Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

Sputnik – 15.08.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sputnik – 14.08.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cradle | August 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia ‘has won the war’ – Orban

RT | August 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT | August 11, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Peace Project to War Economy

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

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

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

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

The Costs of Militarization

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

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

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

Russophobia and the War Logic

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Disconnection and Strategic Drift

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

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

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

War and Scarcity: A Vicious Cycle

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

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

The Question of Purpose

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

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

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

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

Russia Possesses Advanced Weapons Other Than Oreshnik Systems – Ryabkov

Sputnik – 10.08.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countdown begins for the Republic of Srpska

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO Doctrine

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

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

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

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

Sounds a bit too optimistic to me!

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

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

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

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

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

Cutting Edge “military genius”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Method in Madness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capabilities Russia Unlocks by Quitting Medium-Range Missile Moratorium

Sputnik – 05.08.2025

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

What Brought on Russia’s Decision?

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

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

What It Means

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

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

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

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

Russian Intel Warns of UK Plan to Stage Tanker Incident

Sputnik – 04.08.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO member sets up gates and barriers at Russian border checkpoint

RT | August 3, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »