China snubs Germany’s top diplomat – media
RT | October 24, 2025
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has been forced to cancel an upcoming trip to China after Beijing reportedly declined to arrange high-level meetings with him, multiple media outlets reported on Friday.
Wadephul was scheduled to depart for Beijing on Sunday to discuss China’s export restrictions on rare-earths and semiconductors, as well as the Ukraine conflict.
“The trip cannot take place at this time and will be postponed to a later date,” Politico cited a spokesperson for Germany’s Federal Foreign Office as saying. Wadephul was slated to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi but otherwise reportedly had too few meetings on the agenda.
According to Bild, the two diplomats will instead hold a telephone conversation soon.
The diplomatic setback comes amid escalating trade tensions between China and the EU. Over the past year, Brussels and Beijing have clashed over what the bloc calls China’s industrial overproduction, while China accuses the EU of protectionism.
Earlier this month, Beijing tightened its restrictions on the export of certain strategic minerals that have dual-use in military applications – a move that could further strain Europe’s struggling auto sector.
Germany has been particularly affected by the worsening trade climate. Bild reported on Wednesday that Volkswagen is expected to halt production at key plants next week due to a shortage of semiconductors following the Dutch government’s seizure of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia. The Netherlands cited risks to the EU’s technological security, prompting Beijing to retaliate by banning exports of Nexperia chips from China. As inventories dwindle, more Volkswagen plants could face temporary shutdowns, and other automakers may also be affected, the paper said.
On Friday, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche announced that Berlin was lodging a diplomatic protest against Beijing for blocking semiconductor shipments, citing Germany’s heavy reliance on Chinese components.
Volkswagen faces chip crisis after Chinese factory seized by EU state – Bild
RT | October 23, 2025
Germany’s largest carmaker, Volkswagen, could stop production at a key plant due to a shortage of semiconductors caused by the seizure of a Chinese-owned chipmaker by the Netherlands, Bild has reported, citing anonymous sources.
The Dutch government took control of the Nexperia factory in Nijmegen late last month, citing intellectual property and security concerns. The New York Times reported last week after reviewing documents from an Amsterdam court that the move had been made following pressure from US officials. Nexperia’s parent company, Wingtech, was blacklisted by Washington in 2024 as part of an ongoing trade war with China.
Beijing responded in early October by banning Nexperia from exporting finished chips from China, which are widely used in the electronic control units of VW vehicles.
Bild reported on Wednesday that Volkswagen – which also owns the Skoda, Seat, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, and Bentley brands – does not currently appear to have an alternative to Nexperia chips.
Sources in the company told the paper that due to the lack of semiconductors it plans to stop production at its plant in Wolfsburg from next Wednesday. Volkswagen Golf models will be affected first, followed by other vehicles, they said.
If the situation does not improve, work could also be halted at Volkswagen’s facilities in Emden, Hanover, Zwickau, and elsewhere, a person familiar with the matter said.
According to the report, the carmaker has started talks with the German authorities about a state-backed reduced working hours scheme for tens of thousands of its employees.
Bild warned that the chip crisis could also impact other carmakers in the country. Representatives for BMW and Mercedes told the paper that they were analyzing the situation. The German automobile industry has already been suffering due to high energy costs as a result of EU sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict and increased US tariffs.
A spokesman for Volkswagen’s Zwickau plant told AFP that the report by Bild was “incorrect.” However, according to an internal letter seen by the media, the company acknowledged that “impact on production cannot be ruled out in the short term” due to a semiconductor shortage.
EU Split Over How Ukraine Should Spend €140 Billion From Frozen Russian Assets
Sputnik – 23.10.2025
A number of EU countries advocate that Ukraine use the potential 140 billion euros ($162 billion) loan from frozen Russian assets exclusively to purchase European weapons, while other member states support giving Kiev full freedom in spending the funds, including on arms from the United States, an American newspaper reported.
France, along with Germany and Italy, is pushing to channel the funds into the EU’s own defense industry rather than toward US arms suppliers, the report said. At the same time, countries such as the Netherlands and the Nordic and Baltic states argue that Ukraine should be free to decide how to spend the loan, even on US-made weapons.
Despite this, pressure from France and Germany has led summit drafts to emphasize strengthening Europe’s defense industry, while critics argue that this stance is hypocritical, the newspaper reported.
“If the aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight, you need to keep the criteria open,” an unnamed senior EU diplomat was quoted as saying.
On Thursday, EU leaders are expected to instruct the European Commission at their meeting in Brussels to present a legal proposal outlining the loan.
On September 25, the Financial Times newspaper reported that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had proposed that the EU provide Ukraine with an interest-free loan of around 140 billion euros drawn from frozen Russian assets. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever criticized Merz’s proposal on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, saying that an attempt to seize state assets would set a dangerous precedent not only for Belgium but for the EU as a whole.
After the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the European Union and the G7 froze almost half of Russian foreign currency reserves, totaling some 300 billion euros. About 200 billion euros are held in European accounts, mainly by Belgium’s Euroclear, one of the world’s largest clearing houses.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly condemned the freezing of Russia’s central bank money in Europe as theft. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow could respond by withholding assets held in Russia by Western countries.
‘Welcome to the war casino’: veteran German politician ridicules conscription plans
RT | October 21, 2025
Veteran German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has condemned Berlin’s plans to boost its army through a lottery-based recruitment system, ridiculing what she described as the government’s obsession with an imagined war against Russia.
German lawmakers have been debating ways to strengthen the Bundeswehr as Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called to turn it into the “strongest conventional army” in Europe. The government aims to expand the country’s armed forces by around 80,000 servicemen. Some have proposed activating a lottery-based selection system if not enough people volunteer. Continued shortfalls could trigger the return of compulsory conscription, which has been suspended since 2011.
In a TikTok post on Tuesday, Wagenknecht, who previously served as a member of the European Parliament and sat in the Bundestag from 2009 until earlier this year, mocked the lottery idea.
“Welcome to the war casino where the stakes are your life,” she said, going on to criticize the Merz government’s rhetoric that Germany is partly “at war” with Russia and its calls for an army “ready for battle, that prevails, that wins.”
“I have to be honest, this is all just too much to handle. Maybe someone should explain to our great chancellor that Russia is a nuclear power and a war with a nuclear power will not be decided by the number of soldiers,” she said.
She further stressed that the hysteria over a supposed Russian offensive was absurd given that NATO has three times more soldiers than Russia. “With these power dynamics, is Putin supposed to roll over us if we don’t conscript 80,000 young people for military service? They really want to sell us for fools,” Wagenknecht said.
Russia has consistently denied any hostile intent toward NATO or EU members and has described Western alarm over an impending war as baseless propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused European governments of pursuing dangerous militarization and claimed Berlin is “slipping into a Fourth Reich” through its rearmament drive.
Germany on the Geopolitical Stage of the Global South: Between Media Image and Real Capacities
By Ramiz Khodzhatov – New Eastern Outlook – October 21, 2025
The attempts of Friedrich Merz’s government to “relaunch” Germany’s role as a global political actor in the Global South without revising its conceptual foundations risk leaving the country stranded on the margins of international diplomacy – caught between formal participation and substantive isolation.
The Gaza Summit and the New Security Architecture
On October 13, 2025, under the auspices of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a peace summit on Gaza took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The event, co-chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, gathered representatives from over twenty nations to observe and validate the signing of the first phase of the American initiative for conflict resolution. Egypt and the United States, alongside Qatar and Turkey, acted as the principal mediators of the emerging architecture of multilateral diplomacy. Serving both as brokers of the ceasefire and as the de jure guarantors of the “Declaration on Lasting Peace and Prosperity,” they oversaw a framework that encompassed bilateral agreements on the release of hostages and prisoners, coordination of humanitarian aid, and a detailed roadmap for demilitarization and post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.
A wave of criticism followed the paradoxical absence of the conflict’s key parties, the Israeli cabinet and Hamas. At the same time, attention focused on the participation of several unorthodox players in the Middle Eastern geopolitical arena, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The German presence drew disproportionate attention due to an evident dissonance between its media portrayal and its actual diplomatic standing. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, standing to the side of the main participants, appeared frozen in an uneasy, almost constrained posture, smiling politely yet refraining from engaging any of the leaders. The image quickly spread through German and international media, sparking debate. This scene became emblematic of Berlin’s uncertain role within the emerging security architecture. The question arises: what position does Germany seek to claim, and why, despite shifting geopolitical realities and the lessons of history, it risks remaining a “paper player,” bereft of real influence or credibility across the Global South and the Middle East?
From “Feminist Foreign Policy” to the Merz Plan
To understand Germany’s current trajectory, one must revisit the recent phase of its foreign policy. Under Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, diplomacy was anchored in the doctrine of so-called “feminist foreign policy,” framed as a flagship direction of global engagement. Yet in practice, this approach revealed its conceptual inadequacy. Its normative and universalist foundations clashed with the political cultures and socio-cultural frameworks of the Global South. Gender and humanitarian rhetoric, imported indiscriminately into conflict zones, failed to take root, particularly when juxtaposed with Western double standards evident in the humanitarian catastrophe of Gaza.
Another blow to Berlin’s image came from its insistence on the “green agenda” as an alternative to traditional energy models. Amid a domestic energy crisis, this stance not only weakened Germany’s position in international negotiations but also eroded its reputation as a reliable and autonomous economic actor. To many states of the Global South, German initiatives in climate and energy diplomacy appeared declarative and unsupported by functional mechanisms.
Against this backdrop, Russia’s advocacy of “multipolarity” gained increasing traction, widely perceived as an attractive alternative to the neo-colonial logic of the West. Moscow succeeded in institutionalizing this discourse through frameworks such as BRICS, which evolved into both an economic and symbolic vehicle of a new international subjectivity. Germany and its European partners failed to propose an equivalent model, thereby cementing their peripheral status in dialogue with the Global South.
The Old–New Architecture of Irrelevance
Despite its declining relevance, Berlin continues to undertake institutional steps aimed at restoring its international agency. Notable measures include expanding humanitarian assistance, covering medical support and the establishment of temporary camps for displaced persons—participating in prospective Palestinian self-governance structures, co-organizing an international conference on Gaza’s reconstruction, and devising instruments for monitoring and coordinating humanitarian aid. Germany aspires to act not merely as a donor but as a mediator, presenting itself simultaneously as a humanitarian and political broker.
However, these ambitions collide with structural constraints. Key mechanisms for monitoring, hostage exchange, and aid distribution depend on the consent of regional actors who, tellingly, were absent from the summit. Germany’s declarative and instrumental efforts to secure influence falter against the realities of local political culture, where situational alliances, pragmatism, and realpolitik shape diplomacy far more than normative idealism. Berlin still relies on a logic of moral universalism inherited from previous decades, cloaked in new labels and narratives yet perpetuating the same disconnect between ambition and capability.
This pattern mirrors the systemic flaws observed during Baerbock’s “feminist foreign policy.” The persistent refusal to engage with regional geopolitical realities produces a gap between Germany’s ambitions and its actual leverage. The now-famous image from Sharm el-Sheikh thus becomes a visual metaphor for deeper structural dysfunction: the fragmentation of the Western course, wherein the American line retains strategic dominance while Europe’s voice fades amid inconsistency and moral self-contradiction.
The declarative support for Israel expressed by the Merz cabinet within the Middle East peace process has triggered a crisis of trust toward Germany as a would-be neutral actor. Rooted in the concept of Staatsräson and the moral logic of historical atonement, this stance increasingly contradicts the disposition of public opinion. Recent YouGov data reveal that 62% of Germans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza an act of genocide, a view shared across party lines, including 60% of supporters of Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. Over two-thirds of the population now hold a negative view of Israel, while sympathizers account for only 19%. Support for Palestinian recognition has climbed to 44%. This gap between domestic consensus and foreign policy undermines the legitimacy of Germany’s global agency and weakens its credibility as an impartial mediator.
Internationally, the erosion of trust is even more pronounced. Since 2023, Germany has increasingly been seen across the Global South and the Middle East as a partisan ally that has abandoned neutrality for rigid pro-Israeli alignment. Decisions such as boosting arms supplies to Tel Aviv and abstaining from U.N. ceasefire resolutions are widely interpreted in Arab and African contexts as emblematic of Western double standards. Meanwhile, as several EU states, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have recognized Palestine, Germany finds itself isolated even within Europe. This loss of trust is quantifiable: Arab Barometer surveys show Germany’s favorable rating in the Middle East has plunged from 70% to 35% over just two years.
The position intended to affirm moral leadership has, paradoxically, curtailed Berlin’s diplomatic efficacy. Bereft of real leverage, Germany remains a participant without presence – a formally engaged yet substantively excluded actor on the geopolitical stage of the Global South.
Friedrich Merz’s attempt to “reboot” German foreign policy reveals a structural impasse: institutional innovations without conceptual transformation cannot yield genuine agency. Without a fundamental rethinking of its diplomatic worldview, Germany risks remaining on the periphery of international affairs, caught between symbolic involvement and strategic irrelevance. The image from Sharm el-Sheikh may thus endure as more than a fleeting moment of awkwardness, it embodies Berlin’s broader crisis of orientation in an increasingly multipolar world.
Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations
Lufthansa announces 100+ route cuts
RT | October 20, 2025
Rising German aviation taxes and fees will force national flag carrier Lufthansa to cut about 100 domestic flights from its forthcoming summer schedule, the company’s chief executive, Carsten Spohr has said.
Government-imposed costs for airlines in Germany have roughly doubled over the past six years, he explained.
“Without a reduction in location costs, further cuts will be unavoidable,” Spohr said. “This involves around 100 domestic flights per week, which could be eliminated again next summer.”
Higher taxes and fees on economy ticket costs are accelerating a shift in the airline’s passenger mix towards first, business, and premium economy cabins.
The complaints from Lufthansa echo long-standing grievances from airline executives about Germany’s aviation cost base, which they argue hinders competitiveness.
Last month Lufthansa also announced plans to cut 4,000 administrative jobs by 2030, with the majority of the cuts taking place in Germany.
In the face of strikes, delayed aircraft deliveries, and underperformance at its mainline business, Lufthansa has been forced to slash its financial guidance twice in the last year and has missed medium-term margin targets set in 2021.
The German aviation industry association (BDL) has warned that the country’s viability as a global hub is in crisis, citing state-imposed costs since 2019. Airlines are now avoiding Germany, BDL Chairman Jens Bischof stated in August, with the number of aircraft stationed in the country by European point-to-point carriers falling from 190 to 130.
BDL estimates that the financial burden on the industry will rise by €1.1 billion ($1.2 billion) in 2025 to €4.4 billion, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and €4 billion ($4.3 billion) in annual economic value.
Iran confirms UN Resolution 2231 expired, condemns US, E3 violation
Al Mayadeen | October 18, 2025
In a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the Presidency of the Security Council, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has expired and fully ceased to be in effect as of today, in accordance with its explicit provisions.
