Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Top Kremlin official says NATO seeks to ‘re-establish military presence’ in Afghanistan

The Cradle | August 29, 2025

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu on 29 August accused western intelligence of plotting to destabilize Afghanistan and rebuild NATO’s military infrastructure there.

Writing in state-owned Rossiyskaya Gazeta magazine, Shoigu said that Russia is seeking to expand cooperation with Afghanistan as it seeks to recover from two decades of US occupation that ended with the chaotic withdrawal of US troops in 2021.

Washington spent $2 trillion to invade and occupy Afghanistan starting in 2001, Shoigu noted, while facilitating the production of opium, much of which was used to make heroin for export to Russia.

Shoigu explained that opium production in the country skyrocketed during the 1980s when CIA-backed extremist groups, known as the mujahideen, sought to destabilize the Soviet-backed Afghan government and later to expel occupying Soviet troops.

When the Taliban first took power in 1996, they immediately cracked down on the opium trade, only for US-backed warlords to revive it after the 2001 US invasion in the wake of 9/11.

When the Taliban took power for a second time in 2021, they all but eliminated the heroin trade once again.

Shoyghu stated that some 20 international extremist groups continue to operate in Afghanistan, undermining stability within the country and posing a serious regional and global threat.

Of greatest concern is the Afghan wing of ISIS, which has training camps and support bases, mainly in the east, north, and northeast of the country.

Shoigu said militants are being moved from other countries by western intelligence to destabilize regions near Russia, China, and Iran.

“There is reason to believe that behind these actions are the special services of a number of western countries, which continue to hatch plans to destabilize the region, to create chronic centers of instability near Russia, China, and Iran by means of extremist groups hostile to the Taliban,” he wrote.

“It is also clear that the western powers, having lost their positions in the Afghan direction, are hatching plans to return NATO military infrastructure facilities to the region,” he added.

Shoigu stated that as a result, Moscow is ready to assist the Taliban in stabilizing the country, including by developing anti-terrorist and anti-drug cooperation with Kabul through law enforcement agencies.

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

The Game of Risk in Ukraine – Part 30 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | August 28, 2025

Neocons have been trying to destroy Russia since 1917 and were delighted with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The empire took control of Russia via privatization that allowed the mass looting of state assets. Former American presidential National Security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, mapped out the neocon plan to fragment larger nations of Eastern Europe and Central Asia into weak vassal states in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard.” Neocons advocate the destruction of Russia, not because it threatens anyone, but because it regained independence when Vladimir Putin came to power. Russia is a large, powerful nation that may block the expansion of the Anglo-American empire. Russians are tired of continual threats from warmongering neocons. They’ve sanctioned Russia for decades, funded terror attacks inside Russia, and even attacked Russia with NATO weaponry. These neocons will not agree to a peaceful settlement so Russia will be forced to take all of Ukraine.

_________________________________

“The Grand Chessboard”; Zbigniew Brzezinski; 1997; https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottaba…

“Military Summary” channel; YouTube; daily war updates;    / @militarysummary  

Related Tales:

“The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia  

August 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

“Greater Israel”: A huge challenge to Arab national security

By Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini | MEMO | August 29, 2025

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister recently declared unwavering commitment to the vision of a “Greater Israel”. He explicitly links Israel’s future to a project that extends beyond its current borders into neighbouring Arab lands. As the Israeli street has decisively turned towards to the right, the remarks of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving leader, carried unusual weight. The significance of these remarks was underscored by the US President Donald Trump’s earlier comment that Israel is “too small”; a suggestion that its borders must expand. This is a view that is often reflected in the thinking within decision making circles in Washington.

Regional responses to Netanyahu’s remarks have been swift. Governments condemned his framing of the “Greater Israel” project as both a historic and spiritual mission, calling it a direct assault on their sovereignty and international law. Statements issued whether individually or collectively urged a firm Arab and international response. The most recent Arab League summit, meanwhile, approved the creation of a “Joint Arab Security Coordination Room,” led by Baghdad, to counter terrorism and organised crime. While modest in scope, this move hinted at a growing recognition of the need for collective Arab security mechanisms.

Netanyahu’s declaration underscored a threat that Arab states have long tried to downplay. It is one of three realities. In particular, it highlights the need for a thorough reassessment of the current framework of Arab national security, amid a series of recent developments and shifting regional dynamics.

The second reality is the Israeli strikes against Gaza and Iran, as well as its operations in Lebanon and Syria, which reflect a number of facts. Israel have laid bare the depth of its intelligence and cyber capabilities, which it has used perfectly to conduct espionage and infiltrate the countries of the region. Israel has clearly crossed a red line by killing a huge number of innocent people especially in Gaza, but also in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen. By so doing, it has stripped away any remaining illusions, about its intentions, exposing a policy making elite whose actions reflect a deeply rooted hostility toward Arabs, Muslims and Christians in the region. Israel has also concentrated efforts to weaken these countries, not only by destroying their offensive and defensive  militarily capabilities, but also by stoking domestic divisions inside these countries. In Lebanon, the US urged the Lebanese leadership to withdraw Hezbollah’s weapons, potentially igniting a major conflict in the country. Also in Syria, Israel backed the Druze in Suwaida in south Syria, putting them under its protection, and targeting the Syrian military around Suwaida. And in Iran, Israel could not hide its support of any efforts to change the Iranian system. All these facts support the first reality of Netanyahu’s declaration about a “Greater Israel”.

The American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s position and to supporting its interests in the region, which has been well documented after October seventh war in Gaza is the third reality. Although Western commitment to Israel’s supremacy and  dominance in the region is not new, Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, are facing escalating threats from Israel. Since their security and military systems remain tethered to the same Western frameworks that guarantee Israel’s dominance, a dangerous paradox has been created. These three dynamics together raise profound questions about the viability of Arab national security itself.

American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s military edge codified through legislation, strategic agreements, and vast financial assistance have effectively ensured Israeli supremacy. The historical record underscores this pattern. While no formal defence treaty exists between Washington and Tel Aviv, successive crises from the Iran conflict to earlier regional wars have proven that the US actually treats Israel’s security as its own. Agreements dating back to the Camp David Accords in 1979, followed by the 1981 strategic cooperation pact under Ronald Reagan, institutionalised regular military coordination. By 2016, Washington had pledged $38 billion in military aid to Israel over a decade, the largest commitment to any state in US history covering everything from the Iron Dome missile defence to advanced cyber and artificial intelligence systems. In addition, American military stockpiles are even positioned inside Israel for use in times of war.

The European Union, for its part, maintains a formal partnership with Israel. While Brussels occasionally voices criticism of Israeli settlement policies, the EU nevertheless treats Israel as a strategic partner in technology, research, and security. Cooperative projects under the Horizon research program, Galileo satellite systems, and Europol counterterrorism agreements illustrate this entrenched partnership. NATO, too, while Israel is not a member, has made it a central partner in its “Mediterranean Dialogue” since 1994. From naval operations in the Mediterranean to bilateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and Germany, Israel enjoys deep institutional ties that are exceedingly difficult to suspend, even amid humanitarian crises.

By contrast, Arab defence systems remain structurally constrained. From fighter jets to missile defence and cybersecurity, the overwhelming majority of Arab armies rely on American or European suppliers, contracts, and oversight. Agreements with the US often explicitly prohibit the use of weapons against Israel, while ensuring that Israeli forces retain technological superiority. Gulf states’ air defence networks are tied into Western early warning systems, and even Egypt, the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel, cannot update or deploy certain strategic systems without Washington’s approval. This interdependence not only erodes Arab strategic autonomy but also grants Washington effective veto power over Arab military responses. In addition, Washington’s strategy of pushing Arab-Israeli normalisation, rooted in economic interdependence and security entanglement, has only deepened this dependency, tying both Arab military capacity and economic systems into frameworks that reinforce Israeli superiority.

The current dilemma is stark; Arab security frameworks remain subordinate to Western systems that are legally and strategically bound to protect Israel’s military edge. Netanyahu’s invocation of “Greater Israel” thus appears to be more than rhetoric, it is a direct challenge to Arab sovereignty. For years, Arab governments have sidestepped the Israeli threat in their national security doctrines, focusing instead on other internal or regional challenges. But recent developments from the war in Gaza to attacks on Iranian, Lebanon, and Syria’s sovereignty, and the explicit articulation of expansionist ambitions have pushed this challenge to the forefront. What is at stake now is not simply how Arab states define threats, but also how they can build independent security structures capable of responding to them. Without such a recalibration, Arab national security risks maintaining a framework designed not to defend against external threats, but to sustain a regional order where Israel’s supremacy is guaranteed. Yet the challenge remains daunting. The intersection of three realities, the unveiling of Israel’s expansionist agenda, the unqualified US Western backing for Israel, and the structural dependence of Arab security systems on Western powers creates a near impossible environment for an independent Arab response.

August 29, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Cut welfare, give billions to Ukraine, suppress opposition: The German leader’s checklist to success

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | August 27, 2025

German chancellor Friedrich Merz has made a moderate media splash and ruffled some feathers in his own ruling coalition with the Centrist Social Democrats (SPD). Using the platform of a regional party congress of his CDU Conservatives in Niedersachsen, Merz has delivered a speech that immediately attracted national attention and will be remembered for one phrase.

“The social [welfare] state, as we have it today,” the chancellor declared with appropriately dour mien, “can no longer be financed by what we are achieving economically.” Put differently, severe budget cuts on social issues are coming. And since that is a policy operative since, at the latest, 2003, there really isn’t so much left to cut. Merz is promising his people more of a bad time.

His people. Not, however, the ultra-corrupt political anti-elite of Ukraine. Just before Merz’s claim that Germany cannot afford what it used to offer to Germans who pay for it, his government promised €9 billion ($10.4 bn) per year for Ukraine in 2025 and 2026, for now. That is on top of the €44 billion already sent that way. Germany is the “second-largest backer” of the Kiev regime in the world, as its obviously thoroughly detached finance minister Lars Klingbeil emphasizes with a perverse pride that must sound like a bad joke to many of his compatriots.

Speaking of Klingbeil, in his Niedersachsen speech Merz also announced that he would “deliberately not make it easy” for his government colleagues from the SPD, who include, of course, Klingbeil. The SPD, of course, is well-known for being against harsh reductions in what Germans can expect from, in essence, old-age pensions, public health care, and the basic form of unemployment insurance now known as “Bürgergeld” (literally, “citizens’ money”).

There is no reason to underestimate Merz’s genuine ideological commitment. It is true that, in general, he is unusually brutal about being dishonest even for a politician: Germany’s current leader has already proven that he is capable of breathtaking flipflops, staggering electoral bad faith, and underhanded maneuvering that violates the spirit of democracy if not the letter of the constitution.

In the spring, his U-turn on public debt, to finance Germany’s new militarism on – exuberant – credit, was not only a massive breach of trust regarding especially his own conservative voters. Shamelessly exploiting a legal loophole, Merz also executed this radical reversal – many in his own party called it betrayal – by relying on parliamentary majorities that had already been cancelled by an election.

Likewise, Merz’s coalition then proceeded to break promises regarding an energy tax relief as well as benefits for mothers. Germans are angry, but there is no sign that Merz and his government care. Consequently, according to a fresh poll by the reputable INSA institute, 62 percent of Germans are dissatisfied with their government.

And yet, there is a hard core of authentic Merz, shaped by his own wealth, a very privileged life without material worries, and his long career as an overpaid member of the supervisory-board network nobility, at BlackRock and elsewhere: if there is one thing Germany’s leader is sincere about, it is his iron will to make the less well-off bleed more and work even harder, while making sure that those as materially comfortable and safe as himself get even richer. Call it neoliberalism with an unsmiling German face.

Merz, of course, is also a very ordinary man, incapable of much self-reflection. He cannot honestly face any of the above. Instead he misunderstands himself as a savior of the fatherland, which he sees in need of much tough love and plenty of wholesome kicks up the backside to rediscover discipline, hard work, and competitiveness.

The upshot of Merz’s blatant upper-class bias is, as a perspicacious German observer has put it, a de facto escalation of the ongoing re-distribution of income, wealth, and life chances – from those below to those above. Even now, 80 percent of the country’s taxes stem from income and value-added taxation. In other words: you work, you eat and keep a family going – be proud, you are also doing by far the most to pay the country’s bills. But Friedrich Merz, a millionaire who falls under “silver-spoon” rather than “self-made,” thinks it’s not yet enough.

No wonder, then, that Merz’s recent speech in Niedersachsen has resonated. It was delivered in a sour as well as emphatic tone perhaps best described as schoolmasterly belligerence and featured much gratuitous no-compromise posing addressed probably more to his own doubting party and voters then his SPD coalition partners in Berlin. If Merz’s intention was to achieve a minor shock effect after Germany’s political summer break, he’s scored an ephemeral success.

But his speech has also been misunderstood. In reality, its key message was something else and even worse. Yet another “business-friendly” – and business has also been very friendly to him – instinctive Western austeritarian telling his people they are having it too good and must lower their expectations? Not really news, is it?

What was much more interesting was Merz’s reasoning. In his own words, the central political challenge is to prove that Germany “can be governed successfully from the center.” Or to be concrete, to keep down and out of power Germany’s two “populist” insurgent parties: from the right the very successful Alternative for Germany party (AfD), which tends to lead German opinion polls now, and, from the left, the currently marginalized – probably by foul play in the manner of, say, Romania or Moldova – but still threatening Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW).

Merz’s threat to go after what is left of the social welfare state in Germany comes with a promise of “reforms,” indeed a whole “autumn of reforms.” The purpose of this planned political offensive is clear: to persuade voters that they need not rely on those terrible “populists” to finally break out of the German doom loop of economic decline, demographic crisis, and pervasive malaise.

Yet Merz’s strategy of what Germans call a “Befreiungsschlag” (a “deliverance strike”) smells of despair and is unlikely to succeed. Instead of an “autumn of reforms,” Germans are more likely to see their Winter of Discontent get even grimmer.

Consider some basic data: We have just learned that Germany’s recession in the last quarter has been even worse than predicted: -0.3 instead of -0.1 percent. German industry is shedding jobs by the hundreds of thousands. In general, Germany’s economy remains heavily dependent on exports. It has stagnated for half a decade already and been in serious trouble much longer. In the EU+Britain, it is the most brutally affected by Trump’s ongoing and still escalating tariff war against Washington’s vassals. Klingbeil admits that the budget will be €170 billion short by 2029 – despite dialing debt up to eleven.

And all of that when the German ruling coalition only has what the Financial Times rightly calls a “razor-thin” parliamentary majority. Add that two of the most damaging strikes against the German economy have been self-inflicted: Sky-high energy prices, the direct result of shutting Germany off from (direct) Russian supplies – with the alleged help of a few Ukrainian divers and their US friends, of course – and subservience to the US.

That subservience has only grown worse under both Merz and his equally hapless predecessor Olaf Scholz. Both have been bending over backward to please and appease America, just when its policies have become even more brutal: We are at a moment in “atlanticism” when a US treasury secretary openly announces that Washington sees its allies’ economies as its very own “sovereign wealth fund” at the disposal not of their governments or – perish the thought – citizens, but of the US president. And Merz and co. grin and nod and ask for more.

The irony of it all is that while slavishly compliant with the US, Merz cannot learn the single biggest, most obvious lesson of its very recent political history, although it quite literally stares him in the face every time he visits the Oval Office to grovel: Donald Trump has become president against enormous resistance not once but twice because he led a “populist” challenge against a rotten establishment that Americans saw as unpatriotic.

The future of Merz is not the success of Trump but the defeat and disgrace of Biden and everything he stood for. Germans, too, will demand a government that looks after German interests before it makes even more demands of them. Grotesquely, Merz thinks he is the savior of the old German establishment. He is its gravedigger. And in that sense, all power to his misguided arm!

Tarik Cyril Amar, 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

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Turkish media disappointed with Zelensky after recent diplomatic talks

By Lucas Leiroz | August 27, 2025

Global antipathy toward illegitimate Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is growing. Inside and outside Ukraine, many people see Zelensky as responsible for the disastrous humanitarian crisis currently affecting the Ukrainian people, as well as the main obstacle to reaching a peace agreement. Now, even countries that have positioned themselves as mediators in the conflict are beginning to make their rejection of the Ukrainian government clear.

Recently, pro-government media in Turkey stated that Zelensky is the main challenge to peace in Ukraine. Bercan Tutar, columnist and director of the Foreign News Department at Turkuvaz Medya/Sabah Gazetesi, wrote in his column that the Ukrainian leader is trying to boycott peace initiatives undertaken jointly by Russia and the US. Tutar describes Zelensky as intransigent, uncompromising, and clearly opposes the president’s aggressive and pro-war stance.

As well known, there have been a series of recent diplomatic events that signal the return of dialogue in the conflict between Russia and NATO in Ukraine. Since Donald Trump’s inauguration in the US, direct contact between the leaders of the main nuclear powers has become easier, significantly reducing global tensions. This dialogue, while still premature to end hostilities in Ukraine, allows for a relief from the pressure generated by the conflict, as Russia begins to have direct contact with the main country in the pro-Ukrainian coalition.

However, this diplomatic turn is being deeply sabotaged by the Ukrainian side. Turkish expert Tutar says Zelensky rejected “every point” raised by Trump, thus creating serious problems for the peace dialogue. Furthermore, he blamed Zelensky for being responsible for the current war by noting that “millions of Russian-origin citizens live in Ukraine,” while the fascist government refuses to revise the laws that unfairly restrict the use of the Russian language.

Tutar asserts that the West has a misconception of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. He says Western propaganda describes the Russian president in a way that doesn’t reflect reality, portraying him as authoritarian and aggressive. Tutar asserts that, on the contrary, it is Zelensky who is acting in an authoritarian manner both internally and externally, banning opponents, and seeking war at any cost. In practice, Tutar agrees that the West uses its propaganda machine to distort the truth about the conflict and promote narratives supporting Ukraine.

It’s important to remember that this journalist and his partners are citizens of a NATO member state — one that is also actively involved in the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. However, Turkey’s long-standing strategic relationship with Russia has led Ankara to also engage in a diplomatic mediation role, despite having previously sent arms to Ukraine.

Considering that Tutar and the Sabah Gazetesi newspaper are part of the media apparatus supporting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government, it’s safe to say that critical opinion against the Ukrainian government is growing in Turkey — not only among ordinary people or social movements, but also among the government’s own elites.

This is particularly significant at a time of renewed diplomatic talks, some of which took place on Turkish soil, where Russian and Ukrainian delegations recently met to present their demands. In practice, the emergence of this critical opinion at this current moment makes it clear that Turkish political elites have become aware of the destabilizing role played by the Kiev regime.

This doesn’t mean there’s a “pro-Russian” bias in Turkey. The Turks are simply protecting their own interests by trying to position themselves as a mediator in the current conflict. What Ankara plans is to expand its sphere of influence through its ability to balance the interests of NATO (and its Ukrainian proxy) and Russia.

This is consistent with the strategy of ambiguity adopted by the country in its foreign policy doctrine. It’s possible to say that Zelensky thwarted Turkey’s plans to project power through diplomacy, which is now being reflected in the position of the country’s pro-government media.

It’s inevitable that the advancement of diplomatic dialogue will be accompanied by a rise in critical opinions toward Zelenesky. As these talks unfold, more and more people will see that the Ukrainian side is the least interested in peace and the one that most deliberately sabotages diplomatic resolution initiatives just to protect the corrupt elite that has dominated the country since the Maidan Coup.

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

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

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Colossal industrial-scale warfare in NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict

By Drago Bosnic | August 26, 2025

Heavy industry has always been the key element of modern warfare. Without the ability to outproduce the opponent, your chances of winning are slim to none. Accustomed to the one-sided aggression against virtually the entire world, the political West neglected the actual industrial capacity of its Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Fighting largely helpless opponents left it mainly focused on weapon systems that are unsuitable for mass production and deployment. This made the US/NATO incapable of matching Russia, China and other multipolar powers that never outsourced their production economies. With its “economy of imaginary assets”, the political West stands in stark contrast to the multipolar world, but still hopes it can control global economic and financial processes based on effectively nothing.

Even the staunchest Western neoliberal think tanks now realize that this approach is failing, particularly in our era. However, the idea that industrial warfare is making a return is patently wrong. The simple truth is that it was always there. The NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict dispelled virtually all Western myths about warfare in this day and age. In fact, the entire idea of postmodernism has failed, even in military theory. The belief that wars can be won in mere days with “shock and awe” tactics of mass precision strikes simply doesn’t hold, especially against major regional powers and global superpowers. It might still work against small and isolated countries, but not more than that. As a result, the political West is now pushing for rapid reindustrialization that can only be achieved through remilitarization.

The reason for this is quite simple. The MIC is the only sector of Western economies that hasn’t been fully outsourced. However, the process itself is still taking too long. Back in June, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted that Russia alone is outproducing the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel by a factor of four in several key sectors (particularly artillery).

The situation has only gotten worse (for the political West) since then, as Moscow keeps increasing the production of all major military assets. It should be noted that this is in response to escalating US/NATO arms deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, published on August 23, the United States has authorized the sale of 3,350 ERAMS (Extended Range Attack Munitions) to the Kiev regime forces.

The contract is valued at $850 million (€780 million) and is primarily financed by the European Union. First deliveries are expected within six weeks. The Trump administration delayed the decision until after the conclusion of high-profile talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. ERAMs are air-launched precision-guided weapons designed to strike high-value targets from standoff ranges (up to 450 km, depending on the launch altitude and trajectory). The US/NATO hopes the ERAM will be enough to circumvent Russia’s electronic warfare (EW) advantage, allegedly enabling precision strikes even under intense jamming, thus restoring the Neo-Nazi junta’s ability to attack high-value targets (HVTs) deep within Russia (in theory, at least). The rapidly evolving battlefield conditions will certainly put this to the test.

ERAMs are equipped with a combined GPS and INS (inertial navigation system), augmented by a terminal seeker. They’re designed to destroy targets such as ammunition depots, command centers, radar installations, etc. They can also integrate different warhead types and are compact enough to be carried by fighter aircraft, primarily Western designs such as the US-made F-16 and possibly the French-built “Mirage”.

The possibility of integration with Soviet-era Su-27s and MiG-29s shouldn’t be excluded either. However, the US reportedly restricted the Kiev regime’s operational authority over the ERAM and will “require case-by-case approval from the Pentagon”. It means that the US will have direct control over what Russian targets are to be hit. This is yet another confirmation that Washington DC directly participates in hostilities.

Other NATO member states are also involved in similar projects through the so-called PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) program. The world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is determined to ensure its war in Ukraine continues no matter the cost. Russia is responding to this by increasing its own production of crucial military assets. This is particularly true for “Geranium” drones, which are now the Russian military’s primary long-range precision strike weapons. Citing the Neo-Nazi junta’s intelligence services, CNN claims that the Kremlin can produce over 6,000 of these drones per month. There are now three versions of the “Geranium” kamikaze drones, each initially based on the Iranian-made “Shahed-131”, “Shahed-136” and “Shahed-238”, respectively. The “Geranium-3” is powered by a turbojet engine.

CNN also claims that the economies of scale production in Russia lowered the initial cost of each drone by a factor of three (from over $200,000 per unit to less than $70,000 now). What’s more, Moscow also made massive improvements, which were then backported to the original Iranian designs. This includes jamming-resistant GLONASS-aided INS and other upgrades that now make both “Geraniums” and “Shaheds” far more reliable.

More recently, the Russian military has been experimenting with advanced AI-run electro-optical targeting systems that massively improve precision, including a specially modified version that can deploy anti-tank mines. Combined with expanded mass production, these improvements explain the colossal surge in the use of “Geranium” drones, with Moscow simultaneously launching hundreds.

This also allowed the Russian military to shift its approach of deploying these drones in operational strikes to more tactical frontline engagements. The results were virtually immediate, with one recent video showing the destruction of the grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced US-made M142 HIMARS MLRS (multiple launch rocket system). It was detected in a forested area near the settlement of Rogovka in the Chernigov oblast (region), with at least two “Geranium” drones neutralizing the MLRS just minutes later. Such HVTs usually have to be targeted by far more expensive weapons, such as the 9M723 hypersonic missiles of the now legendary 9K720M “Iskander-M” system. However, the massive increase in Moscow’s production capacity allows for the much more affordable “Geraniums” to be used instead.

Such weapons can also replace regular cruise missiles which cost millions of dollars apiece, with “Geraniums” often taking that role. Their ability to destroy or at least damage critical infrastructure cannot be countered by virtually any air defense system, as SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) are usually dozens of times more expensive than these drones.

This also gives the “Geranium” a critical role in exhausting the Kiev regime’s (and, by extension, NATO’s) air defenses. Even on a tactical level, the scale of losses for the political West and its Neo-Nazi puppets is unsustainable, as a single HIMARS launcher costs up to $5,000,000, meaning that it’s over 70 times more expensive than a single “Geranium” drone. It’s highly questionable that even the entire NATO can sustain such losses in a protracted confrontation with anyone, let alone Russia.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Britain faces worst crash in fifty years – economists

RT | August 25, 2025

Britain is facing the prospect of a repeat of its crippling 1976 economic crash as soaring debt and borrowing costs raise doubts over Labour’s budget policies, leading economists have warned, according to a Telegraph report.

The crisis nearly fifty years ago saw a Labour government forced to seek an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after deficits and inflation spun out of control. It became one of Britain’s worst postwar crises, with the bailout bringing deep spending cuts and Labour losing power a few years later.

Now Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces similar warnings, with forecasts showing a £50 billion ($68 billion) gap in the public finances and debt interest set to exceed £111 billion. Debt now exceeds 96% of GDP. At around £2.7 trillion, it is one of the heaviest burdens in the developed world. Government borrowing costs have surged, with yields on 30-year bonds climbing above 5.5%, higher than those of the US and Greece.

Jagjit Chadha, former head of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, told the Telegraph the outlook was “as perilous as the period leading up to the IMF loan of 1976,” warning Britain could struggle to meet pensions and welfare payments.

Andrew Sentance, once a Bank of England policymaker, said Reeves was “on course to deliver a [former UK Chancellor Denis] Healey 1976-style crisis in late 2025 or 26,” accusing Labour of fueling inflation with higher taxes, borrowing, and spending.

The warnings come weeks before Reeves is due to present her first autumn budget, where she is expected to announce further tax rises to cover the shortfall – a move critics argue would deepen the downturn. The Labour government also faces deepening political and economic challenges, including declining support.

On Saturday, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage declared it was “the 1970s all over again,” while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described soaring borrowing costs as the price of Labour’s “economic mismanagement.”

London has pledged to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, aligning with NATO commitments. Britain remains one of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters, delivering billions in military and financial aid – further squeezing already stretched public finances.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

‘Don’t threaten us’ – EU state to Zelensky

RT | August 25, 2025

Hungary has warned Ukraine to stop disrupting its energy supply from Russia after Kiev targeted a key pipeline delivering oil to Central Europe.

Ukrainian forces struck the Soviet-era Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline three times this month, sparking outrage in both Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. The flow through the pipeline was last halted on Friday.

At a press conference during Independence Day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday, a reporter asked Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky how the attacks relate to Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions.

“We have always supported friendship with Hungary, but now the very existence of this friendship depends on Budapest’s position,” Zelensky replied with a smile, playing on the pipeline’s name.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto issued a sharp rebuke on X. “Zelensky used Ukraine’s national holiday to threaten Hungary. We firmly reject the Ukrainian President’s intimidation,” Szijjarto wrote. He described the attack on Hungary’s energy supply as “an attack on sovereignty.”

“A war to which Hungary has nothing to do with can never justify violating our sovereignty. We call on Zelensky to stop threatening Hungary and to end the reckless attacks on our energy security!” he added.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X, writing to Szijjarto: “You don’t need to tell the Ukrainian President what to do or say, and when.” He urged Budapest to “diversify and become independent from Russia, like the rest of Europe.”

Szijjarto shot back: “Stop attacking our energy security! This is not our war!”

Unlike many EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has heavily criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. The country maintains that Ukraine’s NATO membership could trigger an all-out conflict with Russia.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Do you really believe a Ukrainian on a yacht took out Nord Stream?

RT | August 24, 2025

The Nord Stream pipeline bombing is back in the news after the recent arrest of a Ukrainian national, identified as Sergey Kuznetsov, at a resort in Italy. Kuznetsov is set to be extradited to Germany, where he will stand trial for allegedly coordinating a six-man sabotage team that blew up the pipelines.

It is the first arrest in a case widely viewed as the largest instance of industrial sabotage in Europe since World War II. Probes were launched by Denmark, Sweden and Germany, but the first two were ended with no suspects identified.

Russia, the majority owner of the pipeline, was not allowed to participate in any of the official probes and has consistently been denied access to the evidence.

It remains to be seen what emerges from the trial of Kuznetsov, but one thing seems clear: many questions remain about an event whose reverberations are being felt to this day. RT looks at why doubts persist nearly three years on.

What is the latest version being touted?

German prosecutors claim Kuznetsov led a six-person team on a yacht called the ‘Andromeda’, rented in the city of Rostock with forged papers. The group then allegedly managed to avoid detection in the heavily monitored Baltic Sea in order to plant the explosives at a depth of 70-80 meters.

This version of events bears a close resemblance to an account published nearly exactly a year ago in the Wall Street Journal. Mixing investigative journalism with cinematic flair, the WSJ told of a group of Ukrainians “buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor” who concocted a scheme to bring down the pipelines on a shoestring budget. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky supposedly initially approved the plan before changing his mind on advice from the CIA – but it was too late as the team had already gone incognito.

The WSJ report was, at the time, treated by many observers in the West as a definitive breakthrough in a case that had gone largely cold despite the efforts of investigators working on the official probes.

What has Russia said about the recent developments?

Russian officials have not publicly commented on the recent arrest of Kuznetsov, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously ridiculed the idea that such an act of sabotage could have been carried out by a small team lacking the extensive training and support such a mission would require.

Commenting on the media reports about the Ukrainian group last September, Lavrov said: “Five people were sitting around drinking, having a laugh, and decided ‘Why don’t we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?’ They had diving skills, allegedly hired a little boat, sailed to the place where the Nord Streams were passing, went down, planted explosives and detonated them.”

“If someone can actually believe this version, then it’s only people who are afraid of the truth and are trying to protect the criminal Kiev regime in any way possible,” the Russian top diplomat suggested.

What happened to the state actor theory?

Initial reactions by Western officials and commentators almost universally pointed to the likelihood of a state actor – with Russia generally assumed to be behind the sabotage.

Just days after the attack, the editorial board of the Washington Post published an opinion piece warning the West to “prepare for more attacks” and explaining that this is the “kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor,” adding that “everyone suspects unofficially” that the perpetrator was Russia.

Yet, as the narrative shifted away from Russian culpability, the state actor theory began being downplayed in the Western media. Nevertheless, recent reports indicate that German prosecutors believe the operation required “military-level planning.”

Could such a small boat accommodate such powerful explosives?

A number of experts have expressed skepticism that a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’ (15 meters) could facilitate an operation involving such high-energy (RDX-HMX) explosives – four bombs weighing up to 27kg each. It’s not just a question of weight, but one of bulk and safety.

The limited space and lack of a cargo hold on such a yacht would have made transporting highly potent explosives impractical. Such material typically requires reinforced containers, lifting gear, and complex detonation systems – which would push the limits of what a small vessel could reasonably handle.

Many observers question whether the extensive diving gear, mixed-gas systems, and detonation and transport equipment – plus the explosives themselves – could have been carried and deployed all while maintaining cover as a casual sailing trip.

How practical is a 70-80 meter dive to plant explosives?

The logistics of such a deep technical dive have also elicited skepticism. Recreational scuba diving typically doesn’t go deeper than 40 meters.

This operation, entailing explosives placed on two pipelines 4km apart, is believed to have required four dives, each of which would have necessitated the boat being in place for roughly three hours, according to experts. Furthermore, such extended dives would have likely required a decompression chamber for the divers, which would be almost impossible to fit on a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’.

How could the Ukrainian team have managed to avoid detection?

Another one of the puzzles lingering around the sabotage is how an operation almost certainly requiring several days could be carried out in one of the most surveilled maritime regions in the world. This is particularly the case given that NATO naval and aerial patrols were heightened due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that even fishing boats are often tracked in the Baltic, NATO somehow failed to pick up on any unusual activity. If a six-person team on a small yacht really pulled this off undetected, it would imply a catastrophic failure of NATO surveillance – something many experts find hard to accept.

In June 2022, NATO conducted its BALTOPS exercises involving underwater operations near the site of the explosions. Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh alleged that the exercise was used as a cover for planting remotely triggered explosives that were activated three months later.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

US approves sale of cruise missiles to Ukraine – WSJ

RT | August 24, 2025

The US has approved the sale of 3,350 air-launched ERAM cruise missiles to Ukraine, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing two unnamed US officials.

The munitions, which have a range of up to 280 miles, will reportedly arrive in Ukraine within six weeks. Several US officials told the WSJ that Ukraine would have to seek the Pentagon’s approval when using them.

While US President Donald Trump had criticized the previous administration of Joe Biden for its unconditional aid to Kiev, he said earlier this week that Ukraine has “no chance of winning” unless it is capable of striking targets in Russia. Ukrainian troops have been steadily losing ground to Russian forces over the course of 2025 and struggled to replenish their ranks.

After months of uncertainty over America’s commitments, Trump said in July that any additional weapons delivered to Ukraine would be paid by NATO members in Europe.

Ukraine’s key European backers, including France and Germany, are increasingly pushing for further weapons deliveries as part of security guarantees to be provided to Ukraine after the end of the conflict. Russia, however, maintains that Western military aid is an obstacle to reaching a peace deal.

August 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO Sharpens Its War Wallet: Doubles Down On Ukraine Aid

Sputnik – 23.08.2025

Russia states that supplying arms to Ukraine hinders peace efforts and drags NATO allies into the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any shipments containing weapons for Ukraine will become a legitimate target for Russia.

NATO countries have provided 99% of military aid to Ukraine, which reached $50 billion in 2024, the alliance’s Military Committee Chair Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told Corriere della Sera.

As of January 1, 2025, the alliance had already funneled $33 billion and plans to boost funding for the Ukraine regime even more, he said.

He mentioned three packages of around $580 million each. The first was funded by the Netherlands, the second by Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. The third was paid by Germany.

While Russia and the US at their recent summit thrashed out a roadmap to achieve an end to the Ukraine conflict, the NATO hawk said they intend to continue military aid and even increase it.

On August 15, Putin and US President Donald Trump met in Anchorage, Alaska, for three-on-three talks that lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes. In addition to the presidents, Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, and the US by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. On August 18, Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky and EU leaders for talks at the White House.

August 23, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Rejected All of Trump’s Proposals for Ukraine Settlement, Says Lavrov

Sputnik – 22.08.2025

Volodymyr Zelensky said ‘no’ to all of US President Donald Trump’s proposals for resolving the conflict in Ukraine, which the US considers necessary, at a meeting in Washington, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

“President Trump suggested, after Anchorage several points which we share, and on some of them, we agreed to be to show some flexibility. When President Trump brought those issues to the meeting in Washington with Zelensky present together with his European sponsors, he clearly indicated… that there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership, including the discussion of territorial issues. And Zelensky said no to everything. He even said no to, as I said, to canceling legislation prohibiting the Russian language. How can we meet with a person who is pretending to be a leader?”

At the Alaska summit Russia agreed to demonstrate flexibility on a number of issues raised by US President Donald Trump, Lavrov added.

A meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky has not been planned, but the Russian leader is ready to meet him when the summit agenda will be ready, which is currently inexistent, Lavrov said.

“There is no meeting planned… Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky, when the agenda would be ready for for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,” Lavrov told NBC.

August 22, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment