Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia Possesses Advanced Weapons Other Than Oreshnik Systems – Ryabkov

Sputnik – 10.08.2025

MOSCOW – In addition to the Oreshnik missile systems, Russia possesses other advanced weaponry, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Sunday.

“There is Oreshnik. But there is more, and we have been wasting no time. I cannot name what I am not authorized to name. But it exists,” Ryabkov said on the Rossiya 1 channel.

Russia has many options in advanced weaponry at its disposal, the deputy foreign minister said, adding that “we never rule anything out for ourselves in advance.”

Ryabkov also made statements on lifting the moratorium on INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces):

  • Russia must use such methods to cool down the heated heads in NATO countries.
  • In today’s realities, it is inappropriate to use the term “détente” in relations between Russia and the US.
  • What we need now is not détente, but political will to begin lowering the temperature in international relations.
  • Everything Moscow does in terms of weapons deployment is a reaction to the steps taken by the Americans and their allies.
  • Apart from the Oreshnik systems, Russia also has other advanced weapons.
  • The first signs of common sense are appearing in Russia-US relations, which were absent for several years before.
  • The risk of nuclear conflict in the world is not decreasing.
  • Russia sees the risk that after the expiration of the New START Treaty, nuclear arms control will be completely absent.

August 10, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Countdown begins for the Republic of Srpska

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 9, 2025

The chronic political crisis in the Republic of Srpska, one of two ethnically-based constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has taken a grave turn for the worse. On 26 February, the illegitimate federal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, acting under the thumb of the equally illegitimate international “High Representative,” who is actually the colonial governor in the supposedly sovereign country, issued a politically tainted verdict against Milorad Dodik, President of the Republic of Srpska. Dodik had been put on trial on the spurious charge of “defying” the edicts of the High Representative. To no one’s surprise, he was found guilty. The court sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and banned him from holding public office for six years. Practically all avenues of appeal having now been exhausted, the Electoral Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina wasted no time to meet on Wednesday 6 August and to officially annul Milorad Dodik’s Presidential mandate. The Commission now has ninety days to organise a snap election to fill the vacancy it had capriciously created in the post of President of the Republic of Srpska.

Milorad Dodik thus joins other European political figures, such as Marine Le Pen in France and Kalin Georgescu and Diana Sosoaka in Romania, who have been disqualified from participation in politics for professing banned opinions and advocating proscribed political positions. The pattern is exactly the same and it is being repeated. It no longer matters what their respective electorates prefer and for whom they wish to vote. The voters are denied the opportunity to express their preference if there is the slightest possibility that they might elect someone whose policies are incompatible with the objectives of the unelected and unaccountable globalist deep state cabal which, in the collective West and its dependencies, is the real government.

The farce of “democracy” and “rules based order” can be contemplated in microcosm in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the sordid political drama which is the subject of this report is unfolding. Supposedly an independent country since the signing in 1995 of the Dayton agreement which ended the civil war, and featuring all the outward trappings of “Western democracy,” Bosnia and Herzegovina has in fact been ruled in neo-colonial fashion by a High Representative who is appointed by the “international community” and invested with dictatorial powers. Over the years, the scope of the High Representative’s authority has been increasing steadily and by design at the expense of the autonomous ethnic entities. Officials in that position promulgated and annulled laws, ousted democratically elected local officials who were deemed uncooperative, and arbitrarily imposed institutions they themselves invented, which are not contemplated either in the Bosnian Constitution or the Dayton Peace Agreement. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina which tried and convicted Milorad Dodik is a conspicuous example of such a constitutionally spurious institution which came into being ex nihilo by decree of a previous High Representative.

To make the irony complete, the credentials of Christian Schmidt, the individual currently claiming to be the High Representative, are as dubious as is the legal standing of the “court” which tried and convicted Dodik. Schmidt’s appointment was accomplished by a sleight of hand on the part of the collective West, never having been submitted for approval to the UN Security Council, as established procedure provides.

The “offence” imputed to Dodik is that he signed into law a measure enacted by the National Assembly providing that decrees issued by the arguably illegitimate High Representative would not be enforced on Republic of Srpska territory. Invoking his alleged powers as High Representative, Schmidt warned Dodik to refrain from doing that and preventively inserted in the Bosnia-Herzegovina criminal code a section which defines non- enforcement of High Representative’s decrees as a criminal offence. In the face of Dodik’s non-compliance, Schmidt ordered the public prosecutor’s office to seek Dodik’s indictment pursuant to the section of the criminal code he himself had created for precisely that purpose. So as matters presently stand, Milorad Dodik has been removed as President of the Republic of Srpska, the office to which he was legally elected by his constituents. That was achieved through a verdict delivered by a constitutionally illegal court acting on the basis of a rogue provision in the criminal code dictated without any legislative input by a foreign official illegitimately exercising a power that he does not have.

It is difficult to imagine, or to stage, a more colossal farce.

There are, of course, solid reasons why for a long time Dodik’s ouster has been insistently sought by the powers that be. His background is shady, like that of most Balkan politicians, but that certainly is not the real reason for their animosity. Initially, in the 1990s, he was in fact the West’s favourite in post-Dayton Bosnia, avidly promoted by Madeleine Albright of all people. The particulars of his road to Damascus conversion and subsequent meanderings certainly bear careful analysis, but the empirical net result of it is that by the time in 2006 that he became Prime Minister Dodik was on the outs with his original mentors. He had now become a forceful advocate of close relations with Russia and a determined opponent of Bosnia’s accession to NATO, an issue over which the Republic of Srpska wields veto power. He further infuriated his former mentors by steadfastly opposing the evisceration of the Dayton Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by resisting fiercely the erosion of Republic of Srpska’s autonomous status which is guaranteed by it.

It must be admitted that the collective West has now come within striking distance of achieving its goal to snuff out the Republic of Srpska. The Dodik removal operation seems now to have been brought to its conclusion, and in a way that observes the outward forms of legality, or so it would appear if one does not delve too deeply into the intricacies of the matter. In relatively short order, a snap Presidential election will take place in Republika Srpska. The collective West will concentrate its still formidable resources in that tiny but disproportionately significant point of the globe to ensure that the Republika Srpska Gorbachev is duly elected and can launch the process of its dismantlement and geostrategic reorientation of what is left of it. Mechanisms to accomplish that are already in place and a possible mass boycott of the discontented Serbian population is unlikely to affect anything. The electoral law currently in force does not require that a minimum number of eligible voters should take part for the election to be deemed valid. With reliable formulas of electoral engineering, helped along with copious quantities of cash, even in the event that on election day all patriotic Serbs should stay at home, the “right” candidate might receive only a handful of votes but his “victory” would nevertheless be easily assured. Prompt recognition of the bogus outcome by the “international community” will do the rest.

Like most Balkan politicians, Dodik has failed to prepare another figure of comparable stature who might succeed him and continue what was good in his policies. That failure will soon take its toll because none of the mediocrities and yes men surrounding him has the charisma and attributes that are necessary to prevail in the coming uphill battle to prevent Republika Srpska from falling lock, stock, and barrel into the hands of its enemies.

The failure to prepare however is not to be laid just at Dodik’s but also at Russia’s door. As in neighbouring Serbia and many other places the policy of all eggs in one basket is once again proving to be erroneous and detrimental to Russia’s interests. Non-interference in other countries’ affairs and working with the established authorities is a fine principle, but only in its dogmatically overzealous and ultimately counter-productive application would that exclude the prudent policy of cultivating capable individuals and amicable political forces. They should be there to act when necessary as an effective counterbalance to the ruthless interference that Russia’s unyielding adversaries incessantly and everywhere engage in.

August 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Kaliningrad Gambit: NATO’s Last Desperate Bluff /Spark for World War III?

By Jeffrey Silverman – New Eastern Outlook – August 8, 2025

With Ukraine’s defences collapsing and Russia gaining the upper hand, NATO’s provocative focus on Kaliningrad risks triggering a nuclear escalation that could end any remaining prospects for diplomacy.

As many foresaw, the situation for Ukraine’s Western-backed proxy regime is unraveling fast. Russian forces are pushing forward with increasing momentum—Chasov Yar has reportedly fallen, and Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka facing operational encirclement. The Eastern Front may soon collapse entirely.

Kiev appears outgunned and undermanned, the result of Russia’s grinding attritional strategy—high firepower, low casualties—not the reckless assault tactics portrayed in Western media.

In response, Washington is shifting gears—talking nuclear subs and floating threats against Kaliningrad, Russia’s fortified Baltic enclave, a move that may only harden Moscow’s resolve—and shift the conflict into a far more dangerous phase.

Russian military production has far outstripped that of the entire combined West by a factor of roughly four to one. Getting beyond lame Western rhetoric, the Russian Federation is producing weapons that actually work, unlike their NATO rivals, at a price far less than the West is capable of matching. Needless to say, the West claims plans are in progress to “close the gap in 2025” but they have been saying that since 2022, with no result in sight.

They say tactics win battles, but logistics wins wars. The Russians took that to heart—favoring firepower and endurance over flashy maneuvers. The West, still chasing its blitzkrieg fantasies, missed the memo.

With Ukraine’s proxy army buckling, NATO faces a sobering question: what now?

Sanctions fizzled. The so-called “global consensus” crumbled as China, India, and Brazil shrugged off Washington’s threats and kept buying Russian energy. Trump’s bluster over secondary sanctions rings hollow—especially after Beijing humbled him in the last rare earth standoff.

Meanwhile, the West’s wunderwaffen parade—HIMARS, Javelins, Patriots, Leopards, F-16s—may have dazzled in brochures, but has done little to shift the battlefield calculus. Ukraine bleeds, Russia raises battle flags over liberated towns and cities, and NATO grows increasingly desperate.

And now, with few cards left to play, NATO’s gaze turns ominously to Kaliningrad—the heavily armed Russian exclave boxed in by Poland and the Baltics. A target? A bargaining chip? Or the next red line in a war spiraling out of control?

NATO Doctrine

General Christopher Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, unveiled the new NATO doctrine for Eastern Flank Defence at the inaugural LandEuro conference on Wednesday 30th July, by talking about NATO plans to attack Kaliningrad in the event of open conflict with Russia.

Speaking specifically about Kaliningrad, Donahue said modern allied capabilities could “take that down from the ground” faster than ever before.

“We’ve already planned that and we’ve already developed it,” he said.”

“The mass and momentum problem that Russia poses to us… we’ve developed the capability to make sure that we can stop that mass and momentum problem.”

Sounds a bit too optimistic to me!

Apparently, NATO planners have learned little from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, even less from the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, where offensives into built up areas require long preparation in terms of artillery and missile strikes. Modern satellite and drone observation makes it practically impossible to build up sufficient forces unobserved for “coup-de-main” surprise attacks of the type the western military still dream of, and the sheer level of destruction that modern weapons systems can unleash, such as the TOS-1, and FAB-3000 glide bombs, various cruise and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, and conventionally armed Oreshnik IRBMs can unleash makes concentration of troops an extremely risky business.

Quite how NATO intends to square this circle is anyone’s guess, as the statements by Donahue are, to put it mildly, light on details.

It seems that NATO might be banking on the supposed reduction of the Kaliningrad garrison, as claimed by the Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski at the NATO summit in the Hague on 24th June 2025, where he said “from what I know, a large part of the troops have been withdrawn from Kaliningrad Oblast.”

Various estimates are that the 20,000 man garrison may have been reduced to 8,000, and there is speculation that most of these are “poorly trained conscripts”, however, it should be noted that the Ukrainian attack on Kursk, made by western trained “elite” units of the UAF was slowed, then stopped, by “poorly trained” Russian conscripts, who managed to hold the line well enough against the Ukrainian incursion until professional forces could be transferred from other fronts.

Again, NATO seems to be completely misreading the nature of modern warfare.

Cutting Edge “military genius”

Perhaps it would be wise to look a little closer at the “military genius” General Christopher Donahue, and his military record. Donahue was heavily involved in the “Great War on Terror” serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division of the US Army during the disastrous retreat from Kabul. Much was made at the time of him being the last US soldier to leave, but subsequently his promotion to 4-star general was delayed by questions about his role in the shambolic evacuation.

Needless to say, his political connections got him off the hook.

He has also been closely involved in the war in Ukraine. As commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps, he was directly responsible for the supply of weapons, intelligence, and training to the UAF, and his statements on Kaliningrad show how deeply emotionally invested he is in supporting Ukraine. Now, as US commander of Europe & Africa, he is the main military officer responsible for military support of the Kiev regime from the US side.

I would venture to say that he has been promoted well above his abilities, if the disaster of Kabul is anything to go by. There are just too many layers, especially in the desperate times faced by the US political establishment, and the need for a convenient and timely distraction from domestic issues.

Then there is the small matter of how Russia would react to any such attack on Kaliningrad, for which it would be wise to look at the Russian nuclear doctrine so recently updated in the light of the war in Ukraine.

Leonid Slutsky, head of the Russian parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, warned NATO, “An attack on the Kaliningrad region is tantamount to an attack on Russia,” and the Russian nuclear doctrine clearly states that a conventional attack by a nuclear power on Russia will allow the use of nuclear weapons in response by the Russian state.

Unfortunately, the West has interpreted Russian patience in the face of numerous escalations to be weakness, but Russian patience has its limits, and an attack on Kaliningrad will almost certainly be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Add to this the ravings of the Baltic Republics, Poland, Sweden, and Finland. On one hand they claim Russia is “losing in Ukraine,” and on the other that Russia will attack NATO, the latter something the Russians have repeatedly denied they have any intention of doing. In the case of Finland, initial elation at joining NATO has been replaced by panic at the expansion of Russian forces on their long shared border.

This would amount to half of the land border between NATO and Russia. One can’t really understand why the Finns, who previously had a fairly demilitarized border with Russia, can’t make the link between joining an anti-Russian alliance and a Russian defensive build up on the border, its hardly rocket science. Then again, cause and effect do not seem to be well understood in the West these days.

The Baltic republics continue to yap away and continue instituting more and more racist laws against the ethnic Russian portion of their populations, making people stateless, segregated, and forcibly removing their language rights, as well as monuments to heroes of the USSR, as well as destroying other cultural and historical monuments.

Method in Madness

What Western planners often ignore—or conveniently forget—is that Ukraine’s internal policies toward its Russian-speaking population were a major trigger for the conflict. Now, with the battlefield turning in Russia’s favor, NATO appears to be scrambling for leverage.

Enter Kaliningrad—a high-risk gamble to claw back something, anything, to trade for lost Ukrainian territory. But it’s a gamble with nuclear implications and the lives of millions hanging in the balance.

Behind the scenes, familiar names resurface. Alexander Vershbow, the former NATO Deputy Secretary-General and U.S. Ambassador to Russia, is once again in the mix—this time linked to renewed missile shield discussions. His talk of Ukraine hosting early-warning radars echoes old Cold War tensions, and not without consequence. Lavrov has already called such plans hostile.

Veterans of this geopolitical game may recall how Obama shelved the original missile shield to ease tensions, leading Moscow to hold back on deploying Iskanders in Kaliningrad. Now that agreement is unraveling. Vershbow’s quiet reappearance in Georgia—a country key to both the Iran corridor and NATO’s eastern flank—should raise eyebrows.

Hillary Clinton once made vague promises about not placing missile systems in Georgia. In hindsight, that vagueness looks more like strategy than diplomacy.

When patterns repeat and the same architects return, the outlines of a long game become visible. For those with institutional memory, the pieces are all too familiar—and that’s exactly why some would rather we forget. Using Kaliningrad to poke the bear is just the spark that could set into motion the end of times, whether it is a military incursion, blockade, or a full-fledged attack, and this would be the end of diplomacy and humanity as we knew it.

The US and its NATO partners should never underestimate Russian resolve, as the portrayal of Russia as a defeated, overextended, or crumbling power is a story of another time and reality. Times have changed, and the world has changed, with new realities between East and West.

Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union. 

August 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Capabilities Russia Unlocks by Quitting Medium-Range Missile Moratorium

Sputnik – 05.08.2025

Russia’s termination of its unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-launched ballistic missiles in the 500-5,500 km range is the logical outcome of hostile NATO policies, and unties Moscow’s hands for a more proactive approach to strategic defense, says Igor Korotchenko, one of Russia’s top military analysts.

What Brought on Russia’s Decision?

NATO’s European allies’ preparations for a potential conventional war with Russia by 2030, including:

  • a massive rearmament campaign and plans to create massive, wartime-sized standing armies
  • the development of new weapons, including an Anglo-German missile with a 2,500 km+ range
  • deployment of new US fifth-gen fighters in the region

What It Means

In these circumstances, and no longer facing INF-style medium and intermediate-range missile restrictions, Russia will:

  • ramp up production of ballistic missiles, including the conventionally armed Oreshnik (serial production already underway)
  • deploy the missiles, which are difficult if not impossible to intercept due to their multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) payload, as it sees fit and based on security considerations
  • potentially deploy a nuclear-armed variant of the Oreshnik, with up to six warheads with a 150 kt per warhead capacity to “deter” NATO and “minimize threats and risks of a military attack on Russia by NATO,” not only in Europe, but Asia as well, if needed

“The INF Treaty is dead,” Korotchenko says. There is now “nothing” to stop Russia from realizing its strategic security objectives.

August 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russian Intel Warns of UK Plan to Stage Tanker Incident

Sputnik – 04.08.2025

British intelligence agencies are planning to involve NATO allies in launching a large-scale crackdown on the so-called “shadow fleet” carrying Russian oil, the press bureau of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday.

“According to information received by the SVR, British intelligence services are planning to engage NATO allies to carry out a massive sweep of the ‘shadow fleet’. London’s idea is to trigger such a campaign with a high-profile incident involving one or several tankers. The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow them to declare Russian oil transportation a threat to global maritime navigation,” the statement said.

According to the SVR, this would give the West free rein in choosing methods of counter-action.

“In the extreme scenario, this could mean detaining any ‘suspicious’ vessels in international waters and escorting them to NATO member-state ports,” the statement added.

The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow the transportation of Russian oil to be deemed a threat.

“The UK intends to time the attack to maximize its media impact and use it to pressure Donald Trump’s administration. The goal is to force Washington, against its own national interests, to adopt the harshest possible secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy resources, portraying them as ‘indirect culprits of the tragedy,’” the SVR emphasized.

London allegedly plans to assign the execution of these anti-Russian attacks on tankers to Ukrainian security forces.

“Their predictably dirty work and inability to ‘cover their tracks’ are seen by the British as a guarantee of their own impunity. An international investigation would place responsibility either on Russia or – at worst – on Ukraine, similar to the sabotage of Nord Stream,” the SVR statement said.

According to the report, London’s scenario involves engineering an “accident” with an “undesirable” tanker in one of the world’s narrow maritime chokepoints, such as a strait, creating grounds for NATO countries to conduct an “emergency inspection.”

“The British are working through two potential casus belli. The first is to stage an accident with an ‘undesirable’ tanker in a narrow maritime passage. The resulting oil spill and blockage of the waterway, London believes, would give NATO states ‘sufficient’ justification to establish a precedent for ‘emergency checks’ of vessels, ostensibly to verify compliance with maritime safety and environmental regulations,” the SVR noted.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | | Leave a comment

NATO member sets up gates and barriers at Russian border checkpoint

RT | August 3, 2025

Estonian authorities have begun installing metal gates and barriers at a key border crossing with Russia, local broadcaster ERR reported on Saturday citing the country’s defense ministry. The measure, reportedly aimed at bolstering security, comes amid growing tensions between Moscow and the NATO countries.

These infrastructure upgrades are located at the Narva crossing, one of the main transit points between Estonia and Russia. Metal gates are being set up at the entrance to the bridge on the Estonian side, with additional structures for pedestrian and vehicle control positioned midway across.

“The barriers help prevent vehicles from forcefully driving through the border checkpoint. Essentially, they help to prevent evasion of border control,” said Antti Eensalu, head of the Police and Border Guard Board’s Narva checkpoint, as quoted by ERR.

He added that installation work is expected to be completed next month, stressing that the upgrades would make it possible to completely shut down the checkpoint if necessary.

Authorities are reportedly planning to install similar drive-through barriers at the Luhamaa and Koidula border checkpoints in southern Estonia.

Like its Baltic neighbors Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia has adopted an increasingly hardline stance toward Russia since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, and has speculated that Russia could invade once the Ukraine conflict ends. The Kremlin has repeatedly rejected the claim and branded related measures taken by Estonia and other Baltic states as ‘Russophobic’.

On Sunday, Estonia’s Ministry of Defense announced that NATO is considering establishing a German-Dutch Allied Corps presence in the country, a move that would further expand the alliance’s footprint in the Baltic region.

Earlier this year, Estonia signaled its readiness to host allied forces operating F-35 jets, including aircraft with nuclear capabilities. The Kremlin responded that such deployments would be regarded as a direct threat to Russian national security.

In 2024, Estonia also unveiled plans to build hundreds of concrete bunkers along its entire eastern border as part of the Baltic Defense Line, a coordinated regional initiative with Latvia and Lithuania aimed at boosting collective defense readiness. Moscow has reiterated that it poses no threat to Europe, expressing doubt about the necessity of spending money on such fortifications.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Estonian defense chief reveals failure of Pentagon meeting

RT | July 31, 2025

The Baltic states have failed to secure any guarantees from Washington regarding the continued deployment of US forces in the region, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has said.

Pevkur and his respective Latvian and Lithuanian counterparts met with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week in hope of convincing him to reinforce the US military presence in the Baltic region, which they claim is necessary to counter the threat allegedly posed by Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly denied having hostile intentions toward NATO states, dismissing such claims as fearmongering meant to justify increased military spending.

According to Pevkur, US officials declined to promise that even the current troop level of about 2,000 in the Baltic states would be maintained. Instead, the ministers were simply told that any future changes to the American force posture on the continent would be coordinated with NATO and would not come “as a surprise” to Europe.

Pevkur claimed that there have been no signs of an imminent drawdown of American forces in the Baltics since the meeting. He added, however, that Washington is preparing to review its European deployments in the fall.

Earlier this year, Politico reported that the US could withdraw around a third of its troops from Europe, equivalent to roughly 20,000 soldiers, according to unnamed NATO officials. The US currently has between 90,000 and 100,000 troops stationed across the continent.

Both President Donald Trump and Hegseth have previously indicated that the US may scale back its overseas presence. They have also called on European allies to increase their own defense spending instead of relying on American support.

NATO members have since agreed to raise their military spending target to 5% of GDP by 2035.

Moscow has criticized the bloc’s continued militarization and cited NATO’s policies as a key factor behind the Ukraine conflict. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the spending increases would pose no threat to Russia.

July 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Robert Taft Foresaw the Dangers of NATO

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | July 29, 2025

On July 26, 1949, Ohio Senator Robert Taft delivered a speech in which he explicated his reasons for voting against ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty. His remarks included the following:

“If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of Western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint, it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed.

How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?”

Taft correctly anticipated a future in which NATO expansion would provoke a military response from Russia. He also foresaw the rationale behind Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine; namely the fact that NATO’s encirclement of Russia would make Moscow feel threatened.

In September 2014, NATO began delivering arms to Ukraine as part of an effort to combat pro-Russian separatist forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In June 2015, the United States proposed a deployment of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of an effort to shore up NATO training exercises. In December 2015, Poland considered participating in a NATO program in which countries without nuclear weapons would be able to borrow them from the United States. In January 2017, NATO carried out a “large-scale defensive drill” along the Polish-Lithuanian border. In March 2018, the U.S. provided “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense training” to the Estonian military. And in August 2019, NATO upgraded a ballistic missile defense system in Romania.

Taft’s dire prediction elucidated the contradiction at the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty. In attempting to guarantee the security of Western Europe, it instead increased the likelihood that the region would face hostilities from the east. It was only a matter of time before Russia took stock of the military activity to its west and decided that a preventive strike would be its best course of action.

Taft also said:

“Under the new pact, the president can take us into war without Congress. But above all, the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia. A joint military program has already been made. It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.”

Taft’s speech echoes the sentiments expressed by President George Washington in his 1796 farewell address. Washington warned against “interweaving [America’s] destiny with that of any part of Europe.” To do so would “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.”

Taft’s commentary also exemplified the foreign policy tradition of the Old Right, which rejected foreign military adventurism in favor of non-interventionism. Old Right luminaries like Taft laid the groundwork for the foreign policies advanced by Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Thomas Massie. Taft himself initially opposed U.S. entry into World War II. While he voted in favor of the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he remained an opponent of the ascendant internationalism that characterized the period.

At the core of Taft’s pronouncements is a recognition of the fact that U.S. military intervention begets both domestic and international turmoil. Proponents of a proactive foreign policy often accuse non-interventionists of being naïve and unrealistic. But Taft understood the folly of militarism. A realist foreign policy is predicated on an appreciation for the limits of American power. The inherent difficulty of reshaping foreign borders, in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, coupled with the potential for retaliation, ought to give more interventionists pause. The speciousness of such a foreign policy agenda certainly convinced Taft to reject the lofty ideals represented by NATO.   

On February 1, 2008, William Burns, then the U.S. ambassador to Russia and future director of the CIA, sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a memorandum warning against NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Burns wrote:

“Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, thus fulfilling the prophecy outlined by Taft. That conflict is now in its fourth year. By all accounts, it is unlikely to end anytime soon, even with an additional series of peace talks currently taking place in Istanbul.

Nearly thirty-five years after the end of the Cold War, NATO remains a relic of a bygone era. The West insisted that its preservation would ensure peace. They claimed that expanding NATO eastward would forestall or prevent Russian aggression, guaranteeing freedom and prosperity for Eastern Europe. They were wrong.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

NATO Expansion — The Root Cause of the War in Ukraine

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 23, 2025 

I know there is a lot of interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story and the new revelations from Tulsi Gabbard about Barack Obama and his team’s efforts to fan the flames of Russiagate. I have been all over the Russiagate matter since 2017. Here is the link to a piece I published on December 18, 2018 with the nifty title, The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic. I am glad the information is finally coming out, but I knew this seven years ago. What took them so long? While Tulsi’s revelations are legit, I think she is releasing this information now to distract attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Trump is getting killed in the polls — reportedly he is down 40% points on this issue.

For now, I want to focus on the war in Ukraine, i.e., the Special Military Operation (SMO), and clarify Russia’s motivation and objective for ending that conflict. We keep hearing the phrase, root causes. Russia wants the West to address the root causes. Ok, what are those? I think it is pretty simple — read the draft treaty that Vladimir Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2021 and then you will understand. To spare you reading the entire document (I have linked to it in the next paragraph) I am going to summarize the key points.

The draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021, outlined a series of far-reaching security demands, reflecting Russia’s intent to reshape the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Here are the key points from the published text:

  1. No Further NATO Expansion
    • The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.
    • This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
  2. No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries
    • The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
    • NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations.
  3. Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles
    • Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory.
  4. Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities
    • Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.)
  5. Nuclear Weapons Restrictions
    • All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
    • Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad.
  6. Mutual Security Pledge
    • Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party.
  7. Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms
    • Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline.
  8. Indivisibility of Security Principle
    • Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalizing Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.

Instead of engaging the Russians in negotiations on these matters, Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, essentially told Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, that Russia could take the treaty and shove it up its own ass. So much for diplomacy. Had the US agreed to discuss the draft treaty with the Russians, the SMO would not have been launched in February 2022. But that is the critical point… The US had no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement with Russia. For example, the CIA, using DOD cover, had already invested tens of millions of dollars in bio labs scattered throughout Ukraine. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, it recovered documents that identified a network of 30 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine that were conducting research on dangerous pathogens as part of a bioweapons program. Ukraine was nothing more than a pawn in a Western game of strategic chess, with the ultimate goal of wrecking Russia and taking control of its natural resources. The West was not ready to quit that game.

Until NATO’s threat to Russia is taken off the table, Russia’s war with the West will continue… It represents an existential threat to the Russian people. The talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine do nothing to address or resolve the root causes.

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

Romania Strong-Armed Into Buying $2.3 Billion Israeli Anti-Aircraft Systems

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 23, 2025

Having managed to derail populist, NATO-skeptical presidential candidates through a variety of extraordinary means, Romania — bowing to pressure from NATO and President Trump — announced it will spend $2.3 billion on Israeli anti-aircraft systems to fend off the supposed Russian menace.

The big-ticket, Israel-benefitting purchase comes even as Romania is poised to impose dramatic austerity measures to address its deteriorating financial condition. Romania’s 2025 deficit will be the largest in the country’s history. At roughly 9% of GDP, its deficit is also the EU’s highest by that measure. The alarming numbers have triggered reprimands from the European Commission, which asked Romania to bring its deficit down to 2.8% of GDP by 2030. At last month’s NATO summit, the organization’s members bent to Trump’s long-running demands, agreeing to more than double their targeted military spending — from 2% of GDP to 5% — by 2035.

Working hard to rationalize the outlay, Reuters’ report on the Israeli deal notes that Romania “has had Russian drone fragments fall in its territory repeatedly over the past two years.” The Times of Israel bolstered the narrative with a headline claiming “Romania [is] on edge over Russia.”

Last year, Romania seemed poised to elect the deeply NATO-skeptical populist Calin Georgescu, who won the first round of Romania’s two-round presidential election. Citing supposed Russian interference, the country’s Constitutional Court threw out the election and ordered it to be started anew. In a May triumph for the EU establishment, centrist Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan prevailed.

Romania’s pending redistribution of $2.3 billion of its wealth to Israel’s booming arms industry comes as the government is  poised to unleash drastic austerity measures that are certain to stoke resentments. Potential moves include firing 20% of the country’s civil service workers, increasing value-added taxes, and increasing taxes on profits and dividends from 10% to 16%. “This correction is so extensive, so far-reaching, that pain cannot be avoided,” former finance minister and current head of the Romanian Fiscal Council Daniel Daianu told Politico.

Meanwhile, Romania will shower $2.3 billion on an Israeli arms industry already enjoying record revenues. Hitting a new high for the fourth consecutive year, Israeli weapon sales totaled just under $14.8 billion in 2024. European customers accounted for 54% of exports, the Times of Israel reports.

Under the new arms agreement, Romania will buy short-range and very-short-range anti-aircraft systems from Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, with contracts encompassing training, logistical support and ammunition. The first two V/SHORAD systems will be delivered within three years of the contract’s signing, which is expected this fall. The Defense Post reports that Rafael submitted its SPYDER missile systems in the bidding competition. Rafael defeated South Korea’s LIG Nex1, European multinational MBDA and Germany’s Diehl Defence.

Too many conservative Americans clap like seals when Trump demands that European countries spend more money on “defense” — seemingly oblivious to the fact that higher defense spending by European governments is not geared to achieving lower defense spending by the US government. Indeed, in a matter of several weeks during his new term, Trump went from oratorically aspiring to partner with Russia and China to cut the three countries’ military budgets in half, to enthusiastically announcing his approval of a Pentagon request to lift spending to a record $1 trillion.

Fittingly, Trump did so in an Oval Office session with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side. Turning to the man who would soon drag Trump into a war on Iran launched on false claims about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said, “You’ll like to hear of this.”

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

West Doubles Down on Failed Wars in Ukraine & Middle East

Glenn Diesen | July 22, 2025

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the West is doubling down on the failed wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Rumble

July 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Reckless Than Ever: NATO’s Proxy War with Russia

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025

The strategy that the United States and its European allies have adopted to use Ukraine as their military proxy in a war to weaken Russia has always involved a sizable element of risk. At some point, Russian leaders might no longer be content with just attacking the puppet that NATO members were using to torment their country. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues could decide to attack one or more of the puppeteers. The chances of such an escalation are increasing. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s principal deputy, issued a warning on July 17 that his country might launch “preemptive strikes” if the Western powers continued to boost their support for Ukraine’s military efforts.

Medvedev’s statement occurred just after President Donald Trump executed a major U.S. policy reversal regarding Ukraine. Instead of phasing out military aid to Kiev, the administration announced a resumption of weapons shipments, including Patriot air defense missiles that other NATO members would purchase from the United States. Such a stance was reminiscent of President Joe Biden’s enthusiastic support for Ukraine’s war effort, and it stood in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign and the initial weeks of his second term that indicated a determination to end Washington’s entanglement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Unfortunately, the new sale of Patriots is just the latest in a long series of provocations that the United States and NATO have conducted against Russia since full-scale fighting between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022. Both Medvedev and Putin have contended previously that NATO is already at war with their country, given the extent of military assistance that alliance members have extended to Kiev—especially the provision of long-range missiles. Medvedev specifically raised the prospect of Russian retaliatory strikes on NATO bases.

Their charge has merit. Not only have NATO members collectively provided a tsunami of weapons to their military proxy, but also several of them have assisted Ukraine’s war effort in other crucial ways. There is credible evidence that both British and American intelligence agencies (and possibly those of other NATO countries) have provided crucial data to Ukrainian forces attacking Russian military transport planes and other targets. A similar form of assistance apparently was given to Ukrainian forces that attacked Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea.

Providing such assistance to one party in an ongoing war could quite reasonably be interpreted as an act of war against the opposing party. Yet several alliance members are incurring such risks. A German general justified his country’s decision to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. But as one critic noted, what the general conveniently left out “is that these weapons will be operated by German personnel from Wiesbaden. In other words, Germany is turning one of its own cities into a legitimate target for Russian retaliation.”

Although the evidence of committing an act of war is less definitive in other cases, there were strong indications that one or more NATO member states were involved in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The accounts that American and European media propaganda campaigns circulated certainly lacked even minimal credibility. The original cover story that Russia (for reasons that remained both vague and implausible) destroyed its own multi-billion-dollar pipeline did not even pass the proverbial laugh test. Even U.S. and other NATO officials quickly backed away from that attempted explanation. However, the substitute version was even more preposterous. That iteration asserted that a band of Ukrainian activists (but activists who had absolutely no connection to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government) conducted the sabotage raid using a civilian yacht manned by divers not in the country’s military.

Since those attempts at a plausible cover story flopped, NATO officials and their pet media outlets have gone strangely silent. Hopes by the transatlantic foreign policy “blob” that the pipeline story will just go away are understandable, since Moscow would have grounds for regarding the attack on its pipeline as a brazen act of war.

More recently, murkiness surrounds Ukraine’s bold move deploying swarms of drones to attack Russia’s strategic bomber fleet stationed at four air bases deep inside Russia. Kiev understandably bragged about such a military and propaganda victory. However, Washington’s possible role in this episode remains a matter of conjecture. Media outlets friendly to Ukraine asserted that the United States knew about the operation and expressed no objection. The White House initially contended that Ukraine had given no advance notice, but the U.S. account has become less clear with the passage of time.

It is an important detail. It seems unlikely that Ukrainian forces could have carried out such a complex operation so deep inside Russian territory without intelligence information similar to that given to Kiev in its earlier assaults against Russian troop transports and warships. The probable conclusion is that Kiev likely was aided by either U.S. intelligence operatives or operatives from another NATO. In either case, it would be yet another act of war committed against the Russian Federation. One can readily imagine the reaction from the United States if Russia (or any other adversary) waged an attack on the U.S. strategic bomber fleet and destroyed a significant portion of the fleet.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine acted totally alone, that scenario would mean that NATO’s proxy had gone rogue and is now acting on its own. In mid-July, President Trump raised tensions with the Kremlin even more. With typical Trumpian verbal incontinence, he asked Zelensky if (apparently in light of the successful raid on the bomber bases), Ukraine could strike a target such as Moscow deep inside Russia. It appeared to be an unsubtle hint that the United States would not be displeased by such a move. Trump did say many hours later that he was not calling on Ukraine to attack Moscow, but that poisonous idea was now firmly planted. On July 20, Ukraine launched a drone assault on Moscow.

The United States and its NATO allies are engaging in irresponsible behavior that could turn the already dangerous Ukraine proxy war against Russia into a direct armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia. Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Soviet and American leaders had the good sense to implicitly keep their respective homelands off limits. The current crop of “leaders” on the Western side are not exercising such wisdom or basic prudence. They are playing the international equivalent of Russian roulette.

July 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »