia has simply been warned by the Germans that the authorities in Berlin consider themselves in conflict with it. If German decision-makers believe they are at war with Russia and implement policies with this in mind, then the Russians must be prepared for a possible escalation of hostility.

In fact, this isn’t the first time a German official has stated that Europe is embroiled in a conflict with Russia. In 2023, then-German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock openly and directly stated that Europeans are “fighting” against the Russians. She also stated that the correct way to fight this war is through the systematic sending of weapons to Ukraine, seeking a total “Ukrainian victory” against Russia. At the time, she was severely criticized by several leaders for this statement, but Baerbock never regretted her words, which were endorsed by the bloc’s Russophobic elites.

“We are fighting a war against Russia (…) Yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together, and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other (…) Obviously, Ukraine needs more military support, but not only by one country like mine or the US, by all of us. We can fight this war only together”, she said at the time.

Both the former top German diplomat and the current chancellor agree that Ukraine must continue to be armed to keep the “war against Russia” away from European borders. Their narrative is that if Ukraine falls, Russia will “invade” the EU, making it vital that support for Kiev be increased to prevent the EU’s collapse. This narrative has been central to legitimizing the sending of billion-dollar military and financial aid packages to the neo-Nazi regime in the eyes of the European public, although fewer and fewer people are believing this fallacious rhetoric.

The “arm Ukraine until victory” plan, however, has already failed. The Ukrainian army is almost completely collapsed, and Russian troops are advancing deeply on the ground, making Moscow’s total victory a mere matter of time. When Russia wins the war in Ukraine and no “invasion” occurs in Europe, the narratives of leaders like Merz, Macron, and Baerbock will be refuted, and European authorities will lose all value among European citizens, triggering a major crisis of legitimacy throughout the bloc.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

September 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Sahra Wagenknecht: Europe Subjugated & Propagandised for War

Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025

Sahra Wagenknecht is a prominent figure in German politics, a former member of the Bundestag and the European Parliament. Wagenknecht discusses Europe’s suborindation to the US, the need for an external enemy, the demonisation of Russia, and war enthusiasm that is destroying Europe.

September 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Blowing up Europe… Druzhba pipeline sabotage showcases EU self-destruction

Strategic Culture Foundation | August 29, 2025

The EU-backed Ukrainian regime’s blowing up of a major pipeline delivering vital oil supply to Europe is an astounding signal of self-destruction. It demonstrates how insane the European Union’s leadership has become in its obsession with defeating Russia, no matter the cost. The insanity means that the interests of EU member states and European citizens are willingly sacrificed. Russophobic Eurocrats who have shunned all diplomatic engagement with Moscow are in effect funding the destruction of Europe.

In another development, as Russian airstrikes on Kiev this week hit European Union and British government sites in the Ukrainian capital, EU and British politicians were outraged, condemning Russia for “barbaric attacks” on their delegations. Yet it is these same European and British politicians who are pushing conflict to the brink of no return as they insist on arming a NeoNazi regime to continue striking Russian civilian targets and refuse to listen to Russia’s historic grievances about how this conflict evolved.

The Ukrainian regime, bankrolled by EU taxpayers, launched multiple drone and missile attacks on the Druzhba pipeline, which supplies EU member states Hungary and Slovakia. The pipeline supplies those states with about 50 percent of their oil imports. The attacks knocked out pipeline infrastructure in Russian territory. Hungary and Slovakia were cut off from crude oil supplies for several days. Budapest and Bratislava angrily protested to the European Union leadership that the sabotage was an unacceptable assault on the sovereign, vital interests.

However, the European Commission in Brussels responded with remarkable indifference, noting that Hungary and Slovakia’s 90-day emergency stockpiles of oil were sufficient to carry the countries over the interruption in supply. The complacency of the EU leadership is extraordinary. So, a non-EU state cuts off the energy supply of EU members, and there is no reprimand for the sabotage. The insouciance is tantamount to giving the Ukrainian regime a green light to carry out more such attacks.

The background is even more sinister. Earlier this week, the Kiev regime’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, made a veiled threat to Hungary and Slovakia that his forces would continue to blow up the pipeline if Budapest and Bratislava did not lift their vetoes on Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union. To their credit, Hungary and Slovakia have both consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, warning that such a move will exacerbate the conflict with Russia and destabilize internal markets from cheap Ukrainian imports. They have also opposed doling out more EU taxpayer funds for military weapons and prolonging a slaughter.

In other words, Hungary and Slovakia have become an obstacle to the proxy war against Russia. That is not merely annoying to the Kyiv cabal and its war racket; it also, more importantly, frustrates the Eurocrat elites’ desire to expand the war, with the Russophobic obsession of defeating Russia.

The Kiev regime has for a long time been haranguing Hungary and Slovakia to terminate all oil imports from Russia, and get in line with the rest of the EU. Ukraine accuses Hungarian and Slovakian leaders of buying Russian oil with blood money and fueling the war. This is similar to the United States castigating India for continuing to purchase Russian oil, with Trump aide Peter Navarro this week absurdly calling the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” in a snide reference to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Hungary, Slovakia, India, and others retort that it is their national prerogative to buy oil from Russia. They say it is not up to the Kiev regime or the United States to determine from whom they obtain their vital energy supplies. The Kiev regime and Washington are acting like bandits and mafia. It was the United States under the Biden administration that blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea in September 2022. That act of terrorism cut off Germany from Russia’s natural gas supply and led to the destruction of the German economy.

The Kiev regime shut down unilaterally the Brotherhood natural gas pipeline to the rest of Europe at the end of 2024 because it decided not to renew a decades-old transit contract with Russia. Later, the Kiev regime attacked the Turk Stream gas pipelines linking Russian gas to southern Europe. Now the regime is bombing that last oil pipeline into Europe from Russia. And all this banditry holding Europe hostage is countenanced by the Eurocrat leadership.

Where is European sovereignty here? Where is European leadership insisting that the basic rule of law must be respected and vital civilian infrastructure must not be interfered with, especially when that interference amounts to blatant acts of terrorism? Incredibly, the European Commission and the governments of Germany and Denmark, among others, continue to ignore the Nord Stream terror attacks by their American ally as if those crimes never happened. Every so often, the EU authorities find some ridiculous scapegoat to blame, like low-level Ukrainian saboteurs.

The fact is, the European elites do not care that the vital interests of European citizens are being destroyed by the Americans or the puppet regime in Kiev.

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó correctly suggests that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other elites, like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, no doubt knew and gave their approval to the Kiev regime to deliver on its threats to blow up the Hungarian and Slovakian oil supplies. For these elites, some of whom have Nazi Third Reich heritage in their veins, their obsession with defeating Russia is all that matters, Über alles!

Of course, they will support a fascist regime in Kiev before the democratic needs of European citizens. The same mentality has led Europe to self-destruction in two world wars. Here we go again, if they have their way.

August 30, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

After Alaska, Ukraine alliance envisions new war against Russia once current one ends

Zelensky’s Washington visit exposed Ukraine as a pawn, its elites preparing for endless wars while society collapses under loss, desertion, and bankruptcy.

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | August 30, 2025

In the second half of August, Ukrainian society and media were focused on the August 15 talks in Alaska between the US and Russian presidents, as well as the talks in Washington three days later between the leaders of the Ukraine war alliance.

In Washington that day, the entire flock of warmaking European leaders joined Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their role as support groups. Western media closely covered both meetings, providing its worn spin on events. The following report focuses on reactions in Ukraine to all that was said and witnessed during these tumultuous days.

Against this backdrop, many Ukrainians hold hopes for peace. But the pro-Zelensky media and the legislators of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine legislature) are now working to ‘extinguish’ any expectations for peace. They have declared that the war may well continue for a long time yet. Zelensky’s appearance in Washington, they say, was necessary in order to ‘flatter’ Trump and maintain Washington’s financial support and arms supplies. During his five-minute meeting with Trump, Zelensky thanked him 11 times and sounded for all the world like a wind-up toy.

Ukrainian legislator Anna Skorokhod, who was elected in 2019 (the last election to have taken place in Ukraine) as part of Zelensky’s party machine and then expelled from it shortly after, acknowledges that Kiev is just a “pawn in someone else’s game”, Politinavigator reported on its Telegram channel on August 13. The publication said Skorokhod is comparing the current Ukrainian leadership to a dog on a leash in a kennel, barking loudly to attract the owner’s attention and be allowed into the master’s house.

She has called for an end to the war with Russia because, she says, Ukraine’s cemeteries have long been overflowing. She is urging Ukrainians to decide what is most important to them: saving lives or vainly struggling to hang onto territories already lost or deeply scarred by war. She considers Zelensky and his regime to be the main obstacle to ending the war, and says that the US and Russian governments are discussing the possibility of his overthrow by the Ukrainian military. “A military coup is being discussed quite a lot, including among the entourages of the two presidents who met in Alaska. A transfer of temporary power to the military who will sign any peace agreements they can eke out is in the air,” she says.

Skorokhod has recently claimed that some 400,000 members of the Ukraine armed forces have deserted since 2022, and that number continues to rise.

Political scientist and analyst Ruslan Bortnik believes that Ukraine’s strategy is to wait out a potential deal between the US and Russia, avoiding any direct clash with Washington while quietly sabotaging the implementation of any compromises that would favor Russia, including any ceding of territory already won by the Russian army and where votes to secede from Ukraine and join Russia have already been taken (Crimea in 2014 and the two Donbass republics plus the ‘new territories’ of Russia in Kherson and Zaporozhye, in 2022). According to one version being circulated, Ukraine would cede Donbass to Russia and acknowledge the reality of the 2014 vote in Crimea in exchange for a Russian withdrawal from the areas it controls in the eastern border oblasts (‘provinces’) of Sumy and Kharkiv.

The Ukrainian Institute of Politics (UIP), led by the aforementioned Ruslan Bortnik, believes that much of the talks that took place in Alaska will not be made public but can be ascertained and judged by indirect signs, reports Politnavigator on August 13. In particular, the online publication notes that Washington’s plans will best be signaled by the continuation or the reduction of its arms supplies to Kiev. He says plans will also be revealed by US sanctions policy towards Russia’s trading partners, primarily China and India.

Vague diplomatic statements about ‘peace’ are being issued by many Western leaders, but many political analysts in Ukraine actually expect an escalation of the military conflict. Washington’s attempt to reach a ‘peace’ agreement with Russia surrounding the meeting in Alaska is best understood as being motivated by an anticipated collapse of Kiev’s military frontlines, while the hope that these lines might serve as a future border between Russia and Ukraine, give or take a few kilometers, or few dozen.

“If the outcome of the summit turns out to be negative, further escalation of the conflict awaits us. Neither a tripartite meeting [Trump-Putin-Zelensky] nor an extended negotiating format [to include leaders of the three, leading warmakers of the EU—Britain, France and Germany] will be announced. Instead, we will hear vague diplomatic statements without concrete steps while the USA continues supplying weapons to Ukraine and it implements previously planned sanctions pressure on Russia’s trade allies.”

“Strategically, Trump is now seeking to accelerate the negotiation process due to the deteriorating situation for Ukraine on the front lines. The Ukrainian army is steadily retreating, and although the country is far from military defeat, Kyiv is suffering significant territorial losses,” writes the journal. “At the same time, sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation by the U.S. and Europe has failed.”

The former advisor to Zelensky’s presidential office, Alexei Arestovich, argues that the war will grimly continue until a major military, political, and social catastrophe for Ukraine occurs. “And then it will become clear: if the Ukrainian elite and the common people have the wisdom to seek a new form of existence for Ukraine, with a change in its national project, then the county will stand a chance to survive and create a new future. But if they don’t have enough sense, then others will set the future agenda here.”

The Ukrainian Telegram channel Legitimny believes that everyone in Zelensky’s entourage is now prepared to hand over Donbass to Russia, but they are all concerned about personal guarantees for themselves in such a case. “Simply put, Zelensky and Yermak (the top advisor in Zelensky’s office) want guarantees that they will be allowed to continue ruling Ukraine. This is a matter of personal self-interest, as they both fear losing power, leading to the complete destruction of Zelensky’s cult of personality and the dispossession of his entire elite of advisors.”

Journalist Oleg Yasinsky, born in Ukraine but now living in Chile, notes that among the results of the summit in Alaska is the fact that a precedent was set there for resolving the conflict without the participation of the Kiev authorities, on whom nothing ultimately depends. Yasinsky is a harsh critic of the Russian government, but he considers  Zelensky’s government illegitimate. He expects Zelensky to stage another bloody battlefield spectacle in the near future in order to once again “try and convince Trump that Putin is a monster with whom it is impossible to negotiate”.

Yasinsky believes that too much was expected from the meeting in Alaska. It is unlikely to change the course of human history, but it may influence many processes as concerns Ukraine. In his opinion, Russia is currently playing an interesting diplomatic game: taking advantage of Trump’s narcissism, it is driving Zelensky into a corner. “By meeting with the American president on his territory, Putin is putting Kiev in a position where any response on its part will be a failure.

“Trump is currently in a difficult and unstable domestic situation, while Russia is ready to help him create an image as a ‘peacemaker’,” Yasinsky writes. He says Kiev has been completely sidelined for the first time since 2022, and any public outrage it expresses over Washington’s future moves will be considered by Trump as an affront. “Russian diplomacy is becoming similar to the work of a trainer in a zoo who is well acquainted with the behavioral characteristics and dangers of the animals in his care.”

In this situation, the Zelensky administration’s interests lie in publicly voicing desires for peace while dragging out any such process for as long as possible, regardless of any new losses of territories. Zelensky can only agree to a ceasefire in order to gain a respite while continuing to draw Western countries into the conflict, effectively risking a World War III between Russia and Ukraine’s Western allies. Last year, Zelensky signed security agreements with a number of Western countries that contain clauses allowing for a possible participation of Western armies in the event of a renewed conflict. Thus, only one day may pass between the end of one (the current) war and the beginning of another.

Zelensky is already talking about a ‘third war’ if Ukraine is forced to withdraw from Donbass. In today’s Ukrainian mythology, the ‘first war’ is considered to be the war against the Donbass republics from April 2014 to early 2022. Then a ‘second war’ began in February 2022 with Russia’s Special Military Operation. Now Zelensky is talking to his backers in the European Union, who have previously signed military agreements with him, about a ‘third war’ in which European troops become involved in the event of “new aggression” by Russia.’ Zelensky can easily arrange for this “new aggression” by using false flag operations to provoke it.

“Let me remind you,” writes Ukrainian political scientist Mikhail Chaplyha on Telegram on August 12: “Any ‘security’ agreements will be signed by Kiev on condition that a third war will be commenced following an appropriate lapse of time.”

Ukraine’s new Defense Minister Denis Shmyhal (a former Prime Minister – ministers in Ukraine regularly swap places to demonstrate that ‘reforms’ are taking place) assures his audiences that even after theoretical peace agreements with Russia, Kiev does not intend to reduce its army. Its Western backers will be expected to continue to finance and arm Kiev and its army, since the bankrupt state has neither the funds nor future expected revenues to sustain a million-strong army.

“One hundred per cent of Ukraine’s GDP is now devoted to debt repayment. This has never happened before. All economic indicators show that we are bankrupt,” Ukrainian legislator Mikhail Tsymbalyuk admitted recently.

For Ukrainian society, maintaining the army will mean the continuation of ‘busification’ (forced conscription) and a dictatorship of field commanders, while Ukraine’s western and northern border crossings will continue to be closed to all Ukrainian men hoping the leave or escape from the country. Maintaining a large army for decades is too expensive, so much of it will need to be rebuilt anew.

The continuation of the present war or the sparking of a new, extraordinary war would be beneficial to the Ukrainian elite, allowing them to continue to pillage the sums pouring into the country from the West, sums they could not dream of acquiring in peacetime conditions.

Immediately after the meeting of Zelensky and European leaders with Trump in Washington on August 18, European leaders once again (probably for the tenth time in three years) began talking about sending their own countries’ troops to Ukraine.

The UK is saying it is ready to deploy 30,000 troops to Ukraine, but this is fantasy; this would represent more than 25 per cent of its current armed forces of 114,000. (No wonder the UK government is musing of re-introducing some form of compulsory military service; and good luck with that!). Germany claims flatly that it cannot afford to send troops to Ukraine. Lithuania and Estonia each say they are ready to provide about 100 soldiers each. Little wonder that these European leaders are counting on the Trump regime to ride to their rescue, hoping that the U.S. may take on the leading financial and military role for western imperialism as it did in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 (with results only too well known).

The European armies said to be ready to ride to Ukraine’s rescue are not even sufficient to operate in two or three Ukrainian oblasts (provinces), let alone the 20 or so other ones fully or partly controlled by Kiev. The two Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk voted in 2022 to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation (though all of Donetsk is not yet liberated), as have done the two ‘new territories’ of Russia (Kherson and Zaporozhye). Crimea was an autonomous republic of Ukraine until it voted in 2010 to secede and join (rejoin) Russia.

“Behind the propaganda rhetoric about protecting Europe from a Russian offensive, solidarity with Ukraine, and so on lies banal, self-interest. Playing at warfare war with someone else (the West) helping to do the dirty work has turned out to be a profitable and extremely exciting national business,” writes Pavel Kotov, a columnist for the news website Ukraina.ru.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has stood out among European ‘hawks’ for demonstrating the racism of European political elites towards the peoples of the Russian Federation. He has recently called the Donbass cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk “bastions against the Huns”, attempting to stir up medieval fears of ‘Asian invaders’. ‘Huns’ is a pejorative, historical term for the tribal warrior groups that occupied the steppe regions of western, Tsarist Russia, including today’s eastern Ukraine. Stubb is likely ignorant of the fact that it was in Kramatorsk and Slavyansk in April 2014 that the Donbass population began its uprising against the 2014 coup in Kiev and the neo-Nazi paramilitaries that served as the shock troops of the coup.

Stubb also demonstrated a complete ignorance of his country’s own history. At a meeting with Trump on August 18, he said that Finland had found a “good solution” in 1944 to end its participation in World War Two, suggesting that a similar solution could be found to end the ‘aggressive Russian war’ of today. He is referring to the treaty that Finland was forced to accept with the Soviet Union in 1944 in which it managed to retain its independence despite its government’s support to Nazi Germany, including its participation in the genocide-like blockade of the city Leningrad from 1941 to 1944. The Finnish government of the day capitulated in 1944 and switched sides.

Under its 1944 surrender treaty with the Soviet Union, Finland ceded territory (including its access to the Arctic), paid reparations, changed its government and turned its weapons against its former Nazi German allies. It handed many Nazis over as war criminals to the judicial system of the Soviet Union. The treaty committed a new government in Finland to renounce participation in any future military blocs and renounce any future hostile moves in domestic and foreign policy directed against the USSR. (The Nazi-allied government of Finland called itself a ‘free ally’ of the Nazis, in contrast to the governments of Italy, Romania and Hungary which were directly allied by treaties.)

Russian commentators and politicians reacted, many mockingly, to Stubb’s ignorant statements. Apparently, without realizing it, using Finnish history as his example, Stubb advocated a surrender of Ukraine to be followed by a treaty as a good model for today’s conflict in Ukraine. Such is the intellectual capacity of a typical western European leader today besotted with the ‘dream’ of war against Russia.

August 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »