Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s make or break moment after the Alaska summit

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 18, 2025

While Western media fixated on optics and diplomatic jabs, the Alaska summit quietly marked a turning point that shifted the conversation from temporary ceasefires to the possibility of lasting peace.

This moment demands clarity from Donald Trump: will he commit to a peace-first strategy or allow his European allies to drag the US deeper into costly, unwinnable conflicts?

The Summit

In the lead-up to the Alaska summit, Washington’s playbook was predictable: press Moscow for a ceasefire. President Donald Trump echoed what had become NATO’s default position. In a videoconference just 48 hours before the summit, European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky aligned on ceasefire being the top priority.

But ceasefires are rarely solutions. They’re political sedatives—short-term fixes that freeze conflicts without resolving them. Therefore, at the Alaska summit, Russia’s Vladimir Putin flipped the script. Rather than another temporary pause, he proposed a permanent peace framework that could involve a security pact involving mutual guarantees from the US and Russia, limits on NATO expansion, and a demilitarized buffer that includes Ukraine. It was the clearest signal yet that Moscow wasn’t angling for a breather; it wanted a structural reset.

Most importantly, the US President was able to see merit in this framework. In social media post, Trump said,

“A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late-night phone call with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way [was] to go directly to a peace agreement … and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often does not hold up.”

For the Europeans, this is not only a shocking development but also a glaring indication that they do not and cannot control the peace process in the sense that they can unilaterally dictate its terms. Therefore, they are already raising so-called “questions” about whether even the peace agreement will hold or not, or whether Russia can be trusted or not, or whether they can normalize their ties with Russia or not, or whether it is serious about peace. These questions are little more than attempts to throw wrenches into what probably is the best opportunity to bring peace to Europe.

Donald Trump faces a choice

Though he publicly aligned with Vladimir Putin on the need for a permanent peace agreement, President Donald Trump now faces intense resistance from a familiar front: hawkish European leaders who would rather prolong the war—and pull Washington deeper into it—than confront the core issue driving the conflict.

The choice before Trump is stark. He can either listen to Europe’s war camp or to Moscow’s push for a comprehensive peace deal. If he sticks with the narrow, short-term goal of a ceasefire while ignoring Russia’s central demand—ending NATO’s eastward expansion—he risks dragging the US into a grinding geopolitical entanglement. Worse, he’ll be walking away from one of his signature campaign promises: to end America’s endless wars and ‘Make America Great Again’.

Rejecting Russia’s terms outright won’t come without consequences. It would require doubling down on the existing strategy: ramping up sanctions, sending more weapons to Ukraine, and locking the US into a long-term conflict with no clear off-ramp. Such a move would not only escalate tensions with Moscow but also push Russia and its allies, such as China, to further reinforce the politics of creating a new, alternative global order. The idea of a parallel world order—already gathering momentum—would gain new political urgency and legitimacy. Trump has already clashed with BRICS members like India through trade wars and punitive rhetoric. A wider conflict could force him into even more confrontations on multiple fronts.

But there is another path—one that reverses the pressure. Instead of bowing to European hawks, Trump could put the heat on them. If Europe refuses to address the root causes of the war, the US could begin scaling back military support for NATO and Ukraine. Let Brussels handle the fallout. Such a move would send a clear message: if Europe wants perpetual conflict, it can fight it alone. (In fact, Donald Trump did give such statements during his election campaign.) And European leaders would know the likely outcome, that is, without US backing, Ukraine risks losing even more territory to Russia, with little chance of recovery.

As such, this is Trump’s moment of reckoning. He can choose to steer the US toward a long-overdue peace, or sleepwalk into another forever war, one that reshapes the global order and leaves America footing the bill.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

August 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump-Zelensky Talks: Europe’s Backdoor Play for Arms Industry’s Interests?

Sputnik – 17.08.2025

The German government announced on Sunday that Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington, joining Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders for talks with US President Donald Trump.

Volodymyr Zelensky is flying to Washington to meet Donald Trump mainly to negotiate the possibility of retaining power, Polish political analyst Mateusz Piskorski told Sputnik.

During his upcoming talks with Trump, Zelensky wants to obtain potential personal security guarantees and to preserve his ability to continue ruling Ukraine for some time, Piskorski pointed out.

“If a full-fledged peace agreement on Ukraine is clinched, Zelensky will most likely be forced to organize elections, in which he has no real chance of winning,” the analyst emphasized.

He suggested that Zelensky will behave more cautiously than he did during his last meeting with Trump at the White House in late February.

European leaders who will reportedly accompany Zelensky, including Macron and Scholz, as well as NATO chief Rutte, will call for continuation of the Ukraine conflict as their interests are linked to the defense-industrial complex of France, Germany, and the UK, according to Piskorski.

In Germany, right after the announcement of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska, the stock market and value of major German companies like Rheinmetall dropped by several percent — reportedly as much as 10%, the analyst concluded.

August 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Delicate Exit

By William Schryver – imetatronink – August 16, 2025

My coalescing sense of the underwhelming Alaska Chats is that Russia has not materially varied from its longstanding terms.

Trump rolled into town with his “stealth” flyover, imagining he was the one giving an audience to Putin.

From start to finish it was perfectly evident to any discerning observer that it was just the opposite, and that Putin was there to repeat and to emphasize Russia’s apparently inviolable terms.

As I understand it, the Russians have said they will implement a conditional temporary ceasefire in the south while NATO/AFU forces withdraw from Donetsk.

No one has said anything about ending the Special Military Operation, nor of the disposition of territories.

In essence, the Russians are saying:

“We’ll temporarily stop destroying you on the southern part of the line of contact while you retreat from the northern part, and then we’ll demand you also withdraw from the southern part, and lay down your arms.”

I cannot understand how so many people seem to doubt the resolve of the Russians to continue fighting western forces for years to come pursuant to their clearly enunciated objectives.

In each successive year of this war, Russian strength has augmented across the spectrum. Russia is not only outproducing the combined west by several multiples, but their military hardware is now indisputably superior in most key categories.

The only exit route for the US/NATO is capitulation, which in this instance entails withdrawing NATO military presence to the 1997 borders, as stipulated in the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997.

How they opt to frame that capitulation is up to them.

As I noted in my February 2024 analysis of the Tucker Carlson interview of Vladimir Putin:

Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.

Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen.

It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.

That both Tucker Carlson and others have failed to correctly interpret Putin’s words is incomprehensible to me. So permit me to paraphrase them in language that is perhaps more understandable to the dimwitted and disingenuous people in the west who continue to misrepresent them:

“We offered them an early out, and they rejected it in favor of an appeal to arms in order to inflict what they imagined would be a severe strategic defeat against Russia on the field of battle. But their reach greatly exceeded their grasp. They cannot defeat us. Now let them seek a delicate exit from the mess they’ve gotten themselves into — but we will achieve our objectives.”

No matter how the would-be masters of empire try to spin defeat into victory, most everyone around the world will still know the score. And it is this disabused illusion of imperial military supremacy that will rapidly accelerate its inexorable decline.

August 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Alaska Summit: Moscow and Washington redraw lines without Brussels or London

By Mohamed Lamine KABA – New Eastern Outlook – August 16, 2025

Under the northern lights of Alaska, Russia and the United States sketched the contours of a reorganized world – without Europe at the table – positioning Russia as a major player in European security.

On August 15, 2025, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met at the Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base in Alaska for a historic summit to discuss the war in Ukraine. This meeting, the first in-person between the two leaders since 2019, took place in a meticulously prepared diplomatic setting, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to fully participate in a high-level strategic dialogue, with composure and responsibility, in a complex and polarized geopolitical context. Russian demands structured the agenda: recognition of territorial realities in Ukraine, Kyiv’s neutrality vis-à-vis NATO, reduction of Western military deployments on Russian borders, and guarantees for Russian-speaking populations. Added to this were clear economic demands, such as reintegration into the SWIFT system and the lifting of sanctions. Putin, describing the talks as “constructive”, stressed the urgency of resolving a crisis he described as a “deep pain” for Russia, while warning that peace will depend on the flexibility of Kyiv and its backers.

Key points of the press conference at the Russian-American summit in Alaska

The Russian president praised the “constructive and respectful” climate of the negotiations, highlighting the quality of the direct exchanges with Donald Trump. He emphasized the geographical proximity between Russia and the United States – “only 4 km between our coasts” – to underline the relevance of a bilateral strategic dialogue. Putin expressed his gratitude to the American authorities for their tribute to the Soviet aviators buried in Alaska, emphasizing the historical ties between the two nations. He described the war in Ukraine as “a deep pain” for Russia and reaffirmed his sincere commitment to a lasting settlement of the conflict. Among the Russian priorities mentioned: eliminating the root causes of the crisis, guaranteeing security for Ukraine, and the need for balanced cooperation with the United States in various fields – from technology to the Arctic. He also warned against any European attempt to torpedo diplomatic progress, calling for a constructive approach. Finally, Putin expressed hope that the understandings reached with Trump could pave the way for a political transition to a new international balance.

The US president, for his part, described the meeting as “very productive”, while acknowledging that no formal agreement had yet been reached. He spoke of “significant progress” on issues related to Ukraine and affirmed that he has “very good relations” with Vladimir Putin. Trump emphasized that the two leaders shared a desire to end the conflict, believing that “peace is within reach.” He announced his intention to consult with Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO leaders to inform them of the content of the discussions. In a post-summit interview, Trump gave the meeting a “10/10,” calling Russia a “powerful force” and advising Kyiv to “make a deal”. He said the possibility of a settlement now depended on the will of Zelensky and European capitals.

A masterful demonstration of Russian diplomacy

Donald Trump’s welcome to Vladimir Putin was marked by a rigorous display of protocol, in keeping with the standards of major international diplomatic meetings. Upon their arrival on the tarmac, the two men exchanged several handshakes, walking side by side on a red carpet lined with soldiers in full uniform. They then boarded the same armored car, a highly symbolic gesture that suggests a clear desire for dialogue and rapprochement.

This formal gesture is not insignificant. It marks Vladimir Putin’s return to Western soil, more than three years after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. Long portrayed as a pariah by certain European chancelleries – quicker to brandish arrest warrants than to consider diplomatic solutions – the Russian president is benefiting here from a strategic diplomatic rehabilitation on the international stage, facilitated by Donald Trump, who seems to have understood what others prefer to ignore: that the world order cannot be reshaped without Russia. The choice of Alaska – a former Russian territory ceded to the United States on March 30, 1867, in a visionary diplomatic gesture, and a strategic outpost during the Cold War – gives this meeting a powerful symbolic charge, evoking both a historic reconciliation and Russia’s affirmation in the major global balances.

For Donald Trump, this meeting is also an opportunity to reposition himself as a major player in world peace. He claimed to be able to determine in “five minutes” whether this meeting would be a failure or a success, and made no secret of his ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize. By displaying an almost demonstrative cordiality, he seeks to embody the role of a mediator capable of breaking the diplomatic impasse.

High-tension negotiations: towards peace or a diplomatic trap?

Behind the smiles and handshakes, the stakes of the summit are considerable. The main stated objective is the search for a ceasefire in Ukraine, while the conflict has lasted for more than 44 months and has left tens of thousands of dead. However, the conditions set by Moscow are giving cold showers to Kiev, Brussels and London: recognition of the new territorial realities (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson), guarantees of Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO, restrictions on the deployment of Western troops near the Russian borders, restrictions on arms deliveries to Ukraine and granting a special status to the Russian language in Ukraine.

Conspicuously absent from the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky displayed an ambivalent stance, blending calculated distrust with strategic concern. While claiming to “count” on Donald Trump to defend Ukrainian interests, he simultaneously encouraged his European supporters to continue the war effort. Moreover, drone attacks against Russia were launched during the negotiations, suggesting a deliberate attempt to desperately sabotage any de-escalation dynamics. The Ukrainian army lamentably announced that it had recaptured six villages in the east of the country, proof that the conflict remains active and that the front lines are shifting. Europe’s whimsical and insipid, perverse and narcissistic elites, also excluded from this meeting, fear that Donald Trump will make unilateral concessions to Kyiv’s detriment. Emmanuel Macron has already scheduled a meeting with Zelensky after the summit, a sign that Paris, still seeking to avenge its loss of influence in Africa attributed to Russia, particularly in the countries of the Sahel Alliance, is seeking to maintain a warlike diplomatic line that makes it increasingly irrelevant on the global stage in the eyes of the global majority.

The presence of diplomatic advisors from both sides – Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff on the American side, Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov on the Russian side – testifies to the complexity of the discussions. Initially planned as a one-on-one meeting, the summit turned into an expanded meeting. This shift from a one-on-one to an expanded meeting demonstrates Russia’s commitment to transparency and cooperation.

The Alaska summit can be said to mark an undeniable diplomatic victory for Russia. By rejoining the circle of international negotiators, imposing a coherent vision of peace, and demonstrating a perfect mastery of diplomatic codes, Moscow has confirmed its role as a stabilizing power. Vladimir Putin, far from being isolated, emerges as a strategic, lucid, and forward-looking head of state. This summit could well be the prelude to a new security architecture in Europe, based on dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and recognition of Russia’s legitimate interests. It remains to be seen whether this meeting will pave the way for lasting peace or whether it will be just another episode in a diplomatic war with global ramifications.

Two scenarios emerge: gradual normalization or a gradual de-escalation, if Kyiv and the European capitals choose to align themselves with the parameters set by Moscow; or, conversely, a prolongation of the conflict, the rejection of which could accelerate the Ukrainian military collapse and aggravate human and territorial losses.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scott Ritter Lists Two Things That Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire at Alaska Summit

Sputnik – August 15, 2025

The Ukrainian crisis is front and center of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. Sputnik asked renowned geopolitical analyst, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter to weigh in on the high stakes meeting.

First things first: the US president “doesn’t care about the geopolitical nuances of Ukrainian battlefield locations,” Ritter said.

“If Putin can convince him that the quickest route to a ceasefire is for Ukraine to leave” Russia’s new territories “and say no to NATO, that’s it. That’s all that has to happen for a ceasefire.”

The Russian military has mastered drone warfare, counter-drone warfare, and new battlefield tactics to the point where its advance has become “an irreversible process,” Ritter added, commenting on what happens if the peace push doesn’t pan out.

“There’s nothing that can be done. Nothing can be done to stop this. The advantage is 100% Russia, and we’re looking at the Ukrainians on the verge of total collapse,” the observer stressed.

Can Trump Convince Congress?

Trump’s base doesn’t want to continue fueling a proxy conflict against Russia, much less getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine, Ritter said.

“Don’t worry about Congress. They don’t elect the president, and they will fall in behind the president, because if he can secure his base with a peace deal, he can ruin everybody in Congress, especially a Republican, who goes against him,” he stressed.

In November 2024, the CIA briefed Congress on the risks of a nuclear war breaking out, estimating that there was a “greater than 50% chance” thanks to the Biden administration’s decision to greenlight long-range ATACMS strikes into Russia, Ritter revealed.

“The director of plans of Strategic Command, the American military command that carries out nuclear war briefed a Washington, DC think tank in November that the United States is prepared for a nuclear exchange with Russia, (that means nuclear war) and that the United States thought they were going to win,” he said.

“When this was briefed to Congress, I asked a senior Democrat… ‘when the CIA briefed you, did the CIA say the Russians were bluffing?’ He said no. The CIA said the exact opposite. He said but that’s not the scary thing. The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!” Ritter stressed.

August 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

How the West Criminalised Diplomacy

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | August 15, 2025

The tragedy of great power politics derives from the international anarchy, which refers to the absence of a central authority in the world. The point of departure in international security studies therefore tends to be the competition for security, as security for one state often results in insecurity for another.

This international system based on international anarchy originated with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which laid the foundation for the modern world order. The hegemonic system had broken down, and after 30 years of war, it became evident that there would be no peace through victory by a new hegemon. The Thirty-Year War thus ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which was based on the recognition that peace would depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. Security in the Westphalian system therefore entails mitigating security competition by attempting to establish formats for indivisible security. The Westphalian peace is often blamed for the international anarchy, yet this is not the crisis of our time.

What is often left out is that the Westphalian system relied on recognition of mutual security concerns as a condition for reducing mutual threats as a way to advance indivisible security. The Peace of Westphalia therefore also introduced the foundations for modern diplomacy, which entails dialogue for mutual understanding as the condition for reducing the security competition.

Our politicians and media no longer do this. They do not recognise the security concerns of our opponents, which means that they can no longer reduce the security competition and pursue indivisible security. Those who attempt to understand the opposing side, to place themselves in the shoes of the opponent and have some empathy, are labelled as Putinists, Panda-huggers and apologists for the Ayatollahs. Recognising the security concerns of the opponent has become tantamount to “legitimising” or “supporting” the policies of the opponents, which is seen as an act of treason. The result is that it becomes impossible to pursue indivisible security and peace.

In every war, we are fighting the most recent reincarnation of Hitler, which implies that negotiations are tantamount to appeasement and peace must be achieved through victory on the battlefield. Diplomacy risks “legitimising” Putin and, as former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated, “weapons are the path to peace”. If adversaries must be defeated to have peace, then we are no longer pursuing a Westphalian Peace that pursues peace by managing a balance of power and mitigating the security competition. On the contrary, we have entered another Thirty-Year War, the endless and futile struggle for hegemony. Toward this end, we no longer refer to nuclear stability as a guarantor of the balance of power; rather we refer to “nuclear blackmail” that must be ignored.

Recognising Mutual Security Concerns?

The main problem of our era in terms of reducing the security competition derives from the inability to recognise the security concerns of our opponents. Why did we criminalise understanding?

We can look toward human nature as human beings organise in groups, and when we experience an external threat, we demand greater group cohesion for security. We begin to think solely in tribal terms as “us” (the in-group) versus “them” (the out-group), exaggerating the similarities among “us” and exaggerating the differences with “them”. We are good and they are evil, and the world is interpreted solely through the lens of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. Under these conditions, no dissent threatens group cohesion, yet there is also no understanding for the other side.

The group psychology of “us” versus “them” also diminishes the rational considerations of the individual, which is exploited by our war propagandists. This is the case, as the ideas of group psychology developed by Sigmund Freud laid the foundation for the original literature on the science of propaganda that was developed by Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays.

Liberal Hegemony

The inability to recognise and consider the security concerns of our opponents go much deeper than a flaw in human nature and is caused by design. After the Cold War, the Westphalian system was abandoned as the Political West pursued an international system based on hegemony. In this system, security does not depend on managing a balance of power and taking into account the security concerns of our opponents. Instead of a balance of power, the hegemon is to be so powerful that it does not matter if we undermine the security of our opponents. Furthermore, a liberal hegemony implies that our dominance is a “force for good”, something that benefits the entire world. Recognising security concerns caused by our aspirations for hegemony is a betrayal of the assumption of being a force for good. Our opponents are presented with the dilemma of accepting that the hegemony is positive, or being considered an opponent of liberalism and civilisation. Hegemony is subsequently treated as a liberal norm.

The format for European security is to integrate the entire continent under NATO and the EU, except for Russia. We are developing a Europe where the country with the largest population, territory, economy (PPP) and military does not have a seat at the table. It is predictable and it has indeed been widely predicted over the past 30 years, that constructing a Europe without Russia would inevitably result in a Europe against Russia. Yet, the commitment to the narrative of the benign hegemon prevents us from addressing the obvious.

Liberal hegemony also corrupts diplomacy, which was intended to map out mutual interests and security concerns to make compromises and mitigate the security competition. Instead, under liberal hegemony, diplomacy takes on a pedagogic format between the subject and the object, between the teacher and the student. In this relationship, diplomacy does not aim to reach a compromise, as the teacher does not compromise with the student. Rather, the student must accept unilateral concessions.

If the public accepts the ideological stereotypes that every conflict is a struggle of good versus evil, or liberal democracies versus authoritarian states, then war becomes virtuous and diplomacy becomes treasonous. Ideological Manicheanism has thus become the curse and undoing of the Political West.

The article is a summary of my speech at the Vatican in June 2025

August 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Soviet Arsenal Nearly Depleted, Kiev ‘Almost Entirely’ Reliant on Western Aid

Sputnik – 15.08.2025

Ukraine’s military has reached a critical turning point, transitioning from relying on its legacy Soviet and Russian artillery and rocket supplies to becoming almost entirely dependent on Western aid, the latest quarterly report of the Operation Atlantic Resolve revealed.

“As of this quarter, Ukraine had nearly exhausted its supplies of Soviet and Russian artillery and rocket ammunition, making the UAF [Ukrainian armed forces] almost entirely reliant on Western assistance,” the report released on Thursday said.

The report of the US Department of Defense’s ongoing mission to bolster the security of NATO allies and provide support to Ukraine also details persistent challenges in other critical areas.

Despite significant aid, Ukraine’s air defenses and its fleet of F-16 fighter jets remain insufficient to deal with missile and uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) attacks, which continue to inflict damage on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Fulfilling Ukraine’s air defense needs is further complicated by a global shortage of essential components, according to the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine (SAG-U), a US-led German-based command that coordinates military assistance to Ukraine. The global demand for these parts presents a significant challenge to the timely delivery of crucial defensive systems.

Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine are hindering the peace process in Ukraine and getting NATO allies directly involved in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would become a legitimate target for Russia.

August 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Coalition of Willing Opposes Any Restrictions on Ukrainian Army as Part of Ukraine Deal

Sputnik – 14.08.2025

The so-called “coalition of the willing” has opposed any restrictions on the Ukrainian armed forces as part of the deal on settling the Ukraine conflict ahead of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, a joint statement read.

“Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role, including through plans by those willing to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia could not have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO,” the coalition said in a joint statement published by the office of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Wednesday.

The coalition also believes that constructive negotiations can only take place “in the context of a ceasefire.”

The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled for this Friday in Anchorage, Alaska. The leaders are expected to discuss ways to resolve the Ukrainian conflict as well as other issues of mutual interest.

August 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO membership, $1tn in reparations: Zelensky maps out ‘red lines’ ahead of Putin–Trump summit

The Cradle | August 13, 2025

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Berlin on 13 August for virtual meetings with European leaders and US President Donald Trump, ahead of talks between the president and Vladimir Putin in a summit in Alaska later this week.

Hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Zelensky held an online meeting with officials from Finland, France, Britain, Italy, Poland, the EU, and NATO.

A source told Reuters that Trump and US Vice President JD Vance joined the call afterwards.

According to POLITICO, Ukraine planned to use the Wednesday meeting to “map out red lines” aimed at deterring Russia from using the meeting with Trump to achieve its goals.

Recent comments by Ukrainian officials indicate skepticism from Kiev over the Trump–Putin summit.

“I don’t expect any breakthrough from this summit. Putin did not abandon his ultimate goal to destroy Ukraine. He can only agree to a ceasefire that will create the conditions for our destruction,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the foreign relations committee in the Ukrainian parliament.

Earlier this week, Zelensky said, “We understand the Russians’ intention to try to deceive America – we will not allow this.”

“We support what President Trump wanted – a ceasefire, and then sit down at the negotiating table and talk about everything else,” he told reporters on Tuesday, vowing not to give up any territory and retreat from the frontlines. “We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive. If we leave Donbas of our own free will or if we are pressured, we will open a third war.”

“[Putin] doesn’t want the occupation of our state from the point of view of territory. He doesn’t want a sovereign Ukraine to exist. And that’s the whole endgame,” Zelensky added.

An informed source told POLITICO on 12 August that “If Kiev does ultimately have to make some compromise as part of a final deal based on the realities on the battlefield, it will then only talk about the territorial matters after Russia agrees to and sticks to a ceasefire.”

According to the outlet, Ukraine is doubling down on demands for an unconditional ceasefire before moving ahead with any negotiations, retaining all territory it has captured, $1 trillion in reparations from Russia, NATO membership, and unconditional release of all prisoners.

“Additional pressure through economic sanctions on Putin is necessary to reach a ceasefire agreement. We will not give up any territory in Donbas, and there will be no discussion on Ukraine’s territorial integrity,” Zelensky said on Wednesday.

As the Berlin meetings were going on, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the capture of two communities in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

“Battlegroup Center units liberated the settlements of Suvorovo and Nikanorovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic through active and decisive operations,” the ministry said.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or wounded since the start of this year, Russian media reported on 1 August, citing weekly Defense Ministry reports.

A third round of Turkish-hosted ceasefire talks between Moscow and Kiev last month failed to yield significant progress.

The US and Russia had held talks in Saudi Arabia in March this year, agreeing to establish a path to ending the Ukraine conflict.

However, Trump recently announced that Washington will be sending “massive” supplies of weapons to Ukraine, in what was described as a significant policy shift.

He also issued a 50-day deadline for a deal to be made, after which he would impose 100 percent tariffs on Russia. Late last month, Trump announced plans to shorten this deadline.

August 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia ‘has won the war’ – Orban

RT | August 13, 2025

Russia has already won the Ukraine conflict and it is now up to the West to acknowledge this, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

Orban made the remarks on Tuesday, shortly after he snubbed the latest joint EU statement in support of Ukraine issued ahead of the meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Speaking to the ‘Patriot’ YouTube channel, the Hungarian leader said he partly opposed the statement as it only made the EU look “ridiculous and pathetic.”

“When two leaders sit down to negotiate with each other, the Americans and the Russians … and you’re not invited there, you don’t rush for the phone, you don’t run around, you don’t shout in from the outside,” Orban stated. “If you are not at the negotiating table, you are on the menu.”

Moscow has already won the conflict against Ukraine, the Hungarian leader added, claiming that Kiev’s backers were in denial.

“We are talking now as if this were an open-ended war situation, but it is not. The Ukrainians have lost the war. Russia has won this war,” he stressed. “The only question is when and under what circumstances will the West, who are behind the Ukrainians, admit that this has happened, and what will result from all this.”

A member of both the EU and NATO, Hungary has consistently opposed Brussels’ policies on the Ukraine conflict since its escalation in February 2022, including weapons supplies to Kiev and sanctions against Russia. Budapest has also opposed the idea of Kiev joining either of the blocs.

Relations between Budapest and Kiev have been further soured by tensions around the Hungarian ethnic minority in Western Ukraine. Last week, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said Kiev has no place in the EU and “doesn’t even belong among civilized nations,” citing the recent death of an ethnic Hungarian allegedly at the hands of Ukrainian draft officers.

August 13, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

The West ‘used’ Ukraine – EU state’s PM

RT | August 11, 2025

The West used Ukraine in a failed attempt to weaken Russia, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said.

A staunch advocate for peace talks rather than the EU’s military backing for Kiev, Fico made the comments in a video address posted on Facebook over the weekend, saying the Ukrainian leadership also bears responsibility, having backed the Western plan to harm Moscow by supporting the war effort.

“Ukraine was used by the West in an attempt to weaken Russia, which did not succeed – and for which, it seems, Ukraine will have to pay dearly,” Fico said.

He added: “Everyone already knows that the [Ukraine] conflict has serious roots in recent history, has no military solution, … and that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is impossible.”

Moscow has framed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war and has long denounced Western military aid to Kiev, saying the US-led military bloc’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s ambitions to join are key drivers of the hostilities.

Fico, who survived an assassination attempt by a pro-Ukraine activist over his opposition to arming Kiev, has repeatedly criticized the West’s approach, warning that it threatens global security. His latest remarks come as the Russian and US leaders prepare to meet on August 15 to discuss a possible settlement.

The Kremlin has said securing a permanent and stable peace will be the focus of the upcoming talks in Alaska on Friday. Russian officials insist any deal must address the root causes of the conflict and reflect the realities on the ground, including the status of Crimea, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, which joined Russia after 2022 referendums.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who was not invited to the Putin-Trump talks, has already rejected any truce involving territorial concessions, despite the US president’s insistence that swaps would be part of the proposed agreement.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s Sad Trajectory: From Peace and Welfare to War and Scarcity

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 11, 2025

Once a beacon of peace and prosperity, the European Union is now marching into a new era of militarization and scarcity. Behind the rhetoric of security lies a project increasingly shaped by U.S. pressure, defense spending, and a quiet betrayal of its citizens.

For seven decades, the European project was presented as a beacon of peace, prosperity, and social welfare. Conceived in the ashes of the Second World War, the European Union (EU) emerged as a mechanism to bind former enemies through trade, shared institutions, and the promise that economic interdependence would prevent future wars. For much of its history, this narrative held true: the EU embodied the idea that Europe could reinvent itself as a moral community, anchored in social rights and collective security.

Today, that image is eroded. Europe is rearming at a scale unseen since the Cold War. The EU’s once-proud welfare model is being quietly sacrificed on the altar of militarization, as member states contemplate devoting up to 5% of GDP to defense spending. This transformation is not being driven by a sovereign European strategic vision, but rather by external pressure, primarily from the United States, whose military-industrial complex stands to benefit most.

From Peace Project to War Economy

The metamorphosis of the EU into what critics call a “war and scarcity” project is evident in both policy and rhetoric. European leaders, rather than articulating an independent security doctrine, appear increasingly subordinated to Washington’s priorities. The newly appointed NATO Secretary General and former Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, has become the face of this transformation.

During the so-called “Trump Summit” in The Hague, Rutte orchestrated an event less about strategy and more about appeasing U.S. President Donald Trump. Red carpets and ceremonial dinners replaced substantive debate. The summit, critics note, projected unity only by avoiding difficult questions, such as the long-term consequences of escalating the conflict in Ukraine or the feasibility of a 5% defense spending target.

Rutte even echoed unverified intelligence claims that Russia might attack a NATO member, offering no evidence, an act that some European observers described as “dangerous theatre.”

When NATO’s chief becomes a conduit for speculative threats to spread fear and make the militarization project palatable to the population, the alliance risks losing credibility and reinforcing the perception that Europe is less a sovereign actor and more a vassal of U.S. power.

The Costs of Militarization

The push toward 5% GDP in defense spending has profound implications for European societies. Bulgarian member of the European Parliament Petar Volgin, in an interview, warned that such a policy would neither enhance security nor foster stability. History shows that the accumulation of weapons often escalates risk rather than prevents conflict. Volgin invoked Anton Chekhov’s famous maxim: if a pistol hangs on the wall in the first act, it will inevitably be fired by the final one.

Beyond strategic risks, the economic trade-offs are stark. Channeling public resources into armaments will drain investments from social sectors like health, education, and welfare, which are the very foundations of the European social model. “This will turn Europe into a militarized monster devoid of social compassion,” Volgin warned.

Citizens, facing cuts in services and rising costs, will pay the price for a strategy that ultimately benefits the U.S. arms industry far more than European security, following Trump’s ruling.

Russophobia and the War Logic

Underlying this shift is what can be described as institutionalized Russophobia. Russophobia has become not just public opinion but a structured ideology shaping policy, media narratives, and diplomatic strategies.

While the focus is on Russian military action in Ukraine, the EU’s strategic response is viewed through the lens of historical Russophobia, which often replaces pragmatism with emotion and prejudice.

For centuries, Russia has been both part of and apart from Europe, contributing profoundly to its literature, music, and intellectual heritage, yet frequently treated as an alien civilization.

The military conflict in Ukraine provided an opportunistic moment for European elites to turn latent Russophobia into policy. Rather than pursuing a balanced security framework that might eventually integrate Russia into a stable European order, the EU doubled down on confrontation, sanctions, and militarization.

This approach carries a profound irony: a union born from the determination to overcome the hatreds of the past is now entrenching new fault lines on the continent. Calls for diplomacy, dialogue, or a broader European peace project, one that is social and moral, not merely military, have been marginalized or dismissed as naïve.

Democratic Disconnection and Strategic Drift

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Europe’s new trajectory is the widening gap between its political class and its citizens. Surveys conducted in the first year of the Ukraine war showed that over 70% of Europeans preferred a negotiated peace to the indefinite prolongation of conflict. Yet, in the European Parliament, 80% of MEPs rejected amendments calling for diplomacy and only 5% voted in favor.

This dissonance reflects a structural malaise: the EU’s foreign and security policy is increasingly shaped not by democratic debate, but by lobbyists, bureaucratic inertia, and transatlantic pressures.

The shift from a welfare-oriented project to a war-driven agenda has happened without meaningful public consent. As Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, former Irish MEPs, have argued, the EU’s “liberal mask has slipped,” revealing a political architecture that prioritizes geopolitics over people.

War and Scarcity: A Vicious Cycle

The economic consequences of this transformation are already visible. Sanctions on Russia, while politically symbolic, have contributed to energy crises, inflation, and industrial slowdown, particularly in countries like Germany and Italy. Simultaneously, EU states are paying far higher prices for American LNG and U.S.-manufactured weapons, effectively transferring wealth across the Atlantic while their own populations face rising costs and stagnating wages.

This is the essence of Europe’s scarcity turn: by embracing a war economy, the EU sacrifices its social welfare model, undermines economic resilience, and fuels domestic discontent and the far-right parties. Instead of projecting stability, it imports volatility: economic, political, and social.

The Question of Purpose

The European Union now stands at a decisive moment in its evolution. If its purpose is to be a subordinate military bloc within a U.S.-led “Greater West,” it may achieve that at the cost of its original identity as a peace and welfare project.

However, if it seeks to reclaim strategic autonomy and moral credibility – deteriorated by its failure to condemn the genocide in Gaza -, it must confront uncomfortable questions: Can Europe imagine security beyond the logic of militarization and vassalage? Is Europe merely buying time, waiting for a non‑Trump administration, while reinforcing its subservience? Will it rebuild a peace project that addresses social justice and democratic legitimacy, not only deterrence?  And can it rediscover the moral ambition that once made it a beacon for a conflict‑scarred world?

For now, the EU’s sad trajectory seems clear: a union that once promised prosperity and peace is becoming a fortress of fear and social uncertainty, defined by war spending, scarcity, and subservience. Its citizens were promised a shared future. What they are receiving instead is a militarized present, and an uncertain tomorrow.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »