Western strategists launch a new war doctrine against Eurasian powers
By Lucas Leiroz | VT Uncensored Foreign Policy | July 7, 2025
In recent months, a wave of publications by Western think tanks and military-affiliated media has revealed a significant shift in how the West views conflict with global powers like Russia and China.
Institutions such as the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Military Review have laid out what they consider the foundations of future warfare.
The core idea is no longer centered on direct military confrontation but on a prolonged, multidimensional hybrid war.
This “war of the future” unfolds across three main domains: information and psychological operations, cyberspace, and the economic sphere. Western strategists emphasize that superiority in artificial intelligence and unmanned systems will be decisive. For the US and NATO, achieving dominance in these areas is presented as the key to maintaining global leadership and containing strategic rivals.
This form of warfare is not expected to deliver fast results. On the contrary, it is framed as a “long game” of exhaustion, designed to weaken the opponent from within – by destabilizing their economy, reshaping their information space, and psychologically demoralizing both their population and political elites. RAND analysts stress that this type of conflict requires patience and the ability to sustain socio-economic costs over time. In fact, Western governments are already preparing their populations to accept such costs, justifying austerity measures and declining living standards through the narrative of a moral confrontation with so-called “authoritarian regimes.”
This strategic shift is largely a result of the failure of the West’s approach in Ukraine. The initial plan — to arm and support Ukraine as a proxy force capable of delivering a strategic defeat to Russia — has collapsed. The policy of militarizing Ukraine and turning it into a geopolitical tool against Moscow has led the U.S. and its allies into a dead end. Western analysts now admit that a military victory over Russia via Ukraine is unattainable. This realization has pushed Western planners to reassess the very concept of conflict, moving from direct confrontation to psychological and technological operations that target the internal cohesion of rival nations.
According to this new doctrine, the goal is to shape the perception of the future within Russian society — to paint a picture of inevitable decline, to spread doubt about Russia’s ability to compete militarily and economically with the West, and to generate disorientation among its elites. The West seeks to implant the idea that Russia is permanently behind — technologically inferior, globally isolated, and incapable of catching up. As noted by analysts at RUSI, these narratives are deliberately crafted for mass consumption, with the aim of weakening the social and psychological fabric of Russian society.
Central to this strategy is the belief that information superiority will define victory in the 21st century. Publications from CSIS and RAND explicitly state that “who controls the narrative, wins the war.” Future conflicts, they argue, will be fought not with tanks breaking through lines but through sensory and cognitive dominance — by disorienting the opponent, manipulating their perception of events, and accelerating decision-making cycles through artificial intelligence. This is not just about warfare; it is about psychological supremacy.
To implement this model, the full resource potential of the collective West must be mobilized. Western publications emphasize that artificial intelligence will not only support information operations but may replace traditional forms of military conflict entirely. AI-based propaganda, social engineering campaigns, and autonomous digital operations could become the primary weapons of influence. RAND’s vision also includes a technological race with China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where AI superiority is expected to define the balance of power.
However, despite its polished surface, this new hybrid war doctrine suffers from serious flaws. It neglects historical experience and cultural realities. Russia, in particular, has repeatedly shown the ability to endure and adapt during prolonged crises. Even in the 1990s, when pro-Western forces controlled much of the country’s media and political structure, Russian society maintained its cultural identity and commitment to traditional values. Western analysts seem to overlook this fundamental resilience. The failure of Western sanctions is a clear example. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy adapted to the conditions of modern conflict, restructured itself rapidly, and even entered a phase of military-industrial expansion.
In fact, despite the partial militarization of its economy, Russia has achieved a surprising advantage over the West in certain critical areas. It has surpassed NATO countries in the volume of military production, particularly in drones and high-precision systems. Developments such as the Lancet UAVs, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and advancements in satellite technologies have placed Russia ahead of Ukraine, even though the latter was initially supported by a powerful Western-Turkish alliance in the drone sector. Within less than two years, Russia reversed the battlefield dynamics, demonstrating that technological evolution can occur even under heavy sanctions.
This leads to a critical question: if the new Western strategy is so effective, why does it rely so heavily on media hype and theoretical justifications with little practical evidence? Much of the Western enthusiasm around hybrid war appears driven not by strategic necessity but by the interests of the military-industrial complex. Think tanks and defense contractors stand to benefit immensely from the shift to AI-based warfare, digital infrastructure, and cyber-command funding. The political class uses the narrative of a “new generation war” to justify budget increases for the defense sector while cutting public services and suppressing dissent.
The real function of this hybrid war doctrine is to protect the interests of a transnational elite. Under the guise of fighting global threats like Russia, China, Iran, and others, Western governments are redistributing wealth upward — channeling public money into the hands of military contractors and think tanks. Ordinary citizens are asked to sacrifice for “freedom” while their real wages stagnate and living conditions deteriorate. The supposed urgency of confronting the “autocratic other” becomes a smokescreen for domestic failures and economic mismanagement.
The media’s role in this operation is essential. Just as the Western press exaggerated the likelihood of Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, it now inflates the potential of hybrid war and AI supremacy. But the track record of these predictions is poor. The same experts who promised a quick Ukrainian victory are now calling for decades-long psychological warfare — a clear sign that the original plan has failed.
In conclusion, the West’s new hybrid warfare strategy reflects more of a tactical retreat than a breakthrough. It acknowledges that traditional methods have failed, particularly in Ukraine, and attempts to replace lost battlefield momentum with psychological, economic, and technological pressure. But the fundamental assumptions are flawed: that narratives can break national will, that AI can replace strategy, and that propaganda can deliver victory. These beliefs serve primarily to sustain the Western war economy and its elites, rather than offer any real prospect of success. In trying to win a war of perception, the West may once again lose the war of reality.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
France names ‘red line’ in Ukraine conflict
RT | July 9, 2025
Demilitarizing Ukraine and leaving it without NATO membership, as Russia demands, is a red line for Europe, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu told weekly magazine Valeurs Actuelles.
Moscow insists that any resolution to the conflict must comprehensively address its security concerns. Russian officials want Ukraine to acknowledge the new territorial realities on the ground, agree to neutral status, guarantee that its Russian-speaking population is not discriminated against, and undergo demilitarization and denazification. As of now, all of these demands have been rejected by Kiev.
In an interview, published on Wednesday, Lecornu argued that Europe cannot allow Ukraine to be left without a functioning army while denying it NATO membership.
“Our absolute red line is the demilitarization of Ukraine,” the minister said. “We must be coherent. One cannot refuse Ukraine entry into NATO and at the same time accept that it no longer has an army,” he added.
Ukraine formally applied for fast-track NATO membership in September of 2022, months after the conflict with Russia escalated. While Western nations initially supported Kiev’s bid, no timeline for accession has been set. Meanwhile, support for Kiev’s bid has been eroded by mounting military setbacks and shifting US policy.
Pentagon Inspector General Robert Storch reported last November that “corruption continues to complicate” Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO, citing multiple scandals in its Defense Ministry. US President Donald Trump, who is pushing for a peace deal with Moscow, has ruled out NATO membership for Kiev.
Russia views NATO’s eastward expansion as a direct threat to national security and has indicated that Ukraine’s ambition to join the US-led military bloc was one of the key issues that triggered the current conflict. President Vladimir Putin stressed last month that Moscow’s concerns had consistently been ignored.
Putin also said that Ukraine had agreed to military limitations during the 2022 Istanbul talks, including troop numbers and weapons restrictions, but later withdrew from the deal to seek military victory with Western backing. He added that now, instead of a “peaceful settlement to this issue,” Moscow has been forced to resolve the task – namely, demilitarization – by military means.
Speaking ahead of this week’s meeting of the Western-led ‘coalition of the willing’ – a UK-French initiative to deploy troops in Ukraine after a truce is reached with Russia – Lecornu said the group will urge Kiev to “rethink” the future shape of its army, noting “opportunities” for the French defense industry.
Moscow has accused the West of encouraging Kiev to fight “to the last Ukrainian” and maintains that no amount of military aid will reverse Kiev’s fortunes on the battlefield. It has also repeatedly warned that any foreign forces fighting alongside Ukrainian troops will be treated as legitimate targets, while warning this could escalate the conflict.
Putin drops truth bomb on Macron
Strategic Culture Foundation | July 4, 2025
NATO started the conflict in Ukraine, but Russia will end it on its terms, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart this week in a wake-up call.
It’s always refreshing and necessary to bring reality into a conversation, assuming, of course, that the purpose of the dialogue is genuinely to resolve a problem.
France’s Emmanuel Macron requested the phone call with Putin this week. It was the first time the two leaders had spoken in nearly three years. The long absence was due to Moscow claiming that Macron breached diplomatic protocol after the last phone call in 2022 by leaking details to the media.
In any case, Putin showed magnanimity and a willingness to engage diplomatically by taking the call this week from Macron. The two leaders talked for over two hours.
Apart from Ukraine, another topic discussed was the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites. Macron agreed with Putin that Iran has the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy production, and both appealed for diplomacy to prevent escalation, according to the Kremlin’s statement on the phone conversation.
Critics might note, however, that France, Britain, Germany, and the other European states have played a double game with Iran, undermining Iran’s legitimate rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and giving political cover for the unlawful Israeli and US aggression against Tehran. Therefore, Macron’s concern for peace in the Middle East sounds hollow, if not hypocritical.
The Ukraine conflict was also discussed. But here, there was no pretense of diplomatic accord.
Macron urged Putin to “call a ceasefire as soon as possible” and to proceed with peace talks, said the Elysee Palace, as reported by French media.
For his part, Putin rebuffed the trite talk. He reminded Macron of some necessary reality.
According to the Kremlin’s statement: “When discussing the situation surrounding Ukraine, Vladimir Putin reiterated that the conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by the Western countries, which had for years been ignoring Russia’s security interests, creating an anti-Russia staging ground in the country, and condoning violations of rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens, and at present were pursuing a policy of prolonging hostilities by supplying the Kiev regime with a variety of modern weaponry. Speaking about the prospects of a peaceful settlement, the president of Russia has confirmed Moscow’s stance on possible agreements: they are to be comprehensive and long-term, provide for the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis, and be based on the new territorial realities.”
In other words, Russia will end the conflict that Macron and other NATO powers started illegally, and the ending of it will be on Russia’s terms.
Who does Macron think he is? Telling Russia to call a ceasefire as soon as possible? Earlier this year, in March, Macron gave a televised nationwide address declaring Russia to be an existential threat to Europe. He even made the madcap suggestion of France using its nuclear weapons to protect all of Europe. Such crazed talk by Macron is irresponsible and reprehensible.
Macron, along with Britain’s Starmer and Germany’s Merz, are prolonging the more-than-three-year war in Ukraine by pledging more military aid to the NeoNazi Kiev regime.
That regime owes its existence to an illegal coup d’état that the Americans and Europeans orchestrated in 2014. The ongoing conflict, which has slaughtered more than one million Ukrainian soldiers and burdened Europe with huge immigration costs, is the responsibility of Macron and other NATO states. They are the instigators, not Russia.
If Macron genuinely wants peace in Ukraine, there is a straightforward solution. Stop arming the NeoNazi regime and stop telling lies about “defending democracy in Ukraine” from alleged “Russian aggression.” Macron and his gang of NATO war criminals could end the bloodshed promptly if they dropped the evil charade.
U.S. President Donald Trump also had a phone call with Putin this week. That was on Thursday, two days after Macron’s.
As with the French leader, Putin told his American counterpart that Russia was insisting on achieving its aims in Ukraine: removing the root causes of the conflict and retaining all territories. Like Macron, Trump sounded impatient for a quick peace deal and later complained to the American media, “he had made no progress” with Putin in his phone call this week.
What Trump, Macron, and other Western leaders need to understand is that Russia wants a permanent peace based on its legitimate strategic security interests. This conflict is not a localized one between two parties. It is a proxy war between Russia and NATO, engendered by NATO. Pretending otherwise, as Macron is doing by conceitedly calling for a quick ceasefire, is a deception.
At least Trump seems to recognize that the supply of weapons to Ukraine has to stop if there is any chance of ending the conflict. This week, the Pentagon announced it was halting the flow of munitions. A big part of the reason is practical reality: the U.S. has depleted its arsenal after three years of weaponizing the Kiev regime.
The European leaders need to come to their senses too, and stop fueling the war machine that is the Kiev regime. It is a lost cause. Russia is winning the war and will eventually eradicate the regime and NATO’s threat to its national security. Europe does not have the capability or the resources. The grand deception projected by Macron and others, including EU top officials Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and NATO’s Mark Rutte, is destroying Europe.
Therein lies the fatal dilemma. What Putin said to Macron is the truth. If the conflict has any chance of being resolved peacefully, then the starting place is to recognize the historic causes of the conflict, not the delusional stuff that Macron is peddling.
But for Macron and all the NATO states to do that would be to admit their culpability for creating the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War. The political and legal repercussions would be explosive for Macron and the entire Western leadership. They are caught in the web of a Big Lie that they have spun.
“NATO cannot disguise Ukraine’s plight”: FT reveals diminishing Ukrainian morale
By Ahmed Adel | July 3, 2025
Active missile strikes on targets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in different cities undermine the morale of Ukrainians and sow a sense of hopelessness in the country, the Financial Times writes. Combined with Ukraine’s NATO membership hitting another roadblock, it seems that there is no chance of Ukrainian morale ever recovering.
“The increased intensity of Russian missile attacks on Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is also damaging Ukrainian morale,” the article details, adding that there are “some shortfalls — in particular in Ukrainian troop numbers — that the country’s western allies cannot fix.”
According to the London-based newspaper, without a clear outline of victory, there is a risk that Ukraine will fall into despair.
The author of the article also notes that following the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the end of June, there was renewed hope for the supply of Patriot anti-aircraft systems, which are necessary due to the depletion of Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. However, Trump can easily change his mind or forget about it, the newspaper writes.
According to a cited official, Russia’s main goal is now to capture Odessa, as without the city, “Ukraine would lose access to its main port.”
“A group of former European leaders — including Carl Bildt of Sweden and Sanna Marin of Finland — visited Ukraine recently and picked up on the deteriorating mood. They wrote afterwards that ‘while Ukrainians will never stop resisting, without more military support, Ukraine can lose more territory. More cities might be captured’,” Financial Times wrote.
“Off the record, some western officials are even bleaker, warning of a risk of ‘catastrophic failure,’ if the Ukrainian military is stretched to breaking point — and does not receive a significant increase in military and financial aid from its western allies,” the newspaper added.
Responding to FT’s article, Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, delusionally claimed that Kiev was “planning the destruction” of the so-called “regime” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but without elaborating on how this would be achieved.
“These publications about Putin planning to occupy something — that’s something. Putin actually wants to completely destroy Ukraine, but he can wish for anything he wants. There is no point in writing about his plans to occupy Odessa or anything else. He can plan all he wants, but he won’t succeed,” Kovalenko confidently said.
Nonetheless, despite Kovalenko’s bravado, the diminishing morale within Ukraine cannot be ignored and is now even being reported in Western pro-Ukraine media. What Kovalenko does not note is that Ukrainian morale is set to take another significant hit after Zelensky consistently promised NATO membership, something that is far from happening, if at all.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would be akin to igniting a powder keg amid escalating tensions in Europe.
“Ukraine in NATO? That would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day. Meanwhile, the EU’s reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe. This isn’t diplomacy, it’s insanity – you don’t throw matches on a powder keg,” Orbán wrote on X.
According to Orbán, such an approach must not be allowed to turn Europe into a battlefield.
Orbán’s statement came after Hungary blocked the start of negotiations on Ukraine’s entry into the EU on June 26, with Budapest citing that 95% of Hungarians voted against Ukrainian accession in a recent survey, in which almost 2.3 million citizens participated.
Following Orbán’s comments, Poland’s President-elect, Karol Nawrocki, stated that Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not a viable topic for discussion at this time, citing the ongoing conflict as a barrier to membership.
“Today, there is no possibility for Ukraine to join NATO. It is at war. This would be the reason for all NATO countries to participate in the war. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss in this regard,” Nawrocki said in an interview with Polsat broadcaster on June 30.
In February 2019, Ukraine amended its Constitution to consolidate its strategic course towards EU and NATO membership. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that ensuring Ukraine’s neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear-free status is one of Russia’s conditions for resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
Yet, despite Moscow’s demands being clear since 2022, Zelensky famously announced in February this year that he would be willing to “give up” his presidency and “trade it for NATO membership, if there are such conditions.” However, Ukrainian morale is not being boosted by his performative rhetoric. Only an end to the war, especially before the onset of another difficult winter, will achieve this, since Ukrainians, unlike Zelensky and his regime, have finally accepted the reality that they cannot defeat Russia.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Germany announces deployment of warships to Arctic
RT | July 2, 2025
Germany will send navy ships to patrol Arctic waters in response to Russia’s growing military presence in the region, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on Monday. Russia has insisted that it is mirroring NATO moves in the far north to maintain balance.
Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Moscow is closely monitoring the situation in the region and is implementing an appropriate response strategy to potential encroachments on the country’s sovereignty. Russia’s Arctic coastline stretches over 24,000km.
“As early as this year, Germany will show its presence in the North Atlantic and the Arctic,” Pistorius said at a joint press conference with his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, in Copenhagen.
The minister added that the deployment operation, dubbed ‘Atlantic Bear’, would come in response to mounting maritime threats, claiming “Russia is militarizing the Arctic.”
Pistorius specified that one of Germany’s support ships would “go from Iceland to Greenland and then on to Canada” to take part in joint military drills with NATO allies, including Denmark, Norway, and Canada.
“In addition, we will deploy our maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and frigates to demonstrate our commitment to that region,” he added.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in April that members of the US-led military bloc are “working together” in the Arctic to “defend this part of NATO territory.”
The Kremlin has insisted that NATO’s continuing militarization of the region is unwarranted, and that Russia will mirror the moves taken by the bloc.
In March, Putin reiterated that Moscow is “concerned by the fact that NATO countries as a whole are more frequently designating the far north as a bridgehead for possible conflicts.”
“I would like to emphasize that Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” the Russian president said. He stressed, however, that Moscow would “reliably protect” its interests in the region by reinforcing its military contingent in response to Western actions.
Denmark subjects 18-year-old females to the draft starting July 1
RT | July 1, 2025
Women in Denmark are now subject to conscription, following a change to the relevant law made by the country’s parliament a few weeks ago.
The move comes as NATO, of which Denmark is a member, increases its military readiness, citing a perceived threat from Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. At the bloc’s summit in The Hague last week, member states agreed to ramp up defense spending.
In May, the European Union approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing plan to support its own military buildup.
The Kremlin has consistently dismissed allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations as “nonsense” and fearmongering.
The newly adopted Danish legislation mandates “full equality between men and women in relation to military service.” It requires that “women who turn 18 on or after 1 July 2025 will have to… draw a [draft] lottery number and thus could be ordered to serve military service if there are not enough volunteers.” Female conscripts will serve under the same conditions as men.
The bill also extends the mandatory service period from four to eleven months, according to media reports.
Denmark’s armed forces rely on both volunteers and conscripts, who are called up when volunteer numbers fall short. Roughly 4,700 Danes completed military service in 2024, with women accounting for approximately 24% of that figure.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen unveiled plans to conscript women in March, framing the decision as part of a push for “full equality between the sexes.”
Latvia, another NATO member, is planning to conscript women by 2028. It reintroduced mandatory service in 2023 after scrapping it in 2006.
Norway and Sweden have already implemented gender-neutral conscription, in 2015 and 2018 respectively.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has also proposed reinstating the draft for men, which was abolished in 2011.
NATO Must Come to Agreement With Russia to Avoid New Arms Race – Orban
Sputnik – 30.06.2025
NATO will have to come to an agreement with Russia in order to avoid a new arms race, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Monday.
“Sooner or later, NATO… will have to negotiate with Russia on how much we will spend on military spending, because otherwise the sky will be the limit. So we need to avoid an arms race. We need to strengthen, but we must avoid an arms race. And it will not work out otherwise, except for us, the West, to come to an agreement with Russia,” Orban told the media.
There is a majority of states forming in NATO that believes that any conflict between the alliance and Russia will lead to a third world war and must be avoided, Orban added.
NATO’s defense spending surge may cause its collapse: Lavrov
Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2025
NATO’s surge in defense spending will only damage the alliance and push it toward collapse, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned, calling for greater pragmatism in its approach, as he addressed reporters following the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers meeting.
“He can probably see – since he is such a wise sage – that the disastrous increase in spending of NATO countries will also lead to the collapse of this organization,” Lavrov said, responding to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s claim that Russia’s military build-up would lead to its downfall.
“Meanwhile, Russia – as President [Vladimir Putin] said the other day in Minsk after the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting – plans to reduce its military spending and be guided by common sense, rather than imaginary threats, as NATO member states do, including Sikorski,” Lavrov pointed out.
NATO approves defense spending hike to 5%
Following the NATO Summit held in The Hague on June 24-25, the alliance’s member states have agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, as outlined in the adopted communique, with plans to allocate at least 3.5% of GDP by 2035 based on NATO’s agreed definition of military spending.
An allocation of 1.5% of GDP will be dedicated to safeguarding critical infrastructure and networks, enhancing civil preparedness and resilience, fostering innovation, and bolstering the defense industrial base.
Eager to claim credit, Trump hailed the agreement by all 32 NATO member states to work toward spending five percent of GDP on defense, calling it “a great victory for everybody.”
During closed-door discussions, diplomats revealed that Trump stressed the importance of US leadership while pushing allies to direct their expanded defense budgets toward purchasing American-made weaponry.
With NATO leaders unanimously praising the agreement as “historic,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever observed that Europe’s “long break from history” had ended, emphasizing the continent’s urgent need to assume full responsibility for its defense amid escalating geopolitical tensions.
Norway’s War Profiteers Are Getting Rich Off Europe’s March To Militarism
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 28.06.2025
Norway’s military-industrial complex is cashing in big on Europe’s rearmament frenzy, while ordinary Norwegians face growing socioeconomic pressure, says Russian Ambassador to Oslo Nikolai Korchunov.
Norway raked in over $115 billion in windfall profits during 2022-2023 thanks to soaring gas prices fueled, ironically, by Europe’s decision to ditch reliable Russian energy.
Instead of investing those profits in public welfare, Norwegian leaders are fattening up defense contractors under the banner of “rearmament.”
With former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg now pulling the strings as Norway’s finance minister, the government is prioritizing weapons over welfare and arming the Ukraine regime without a second thought.
All this, while NATO openly prepares for a head-on clash with Russia: Revamping its command, bloating budgets, and shifting from proxy war to potential direct confrontation.
Cracks in the Alliance: Poland reconsidering Ukraine’s cause?
By Uriel Araujo | June 28, 2025
Poland has long been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies in Europe, offering unwavering support since the beginning of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian full-scale conflict in 2022. From hosting millions of refugees to providing military aid and championing Kyiv’s integration into Western institutions, Poland’s commitment seemed unshakable to many. Yet, recent developments signal a shift: Poles are growing weary of Ukraine, so to speak, and this “Ukrainian fatigue” threatens to reshape regional dynamics at a time when Kyiv is increasingly isolated. Albeit a new development, this had been potentially there for a long time.
A recent survey by IBRiS reveals in fact a stark decline in Polish support for the cause of Ukraine’s ambitions. Only 35% of Poles now believe Warsaw should back Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union (EU), with a mere 37% supporting NATO accession. In contrast, 42% oppose Poland’s endorsement of Kyiv’s path to both institutions—a dramatic reversal from 2022, when 85% and 75% favored EU and NATO membership, respectively. Even more concerningly, from Kyiv’s perspective, 46% of Poles now advocate halting or reducing military aid, a significant departure from the early war fervor. These figures reflect a growing sentiment that Poland’s generosity has stretched thin, compounded by domestic pressures and latent historical grievances.
The roots of this shift are multifaceted. Economically, hosting over a million Ukrainian refugees has somewhat strained Poland’s resources. While many Poles initially welcomed their neighbors with open arms, reports of rising anti-Ukrainian sentiment suggest a fraying social fabric. Refugees have faced verbal abuse and discrimination, with some recounting calls to “go back to Ukraine”. This backlash is not merely economic but also deeply rooted in historical tensions.
The legacy of the Volhynia massacres, where the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—today celebrated in post-Maidan Ukraine as national heroes—committed atrocities against Poles, remains a festering wound, as I wrote last year. Kyiv’s refusal to allow exhumations of victims and its glorification of figures like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, have fueled tensions and Polish resentment. These historical disputes, often downplayed in the West, are not mere academic debates but visceral issues pertaining to the politics of memory, and to identity; they shape public opinion and policy.
Poland’s domestic politics further complicate its foreign policy toward Ukraine. The return of Donald Tusk’s government has prioritized a pro-EU stance, but it faces challenges from a resurgent nationalist right that capitalizes on anti-Ukrainian sentiment also. This internal polarization threatens Tusk’s ability to maintain Poland’s role as a regional leader in supporting Kyiv.
The nationalist revival in Poland mirrors a broader regional trend involving Ukraine’s neighbors, where ethnopolitical frictions play an important role. For instance, Romania and Hungary have both raised concerns over Ukraine’s treatment of their minorities, while Greece has criticized the plight of its ethnic kin under ultranationalist elements in Ukraine (including those with neo-Nazi links). Kyiv’s post-2014 push for a unified national identity, often at the expense of minority rights, has alienated potential allies at a critical juncture. Far from being a mere “Russian talking point”, this is an issue that, to different degrees, hampers Ukraine’s bilateral relations with virtually all of its neighbors—including Slovakia. Writing in 2023, GLOBSEC think-tank researcher Dmytro Tuzhanskyi acknowledges that this “ethnic trap” was a challenge of EU accession talks. The “Ukrainian Question” in fact is a threat to the European bloc itself, as I’ve argued before.
The broader geopolitical context further complicates matters for Kyiv. As Western attention pivots to the Middle East, with conflicts in Gaza and beyond dominating headlines, Ukraine risks fading from the global spotlight. The West’s finite resources—both financial and political—are increasingly stretched, leaving Kyiv to compete for attention and aid. NATO’s expansion, once a “holy cow” topic, finally faces some skepticism in Poland and beyond, in the context of an increasingly divided and scandal-ridden NATO.
The alliance’s eastward push, framed as a bulwark against threats, has not delivered the promised stability. Instead, it has entangled member states in a prolonged conflict with no clear resolution, prompting questions about its strategic value. For Poles, the costs of supporting Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—military, economic, and social—are beginning to outweigh the benefits.
This cooling of Polish support is not an isolated phenomenon but is indeed part of a broader regional fatigue. Ukraine’s aggressive nationalist policies, while aimed at consolidating statehood, have sown discord with neighbors who perceive them as chauvinistic, as mentioned. These tensions, often overshadowed by the larger conflict, play a considerable role in regional dynamics, and Poland, despite its strategic partnership with Ukraine, is not immune to such pressures.
The implications of Poland’s shifting stance are profound. As one of Ukraine’s key advocates in the EU and NATO, a less enthusiastic Poland could weaken Kyiv’s bargaining power in Western capitals. The decline in public support for military aid and integration efforts signals a broader reassessment of Poland’s role in the conflict. If this trend continues, Ukraine may find itself increasingly isolated, caught between a distracted West and strained relations with its neighbors. With Trump attempting to shift the Ukrainian “burden” onto Europe, the EU and NATO (already grappling with internal divisions), may hesitate to keep supporting the cause of Kyiv. Warsaw’s “retreat”, if it comes to that, could really have a domino effect.
This is not to suggest that Poland will “abandon” Ukraine outright. Strategic considerations, including the supposed need for a buffer (and its continental ambitions), should likely keep Warsaw engaged. However, the era of unconditional support is clearly over. Poles are reevaluating their priorities, driven by economic burdens, historical grievances, and a nationalist resurgence that demands a reckoning with the past. For Ukraine, the lesson is clear enough: alienating allies through ultranationalist policies and historical revisionism comes at a steep cost. And Kyiv, by all indications cannot afford to lose allies. Poland’s fatigue is thus a warning—not just for Ukraine but for the broader project of NATO and EU expansion, which risks overreaching in a world of competing crises.
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
Kremlin responds to prospect of NATO nuclear-capable jets on Russian border
RT | June 27, 2025
Russia sees Estonia’s willingness to host nuclear-capable NATO aircraft as a direct threat to its security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
Responding to recent remarks made by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur welcoming such deployments, Peskov warned that the presence of F-35 fighter jets in the Baltic region would be considered a serious provocation. He criticized Tallinn’s stance as “absurd,” adding that relations with Moscow “can hardly get any worse.”
Pevkur told local media that F-35s, which are capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons, “have already been in Estonia and will soon return again in rotation,” and expressed the country’s readiness to accommodate allied forces using such aircraft.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have hosted NATO fighter rotations since joining the military bloc in 2004. Their airspace is patrolled by allied aircraft due to limited domestic capabilities. NATO’s eastern expansion has long been a point of contention for Russia, which accuses the West of breaking post-Cold War assurances.
During this week’s NATO summit in The Hague, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed the planned purchase of at least 12 F-35A jets, thus restoring the UK’s airborne nuclear deterrent for the first time since the 1990s.
Although the US, UK, and France are the only official nuclear powers within NATO, American nuclear weapons remain stationed in several non-nuclear allied countries. Moscow claims that US-led training of NATO pilots for nuclear missions violates the spirit of non-proliferation agreements.
Citing the need to counter rising threats from NATO near its borders, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and held joint drills with Belarusian forces last year.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Crusades – colliding narratives
Ashes of Pompeii | June 13, 2026
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
- Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
- Desperate Starmer choosing piracy as distraction over UK crime crisis – Putin envoy
- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- If Americans Knew
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 