He underscored that the nuclear agreement reflected the international community’s shared belief that diplomacy and multilateral engagement remain the most effective means to resolve conflicts.
Araghchi recalled that Washington initially refrained from fulfilling its commitments before withdrawing from the agreement, reimposing what he described as illegal and unilateral sanctions, and even expanding them. “These coercive measures,” he noted, “constituted a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter, causing severe disruption in the implementation of the agreement.”
In his letter, Araghchi added that the E3 failed to fulfill their obligations and instead imposed additional illegal sanctions on Iranian individuals and institutions. Despite this, he said, Iran demonstrated the utmost restraint in the face of repeated and fundamental violations, making extensive efforts to restore balance and preserve the agreement.
After a full year of Iran’s continued compliance, Araghchi explained, Iran began implementing gradual, proportionate, and reversible compensatory steps in line with its recognized rights under the deal.
‘E3’s snapback attempt lacks legal validity’
Iran’s top diplomat stated that the E3’s attempt to activate the snapback mechanism by directly resorting to the UN Security Council disregarded the dispute settlement process stipulated in the nuclear agreement, stressing that the attempt suffers from procedural flaws and lacks any legal validity or authority.
“No action taken in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 can create any legal obligation upon member states,” Araghchi affirmed, emphasizing that any claim to “revive” or “reimpose” expired resolutions is null and void, lacking legal basis and producing no binding effect.
Araghchi highlighted that the Non-Aligned Movement, during its 19th Meeting of Foreign Ministers, reaffirmed in its final document that Resolution 2231 had expired on its scheduled date. He also referred to the two Security Council voting sessions held on 19 and 26 September 2025, which demonstrated the absence of consensus among Council members regarding the validity of the notification to trigger the “snapback” mechanism.
Iran warns against unauthorized UN Secretariat actions
Araghchi asserted that Resolution 2231 does not grant the Secretary-General or the UN Secretariat any authority or mandate to determine, announce, reactivate, or reinstate resolutions that have expired under operative paragraph 8.
He added that any such action would exceed the legal authority conferred by the UN Charter and contradict the purely administrative and neutral role of the Secretariat. “Any ‘notification of snapback activation’ or ‘confirmation’ issued by the Secretariat is legally void and undermines the credibility of the organization,” he wrote.
Araghchi concluded that no member state, the Secretariat, or any official may take legal action in this regard without a new and explicit resolution from the Security Council.
Earlier last week, Araghchi condemned Trump, accusing him of spreading falsehoods about Iran’s nuclear program and being misled by Israeli deception. His remarks followed an earlier statement by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which condemned Trump’s address at the Israeli Knesset as “irresponsible and shameful.”
In a post on X, Araghchi said it was “more than clear” that Trump had been “badly fed the fake line” that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was on the verge of weaponization. He described this claim as a “BIG LIE”, emphasizing that even the US intelligence community had confirmed there was “zero proof” of such allegations.
“The real bully of the Middle East, Mr. President, is the same parasitic actor that has long been bullying and milking the United States,” Araghchi declared, referring to “Israel”.
Why western sanctions have failed and become self-defeating
Or are sanctions an end in themselves?
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 15, 2025
I recently participated in a debate in London about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. I argued that they have proven ineffective as a tool of foreign policy, and kept my remarks focussed on Russia, which is the most sanctioned country on the planet, with over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far.
For good or ill, I argued that sanctions were ineffective from a position of having [personally] authorised around half of the UK sanctions against Russia after war broke out in 2022. I take no great pride in that, but that was my job at the time and I eventually left my career as a British diplomat in 2023, largely out of a sense that UK foreign policy was failing in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, it worries me that so few people appear focused on what we in the UK want the sanctions to achieve, to the point where they have become an end in themselves. Yet, look at the legislation, specifically the Russia Sanctions Regulations of 2019, and the [alleged] purpose is quiet clear:
Encourage Russia to cease actions destablising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.
More than eleven years since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and not far from four years since war broke out, the UK and its allies have manifestly failed to deliver upon that goal.
We have been through eleven years of gradually ramping up sanctions against Russia only to see Russia increase its resistance, and then to launch its so-called Special Military Operation in 2022.
Sanctions did not prevent that. One might argue that they helped to precipitate it.
Ukraine is bankrupt, its cities broken, its energy infrastructure once again subject to nightly bombardment as the winter approaches and people wonder whether they’ll be able to heat their homes.
Sanctions are not preventing this.
Yet at the debate, my opponents somehow advanced the argument that sanctions remain an effective tool of foreign policy, from the comfort of a grand hall, two thousand miles away from the frontline, even further from responsibility, and completely detached from reality.
In my mind, there are two clear reasons why sanctions policy has failed.
Firstly, because even if people in the west consider them to be justified, the Russian State considers them to be unjust.
Ever since the Minsk II peace deal was subordinated to sanctions in March 2015, President Putin has become increasingly convinced that western nations would sanction Russia come what May.
And that has proved to be the case.
Every time an inevitable new package of sanctions is imposed by the UK, Europe or others, it also convinces ordinary Russian people that this is true.
People in the west might hate Putin, but he is far more popular in Russia than Keir Starmer is in Britain, or than Friedrich Merz is in Berlin, or than Emmanuel Macron is in France.
So the idea that sanctions undermine support in Russia for President Putin is deeply misguided.
Likewise, sanctioning British-based Russian billionaires who took their assets out of Russia might play well in the Financial Times but is a meaningless gesture; these figures have no real power in Russia.
The idea that if we sanction Roman Abramovich he might some how rise up and try to unseat Putin together with other oligarchs is a fantasy.
The Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkoff who took to Instagram after the war started to criticise the Russian army, was forced to sell his eponymous bank and yet the UK still sanctioned him.
Why would any wealthy Russian on that basis stand up against President Putin on the west’s behalf only to get sanctioned by us anyway?
Yet, we have sanctioned 2000 individuals and entities, banning them from travel to the UK, even though 92% of them never had [visited] before the war started. These, I’m afraid, are empty gestures.
Sanctions will not stop the war.
And the longer they go on, more Ukrainians will die.
Despite Russia having done everything to adjust to sanctions since 2014, commentators in the west nevertheless try to tell you that, well, maybe we should have imposed more sanctions at the start for a bigger effect.
But on my second point, that denies the political reality of how sanctions are imposed.
While the combined economies of NATO are 27 times bigger than Russia, 32 states cannot coordinate policy quickly enough to take decisive action.
This results in waging war by committee.
Imagine, if you will, a chessboard with President Putin staring across at a team of thirty-two people on the other side, squabbling loudly among themselves for months on end before deciding not to make the best move.
If you believe that Europe is about to become a rapid decision-making body now at a time when its member states are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties who resent the war policy in Brussels, then my message to you is, good luck waiting for that.
Europe has now been debating for over a year whether to expropriate 200 billion in Russian assets housed in Belgium.
Yet that has not been agreed precisely because the Belgian government has blocked it consistently out of a not illegitimate fear that it will shred that’s country’s reputation among international investors at a time when new financial architecture is being constructed in the developing world.
Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have continued to grow and now stand at over $700 billion for the first time. So even at this late stage if Europe chose to expropriate the assets, Russia could live without them.
Rather than being forced to the negotiating table – the complete fantasy that proponents of this hair-brained idea would tell you – Russia would be so enraged by what it sees as theft that it would keep on fighting.
And more Ukrainians would die.
President Putin is not hemmed in by the need to consult, and western indecision gives him time to adapt.
Since 2014, Russia’s economy has reoriented away from its dependence on the west, precisely to limit the impact of sanctions.
When war broke out in 2022, Russia had been adapting to sanctions for 8 years already.
Even though the scale was unprecedented, Russia had already prepared itself for the onslaught when it happened and has adapted better.
In 2022, with everyone crowing about the crashing rouble, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of over $230 billion which, by the way, is bigger than Ukraine’s whole economy.
Despite cutting off gas supplies and bearing down on shadow tankers, Russia to this day continues to pull in hefty trade surpluses each year. It has not been in deficit since 1998.
Lots of people argued that if we had gone all in 2014, then that might have made a difference. But believe we, that was debated in Europe, and no one could agree to it.
And I wonder whether, had it been agreed, Europe would simply have faced the political and economic turmoil which is currently going on now, ten years earlier.
So let’s stop talking about what ifs.
The ugly truth is that sanctions have become an end in themselves. They are not a strategy, but a fig leaf covering the embarrassing fact that the west does not have a strategy.
They are a weak alternative to war or peace that serve no purpose other than to prolong the war in Ukraine.
Western nations have shown themselves unwilling to contemplate diplomacy. Talking to Putin is dismissed as a prize that will take him out of international isolation; even though he only appears isolated by western nations. Yet diplomacy isn’t about talking to your friends, despite the never ending round of backslapping summits our leaders attend. Diplomacy is about talking to the people with whom you most disagree. We have refused to talk to Russia and continue to avoid diplomacy at all costs to this day.
Neither do we want war, Britain’s army today has 73,000 soldiers, 2,000 fewer than 2 years ago. Russia has 600,000 troops in Ukraine, apparently. We couldn’t even agree to send 10,000 troops as part of a so-called reassurance force although, to be honest, that idea didn’t reassure me at all.
Russia is outstripping us in the production of munitions, tanks and naval warships. And it has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
So I’m glad we don’t want war either.
But as we continue to pursue ever diminishing packages of sanctions, Ukraine will remain stuck in the middle, devastated and depopulated, as Europe deindustrialises and falls into the embrace of nationalism at an accelerating rate.
Meanwhile, despite obvious headwinds, Russia’s economy appears in better shape than ours. It would be impossible to claim that there had been no economic impacts on the Russian economy from sanctions. Yet with economic links to the West now all but destroyed, sanctions relief is less important to Russia than it is to Europe.
In Budapest recently I got talking to a member of the House of Lords and former Diplomatic Service colleague who is a close friend of Boris Johnson. During his speech he remarked that sanctions on Russia have had no impact at all.
Later over drinks we discussed this and he agreed with the arguments that I have put forward today. But then he paused, and said ‘ah, but you just can’t say that in Britain though’.
It’s time to wake up and realise the terrible mess we have got ourselves into through sanctions. Sanctions have failed to the great detriment of Ukraine. It’s time, finally, to get back to diplomacy.
Warsaw demands halt to Nord Stream sabotage probe – FT
RT | October 14, 2025
Germany is acting against NATO’s interests by continuing a criminal investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, Poland’s national security chief, Slawomir Cenckiewicz, has claimed, urging Berlin to shut down the probe.
The Nord Stream pipelines, which carried Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were severely damaged by underwater explosions in September 2022. Russia, which led the pipeline project, called the incident an act of state terrorism, while Western states including Poland applauded the bombings.
German prosecutors have attributed the sabotage to a group of seven Ukrainian nationals who allegedly used a small rented yacht to carry out the attack. Moscow has dismissed that version as “ridiculous,” maintaining that the scale and complexity of the operation point to state involvement.
Several suspects have so far been detained across the EU, including one in Poland and another in Italy, for allegedly blowing up the pipelines. However, Warsaw has refused to extradite the suspect held in Poland to Berlin.
Cenckiewicz told Financial Times it was in Poland’s interest to protect anyone connected to the operation, calling the German probe “a clear contradiction in interests between Poland and Germany.” He said the investigation “doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [NATO] alliance.”
Cenckiewicz argued that pursuing the cases “serves Russian injustice” and demanded an end to the probe, adding that Poland will not extradite the detained Ukrainian suspects.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also opposed extradition, saying “the problem with Nord Stream 2 is not that it was blown up, the problem is that it was built.”
Meanwhile, Russian officials have insisted that a state actor was likely behind the sabotage and have accused Germany of concealing evidence and excluding Moscow from the inquiry.
In 2023, veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh published a report alleging that the US, under then President Joe Biden’s orders, orchestrated the sabotage using Navy divers with Norwegian support during the NATO exercise BALTOPS 22. Washington and Oslo have denied the claim.
Talk of Sending Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine is Calculated Psy-Op to Pressure Russia
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.10.2025
The US won’t allow strikes on Russian refineries, says Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis.
Psy-op in the Making
“I don’t see any military prospects for using Tomahawks against Russia, except for attempts at informational blackmail and political pressure,” Mikhailov tells Sputnik.
No Tomahawks have been sent or launched, yet Western media frenzy suggests a pressure tactic.
It’s all connected:
- Washington raises the stakes by hinting at sending Tomahawks to Russia
- Western media, aligned with Washington, hype the story — discussing targets, launches, and control
- The impression is the missiles are already on their way
A Tomahawk launcher might even be rolled out at a test range somewhere simply for PR videos, Mikhailov suggests. But it would be similar to the Taurus missiles Germany promised: hyped by the media – yet still absent from Ukraine.
Washington Isn’t Suicidal
The Kremlin has repeatedly said Ukraine cannot launch Tomahawks on its own.
“Every Tomahawk fired at Russia from a US-made system by American crews would mark the start of a war between the US and Russia,” Mikhailov says.
- The idea of US-made Tomahawks striking energy infrastructure inside Russia is a fantasy
- Such an act would cross a red line that would trigger a response the US is 100% not ready for
- Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine explicitly states that a massive cruise missile attack (like a volley of Tomahawks) can be met with a NUCLEAR response
- Are the Americans ready to “collectively die” for this? The expert is clear: “I am absolutely sure, no.”
What Does the West Want?
The real target would be the “shadow fleet” moving Russian oil, according to the pundit. To that end, NATO holds provocative Baltic drills and tries to seize Russian ships.
The Nord Stream sabotage exemplifies economic attacks to choke Russia’s energy exports abroad.
West weaponizing laws to silence pro-Palestine activism: Study

Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025
The right to protest is facing increasing restrictions across the West, The Guardian reported on Monday, citing a new study by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which accuses governments of criminalizing pro-Palestine activism and using counter-terrorism and antisemitism laws to stifle dissent.
The report focuses on the UK, US, France, and Germany, accusing authorities in these countries of “weaponizing” national security and anti-hate legislation to silence criticism of “Israel” and suppress demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
“This trend reflects a worrying shift towards the normalization of exceptional measures in dealing with dissenting voices,” Yosra Frawes, head of FIDH’s Maghreb and Middle East desk, told The Guardian.
Compiled from open-source data, witness accounts, and institutional reports gathered between October 2023 and September 2025, the study was released just one day after a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire that secured the release of all living Israeli captives and around 2,000 Palestinian detainees.
According to FIDH, restrictions on speech and assembly have extended beyond protests, impacting journalists, academics, and public officials who express solidarity with Palestinians.
In the United Kingdom, the organization found that protest rights have eroded under both Conservative and Labour administrations. The report points to the 2024 anti-protest law introduced by the Conservatives, later deemed unlawful, and to what it calls the Labour government’s continuation of “official narratives” justifying support for “Israel”.
It highlights former Home Secretary Suella Braverman‘s branding of pro-Palestine rallies as “hate marches”, arguing that this rhetoric “stigmatized support for Palestine and Palestinian resistance movements” and “worked to discriminate against Muslims and other racialized groups in the UK.”
FIDH says the change in government in July 2024 “did little to change official government narratives,” claiming Labour has linked criticism of “Israel” with “violent antisemitism” while continuing to target Muslim and racialized communities.
The tensions have been further inflamed by the Labour government’s ban on the activist network Palestine Action and its proposal to expand police powers at protests.
FIDH draws parallels across the Atlantic, where US authorities have detained demonstrators and pursued legal actions against individuals expressing solidarity with Palestine. In France, the government has faced criticism for banning pro-Palestine demonstrations in several cities and for dissolving the rights group Urgence Palestine.
Meanwhile, in Germany, protests have drawn thousands, but police tactics and restrictions on slogans deemed antisemitic, for the mere criticism of “Israel”, have been widely condemned as excessive. The report argues that Germany’s actions reflect a “collective discomfort” in balancing free expression with its postwar responsibility to combat what it classifies as “antisemitism”.
Freedom crisis
The federation recommends that the UK establish an independent oversight body for policing demonstrations and amend key legislation, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, to protect political speech and prevent arbitrary searches.
“Ultimately, the crackdown on solidarity with Palestinians reveals a profound crisis, not only of human rights in the occupied territories but of freedom itself, in societies that claim to be democratic,” the report concludes.
FIDH says that while legal frameworks vary among the UK, US, France, and Germany, the trend toward restricting Palestinian solidarity movements represents a global pattern of shrinking civic space, one that calls into question the credibility of Western nations as defenders of democratic freedoms.
The EU isn’t at war with Russia – it’s at war with the minds of its own citizens
European leaders are trying to gaslight their populations into believing that it’s Moscow that wants a fight, not them
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 14, 2025
Among other things, this particular moment in history will be remembered – whether in whole books, mere chapters, or (if we are lucky) forgotten footnotes – as the Great European Drone Scare. For weeks now, the populations of NATO-EU Europe have been subjected to a barrage of vague but scary reports about drone sightings. The drones have appeared – seemingly – over various places and installations, prominently including airports in Denmark and Germany.
They are of unknown origin and unknown purpose. And, quite often, it is actually also unknown whether they are even real. Indeed, there is no proof of Russia being responsible for any of these incidents, as even Western media admit. We are once again asked to simply trust our politicians and “experts.”
That is, the same ones who took months to stop pretending that Russia – absurdly – blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. As late as spring 2023, Germany’s Carlo Masala, for instance, who also believes “Girkin” and “Strelkov” are two different individuals (just like “Santa” and “Claus”), was still spreading groundless speculation – really, a conspiracy theory – about a “false flag attack” on Nord Stream, that is: Russia, Russia, Russia.
And – oh, coincidence! – also recently, Moscow, we are told, has had nothing better to do than oblige Western information warriors with three further sort-of incidents: a purported electronic-warfare attack on the plane of EU despot and de facto US proconsul Ursula von der Leyen over the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, an alleged incursion into Estonian airspace, and low fly-overs over the German frigate Hamburg during a recent NATO exercise.
In reality, those three stories share only one thing with the great drone saga: They don’t hold up to scrutiny. The case of the alleged Plovdiv GPS attack is so shoddy and cratered so badly so quickly that it’s been consigned to oblivion. The incursion into Estonian airspace did not happen either. Due to an agreement that Estonia itself signed in 1994, it cannot claim a 12-mile but only a 3-mile zone in the relevant area. Estonia’s case is hysterical to begin with; the 1994 agreement deprives it of even the flimsiest pretext of legality. Regarding the so-called buzzing of the Hamburg, finally, even Western military officials admit that it was not “imminently dangerous.” Instead, they complain, it was “unfriendly and provocative.” Frankly: Boohoo. What do you expect holding exercises on Russia’s doorstep while fighting an indirect war against it in Ukraine? A friendly chat among sailors over a stiff grog?
And yet everyone in NATO-EU establishment politics and its mainstream media has been singing the same old tired song, once again, sotto voce: Russia is coming, Russia is already here, Russia is everywhere. The new head of Germany’s spy agency – the Bundesnachrichtendienst – seems to believe that his job is not to do secret things quietly but to join the chorus of the panic-mongers: He also has sleepless visions of the Russians attacking just any day now. Maybe from right under his bed or out of his cupboard, one must suppose.
It is almost as if they were all reading from the same hymn sheet, that is, memo. And, of course, the new wave of self-induced hyper-ventilation has been milked for all it’s worth – a lot, as in billions of Euros – for yet more money to be spent on armaments, including but not limited to a “drone wall,” while ordinary people are subjected to ever more brutal austerity. Even more disturbingly, there is a clear drive to concentrate ever more powers with those same political establishments that can’t stop ruling by frightening and confusing their own citizens.
That the drone stories are already crumbling makes no difference: A dramatic French attempt – special forces and all – to pin nefarious drone activity on a tanker, for instance, has failed miserably. In Germany, a recent sighting has actually been cleared up quickly. The culprit? A hapless German drone amateur who must be living under a rock.
And perish the thought that Ukraine itself might have anything to do with those mystery drones! Its regime has plenty of motive, and, by now, even the West has been compelled to acknowledge that it is perfectly capable of massive sabotage operations and lies to manipulate its European backers. Because that is now even the official story of the Nord Stream terror attack. But: thinking logically – verboten!
Instead, let’s pretend that we know what we don’t know (Russia, Russia, Russia!) and start overreacting, again, based on our ignorance and panic at best, on a malevolent, deliberate strategy of cognitive warfare against our own countries at worst. In Germany, for instance, both Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius have made the bizarre claim that while the country is not (yet?) at war, it is also no longer at peace. And the-Russians-are-coming head of the BND? He feels the current peace is “icy” at best and – drum roll – “could turn into heated confrontation at any moment.”
What is that even supposed to mean? Is there a backhanded admission, finally, that Germany has made a deliberate and awfully self-harming choice to fight Russia through Ukraine? If so, thank you, Hauptmann Obvious: during last year’s Ukrainian Kamikaze offensive, German tanks got shredded once again in the vicinity of Kursk – at the 1943 site of the largest tank battle in history. (And guess who lost?) We have noticed that much. How about you, our supposed leaders, stop playing with fire?
Or are these fear-mongering statements meant to prepare the ground for a concrete power grab? That is what Roderich Kiesewetter, an ultra-Russophobe and war fantasist from Merz’s own center-right CDU party has already suggested explicitly: he wants the German parliament to declare the so-called “Spannungsfall,” literally “situation of tension.” In the mainstream media, for instance the important newspaper Welt, the usual information warriors are already amplifying Kiesewetter’s message. And – yet another striking coincidence – a recent military exercise called “Red Storm Bravo,” in Hamburg, one of Germany’s biggest cities, was dedicated to cosplaying the “Spannungsfall” – with maximum publicity.
The consequences of initiating a “Spannungsfall” – a kind of official pre-war – are complex and severe: Open-ended, compulsory, and universal military service is only one of them; the army can be used domestically; citizens can be drafted for work; civil rights are painfully restricted; those critical of government policy, NATO, or the “Spannungsfall” itself can be cajoled even worse than usual.
Last but not least, the “Spannungsfall” allows the government to postpone or otherwise influence elections. In Germany, it would be an ideal vehicle for the traditional parties to at least stall the consequences of their own failure, unpopularity and decline, on one side, and the rise of challengers on the so-called “populist” new right and left, on the other.
Carl Schmitt, Germany’s 20th-century version of Niccolo Machiavelli – brilliantly smart, ruthlessly realistic, and morally badly questionable – defined ultimate political power as the ability to declare a state of exception. In essence, Schmitt’s logic was simple: we live together by having rules; hence, the power that trumps all others is to decide when those rules do not apply.
Schmitt explained extremes. In reality, governments don’t raze all rules in one fell swoop. Why should they? To unshackle themselves and become even less accountable than usual they proceed stealthily and gradually. No need to trumpet a state of exception in its pure, all-or-nothing form. Why needlessly scare the subjects and, perhaps, provoke resistance?
Instead, what usually happens is the invocation of an emergency – either simply made-up or greatly exaggerated – to justify chipping away at citizens’ rights, first a little then a lot, while boosting the unchecked powers of the rulers and their bureaucrats. Call it the salami-slicing tactics of Western liberalism.
Dialing up the state of exception in handy instalments – that is also the most plausible explanation of the recent great drone scare in NATO-EU Europe. Yet another phase in the years-long Putin-is-gonna-get-you cognitive warfare campaign that Western establishments and mainstream media have been waging on their own fellow citizens, the great drone scare serves the general purpose to promote even more panic over an allegedly impending Russian attack on NATO states.
The techniques for escalating the war scare are dishonest and repetitive, but highly developed. As a high-ranking NATO general has told us, their aim is not simply to manipulate “what people think.” That, in NATO-speak, would be mere propaganda and just so old-hat. Rather, the state-of-the-art approach is to “exploit vulnerabilities of the human mind” to influence “the way” people think. Targeting “human capital” – yes, that’s us, all of us – “from the individual to states, to multinational organizations, across everyday life.”
Of course, the official pretense is that all of the above is what the enemy – read: Russia (and China) – does or, at worst, what NATO will do to that enemy. But is in the nature of the cognitive warfare shtick that it easily allows for turning the psychological disruption guns on the West’s own populations. Because – so the pretext – those populations are already under cognitive attack by the enemy. So what can you do, except fight back on the battlefield you claim is under attack: their minds? We have seen and experienced the results of this nifty little sleight of hand for years already.
But there also is something special. In the words of Jonas Togel, one of the few Western experts daring to notice Western information warfare, “it is worse than it has ever been.” Indeed, but there is no guarantee that things won’t get even worse again. The real question is how much longer our cognitive warriors-in-chief will have a free hand to drive us all mad with fear.
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.
