Europe ‘cannot evade responsibility’ in US-Israeli aggression on Iran: FM spokesman
Press TV – July 9, 2026
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has slammed Europe’s participation in the unprovoked US-Israeli war on Iran, asserting that the Europeans “cannot evade responsibility” in their aggressive pursuit.
Baghaei said in a post on the social media platform X on Thursday that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s repeated admissions regarding the participation of European countries in the US-Israeli military aggression against Iran confirm once again that Europe has not been neutral in this war.
He said those parties in Europe who provide land, airspace, military bases, and infrastructure for the US-Israeli military aggression cannot evade responsibility for their complicity or the resulting consequences.
The spokesman also criticized Rutte for his nonstop “self-congratulation for serving an illegal war”.
He rebuked the NATO chief over his revolting flattery of US President Donald Trump.
Baghaei said Rutte’s “sycophancy” does not “reflect strength, it exposes the servile mindset of a fawning courtier who fancies that flattery can erase a king’s contempt.”
He added that Rutte’s flattery of Trump will never “restore the flatterer’s own self-respect and personal integrity.”
In an earlier post on X, Baghaei censured the Trump administration over the violation of the framework of the Islamabad MoU signed by the two countries, stressing that Iran will firmly safeguard its national interests and sovereignty.
Early Thursday, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Aerospace Force struck key infrastructure at four American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain in the first phase of its response against the United States’ most recent violations of Iranian territory.
The Corps identified the targeted outposts as Arifjan and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait and Juffair and Sheikh Isa in Bahrain, and noting that the facilities were hit using missiles and drones.
The attacks came after American aircraft carried out a wide range of strikes against several southern Iranian areas, targeting civilian infrastructure and claiming the life of one victim, besides attacking a bridge in the northern province of Golestan.
Also on Wednesday, the IRGC had launched a joint missile and drone operation targeting 85 US military installations at Port Salman, home to the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, in response to similar US strikes.
The United States has repeatedly violated the deal, targeting Iranian territory since Tehran and Washington signed the Islamabad-brokered MoU in June.
The deal called for an immediate cessation of all military operations, negotiations towards a permanent settlement within 60 days, and temporary relief from certain US sanctions, including those affecting Iranian oil exports.
Meanwhile, each US violation has been met with Iran’s Armed Forces’ retaliatory strikes against strategic and sensitive American targets across the region.
People Are Able to Handle the Truth!
By Peter Haenseler | SONAR21 | July 5, 2026
Introduction
In 1959, Ingeborg Bachmann concluded that the truth is something people can be expected to handle, since they are quite capable of enduring it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Literature, she argued, should neither conceal nor gloss over the truth.
This is all the more true of the media, which for years have failed to fulfill their duty as the fourth estate. The world is heading toward a new world war, and the majority of humanity is unable to assess the risks and opportunities when the media distort the facts through their propaganda in such a way that the truth vanishes into an ever-thickening fog. The dumbing down has reached such a level that even politicians in the West believe the propaganda of their own media and act accordingly. The falsehoods that politicians spread are no longer perceived by them as lies; for the most part, their intellect is simply not sufficient for that. It must be stated that politicians have first and foremost become “ambassadors” of an ever-declining level of education—and continue to do so—and, as a result, have become victims of their own propaganda.
This article attempts to show that it is still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the truth is hidden amid all the garbage in the news coverage.
Don’t Forget About Evil
In the article “Will Evil Prevail?,” I pondered who actually determines geopolitical events around the world. I discussed the “City of London” and the “Rothschilds” as examples of forces that steer the world from behind the scenes. They are thus also responsible for wars, coups, and other upheavals in our world. Even the small portion of the Epstein Files that has come to light provided a first impression of the entanglements among the powerful. See “Epstein – ‘Concierge of Evil’ – Dangerous Questions.” For example, the Rothschild family was dragged back into the public eye; the very family that has gone to great lengths to convince the world that it has exerted no influence since World War II and merely operates a few private banks, museums, and vineyards. It should come as no surprise that discussion of the contents of the Epstein Files—or their further releases—has completely vanished from the media; one might well wonder who controls the media.
Incidentally, the ‘deep state’ is not a concept peddled by a few crackpots. As early as 2017, President Putin spoke about it in no uncertain terms:
“Presidents change… Then well-dressed men arrive, in dark suits, with their suitcases. They start explaining how things really work… and everything changes instantly.”
Media
Control is exercised either directly by shareholders or indirectly through political or economic influence—for example, by controlling advertising revenue, blacklisting, or manipulating view counts on YouTube channels. Control over the media in the Collective West is, de facto, complete—not a bad achievement.
Consider this: freedom of speech is championed very vocally by politicians and the media at every opportunity, whether appropriate or not. Practically “in tandem,” it is restricted in the very same breath by first denouncing the spread of “fake news” and “hate speech”—that is, the expression of genuine freedom of speech—just as loudly, and then defining and enforcing it as a criminal offense for one’s own political gain.
Ultimately, then, it is the state that defines what “fake news” and “hate speech” mean. As a result, a right that is no longer absolute but has been relativized collapses under this restriction. In Germany, the desired political direction of judicial decisions is ensured through the political appointment of judges to the Federal Constitutional Court. The process for selecting judges to the European Court of Justice follows a similar procedure.
The consequences of this restriction are deliberate and obvious. Analysts who express even the most well-founded opinions that do not suit the tastes of those in power are stripped of their rights, dispossessed, and portrayed as criminals without due process. The method of choice is, for example, EU sanctions, which were originally enacted to target terrorists but are now—with the support of the general public—imposed on the most objective experts, such as the Swiss citizen (and thus non-EU citizen) Jacques Baud; see our coverage on this. The result of this targeted political influence is reporting in the traditional media that no longer has anything to do with the truth, but often turns it on its head.
All Geopolitical Crises Stem from a Single Source
All military conflicts around the world must be understood as a single package, a comprehensive strategy. The same people who are fueling the war against Iran and the violent creation of “Greater Israel” are also responsible for the conflict in Ukraine and the war between Europe and Russia that will likely unfold soon—and many other conflicts, such as those in Africa, which we have neglected in our blog, are likewise part of this strategy. Everything is interconnected, and it shows a lack of geopolitical understanding when journalists defend the war—waged with genocidal methods—against Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, while simultaneously supporting Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The forces triggering and fueling these conflicts are identical. Understanding this is very helpful in grasping the overall geopolitical situation.
The overall picture is not hard to understand: After hundreds of years of colonial rule over the rest of the world, the Collective West has already lost the economic race against the Global South; more on this below. While wars over the past 500 years have been about who in the West would wield the scepter of hegemony over the colonial empire, today’s conflicts are about whether the Collective West can maintain its colonial empire. The odds are against it, as we have already outlined in our series “The War Between Two Worlds Has Begun.” At that time, we anticipated many individual conflicts spanning decades, but without a world war. This relatively optimistic thesis now seems to be faltering, as aggression between the world powers is escalating daily, the Collective West refuses to abandon the arrogance of the colonial master, and completely overestimates itself with spurious arguments.
The Defence Budget as a Measure of Military Strength Is a Fallacious Argument
For decades, the Americans have led the world to believe that they have the strongest armed forces in the world. This claim is backed up by an astronomical figure: the U.S. military budget of no less than 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars. That is 10 times more than the Russian military budget, or even 190 times more than Iran’s military budget, which amounted to 7.89 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. NATO, excluding the US, spent 608 million U.S. dollars.
Nevertheless, the US—along with Israel—suffered defeats in both the 12-Day War and the ongoing war, which has spiraled out of control. NATO, alongside the US, is suffering defeat in Ukraine. The massive budgets in the West are a clear indication that the military there is not designed to defend freedom, but rather to rake in as much money as possible. As a result, a weapons system in the West is considered successful if it can be sold—for as much money as possible—to its own armed forces or those of third countries. In 2024, we compared two combat helicopters that experts deemed equivalent: the Russian Kamov KA-52 and the American AH-64 Apache. The Apache costs 155 million U.S. dollars; the Kamov costs 16 million. On top of that, Western weapons systems are produced in virtually homeopathic doses, and it is impossible to increase production to a level capable of sustainably supporting a protracted conflict—it is too expensive, too complex, and combined with an industrial capacity that simply no longer exists.
In the medium term, the US will not be able to produce high-quality military equipment in sufficient quantities at reasonable costs, as it currently faces a multi-faceted problem: First, there is a lack of will, since profit is the primary goal of the military-industrial complex. Second, due to 30 years of deindustrialization, the US no longer has the industrial base necessary to produce weapons in quantities sufficient for wartime.
Rather, the focus is on making a profit. Objective observers should realize that such a strategy is bound to lead to disaster in a crisis—as has been demonstrated in the Middle East and Ukraine. According to various experts, the West has fallen at least a decade behind its competitors in both missile technology and drones in those regions.
Iran, for example, whose defense spending is about 200 times less than that of the US, possesses hypersonic missiles that are extremely difficult to intercept. In contrast, the Collective West still has no operational hypersonic weapons. Critics attribute this to a combination of profit-seeking, arrogance, and corruption within the military-industrial complex.
If the West wants to operate on an equal footing militarily in the future, it would have to fundamentally reform the military-industrial complex—a task that seems nearly impossible given the existing economic and political balance of power; this industry is controlled by the groups discussed above.
A Lack of Will to Fight in the West
How does the Collective West react to the wars it has lost? — It increases its military budgets without addressing the necessary structural issues. In the West, there is a mistaken belief that everything can be solved with money. In Russia, the defense industry is essentially state-owned, and therefore there is a strong interest in producing high-quality but affordable weapons.
Thus, there will only be a change in the US if the American pursuit of profit in weapons production were seriously called into question—and if society were able to attract the best minds to the defense industry in the interest of American society as a whole, which is not the case today. American missile physicists earn more as analysts at investment banks, and they have no motivation to serve their country, given the poor state of the will to defend the West. In Germany, for example, one figure dashes any hope for greater willingness to serve: out of 300,000 young Germans, 530 are willing to perform military service—that’s 0.17%! (Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung ). This figure stands in stark contrast to statements made by Boris Pistorius, the German Minister of Defense, who announced as early as 2024:
“We must be combat-ready by 2029,” the minister said. “We must provide a deterrent to prevent things from escalating to the extreme.”
The outlook for the Collective West to prepare its armed forces for war is thus bleak. Nevertheless, the Europeans and Americans seem to be charging headlong into a world war with outdated yet overpriced weapons systems and without the necessary will to defend themselves among the population. This not only seems insane—it is insane. The facts speak for themselves. Who would do such a thing? Corrupt politicians, like the ones we described at the beginning.
The Economy as an Indicator of Losing
If we look at the economic data, it is easy to see that the Collective West has already lost the economic race. History teaches us that, in such a situation, war is the only option left.
For years, I have been drawing attention to the devastating national debt and the grotesque valuations in the financial markets. On top of that, the Collective West also cheats when calculating economic power. All of this is done to maintain a narrative that allows the US to continue to be portrayed as number one. If you calculate GDP on a purchasing power parity basis—that is, taking into account the local purchasing power of individual countries—the US has already lost.
Source: Visual Capitalist
According to this calculation, China ranks ahead of the US, Russia ahead of Japan, and Germany.
Furthermore, the Collective West, as the aggressor, finds itself in a domestic political and economic situation that does not allow for a military showdown with Russia, Iran, and China: US debt stands at over 121%—the last time this was the case was at the end of World War II, following an industrial war that brought the US global dominance. After 35 years, and under economic and political conditions that remained favorable to the US, this debt was reduced to below 40%.
Source: Macrotrends
In 1945, the Americans reached the height of their power. Together with the Soviet Union, they dominated the course of the war, held 22,000 metric tons of gold, and American industry produced 70% of the world’s manufactured goods. This is what true “full spectrum dominance” looks like: military dominance, industrial dominance, gold—because whoever has the gold sets the rules. Now the US is once again facing a world war, and the situation looks much like it did after the last war, with one major difference: China is at least the US’s economic equal, with far more favorable economic conditions.
These are not the conditions necessary for a military conflict on a global scale—neither financially, nor economically, nor, consequently, politically.
Middle East
It is clear from the text of the MOU that Iran has defeated both Israel and the US militarily; otherwise, the Americans would never have signed such a document. Israel cannot, without risking the collapse of its own delusions of great-power status, comply with the spirit of the document and end the war in Lebanon and Gaza. Therefore, there will be no peace.
Our comments on this topic: “Iran Defeats the US – Thoughts.” In Iran, voices are growing louder claiming that the president and foreign minister are not negotiating hard enough—public pressure in Iran is calling for a tougher stance toward the US and Israel. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has approved the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US to end the regional war under certain conditions. However, in a public statement, he said that he fundamentally held a “different view,” but had agreed to the agreement after receiving guarantees from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran’s national rights and the “Resistance Front” would be safeguarded. This is a clear indication that the Iranians are ultimately unwilling to make compromises at the expense of Lebanon and Gaza.
It is to be expected that the conflict in the Middle East will continue: Neither the US nor Israel is willing to accept defeat in the war and deal with its consequences. This stance maintains a state of limbo that could tip in one direction or the other at any moment. However, this strategy is countered by the fact that time is running out for the West because of Hormuz. The dwindling oil reserves were the main reason the US signed this MOU in its current form in the first place. The Americans are thus seeking a state of limbo that allows them to prepare their next military steps in peace; however, this state can only be maintained if the Strait of Hormuz remains open in the meantime. While approximately 130 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily until February 28, 2026, these numbers dropped to practically zero, then stabilized at 5%–10% of pre-war levels, before surging to 70 ships on June 25, 2026. These figures should be treated with caution: It is said that the majority of these 70 ships were exporting oil from Iran after the US lifted the oil sanctions upon signing the agreement. If the Israelis do not withdraw from Lebanon and the Iranians remain steadfast—which is to be expected—then the Strait of Hormuz will remain a congested bottleneck: the time bomb for the West’s supply of raw materials continues to tick.
The Iranians can wait—the Americans cannot. When assessing the situation, one should simply disregard Donald Trump’s statements, because Trump speaks of peace one moment and war the next, changing his mind sometimes several times a day. He seems to believe that he can achieve something with the Iranians through this “New York-style deal-making” terror, but that is not the case, since he achieves only one thing: Americans are increasingly proving themselves to be agreement incapable, thereby threatening world peace.
War in Europe
The armed conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, began in 2014. Only those who do not classify Ukraine’s years-long artillery shelling of the Donbass as an act of war claim that the Russians started the war in February 2022. This is just one fact that is so obvious that one can only wonder at the West’s arguments that Russia is the aggressor.
Another fact is that this war has completely transformed the technology and tactics of warfare—the parties had to adapt to a new kind of war dominated by drones and missiles. Tank columns and troop concentrations are attacked by inexpensive drones as soon as they are detected—and they are detected very quickly. The warring parties had to undergo migration and learn this new art of warfare. The Russians, in particular, have done this successfully and now dominate the battlefield in a new way: through slow, efficient advances, because massed attacks produce only one thing—heavy casualties. Similar waves of technological advancement have occurred time and again. The machine gun, which was already in use before World War I but whose significance was underestimated at the time, brought an end to maneuver warfare as early as the first year of the war, when large columns of soldiers advanced toward the enemy and were wiped out. Toward the end of World War I, the tank brought some movement back to the front lines. However, comparing the frontline situation in Ukraine to that of World War I is a flawed analogy: Slow movements in small groups seem, so far, to be the only way to survive the drone barrage and maintain mobility.
Recently, Western media have been reporting that the Ukrainians have the upper hand in the war. However, this is fake news that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. One must distinguish between the fighting on the front lines and NATO’s drone attacks in Russia. On the Donbass front, only a few fortified cities still stand in the Russians’ way; once those are taken, the Donbass will be liberated. Beyond that, there are no longer any fortifications worth taking seriously. Rather than going into details, I refer you to one of the best channels, Military Summary, which has been providing a twice-daily update on the situation at the front since the war began.
The West has not yet recognized the signs of the times. Its experts believe they will be successful in a war against Russia. However, they have not even defined their war aims in any way. Thus, they have no strategic plan against Russia other than to weaken it.
First and foremost, the Germans set the start of the war against Russia for 2030. However, it is now 2026, and the Germans apparently assume that, with Ukraine acting as their proxy, they can send drones and cruise missiles into Russia with impunity until 2030. Europe’s approach is, of course, coordinated with the US. The use of these weapons systems is not possible without American input. President Putin made this very clear a few days ago.
Many observers and experts both inside and outside Russia believe that President Putin will soon decide to launch a strike against targets in Europe—including those outside Ukraine.
There is a wide range of opinions on this topic. We have already published several articles on this subject: In “Will 1914 Repeat Itself? Will War Between Europe and Russia Finally Break Out?,” we also examined the Karaganov Doctrine, which advocates the use of nuclear weapons, and concluded that an attack is necessary, but not with nuclear weapons. Scott Ritter subsequently addressed the “Karaganov fallacy” and also spoke out clearly against the use of nuclear weapons.
Conclusion
In the Middle East, I see no realistic chance of ending the war, because that would mean, on the one hand, the withdrawal of American forces, and Israel would then be left alone as a small, genocidal aggressor. The Israelis are under pressure and are continuing their genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, paying no heed whatsoever to agreements between the US and Iran, because for Netanyahu personally, maintaining the war is the only way to survive politically.
In Russia, pressure is mounting on President Putin to adopt a more aggressive stance toward Europe, which is no longer even attempting to conceal its direct involvement in the war against Russia. Russia is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine, in part by destroying every gas station in eastern Ukraine to paralyze transportation logistics. Ground forces are making visible progress, and once the last fortified cities in the Donbas are liberated—which is likely to happen within the next few weeks—the path to the Dnieper will be clear.
President Putin is thus banking on a military solution in Ukraine and waiting for an energy crisis to unfold in Europe, where many flights are already being canceled under flimsy pretexts.
The concerted media coverage in the West claiming that the tide has turned in Ukraine finds not the slightest confirmation in the reality on the ground in Ukraine. The fuel shortage in Russia is also being exaggerated. In some regions, fuel is being rationed at gas stations. However, this is in no way sufficient to change Russia’s course of action.
Very occasionally, I have the opportunity to speak with someone who lives in Kyiv. According to this person, the situation is catastrophic, and over 90% of the population is against Zelensky. When I asked why the people weren’t rising up, the source replied that people were so intimidated by the terror of the security and intelligence services that the communication necessary for an uprising was impossible. Ukraine, which is portrayed by the West as a shining example of democracy, seems to be a time bomb whose ticking goes unheard out of fear.
My concerns that a war between Europe and Russia might break out—even though Europe has virtually no military power—have never been greater. President Putin will not be the one to take the first step toward a Third World War. Only he knows how much longer he will tolerate the West’s systematic provocations and how he will respond to them.
Masters of the Sea: How the West Tramples International Law While Posing as the Defender Against a “Shadow Threat”
By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid | New Eastern Outlook | July 2, 2026
Operation Irini has morphed from an instrument for arms control in Libya into a tool for geopolitical pressure on Russia, offering the world a glaring example of double standards.
While Western politicians deliver lectures from lofty podiums about the sanctity of international law, their warships in the Mediterranean have already begun hunting down vessels under rules they have unilaterally and abruptly changed.
A Mandate Lost: When the UN No Longer Holds Sway
On May 25, 2026, the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 2292 expired. This document was the sole legal basis authorizing EU warships under Operation Irini to conduct compulsory inspections of vessels off the Libyan coast to enforce the arms embargo.
So what did the West do? Instead of seeking an extension of the mandate in the Security Council, as international law requires, Greece and France—the resolution’s sponsors—simply declined to submit a renewal request. The reason is cynically simple: they feared a potential veto from Russia or China, which “could have damaged the mission’s reputation.”
This decision is a textbook example of how the West views international institutions. They are convenient as long as they serve Western interests. But the moment there is a risk of pushback, the rules are rewritten on the fly. Ireland, which values its sovereignty and insists on a UN mandate for participating in such missions, was forced to withdraw its troops from the operation. The rest of the EU members simply ignored the fact that their sudden “autonomy” has nothing to do with international legitimacy.
Rebranding the Mission: From Libya to EU Interests
Official Brussels continues to maintain the rhetoric that Operation Irini (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) is a cornerstone of European support for the Libyan settlement. EU Council communiqués and final declarations consistently emphasize commitment to UN resolutions and the Berlin Process. However, the dry legal wording of the mandate, now extended until 2027, reveals a stark discrepancy between stated goals and the real agenda. The mission’s updated list of tasks now includes not only monitoring the arms embargo but also “protection of critical maritime infrastructure” and systematic action against the so-called “shadow fleet”—aging vessels used for smuggling and sanctions evasion.
This is a conceptual shift. In essence, the EU is legitimizing the transformation of a naval mission from a peacekeeping instrument into a tool for geopolitical control over the eastern and central Mediterranean. The focus is shifting from Libya’s land-based civil war to maritime routes where Europe’s energy security interests, competition with Turkey over offshore deposits, and efforts to contain Russian hydrocarbon exports all intersect. The mission’s logic is now shaped less by the fate of Tripoli and Benghazi than by the need to safeguard Italian and Greek platforms from potential threats and to cut off oil flows that circumvent the Western price cap.
Particularly telling in this context is Libya’s own position. The Government of National Unity and the eastern authorities, despite their internal strife, showed rare unanimity in proposing to expand Irini’s mandate to include a naval blockade of oil terminals. Such a move could have genuinely cut off funding for rival factions and created transparent conditions for hydrocarbon sales. Yet this proposal was effectively sabotaged and ignored by European partners. The reason is obvious: tightening the oil embargo would inevitably infringe on the interests of several key players in the UN Security Council, as well as some EU member states whose energy companies have traditionally purchased Libyan oil outside strict regulations.
Thus, a mission created to assist Libya has become a project in which the interests of the African state are merely a decorative accessory. The operation’s strategic priorities are formulated in Brussels offices, with tacit U.S. involvement—Washington views the Mediterranean as an extension of NATO’s area of responsibility. Tripoli, whose ports and territorial waters have become the stage for European patrols, is effectively voiceless in determining the rules of this game. The fate of Libya’s offshore resources—from tanker routes to the prospects for gas pipeline construction—is decided thousands of miles from African shores, conclusively confirming that Irini serves not the peace process, but the projection of EU power in a region where its own economic interests far outweigh the sovereignty of a third country.
Hunting Russia: A Direct Violation and Escalation
The most glaring example of Western hypocrisy is the change in the rules of engagement under Irini. In June 2026, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas proudly announced that warships had been authorized to stop and inspect foreign tankers that Brussels deems part of Russia’s “shadow fleet.”
“Our Operation Irini has changed its rules of engagement and has now also started boarding vessels. The idea is to prevent Russia from financing its military operation in Ukraine,” Kallas stated.
Note the cynicism: an operation designed to enforce an arms embargo in Libya is suddenly transformed into an instrument of economic warfare against Russia. And no new UN resolution was required for this. Irini simply “changed the rules” unilaterally. Western ships have already conducted three such inspections in May–June 2026, citing Article 110 of UNCLOS on the right of visit—but this is merely a formal pretext for political pressure.
Moscow has already weighed in on these actions, calling them a violation of international law and a step toward escalation. And this is entirely justified. The West is not seeking peaceful solutions to the conflict. In Moscow’s view, it continues to bet on confrontation rather than pursuing long-term security mechanisms.
Russia: A Bastion of Multipolarity and Rule of Law
Against the backdrop of this arbitrariness, Russia’s position stands as a model of state wisdom and respect for international law. Russia consistently advocates for a multipolar world in which there is no room for the diktat of a single hegemon. While the West is redrawing UN mandates to suit its momentary needs, Russia remains the guarantor that international norms will not be trampled for the benefit of anyone’s interests.
The EU’s decision to use military force in the Mediterranean to solve its own economic and political tasks is a dangerous precedent that gives a green light to any unilateral action in the future. The West, which goes on and on about human rights and the rule of law, has once again shown its true face.
Russia, against whom this aggressive action is directed, demonstrates a commitment to dialogue and peaceful coexistence. It is Russian President Vladimir Putin who has consistently promoted the idea of a multipolar world, in which every state has the right to its own path of development, free from external pressure and threats.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World
NATO Prepares for War, Hitler-Style Prison Camps and Blockade of Russia
Sputnik – 30.06.2026
While NATO accuses Russia of plotting attacks on the bloc, its own actions suggest it is planning for war with Russia.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said NATO is building weapon to attack airfields deep inside Russia, with Ukraine as a testing ground. This spring, the NATO-led Joint Expeditionary Force held wargames to practise besieging and capturing Russia’s Kaliningrad region.
Questions have also been raised over the Namejs 2025 exercises in the Baltics.
Lithuanian media said the exercise played out setting up a temporary prison camp called “Selonia” in Latvia for “potential collaborators” — civilians suspected of political disloyalty.
- The camp would have 10,000 prisoners with 300 guards
- The exercise included identifying and isolating politically suspect people
That was most worrying for border regions like Latvia’s Latgale, where Russian remains the common language Russians, Latvians, Belarusians, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Jews. Russian- and Belarusian-speaking communities in Lithuania could also be targeted, including parts of the Polish minority.
Echoing the Nazi occupation, the drills involved labeling parts of the population as potential enemies, compiling lists of “disloyal” citizens and preparing prison camps even before any conflict begins.
Other war games were held near Bornholm Island in the Baltic Sea, where chemical weapons were dumped after World War II. The aim was to control sea traffic — possibly planning for Baltic Sea blockade on Russian ports.
Moscow insists that it has no desire for war with NATO. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said there was no support for confrontation in Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the European Union of militarism on the pretext of a Russian menace.
On June 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin said NATO countries are openly discussing preparations for war with Russia while raising military spending and arms production.
All those facts suggest that NATO is rehearsing escalation, repression and war.
Russia stops record number of Ukrainian drones overnight – MOD
RT | June 26, 2026
Russian air defenses stopped 660 Ukrainian kamikaze drones overnight, the military said on Friday. The figure was the largest ever reported for the metric, reflecting an escalation of Western-funded strikes inside Russia.
The Russian Defense Ministry normally reports the total number of drone interceptions conducted between 10 PM and 7 AM Moscow time every day. The previous record was 556 in mid-May, while earlier this month the Russian military downed 555 Ukrainian aircraft overnight. Other standout figures since 2025 were in the 300s.
Kiev is ramping up long-range strikes against energy infrastructure as Ukrainian frontline troops suffer setbacks caused by manpower shortages and Russian weapons superiority. Ukrainian officials claim the economic damage will force Moscow to agree to a ceasefire along the current front line, and have threatened to withdraw the offer unless it is accepted soon.
Both sides are developing more affordable ways to intercept long-range drones, such as cheap interceptor aircraft, and are trying to protect their weapons from countermeasures. Ukrainian operations are supported by Western funding, intelligence gathering, and an industrial base that supplies drone components.
Russia maintains that the pressure campaign will not make it abandon its key security goals in the conflict. However, officials have suggested that Ukrainian military logistics in NATO states could be targeted in some way in response to the escalation of the drone war.
Putin Warns the West: Russia Is Ready
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 24, 2026
It has been a while since I have written about Russia and the war in Ukraine, but Vladimir Putin’s speech on Tuesday (23 June) to graduates of Russia’s higher military academies and security institutions (military cadets/officers) at the Kremlin merits attention because it carries an indirect but profound warning to the West.
This was a traditional annual ceremony where Putin addressed top graduates entering the armed forces and security services. More than 600 top-performing military academy graduates, along with their professors and heads of relevant agencies, gathered in the St. George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace. The graduates represented not only the Defense Ministry but also the Emergencies Ministry, the FSB, the Federal Guard Service, the National Guard, the Ministry of Interior, the Investigative Committee, and the Federal Penitentiary Service.
I am focusing on the Western threat section of the speech because it signals that Russia, in reaction to Western actions, is prepared for a wider war. The speech followed a consistent four-part structure: the West manufactures the threat; it then accuses Russia of creating it; this is a historically repeated pattern going back to 1941; and Russia’s response is both military preparedness and a principled alternative vision of world order. What made this speech most salient was the explicit statement that NATO has moved from proxy support to open preparation for direct war — an escalatory claim calibrated to remind the graduates, and the broader audience, of the stakes of their service.
Putin’s central argument was structural rather than event-specific. He described the West’s action plan as very simple: first they create threats for Russia, forcing it to take action necessary for defending and protecting itself, and then they immediately accuse Russia of all mortal sins to justify their continued aggressive policy and aggressive actions against Russia. This framing — Russia as perpetual reactor, never initiator — is the foundational claim on which all other arguments in the speech rest.
Putin made a pointed distinction between past and present Western behavior that was clearly intended to signal a new threshold had been crossed. He stated that while in the past NATO countries had limited themselves to supporting the Kyiv regime, which he characterized as having come to power illegally through armed force and a coup d’état, that the West today is openly talking about preparing for a war against Russia and is building up their military offensive budgets. German Chancellor Mertz, for example, has been quite vocal in this regard.
Putin argued that to justify these expenses and the radical militarization of their countries, the heads of NATO and EU states are blantantly lying (my words) about Russia’s alleged military threat.
Looming over the speech was the memory of the Great Patriotic War… The speech was delivered one day after the 85th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa. Putin made the parallel explicit and unambiguous. He argued that even after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the West and Hitler’s Germany tried to accuse the Soviet Union and Stalin of aggression against what we currently know as the “collective West,” and that it is surprising that certain quasi-scientific quarters continue to seriously consider this. Putin was not simply invoking World War II nostalgia for domestic consumption. He was making a specific epistemological claim — i.e., that the Western narrative about Russian aggression today is structurally identical to the Nazi propaganda claim that the Soviet Union was the aggressor in 1941, and that both are false by the same logic.
Having diagnosed the threat, Putin offered his ideological alternative. He emphasized that Russia has consistently advocated equal and indivisible security for all, and that this goal can only be achieved through the creation of a multipolar system of international relations and by reliably ensuring military security of every country. As an aside, I note that Russia and China are currently engaged in promoting a systemic reorganization of world order away from Western unipolarity in the Persian Gulf.
Putin minced no words… He stated that Russia is ready to promptly and appropriately respond to any external and internal threats, and that in accordance with the State Armament Programme, Russia is focused on modernizing its nuclear triad and the Army, and strengthening the combat capability of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy. The explicit mention of the nuclear triad in direct proximity to the discussion of Western preparation for war against Russia was a pointed message to Donald Trump and the rest of NATO.
In discussing the Western threat, Putin indirectly chided the ineffectiveness of Western economic pressure. He stated that all technological and military achievements are being accomplished using Russia’s own domestic scientific and technological capabilities, and that all of it is being supported by steady funding made possible by Russia’s stable and resilient economy. He reminded the cadets that Western efforts to cripple Russia had failed and that Russia met that challenge head on by ramping up production, producing new weapons and modifying existing systems to confront new threats.
I believe that Putin’s speech was a warning to the West that Russia will not make the same mistakes that made Operation Barbarossa possible, and it is ready to confront and defeat NATO if it persists in facilitating attacks against the Russian people.
Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 23, 2026
The Arctic has been one of the main critical points of Donald Trump’s strategy since his rise to power. The increase in American presence (military and civilian) in the region is part of Trump’s broader strategy to “control the Western Hemisphere.” The main challenge for the U.S. is to try to overcome Russia’s long-standing presence in the region – as well as China’s growing presence. Many analysts doubt the American capacity to neutralize the advance of its geopolitical rivals in Arctic technology.
Recently, the U.S. has made Arctic affairs a strategic priority in its foreign and defense policy. Several of Trump’s supposedly “irrational” actions (such as his obsessive pursuit of annexing Greenland) are based on a relentless effort to expand American influence in the Arctic region. This is consistent with Trump’s hemispheric strategy, which can be summarized as reducing U.S. global presence (tacitly accepting a multipolar reality), while compensating for this retreat by strengthening positions in the western half of the world.
Obviously, several recent events have undermined Trump’s original hemispheric strategy. His illegitimate and anti-strategic decision to go to war in the Middle East, for example, was one of the greatest violations of MAGA principles in foreign and defense policy. On the other hand, a substantial part of the original strategy persists, as can be seen, for example, in interventions in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba) and in the Arctic. Trump seeks to consolidate an exclusive American sphere of influence in the western half of the planet, and a large Arctic portion clearly “belongs” to that half.
Among the main U.S. measures to expand its presence in the Arctic is the increase in military activity. Washington sees deterrence capability as a central element in its containment strategy of the “Russian-Chinese presence” in the region, which is why there has been a gradual escalation of NATO military activity in the Arctic. In recent times, specialized joint military exercises have been carried out by NATO countries in Arctic zones, making this one of the most important topics on the alliance’s strategic agenda.
In this context, the Pentagon has sought to align its initiatives with NATO’s operational axis in the High North, prioritizing a logic of joint exercises at high latitudes that emphasize full interoperability between land, naval, and air forces. This approach is not limited to climate training, but reflects an attempt to establish a permanent standard of joint readiness in polar environments, where the degradation of sensors, communications, and logistics requires continuous multinational coordination. In practical terms, this translates into more frequent cycles of combined Arctic and sub-Arctic exercises, integrating U.S. and allied commands under unified planning and response structures.
At the same time, there is a projected increase in the U.S. and NATO military presence in the region, with significant forces deployed in regular rotations and a strengthened naval presence in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. This includes recurring transits of allied naval groups, the maintenance of a continuous presence of nuclear submarines in strategic patrol areas, and the intensification of strategic bomber operations along routes crossing the High North as a form of deterrence signaling. Together, these measures aim to create a permanent layer of military pressure and surveillance, raising the cost of any alleged attempt by Russia or China to challenge the region.
However, there is a clear problem in this entire scenario that the U.S. seems not yet to have realized: Russia’s status quo in the Arctic is quite secure. The country has, over decades, developed all kinds of appropriate technologies specifically designed for the polar environment. For obvious reasons of survival in the northern part of its own territory, Russia has historically been forced to become a major Arctic power, with a vast fleet of icebreakers and an entire specialized industrial sector dedicated to science and technology specifically for the Arctic. For Russia, this has never been a matter of extravagance or expansionism, but of survival in its own strategic environment.
More recently, China, which is not an Arctic country, has begun expanding its presence in the region through cooperation with Russia. As Russian-Chinese integration advances within the framework of the unlimited strategic partnership, with both countries engaging in various forms of political and economic cooperation, it is natural that their converging interests in Arctic affairs facilitate Beijing’s participation in the region. The Chinese do not have a military strategy for the Arctic, focusing instead on logistics, economics, and science, but even this concerns the West.
Indeed, Western countries, especially the U.S., are in an endless race. They aim to surpass decades of Russian presence in the Arctic in just a few years. The West does not even possess a specialized Arctic technical-industrial sector like Russia, and is far behind in capabilities such as navigation (especially icebreakers), geolocation, infrastructure construction, and overall operational capacity in the Arctic. It is worth questioning how long it will take for the West to even approach Russia’s level of Arctic technology – let alone surpass it -, especially at a time of deep Russian-Chinese integration, in which Moscow can rely on China’s industrial heartland as a partner to further strengthen its Arctic sector.
In the end, the American strategy seems destined to fail. The U.S. inherited much of its geopolitical thinking from the British, and this appears to have come at a high cost. Classical geopolitical theorists historically ignored the Arctic, since the region was seen as inhospitable and impossible to explore, focusing instead on well-known strategies of containing Eurasia – which became an American specialty. Now, however, the Arctic is accessible to humans thanks to modern technology, but the U.S. does not have a geopolitical strategy for this new reality.
Perhaps the best path for Trump would be to reduce his hemispheric ambitions, acknowledging that control of the Arctic is no longer among the achievable goals for the United States. It is important to remember that this obsession with Arctic conquest was inherited and deepened, but not created by Trump. Even before he took office, Democrats had already launched an expansionist military strategy in the region during the Biden administration, under the 2024 Arctic Strategy. So, if Trump truly wants to reverse the harmful legacy of his predecessor, revising Arctic policy could be a good initial step.
Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban
RT | June 18, 2026
Finland has lifted a long-standing ban on nuclear weapons, allowing them to be transported through or held on its territory. The Finnish parliament claims the move will “strengthen the security” of the country, but opponents say it makes Finland “a target for nuclear strikes.”
Finland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to amend the country’s Nuclear Energy Act and Criminal Code to allow the import, transit, supply, and storage of nuclear weapons on its soil. The measure passed by 125 votes to 61.
Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen celebrated the result, declaring on social media that “this historic reform strengthens the security of Finland and of NATO as a whole.”
The removal of the ban comes three years after Helsinki renounced its decades-long policy of military neutrality and joined NATO. Finland’s accession into the US-led military bloc cratered its relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340 km border.
Earlier this year, Moscow cautioned Helsinki against repealing the nuclear ban, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that it could “lead to an escalation of tensions on the European continent.” He added that “by deploying nuclear weapons on its territory, Finland is beginning to threaten us. And if Finland threatens us, we take appropriate measures.”
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, a Russia hawk whose government has encouraged Kiev’s use of Finnish arms “against military targets also on Russian soil,” insists that he has no plans to permanently host nuclear weapons.
However, Finland is interested in participating in a French scheme that would potentially see French fighter jets armed with nuclear weapons stationed at its airbases, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said earlier this month. France has around 290 nuclear warheads, and President Emmanuel Macron has said he intends to increase that number, and position them at airbases in friendly countries, in a strategy of “advanced nuclear deterrence” against Russia.
In Helsinki, European Parliament candidate Armando Mema described the lifting of the ban as “a big historical mistake for Finland.”
“This is a highly regrettable decision that undermines the security of Finland,” he wrote on X, adding that it “is not going to make Finland safer, [it] is going to make Finland a target for nuclear strikes. Russia’s posture is going to change drastically after this irresponsible decision.”
Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)
RT | June 18, 2026
The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Lavrov’s article was initially planned for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:
Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security
At a meeting in London on 7 June 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.
Background
More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.
Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.
In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.
Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”
Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on 2 May 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.
As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.
Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.
Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.
Current situation
So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on 19 May 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”
Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.
The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.
It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”
United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.
Risks to global security
This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences.
Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.
For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.
Russia’s position
As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.
Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.
That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.
European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.
The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.
The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on 7 June 2026.
P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on 11 June 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.
‘Jewish lobby’ deceived Putin – Lukashenko
RT | June 15, 2026
Russian President Vladimir Putin was deceived into withdrawing troops from near Kiev in 2022 by forces claiming to represent Vladimir Zelensky’s willingness to seek peace, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said.
Speaking in an interview with Al Arabiya, Lukashenko said the conflict could have ended quickly in its early stages, when Moscow’s forces were near the Ukrainian capital.
“At the time, not only I, but everyone in the world understood that the war would end quickly with a Russian victory. This was primarily because the Russians were in Kiev,” the Belarusian leader said, according to BelTA.
However, Lukashenko claimed that “certain politicians and forces” then asked Putin to stop, pull troops back from Kiev, and conclude a peace agreement. “Before that withdrawal, everyone understood that Ukraine’s days were numbered.”
The Belarusian president argued that Moscow had been acting on what appeared to be a genuine opportunity to reach a settlement, adding: “Judge for yourselves who was right and who was wrong in this matter.”
“Once again, probably, these forces deceived him. It was the Vatican. And, surprisingly, the Jewish lobby, the Israelis,” Lukashenko said. “They said on behalf of Zelensky: that’s it, we are moving toward peace, we agree. And others as well.”
It was not immediately clear what exactly Lukashenko meant by the “Jewish lobby.” In the early days of the conflict, then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett acted as a mediator between Moscow and Kiev, meeting Putin in Moscow and holding multiple phone calls with Zelensky. Media reports at the time claimed that Bennett had urged Zelensky to accept Moscow’s terms.
Lukashenko also did not elaborate on the Vatican’s alleged role. In March 2022, however, Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill held a video call in which they stressed the “exceptional importance” of the negotiation process.
Moscow and Kiev held several rounds of peace talks in Istanbul in March 2022. Putin said in June 2023 that Ukrainian negotiators had initialed a draft treaty on permanent neutrality and security guarantees, but that Kiev later abandoned the deal after Russian troops pulled back from areas near the Ukrainian capital.
Moscow has argued that Ukraine walked away from the agreement under Western pressure, including from then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who reportedly urged Kiev not to sign any deal with Moscow and to “continue fighting.”
Kiev has disputed Moscow’s account of the failed talks, even though its former chief negotiator, David Arakhamia, has acknowledged Johnson’s role. Ukraine has since formally applied to join NATO and abandoned discussions of neutrality.
Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | June 14, 2026
In June 2026, the Russian military continues its slow advances against the Ukrainian military in the Donbass region and elsewhere in the former eastern Ukraine, amidst the NATO proxy war being waged against the Russian Federation. Russian forces are grinding down the dwindling ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
For its part, the government in Kiev, whose mandate has expired, is focusing on drone strikes against oil refineries and shipping terminals in Russia. This fits into the overall strategy of the Western, NATO powers to deprive their economic competitors of oil supply in the struggle to maintain global hegemony. This can also be seen further in the continued, debilitating attacks and sanctions aimed against the peoples of Iran, the Middle East as a whole, and Venezuela and Cuba.
In late May, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy issued a five-page, open letter to US President Donald Trump dated May 26, requesting that more missiles be supplied as soon as possible. As noted by the Ukrainian analytical Telegram channel Rubicon on May 30, “While arms deliveries were previously discussed rather privately, now everything is taking the form of public appeals of ‘Donald, help us, and fast!’.
Rubicon writes, “The goal of this move by Zelensky is not only to needle Trump’s pride but also to elegantly shift blame onto the White House for recent missile and drone strikes by Russia on military sites in and around the Ukrainian capital. Washington has been slow to condemn these attacks and slow to continue its supply of missiles to Ukraine’s armed forces.”
A former lawmaker from Zelensky’s party-machine, Alexander Dubinsky, wrote on Telegram May 31 that overall, Zelensky’s letter amounts to an ode to himself, as in: ‘I allow you to touch my greatness and become part of it by allocating more money and missiles.’
The US government did not respond publicly to Zelensky’s letter. The Ukrainian opposition Telegram channel Kartel comments on May 31, referencing the high-profile corruption scandal involving Zelensky’s friend who has since fled to “Israel”: “Let us recall that Zelenskyy’s friend Timur Mindich stole over $1 billion allocated for weapons production, as uncovered by NABU [National Anticorruption Bureau] investigations. So it’s no surprise that after exposures of such corruption, the Americans would choose to ignore Zelensky’s outburst.”
Zelensky’s letter also demands that the US grant licenses for the production of Patriot missiles in Ukraine. But the US military has been proven unwilling to share production of its known and tested military technologies. It has shown willingness to share new weapons systems, evidently as part of ‘testing’ programs.
The letter by Zelensky criticizes the slow pace of Patriot missile production in the US itself, adding that this could lead to crises in various other parts of the world. According to the letter, Ukraine-produced weaponry could help protect US allies in the Middle East. In other words, the man is proposing that the US also continue selling or supplying missiles and other weapons to “Israel” and the United Arab Emirates for use against Iran.
Despite Trump’s various, so-called peace initiatives to end the war in Ukraine, voiced for several years now, Victoria Fedosova, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasting at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, believes that Trump is merely proposing a high-profile display of negotiations between Moscow and Kiev that would lead nowhere. In the meantime, Washington continues to supply Kiev with weapons and intelligence, some of which are being used against the civilian population of Russia. During the night of May 23 (Ukraine time), US-made Hornet drones struck a teacher college dormitory for women and girls in the town of Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which was annexed by Russia, killing 21 and wounding dozens more.
Despite all of Trump’s ostentatious rhetoric, there is no sign he intends to pressure Zelenskyy to end the proxy war against Russia. Moreover, Chinese media reported on June 2 that he has also asked Chinese leader Xi Jinping to pressure the Russian president to end the war; that is, end Russia’s responses to the NATO proxy war on the West’s terms.
Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of War, has also stated that Washington will continue to find a way to help Ukraine ‘defend itself’ (code language for waging NATO’s proxy war). He made this remark at a meeting on Asian security issues in Singapore, according to Clash Report on Telegram on May 30. (Clash Report is an online news platform aligned with the views of the Turkish government.)
Hegseth also noted that the US continues to study and learn from Ukraine’s experience with the use of drones on the battlefield. He says it is vastly increasing its investments in this area. In other words, the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine benefits the US by serving as a laboratory to test new types of weapons and study the reactions by the Russian army, even though these often pose a threat to Ukrainians themselves.
As the Ukrainian Institute of Politics notes in this regard, Pete Hegset’s statements are particularly telling when viewed against the backdrop of earlier remarks by Donald Trump. In March of this year, following the escalation of the conflicts in West Asia, Trump claimed that the US had no need for Ukrainian expertise in the field of drones. However, “Judging by the current rhetoric of the U.S. Secretary of War, the situation has changed: Washington effectively recognizes the value of Ukrainian experience and is ready to scale it up in its own defense policy.
“This US approach fits directly into Trump’s business logic—war as a market where Washington ramps up production, sells weapons, and simultaneously strengthens its own technologies. In this model, Ukraine is already an asset that generates knowledge, tests technologies, and creates demand for the American defense industry,” writes the Ukrainian institute.
Ukrainian opposition blogger Myroslav Oleshko notes that Ukrainian drone dealer Oleksiy Babenko has openly stated on television that he wants the war to continue until 2030. He claims that drone manufacturers fear the onset of peace. Babenko heads Vyriy Industries, a company whose profits reach tens of millions of US dollars annually.
Ukrainian economist Oleksiy Kushch writes in a lengthy comment on Telegram on June 1 that until 2022, all military simulations were purely theoretical and flawed. Now, he writes, the interaction between satellite communications, AI-powered combat control systems, and massive deployments of ‘swarms’ of drones of all types (using machine vision) is being tested in real time. He emphasizes that Western military strategy was built on air superiority and expensive, high-precision weapons. The war in Ukraine has shown that a cheap FPV (First Person View) drone can destroy a costly, $10 million tank, while a relatively cheap missile can deplete expensive air defense reserves.
“The war in Ukraine is generating terabytes of unique data for AI projects. During the war, Ukraine has become the world’s largest ‘oil field’ of information for the global development of AI projects in the military industry,” writes the economist, emphasizing that it is now vital for Western, transnational corporations that this war continue.
Kushch goes on to argue that transnational corporations cannot give up physical oil in West Asia, but they also cannot give up virtual ‘oil’ in the form of information for the development of their AI projects. Therefore, major Western defense companies (Palantir, Rheinmetall, Shield AI) are currently seeking technological solutions and testing them in Ukraine, as they have no other ‘laboratory.’
“All such information must be translated into new NATO defense standards and then into new lines of weapons production. Ending the war now would freeze the Western defense industry at an intermediate stage of such development,” the economist believes.
Kushch believes that “the technological conclusion of the war is not possible before 2028–2030.” However, in his view, a political end to the war is possible if a political leadership in Ukraine were to decide to stop turning the country into a military laboratory.
American company Palantir, mentioned by Kushch, was behind the ‘brain’ controlling US-made or assisted drones, which killed the teenage girls and women at the aforementioned college in Starobelsk. The drones that were used were made in Ukraine, but Russian media reported on May 24 that pieces of Starlink satellite terminals were found among the wreckage. Starlink is the Elon Musk-owned satellite internet constellation used by Ukraine, with the approval of the Pentagon, to locate targets. Such atrocities can be expected to continue, because it is profitable for Western companies to test their technologies in live situations.
“Why doesn’t the conflict in Ukraine end? Because AI development companies are reaping superprofits and gaining the opportunity to advance technologically very quickly. Who would turn that down? They’re doing everything they can to keep the war going; they don’t care about people’s lives. Unfortunately, AI is increasingly playing the role of a human killer,” said Yuri Knutov, a Russian expert in air defense, on the Baltnews video news channel in late May.
One of the founders of Palantir, which has ties to “Israel”, is Peter Thiel, an uber-wealthy, far-right friend and ally of Trump. Artificial intelligence was also blamed for the US military strike on a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, on February 28 at the outset of the current US-Israeli war against Iran. The strike killed over 160 civilians, most of them schoolgirls. Mariana Bezuhla, a Ukrainian legislator from Zelensky’s team, notes also that Palantir’s technology is being used by “Israel” to kill members of the Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon.
Another Palantir co-founder, Alexander Karp, visited Ukraine in May. He subsequently stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces use his company’s technology as an “operating system for war”.
Karp recently published a book in which he called for universal military conscription in the United States, and the militarization of Germany and Japan. He also claimed in the book that artificial intelligence could replace the factor of nuclear deterrence. Among his key ideas are a claimed need for the active involvement of the tech elite in strengthening national defense, and rejection of the policies of “equality of all cultures” and “empty pluralism”.
The Ukrainian publication Strana writes that Karp and Palantir as a whole represent a group of businesspeople whom their opponents have dubbed “techno-fascists”. Strana believes the practical implementation of their plans for ‘deterrence’ is highly doubtful, since the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons will always remain in place. “[Nuclear weapons deterrence] exists and nullifies any ideas of achieving (or maintaining) global dominance by military means, because if techno-fascist policy options create enormous threats to Russia and China, then the two countries will likely turn to nuclear weapons for sheer survival, threatening the Western powers with wars of mutual destruction,” writes Strana.
The publication emphasizes that the increase in U.S. military spending, as promoted by the likes of Palantir, along with the militarization of Japan and Germany amid rising public debt and low industrial competitiveness, will not serve as a stimulus for the Western economy. They will instead serve as its funeral march.
Furthermore, the cuts in social spending that are inevitably accompanying increases in military spending threaten to cause internal instability in Western countries. Social protests and riots will be suppressed using methods that are utterly inhumane, as was the case in the early 20th century, when live ammunition was routinely used to suppress strikes and other protests by working classes and other exploited social classes including peasants and farmers. Just as 20th-century classical fascism emerged as a reaction to political and social threats to Western capitalist and imperialist domination, so too will 21st-century ‘techno-fascism’ be a reaction to similar threats.
All that said, Ukrainian analysts at Strana believe the Western powers are not yet ready to shift into ‘war mode’ against their own populations—neither morally, nor politically, nor financially and economically. In this regard, many among the ruling classes in the West would like to see a normalization of relations with Russia, and this threatens Kiev with a loss of foreign support that could lead to defeat.
To prevent this, Strana writes, certain efforts are actively underway in Ukraine. These include deliberately provoking escalation of tensions in the relations between Europe and Russia, to the point of provoking a direct conflict that could escalate into a nuclear conflict. In other words, the goal of Zelensky and his lobbyists in the West is to provoke a global conflict—even if only to ensure their own survival while living in bunkers.
Trump’s ERAM cruise missiles for Ukraine blow up his peace overtures to Russia
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 12, 2026
At the Anchorage summit last summer between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, there was some optimism that the conflict in Ukraine might be resolved through diplomacy.
There appeared to be an atmosphere of bonhomie between the two leaders, and in particular, an openness on the American side to listen to Russia’s historic grievances about NATO’s enlargement, presenting a national security threat.
Only days later, however, Trump’s administration quietly approved the supply of new cruise missiles to Ukraine. After months of delay, those new types of weapons are now on their way to Ukraine. This firepower will give a deeper reach into Russia, which is already being assailed by long-range NATO drones.
The summit in the Alaskan capital in August 2025 was dubbed the “spirit of Anchorage.” The meeting was supposed to signal Trump’s commitment to finding a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, taking into account Russia’s historic territorial claims. There appeared to be a recognition on the American side of addressing Moscow’s concerns about the “root causes of conflict” from decades of NATO encroachment on its borders.
But nearly a year on, the diplomatic track has failed to gain any traction, as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged this week.
Trump has, of course, become embroiled in a disastrous war against Iran, one that is endangering the whole Middle East and the global economy.
So much for the “peace presidency” that he had promised. Still, one might expect him to at least pay some token attention to pushing diplomacy in Ukraine. No. Like a kid bored with a new toy, Trump has backed away, which makes all his past angst to stop the slaughter in Ukraine something of a superficial theater.
What is still going ahead, though, is the supply of over 3,300 U.S.-made cruise weapons, manufactured under a program called the Extended Range Attack Missiles (ERAM). The ERAM program began production in April 2025 of two new cruise missile designs.
One weapon is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), manufactured by CoAspire. It has a range of 450 kilometers.
The other design, known as Rusty Dagger, has a much longer range of over 900 km, and is produced by Zone Five Technologies. Both companies are based in the U.S.
The ERAMs are much smaller than Tomahawk cruise missiles in terms of overall size, weight, and explosive warhead. But they were engineered to give Ukraine a cheaper option for deep strikes in Russian territory. They also do not have the iconic image of the Tomahawk and, therefore, can be supplied without arousing the same provocation.
They are designed to be deployed as air-launched weapons using F-16 fighter jets or MiG-29s, both of which are flown by the Ukrainian armed forces.
European NATO states – Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway – are picking up most of the tab for the $825 million cost of supplying the ERAMs to Ukraine, according to the Pentagon.
It is being reported, although not officially confirmed, that the Rusty Dagger ERAM, the longer-range version, has already begun operations in striking Russia. The claims are based on the alleged recovery of missile debris, showing navigation equipment belonging to Five Zone Technologies.
Since the Anchorage summit last year, President Trump has sought to cast the Kiev regime and the European NATO leaders as unhelpful to his efforts to make a peace deal with Russia. There has also been a belief on that Russian side that Trump is genuine in his expressions of wanting to find a diplomatic resolution to the more than four-year war in Ukraine – the biggest in Europe since World War II.
Moscow has tended to rebuke the Zelensky regime and its European patrons for being intransigent and acting to undermine Trump’s peace diplomacy. There is no doubt that this criticism of European Russophobia blocking diplomatic engagement has some merit.
Nevertheless, a reality check is due on what Washington’s abiding agenda is.
Washington has led the long-term strategic policy of confrontation with Russia using the NATO alliance and Ukraine as a proxy. This has been Washington’s systematic policy under successive U.S. administrations, from Clinton in the 1990s to Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump.
It was under Trump during his first administration in 2018 that the U.S. broke the taboo of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. Those munitions included $47 million worth of Javelin anti-tank missiles. Russia warned at the time that such arming of Ukraine would lead to open conflict. That prediction duly culminated in February 2022 during the Biden administration when Russia invaded Ukraine to defend Russian-speaking people who were being attacked and killed by the NATO-backed NeoNazi Kiev regime.
Indeed, Trump has boasted at various times about how he was the first president to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, while at the same time trying to blame the Biden administration for starting the war.
In his second administration, from January 2025, Trump has balked at supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine so as not to provoke Russia after Moscow gave stern warnings against such a move. And he has talked up his supposed desire to end the slaughter, at one point claiming he could achieve that in 24 hours.
Trump has also scaled back sending U.S. tax dollars as military aid to Ukraine, which might suggest that he is serious about winding down the conflict.
A more nuanced view is that what transactional Trump seems more concerned about is not so much reducing the supply of U.S. weapons to Ukraine but rather getting the Europeans to pay for it.
This is evident from the expected supply of over 3,300 ERAM cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Europe is financing. Trump has approved that delivery.
Unmistakably, this represents a grave escalation in the war against Russia, whereby the U.S. and its European NATO partners are making a concerted effort to weaponize the Kiev regime to strike deeper. The new cruise missile arsenal dovetails with the ramping up of European-supplied and financed long-range drone capability.
Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that Washington’s agenda of hostility towards Russia has not changed fundamentally. It has merely become nuanced with duplicity about seeking diplomacy, a charade in which Washington is supposedly thwarted by a recalcitrant Kiev regime and European Russophobes.
This same duplicitous charade is played with regard to Iran. Trump makes out that he wants to find a peace deal with Tehran, but that his efforts are continually sabotaged by Israel and its “crazy” prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he gets on the phone to shout at, we are told. This, from a U.S. president who started a war of aggression against Iran 100 days ago on February 28 by murdering Iran’s supreme leader while he was saying prayers in his Tehran home, and on the same day killing 168 schoolgirls in a multiple air strike on a college in Minab.
The reality is that the United States could bring the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to a rapid end by stopping the supply of weapons.
Trump’s so-called peace diplomacy is a con to cover up for the fact that U.S. warmongering is the root cause of conflicts, and this warmongering is not going to stop until it is defeated.
Featured Video
10 MINUTES COVID MADNESS
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Why Hitler Declared War on the United States
By John Wear | Inconvenient History | 2017-08-31
Establishment historians state that Adolf Hitler made a mistake when he declared war on the United States. For example, British historian Andrew Roberts wrote:[1]
“It seems an unimaginably stupid thing to have done in retrospect, a suicidally hubristic act less than six months after attacking the Soviet Union. America was an uninvadable land mass of gigantic productive capacity and her intervention in 1917-18 had sealed Germany’s fate in the Great War.”
Historian Martin Gilbert wrote in regard to Germany’s declaration of war on the United States:[2]
“It was perhaps the greatest error, and certainly the single most decisive act, of the Second World War.”
In this article I will explain why Hitler was forced to declare war on the United States. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia warns Ukraine expanding ‘terrorist activities’ beyond Europe
- US use of Italian military bases in the conflict with Iran shows lack of autonomy
- The synthesis of regional conflicts into WWIII has begun
- Is the Department of War Covering Up the True Extent of US Casualties?
- Is Peter Mandelson a Russian or a Zionist asset?
- German arms exports to Israel surge sharply amid Gaza genocide
- Massie says the US has been ‘significantly weakened’ by war on Iran
- Zelensky: North Korea, Iran and China Backing Russia’s War in Ukraine
- Saudi oil loading volumes drop 40 percent at Red Sea port amid Yemeni blockade
- US Can’t Come to Saudi Arabia’s Rescue in Bab el-Mandeb Without Risking Overstretch – Expert
- If Americans Knew
- Rescue teams recover remains of 99 Palestinians from one home in Gaza – Daily Update
- Patrick Bet-David sells wealth building, but the real product is Zionist shilling
- The Last-Minute Million-Dollar Ad Spend Against Will Lawrence Is Coming From a Major Pro-Israel Group
- Five decades of Israeli covert strategy to push US, Iran into confrontation
- ‘We want to see blood’: Israeli political leadership and settler groups call for revenge against Palestinians
- The Spark in Tell: How a Village Resistance Disrupted Israel’s West Bank Strategy
- The Eighth Front: Inside Israel’s $1 Billion Influence Campaign
- UNESCO adds West Bank site and Lebanese castles to World Heritage List despite Israeli objections
- Born too soon: Premature babies fight for survival in Gaza
- Israel is erasing entire Gaza families from the civil registry
- No Tricks Zone
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
- New Study Highlights The ‘Dominant Role’ Of Aerosol/Cloud Interactions In Shaping Climate
- Munich’s First-Ever Green Party Mayor Declares First Ever City Water Use Restrictions… Fines Up to 50,000 €!
- Experimental Lab Research: The Climate Sensitivity To A 400-Fold Increase In CO2 Is 0.1°C
- Fatal Snobbery: In France, It’s Better To Die From A Heatwave Than To Do As Americans
- New Study: NASA’s Models Wildly Underestimate The Capacity Of Clouds To Alter Solar Radiation
Aletho News 