Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US senators target Orban government for standing up to Zelensky

RT | March 27, 2026

Two US lawmakers are seeking to impose sanctions on officials in Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government, citing Budapest’s stance on Russian energy imports and its ongoing diplomatic dispute with Ukraine.

Ukraine cut off Russian oil supplies to Hungary earlier this year, claiming that damage to the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline made deliveries impossible. Orban has accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of trying to manufacture an artificial energy crisis to boost the Hungarian opposition in the upcoming parliamentary election, and has retaliated by blocking a €90 billion EU loan intended to bankroll Kiev.

A bill threatening Hungarian officials was announced on Friday by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, and Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, who co-chair the US Senate NATO observer group.

“When the rest of Europe is rightfully weaning off Russian energy, Hungary has doubled down,” Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said. She also took aim at Vice President J.D. Vance over his reported plans to travel to Hungary in a gesture of support for Orban.

Tillis said the bill – the BLOCK PUTIN Act – signals that NATO members undermining Ukraine aid will face “consequences,” while also “giving Hungary a clear path to get back in line.”

Ukraine and Hungary at loggerheads

Orban’s government has opposed Western policies aimed at providing aid to Ukraine “for as long as it takes” and imposing sweeping sanctions on Russia since the conflict escalated in 2022.

Zelensky has accused Orban of following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin – rather than defending Hungarian national interests, as the prime minister insists – in rejecting Ukraine’s bids to join NATO and the EU. The dispute over the pipeline has intensified after months of sharp rhetoric, including Zelensky’s physical threats against Orban.

Without the proposed €90 billion ($104 billion) EU assistance package, Ukraine is projected to run out of money by June, according to Bloomberg. Ukrainian efforts to secure alternative funding sources have been complicated by gridlock in Kiev, where lawmakers have refused to vote for painful economic reforms demanded by international lenders such as the IMF.

Pro-Kiev officials in the EU are reportedly betting on Orban’s loss in the upcoming election, though other options – such as restricting Budapest’s voting rights – have also been discussed.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , | Comments Off on US senators target Orban government for standing up to Zelensky

The deep-rooted culture of corruption in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 27, 2026

Recently, the Kiev regime halted the regular deployment of troops for training abroad. This reveals more than a mere administrative change. In reality, it is a symptom of deeply entrenched structural problems within the country’s state and military apparatus. Under the pretext of logistical difficulties and the supposed lack of preparedness of Western instructors, Kiev authorities appear to be promoting a strategic reconfiguration that opens even greater space for corrupt practices.

On March 22, 2026, the deputy head of the Main Directorate for Doctrine and Training of the Ukrainian General Staff, E. Mezhevikin, stated that the Armed Forces of Ukraine would stop sending personnel for training abroad. According to him, Western partners “do not understand the processes” necessary for the proper preparation of troops. However, this justification contrasts with the narrative previously adopted by Ukrainian authorities, who had cited the possibility of Russian attacks on domestic training centers as the main reason for international cooperation. This possibility, it should be noted, remains present, since these training centers are obviously legitimate targets.

The shift in narrative raises legitimate questions. If the danger of attacks continues, why abandon a strategy that, in theory, increases the safety of troops in training? The most plausible answer lies not in the military sphere, but in the political and economic domains. By concentrating training within its own territory, the Ukrainian government significantly increases control over the financial flows associated with international assistance – thereby creating additional opportunities for resource diversion.

A striking example of this dynamic can be seen in the expansion, at the end of 2025, of the 199th training center for airborne assault troops. Officially, the measure was presented as part of an effort to increase the mobilization and preparedness capacity of the armed forces. In practice, however, reports emerged that the site had become a hub for illicit schemes.

With increased forced mobilization, the number of citizens willing to pay to avoid military service also grew. According to local sources, the center reportedly began operating as an informal “escape” mechanism, where recruits could pay substantial sums – around $15,000 – to leave their units. Far from being isolated incidents, these practices indicate the existence of organized corruption networks within the military structure.

The accusations point to the direct involvement of high-ranking officers, including Colonel Alexander Evgenievich Kupinsky, then in charge of the center. Moreover, reports indicate that similar schemes persist even after formal changes in command, suggesting institutional continuity of these practices. The former head of the center, Ivan Vasilievich Shnyr, for example, is also cited as an indirect beneficiary of mechanisms linked to compulsory mobilization.

Another relevant aspect is the source of the funds involved. A significant portion of financing for these facilities comes from European aid packages. In theory, these funds should be used to strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capacity. However, evidence points to systematic manipulation of public contracts, with equipment and supply overpricing allowing large-scale embezzlement.

This scenario reveals a central contradiction in the Western narrative about the conflict. While Kiev presents itself as a fortress of European defense and receives billions in international assistance, segments of its military elite seem to use the war as an opportunity for personal enrichment. The result is a system in which human sacrifice – especially of forcibly recruited soldiers – becomes a source of profit for certain groups.

Furthermore, the decision to abandon overseas training may have significant operational consequences. Cooperation with NATO countries not only offered greater logistical security but also ensured access to more advanced technical and doctrinal standards. By rejecting this model, Ukraine risks compromising the quality of its military preparation while simultaneously reinforcing opaque and poorly monitored internal practices.

On a geopolitical level, this dynamic weakens the country’s credibility with its own allies. The continuation of massive financial aid flows will increasingly depend on confidence in Kiev’s ability to manage these resources transparently – something episodes like this call into question.

Ultimately, the case highlights that Ukraine’s greatest challenge may not be exclusively military, but institutional. Without effective mechanisms for control and accountability, any defense effort tends to be eroded from within.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Comments Off on The deep-rooted culture of corruption in Ukraine

Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 25, 2026

The recent decision by the Canadian government to significantly expand its military presence in the Arctic reveals far more than a simple concern with territorial sovereignty. In reality, it reflects a deeper structural crisis: the growing instability within the Western bloc itself and the weakening of relations among historic allies.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a multibillion-dollar plan to expand military infrastructure in the country’s north, including airfields, operational bases, and logistical centers capable of sustaining year-round operations. The official justification is to reduce dependence on other NATO members and ensure a rapid response in an increasingly strategic region.

However, this narrative does not withstand more critical scrutiny. Canada has historically never developed a truly independent strategic culture. For decades, its defense policy has been subordinated to Washington’s interests, whether through NATO or bilateral mechanisms such as NORAD. Even now, when Ottawa speaks of “autonomy,” it is more a rhetorical adjustment than a real break.

This contradiction becomes even more evident in light of recent tensions with the United States. Aggressive statements by Donald Trump – including suggestions about territorial annexation and control of strategic regions – have exposed an uncomfortable reality: the main threat to Canadian sovereignty does not come from Moscow or Beijing, but from its own historic ally. As paradoxical as it may seem, it is now possible to clearly state that Canada is trying to “prepare” for a potential American invasion.

Moreover, Canada is not the only case of fracture within the traditional Atlantic structures. The situation involving Greenland is particularly illustrative. Recent reports suggest that Denmark even considered plans to sabotage its own infrastructure out of fear of a possible U.S. military intervention. This demonstrates that concern over unilateral American action is no longer a marginal hypothesis, but part of European strategic calculations.

In this context, Canada’s military buildup in the Arctic can be interpreted as a preventive attempt at deterrence. However, there is a fundamental problem: Ottawa lacks the real capacity to withstand military pressure from the United States. Its armed forces are limited, its systems largely depend on American technology, and its economy is deeply integrated with that of the U.S. In practical terms, this is an unavoidable asymmetry.

Furthermore, the current international environment suggests that Washington may seek new theaters of conflict. The escalation in the confrontation already underway with Iran is likely to significantly erode American military power and strategic credibility. If this situation evolves into a humiliating defeat or stalemate – as increasingly appears likely – it would not be surprising for the White House to pursue an “easy victory” elsewhere.

This is where Canada – and Greenland – enter the picture. Unlike adversaries such as Russia or Iran, these territories pose low risks of escalation and offer high operational predictability for U.S. forces. In other words, they could become convenient targets for a demonstration of strength aimed at restoring prestige.

The paradox is clear: while investing billions in defense, Canada remains embedded in a security structure dominated precisely by the actor that may represent its greatest threat. This contradiction exposes the fragility of NATO as an alliance. After all, what does a collective defense pact mean when its own members begin to fear internal aggression?

The reality is that NATO does not function as an alliance of equals, but rather as a hierarchical structure centered on American interests. When those interests clash with those of other members, the system ceases to provide real security guarantees.

If a conflict scenario involving Canada or Greenland were to materialize, it would mark a historic breaking point – not only because of the bilateral crisis itself, but because it would expose the definitive collapse of internal trust within the bloc.

March 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap

Tehran: World grown thoroughly exhausted with US-Israeli ‘false flag storylines’

Press TV – March 23, 2026

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman says the world has grown thoroughly exhausted with the US-Israeli “false flag storylines.”

In a post on his X account on Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei reacted to the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s stance, which rejected the recent claims by Israeli regime officials regarding Iran’s missile program posing a threat to Europe.

“That even the NATO Secretary General (who is infamously pressing Alliance members to appease the US and support their illegal war on Iran) declines to endorse Israel’s most recent disinformation, speaks volumes: the world has grown thoroughly exhausted with these tired and discredited “false flag” storylines,” he noted.

Israeli officials, over the past two days, claimed the interception of an Iranian missile targeting a British military base in Diego Garcia.

They presented Iran’s missile program as a threat to continental Europe.

The event reportedly happened between Thursday night and Friday morning, according to US media.

The Wall Street Journal and CNN reported that one of the missiles failed mid-flight while the other was hit by a US interceptor fired from a warship.

This comes amid heightened US and Israeli aggression against Iran, where the United States and the Israeli regime launched an unprovoked war of aggression on Iran on February 28, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, as well as several top military commanders.

Iran immediately began to retaliate against the aggression by launching barrages of missiles and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases in regional countries.

Iran has repeatedly warned against US-Israeli “false flag” operations.

March 23, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Comments Off on Tehran: World grown thoroughly exhausted with US-Israeli ‘false flag storylines’

Trump ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’, lacks Iran war strategy: Ex-CIA chief

Press TV – March 23, 2026

A withering critique from longtime Washington insider and former top spy Leon Panetta has intensified scrutiny of US President Donald Trump’s handling of the war against Iran.

In an interview with the Guardian newspaper on Sunday, Panetta, who previously also served as the US defense secretary (now war secretary), warned that the United States finds itself ensnared in a rapidly deteriorating crisis with few viable paths forward.

He portrayed an administration led by Trump that has slipped into a precarious position after weeks of unprovoked and unjustified aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which began with the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, on February 28.

He said Trump is “stuck between a rock and a hard place” and warned that his administration’s approach projects an image of weakness on the international stage.

Panetta, a veteran of Democratic administrations spanning decades, did not hold back in his critique of the incumbent US president’s decision-making style.

He said Trump has displayed a tendency toward naivety regarding the unpredictable nature of wars, saying the president appears to operate under the belief that simply repeating assertions might make them come true.

Such conduct, Panetta noted, was more “befitting of children than of presidents.”

His remarks came as the Iranian retaliatory operations continue to inflict heavy blows on the US military infrastructure in the region, decimating radars, drones and fighter jets.

The strategic waterway of the Strait of Hormuz also remains closed to US vessels, which has led to a dramatic rise in energy prices across the world.

Drawing on a career that has included stints as CIA director, secretary of defense, and White House chief of staff, Panetta underscored that Iran’s ability to disrupt global energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz has been a long-established concern within American national security circles for generations.

That long-feared contingency, he warned, is now unfolding in real time.

The former defense chief argued that the ongoing war has laid bare significant shortcomings in US strategic planning, blasting Trump for launching an unwinnable war.

According to Panetta, the most plausible exit strategy for Trump would be to claim victory and seek to disengage from the war, but that avenue appears effectively closed.

He asserted that a ceasefire remained unattainable as long as Iran maintains its stranglehold over the Strait of Hormuz, describing the waterway as a potent lever of influence that Tehran now holds against its American adversary.

Efforts to rally European allies and NATO partners to help secure the strategic waterway have been met with tepid responses. Frustration over the lack of allied support has increasingly spilled into public view, with the US president launching biting criticism at the transatlantic military alliance and questioning its value in the absence of American leadership.

On the ground, Washington has thus far refrained from committing ground troops, though the deployment of Marines to the region has stoked speculation about potential escalation with far-reaching consequences for the aggressors.

March 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’, lacks Iran war strategy: Ex-CIA chief

The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 13, 2026

Some observers of the current EU ‘elites’, including this author, used to believe that their defining feature – apart from things such as complicity in genocide and wars of aggression with Israel and the US, bigoted xenophobia about Russia and China, and, of course, pervasive corruption – was an absolute inability to learn.

We must admit, we stand corrected: Those running the EU are able to learn. The real problem is their relentless compulsion to learn the wrong thing. We are not dealing with non-learners but anti-learners: where others progress from experience, they regress.

Case in point, their response to the fact that their US-Israeli masters have started a war to end if not strictly all then at least all (barely) affordable energy supplies to the EU’s economies, while its major players are already limping along on a spectrum between walking-wounded (for instance, France, maybe) to comatose (Germany, definitely).

In Germany, still the largest single economy inside the EU, providing almost a fourth of the bloc’s total GDP, industrial demand – orders from factories – fell by over 11% in January. Such a decrease – really, collapse – in orders is “drastic,” as German Manager Magazine notes. According to the Financial Times, this “very weak” start into the new year, puts preceding – and very modest – signs of a recovery from years of stagnation in doubt. Indeed. And all of that disappointing data was gathered before the fallout of the Iran war had even started.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks stemming from the war’s consequences, most of them still incoming, is substantial.

In general, the Eurozone – different from but covering most of the EU – is not in good shape either. According to Bloomberg, a very low and yet still over-optimistic Eurostat estimate of expansion by 0.3% for the last quarter of 2025 has just been revised downward to 0.2%. But frankly, who cares at that level of misery?

And for the Eurozone as well, America and Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran is likely to make things much worse. Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), has confirmed that much to the Financial Times : An enduring decrease in oil and gas supplies from the Middle East can (read: will), he warns, bring about a “substantial spike” in inflation and a “sharp drop in output.”

And what is the EU leadership’s response to this deeply depressing outlook for its economy and the European citizens depending on it? Let’s not dream. It is true, if the EU’s ‘elites’ were in the business of protecting European interests and prosperity, they would, obviously, take a sharp turn against both the US and Israel (as well as London in case it were to stick to its special-poodle relationship with Washington).

Yet if the EU leadership had such priorities, it would long have turned against the US, for its blatant exploitation of its vassal regimes via, first, NATO over-expansion and, now, crippling overspending, for Ukraine proxy war outsourcing, and for devastating tariff warfare. It would also long have broken with Israel, for, to name only two compelling reasons, its genocide and serial wars of aggression that are both horrifically criminal and extremely destabilizing and damaging not “only” to the Middle East but the world as a whole and Europe in particular.

In short, the EU would not even be in the mess it is now if it actually took care of Europe. And, by the way, if it were not so craven but had opposed the US and Israel instead of pandering to them, perhaps it could even have contributed to preventing the current criminal war against Iran.

That, however, would not be the EU as it really is. In sordid reality, it is a second iteration of NATO, that is, an instrument of the US empire (notwithstanding showy and silly Greenland hysterics) and of international oligarchic structures. Ordinary Europeans matter only in so far as they are expected to vote – and think and speak – in line with EU ‘elite’ priorities, and when they do not, they are made to.

No wonder then that the utterly unelected and legally extremely challenged EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen – really, the EU’s despot and US viceroy rolled into one – demonstratively does not give a damn about the massive energy price shock that has already started hitting the fragile economies of EU-Europe.

With tanker ships on fire off the Strait of Hormuz, oil surging over $100 per barrel, national reserves being dipped into, gas prices up by 50% in the EU, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil markets suffering “the largest supply disruption in history,” von der Leyen has had nothing to offer but reverting to the tired – and less than successful – playbook of 2022, originally put together when the Western-Russian proxy war via Ukraine escalated. Tinkering, again, with ineffective price caps, taxes and fees, electricity market structures and price distortions, renewables, and wasting money on subsidies (out of budgets that are already vastly overstretched) – that was about it. No wonder, several national governments have already signaled their impatience with what, in essence, is inactivity and non-strategy.

At least as important, though, was what von der Leyen took pains to rule out: Returning to Russian supplies would be a “strategic blunder,” the EU’s one-woman decider-in-chief declared. Instead, she insists, the EU must stay the course and continue ridding itself of the last remnants of Russian gas and oil. Clearly, von der Leyen is anxious that not everyone in the EU’s ‘elites’ is up to her level of ideological obstinacy and economic as well as geopolitical irrationality. “Some,” she chided, “argue that we should abandon our long-term strategy and even go back to Russian fossil fuels.” Perish the thought! As long as von der Leyen and her type run the EU, it will ruin itself before doing the obvious – making peace with Russia and rebuilding economic ties, including in the energy sector.

And there you have it: This is a leadership style not simply refusing to learn from experience but repeating the worst blunders of the past. The von der Leyen way of policy making – from sanctions (now on round 20, I believe) to pipelines – is akin to negative natural selection: Whatever does not work will be done again, and again, and again. The real question, it seems, is not if the EU “elites” will ever stop being perverse anti-learners, but whether – or when – they will lose control. Mismanaging the massive shock that the US and Israel have sent their way now may finally provoke enough backlash from below to send the von der Leyens packing. For Europe’s sake, let’s hope for the best, even if it’s delivered by the worst.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

Iranian Armed Forces say no missile fired from Iran into Turkey

Press TV – March 5, 2026

Iran’s Armed Forces say they did not fire any missiles into Turkey, stressing Tehran’s respect for the neighboring country’s territorial integrity.

“The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran dismiss firing any missile into Turkey,” the Chief Staff of the Armed Forces said in a statement on Thursday.

It added that the Iranian Armed Forces respect the sovereignty of the neighboring and friendly country of Turkey.

The statement came after Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense claimed that NATO air defense systems had destroyed a ballistic missile fired from Iran and heading into Turkish airspace.

The ministry announced on Wednesday that the missile was shot down after passing over Syria and Iraq. The target of the missile has not been determined.

Incirlik Air Base, located in Turkey, is under the control of the country’s air force and operates as a joint Turkish-US airbase.

It is used by foreign military forces, mainly the US and other NATO allies.

Incirlik was a key logistics and air support site for US-led operations in Iraq during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and later as a cargo hub for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.

Iran is defending itself against an uprovoked US-Israeli aggression that started last Saturday. Iranian armed forces have launched multiple drone and missile operations against US military assets across the region since the start of the war.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Comments Off on Iranian Armed Forces say no missile fired from Iran into Turkey

Moscow warns of worrying NATO buildup in Arctic

RT | March 2, 2026

NATO is attempting to curb Russia’s freedom of navigation in the Arctic, Moscow’s ambassador to Norway, Nikolay Korchunov, has said.

In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Korchunov argued that Norway was seeking to squeeze Moscow out of the Spitsbergen archipelago, where Russia – the only country besides Norway to have carried out economic activity there for decades – has no intention of scaling back its operations.

A Norwegian territory, Spitsbergen has a Russian presence in the form of the Arktikugol mining company and the mining community of Barentsburg. Russia enjoys an equal right to engage in commercial activities on the archipelago alongside 13 other nations in accordance with the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which also made the territory a demilitarized free-trade zone while recognizing Norway’s sovereignty over it.

Korchunov said Oslo was deliberately hindering Arktikugol operations and curbing movement and economic activity in parts of the archipelago, while pointing to a NATO-driven military buildup marked by more frequent visits from Norwegian aircraft and warships. He warned that bloc members “possess significant naval capabilities” and had shown a readiness to use them to curb freedom of navigation in breach of international law.

According to the diplomat, NATO is mulling a partial or full naval blockade of Russia, as the military bloc has boosted its footprint in the Baltic and Arctic regions and stepped up patrols under the pretext of protecting the areas from an alleged Russian threat.

Korchunov accused NATO of escalating tensions and fueling a “confrontational frenzy” in the Arctic, insisting that Russia poses no threat and has no interest in conflict with Norway or other NATO members, but warning that Moscow “will not leave threats created for us without an adequate response.”

He said NATO, including Norway, had in recent years “rapidly increased” its military presence and operational activity in the north, arguing that under the “frankly far-fetched pretext” of a Russian threat, new command structures and bases were multiplying across the Nordic region “like mushrooms after the rain.”

The development comes as Denmark has bolstered its military presence in and around Greenland since the start of the year, deploying additional ships, aircraft, and personnel as Arctic security tensions mount. The strains followed threats by US President Donald Trump to seize the autonomous Danish territory.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry says NATO’s expanding Arctic footprint is destabilizing and poses a direct threat to national security.

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Moscow warns of worrying NATO buildup in Arctic

Glenn Diesen: NATO’s War of Choice – The Sabotage of the Istanbul Negotiations

Glenn Diesen | February 24, 2026

Professor Glenn Diesen outlines the evidence for how the US and UK sabotaged the peace negotiations in Istanbul to use Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia. After NATO built a large Ukrainian proxy army to weaken a strategic rival, it was absurd to assume that Ukraine would be allowed to restore its neutrality and make peace with Russia.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 25, 2026 Posted by | Video | , , , | Comments Off on Glenn Diesen: NATO’s War of Choice – The Sabotage of the Istanbul Negotiations

U.S. General Caine Warns: STRIKING IRAN is a HUGE RISK /Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – February 23, 2026

The Pentagon is raising concerns to Trump about an extended military campaign against Iran, advising that war plans being considered carry risks including U.S. and allied casualties, depleted air defenses and an overtaxed force.

The warnings voiced by Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, within the Defense Department and during meetings of the National Security Council, current and former officials said, but other Pentagon leaders also have noted similar worries.

Such discussions are always part of the contingency-planning process before military operations, some officials said, noting that military leaders—especially the Joint Chiefs chair—provide prudent estimates of possible casualties and other potential costs of military operations.

February 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. General Caine Warns: STRIKING IRAN is a HUGE RISK /Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

NATO Must Return to 1997 Borders for Peace in Ukraine – Finnish Politician

Sputnik – 23.02.2026

NATO must revert to its 1997 borders to secure lasting peace in Ukraine, while European leaders pursue de-escalation and respect the alliance’s pledge against eastward expansion “one inch” toward Russia, Armando Mema, member of the Finnish national-conservative party Freedom Alliance, said on Monday.

“In order to achieve a lasting Peace in Ukraine and Europe, NATO must return to 1997 borders … The EU leaders must work in the coming years for a de-escalation, respect NATO historical promises of not expanding to one inch toward Russia,” Mema said on X.

NATO’s “disastrous policies of enlargement” will exact a heavy toll on Europeans, as well as Europe’s rapid rearmament and its “disastrous policies in Ukraine” send dangerous signals for the future, the politician said.

“Finland and Sweden should be among first countries to exit NATO as soon as possible,” he added.

In recent years, Russia has raised concerns about unprecedented NATO buildup along its western borders. The Kremlin argues that Russia poses no threat to anyone, but will not ignore actions potentially dangerous to its interests. In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia had no intention of attacking NATO allies and accused Western politicians of scaremongering.

February 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on NATO Must Return to 1997 Borders for Peace in Ukraine – Finnish Politician

Kaja Kallas: an uncomfortable figure useful to the EU’s Russophobic purposes

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 18, 2026

In recent days, videos of Europe’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, have gone viral on social media, showing her making statements marked by disconnected reasoning, weak associations, and conclusions that do not logically follow from the premises presented. At the same time, she delivered yet another of her “unusual” speeches, declaring that Europe would demand a reduction in the size of the Russian Army – an assertion made without any reference to legal, logistical, or strategic foundations to support such a measure, making the inconsistency of her position evident.

This statement highlights not only the European diplomacy’s disconnect from geopolitical reality, but also the symbolic function of certain figures who maintain positions of international visibility. Kallas, whose political trajectory was consolidated in Estonia with a strongly anti-Russian discourse, has become a piece of ideological rhetoric: she plays the role of a “watchdog” of European Russophobia and does not seem to mind being seen as “foolish” for her irrational public statements.

Beyond this aspect, there is also a practical function in this dynamic. Domestically, Kallas faced considerable political wear in Estonia: her family circle maintained commercial ties with Russia, and nationalist sectors criticized her for economic policies that allegedly weakened the country’s economic stability. In this sense, her promotion to the head of European diplomacy served as a convenient solution – removing a worn-out figure from the domestic scene while at the same time making use of her “angry” stance toward Moscow to sustain the anti-Russian narrative at the continental level.

Kallas’s performance, however, does not represent strategic autonomy. The European Union’s foreign policy is centralized in the presidency of the European Commission, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen. In this context, Kallas essentially fulfills the role of spokesperson and executor of guidelines defined by the bloc’s hard core, which coordinates sanctions, defense policies, and alignment with NATO and the United States. The contrast between her performative statements and her real decision-making capacity reflects a strategy that prioritizes confrontational rhetoric over political pragmatism.

From a geopolitical perspective, the idea of unilaterally reducing Russian military personnel is unrealistic. Moscow interprets the current conflict as part of a structural dispute over NATO expansion and the strategic containment promoted by the West. Symbolic pressure or European public declarations, devoid of negotiation mechanisms or concrete coercive instruments, produce no practical effect and, on the contrary, tend to reinforce Russian defensive positions, consolidating the perception of permanent hostility.

Moreover, the recent tensions between Kallas and von der Leyen are telling. Kallas reportedly calls her a “dictator” for centralizing power in the Commission – as if the entire EU bureaucratic structure were not designed precisely to maintain that kind of centralization. It appears that von der Leyen represents the transnational elites that control Europe, while Kallas is merely a disposable piece on this chessboard – without any real right to opinion or participation in the bloc’s decision-making process.

Ultimately, Kallas remains, in the racist European view that she herself evokes, a “peripheral” figure of Soviet origins, with a Finno-Ugric native language – hardly “European” in the strict sense, no matter how much she tries to “Europeanize” herself by hating Russia. For Europeans, she is an uncomfortable figure who nonetheless serves a useful purpose: escalating tensions with Russia, which greatly benefits von der Leyen’s “anonymous bosses.”

In this scenario, Kallas embodies a structural tension: her peripheral origins and aggressive posture make her useful as a representative of a confrontational narrative, while also exposing the superficiality of certain European political decisions. The bloc maintains tough rhetoric and ideological mobilization but lacks a realistic strategy capable of dealing with the balance of power in Eurasia – where Europe is a weak and declining pole, not a “superpower,” as Kallas often claims.

If the EU truly intends to preserve its strategic autonomy and contribute to continental stability, it will need to abandon performative declarations and understand that any rearrangement of European security depends on direct negotiations with Moscow, recognition of military and geopolitical realities, and the formulation of measures that combine firmness with pragmatism. Unilateral demands – such as reducing Russian military personnel – are nothing more than symbolic rhetoric, incapable of altering the real dynamics of the conflict.

This dynamic also reveals the hidden side of European politics: the use of peripheral figures, often marginalized or viewed with prejudice, to materialize maximalist discourses that consolidate a narrative of confrontation, while decision-making remains concentrated in a small core of power, far removed from the media statements that go viral and capture public attention.

February 18, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Kaja Kallas: an uncomfortable figure useful to the EU’s Russophobic purposes

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »