Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

EU’s new ambassador to Serbia proud to have witnessed Maidan uprising

Brussels continues to pressure Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s secession

By Ahmed Adel | July 22, 2025

Andreas von Beckerath, currently the Swedish ambassador to Poland, will be the new head of the European Union delegation to Serbia and is scheduled to take office on August 1, replacing Emanuele Giaufret. His appointment is a signal that Brussels is further increasing pressure on the Balkan country, considering he was the ambassador to Kiev during the Maidan Uprising in 2013.

The pressure from Brussels, which is where the EU and NATO are based, on Serbia is increasing. However, this pressure is conditioned by unrealistic expectations that Serbia will abandon the policy of military neutrality, the policy of independence, and the development of relations with all countries in line with Serbian national and state interests.

Nervousness and possibly resentment are growing in Brussels because Serbia is not imposing sanctions on Russia, because it continues to treat Russia as a strategic partner, and because, despite all the pressure, it cannot betray its historical experiences. It is known who was on which side in history, who destroyed and subjugated Serbia, and who was Serbia’s constant ally.

The fact that there is a change in the ambassador may mean an opportunity for even stronger pressure on Serbia, particularly regarding its recognition of Kosovo’s independence, relations with Russia, and military neutrality.

Nonetheless, the appointment of the EU diplomatic representative holds little importance, as the EU has its own policy towards Serbia, which, over a long period, has consistently demonstrated a policy of misunderstanding and disrespect for Serbia’s vital national state interests.

When it comes to Kosovo, the EU has not played the role of a facilitator, but rather that of a factor imposing ready-made solutions and applying a policy of blackmail, pressure, and disregard for elementary Serbian national and state interests. The EU continues to pressure Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s secession. Therefore, whoever comes to Belgrade follows this policy of disrespecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

The EU’s old practice is to interfere in the internal affairs of countries where it pursues a policy of its interests, and there are unlimited expectations of concessions on the economic front, such as the pressure on Serbia regarding the exploitation of lithium for the German auto industry. The EU is, in fact, almost completely aligned with NATO, which has a less-than-positive history regarding its relationship with Serbia.

The same members of NATO and the EU do not have two policies. Their policy is ultimately neo-colonial in nature. Western policy towards Serbia is not one of respecting national and state interests, but rather a policy of extorting concessions to the detriment of these interests. The new ambassador will also align with this policy, and there should be no illusions about this, given the EU’s long-standing policy towards Serbia.

During his career, Andreas von Beckerath held several positions at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as well as in the country’s diplomatic missions abroad. He was a European correspondent at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm, a political counselor at the Swedish Embassy in Berlin, and a deputy Swedish ambassador in London.

Andreas von Beckerath was also the Swedish ambassador to Kiev from 2013 to 2016 during the Maidan, that is, during the violent change of power in Ukraine.

“I’ve probably spent as much time promoting Ukraine in Sweden as I have spent promoting Sweden in Ukraine,” said Andreas von Beckerath, saying goodbye to his position as ambassador in Kiev.

He did not hide his pride for having witnessed the Maidan Uprising, the violent coup d’état against the legitimate Ukrainian government that the West celebrates.

“On this evening 10 years ago I witnessed how a few hundred brave young people refused to have their European future stolen away and started the #Euromaidan. Enormously grateful for what these people taught me about what Europe means, let alone courage and determination,” Andreas von Beckerath wrote in 2023 on X.

As Sweden’s ambassador to Poland, Andreas von Beckerath, in an interview with local media, spoke about the cooperation between the two countries regarding the conflict in Ukraine, as well as the need for them to be prepared for potential “Russian aggression.”

Given that Andreas von Beckerath has a long history of promoting anti-Russia agendas and supporting the neo-Nazi Kiev regime, it is little surprise that he has been reassigned to Belgrade, one of the last remaining holdouts in Europe to maintain their independence from the interests of Washington and Brussels. Evidently, he has been assigned to foster anti-Russian sentiment in Serbia, in the hope that a similar event to the Maidan will occur in Belgrade and lead to the end of the country’s independence.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

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

German opposition slams Ukraine aid

RT | July 21, 2025

Frustration is growing in Germany over increased aid to Ukraine while domestic spending lags, co-chair of opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alice Weidel has said.

Berlin has been one of Kiev’s largest military backers since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Earlier this year, the German Defense Ministry announced that it would provide €5 billion ($5.6 billion) to finance long-range weapons production in Ukraine.

In an interview with the broadcaster ARD on Sunday, Weidel criticized the allocation of funds to Kiev, citing unmet domestic needs. Asked about alternative uses for public funds, she pointed to a shelved proposal to abolish electricity taxes, which would have cost the state €5.4 billion – comparable to what Berlin is spending on weapons for Ukraine, she argued.

“And then our government, the Friedrich Merz government, gives Ukraine nine billion in German tax money and now wants to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine for five billion. Nobody understands that anymore,” Weidel said.

She was referencing a US-backed plan to funnel Patriot air defense systems to Kiev via NATO members, with Germany covering the costs. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth in Washington last week that the terms of the arrangement could be finalized “within days or weeks,” though the actual transfer of the missile systems to Ukraine might take months. Berlin has indicated its readiness to cover the cost of at least two Patriot batteries to Ukraine – estimated at approximately $1 billion each.

Since taking office in May, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pursued a hardline stance against Russia. Earlier this month, he declared that diplomatic options in the Ukraine conflict were “exhausted” and doubled down on his policy of providing weapons to Kiev. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Merz of choosing escalation by abandoning diplomacy.

Last week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that European nations are funding the “death” of Ukraine by paying for weapons sent to Kiev. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they do not change the overall course of the conflict and merely serve to prolong the bloodshed and risk further escalation.

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Pentagon Quietly Returns Nuclear Bombs to UK for First Time Since 2008

Sputnik – 21.07.2025

WASHINGTON – The United States has reportedly returned its nuclear weapons, including an unspecified number of B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bombs, to the British Lakenheath air force base in Suffolk, the UK Defense Journal reported, citing multiple sources.

For the first time since at least 2008, the United States has transported weapons from the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico to a newly established secure storage facility in Suffolk, UK, the journal reported on Sunday.

The Lakenheath base stored US nuclear weapons during the Cold War, with their removal occurring in 2008 as part of disarmament initiatives. The potential reintroduction of nuclear bombs to Europe coincides with worsening relations between NATO and Russia, particularly due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the military alliance’s efforts to enhance its readiness.

The B61-12 bomb is an enhanced version of the B61 nuclear bomb, featuring advanced guidance systems and variable yield capabilities. As a key element of the United States’ strategic nuclear arsenal, it is designed for deployment through various delivery systems, including F-35A Lightning II aircraft and other platforms.

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Is Azerbaijan Considering Hosting a Turkish Military Base?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – July 21, 2025

As Azerbaijan-Russia relations cool, discussions emerge in Baku about the potential deployment of a Turkish military base. Is this a random development — or is chance merely revealing an underlying pattern?

Between Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan chooses Turkey. At one point, when describing the political geography of modern Azerbaijan, Geidar Dzhemal — a Russian Islamic political and public figure, philosopher, and poet — characterized it as extremely vulnerable, considering its southern border with Iran and northern border with Russia. At the time, the Karabakh issue remained unresolved for Baku, and the goal of regaining full control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory was still pending. In other words, despite being technically at war with Armenia, Baku did not perceive it as an existential threat.

Dzhemal’s assessment reflected Azerbaijan’s geopolitical choice to align with NATO-member Turkey, and to build partnerships with the UK, Israel, and the US. These allies, carefully selected by Baku, have political and economic agendas that are at odds with those of Russia and Iran.

Despite historical ties with Iran and its shared Shia Islamic heritage, Azerbaijan opted in the 1990s for an alliance with Sunni-majority Turkey. Turkey became a key facilitator in the implementation of the so-called “contracts of the century” in the oil and gas sector, with Britain playing a leading role.

Recognizing the deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Iran, Baku forged a pragmatic partnership with Tel Aviv. Azerbaijani oil — making up 60% of Israel’s overall oil imports — in exchange for Israeli weaponry and military technologies laid the foundation for robust bilateral relations. Israel, for its part, assisted Azerbaijan in strengthening ties with the US and Europe, both directly and through lobbying by the Jewish diaspora.

In return, Azerbaijan did not hinder the activities of Israeli intelligence services on its territory, particularly when directed at Iran. Azerbaijan’s military success in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, with direct Israeli support (weapons deliveries, intelligence sharing, UAV operations), significantly expanded the operational scope of Israeli intelligence targeting Iran. The results of the twelve-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025 have once again raised questions about Israeli security structures potentially using Azerbaijani territory.

Today, Tehran is unlikely to escalate tensions with Baku. On one hand, both sides have only recently emerged from a serious diplomatic crisis (following the terrorist attack at Azerbaijan’s embassy in Iran, the withdrawal of Baku’s ambassador, and the later restoration of ties). On the other hand, Iran’s conflict with Israel remains unresolved and without a peace agreement.

Azerbaijan’s relationship with Russia in the post-Soviet era has fluctuated — swinging between partnership and hostility. Moscow initially adopted a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, trying to retain both Armenia and Azerbaijan within its sphere of influence, and took the lead in conflict resolution efforts. Indeed, both Karabakh wars ended under Russian mediation, but with radically different outcomes. From the 2000s onwards, Russia began pursuing a more pragmatic approach in the South Caucasus, shifting toward a strategic partnership with Baku. As a result, Azerbaijan secured access to $5 billion worth of modern Russian weapons, expanded its business presence in Russia, and acted as a mediator — particularly after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 by Turkish forces — in restoring and advancing Russian-Turkish ties.

Russia’s distant approach during the Second Karabakh War and the Azerbaijan-Armenia tensions of 2021–2023 allowed Baku to achieve military success and regain lost territories in Karabakh. Following its pragmatic logic, Azerbaijan did not join anti-Russian sanctions and, like Turkey, has maintained business ties with Russia, receiving considerable benefits from transit and re-export arrangements.

However, despite its strategic partnership with Russia, Turkey has not hastened to implement the Russian-proposed gas hub project in Eastern Thrace. Ankara continues to demand favorable financial terms (lower gas prices, deferred payments, joint trade) and also seeks Russian consent for its plans to access Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and tap into Turkmen gas.

Since autumn 2020, the “Turan Project” has begun to take more tangible shape. Ankara envisions the creation of an alternative alliance to the EAEU and the EU, involving Turkic states and Pakistan.

Iran opposes the Zangezur Corridor, Russia — due to Armenia’s position — cannot establish control over the project, and Azerbaijan may reconsider its support for the North–South International Transport Corridor, possibly obstructing Russia’s access through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. This scenario could trigger new diplomatic — or worse, military-political — crises in the South Caucasus.

Amid all this, Azerbaijan is placing its hopes on Turkish military bases. Following the latest escalation in Azerbaijan-Russia relations — sparked by Baku’s harsh reaction to the tragic downing of a civilian aircraft and the detention of Azerbaijani diaspora members in Yekaterinburg (with investigations still ongoing) — former presidential aide Eldar Namazov raised the prospect of hosting a major Turkish military base in Azerbaijan. He even suggested that part of the base could be leased to the Pakistani Air Force as a potential deterrent against alleged provocations from Russia and Iran.

Namazov is far from a fringe figure, and his statements are likely aligned with the presidential administration — at the very least, with the President’s foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev.

In fact, Turkey has long been involved in Azerbaijan’s defense and security — from the two Karabakh wars to military reforms and personnel training. Joint military drills are held regularly. After the Second Karabakh War, a Turkish-staffed monitoring center operated in Aghdam from November 2020 (Russian peacekeepers have since left the region, but no official information suggests Turkish forces have followed suit). Turkish military advisers remain active in Baku. The 2021 Shusha Declaration explicitly provides for mutual military assistance upon request. Iran is acutely aware that any attack on Azerbaijan would trigger Turkish intervention.

Should Azerbaijan decide to host a Turkish NATO base on its territory, it would usher in a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. This would compel Russia and Iran to take additional security measures, plunging the region into uncertainty. Baku, while not necessarily hoping for a repeat of its Karabakh victory, risks forfeiting significant advantages — namely, threats to transit routes vital to its economy, and potentially even the loss of its hard-won control over Karabakh.

In chess, logic demands the elimination of reckless moves that may lead to failure. In political chess, the stakes are even higher: a miscalculated diplomatic move can result not only in defeat, but in far more serious consequences  —  human, material, and strategic. Sadly, history has shown that wars often spell the downfall of some states, while paving the way for the birth of others. President Aliyev, a diplomat by training with years of presidential experience and a cool, calculated approach, is unlikely to let the Azerbaijan–Russia crisis escalate unchecked. Most likely, this period of tension will soon give way to renewed cooperation  —  perhaps even in the form of a formal declaration of alliance.

Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Losing the War in Ukraine – Part 29 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | July 17, 2025

Last year, Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago explained to crazed warmonger Piers Morgan that Ukraine had lost its war with Russia and should seek a peace deal with major concessions. Otherwise, Russian forces will continue to advance, killing hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians and devastating Ukraine in the process. His rational thought was ignored by neocon warmongers who run NATO and control Ukraine’s government. Russian forces continue advancing and Russia recently warned that it may annex four more historically Russian provinces if forced to conquer them. Russia cannot be stopped without NATO intervention, but that would lead to World War III. Ukraine is still ruled by Volodymir Zelensky, whose term as President ended in 2024, yet he remains in power and refuses to discuss a peace deal as instructed by his NATO handlers.

_________________________________

Related Tale: “Trump’s Circus in Ukraine”;    • Trump’s Circus in Ukraine – Part 27 of the…  

Related Tale: “Urban Warfare Tales”;    • Urban Warfare Tales – Part 28 of the Anglo…  

“Russian military objectives with Stanislav Krapivnik”; The Duran; May 4, 2025;    • Russian military objectives w/ Stanislav K…  

“Russian Military Lava Flow Approaches the Dnieper”; The Duran; July 2, 2025; https://theduran.com/russia-military-…

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

Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia  

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Russiagate only tip of iceberg in Western demonization of Russia – expert

RT | July 20, 2025

US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations about the role of former President Barack Obama’s administration in the Russiagate scandal are “shocking,” but they expose only the surface of a broader Western anti-Russia campaign, Professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett has told RT.

On Friday, Gabbard released newly declassified documents describing a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials – led by Obama himself – to falsely accuse Donald Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. The documents indicate that Obama ordered officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump’s campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data. The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as ‘Russiagate.’

“This is an extraordinary moment, that the head of intelligence in the US has made such a bold, in some ways shocking, statement of the truth,” Boyd-Barrett, a professor at Bowling Green State University and author of an in-depth study of Russiagate, said on Saturday. He noted the moment was especially striking as Gabbard called for prosecution of those involved in what she described as a “coup” attempt.

Boyd-Barrett, however, emphasized that to “fully comprehend” Russiagate, it must be viewed as only a small part of a broader Western campaign to demonize Russia, “that goes decades back.”

“It’s part of a much deeper agenda – we’re talking Russia narrative… the broader context of an anti-Russian campaign that was stoked artificially around the time of the late 90s when the West had so clearly decided that NATO was going to move eastwards regardless of whatever anyone in Russia or anyone in the US had to say,” he said. He also warned against reducing Russiagate to a personal political ploy, noting that blaming it solely on Obama or Hillary Clinton’s election anxiety is “too simple an explanation.”

Moscow has repeatedly denied interfering in the US electoral process.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is bluster and bluff to hide proxy war defeat

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 18, 2025

What’s behind Trump’s angry ultimatum to Russia this week? The short answer: failure and frustration. Donald Trump promised American voters that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours upon his election in November 2024. Six months into his presidency, Trump has failed to deliver on his boastful promises.

This week, Trump flipped his pacemaker image by pledging billions of dollars worth of new American weaponry to Ukraine. He also issued a warning to Russia to call a ceasefire within 50 days or else face severe secondary tariffs on its oil and gas exports. The tariffs, quoted at 100 percent, will be applied to nations purchasing Russian exports, primarily Brazil, China, and India. The latter move indicates that the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is really part of a bigger geopolitical confrontation to maintain American global hegemony.

In any case, Moscow dismissed Trump’s ultimatum. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow would not comply with pressure and that Russia would not back down from its strategic goals in Ukraine to counter NATO’s historic aggression.

It is clear that Trump and his administration have failed to understand Russia’s strategic position and the root causes of the conflict.

Trump’s supposed diplomacy is seen to operate on a superficial basis more akin to showbiz, with no substance. He wants a peace deal with Russia to show off his vaunted skills as a business negotiator and to grab the limelight, headlines, and adulation.

Resolving a conflict like Ukraine requires deep historical understanding and genuine commitment to due diligence. Moscow has repeatedly stated the need to address the root causes of the conflict: the expansion of NATO on its borders, the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014, and the nature of the NATO-weaponized Neo-Nazi regime over the past decade.

Trump and his administration have failed to appreciate Russia’s viewpoint. Thus, expecting a peace deal based on nothing but rhetoric and vacuous claims about “ending the killing” is futile. It won’t happen.

This failure, based on unrealistic expectations, has led Trump to adopt an increasingly bitter attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. Ironically, Trump has accused Putin of duplicity and procrastination when, in reality, it is Trump who has shown no serious commitment to resolving the conflict.

Now, with chagrin and bruised ego, Trump has reacted with frustration over what are his own failings by issuing ultimatums to Russia. Trump’s 50-day deadline for a Russian response to his demands has a similarity to the 60-day deadline he threatened Iran with, after which he carried out a massive bombing attack on that country. Trump’s aggression towards Iran has turned out to be a fiasco and failure. Threatening Russia is even more useless.

This proclivity for threatening other nations has the hallmark of a Mafiosa megalomaniac. It is also causing Trump to lose support among his voter base, who believed he was going to end “endless wars.” It’s shambolic. Biden’s war is becoming Trump’s war because, at the end of the day, it is the U.S. imperial deep state that rules.

Trump’s mercurial switch from professing peace in Ukraine to ramping up the promise of weapons shows that his previous aspirations were always hollow and contingent on other interests.

It seems that the 47th American president did not want peace after all. What was driving his apparent desire to end the conflict in Ukraine – what he deprecated as “Biden’s war” – was simply to cut American financial costs.

What has appealed to Trump is that the proposed new supplies of American weapons to Ukraine will be paid for by Europe. Money and profit are all that matter to him. It is significant that when Trump announced the new arms racket scheme, he was sitting beside NATO chief Mark Rutte in the Oval Office. Rutte has a knack for wheedling, previously referring to Trump as “daddy” and this week absurdly praising the U.S. as the world’s policeman for securing peace. It seems that the NATO and transatlantic ruling establishment have found a way to manipulate Trump. Tell him that the Europeans will henceforth directly subsidize the U.S. military-industrial complex.

The trouble for Trump and the NATO establishment is that it is all an unworkable bluff. For a start, the U.S. arsenal of Patriot missiles and other munitions has been depleted and destroyed by Russia over the past three years in Ukraine. There are no “wonder weapons” that can alter the battlefield dominance of Russia.

Secondly, the European economies are broke and can hardly sustain the proposed purchase of U.S. weapons for Ukraine, even if such supplies were feasible, which they are not. At least four European states, including France, the Czech Republic, Italy, and Hungary, have said they will not engage in any scheme of buying American weapons for Ukraine.

Thirdly, Trump’s threat of secondary sanctions against Brazil, China, India, and others for doing business with Russia is a blatant assault on the BRICS and Global South that will only garner international contempt. Trump’s bullying is neither viable nor credible. His earlier trade war against China has already failed and shown that the United States is an impotent giant whose power is a thing of the past. Trump had to climb down from his hobby horse towards China.

So, threatening to hit China and others with 100 percent tariffs for doing business with Russia is like a former prizefighter shaking a feeble fist while sitting in a wheelchair. He is liable to incur more self-harm.

Lastly, Russia is decisively winning the NATO-led proxy war in Ukraine. The Kiev regime’s air defenses are non-existent at this stage. Therefore, Russia can and will press its strategic terms to end the conflict because it is the military victor.

Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is nothing but bluster and bluff. He once mocked Ukraine’s puppet president Zelensky, that he had no cards to play. Trump, for all his bravado, has only a couple of deuces himself.

In 50 days, Trump will have a serious amount of egg on his face when Russia’s defeat of the NATO proxy war becomes more evident.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Brazil slams NATO’s Russia sanctions threats

RT | July 18, 2025

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira has slammed comments by the head of NATO about potential secondary sanctions on BRICS nations who trade with Russia.

Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday declared that Brazil, India, and China would face “consequences” if they maintained business ties with Russia. He singled out oil and gas trade, and urged the countries’ leaders to call Russian President Vladimir Putin and push him to engage “serious[ly]” in Ukraine peace talks.

Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, formed in 2006 with Russia, India, and China. The economic bloc has since expanded to include South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Indonesia. Last year, BRICS approved a new ‘partner country’ status in response to growing membership interest shown by more than 30 countries.

Speaking to CNN Brazil on Friday, Vieira dismissed Rutte’s comments as “totally absurd,” pointing out that NATO is a military bloc, not a trade body, and that Brazil is not a member.

“Brazil, like all other countries, handles commercial matters bilaterally or within the WTO framework. Therefore, these statements by Rutte are utterly unfounded and irrelevant,” Vieira said.

He also noted that the EU – many of whose members are part of NATO – is a significant buyer of Russian energy. Despite efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, the bloc still purchases large quantities of Russian LNG, accounting for 17.5% of its imports in 2024, industry data shows.

Rutte’s warnings follow a similar threat from US President Donald Trump, who this week announced new military aid for Ukraine and threatened 100% tariffs on nations trading with Russia, unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized EU and NATO leaders for applying “improper pressure” on Trump to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.

Moscow says it remains open to negotiations with Kiev but is still waiting for a response on when talks will resume. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to conduct large-scale prisoner exchanges.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Colombia must sever ties with NATO – president

RT | July 17, 2025

Colombia must cut ties with NATO as the leaders of the military bloc support “genocide” of Palestinians, President Gustavo Petro has declared.

Colombia, a traditional US ally in South America, became the first country in the region to obtain the status of NATO global partner in 2017. Petro, who took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist president, severed diplomatic relations with Israel last year over what he describes as a genocide being carried out by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

”What do we do in NATO? If NATO’s top brass are for genocide, what are we doing there?” Petro said at a pro-Palestinian international conference in Bogota on Wednesday.

”Hasn’t the time come for another military alliance? Because how can we be with armies that drop bombs on children?” he added. “Those armies aren’t armies of freedom, they’re armies of darkness. We must have armies of light.”

Petro argued that NATO is a Cold War relic and asserted that nations like Colombia are treated as “half-members” within the US-led military bloc, granted symbolic partnerships but not full accession.

The two-day conference in Bogota hosted representatives from a dozen countries in the Global South. Attendees signed a joint declaration calling for economic sanctions and legal actions against Israel, including an arms embargo, restrictions on dual-use goods, port denials for vessels carrying cargo for Israeli forces, and support for international accountability for crimes allegedly committed in occupied territories.

Petro’s criticism reflects a break from Colombia’s historically warm relationship with Israel. The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once dubbed Colombia the “Israel of Latin America,” arguing it served a similar geopolitical role in the region.

Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza following a deadly raid led by the militant group Hamas in October 2023. The first independent study of casualties in Gaza, published last month, estimated the number of fatalities in the enclave at almost 84,000 by January 2025. Israel is currently pushing Palestinians to move to a “humanitarian city” that would purportedly be free of Hamas influence – which critics say is just a euphemism for a concentration camp.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Mearsheimer: Trump’s Fooling Himself

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive | July 14, 2025

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Audio Podcasts

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , , | Leave a comment

War With Russia? Macron Wants Cash and Clout

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.07.2025

France’s Strategic National Review predicts a large-scale military conflict with Russia in Europe by 2030, despite Russia repeatedly rubbishing the scenario.

Why It’s a Non-Starter

“When talking about war in Europe, the key question is: war between Russia and whom? NATO countries? France directly?” Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis, tells Sputnik.

Both scenarios don’t hold water:

  • Russia won’t unleash a war on NATO—it would mean nuclear war
  • France is currently a major buyer of Russian gas in Europe

What’s Really Behind the Claim?

“This is a completely false and deliberately crafted narrative, aimed specifically at justifying the expansion of France’s military budget,” explains the pundit.

  • French President Emmanuel Macron needs a pretext to ramp up military spending
  • He acts as a lobbyist for the French defense industry: doubling the military budget could benefit both defense contractors and the French president. Kickbacks, anyone?
  • Macron also wants to be the top European power broker and have direct influence over NATO’s multibillion-dollar cash flows
  • “The Americans will take the biggest share of that NATO budget for themselves. But France wants to be, at the very least, the second country spending not just its own money—but NATO’s as well,” the pundit explains.
  • Macron’s presidential term ends in 2027. He’s eyeing a top post — either NATO Secretary General or a new EU power seat — to keep his geopolitical clout.

July 15, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Redheaded Stepsister Goes to the Ball

Kerch Strait Bridge
By William Schryver – imetatronink – July 14, 2025

Against the AGM-158 JASSM missile, has Russia’s Kerch Strait Bridge finally met its match?

Talk of sending Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles to Ukraine commenced last year, during the later months of the Biden administration. It was reported at the time that it would take “months” to adapt the missiles to operate with the rag-tag Ukrainian air fleet consisting of a few surviving Soviet Su-27s and MiG-29s and whatever 1980s-era boneyard F-16s NATO could cobble together and render airworthy (not many).

Of the two dozen or so F-16s shipped to Ukraine, the evidence suggests few (if any) are currently airworthy, and it is likely several have already been destroyed on the ground, in addition to the handful that are confirmed to have crashed or been shot down.

JASSM Cruise Missile

The JASSM is an air-launched cruise missile, with reputed (but dubious) stealthy properties and a 450 kg warhead. The majority of production consists of the relatively short-ranged (~350 km) AGM-158A.

The later-model AGM-158B (JASSM-ER) claims a range of 1000 km, but that has never been demonstrated in a live scenario. Although at least several dozen JASSM strikes were made against Syria and Yemen during Trump’s first term, none were of the extended range variety.

The JASSM was actually considered a bust during its many years of development (1998-2009). On multiple occasions, it appeared the entire program was going to be canceled.

What was the problem? It was notoriously inaccurate!

But eventually Lockheed was able to formulate a testing regimen more likely to indicate success, and the missile finally went into production.

The US Air Force contracted to buy ~5000 units.

The US Navy declined to buy any of them.

Foreign sales have been unimpressive.

It is almost certain that the Pentagon will not throw away many (if any) of the long-range AGM-158Bs on the irreversibly lost Ukraine War. That means all that can be hoped for is a few hundred AGM-158As, with their ~350 km range.

And, in my considered opinion, the only way “Ukraine” will be able to deploy these short-range air-launched cruise missiles is if “volunteer” NATO pilots fly front-line NATO planes to deliver them.

NATO F-16s and F-15s can carry two JASSM missiles, one under each wing.

In a mission (for example) to strike the Kerch Strait Bridge, NATO aircraft (likely flying from Romania) would have to penetrate deeply into Russian air defense coverage areas extending around Crimea.

It would almost certainly require at least a dozen JASSM 450 kg warheads to make a meaningful dent in the Kerch Strait Bridge. That translates into half a dozen strike aircraft.

And, unless the NATO generals are just utterly clueless and indifferent (which they probably are), it would be a dereliction of duty to not provide a half-dozen fighters for combat air patrol.

So a dozen NATO aircraft in total — not counting any refueling tankers and ISR platforms that would be required.

I assess as VERY LOW the likelihood of success for a JASSM attack against the Kerch Strait Bridge.

I assess the risks for the attacking force to be VERY HIGH.

But I reckon they’re stupid enough to give it a try all the same.

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